Order! I wish to inform the House that my attention was drawn to a leading article entitled “The Closed Society” in The Cape Times yesterday, which, inter alia, contained the following sentence—

I regarded this as a serious reflection on the Speaker and I immediately summoned the Editor of The Cape Times to my Chambers where I pointed out to him the gravity of this reflection. The Editor agreed that the sentence as phrased by him could in fact be construed as a serious reflection on Mr. Speaker. He apologized to me personally and undertook to publish a suitable apology on the front page of The Cape Times this morning. The full text of the apology which appeared in The Cape Times this morning is as follows—

In view of the apologies tendered by the Editor personally and published in the newspaper, no further action is recommended to the House.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House, I wish to point out that during the coming week the House will continue to deal with the legislation on the Order Paper, as printed.

Mr. Chairman, when this debate started yesterday the hon. member for Sea Point participated in a very competent way here, in the sense that in my opinion he set out the housing problems of South Africa in a very competent way. I believe that the department is, in fact, aware of those problems and what we should actually try to do is to find solutions to those problems which do exist.

I want to express a few thoughts in respect of White housing this afternoon, but what I am going to say is equally applicable to Coloured housing in our country.

† The problem that we are faced with is a growing housing shortage to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred as a housing crisis. In this respect there are obviously two things that we must do. Firstly we must build more houses and flats, and secondly—and this is the point I particularly want to discuss this afternoon—we must protect the existing housing stock in South Africa.

The first problem that we face—that of building more houses and flats—is not a housing problem per se but—I see the hon. the Minister of Finance is here this afternoon—is more a financing problem in so far as the industry is able to react to or cater for and deal with whatever demands are imposed upon it as far as mass housing is concerned. As far as the poorer section of the population is concerned, the solution is not hard to find. We know that on the one hand the State will have to spend more money while, on the other hand, employers—that is the private sector—will have to spend more money and give more assistance than is the case today. That may perhaps be easier said than done. However, the current situation as far as homes for Whites is concerned—these are the figures for January of this year—is that 66% are owned while 34% are rented. The ratio of owned to rented accommodation is about three to one, which is very good. Fifteen per cent of the people of South Africa occupy flats, 13% of which are rented and 2% owned. Forty per cent of houseowners have paid off their houses. Of the remaining 60%, the average repayment in January 1982—of course, the repayment will be a little higher now—was R230 per month while the rental for the average house or flat throughout South Africa was about R150 per month. However, the most interesting statistic is that some 50% of rented houses and 25% of rented flats cost less than R100 per month.

While one knows that these figures are slightly distorted because of heavy subsidies in respect of certain housing units, the question one asks is: Where are these cheaper units? One will usually find them in older buildings that are in a somewhat vulnerable condition, are usually occupied by the most vulnerable people and often by more than one family per unit. These buildings are usually of pre-1949 construction and are often in a poor state of repair. More often than not they are rent controlled and are usually rent determined. Moreover, ageing, poor maintenance, overcrowding and the fact that these buildings are often to be found in a mixed residential/commercial area with the resulting encroachment of small industries, puts these areas into further decline.

I have said that we must build more houses than flats. However, when the State first lifted rent control on a staggered basis on the insistence of private enterprise, the impression was given that the lifting of rent control would result in a far greater investment in residential property. However, this did not happen as far as the provision of new housing for the middle and lower income groups was concerned. The reasons for that, of course, were that building costs were too high and rental profiles too low. If one judges this from the figures I have given this afternoon, one can see why.

What in fact happened was that the property industry cannibalized the existing housing stock, and often took massive windfall profits by converting existing buildings, usually without risk and almost always at huge inconvenience or worse to the sitting tenants. That was why the State intervened. The State intervened as soon as that emerged. It intervened firstly to prohibit sales before a sectional title register has been approved; secondly to prevent the sale of dwelling units in a building subject to rent control; and thirdly to afford tenants of rent-controlled units continued protection against eviction.

The introduction of sectional title and the partial abolition of rent control, however, has not been all bad. Thousands of people who did not have title to their homes, now could obtain title. In 1973 there were 50 people with sectional title units, but in January this year there were some 60 000. In Pretoria, of the 38 179 flats, 1 399 units have been sectionalized, with a further 4 000 units which are awaiting the opening of sectional title registers; i.e. just over 10% of the housing stock in Pretoria.

What is most important is that where sectionalization has taken place, it has almost invariably led to substantial upgrading of the building with the net result of extending the effective life of the building, often by up to 20 years or more. In so far as private enterprise has been involved and—we always maintain that private enterprise must involve itself in housing—private enterprise did, through sectionalization on a huge scale, pour private resources and private cash into these buildings. In fact, in several areas where classic manifestations of slum conditions were emergent, I believe this process has been arrested by the sectionalization of flats and houses released from rent control. I think the hon. member for Sea Point will acknowledge that. If one drives through Sea Point today, one sees a far different picture from the one saw a little while ago. Not only are buildings upgraded and better cared for, but the population becomes less transient and home ownership is expanded too. In this way the abolition of rent control contributed to private enterprise channelling its funds and expertise to old or ageing buildings, and I think this is enormously in the national interest.

I was glad to hear of the Select Committee on rent control which the hon. the Minister announced yesterday, because I believe we shall have to look at buildings built before 1949. We shall have to learn from our experience and we shall have to maintain rent control in the case of tenants who qualify for protection. If we were to abolish rent control, we would simultaneously have to have a building programme set in motion in or near the areas most affected, in advance of deproclamation. I believe we shall not be able to allow the massive windfall profits to be made that have been made to date on deproclamation.

I believe—I have said it before and I want to reiterate it today—that an enhancement levy must be levied on the owner of up to 50% of the enhanced value at deproclamation and on the sale of individual units. And, as with endowment plots in new townships, I believe those individual units can be made over to the State in payment or part payment of the levy. This will hasten the process of deproclamation. It will help uplift the areas which are presently depressed.

Since flats and terraced houses all over the country will then come into public ownership, one asks oneself the question what is to be done about such properties which will be sitting all over the country. I should like to propose that the hon. the Minister should look at the possibility of a utility company, sui generis, be formed to look after that building stock to protect the sitting tenants in those buildings and to be given the mandate of rationalizing the situation in time in respect of those buildings it does not want to hold in the long term. In this way the State and private enterprise can in fact work very well together, not only in providing homes, but also in upgrading the existing housing stock in our country.

Lastly I want to say that if we want to solve the housing problem, we shall have to create more dwellings and if we are going to do that, then neither the State nor private enterprise—I am now addressing myself to big business concerns—must cannibalize the existing housing stock and compete for the existing housing as they have. We must produce more houses and more flats, and protect our largest asset, our housing, by extending the life of the existing properties, but at the same time we must protect the vulnerable people who may be living in them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will forgive me if I do not react to his speech, because I’m a Free Stater and where I come from we have a bit of a struggle with English. [Interjections.]

Today I want to make a plea for the provision of more housing for the elderly in our rural areas, and more specifically in my constituency. If we do what I am asking for today, we who are so accustomed to having to choose between bad and worse, will have the opportunity to choose only the very best for everyone who is involved in this matter. It sounds almost as if I am making as much fuss as Dr. Connie Mulder did in 1977 when he referred to the 1977 proposals as a magic formula.

What gives rise to the housing problem for the elderly in the rural areas? In the past it was argued that there was no need for housing for our elderly people in the rural areas. Because the farms became depopulated, the towns also became depopulated as a result of the declining demand for services in the towns, and as a result houses began to stand empty. For this reason it was said that new housing was not needed for the elderly. But this situation has changed completely. In my constituency there is a virtual influx of elderly persons from the cities. Recently I attended a party for the elderly and at least three-quarters of those present had come from cities. Yesterday the hon. member for Umbilo explained why there was such a tremendous shortage of housing for the elderly in cities. The only aspect the hon. member neglected to mention was that as a result of the tremendous demand for skilled labour the latest trend in commerce and industry is to provide housing for their employees. Normally, however, people have to vacate these houses when they go on pension and they are then left homeless. Where can they go? They must find a place to stay somewhere. If they remain in the cities where housing is extremely expensive where are they going to end up? They are going to end up in the slum areas, for as pensioners they do not have enough money to afford better housing. Usually these slum areas are in isolated areas and all kinds of difficult conditions obtain there. They are usually far from business undertakings. Thieves usually hide out in these areas and the elderly therefore feel insecure and are afraid to go out. They are therefore unable to go anywhere. What must they do?

They can join the CP!

No, they do not join the CP, they become Free Staters, because we are close to those areas. They buy houses in our towns because they can live more cheaply in the rural areas owing to the lower cost structure there. We find that these people begin to employ servants and lay out fruit and vegetable gardens. In this way they have enough to eat in summer and they even store food for winter. Meat and milk are also cheaper in rural areas. For all these reasons we are experiencing a tremendous influx of elderly people from the cities.

So what are you complaining about?

Just give me a chance and I shall tell hon. members. We are all going to grow old; to tell the truth, most hon. members in this House are already getting on in years. [Interjections.] The hon. members interrupting me like this will be the cause of my not being able to finish my speech today. The problem that is now arising is that farmers who are too old to keep on farming cannot find decent houses in the towns because all the houses are being occupied by people from the cities. The farmers simply have to remain on their farms, and this means that their sons become frustrated and go to the cities and are therefore lost to the rural areas. The economy of the country is being harmed because these elderly farmers who are in actual fact no longer economically productive are forced to remain on their farms and continue farming. What must we do with these people? They cannot go to the cities because we rural people cannot adapt to urban areas, in contrast to elderly people from the city who adapt very well to our way of living in the rural areas. Do hon. members know why they adapt so well? Generally speaking people in rural areas are very religious and they set great store by charitable services. There are a group of people in the rural areas consisting of all language groups who at some stage or other arrange entertainment for our elderly people in the rural areas. That is why the platteland is so popular among the elderly. There is a large number of elderly people in the rural areas because they find life there so acceptable.

What are we to do now. We have to expand the old-age homes in the rural areas. Most country towns in South Africa have old-age homes but they are small. They are small but can very easily be expanded. If we expand the old-age homes we save a great deal on the unit costs we add, because most of the main capital expenditure has already been incurred, for example facilities like kitchens, reading-rooms, sitting-room, etc. Further expenditure will therefore only be for living space. There will also be a tremendous saving when it comes to running the old-age homes as such as a result of the greater number of people living in the old-age homes. The salaries of the staff, such as the secretary, the matron and others, are still being paid. Whether the old-age home is large or small makes no difference to these expenses. It is therefore clear that we can save costs if we accommodate elderly people in the rural areas. In addition, there are also other aspects of the infrastructure in the platteland to which I should like to refer. There is, for example, the question of hospitalization. Generally speaking our country hospitals were constructed when the rural areas were still densely populated. However, owing to the depopulation of the platteland, there is more space in the hospitals so that our old people can be admitted to them if they should fall ill. It is also interesting to note that it is far easier in the rural areas to get a doctor to make house-calls, even after hours. But try to find a doctor who is willing to make house-calls after hours in the city today and you will find that it is not that easy. That is why it is so advantageous to establish our old people in the rural areas.

A final point which is of great benefit to our elderly people is the fact that in the rural areas they become completely integrated into the community. Because the houses are near the churches and business undertakings the old people are able to walk to them. That is why elderly people serve on our church councils and commissions. They are integrated everywhere. In this way they develop a sense of human dignity and are supported by the fact that they mean something to that community, unlike those old people who are sitting cooped up in urban areas.

Today I emphasized two points. In the first place I pointed out why old people were migrating to the rural areas and in the second place I pointed out the advantages of accommodating our elderly people in the rural areas and why it is good to accommodate them there. I want to give hon. members the assurance that if the Whips allow me to do so next year, I shall be able to make a longer speech on the advantages to rural communities of getting our elderly people there.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to a number of the hon. members who have spoken up to now, I want to make a few brief remarks about the general housing situation. Because of various circumstances which I outlined here yesterday, we have been forced, for the past year or more, thoroughly to investigate alternative ways of relieving the shortage in the field of low-cost housing in particular. Because the greatest need exists in the field of Black housing, a solution to this problem requires extraordinary measures in the short term, measures which may deviate drastically from the accepted approach to the provision of housing for other population groups.

† The hon. member for Umbilo said that should we continue to follow orthodox methods to provide housing for non-Whites, we would never be able to solve the problem. I agree with the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Vasco spoke in the same vein and referred in particular to luxury standards. It is for this reason that we believe that as many Black people as possible should be enabled to provide their own accommodation as far as possible, under supervision and guidance, and in accordance with certain standards which may vary drastically from one area to another. [Interjections.] During the past year, the department has consulted with other Government departments, including the Department of Cooperation and Development and the Department of Finance, with one great end in view, i.e. the greater involvement of the private sector in the provision of low-cost housing, as well as the involvement of the employer, especially in the financing of the housing of his employees. It is essential that the private sector be involved in this matter. Up to now, low cost housing has been the responsibility of the State, but in future it will be impossible for the State to bear that burden alone. Consultation between the various departments is continuing, and we have pinned our hopes on the results of committees which, under the guidance of the Department of Finance, are devising incentive measures, formulae and methods in terms of which the private sector can shoulder some of the burden of low-cost housing. In this connection, the committee under the leadership of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, is doing valuable work, while our department, with the expertise available to it, and organizations in the private sector are also making an important contribution.

It is true that many people are sceptical about the share which the private sector can have in the provision of low-cost housing. They argue that the private sector is in the first place profit-orientated, and if any arrangements are made which are not worth their while and financially profitable for them to participate in, they will naturally refuse to get involved. The question is also asked what this is eventually going to cost the State in the form of possible subsidies, tax concessions and other benefits, and whether it is worth going to all this trouble just to get the private sector involved in low-cost housing. These are the kind of questions that are being asked, and I am referring to them to indicate that the situation is not as simple as we believed in the past. It is a difficult field, and I admit that it is going to be very difficult for the private sector to enter this field. Therefore I want to appeal to the private sector today. The Government departments concerned are doing everything in their power to remove all possible obstacles, to pave the way. But if, when all this has been said and done, the necessary reaction or results are not forthcoming from the private sector, we shall be in a desperate plight as far as housing in this country is concerned. I want to spell this out very clearly here today. Therefore I believe that everyone who is involved in this field should make a serious attempt to produce the necessary results.

The hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members raised the question of rent formulae. In terms of the rent formulae introduced in October 1980 for a period of one year, by way of experiment, tenants earning up to R150 per month are paying only 5% of their income, with a minimum of R2,50 a month. Yes, my colleague must listen to this. I did say R2,50 a month for a house! I almost want to say where on earth can one still find a roof over one’s head for R2,50 a month today, and in spite of this, there are still people who complain to us—often prompted by some politicians—and often about that very group of people. In future, those people will have to pay more for their housing, because this situation cannot continue. [Interjections.] This brings me to the other income categories. Their rentals are calculated at differentiated interest rates on the historic cost of dwelling units. When we remember that it is only the breadwinner of the family whose income is taken into account for the purposes of rent calculation, while rentals are based on the original cost of constructing a dwelling—i.e. historic cost—one sees that the rentals which are payable are certainly very reasonable.

† The revision of the rents formula, now that the trial period of one year has expired, is at present being investigated by an ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Van der Vyver, a Deputy Director-General in the department. Without any prejudice to the committee’s investigations, let me say that there are a few questions that come to mind and that I should like to convey to hon. members in the belief that an exchange of ideas might be useful. In the first place there is the question of whether the use of historical costs, as a basis for rent calculation, is justifiable under present day conditions. Rent calculations on this basis, especially when it comes to the older dwellings, tend to be unrealistically low. Compared with tenants in the same income group who occupy a similar standard of housing, yet pay much higher rents merely because their dwellings were erected much later, the tenants of the older dwellings would indeed appear to enjoy a much more favourable dispensation. Has the time not come to adjust the basis of the rent calculations in order to arrive at a rent value that bears a more realistic relationship to present-day values and costs?

I agree with the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Vasco that the time has come for us to dispense with the principle that only the breadwinner’s income should be taken into account for the purposes of the determination of rents. I think we agree that we should consider the total income of the whole household.

‘There is another aspect which is related to this. At the moment, all tenants of dwellings built with National Housing Funds automatically qualify for housing subsidies, even if the tenants fall in the highest income categories. Is it not time we thought in terms of rentals which are realistic in relation to the accommodation value of a housing unit, without rent income being taken into consideration in determining the rental? These are just a few ideas I am putting forward. As I have said, this matter is being investigated by a committee in our department at the moment. However, I think these are matters which we should clarify once and for all, especially at the present time.

† The hon. member for Umbilo and also the hon. member for Hillbrow raised the matter of the purchase of existing blocks of flats by State and semi-State bodies. The bodies concerned have resorted to the acquisition of existing blocks of flats as a short-term solution to the problem of housing employees for whom they have accepted responsibility. For this they must be given credit. I have, however, written to my colleagues under whose jurisdiction these bodies fall requesting them timeously to plan and execute new housing projects for their employees on account of the disruptive effect which the acquisition of existing buildings has on the letting market, especially on certain tenants.

The hon. member for Umbilo and also the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North raised the question of urban renewal. I wish to stress that all the projects which entail the complete demolition of areas have been completed and that future action of this nature will be confined to the rehabilitation of such areas. All sound structures will be retained wherever possible and town-planning proposers will take due cognizance of such structures in order to ensure that they are utilized to best advantage. I want to give hon. members the assurance that more than 95% of the areas which were completely demolished in the past did not comply with the standards laid down in the Slums Act and could not be retained or renovated. As far as the area in Church Street, Pietermaritzburg, is concerned, I wish to tell the hon. member that the hon. the Deputy Minister will visit the area in the near future—most probably towards the end of this week—and report back to me. Thereafter I shall reconsider the whole matter again.

*The hon. member for Witbank was quite right when he said that the attitude of the community as a whole—including churches, service organizations and welfare organizations—was of decisive importance if we were to make a success of all our projects and planning in the housing sphere. The hon. member referred to the role of utility companies, as did the hon. member Mr. Aronson. My hon. colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister, will reply to that in greater detail. The hon. member also mentioned the share of building societies.

† This matter was also raised by the hon. member Mr. Aronson. In the past it has been suggested that building societies should also make a contribution to low-cost housing by granting bonds on housing units which have been erected by local authorities for purposes of sale. I am pleased to announce that an amicable agreement has now been reached between the building societies and the department in this regard. As a first step building societies will make loans available to individuals to finance selling prices of houses that have already been sold under deed of sale. An amount of R30 million will then become available which can then be utilized for new housing. I trust that this will be an on-going process and that building societies will be in a position to make available a special amount annually for this purpose. I wish to stress that purchases of housing units which are in future to be financed by building societies will in no way be treated otherwise than those who are financed by the National Housing Commission. Existing qualifications, loan amounts, rates of interest, etc., in respect of persons qualifying for this type of housing will be applicable.

*The hon. members for Witbank, Welkom and Vasco spoke about township establishment procedures. I want to thank the hon. member for Welkom for having introduced some perspective into the discussion. We always tend to concentrate on the delays. However, we must remember that township establishment is a very complex task. It is one of the tasks which will rest mainly on the shoulders of the public sector in future, because it is too complex and to expensive for the private sector. Therefore it is important that the public sector, especially local authorities and the State, should go on creating an infrastructure so that the private sector will not be delayed and individuals who wish to build houses will not find that no building sites are available. As a result of the steps taken by the Housing Policy Council to streamline township establishment procedures and to lay down uniform norms, the period required for township establishment has been considerably shortened. Many examples can be quoted today of township establishments that were completed within 12 months. What is important, however, is that attention should also be given to the possibility of delegating the power of approval to bigger cities so that they can deal with applications for township establishment which fall within approved guide plans. If we can do this, I believe, we shall have come a long way.

Now I want to turn to the hon. member for Vasco. The hon. member for Vasco, the hon. member Mr. Aronson and the hon. member for Langlaagte spoke about building standards. Under the present circumstances, it is essential that housing funds be utilized in the best and most economical way by eliminating unnecessary subsidizing and by adjusting new housing standards in a realistic way, for example, by omitting items which are not regarded as absolutely essential.

† To this end the National Housing Commission has decided that the following items in dwellings for the very poor, inter alia, the group earning up to R150 a month, will no longer be financed out of the National Housing Fund: fencing along the street boundaries, floor covering, ceilings, painting of interior walls and electricity. The Commission, however, resolved that an investigation be instituted by the department into further possible savings on services, for example the tarring of arterial roads only and the reduction of site sizes. A significant saving was accomplished in the department’s experimental project at Mitchell’s Plain, where sites of 145 m² were provided instead of sites of the usual size of approximately 250 m².

*The omission of the various items on which the commission has already decided will make possible an expected saving on the building cost of a basic dwelling unit of R2 690 in the case of a one-bedroomed dwelling, R2 905 in the case of a two-bed-roomed dwelling and R3 160 for a three-bedroomed dwelling. The average saving per dwelling unit is equivalent to 30%, which is a considerable saving.

Environmental and aesthetic requirements with regard to the external finish of the dwelling unit will still be observed.

Still on the subject of standards, the hon. member for Vasco and the hon. member for Langlaagte touched on some further aspects. Therefore I want to add that in addition to the steps taken by the National Housing Commission to cut these standards to the bone, and in addition to inquiries which are still being conducted by the Louw Committee and by the department itself, two expert steering committees, under the leadership of the Building Research Institute, have reported in full on building costs and the standards of services. The reports will be considered by the advisory committee in July 1982 and a statement will be made in due course.

The hon. member for Vasco and the hon. member Mr. Aronson also discussed the extension of the building society redemption period from 20 years to 50 years. Our department has no problem with that. We shall not oppose it, but we must see the whole matter in perspective, of course. Such an extension would, of course, considerably delay the flow of capital back to the building societies, while it would not make much difference to the monthly payments. This is as a result of current interest rates. As it is, because of the fact that one has to pay so much interest, one virtually pays for that house twice over, and if the period were extended to 50 years, one might have to pay for it three times over. So there are practical considerations one has to take into account. If one wanted to buy an old house today and one had to obtain a building society loan for a house which was already 10 or 15 years old and which was still a reasonable house today. I wonder whether a building society would accept such a house as suitable security for the next 50 years. So the other side of the matter also has to be taken into account.

I come now to the hon. member for Welkom. The hon. member for Welkom made a very interesting speech. The hon. member asked whether we could still afford the luxury of the various research projects undertaken at the universities in particular which do not produce any practical results. This is so. From a report of the Building Research Institute, it appears that during the period 1970 to 1979, as many as 246 research projects in connection with low-cost housing were undertaken by South African universities. An evaluation showed that only 66 of the 246, or 27% of the total number of projects, had any practical significance. In the interests of co-ordination and the optimum utilization of manpower and funds, therefore, it has been decided to appoint a standing committee of the Housing Matters Advisory Committee to undertake this specific aspect of co-ordination. The composition of this committee is receiving urgent attention and its members will be appointed shortly.

The hon. member for Welkom also mentioned the delay which took place in the testing of building materials because of the fact that they had to be sent to Pretoria every time. He said we should rather have them tested locally by municipalities. The policy of the department is that not only the test results of the South African Bureau for Standards, but those of any recognized laboratory, such as those at universities, the Cement Institute, etc., are accepted. Very few municipalities have the necessary facilities, but if any municipalities do have those facilities, their test results will be accepted.

I just want to mention at this stage that any hon. members to whom I am not replying at the moment must bear in mind that one of the hon. Deputy Ministers will reply to them. This includes the hon. member for Heilbron, who has just spoken about welfare housing.

The hon. member for Maitland made a very interesting speech. He raised this particular aspect during a previous debate in this House, and I expressed myself in favour of it. Today, however, the hon. member went further, after having given the matter some further thought, and he suggested that the co-ordination of and control over these properties, which he believes could be taken over by the State in a specific way, could be entrusted to utility companies. The hon. member knows that like him, I have a soft spot for housing utility companies, and therefore we shall have to take a very serious look at this situation. His proposal amounts to the creation of an additional source of money for the financing of housing through the introduction of an appreciation levy as a quid pro quo for the granting of approval for the conversion of rent controlled blocks of flats with a view to selling them under sectional title. The hon. member himself said that the right way of taking this matter further was to refer it to the Select Committee of the House of Assembly which I hope to have appointed.

I must point out to the hon. member for Hillbrow that such a Select Committee can also function during the recess without having to be converted into a commission. I think the ideas of the hon. member for Maitland would be explored further by such a Select Committee.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has tendered his apologies, but I have replied to some of the aspects he raised in the course of my replies to the representations of certain other hon. members. The hon. member is a good customer of my department. [Interjections.] There is a bulky file of correspondence between us, and I hope that not all hon. members will become as troublesome as he is. Nevertheless, I like him, and he never makes a fuss about a reply, except when he has a public opportunity, like yesterday. Then he said that I always wrote him a stereotyped reply, saying that compared with the rents paid by tenants in other flats, the rent paid by his people was not too high.

This is one of the standards which one has to lay down, for in order to arrive at a proper market-related rental, one has to compare it. It is no use comparing it with dwelling units in Pretoria, for example; one has to compare it with other dwelling units in the immediate vicinity. However, this is not the only test we apply; we also look at other circumstances. Rent boards and rent inspectors make an enormous contribution in this connection, but unfortunately we do not always have enough people. If all the hon. members had kept me so busy, I would have to appoint twice as many rent boards.

The fact is that we also look at other factors, including the people’s income. I am not saying that the hon. member makes representations on behalf of the “fat cats”, because that does not always apply to his people in Hillbrow. I have been there myself, so I know that is not the case. However, the fact remains that the great majority of people on whose behalf he makes representations nevertheless fall outside the income group for which my department is responsible.

I think at this stage I should resume my seat and listen to what else hon. members have to say.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that so far in this debate which started yesterday, there has been a great deal of consensus, first of all on the fact that there is an urgent problem in South Africa because we do not have sufficient houses for all our population groups, and secondly that something has to be done about it. This has been central to most of the speeches made during this debate.

Something else which is encouraging to me, is the fact that so many hon. members have been exercising their minds on this problem. The hon. the Minister has also indicated that a lot of thought is going into, as he put it, the application of unorthodox methods to solving the problems of South Africa. My colleague too, discussed this point yesterday. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that when the hon. member for Umbilo commented about unorthodox methods being applied to Black housing, he said they should also be applied to White housing. I think the hon. the Minister must concede that point.

There also has been tremendous stress on the fact that it is no longer the responsibility of the State, because the State simply cannot find the personnel and the finance to provide housing for our people, and therefore it is up to the private sector and private sector money to do this. We in these benches agree entirely with hon. members in that regard. In fact, it is the free enterprise system that will have to solve this problem.

Here I want to mention a comment made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I believe he was the only hon. member who tried to introduce a bit of party political nonsense into this debate when he tried to attack my hon. colleague. My hon. colleague said the rent control system in South Africa should be abolished if we are to ever solve the problem. Granted, rent control was introduced during the war to protect tenants at that time. I believe today that—the hon. the Minister has given notice of a Select Committee to investigate the matter—as we are moving out of the rent control system we have to be careful that people are not exploited. I think my hon. colleague is absolutely correct, that until we get rid of rent control there will not be financial incentive for people to invest their money in housing because the profit margin is too low.

That is absolute nonsense.

The hon. member may say that, but this is my opinion. He is entitled to his own opinion.

Do you stand for the abolition of rent control?

I believe the hon. member for Maitland raised a very interesting point when he said that the housing shortage was not a result of problems regarding the physical building of houses. I agree with him. We have all the competent builders and firms that manufacture building materials that we need. The problem in South Africa today is a financial one. This is what I want to discuss this afternoon with the hon. the Minister.

I want to be positive and constructive this afternoon and I want to submit to the hon. the Minister and to the Government certain ideas which, if acted upon in a dynamic and positive manner, will go a long way towards solving our present housing shortage. For this reason I submit that the Government has a responsibility to initiate a crash homebuilding programme, a programme which, I believe, the large financial institutions have a social responsibility to support, yet one which still falls within the ambit of the free enterprise system.

My time is very limited. However, I have with me a copy of a memorandum drawn up by a Cape Town economist which I will hand to the hon. the Minister and his deputy. This economist, Mr. Isadore Goldberg, proposes the establishment of village complexes adjacent to South Africa’s major cities and towns. These complexes will involve the construction of two-bedroomed townhouses which he believes will sell for about R20 000, at 1980 costs. These are not cheap mass houses. Under normal circumstances they would sell on the open market at between R40 000 and R50 000. Under the proposed scheme, the financing would be done through building societies, with a deposit of about R2 200 and a monthly rental of the order of R150 to R200. Much preliminary work has already been done, and Mr. Goldberg has the keen support of major national construction firms and financial institutions. He has appeared both on television and radio and has received much public support for his idea. He has submitted a memorandum to the hon. the Minister of Finance—I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister is here—as well as to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development. However, I regret to say that the bureaucratic machinery of our State grinds rather slowly—too slowly, might I add—to solve this most urgent problem. It is for this reason that I have decided to raise the matter during its merits and give it his active support. In fact, I should like to see the hon. the Minister refer this idea for consideration to the Select Committee. I suggest one of the terms of reference of the Select Committee should be to investigate a crash programme of private sector home-building at economic levels. May I stress with the hon. the Minister that the public of South Africa have been waiting expectantly for the Government to do something about this problem. I sincerely hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will realize the great potential of what I am about to put to him.

What is proposed is the construction of villages close to urban areas and transport, each village consisting of some 500 to 1 500 homes. These townhouses will be constructed by private construction firms on an assembly line basis, as has been done in similar projects elsewhere in the world, in order to keep the cost down through the economy of scale that will result. The project calls for each village to have its own commercial and recreational area so that a community spirit can be built up, and the townhouses should be sold to both senior citizens and young married couples so that a well balanced community can be achieved. It is also proposed that the State should purchase a certain percentage of these units which could be rented out to deserving persons, e.g. pensioners. Essential for the success of such a project is the need for the location and layout of the site to be attractive enough for the unit to be sold on merit.

As I have already said, Mr. Goldberg has already obtained support for these proposals from major development and construction firms. However, what is essential for the success of such a scheme is Government involvement in, firstly, the acquisition of suitable sites and, secondly, creating the desired climate in the financial world which would release the necessary funds to finance the project. What is required is the following: Firstly, the Government, in consultation with the developers, should make land available fully serviced in good, pleasant surroundings and areas, near to transport at well below normal market price. It is envisaged that by the State providing the land, costs will be kept to a minimum because speculation, high taxation and high profits, which are normally associated with land development schemes, will be eliminated. The development of the township will then be done by a private contractor. Secondly, developers should be given tax concessions similar to those given to the border industries or similar to those which were recently announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Thirdly, finance for the project should be made available to the developers at very low levels of interest. This is where the hon. the Minister of Finance comes in. For example, the Government could recognize investment in the companies who are developing these projects, investment which will be made by banks and institutions, as prescribed investments. Fourthly, for the sale of the units by the developers building societies would provide a 90% bond to purchasers at below the market interest rates. This could be achieved by the Government and the hon. the Minister of Finance declaring such funds as prescribed investments, thereby attracting funds from banks and other financial institutions. If the hon. the Minister of Finance says that he needs those funds for himself, I suggest he could increase the percentage of prescribed investments by 1%. He would then have more money than is needed for this project. May I add that a suitable buy-back clause in the sale agreement would be required should a purchaser have to resell his home because he has been transferred elsewhere. This would prevent speculation. Fifthly, the developers will make an after-tax profit of 10% to 15%. Such a scheme would be a purely private sector development in the free enterprise system, with the Government being a nonparticipant other than opening the door to enable the scheme to get off the ground.

And subsidize it.

In conclusion, I am convinced that this village concept can succeed, and I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to give it his urgent attention. Did I hear the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance say “And subsidize it”?

That is what you are asking.

No, I am not. I ask the hon. the Minister to at least show enough interest by asking the people who are proposing this to appear before his Select Committee so that they can put their ideas to him. I say this because South Africa is short of 50 000 homes, and if the department and the hon. the Minister do not get off their backsides and do something about it, we shall see rent control being reinstated in South Africa, and we shall then never get the homes that we require.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to sound a false note by moving away from housing, the financing of housing, and so on. However, I feel that I am touching on a very important division of the Department of Community Development when I refer to the aspect of State land. In the first place, it would perhaps be a good thing for us to consider the functions of State land control. This involves the sale and leasing, the supervision and protection, the granting of rights and allocation for special uses of State land, and any other matters connected with the administration of that land. By virtue of title conditions, servitudes, mineral rights and certain statutory provisions, the State also has interests and rights in private land. State land is also allotted to other departments of the central Government and provincial administrations. They then control that State land for as long as it is used for that purpose. When the land is no longer used for that purpose, it reverts to this department, which then disposes of it. The department may then make it available for other purposes or alienate it.

Before we consider the general principle in connection with the disposal of State land, let us refer briefly to the use of State land. There are a variety of uses, for example research in connection with agriculture, and a good example of this is the agricultural colleges at Potchefstroom and elsewhere. It is also used as training areas by the S.A. Defence Force, for prisons, schools, police stations, radio beacons, roads, dams, etc.

The question which then arises is how this State land is disposed of. Obviously agricultural land must, as far as possible, be retained for agriculture in the interests of the country. A few months ago we had an example of this when approximately 16 farms in the Coligny district were allocated to farmers, so that farming could be praticed on them, and only farmers were eligible to purchase this land. Here we have a clear example of how agricultural land which is available for farming purposes is made available to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for sale by the Agricultural Credit Board to deserving farmers in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966. A sound principle in this connection has also been laid down by the Agricultural Credit Board, namely that a farmer that has sufficient land and an economic unit must take second place to the person who has the means but does not have the land. An attempt has been made to maintain a balance, and the board is guarding against established farmers who are financially strong acquiring more land. After all, the aim is to put our farming on a sound basis and not to allow monopolies to fall into the hands of a few individuals. Here we have clear proof that the Agricultural Credit Board functions correctly, although I would have liked a few farmers in my constituency to have been successful in their application to obtain farms. However, I accept that this was not possible.

As far as State land in general is concerned, it is offered in the first place to interested State bodies so that they can decide whether any part of the land is needed for their purposes. We have an example of land at present used by the Department of Defence at Klipdrif just outside Potchefstroom. This land was initially occupied by the Transvaal Education Department and when there was no longer a need for that school in that area—it was a clinic school—it was moved to a more central point and the Department of Defence then took over the buildings and grounds. At the same time a piece of land approximately 5 hectares in extent fell away. It is far from the land of the Department of Defence and is surrounded by land belonging to one farmer. Although the general policy must be that State land is to be sold by tender or public auction, surely there have to be exceptions, and here we have a clear example. Because land belonging to one farmer surrounds that piece of land which is not needed by the Department of Defence, it ought in the first place to be offered to him, at a price which is realistic both for the farmer and for the department. Only if he is not interested in it should the land be sold by tender or public auction. If someone else were to purchase this piece of land, it would lead to problems, for example right of thoroughfare for one farmer over the other farmer’s land, which would mean road would have to be built and therefore a piece of land would be lost which could have been used. Perhaps I should just mention that this piece of land is irrigation land, and every square inch of it is valuable. In addition, it could lead to the establishment of water furrows to irrigate the land, and there would also have to be boundary fences. These costs could have been avoided.

However, I cannot neglect to say that in my opinion too much time is wasted when State land is alienated. As a result of the unnecessary delay, agricultural land in particular is lost, and it sometimes takes a new owner years to prepare the land to the extent where it can be used to the fullest extent. In my opinion we must try to avoid delays of this kind. Departments must be given a limited time to indicate whether they need the land, and if they do not react by a specific date it must be accepted that that department does not need the land and the specific piece of State land must then be disposed of. If this cannot be done, the land must be leased in the interim, and when it is sold the date of occupation must be stated to the buyer and it can also be the date on which the lessee’s lease expires.

On the positive side I must mention that scarce land is also readily made available in emergencies. As a result of poor agricultural conditions which prevailed in certain areas in 1979, approximately 42 000 hectares of State land was leased as emergency grazing. It could take 31 420 large stock units and earned the State R31 420 per month for the period 1 April 1979 to 31 March 1980. In the period 1 October 1980 to 30 September 1981 approximately 21 692 hectares of this kind of land was leased. It could carry 1 300 large stock units and earned the State R1 900 per month. There can obviously also be surplus land, particularly since we are involved in the building of State dams and the establishment of State forests for the Department of Environmental Conservation. This happens because when the land is purchased it must be ensured that owners of farms are not left with uneconomic units. This surplus land obviously cannot simply be allowed to go to waste. It must therefore be sold. In the period 1 April 1979 to 31 March 1980 four such sales took place. The relevant area was 259 hectares and the purchase price was R200 060. In the period 1 April 1980 to 30 September 1980 three such sales took place. The area involved was 543 hectares and brought in an income of R136 450. In the period 1 October 1980 to 30 September 1981 16 such sales took place. The relevant area was 145 hectares and the income which it brought in was R641 400.

Of course other types of State land are also sold. However, I shall not go into details of the various types. I used the surplus land at State dams as an illustration to indicate that the department does in fact allow State land which is not needed by the State to return to the private sector, where it can be utilized. All I am asking is that the department should dispose of this State land in a more streamlined way and should not allow the land to remain unutilized for too long a period if it can be utilized by the private sector—and in particular the farmers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Losberg has really made a remarkable indepth study of this subject of State land, and he is to be congratulated on doing so. I think the way in which he illustrated certain aspects of State land gives us a good insight into how much State land there really is and the purposes for which it is used.

Today, however. I wish to speak about welfare housing. In this regard I should like to plead that the Department of Community Development and the Department of Health and Welfare, with their joint priorities, should work together more closely. However, I wish to congratulate the departments concerned for what they are already doing for housing in general. We have the phenomenon nowadays that ailing old people live longer. Very often those who are healthy die long before those who are ill, since the ailing are taken into institutions where they are cared for. Often the healthy cannot obtain the necessary housing before the other old people die.

Those who are ill are cared for so well, that those old people who do not have such housing and care, weaken to such an extent that they die sooner than the patients in institutions. This is the social problem we have to deal with today, particularly since the maximum age of old people is steadily rising.

Of course it is costing more and more merely to stay alive. With the escalation of costs, people are finding it more and more difficult to make a living. How can our old people be taken care of if accommodation is fully occupied and old people no longer die at an early age? Many of the weaker ones have to go to nursing institutions or hospitals, but often they find that they cannot afford to pay for this. Moreover, there are not enough nurses to care for all the old people.

These, then, are some of our major problems in this area. However, the Government also has the problem of the cost of constructing buildings. While a few years ago, a building cost R½ million, today it costs R1½ million to build. In addition, the unit cost per occupant is extremely high today. Then there is the interest on old-age homes which has to be calculated over at least 40 years. Money has to be kept in a trust account in order to provide for maintenance and furnishings.

If one considers the projects which are ready to be built, but for which the department does not have the money, we see that at the moment there are no fewer than 63 old-age homes waiting to be erected, while 44 existing homes have to be extended.

What are the achievements of this department? In 1921, when the National Party was not yet in power, there were only 17 old-age homes with a total of 388 occupants. In 1959—look how slowly it increased—when we had been in power for 11 years, there were 57 old-age homes with a total of 2 846 occupants. In 1972, there were 212 old-age homes with a total of 13 359 occupants. In 1981 there were 335 old-age homes with a total of 22 866 occupants. These homes were financed out of the National Housing Fund. Therefore 278 old-age homes were built in a matter of 22 years. What an achievement!

The following amounts were spent on the construction of old-age homes out of the National Housing Fund: R7 million in 1977: approximately R10 million in 1978; approximately R20 million in 1979; R18,5 million in 1980, and almost R21 million in 1981. During the past five years, 19 449 housing units for Whites alone were constructed at a cost of R318,8 million by local authorities and the department.

I find it strange that the Opposition is always so concerned about housing. When they speak in public, and when the English language Press makes a fuss, as all the “fat cats” are always doing, they are only concerned about Black housing, whereas White housing is never mentioned. However, they talk about White housing in this House because ultimately they are dependent on White votes to get into Parliament. However, they do not tell people that this is a matter which the Government cannot tackle alone. They wish to ride on the backs of the White voters, but in point of fact they do not want to say that the White voter and the private sector also have a task to perform in respect of this matter. Why do they not construct buildings in our cities? Why is Johannesburg being turned into a ghost city? All the big financiers are only buying buildings to construct supermarkets. They are the cause of the housing shortage being experienced today. They are the cause of 800 people being left unemployed after they had been summarily dismissed at short notice after a recent transaction. Then they come and seek a place here. Let them take a look at the circumstances and look after their own people for a change. The private sector simply do not provide housing for their own people. They should see to it that this is done in future.

A housing scheme was completed in 1939 near the Rand Sports Stadium in the southern part of Johannesburg where soccer matches are played. It is for Whites in the lower income group and it consists of houses, flats and rooms. However, there are no schools, medical services, theatres, swimming pools, churches or butchers shops in that area. The average monthly income per family is R266. These are the people who work for the wealthy and for whom the State, together with the municipality, has to provide housing. That is why it is important to us that these people are taken care of.

During the 1980-’81 financial year, R22,5 million was spent on White housing and R4,5 million on Coloured welfare housing. It is for the care of these people in particular that the State needs money at the moment. Among these people are the handicapped, the aged and other people in need of care. During the past five years, R62,5 million has been spent on housing for the White aged alone.

In this respect, I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron, who recommended that those people should rather return to the rural areas, since they can live more cheaply there. In this regard, we must, of course, mention the fine work being done by the N.G. Church’s Good Hope Utility Company, other church organizations, the S.A. Vrouefederasie, the ACVV and others. We wish to thank all these organizations for what they have done with regard to the building of institutions. This is really important. However, as far as the assistance of old people is concerned, we request that these people, too, should contribute their share. If they are still fit enough, they can find employment with the department now. They are also being afforded the opportunity, as old people, to assist in supplementing the shortage in the work force.

Capital for the building of housing for the aged, blind and people who are otherwise physically handicapped is being provided today at an interest rate of 1/20 %. Where else in the world would one find this? All other White aged, regardless of their income, are housed with the aid of funds provided at an interest rate of 1%. This is really a fine achievement on the part of the department. If we take note of all these matters, it is clear that welfare organizations have certain facilities for their people today. However, when the income of an old person exceeds R300 a month, he only has to pay 25 cents additional rental for every full R1 by which his income exceeds R300 a month according to a sliding scale, until the economic rental of the housing unit concerned is reached. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosettenville spoke very knowledgably and with insight about welfare housing, a subject which I should prefer to leave to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development, who will certainly be able to react to that far more effectively than I.

I should like to react to the speech by the hon. member for Losberg. He sketched for us the problem relating to State land and requested that State land, particularly surplus State land which is not properly utilized, ought to be allocated sooner and returned to the private sector to be properly utilized, particularly by the agricultural sector. The hon. member said that there ought to be greater streamlining in this sphere. I agree with the hon. member that due to the rationalization process in the Public Service, certain problems have arisen in this regard which we must iron out. Among other things, certain statutory amendments have to be effected. In the parliamentary session thus far we have in fact effected several statutory amendments in order to expedite matters in this regard, inter alia, by way of the amendment of the State Land Disposal Act, the Community Development Act and, of course, another very important measure which is significant in this connection, namely the Agricultural Credit Act. Basically, the Agricultural Credit Act has two functions. In the first place it has an aid function. In the second place it has the function of acquiring State land, as the hon. member also mentioned. This is done by way of valuation and involves the acquisition of State land for all government departments. As the hon. member is aware, this specific component has been transferred to the Department of Community Development, and the task of effecting this co-ordination, among other things, has been delegated to me.

Basically, what the amendment amounts to is that the Agricultural Credit Act is now being adapted so that it no longer has only an auxiliary function with regard to the allocation of State land, but so that State land so allocated can be disposed of on an entirely agricultural basis. This means that when we dispose of State land which is agriculturally identified, we transfer that specific State land to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, which then has full power to dispose of it. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries can make that land available for purposes of leasing, or even to a specific user of land, as the hon. member indicated when he referred to what has occurred at Potchefstroom, for example, where land was important for consolidation which could be motivated on an agricultural basis. In such a case, and taking into account the specific circumstances, State land can be allocated in this way and it need not necessarily be done by way of tender etc. Therefore the Agricultural Credit Act has been duly amended to make this streamlining possible.

A second important aspect I want to mention to the hon. member is that I have already been negotiating with my colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, in connection with the identification of State land with regard to the P. K. le Roux Dam, where literally many thousands of hectares of land are available. As soon as this land has been identified as agricultural land, my department will immediately transfer it to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries so that it may dispose of it in its own way. In the interim the department may also make arrangements to survey the land in economic units, and it can also be leased in the meantime, before it is disposed of permanently. I therefore hope that I have duly answered the hon. member in this regard.

I also wish to report further on the progress made with rationalization, with special reference to the take-over of the land tenure component of the former Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. In this regard certain benefits are now coming to the fore. Firstly, as hon. members are aware, the functions of the Division of Land Tenure have been transferred to this department. The problem we had in the past was that all the activities of this department were centralized in Pretoria. The transfer has given us the advantage that the Department of Community Development has regional offices. Accordingly we are now in a position to decentralize many of these activities to these various regional offices, viz. Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Kimberley, Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Bloemfontein. In the process we ought to be able to make matters considerably more convenient for the general public.

As hon. members are aware, our department has to carry out valuations within certain regions for the Department of Co-operation and Development as regards the purchase of land for the S.A. Development Trust, and the majority of these functions are now being transferred to the various regions. Additional functions, such as the acquisition of land and rights to land for Government purposes, the sale of State land which is superfluous for the needs of the State, the leasing of State land and the granting of rights such as servitudes on State land, and the general administration of land, are all now being transferred to these regional offices, and we hope that this will be of great benefit to the public at large.

When land has been earmarked for purchase by the state, we realize that considerable problems arise in the period from valuation until the land has eventually been obtained. We believe, too, that due to this rationalization and the transfer of the functions I have mentioned, it will be possible to eliminate this problem to a very great extent.

I also wish to refer to one final aspect which, I think, is also of importance. Since the State is the biggest purchaser of land and the biggest owner of land, it is interesting to note that there are certain important trends in the real estate market which I might just mention to hon. members. From time to time the State has to carry out market investigations, and in terms of the Expropriation Act, the State must also determine certain market norms. Due to this fact certain market trends may now be perceived. In the first instance, from 1975 up to and including the first half of 1979, there was a reasonable degree of stability in the property market, but from the middle of 1979 to the middle of 1981, as we know, there has been a tremendous boom in the property market. From the middle of 1981 up to this stage, the situation has again stabilized, due to the shortage of funds and also, very probably, due to higher interest rates. However, of tremendous importance when these trends are taken into account is the fact that we must consider in particular the period 1979 to 1981, viz. the boom period. During that period we had a tremendous fluctuation in the increase in land prices and I want to indicate to hon. members what some of these fluctuations were. For example, in the Northern Transvaal region we had increases varying from 33% to 58% in the price of grazing land. In the case of dry land the increases vary from 18% to 71%. For irrigation land the figures were 37% to 100%. In the Eastern Transvaal they varied between 33% and 85% for grazing land and from 30% to 100% for dry land. There is another important figure which I should perhaps point out. In the Eastern Cape we had variations in the increase in the price of land, in the case of grazing land, from 41% to 262%. However, in the Western Cape we had a far more consistent increase, for example 75%. It is understandable that these increases, and the fluctuation in increases, created tremendous problems for us particularly as regards the financing etc. of land.

As far as urban properties are concerned we encountered more or less the same trend, and this also applied to the price of houses. This was also the case in respect of unimproved plots. There was a difference between the urban and the more rural areas, the platteland towns. In the case of the platteland towns the increase was far less. At this stage we foresee no drop in the prices of land and properties.

I think we have entered an era in which, for the ordinary man, the purchase of land is becoming very problematical. The amount of land available is dwindling, and the country’s population is steadily increasing. Ways and means will therefore have to be found, and we hold out as a prospect—I think hon. members pointed this out—that at some time or another the State will have to carry out a survey of the land at its disposal to determine how the land is to be utilized and whether it is being properly and effectively utilized.

In the final instance, I want to remark that it is also time for us in South Africa to consider a kind of long-term land budget so as to have an idea of the availability of land and the demand for land. I believe that from a planning point of view it is of tremendous importance that we should have a long-term land budget in South Africa so that in the process we can to a far greater extent bring the cost and the utilization of land to the attention of the general public and also to the attention of various Government Departments when they apply and request my department to purchase more land. We shall have to give very serious consideration to this situation in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has appealed for a long-term budget of land and the use of land. I want to touch on a similar subject this afternoon.

During the debate on this Vote last year, the hon. the minister made the following statement on 14 September to the Standing Committee of the House—

The hon. the Minister at the time went further to say that certain ground in the Constantia area was being investigated for this purpose. Since then, as the Committee is aware, there was a well-publicized investigation which was completed in December 1981. Most recently the hon. the Minister, by means of a reply to a question put in the House, confirmed that the issue is still under investigation by the Group Areas Board.

If time permits me, I shall make some reference to the Constantia issue as such, but my main purpose in raising this matter is to discuss the principle of providing prestige residential areas to persons who are not White. Firstly, I want to place it on record that I unreservedly accept that there is a pressing and increasing need for prestige living areas for affluent people who are not White. The existing allocations of prestige land are unfair to those who are not White and steps must be taken to redress the situation. Furthermore, it is a cardinal principle of free enterprise that the rewards of success must be available to those who succeed. The free enterprise system in South Africa simply cannot flourish if it does not provide rewards to all on a fair competitive basis, and that must include access to prestige accommodation. While I accept the need identified by the hon. the Minister, I am opposed to the suggested method of fulfilling that need which is implicit in the Minister’s statement of last year, namely to create race group islands within existing areas. This can only be described as a sort of “spikkelbeleid” or leopardskin policy.

You are frightened of your own skin!

Instead of that I am in favour of the open areas option as a means of resolving the situation in the short term. It is a matter of record that the PFP is in favour of scrapping the Group Areas Act as a final solution and the hon. the Minister already knows that.

What I should like to talk about is what one can do within the context of the Group Areas Act to try to assist the hon. the Minister to solve this problem in a sensible way. In the context of the present investigation I want to say in passing that I am opposed to the establishment of new race group areas in Constantia and Tokai and I am in favour of allowing anyone to acquire property in the normal way in terms of the existing town planning schemes.

You know that is impossible.

The reason I oppose the “spikkelbeleid” in terms of prestige residential housing is, firstly, that the principle is objectionable; secondly, on practical grounds it will be like trying to feed a hungry lion on half a crumb. For example, let us assume the hon. the Minister finds, say, 100 ha of prestige land somewhere—it can be anywhere in the Republic for that matter—and he then …

I will find it in Constantia.

… divides it into 200 or 400 plots. How long is that going to satisfy the need? Once it has been fully subscribed and the limited number of plots bought up, what happens then?

Then we extend it.

Either the plots are going to become so expensive, because demand will far outstrip supply, that prices will become ridiculous or the hon. the Minister will then have to find another large patch of land to expropriate, and then another one, and then another one, and then another one, until eventually he will have to expropriate 80% of the prime residential land in the whole of South Africa. If the hon. the Minister is going to be logical and consistent, he is going to end up with a situation which is absolutely ludicrous. It will be ruinously expensive, not to mention the social dislocation that will be caused.

I am aware of the fact that the Group Areas Act does not define an open area. However, I have examined certain parts of this legislation and I should like to put it on record that I believe there are two possible ways in which one could give effect to an open area within the present terms of the Act. I make these suggestions as interim approaches and not as final solutions, to be placed on record for the hon. the Minister’s formal response, I hope. Firstly, it seems that in terms of section 21 the hon. the Minister has discretionary powers to issue permits to those individual members of other races whom he wants to cater for to acquire or occupy any existing property anywhere. Subsection (3) seems to provide that in granting permits the hon. the Minister may take into consideration the relative needs of any group in regard, inter alia, to housing, their amenties of life and educational and recreational facilities. I think the hon. the Minister should also take into account the standards available. I am not sure about the implications of subsection (2) of that section, and I leave that to the hon. the Minister to comment on. However, it would appear that there may well be the ability to issue individual permits on a large scale in terms of those provisions. Secondly, an alternative approach would be that the board could take the necessary steps to deproclaim any existing area which the hon. the Minister cared to designate. The Constantia local area would be one of those, and there are many others that one can think of. In terms of the Act, as I understand it, once an area is deproclaimed, it will revert to the status of a controlled area. It seems to me that in terms of section 17(4) and (5) the whole area could effectively be proclaimed open to all, subject to such reservations and conditions as may be determined by the State President and specified in the relevant proclamation. This seems to me to be a provision by means of which the hon. the Minister could create a blanket permit situation. These seems to be two possible openings by means of which effect can be given to an open area, even on a limited basis.

It is interesting to note that it was recently reported that the United Municipal Executive also called upon the Government to apply certain sections of the Group Areas Act in order to give effect—although they did not say so in these terms—to such open areas. They have probably also seen the possibilities of these sections and there may be other sections too. I hope the hon. the Minister takes note of that call as well.

This is a particularly relevant and urgent request that we are making to the hon. the Minister because we now have the proposals from the President’s Council on local government and, clearly, the situation is going to be created where there will be councillors and city fathers of other race groups. It is ridiculous that a city father should not be able to live in some of the most desirable parts of his own city. In the light of these developments I believe that these proposals are topical and germane and that they should be given serious and urgent consideration. In the case of my own constituency, Constantia, this purpose can be achieved with the support of the local community without in any way offending against the provisions of the existing town-planning scheme and without sacrificing, in that particular case, a part of the Tokai Forest Reserve and/or historic Steenberg Farm.

Incidentally, there are three environmental reasons, apart from the principle and political reasons, why the original proposals were extremely misguided in respect of Tokai Forest and Steenberg Farm. Time permitting, I wish to make reference to them. Firstly, any development of those two areas would offend against the town-planning scheme, a scheme which is long established and has been accepted by the local community and local government. Secondly, those two areas are important to the overall rural character of the valley. The loss of either to suburban development would seriously detract from the present character of the area. Thirdly, the Tokai Forest Reserve, in particular, is a scarce metropolitan asset which is enjoyed by the wider metropolitan community for informal recreational activities. This fact is recognized by the Department of Environment Affairs and the land should therefore not be alienated for suburban development. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia really addressed his argument more specifically to the hon. the Minister, and it concerned a matter of more or less local interest. Accordingly I think I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister himself to react to him. We know, of course, that that hon. member has group areas on the brain and that accordingly it is in fact pointless to argue with him in this regard; one merely wastes good arguments.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Tygervallei by welcoming the fact that the hon. the Minister wishes to appoint a Select Committee to have rent control investigated. I think that this is a most essential step which the hon. the Minister has announced and I should therefore like to support it. My motivation is not 100% the same as that of the hon. member for Tygervallei. It is not that it clashes with his; it is simply a supplementary motivation. I think it is a case of having to do one thing and not omitting to do the other. The understanding and the sympathy—one could almost say the compassion—with which the hon. the Minister, the Deputy Minister and the department deal with the protection of lessees is to be profoundly appreciated. We realize that it is in fact his primary task and duty to look after the interests of the lessee. I think it is only right that this should be so. It is in accordance with the spirit of the Acts in question that this should be the case, and in most instances it will be the lessee who needs such protection. The danger exists that if he is not protected in this way, he can be exploited by unscrupulous lessors. I concede that.

I do, however, want to venture to argue today that there is another side to this matter. My experience in the profession is that the relationship between owner and lessee, particularly in the case of sectional title units, can sometimes be described as a “jakkals-en-wolf” situation, a situation in which the sick carry the healthy. I therefore believe that as far as rent control is concerned, it would be correct also to take cognizance of the interests of the developer lessor. It ought not to be one’s point of view that lessors are always unscrupulous exploiters and lessees always innocent, threatened angels. There is certainly good reason to be on our guard against excessive and undeserved protection of lessees which could lead to unfairness and to prejudice of the interests of owner-lessors. Indeed, I am convinced that ministerial decisions are sometimes made in favour of the protection of lessees in cases where this is perhaps not justified, where protection has been given to lessees while, strictly speaking, they are not really entitled to it.

The matter I really want to raise relates to the formula whereby to determine whether a specific person is a protected lessee, viz. whether a lessee is entitled to protection in terms of the prescribed test relating to income. At present it stands at R360 in the case of single people and R650 in the case of families. I speak under correction, and if my information is not correct I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would assist me. I take it that the test applied by the department and the evidence required to determine whether a lessee falls within the prescribed income categories, simply requires that documentary evidence be submitted to the effect that the lessee in question does not pay income tax on more than R360 or R650 per month, as the case may be. The evidence usually submitted—I do not know whether this is required by the department—is a certificate or receipt from the Receiver of Revenue to confirm this. If my information is correct, then in my opinion this is indeed a system which leaves a lot of room for irregularities. Accordingly, I want to call for a system which will be more watertight as far as irregularities are concerned, one which will not afford protection to a lessee who, in terms of the spirit of the Act, is not entitled to it. In my opinion it would be as well if the Select Committee would give attention to-this aspect of the matter as well, and determine whether or not it is necessary to establish effective machinery to prevent anything of this nature from occurring. To determine what the nature of such machinery must be, it is as well to take cognizance of the kind of irregularity which the existing system lends itself to, or which irregularities cannot be counteracted effectively. There are three ways in particular in which lessees who fall outside the statutory on come categories are able to “pass” the means test and thereby obtain ministerial protection, although strictly speaking they are not entitled to it. In the first place, the receipt from the Receiver of Revenue will not indicate whether the lessee is in receipt of other tax-free income, apart from the maximum income of R360 or R650 per month. Nowadays it is possible for a married couple to have tax free investments at a post office and at building societies of up to a total amount of at least R80 000. Perhaps it is even more now. However, I am sure that it is not less than that. If the investment yields an interest rate of 9%, such a couple could easily earn an additional income of R7 200 per annum, or R600 per month. However, as long as their taxable income is not more than R650 per month, they qualify for protection although their real income is far above the prescribed amount.

There is a second possibility. Such a couple could transfer enough of their assets to their children or other confidants to bring them within the prescribed income category. They could even enter into an agreement with their children or friends to the effect that the money in question be invested for their benefit.

This brings me to a third possibility. The couple could buy a large quantity of Kruger Rands or bonus bonds. This will not be reflected anywhere in the assessments of the Receiver of Revenue. They could then have a nice additional source of income which could not easily be traced, because they could sell the Kruger Rands or bonus bonds from time to time. What this amounts to is that whereas technically a lessee could qualify for protection, his real financial position could such as to literally cry out against the spirit of the provisions of the Act in question. If my information is correct and the department only looks at the income tax receipt or certificate of a lessee and does not go any further into his financial position, I politely wish to submit that there is good reason for the two Ministers and their department to reconsider this matter seriously and revise and overhaul the existing system of control. I have raised this matter today because I feel that when the Select Committee is appointed, this aspect, too, ought to be attended to.

We should perhaps consider whether we could not place a heavier onus on the lessee to prove that he is entitled to protection. The privileges enjoyed by lessess in terms of the provisions of the legislation are comparable with other social benefits such as old-age and disability pensions. Therefore it is not too much to ask of the lessee to prove his bona fides in the same way as an applicant for a social pension is expected to prove his. He must at least be expected to complete a questionnaire and answer questions calculated to determine beyond question whether the person does in fact qualify for protection in terms of the letter as well as the spirit of the Act. It ought to be expected of a lessee that he confirms his replies by way of a sworn statement so that he will at least expose himself to possible prosecution for perjury if it is proved that he has made false statements or withheld relevant facts.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to react to the hon. member for Sundays River. The hon. member touched on a very interesting aspect when he discussed the income limit of a protected lessee. For example, I have never thought that a person’s income was only confirmed by way of his income tax certificate or receipt. I am sure that the proposed Select Committee will consider this matter.

The provision of housing is still one of the highest priorities for any community. I have said in this House in the past—and I should like to repeat it here today—that there are certain things that any hard-working citizen of the community can expect, and I think the most important is a good roof over his head. However, one could ask to what extent the Government of the day should concern itself with the provision of housing. The provision of housing is primarily a matter for the individual. By saving and judicious planning, the individual must provide his own housing.

However, in South Africa the provision of housing was set at a nadir during the forties. From 1948 the Government accepted its social responsibility and made every effort to provide housing for the less well-off people in certain specific income groups. Without going into detail, I want to say that the path this Government has followed since 1948 as far as housing is concerned has been an exceptional one. It is not necessary for me to say today what the position was before 1948. When I say this, I do not wish to intimate that the problems have been totally solved today, but no-one can deny that the Government has come a long way in its afforts to solve this problem. These efforts were necessary due to social circumstances, but I believe that this fine effort has given rise to a devil-may-care attitude among some of our people, who ask: “Why should I look after myself, when the Government is providing me with housing?” I believe that this attitude applies to the individual and to all employers in the Republic of South Africa.

To what extent must the Government concern itself with the provision of housing? The latest figures of the National Housing Fund must cause us all concern. What happens in practice in regard to the expenditure of certain funds of the National Housing Fund? It makes funds available to City Councils at an interest rate of 9%, whereas over the past financial year the Fund has had to pay as much as 13,3% in interest to the Treasury. However, the problem goes further than that. In most instances the lessees of municipal property cannot afford the 9%, and interest is based on the income of the lessees; so much so that the deficit in interest that had to be paid in to the Treasury, amounted to almost R41 million during the year under review.

In order to grasp the extent of the deficit, we could compare this with a scheme of 998 two-to three-bedroomed houses being constructed in Port Elizabeth at present. The total cost of the whole scheme, including services, is R25 million. When I say this I do not wish to intimate that the lessee should be responsible for the full rate of interest, because he simply cannot afford it. I merely want to ask, with the hon. the Minister, whether it is still realistic to ask a person earning R250 per month to pay a mere 3,5% of his income by way of rental. I realize that the Government is going out of its way to help our people, but I also believe that the Government is extremely concerned about this aspect.

One can therefore see to what extent the State is involved in the provision of housing. We could ask whether the State is not perhaps rooted too deeply in a capitalistic system as far as the provision of housing is concerned. I believe it has become imperative to create other mechanisms without delay to assist the State in this enormous task. At present the local authorities are providing their own schemes. For the most part, semi State bodies such as Iscor, Escom and the S.A. Transport Services provide housing for their own employees. The private sector, too, makes a modest contribution. The important question that arises is how housing can be provided rapidly and at prices that people can afford.

The one mechanism—this has already been discussed—which I believe can be created and can make a contribution, is a housing utility company. These utility companies are used on a very large scale overseas and they are encouraged by the State. For example, we find that in Holland, 820 of these companies are actively engaged in the provision of housing. I believe that in South Africa only four of these utility companies are active at present, and all of them are operating out of the Western Cape. When one considers the contributions of these companies, in the Western Cape in particular, one wonders why we have not made use of this mechanism throughout the Republic of South Africa.

How can such a utility company provide houses more rapidly and cheaply than the ordinary builder in the private sector or a local authority? In my opinion such a company can do so, firstly, because it is not a profit-seeking organization, and because, in terms of the Income Tax Act of 1963, it is exempted from paying tax. These companies operate as private companies and are exclusively concerned with the provision of housing. Therefore they have less red tape than in the case of a local authority, for example, which has to concern itself with many other matters at the same time.

We are living in an era of specialization. We have many highly qualified businessmen and-women who are prepared to assist such a company because they are eager to serve their communities. Directors of such a company are appointed on the basis of their specialized knowledge in a certain field, without expecting any compensation from the company concerned.

Such a company regards the building of a house as a social service and not as a speculative undertaking, as is usually the case in the private sector. What is very important is the fact that the entire community is involved in such an undertaking. The city council is involved as regards the provision of land and services. The expertise of the community is also utilized. Financial support is provided and a pre-emptive right is also included in the eventual purchaser’s contract of sale, in order to prevent speculation.

In a previous debate I discussed the group of salary earners who earned between R700 and R1 200 per month, those who had no hope of obtaining a house on the open market. I believe that the housing utility company could help such people, particularly if the land in question could be obtained at reasonable prices, or even as donations. With the aid of the local authorities and the private sector, these companies could fill a tremendous gap. As the hon. the Minister may be aware, such a company has now been established in Port Elizabeth. The steering committee of this company is made up of people with know-how, and building societies and other financial institutions have also been involved, as have employers. These are people who are imbued with the spirit of doing something for the community. This steering committee has every hope that with the aid of local authorities, building societies and financial institutions they will be able to promote, and give a tremendous boost to the provision of housing, particularly in this area of our country.

The only problem I foresee in regard to the founding of such a company, is not the acquisition of financial support wherewith to tackle the project physically, but the establishment of the administrative basis of the company, e.g. offices, officials, etc. Financial institutions are not inclined to make money available for this purpose, but they will do so for the physical construction of the buildings themselves.

I know that we may not discuss funds with the hon. the Minister. I do wonder, however, whether the hon. the Minister does not want to consider making amounts of money available to these people. I do not believe that they will be large amounts of money. However, it is money needed to get the administrative side of the work off the ground. After that the hon. the Minister can capitalize the interest and when these people sell their first houses, they can repay the money provided to them. I believe that if such a company is tackled in the right way and community involvement can be obtained, this kind of company could play a major role in the provision of housing in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it will be very interesting to continue the discussion on housing, particularly in the way it has been conducted by the hon. member for Algoa. I do believe, however, that there are other matters which also affect this department and should also be discussed. I should like therefore, to discuss State auxiliary services, land affairs, deeds and building services. Before I deal with that, however, I should like to refer to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in connection with the abolition of rent control. It is their wish. I should also like to refer to the report of the Fouché Commission on housing matters. As we all know, rent control was abolished on 30 June 1966. In this connection the report states as follows—

The question one must therefore ask is: Why was there so much building after rent control had been abolished? Yet, the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti say that there will be no building until rent control is abolished.

You misunderstood me completely!

Can the NRP justify their wishing to abolish rent control on those grounds?

Rent control is not protecting the public now.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal in particular with two matters. It is true that the Department of Community Development controls vast sums of money in the National Housing Fund and therefore plays an important role in providing housing and in alleviating the housing problem in South Africa. Part 3 of the Community Development Vote indicates that out of a total of R887 million, no less than 83,5% of this budget or R740 million is allocated to State Auxiliary Services, Land Affairs and Deeds and Building Services. Of the total of some R15,5 billion that is to be voted by this House, this stepchild of the Department of Community Development has been allocated about 5%, which indicates how important it is. However, the time allocated to these two Directorates is minimal and it is therefore impossible to deal with these two departments in detail. For this reason I wish to select only one or two aspects and particularly those one does not hear so much about.

In the first instance I should like to deal with the Government Printing Works. By law, this section functions on a trading account whereby income that has been obtained from the supply of goods is utilized to defray expenses. Hon. members of this House could not operate were it not for the Government Printer. For example, the printing work done during the 1981 general election amounted to R2 700 per elected member of this House. The Clerk of the Papers of this House informs me that during 1981 members of this House were provided with 375 reports which are required by law to be tabled in this House. The variety of these reports is astonishing because they cover all the departments, various boards, corporations, administration boards and commissions. In addition, there are all the reports of the Auditor-General on Public Accounts and on the accounts of the Post Office, the Railway Administration and many other bodies. There are also the various White Papers on Bills of which we had 22 last year. There are also the reports on the various water schemes and last year we had 14 of those. There are also the reports that are required to be presented in terms of legislation such as those in respect of legal aid, riotous assemblies and internal security. Furthermore there are all the proclamations and Government notices that are issued. Finally, I believe that each member received some 99 Bills last year while every day on his desk and in his office he finds the Order Paper, the Question Paper and the Minutes of the previous day’s proceedings. In addition to all this, the Government Printer publishes maps and books and other publications for the public which are quite phenomenal. I want to say, therefore, that this unsung hero, the Government Printer, deserves the congratulations of this House in respect of the work he does to keep the government of this country going. There are two offices of the Government Printer, in Pretoria and Cape Town, and I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to investigate the possibility of the Government Printer establishing a further branch office in Johannseburg to serve the Witwatersrand.

I want now to deal with the question of Building Services which was formerly the Department of Public Works. The wide range of buildings for the various departments constitutes a phenomenal development in that it covers dwellings, clinics, hospitals, schools, universities, corner shops, civic centres and even new cities as well as Government buildings. In this connection I should like to put one or two questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some details in regard to what is entailed in the accommodation for riot squads and the Security Police in Soweto and when it will be completed. I should also like to ask him whether provision has been made for the new Police College for advanced study near Pretoria.

I also want to direct my attention to the hon. member for Umbilo who spoke about the erection of Addington Hospital while he was a member of the Provincial Council of Natal. He said that the expenditure on public buildings should be reduced and that more money should be made available for housing. I should just like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the figures for building services in Durban contained in the memorandum by the hon. the Minister setting out particulars of the building programme for 1982-’83. Police headquarters in Durban account for R9,7 million; the training college for Indians, R1,6 million; the new Westville Prison, R80 million; Coloured schools, R4,3 million; the University of Durban-Westville, R35 million; Indian schools, R25 million; a health laboratory, R1,4 million; and Louis Botha Airport, R16 million. While I admit that housing is a priority, many other buildings are as well, and particularly those for Durban. Perhaps the hon. member for Umbilo will tell us whether he would rather have those buildings than additional housing.

I did not ask for them.

On the other hand, one may criticize the provision of five residences for chairmen of committees of the President’s Council costing R1,25 million.

Another question I should like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister is how allocations of building plans made to young architects, particularly those starting out who require some of this work desperately in view of the recession in the building industry. Perhaps he will give us some information in this regard.

We were taken on a very interesting trip by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. One of the places we visited was the No. 2 Military Hospital at Wynberg. The sinking of the President Kruger highlighted the absence of a helipad at this particular hospital. We were all impressed with the internal services of the hospital. The purpose of the hospital, however, is to help our servicemen, particularly if they are injured or wounded in any respect. I believe, despite the fact that I received a reply from the hon. the Minister of Defence that he thought that the football field which is about 500 metres away was suitable, that a helipad is urgently required for the landing of helicopters at the No. 2 Military Hospital.

There is another question I should like to ask the hon. Minister: Can he tell the Committee how matters are proceeding with the extension so urgently required by the University of the Witwatersrand? I want to know because this is getting to be a burning matter.

In conclusion I should like to deal with the question of the problem areas of the department. I start off particularly with the question of rising building costs. In the department’s report I read—

I find it very difficult in a free-enterprise society to read in a Government publication that the taking of profit is something one is not allowed to do. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain in some detail why it is said in the report of his department that profit taking was responsible for this increase. Surely, a builder is entitled to make some profit?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, stemming from reports tabled and so on. I do not want to elaborate on what he said, since I wish to discuss a matter of more local interest.

After 25 January 1981 there was virtually nothing left of a certain town, because it was more or less buried under mud, rubble and sand. Out of this chaos new hope had to be created for the inhabitants, and a new town had to come into being. I wish to convey my thanks today to all the departments which have co-operated in this regard. The Department of Health and Welfare voted more than R3 million for immediate accommodation, because virtually no accommodation or furniture was left. Temporary accommodation and articles such as stoves, refrigerators and furniture had to be provided.

Nothing was left of community life. The church, the school and the shops came to a standstill. Where there were once beautiful lands and houses along the Buffels River with its leafy banks in the arid North-West, only sand remained. When the west wind blew, it picked up that sand, as we see happening along the sea-shore, and no window or door could keep the dust out. It may sometimes seem as if the people in Laingsburg grumbled and complained, but one must have understanding and sympathy for people living under such difficult circumstances.

I said that a town had been buried, and out of this chaos planning and a new life had to be created. The Department of Community Development played an enormous role in this regard, together with other departments. As I have already said, there was the assistance of the Department of Health and Welfare. The Cape Provincial Administration and other departments also provided assistance. However, the Department of Community Development did the work there.

In the first place, a building line had to be determined. A flood-line had to be determined in order to eliminate future damage as far as humanly possible. After this had been done, it was necessary to determine what remained, where new areas could be found. All development in Laingsburg was frozen as far as a new township scheme was concerned. All plots below the building line were expropriated, and rights were also obtained on unutilized plots above the building line. All these properties were jointly surveyed and re-divided into plots. Every owner whose property had been expropriated was then at least able to obtain a new plot of more or less the same value as his expropriated plot.

To begin with, the immediate distress had to be alleviated. I have already referred to the 134 prefabricated units that were constructed and the 23 single-quarter units for the elderly, whose accommodation had also been destroyed. The central services had to be provided. The water supply and sanitation services had been disrupted, and very little by way of streets had been left. In this regard the Department of Community Development, the municipality and local inhabitants carried out joint planning under the chairmanship of Mr. Van der Merwe, who has already received the Salus award for outstanding service. The planning for a new town was carried out with due co-operation. A new expansion in the vicinity of the hospital, which was still unutilized, the industrial area and those parts of the old Laingsburg that could be reclaimed were divided up into approximately 187 plots, and this seems to be sufficient for the immediate future.

It cost R600 000 to remove the debris, mud and flotsam from the town. A new, almost natural bank was constructed on the north side of the Buffels River between the town and the river, using mud removed from the town. At places the mud was as much as four metres deep in the town. Laingsburg is rising again. A traveller visiting Laingsburg will see a beautiful, clean church hall; he will see new buildings being built, but he will still find temporary accommodation.

We sincerely appreciate the amount voted by the Department of Health and Welfare and the contributions of R4 million by the Government to the National Housing Fund and to the Development Fund for the construction of new dwelling units and a business centre, and towards the cost of the removal of mud, as well as engineering services. A tender of more than R1,8 million has already been accepted for engineering services. New streets and drainage have had to be constructed in the town.

I want to single out certain officials of the department for their contribution. One cannot of course mention everyone, but a name that must be mentioned is that of the retired Director-General, Mr. Louis Fouché, and Mr. McEnery. The latter has now been appointed Deputy Director-General, and I congratulate him on his appointment. Other officials whose names may be mentioned are Mr. Fourie and Mr. De Lange. These officials had to rectify a very difficult situation under extremely difficult circumstances. I think these people deserve praise and gratitude for the way in which they dealt with the matter, together with the Ministers concerned.

I believe that Laingsburg will again become the jewel of the North West, with a new business centre, new buildings and all the services that go with them. I am convinced that in the years ahead Laingsburg will stand as a momument to the work of the Department of Community Development.

When a disaster such as this hits a town, it is humanly impossible to satisfy everyone. However, I hope, trust and believe that the majority of inhabitants of Laingsburg will in deed be satisfied and also very grateful after everything has been done. I have already referred to the difficult circumstances that prevail there in the heat of summer and the cold of winter. They are difficult circumstances, because these people were used to a garden, while now they have to sit in a prefabricated house and may not even establish a temporary garden for themselves. Such conditions are frustrating and demoralizing. As the project progresses, however, one can see that the inhabitants are gaining new courage, new expectations and new hope. I trust, therefore, that Laingsburg will rise again as a very happy community in the North West. I herewith convey my thanks to all the departments and officials who have co-operated so effectively and assisted in getting Laingsburg back on its feet. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Beaufort West made an excellent contribution on a matter which deeply affected all of us, namely Laingsburg. I think the hon. member acquitted himself extremely well of his task this afternoon.

In the first place I want to congratulate the Horticultural Division of the Department of Community Development on the work they are doing. The gardens at the official residences of our hon. Ministers, other official residences and Government buildings are in excellent condition. It is a delight to see them. I should like to single out the garden at the Union Buildings as one of the sights worth seeing in our country. The garden at the Presidency in Pretoria attests to great expertise. If I may make one request I want to ask if it would not be possible to open the gardens of the Presidency more often so that the public can see and enjoy what is being done there. I know that there are security problems and so forth, but I feel that one day a year is quite inadequate.

This afternoon I should also like to say a few words about the parks of Pretoria. I know this subject has been discussed fairly often during the past few years but I want to approach it from an entirely different angle. Parks in cities, suburbs and towns are established because of demands made on town developers by the Transvaal Ordinance on Town Planning and Towns. This determines what open spaces must be provided and once the spaces are there the local authorities develop them further. There are innumerable parks in Pretoria, a few in the city centre and many more in the suburbs. The question now arises how these parks are being utilized. Because I know the circumstances in Pretoria and because I also have an expert study, undertaken by a town planner, at my disposal it is interesting to note that of all the parks in Pretoria only three parks are really used. The suburban parks are used very seldom or not at all. They are used mainly in the morning by nannies who take children there to play on the swings in the playground if there are any. They are also used by a few mothers and children between 10 and 12 in the morning. These are the main times inhabitants use the parks. I am now referring to the suburban parks. This document lists 16 reasons why these suburban parks are not used. I should like to mention a few of them to the hon. members. The first is the climate. In Europe when the sun shines the people all rush outdoors. In South Africa just the opposite happens: When the sun is hot everyone remains indoors. Motor-car-ownership also plays a tremendous role. Because so many South Africans own motorcars people drive out of the city and they do not visit the parks. Because of this people seek a change of environment. I can just point out to hon. members that in the constituency of the hon. member for Sunnyside there is a park, Jubilee Park, where the person who compiled the report asked a woman who was sitting there with her child what she liked about the park. She said there was nothing she liked about the park. She would not have been in that park with her child if they had had a motor-car so that she could ride out of the city. In the suburban parks there is nothing for adults or children to do. There are only notices telling them what not to do.

Another factor is that both parents work. The children have so much to do that they do not have time to use the parks and the facilities supplied or not supplied there. Among South Africans in particular, contrary to what we think, there is a lack of interest in plants. Our people are really not interested in the trees and plants of our country.

Another interesting aspect is the language group to which the people belong. What is interesting is that of the residents of our country the Afrikaans-speaking people, for example, in a city like Pretoria, are the people who make the least use of parks. The English speaking people are in the second last position, but it is actually the immigrants who make most use of our parks.

In Pretoria there are three parks which are really used. The one in Burgers Park, which is surrounded by a large number of flats. The second is Magnolia Dell which is mainly used over weekends. The third park, the one which is really used, is the Fountains. [Interjections.] This is the place people travel to by motor car to get away for a while. They go to the Fountains to have a braai, to relax and to play games or stroll about.

This corresponds to what one finds overseas in for example Hyde Park in London, Central Park in New York, Stanley Park in Vancouver and Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. These are large parks with roads running through them. There are a lot of trees and recreational facilities. Orchestras can give performances there; ball games can be played there. Recreational facilities are created for children and adults.

That is why I want to say that even the maintenance costs of our parks—and I am not even referring to the cost of the land—do not justify their existence. That is why I want to ask whether the department cannot have an expert investigation into the matter of parks and open spaces and whether they cannot give our provinces and local authorities proper guidance in this connection.

In consequence of the tremendous problem we are experiencing in and around Church Square in Pretoria, in the very limited time still at my disposal I want to ask whether the department, in co-operation with the Ministry of Transport Affairs, the local authority and the Administration Board, cannot take the lead in creating proper facilities at the new Belle Ombre station north of the city centre of Pretoria, comprising shops, cafés, recreational facilities, open-air and other restaurants, to attract those people for whom no facilities exist on Church Square or elsewhere in the city centre to that area. At the moment there is a tremendous concentration of people on Church Square because it is the only open space in the city centre. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by expressing my appreciation to Mr. Louis Fouché who has now left the service. I had the honour and privilege of knowing him for many years and I know that he went out of his way to serve his country in many ways. I know that Mr. Van Blommestein, who is to be appointed in Mr. Fouché’s place, will do the work just as well, but I hope and trust that, like his predecessor, he will be appreciated by the public. I believe this is a very good appointment and I congratulate Mr. Van Blommestein.

I also appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister saw fit to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the matter of rent. The hon. the Minister will know that I wrote to him about this several months ago and that this matter has worried me for some time. In my letter I also indicated that in my opinion it was a mistake to phase out rent boards. This matter worried me a great deal, and for this reason I welcome the appointment of a Select Committee.

Recently the hon. the Deputy Minister visited my constituency, and we went to look at various sub-economic housing schemes there. I welcomed the visit by the hon. the Deputy Minister he too, will attest to the gratitude of people who would not have had a roof over their heads had it not been for those schemes. I realize that at the moment there is a shortage of money, and there can probably not be greater unanimity in this House than there is on this important question. I do not know where the necessary funds are to come from, because after all, one can only milk a cow until it is dry, but if at all possible I would appreciate it if more funds could be voted for sub-economic housing because this is a matter of the utmost importance.

I also want to ask that until such time as the Select Committee has completed its work, rent boards should not be phased out more quickly, because the Select Committee may recommend that these boards be re-established. I can tell this House of tragic cases that have occurred since rent boards were phased out, and this reminds me of a prophetic speech made by the hon. member for Tygervallei in this House in 1980. On that occasion he raised serious objections to the phasing out of rent boards and pointed out the dangers inherent in doing so, how people abuse their functions and how, at the expense of others, they lay heavy burdens on lessees. These prophetic words by that hon. member have been confirmed within a period of two years. We cannot afford to let this period last any longer. That is why I ask that the Select Committee commence its activities as soon as possible.

When one has a problem, one thinks of ways of solving that problem, and certain ways of expediting matters. However, one cannot do anything without money. At this point I should like to mention something I feel sure the hon. the Minister has already thought of. The hon. member for Algoa also referred to this, and I am grateful that he did so. I refer to the prefabrication of houses. For many years there was a stigma attached to prefabricated houses, perhaps justifiably, since the prefabricated houses of the past were not very well made. Nowadays, however, it is a completely different story.

I can, for example, refer to a firm in my constituency which was responsible for the manufacture of the Blue Train. This firm has a section where prefabricated houses are built, and the houses they build need not take a back seat to prefabricated houses built anywhere else in the world. A firm responsible for the manufacture of the Blue Train, which need not take a back seat to any other train in the world, can surely also build prefabricated houses which need not take a back seat to any other prefabricated houses in the world. When the hon. the Deputy Minister visited that specific town in my constituency, he saw one of those houses being built. He will agree with me that it was a gem. That house has since been occupied, the people living there are perfectly happy. The city council concerned only had three of those houses erected to hear people’s comments, because it is certainly a fact that many of our people are extremely prejudiced against them. We shall have to get away from that prejudice. Because there are so many people in difficulties, while such attractive prefabricated houses can be built, we must simply get away from what I am tempted to call our snobbishness. We must get away from the idea that a house must only be built according to the tried and trusted methods.

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

No, Sir. I only have a few minutes at my disposal.

It is a very fair question.

No. I only have a few minutes at my disposal. [Interjections.] A good prefabricated house, as neat as the houses built by that firm, is most attractive. I myself should not mind living in a house like that. If I did not have a roof over my head, I should regard it as a privilege to live in a house like that. We must consider such possibilities, and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will also give this serious consideration. The terms of reference of the Select Committee could perhaps be extended to include an investigation of the need for housing in our country. Of course we know that it is not only Whites who are experiencing this problem, but all population groups in the country. There is an acute housing shortage. The problem is probably more serious than ever before. I therefore want to make an earnest appeal to the Government, the Provincial Councils and the city councils. We must get away from the old building regulations which in many cases are out of date. Every day there are new things on the market, new methods that simplify construction work. We know that recently tremendous improvements have been made, but matters can be facilitated if we standardize in this field as soon as possible. I am firmly convinced that this shortage exists not only in my constituency, but throughout South Africa. Less well-off Whites in flats are grateful that they still have those flats. There are many older people, too, who are afraid to complain because they may be evicted from the flats they are living in, because one can always find a stick if one wants to beat a dog. Those people are having a hard time of it. We know that they cannot always get into an old-age home, because there are extremely long waiting-lists. Every day people approach one and ask if one cannot help them.

I also believe that sub-economic housing must be provided as a matter of urgency. This cannot be over-emphasized. Because I know that this entire House probably feels exactly the same as I do—I have not heard a single false note in this connection—I am convinced that on this occasion we all want to take the bull by the horns and that we shall involve the less privileged people in our country who are crying out to us for help as soon as is humanly possible. In this connection one also thinks of private initiative. We know that the private sector is interested in making a profit. It cannot be otherwise. That is how things are. However, we must also encourage them to concentrate on prefabricated houses if at all possible. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, all the bulls and cows the hon. member for Nigel was referring to, almost made me think that I was taking part in the wrong debate. In a more serious vein, I wish to thank him for his constructive approach in this debate.

But he said nothing about bulls.

He said that the cow was dry and that we should take the bull by the horns. [Interjections.] The matter of rent control which the hon. member for Nigel referred to, is a particularly important and sensitive matter which I believe should be given very thorough attention. The hon. member also mentioned a dire housing shortage. This afternoon I, too, should like to raise a matter in this connection.

† A house forms the centre of family life, providing the family with the sense of belonging and security which is so essential in this age of urbanization for orderly and meaningful co-existence. Adequate and proper housing for every section of the community, irrespective of its economic capability, is therefore an imperative for a stable society. In a society structured as ours is, the primary responsibility to provide housing lies with the individual himself, where he is able to do so. The State’s task in this instance is limited to providing the necessary infrastructure and environment which will make it possible for him to do so, according to his needs and means.

Where, however, the individual is incapable of providing housing for himself and his family, it becomes the responsibility of the community as a whole to assist him in obtaining satsifactory housing. In bearing most of this responsibility on behalf of the community, the State and specifically the Department of Community Development not only tends to the well-being of the individual assisted, but also in fact furthers the interests of society as a whole.

*It is against the background of the necessity for proper housing that I should like to refer to a few local problems, more specifically to the critical housing problems in respect of the Coloured and Indian communities in East London. The hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department are aware of these problems and I realize that they consider a solution to be one of their highest priorities. The hon. the Deputy Minister agreed to visit East London at my request, and in co-operation with the East London City Council, comprehensive planning for extensive schemes which will resolve this problem already exists. Most of these schemes have been completed and are simply awaiting implementation. Due to the lack of funds voted, the indications are, however, that the department will not be in a position to proceed with any of these essential schemes this year. However, the position is so critical, as I will indicate presently, that the matter simply may not and cannot be left at that.

As far as the Coloured community is concerned, they have to be provided with housing in extensions to the existing residential area of Buffalo Flats. A scheme to construct 1 830 houses at a present estimated cost of R37 million, is ready to go on tender. As a result of a lack of funds, it seems, however, that this scheme as a whole will have to be held back. Meanwhile, the waiting list for this housing already included 1 603 families on 1 February this year, and it is still growing by approximately 30 families per month. To this must be added a further 498 families, who are at the moment living next to, and in some cases, in the Black residential area of Duncan Village itself. The conditions in which these people have to live, and, in fact, in which a large number of the inhabitants of Duncan Village itself have to live—an area with an estimated population of 80 000, all of whom have to be resettled in Mdantsane—are, without exaggerating in any way, really the worst imaginable. The resettlement of Duncan Village as such is in itself creating tremendous problems, which have, in fact, also been discussed with the Deputy Minister concerned and his department. There are practically no services or roads. There is large-scale over-population in the most unhygienic circumstances, so much so that the outbreak of serious diseases has become a daily possibility. Crime and social disorders are a daily reality there. This area with all its undesirable elements, is situated next to—and in fact, even constitutes a part of—the new Indian residential area Braelynn Heights. All the available houses in this Indian residential area are already occupied. Every available plot for self-building has already been allocated, and only 81 housing units are being built at the moment. However, the waiting list for this housing already constitutes 286 families, and is growing every month. A further 150 families who are at present still living in the North End area still have to be included. The conditions in the North End area were, and, in some places, still are such that the area has to be demolished and cleared up virtually in its entirety.

With the exception of the 150 Indian families mentioned, and a few White families, the clearing up and resettlement in the interests of the community as a whole has already been completed by the department. This is something for which we thank the department.

The poor conditions and social problems which accompany this, and which are directly attributable to the lack of housing, particularly in the Coloured area I referred to, have a ripple effect on the community as a whole, and have a demoralizing and destabilizing affect on the community. In certain parts, the overflow into the settled areas is such as to make living conditions not only extremely unpleasant, but also extremely dangerous in certain cases. The lack of community facilities leads to friction between population groups, and is a breeding-ground for agitators, who will always be among us, to incite feelings and abuse the position for their own gain.

How this situation originated, and whether anyone is to blame for it, is, I believe, of no consequence. What is essential, is that a solution be found as soon as possible. Where there is a shortfall in funds, alternative methods of financing must be found. If the National Housing Commission, with the borrowing powers it has now been granted, could, for example, succeed in obtaining funds in this way, I wish to request that part of those funds be set aside for this project as a top priority. As an alternative, perhaps the sale of certain State buildings to the private sector could be investigated to good effect. These buildings could then, when necessary, be leased back to the State, while the profits from these buildings could be immediately available for projects of this nature.

We all realize the difficult position in which the department, and the State as a whole, are finding themselves as a result of the present financial pressure. However, the situation is so critical in East London, that every possibility must be investigated in an effort to assist these people who are trapped against their will in this critical position.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for East London City. He discussed local housing problems, he spoke extremely well and he contributed his share in this regard. All we expect now, is that the hon. the Deputy Minister will assist the hon. member.

I should like to say a few words about the Surveys and Mapping Division. I wish to refer to this very briefly, since it is a very wide subject. I merely wish to tell hon. members that there are really three main functions which fall under this department of Surveys and Mapping. Firstly, there is the Geodetic Surveys Branch. If one does not know what this is, one would perhaps be surprised to hear about it. In reality, it is geared to a survey on a macro scale to survey the entire Republic in order to establish an infrastructure on which other surveys may be based. In this regard, I refer to the white beacons one sees on the tops of hills. Those white beacons are determined very accurately in degrees of longitude, latitude and height. This is very important work which is being done. I should like to give hon. members an idea of the complexity of the matter. If one wishes to perform a calculation of a triangle, on a flat piece of paper for example, one learns how to do this in Std. 7 or Std. 8. When one wishes to calculate of a triangle on a globe, one learns how to do this in one’s first year at university. However, when one performs a calculation on an ellipse which is rotating on its short axis, one encounters an odd phenomenon. One finds that the shortest distance between two points on the ellipse is in the shape of an S. The shortest distance is not a straight line. The shortest distance is a geodesy and is in the shape of an S. I am describing this just to give hon. members an indication of the complexity of this work, and they will understand at a later stage why I am explaining this to them now.

The second important component is the Topographic Surveys Branch. What do these topographic surveys entail? Nowadays, topographic surveys are carried out by means of aerial photography. Aerial photos are taken which are placed in machines. One then obtains a stereoscopic image, and a plan is drawn up. In other words, it is a question of drawing up plans. This is very interesting and it is also very important for the development of a nation. This particular branch therefore plays a tremendously important role in our economic development.

I now come to the third facet of this work and I wish to concentrate on this a while longer. This third facet is the cadastral survey. Cadastral surveys are the surveys which a surveyor carries out for the purposes of establishing a title deed on land; in other words, the rights which a person is going to obtain in respect of land are measured by a surveyor. We call these cadastral surveys. The surveyor is the person who can do all these surveys—geodetic surveys, topographic surveys and the cadastral surveys which are related to a person’s property rights. One obtains one’s title deed and one’s rights are set out in that title deed, but the land in respect of which those rights apply, is on the surveyor’s map which accompanies the title deed. Since I am referring to this branch, I also wish to say what a splendid branch it really is. We read in the department’s report that this branch has been experiencing problems. In paragraph 4.2.1— cadastral surveys—the following is stated—

In paragraph 4.2.2—geodetic and topographical—the following is stated—

I wish to say that these people have been trained efficiently and that they have the right attitude. I also wish to say that we are all aware that to have a title deed registered, one has to be highly qualified. One must at least be an attorney. After one has become an attorney, one writes another examination and becomes a conveyancer. In this regard we therefore have two highly trained professions to issue us with title deeds and rights to our land, but we also have a problem. For example, we read in the newspapers that if one purchases land today and has it subdivided, it takes a long time before one can have that land registered in one’s name. There are tremendous delays in this whole set-up. I wish to refer briefly to those delays. In this regard, I wish to refer to Die Burger of 28 April of this year in which, inter alia, the following is reported—

A plot for which a purchaser was prepared to pay R15 000, now costs more. After nine months, it costs R17 000. A house which is constructed for R30 000, also costs more. In other words, he loses something like R6 500 purely as a result of delays.

If one looks at the report, one notes that maps have been submitted for subdivisions and so on. Approximately 32 748 such maps were submitted in the space of a single year. If each of these people waited for nine months, it requires only a simple calculation to realize that this costs the public R213 million annually. That is astronomical! Something must be done about it.

Where do the delays take place? The delays are caused by the obtaining of the approval necessary for subdivisions. One has to obtain such approval as is pointed out in the report in Die Burger. When application is made for subdivision it first goes to the municipality. From there it goes to the provincial administration, and then to the town council. When all these bodies have given their approval, it is returned via the same route. In this way we are incurring heavy losses.

The problem could lie in one or two areas. It could be with the Surveyor-General, who is experiencing a tremendous shortage of technicians. Note that there is no shortage of surveyors. These people are there. The shortage is in respect of technicians who have to do certain research. They are leaving the Public Service since their salaries are inadequate. Because they do not earn enough, the private sector is losing R213 million annually. Surely this problem could be solved. It is easy to solve; it is merely a question of funds. These people are well trained, and we should remember that they are not leaving the Public Service in order to be worse off outside—on the contrary. Therefore it remains a question of finance.

There is also another area where a problem is being experienced. This problem is in the delay in the approval of applications. It is a delay which one can only rectify if one investigates the procedure which has to be followed in order to obtain the necessary approval.

There is a lot of red tape. In the same article in Die Burger it is stated—

I suggest that this red tape be investigated. There is the Housing Policy Board under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister. Some of the MEC’s from all the provinces also serve on that board. These people should get together and investigate the delays. Why are there such delays? Could the procedure not be revised? Could the standards which have to be met before approval is given, not be revised? R213 million per annum is at stake in this regard. It is therefore important that this be looked at.

I wish to request that those who serve on the Housing Policy Board, take a serious look at this. We are aware that each province is autonomous; this is part of our problem. We must tell these people: Get together, because a great deal of money is at stake here, and the people who are suffering are the public, the voter, the man in the street. If the board has had discussions for a time and an agreement cannot be reached on these matters, the hon. the Minister could well consider establishing a Select Committee of Parliament to investigate this. If, for example, the provinces are unable to make their ordinances uniform, it could become the task of such a Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate the matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I follow on the hon. member for Pretoria West and I should like to say that I could not agree with him more on what he has said.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the Constantia school at Tokai. Just for the record I want to point out that I am informed that sections of the original building dating back to 1900 are still in use. The office block was erected in 1954 and the hostel accommodation plus or minus in 1950. This in itself is nothing extraordinary, but what is extraordinary is that little or no maintenance has taken place over the years, at least nothing on a regular basis. I have personally visited this school and I can vouch for the general appearance and condition of the school in this regard. The buildings are in a shabby condition, and certainly no major renovation has taken place there for many years. What little maintenance has taken place has been done by the pupils with encouragement from the staff, and certainly with no incentive from the department. I may add that this is all being done on a voluntary basis. I believe this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs for a school of this nature with its particular type of problem. For the information of hon. members who do not know about the school, I wish to inform them that it is the only reformatory school for boys in the Republic. It is a school that caters for young people who have made mistakes and who are sent there for corrective training. The age of the pupils vary between 14 years and 21 years and their IQs from 16 to 140 while their educational standard can be anything from Std. 2 to matric. In cases such as these one must also accept that psychologically the prognosis of the pupil for rehabilitation varies from poor to good. However, what is most important to note is that 80% of the pupils that are admitted there have reasonable prognosis for rehabilitation. A problem arises, however, with the remaining 20%. They are the recalcitrants and those with a poor prognosis of success. Those are the boys who, because of their influence, have a detrimental effect on the majority. It is this element that should not be in the school but because of our system and the lack of a so-called junior prison, they have to be accommodated at Constantia. Because of the present state of affairs and because it is the only school of its kind in the country, they have to be accommodated there, and because of that, and because of the age of the school, the teachers cannot differentiate, and when I say differentiate, I mean differentiate in order to obtain the maximum possible success rate for rehabilitation, not only for the pupils themselves, but I believe also as far as the staff are concerned, so that they can have as much success as possible.

When I use the term “differentiate”, I do not mean differentiate in the classroom or during the day at learning. Where the need does come in to differentiate, is in the hostels and sleeping accommodation. This is where problems arise. If our ultimate aim for these young people is rehabilitation, then we must endeavour to ensure that the most modern methods are being used, while the accommodation that is provided must be such as to ensure that that modern method has the best chance of success. The school at present has a maximum capacity of 200 pupils. It has five hostels, and because of the age of the complex the hostels are of necessity very large. This makes it extremely difficult to differentiate, and that has its con-commitant problems and its end-results. If we are to have the success the staff are striving for then the ideal hostels should be in modules of approximately 24, with each pupil, if possible, having his own room, or certainly not more than two pupils per room. In this regard I am merely repeating advice of criminologists, advice which I believe is very pertinent and which I believe should be taken heed of.

The other important factor is the care staff. When I refer to care staff, I mean the hostel parents. I believe the hostel parents should have accommodation attached to each hostel. This is very important. They are dedicated people, and if we are to give them a chance of success with the charges they have, they should have proper accommodation. What I am asking may seem to be extravagant, but it is in reality not so. Let us pause to examine the position. Firstly, I wish to reiterate that it is the only school of its kind for boys in the Republic and therefore it should match up to modern-day standards, to say the least. I accept that planning is in process at the school at the moment, but that planning is only in regard to classrooms; nothing else.

I wish to use this opportunity today to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister to use their influence and instruct the department to reassess this entire complex as a matter of urgency. It is my contention that we should have a conscience about the lack of attention that this school has received from the authorities. I am sure the hon. the Minister will accept that the time has arrived for serious attention to be given to updating this particular school. I fully realize that we have a shortage of funds, but I earnestly implore the hon. the Minister just to do a little juggling. I am sure he can do it for this orphan institution, and I use the word “orphan” for a good reason. History shows that 90% of the children admitted to Constantia are there not because of their own fault, but because of their parent or parents. That is a very important factor to bear in mind.

In closing I should just like to remind hon. members of these words of Robert Browning, words which I believe are very apt in this instance—

There must be Hell, Meantime—

Mr. Chairman, whatever the vices of the hon. member for South Coast might be, he has a virtue that I have always admired and that is that he is not given to being over-loquacious. I was still arranging my notes when he had already completed his speech. The hon. gentleman is brief, precise and to the point. He has made a very eloquent plea for the up-grading of the institution in Tokai which houses 200 youngsters. I am not acquainted with the facts and the hon. member will appreciate that I cannot reply to him off the cuff, but I shall personally look into this matter, and if anything can be done, I shall do it, funds permitting.

I want to suggest that the hon. member at least has a discussion with his benchmate, the hon. member for Umbilo. He castigated us yesterday for our prisons being far too extravagant.

[Inaudible.]

While I am at it, Sir, may I reply to the hon. member for Umbilo right now? I want to say to him that our prison standards are not so extravagant. We have to comply with certain minimum standards of security and hygiene set by the United Nations and the Department of Health and Welfare. Whatever accusations are levelled at us, it should at least not be said by the outside world that we are busy incarcerating people in dark, dirty dungeons. We are not doing that, and we have high standards.

The hon. member accompanied us some time ago when we visited one of these prisons, and it was pointed out to us all that we could build very cheaply because we employ prison labour for it as part of their training. Under Vote 7, the hon. member for Umbilo also referred to the provision of buildings and structures. The capital programme is compiled in close collaboration with the departments concerned, bearing in mind the functions of the various departments. We are therefore merely an agency. With this I reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to say that I think that the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should be noted in the Guinness Book of Records because I do not think there has ever been a speech made in ten minutes in which more questions were posed. I wish I had the opportunity to reply to all of them. However, I shall look into all these matters and give the hon. member a reply.

The hon. member mentioned that we were spending upwards of R700 million on public buildings. That is not the position. We are spending an amount of R333,5 million on the provision of public buildings and structures, and an almost similar amount, i.e. about R330 million, on housing. Yesterday the hon. the Minister announced that an additional amount of R20 million would be made available.

It is still not enough.

Of the total amount some 24% is allocated to defence, 21% to Coloured schools, 12% to schools for Indians, 9% to prisons and 7% to police stations. These are all functional buildings and cannot be rented from the private sector in the way we are renting office accommodation.

*Over the past five years, we have built almost 152 000 houses in this country. If we allowed 10 metres per house, we would have a row of houses extending from the statue of Jan van Riebeeck, all along the national road to Paarl and Worcester, all through the Karoo, past Kimberley, through the lovely grasslands of the Western Transvaal, where you come from, Mr. Chairman, past Johannesburg and Pretoria and halfway to Warmbaths, and that does not even include the houses built by the Department of Transport Affairs, by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and by the Public Corporations, nor the houses built in the national States. If these were added to it, the row of houses would probably extend beyond Beit Bridge. And if one worked out what this Government had built since 1949, allowing 10 metres per house, one would have one long row stretching from the Cape to Cairo and beyond. In spite of this, the hon. member for Sea Point said yesterday: “Our performance is timid, it is unimaginative and it is ineffective.” I ask: Is this timidity? Are 800 000 houses built since 1949 a sign of timidity? Then give me timidity any time. If this long row of houses from the Cape to Cairo is unimaginative, the hon. member for Sea Point has become so blasé that nothing will ever appeal to his imagination again.

The hon. the Minister indicated yesterday that we would not be able to equal this achievement in future. Over the past five years, this department has been responsible for almost 92% of all Black housing outside the national States. Surely we cannot carry on like that. The department has also been responsible for almost 85% of all Coloured housing. That was why the hon. the Minister spoke about a new approach yesterday. That new approach is based mainly on a greater involvement of the individual and of the private sector.

I want to associate myself with the fine speech made by the hon. member for Algoa. We must get away from the idea of a welfare state, as if the state owed every person a house. The hon. member for Vasco said yesterday that we were building too many houses and providing too few sites. Over the past five years, we have been building about 30 000 houses per year. Last year we made 11 000 serviced plots available to local authorities. I believe that we shall find in future that the situation will be more or less reversed and that we shall probably make far more serviced plots available.

† I believe that the most crucial question in the field of housing is the problem of whether people can afford it. Several hon. members have already referred to this aspect. I am indebted to Mr. Selwyn Myers, the general manager of Garden Cities, for some of the thoughts I wish to express in this regard. Over the years, especially after the Second World War, the agrarian pattern of our society started to change to an industrialized one. Thousands of people gravitated from the rural to the urban areas and a housing crisis arose because the wages of those people were too low to permit them to house themselves adequately. I believe that what has been done since the end of the war to accommodate those people actually borders on the miraculous, despite the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point says that it was far too timid. But the 800 000 houses that we have built is not a sign of timidity. We have earned worldwide acclamation for what we have achieved in the field of low-cost housing. [Interjections.]

Today the situation is that there are very few indigent people who are not properly housed, because of mass housing where we have the advantage of economies of scale, Government subsidies and other factors.

The position changes dramatically when we come to the income group between R650 and R1 200. Not the indigent, but these people are today becoming the almost un-housable. The hon. member for Sea Point has pointed out that the accepted international norm is that people do not pay more than 25% of their income on housing, while it is well-high impossible today to erect new housing at rentals of between R160 and R300 per month. I believe, however, that this group is not as big as is generally thought. Mr. Myers estimates that it is not more than about 10% of all White families. Yet their housing nevertheless poses a very serious problem. The goal of the Government is economic home-ownership with all the advantages of dignity, stability, and security it holds out. To say that the Government should subsidize this middle-income group is a far too simplistic and socialistic approach. I believe it can even be counterproductive in the long run. In any event, I am rather wary of over-subsidization. During the current financial year we will be spending upwards of R70 million on subsidies for housing, and with that money we will have built 7 000 units at R10 000 each.

There are certain measures that can be applied, but I unfortunately do not have the time to elaborate on these now. The most important step that can be taken—and I cannot stress this strongly enough—is to insist on more modest housing. It has been proved by these utility companies that very attractive houses can be built on sites of 180 to 450 m2, houses without a second bathroom, a garage and built-in cupboards. These luxuries can be added at a later stage. 48% of our White families consist of three and fewer persons, and I believe that in many cases a house with two bedrooms will initially suffice, while another room can be added later.

I should like to refer to the building societies, but I believe that that has already been adequately dealt with. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti says we must embark on a crash programme, according to the Goldberg plan, and this is presicely what is being done by the utility companies that are being established in the country. I believe that the utility companies will in the future provide housing especially for the middle-income group. Towards the end of last year the hon. the Prime Minister made a very urgent appeal at the Good Hope conference that more of these utility companies should be established. In response to that appeal, one such company has already been established in Durban, namely Com Housing, and I am pleased to see a member of the board of directors here, the hon. member for Umbilo. I was also fortunate to have lunch this afternoon with the general manager of a company in Port Elizabeth that will next month be finally registered under the name of Urban Villages. The hon. member said we must build more of these villages by way of a crash programme. Well, that is precisely what is being done. Because these utility companies do not pay tax, do not have a profit motive and have the advantages of economy of scale they can provide houses at 10% to 20% less than the private sector can. Let me say that I personally am very excited about the prospect of providing more houses through utility companies, and my department will be rendering every possible assistance to this very ambitious programme of the utility companies.

*Another function which this department took over last year is in connection with a contribution to this imaginative regional development plan which the hon. the Prime Minister also announced last year. Some of those functions have been entrusted to this department, and I am referring to the provision of industrial sites as well as houses for the labour force there. I think this is the answer to the problem of the influx to our cities and the squatter conditions caused by this. Only this morning my attention was drawn to a report in Beeld saying “Plakkers ’n euwel in Harare”. Very drastic measures are advocated. It is said that those people should be removed by force. It is said that the “Black Marias” and trucks should be used to take them back to the places they came from. I understand that several squatter camps in Zimbabwe have already been burnt down. However, we have a more humane approach. We create job opportunities for those people in the deconcentration and decentralized areas. This task was entrusted to us last year, and we have embarked upon our first project at Bronkhorstspruit. We have set to work in all earnest, and within this short period of less than a year we have already expropriated 10 000 ha of land. We are spending R9,5 million on infrastructure this year in order to provide serviced industrial sites. We have also begun laying out a Black township for which an amount of R13,2 million has been appropriated. R6 million will be spent this year and 1 378 houses for Black people will be built. We hope to be able to deliver 473 of those houses by the end of the year. Within six weeks we shall be able to deliver some of the first sites. Only a few days ago we heard from the Bronkhorstspruit town clerk that there was very great interest in the sites we were offering.

† The hon. member for Sea Point spoke about housing for senior citizens and then asked for a summit meeting. The hon. member must feel very elated, because some time ago he asked for an inquiry into the Housing Act and yesterday the hon. the Minister rose and promptly announced that it was being done. Yesterday the hon. member asked for a summit meeting to discuss the problem of the aged and, hey presto, here I stand and say that it is indeed being done, though perhaps not quite on the level that the hon. member envisaged. The Deputy Director-General of my department and I will very soon be holding discussions with welfare organizations. We shall be starting with the first of the discussions, but there will be several discussions about the plight of the aged, and not only the plight of the indigent senior citizens, but also that of the middle income group. We have certain suggestions that we want to put to these welfare organizations and discuss with them.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville— since I am talking about the aged—made a fine speech today. [Interjections.] I want to congratulate the hon. member on it. He praised the achievements of this Government in that field. It is estimated that there are 365 000 senior citizens in our country, people over the age of 65 years. Almost half of them are social pensioners. Do you know, Sir, that we have been able to accommodate 8% of the senior citizens in old-age homes subsidized by this department? There is only one country in the world which surpasses this record, namely Holland. It a great achievement. However, it is also a reflection on our children who are not prepared to care for their fathers and mothers. Nonetheless the Government has made an important contribution in this connection. Over the past three years, we have spent almost R60 million on old-age homes for Whites.

The hon. member for Rosettenville spoke about 63 schemes which had already been approved by the National Housing Commission and about 44 homes which were being planned. It is estimated that it is costing us about R40 million to carry out that programme. I do not want to create expectations which cannot be fulfilled, but I am almost sure that we shall be able to spend the greater part of that amount next year. Of course, we are working on several projects.

The hon. member for Heilbron spoke about old-age homes in the rural areas. He said something which was music to my ears. He said that elderly people were flocking to the Heilbron constituency. There are no houses left for retired farmers and they want old-age homes. It so happens that I was discussing this with one of the senior officials of the department only this morning. We must give very high priority to the provision of old-age homes in the rural areas. There is so much one could say about this, but time is marching on.

I am very grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the Government Printer. We have grown so used to the Government Printer. Every day we depend on the Government Printer for all these documents. The staff of the Government Printer perform a very great task. Last year the Government Printer, Mr. Jannie De Beer, retired after a term of office of 11 years as Government Printer—he began there as an apprentice as far back as 1939 and went right to the top. I just want to refer to one achievement. Over the past eight years, the establishment has decreased by 200, but the production of the Government Printer has increased by 20%.

Hear, hear!

This is a great achievement. We should very much like to welcome Mr. Von Pletzen, his successor, to his new position.

If I have half a minute left, I just want to refer to our surveying office and the problems that are being experienced there. The hon. member for Pretoria West referred to these. Serious problems are being experienced. There is a staff shortage of 40% in the Surveyor-General’s office in the Cape Province. The position in other parts of the country is more or less the same. In spite of this, there was a higher production in 1981 than in 1980— I have the statistics, but I am not going to quote them. I want to say to the hon. member that there are several measures which we are taking to improve the position. The hon. member spoke about red tape. We have streamlined matters. The procedures have been greatly improved. We have appealed to our surveyors to be more accurate. A lot of time is wasted as a result of inaccuracy. We are recruiting students to come and work for us during holidays. We have also asked the Commission for Administration to investigate certain serious staff problems we are experiencing there. I agree with him that we should convey our thanks to that group of officials, 16 and to the 16 000 in the rest of the department. There are problems everywhere, but they are dedicated and motivated people who are performing a great task.

Mr. Chairman, it is a special privilege for me to follow the hon. the Deputy Minister, whose speech today attested to his insight into the activities of his department and to the particularly positive approach of the Government with regard to the problems which affect our population so intimately and profoundly.

At the very outset, I wish to point out that if there is one department which deserves praise for the particularly meaningful and tangible way in which it strives to improve the living conditions and the quality of life of many thousands of South Africans, it is the Department of Community Development. I wish to confine myself today to one aspect of the activities of this department. With regard to the Cape metropolitan area, and with special reference to my constituency, I wish to refer to the clearing up of squatter camps and the resettlement of those involved. When one pages through the annual report of the department and scrutinizes the statistics available with regard to the local authorities in this vicinity, it soon becomes apparent that the Department of Community Development is doing phenomenal work in this regard.

In the area of the Cape Divisional Council alone. 10 600 squatter shanties have been demolished during the past seven years. One can therefore assume that at least the same number of families has been resettled in proper housing. The figures in respect of other local authorities are equally impressive. The figure in respect of the Cape metropolitan area indicates that a total of more than 18 600 squatter shanties have already been cleared up. The number of squatter shanties remaining which still have to be cleared up, is approximately 20% of the original number. This means that within a period of only a few years, 80% of the squatter problem has been solved in the greater metropolitan area of Cape Town. I wish to assert that this is an achievement of which every government could rightly be proud, and that it is also a testimonial to the particularly positive approach of the Government with regard to this matter. However, I wish to add that the success we have achieved in this regard goes hand in hand with two other policies of the Government. One of these is influx control, and the other is the fact that the Western Cape is a preference area for Brown workers.

People who are forced out of their jobs, and who do not have an income, are people who cannot provide proper housing for themselves. Accordingly I believe that the Brown population of the Western Cape has a great deal for which to thank the Government in this case.

Now the end of the process of clearing up and resettle here in the Western Cape is in sight, and in this regard I believe that the clearing up and resettlement programme must now enter a new phase. If I could just briefly refer to the annual report. I wish to focus attention on page 18. We note that in Durban there are still problems with increasing squatting, in spite of very strict measures which are adopted to control this matter. That is why I maintain that we should not only forbid people to squat, that we should not only institute measures to control squatting, but that we should extend the control measures somewhat with the object of making squatting an uneconomical proposition. It should be done in such a way that squatting, which at present is a cheap alternative to expensive accommodation, will become a more expensive alternative in future. It should become an unattractive economic proposition. We must do this because we must educate people not to consider squatting as a cheap alternative. We also have to do this because we have to educate people to realize that all the responsibility for accommodation cannot be placed on the shoulders of the State. Furthermore, we should do this because squatting as a social evil must be stamped out, since squatting creates a fertile breeding-ground for every kind of crime and other social evils.

I believe that people who grow up in a squatting environment are inclined to become economic squatters at a later stage. We should help people to help themselves, not only by making home ownership easy and more attractive, but also by making the cheap alternative more expensive. In this regard, I wish to refer to a newspaper report which was published in Cape Town a while ago. According to this report, squatters in Israel are fined if they continue squatting. The fines imposed, are relatively harsh. In the final instance in this regard, I point out that squatting mars the image of South Africa and that it is used by irresponsible elements to show how badly the Government treats a certain section of our population. This is one side of the matter.

The other side is that there are also irresponsible and unscrupulous landowners who exploit these people. They allow people to squat on their property at a price. In my constituency, the squatters are charged anything from R5 to R15 per hut per week. This is a very welcome source of revenue for such landowners, but the Treasury never receives its rightful share, since most squatters pay cash for the right to squat.

While I am proposing today that an additional measure be adopted to control squatting, I also regard it as a measure to combat exploitation and a measure whereby the State is permitted to have its rightful share of this income. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider imposing a levy of at least R10 per month per squatter shanty on the owner of the land on which they are squatting. I believe that we could collect a considerable amount of money in this way, and I believe we could use it to help alleviate the housing problem.

Landowners who encourage squatting are impeding the clearing up and resettlement programme, and they are doing so at the expense of the community at large and the taxpayer.

As far as my constituency is concerned, I briefly refer to the agricultural area on the Cape Flats, where more than 80% of the vegetables of Greater Cape Town are produced. It is true that the greatest concentration of squatters is found in the Cape Divisional Council area precisely in the agricultural area of Philippi. People who live outside the area, but who own land there which is not farmed, allow people to squat there at a price. This squatting is making farming more and more difficult, and in some cases farmers have sacrificed very productive land, since the evils which accompany squatting make it impossible for them to farm there. The theft of equipment and products is the order of the day. The smuggling of liquor, assault and sabotage occur continually. In cases where the farmers were prepared to take steps against squatters on their own initiative, the following day they found an expensive water pump, and in one case a tractor too, in a well.

There are additional factors. The health authorities of the Cape Divisional Council are particularly concerned about the outbreak of dangerous diseases such as cholera, because the water which the farmers use for irrigation is surface water extracted from the ground. If an outbreak of cholera were to occur on the Cape Flats, there would be chaos at the municipal market at Epping and, of course, in the cooking-pots of the housewives of Cape Town.

In 1974, three hon. Ministers visited my constituency with the object of viewing squatter conditions there. Resulting from that visit there was a considerable increase in the rate of clearing up and resettlement of squatters. All I ask today, is that since we have taken the initiative, and since the accelerated programme has been instituted there, the hon. the Minister place the clearing of squatters from the Cape Flats agricultural area at the top of his list of priorities, where it belongs.

Mr. Chairman, I only have one minute at my disposal and accordingly there is just one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. During the past few days, the shortage of adequate housing in South Africa has been referred to with much concern. This housing dilemma is undoubtedly more critical in Pretoria than anywhere else in the country. It seems as though the private sector cannot keep up in providing the housing needs—I refer here specifically to White housing. The demand for housing in Pretoria remains high and I believe that it will remain so in future. This is resulting in an impossibly high increase in the price of houses. The middle and lower-income groups, as well as the young people, can no longer afford to purchase a house in Pretoria. In this regard I wish to refer in particular to the public servant who must of necessity settle in Pretoria. At present it is very difficult for him to purchase a house at the present prices. The public servant sees Pretoria as a bugbear if he is transferred there, and he prefers to seek a post in another centre, since he cannot afford a house in Pretoria. It was therefore with a great deal of shock that we heard that building operations on the so-called Kruger Flats Project, which was to be constructed next to Schubart Park, had been suspended after the excavations were almost complete. I wish to ask the Minister whether this project could not be reviewed and, if possible, whether it could not be resumed. The longer we wait to complete this project, the more expensive and impossible it is going to become. I believe the hon. the Minister and the department will consider this project with due respect, and that is why I feel at liberty to address this request to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Deputy Minister has to leave I ask the hon. the Minister to convey one or two of my comments to him. The hon. the Deputy Minister was in such a placatory and friendly mood that it is difficult to take issue with him. As he mentioned, the hon. the Minister has agreed to give us the inquiry for which we asked into the Rent Control Act. He is now going to have a summit conference. I must convey to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we like hearing him and we find that he is a brilliant preaching-type of orator. He must, however, just realize when he goes to these conferences, that beautiful dreams are not bricks and that wonderful words are not money. He will actually have to talk about bricks and mortar and money rather than the grand visions of a visionary preacher. I do not say that unkindly. Secondly, the hon. the Deputy Minister tended to say that the problem of the virtually un-housable was a relatively small problem and that it affected only 10% of the White population. But ten per cent of the White population is 450 000 people. It is as many Whites as there are in Cape Town, in Durban and in Pretoria.

I did not belittle the problem.

All I want to say is that when the hon. the Deputy Minister goes into this summit conference, he should not minimize the problem but see it in its full scope. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to see it in these terms and not to play down the size problem.

I want now to deal with one or two matters raised by the hon. the Minister. He announced certain items which would no longer be financed out of national housing funds in order to bring about savings of between R2 500 and R3 000 per house. We have no objection to this concept; in fact, we have argued in favour of a paring down of services wherever possible. We ask the hon. the Minister to take into account that very often in township planning and in house-building it is the architectural and design way in which the township is handled which can determine whether the savings are justified or not. One can cut out fences and reduce road works, but it is how one combines the housing units that matters. There is the question of common walls between gardens, the question of common parking areas, common open space gardens as opposed to private gardens, I accept that the experts of the Department of Community Development should be used. The annual report of the department indicates that this is the only department that has any knowledge of this matter. But that is not the case. One should go to the experts, for example to Mr. Selwyn Myers, a friend of mine. He is a man who I think can teach the department quite a bit. One should get the experts on planning to see how one can by design maximize the money which is available. It is not merely a question of pruning. It is how one uses the money that is left over.

On the vexed question of raising the income limits for assisted housing, the hon. the Minister said if we raised it beyond R650 we would expand the number of people who would be entitled to assistance as an obligation from the State. I want to put it in the converse way. The figure of R650 was set in September 1980. Since then, if you relate that to the cost of living it should go up by 25%, and if you relate it to the cost of building, it should go up by just on 50%. The figure today is of the order of between 30% and 50% lower than it was in real terms in September 1980. The effects of pegging it is that people are in fact being phased out of assisted housing, not because of an edict of the Government but because inflation is helping the Minister to drive these people out onto the street. More people, people who the Minister two years ago said are entitled to assistance because of their income, are now being denied assistance because their incomes have increased in money terms although in real terms it is still only R650. Secondly, many of them are losing protection. Many of them occupied rent controlled premises of the 1949 to 1966 category. I know of a number of widows who have come to me. They said: “Mr. Eglin, we are in terrible trouble. We receive municipal pensions and these are increasing at a rate of 5%, 7% and 8% per annum. We just became protected tenants under the R350 margin two years ago, but we are terrified now because our municipal pension has been increased by 8% and the effect of that will be that we automatically lose the protection we have enjoyed.” The intention was that they should enjoy protection. Now suddenly, because the Minister is pegging the income level while pensions are rising marginally, a number of these elderly people are facing eviction through no fault of their own and through no direct intent on the part of the Minister. Finally, the hon. the Minister knows that a city council like that of Cape Town, which has been very co-operative in the building of houses, has now stopped calling for tenders for housing on the basis of a R650 formula. They say they cannot build a house and then let it to a person at a rental which goes with an income of R650. So they have scrapped schemes and are not going to start any new schemes because they cannot build houses with the money available and then let it to people with an income of only R650. They have actually stopped it and people are now being denied access to new homes.

In the few minutes left, I want to come back to another issue, i.e. the Group Areas Act. It is correct that the Minister within the framework of the rigid, racist concept of group areas is trying to tip the scales of justice a little bit more towards the Coloured people after about 35 years. He mentioned Maitland Garden Village, Kalk Bay and Heldersig. We want to know from him whether the boards have finished their inquiries and whether he has already declared these areas Coloured areas. Secondly, I asked him a question in relation to Harfield Village. There is a portion of Harfield Village in which there are also a significant number of Coloured people. In reply to the question he said: “Representations have been made and weight has been given to the various representations.” I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what decision he has made in respect of Harfield Village. Thirdly, coming to the Group Areas Act, the Minister knows that our attitude is that the racial provisions of that Act should be scrapped entirely. He also knows that he has appointed a committee under Judge Strydom to look at the functioning of the Group Areas Act and at amendments which can be made to it. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that, even within the racist framework of the Group Areas Act, there are a number of things which common sense dictates should be done. The first thing that should be done is that all trading in the central business districts of the cities of South Africa should be thrown open to everybody. There cannot be any argument about that, even within the framework of the Government’s racist concept. Secondly, all industrial areas should be thrown open to everybody. Thirdly—and it has to happen in any case if one day Coloureds and Indians are going to run local authorities—all municipal facilities should be under the control of local authorities. The Government should abdicate trying to tell local authorities how they should regulate their own municipal facilities. When there is a Coloured municipality in Mitchell’s Plain one day the hon. the Minister should not be able to tell them that they should apply apartheid in their local town hall. Wherever there are municipal facilities under the control of that level of government, we believe that the responsibility should be with the local authority concerned and not the responsibility of the central Government. We are saying that within the framework of a racist conoept—and yours is a racist concept—at least there can be an improvement. Even within the framework of a racist concept the Government should not dictate to a local authority.

The next matter I wish to refer to is restaurants. The hon. the Minister is granting permits and refusing permits. But, surely, restaurants are premises at which people are licensed to sell food and, surely, that licence should be the factor that regulates behaviour? The hon. the Minister should get res-tauranteurs and other people off his back. Let him say that if there is a restaurant which operates by way of a licence that is automatically available, then the restauranteur should decide.

Hear, hear!

I am saying that this is within the framework of the racist concept that is subscribed to by the NRP and the NP. I am trying to improve racism to the extent that one can.

We are supporting you for once.

We want to say that all places that are licensed for public entertainment, like cinematograph entertainment, should be open. Already all sports areas are open. So there may be 40 000 people of mixed races at Newlands the one day, while the next day the hon. the Minister may say that those same people cannot attend the cinema across the road. Most cinemas are licensed in any case, and if there is any disturbance of the law or if anything ugly takes place, the authorities can act under that licence. One does not need the Group Areas Act. I say that all places for cinematograph entertainment and other forms of public entertainment should be thrown open.

The hon. member for Constantia has pointed out that the Government, even in terms of its own policy, is not going to get by unless it creates provision for open areas. Once there is a vested interest amongst Whites to maintain a White situation, it is going to be extremely difficult to throw that area open. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that I like following up on a speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member began by bestowing praise on the hon. the Minister. This was followed by the sting in the tail when he tried to teach the hon. the Minister a lesson on how he should behave himself in the negotiating situation. Apart from that, what the hon. member’s speech amounted to in brief was that the Group Areas Act and everything which goes with it is inevitably racist, in the ugly sense of the word. Because those hon. members do not know, and will apparently never in future understand the approach of this side of the House, I shall not devote any more time on that hon. member’s speech.

I should like to express a few thoughts in respect of Coloured and Asian housing in this country, and the long-term objectives which ought to be pursued in respect of this matter. It must be accepted that an individual in a community must have the opportunity to develop himself fully within that community, to the extent to which his abilities allow. In addition, material, social and even political aspirations must be attainable for an individual within a community. These are the requirements if we are dealing with long-term planning, in respect of housing for Coloureds and Asiatics as well. I do not think there is any difference of opinion in this House that in respect of the ability of people of colour to ply a trade or participate in the professions, those abilities do not differ in any way if they are compared with those of the Whites. The difference which does exist stems from the lesser degree of participation of these population groups in commerce and in the professions in the past. It must remain our premise that separate communities have to be created and not merely to establish formal training opportunities for them. The community must also be there to provide an area within which individuals who do well can establish themselves as responsible leaders in their communities. With a view of this the entire question of central town and urban area planning becomes imperative, because it is in this area that the professional man and the trader establish themselves and are able to act as leaders of their community.

As a result of constant pressure the Department of Community Development, during the discussion of the Vote as well, emphasis is placed in particular on the provision of dwelling houses, while the essential balance that has to be maintained between the residential area and the central city or town area is seldom discussed.

In the annual report which was laid upon the table it is indicated that during the past year a great deal had been done in regard to the provision of residential units and the development of central urban areas. In last year’s report, one particular example was described in detail, namely that of Mitchell’s Plain, but even as far as that area is concerned, the question may be asked whether adequate attention is being given to that very area of the community life where the leaders have to be formed and established. Initially there were 105 shops available in Mitchell’s Plain, for which there were 850 applications. It is consequently clear that the demand for the creation of opportunities within the specific community was by no means satisfied. However, I put this down to the great pressure which is placed on the department to keep on providing housing and new residential areas.

I should like to express a few ideas on the declaration of section 19 areas. In view of the fact that the number of areas proclaimed under this section has increased from 11 to 21, we must in my opinion ensure that these areas do not compete with the central city areas of the respective Coloured, Asiatic and White residential areas, because the central city area is the heart of community life. I therefore wish to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that not too many of such areas are proclaimed.

I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Minister and his department have done so far in this connection. In the past it sometimes happened, particularly with the Asiatic group, that a disorderly way of plying on a trade occurred, sometimes intermingled with other population groups, particularly in Natal and the Transvaal, but as a result of the establishment of areas in terms of section 19, this problem has been solved to the satisfaction of those involved. We had the privilege of viewing some of these projects on a tour together with the hon. the Minister and heads of his department. We were also informed of the satisfaction and happiness of the people concerned. However, we must be careful, because to take it too far would mean that we would cause the various central city areas of the respective population groups to compete with section 19 areas.

In the minute or two that I still have left, I just wish to measure the general approach of the official Opposition against the general approach of this side of the House to this matter. Perhaps we have begun to forget already that the hon. member for Constantia held a referendum some time ago in a White area which is essentially a wealthy area.

Adjoining the Pollsmoor prison, yes. [Interjections.]

We must put him inside.

The hon. member knows absolutely nothing about this department, and had better keep quiet. [Interjections.]

Valkenberg lies in the other direction; we can take him there.

As we all know the hon. member for Constantia held a poll there. However, I shall leave any further comment on his methods unspoken. This referendum was held in a rich White area. To achieve what purpose? [Interjections.] We know that there are people who, as a result of their material possessions, feel protected and will easily vote for something like that. However, what are the consequences? The hon. official Opposition ought to take cognizance of the fact that if the Government were to comply with those proposals and were to declare the area to be an open area, that area would constantly exert a force of attraction on the community leaders who have in fact made progress and developed in their respective communities …

Why?

The hon. member asks “Why?” [Interjections.] That is such a stupid question that I hardly wish to react to it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are now approaching the end of the discussion of this Vote, having spent almost seven and a half hours on it, and I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members on both sides of the House—as I said earlier—for their understanding of the great, comprehensive and problematical task in which we are engaged. I greatly appreciate the way in which all the hon. members who took part in the debate made their contributions. These were of a high standard. It seemed to me that hon. members were given far too little time for their speeches about this important matter, but that what they did say was very well prepared.

Before I forget, however, I want to make use of this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to our staff in the department. Our department renders an enormous variety of services to the State and the community, but we also have a staff problem. We have a staff of 17 000 people, of whom about half are White and half non-White. This is a large number of people working in various branches in every corner of the country, in almost every town, for the department has some interest or other which has to be looked after in almost every town. It is not easy to handle such a wide variety of small affairs. Therefore I want to convey my sincere thanks today to our staff who do their work with such dedication. I also want to thank those who have voluntarily put in more than 200 000 hours’ unpaid overtime during the past year.

Hear, hear!

Yes, 200 000 hours! [Interjections.] I think this is a record which should be entered in that book to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred. I think it is something we must take cognizance of. I am thinking in particular of my personal staff, the departmental staff, the men who have to work hard every day to render the services which the hon. members require. Therefore I should like to tell them, in the short time available to me, that these things do not go unnoticed by us as Ministers and by the department. We are proud of the department and of the quality of people we can still find to exercise control. This is very important. In many departments, such as the deeds offices, there have been excellent performances recently with a greatly reduced staff. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that this was the case in other departments as well. These men and women are rendering an important service to South Africa.

The hon. member for Fauresmith took the hon. member for Constantia to task a little. I also want to take the hon. member for Constantia to task later on. The hon. member for Fauresmith spoke about the need to provide cities with a business centre. He said we should give this priority over the proclamation of areas in terms of section 19. Those areas are proclaimed with great circumspection where necessary. The proclamation of areas in terms of section 19 was originally introduced particularly in order to give the dealers who had become disqualified in certain areas some other place where they could carry on their businesses. In recent times, however, this need has ceased to exist. Instead of the central business districts which the Riekert Commission recommended, and which are again being considered by the Strydom Committee at the moment, we have, at the recommendation of the local authorities and the Group Areas Board and in consultation with the bodies concerned, allowed certain other areas to be proclaimed as business districts where this was essential. However, we should like to locate these business centres in the peoples own areas. This is essential. However, we cannot do this alone. It is a question of money. We should like to undertake more projects such as the one at Mitchell’s Plain, but we cannot do this everywhere, and the private sector has hitherto not been prepared to do it. This is a kind of development which is too expensive for the department to undertake while the housing need is so great. Therefore we are thinking along the same lines, but it is a question of who is to undertake this and whether the State can give it priority over the essential provision of housing.

I have very good news for the hon. member for Gezina. The intention is to build the Kruger Park project soon. It is in three phases and the project consists of three separate buildings. We decided to start at once on the first phase, by means of which 319 dwelling units will be created. In view of the funds position, this will extend over a period of three years. The total amount required for this is R14,5 million. We shall be starting on the project at once and we hope that in this way we shall be able to relieve to some extent the situation in Pretoria, which, as he told us, is really critical. With that good news I think we can adjourn for supper.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister replied to the matters raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The memorandum referred to by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is being studied by the department, and the hon. member will be furnished with a written reply by me as soon as the department’s comments are received.

*The hon. member for Sundays River is not here at the moment. Today is his birthday, of course, and that is probably the reason for his absence from the House tonight. [Interjections.]

He is attending the proceedings of the Standing Committee dealing with the Justice Vote.

Oh, yes. The hon. member is in a Standing Committee. The hon. member spoke about letting units and sectional titles, and said that the interests of the developer should not be lost sight of. He also pointed out that not all landlords exploited people. The hon. member attended the proceedings of the Standing Committee which is discussing the Justice Vote yesterday as well, otherwise he would have heard me say exactly the same thing in this House. I said yesterday that our experience showed us that not all landlords exploited people. However, they are being forced by circumstances to put up rentals from time to time. The hon. member also spoke about the test which is used to prove that a person is a protected tenant. The onus is on the tenant. The tenant must furnish proof of the fact that he is a protected tenant. The department does not lay down any conditions or requirements in this connection, and if an owner finds that he is not satisfied with the proof furnished to him by a tenant, and if any problems arise, he is free to approach the Rent Board for a decision in this connection at any time.

The hon. member for Algoa very effectively outlined the extent of the housing problem. He also pointed to the important contribution which could be made by housing utility companies towards solving this problem. The hon. member is quite right. I am pleased about the fact that he takes a great personal interest in our attempt to establish housing utility companies. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to him on that. The hon. member also referred to the high subsidies built into rentals. That is true. It is an enormous amount which we have to pay in subsidies every year. As I indicated earlier in the debate, however, the matter is now being investigated by an ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of a Deputy Director-General of this department. I hope that the results of its investigations will bring about greater realism in the rent formulae.

Then I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Beaufort West for the way in which he expressed his appreciation to the department, on behalf of his constituents and himself, for the gigantic task that has been performed in rebuilding Laingsburg. There are few people who are aware, as the hon. member for Beaufort West is, of everything that has been done there, and within a very short period of time. I personally wish to convey my very sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Beaufort West tonight on his conduct in this matter. He went out of his way to put the case of the voters of Laingsburg to us. Sometimes even he probably thought that they were not being quite reasonable in all the requests they were making to us. Nevertheless, he left no stone unturned to put the case of his people to us. We understand all the problems which the people there are experiencing. We have great understanding for all the frustrations they had to put up with at certain stages. Therefore I can quite accept the hon. member’s request to us tonight, which he also made on behalf of those people who complained—they still complained in spite of everything we did there— to listen to those complaints with the necessary understanding. We do. While I am very grateful to the hon. member for Beaufort West for having highlighted the achievements of the department in this sphere, I also want to express my appreciation for the fine co-operation which existed between this department and other departments, especially the Department of Health and Welfare. And I cannot omit to convey my thanks to our own people who were in charge of the operations there. In this connection I am thinking, for example, of Mr. McEnery, the Deputy Director-General, who was chairman of the State Committee, as well as Mr. Faan Fourie of our Cape Town office, who was in charge of the team there every day. I also want to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to all the other people from our department who were involved in the activities there.

The hon. member for Hercules made an extremely interesting speech about the utilization of our parks and open spaces. In particular, he referred to the shortcomings which existed in respect of community facilities in our parks, with the result that these parks were not so attractive and people did not like to go there, except those people who visit the parks for the sake of their dogs. [Interjections.] The hon. member asked whether we could not perhaps appoint a Committee of Inquiry to investigate this matter. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this is rather a matter for the local authorities, because it concerns suburban parks. However, if this is not so—I shall have inquiries made—I shall refer the requests he put to me to the Housing Matters Advisory Committee, for if they cannot do anything about it then no-one can.

As regards the hon. member’s request in connection with facilities at Belle Ombre Station. I thought the hon. the Deputy Minister would reply to that, but unfortunately he did not have time to do so. I just want to tell the hon. member that the matter is receiving attention. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Nigel expressed appreciation for the low-cost housing projects undertaken by the department. At the same time, the hon. member said that consideration should be given to very urgent projects of a similar nature in his own constituency. We are not unwilling to do this, because we give priority to this work. It is only a question of when shall have money available again.

The hon. member also said that the rent boards should not be phased out any further. I just want to tell the hon. member that this is what we are doing. This is my approach as well. Until we have completed the investigations which are under way at the moment, we shall have to retain the rent boards. They are doing excellent work in respect of inquiries which have already been instituted and for which I do not have staff available. These are inquiries which have been instituted as a result of all the complaints we have received. In fact, I have appointed temporary rent boards on a permanent basis again, and at some places, such as Cape Town, I have recently appointed additional rent boards.

The hon. member also said that there was a great deal of prejudice with regard to prefabricated houses. That is so and we cannot get away from that. However, a great deal depends on the attitude of the local authorities as far as their town planning regulations are concerned I really think they should dispense with some of these nonsensical rules and regulations which they apply. I am saying that it is up to them. There are advantages attached to the building of prefabricated houses, although I do not really believe that these houses are cheaper than houses built by conventional methods. However, they have the advantage that they can be erected in such a short time. This is also what the hon. member had in mind, I believe. Our department is familiar with the building structures that are being manufactured in the constituency of the hon. member, and the department has already told the firm concerned that it can also tender for all the projects in respect of which we call for tenders. So we shall see how they are able to compete on the open market.

The hon. member for East London City referred to the desperate housing conditions in East London. I did not really need to be told about this, nor did the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has been there a number of times. I have in my possession a Group Areas report in order to proclaim group areas for Indians in East London, and it seems to me that the hon. member has more or less invited the hon. the Deputy Minister. I shall come along, because I also want to acquaint myself with the situation there. However, the whole department, in fact, the whole Government, is thoroughly aware of the great need which exists in East London. It is one of our top priorities. Therefore I am able to tell the hon. member tonight that a part of the additional R20 million which I have received from the hon. the Minister of Finance for creating infrastructure will be used to create infrastructure on a preferential basis in the East London area. As far as low-cost housing is concerned, we shall give priority to the cases mentioned by the hon. member.

The hon. member for False Bay raised a very important matter. He referred to an aspect which is being discussed less and less frequently in this House, because it is a problem which has been virtually overcome in the case of Coloureds and Indians, i.e. the problem of squatting and all its attendant evils. The hon. member rightly pointed out the socio-economic problems arising from squatting. This is so, but we have a fine record in that connection. One must not always take refuge behind one’s record, but the fact is that since the department accepted responsibility in 1975 for the implementation of the legislation with regard to squatters, we have moved mountains, as is evident from the figures which the hon. member mentioned. Had it not been for the lean financial years we have been having of late, we would have resettled all Coloured and Indian squatters within two years.

The hon. member has the problem that to a certain extent, his constituency lends itself to squatting because it is so well situated, but I can tell the hon. member that there were 4 494 squatters’ shacks in his constituency to begin with, of which we have cleared up 3 568 so far. The squatters at Philippi are a thorn in the hon. member’s flesh, and they are causing a lot of trouble for the farmers in the vicinity. I want to tell the hon. member that I accept his invitation and that I shall come and see the situation at Philippi for myself one of these days. In Philippi there were 1 265 squatters’ shacks to begin with, and of these, 623 have already been cleared up. So we have already made tremendous progress in this connection. If only we had the money to clear up those places once and for all! However, it will be a while yet before we are able to do that.

The hon. member also said that if we imposed a R10 levy on every squatter’s shack we would be combating the evil in that way. I do not think a person who wants to squat will be put off by R10, If the hon. member were to suggest a levy of R100 or even a few hundred rands, that might serve as a deterrent. The fact is, however, that if I allowed such a thing, whatever the amount of the levy, it could be interpreted to mean that the State is condoning squatting and that a prospective squatter simply has to obtain a licence by paying a certain amount. Therefore I cannot go along with this suggestion.

The hon. member for Sea Point referred to the appearance of our schemes, and we are giving attention to this. I take cognizance of what the hon. member said. The hon. member also referred to the possible raising of the R650 income limit, and he almost moved me to tears, for what he said was not wrong. There was a great deal of truth in his argument. We review this limit from time to time, but it is a question of more money and more subsidies. I can only tell the hon. member that we shall look at this limit again, in conjuction with the rent formula, when the time is ripe. I believe we are already doing that.

He is a squatter himself; he squats in Sea Point.

The hon. member also wanted to know what we were going to do with the areas which will now be allowed to remain Coloured areas, such as Maitland Garden Village. Unfortunately, there has to be a group areas inquiry, but without giving offence to the Group Areas Board, I want to say that the inquiry that has to be instituted is actually a formality. The fact of the matter is that the Minister takes the decision, and if the Group Areas Board were to say no, I would probably overrule them because I have already decided that these areas must remain Coloured. The fact that a group areas inquiry still has to be instituted does not mean that there is any uncertainty about the areas.

The hon. member asked me a few specific questions about Harfield Village. There are approximately 35 houses, and I cannot regard it as a separate group area. The city council has already intimated that it wishes to negotiate with me about the matter, so I do not wish to commit myself at this stage by saying anything further.

Then the hon. member mentioned a whole member of matters regulated by Proclamation No. 228. These are matters which we have referred to the Strijdom Committee, and we shall just have to be patient for a while to see what that committee makes of them.

Finally, I wish to refer to the hon. member for Constantia. This hon. member recommended that I make use of two alternatives to enable Coloured people to go and live in Constantia. Firstly, he said, I could do this in terms of section 21 of the Group Areas Act, i.e. by giving them a permit to five there. However, the hon. member knows perfectly well that no Coloured person would apply for a permit, because no Coloured person could afford to buy a house in Constantia. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

In other words, this is just a way of keeping people out of Constantia. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s other alternative is that I deproclaim the area. Then, he said, it would be an open area, as advocated by the Progs. However, it is not as simple as that. When one deproclaims an area, it means that it becomes a controlled area, and in a controlled area there cannot be any property transaction between one race group and another. Who owns property in Constantia? The Whites, of course. In other words, if I deproclaimed it, Constantia would remain just as White as it is at the moment, The hon. member is aware of these things; so this is just a face-saving operation on his part.

That is not true either.

The hon. member simply cannot stomach the idea that non-Whites should come and live in his select residential area. The hon. member can do whatever he likes. The Coloured people will come to Constantia, in a group area and in no other form. Now he comes along here very piously and tells us about the special qualities of the Tokai Forest. The hon. member knows perfectly well that he is talking nonsense. In that advertised area which we want to proclaim as a group area there are only pine trees, and people only go there with their dogs for certain purposes. There are only pine-trees. In any event, half of that pine-tree plantation has already been converted into a residential area by his friends. I was there the other day. The trunks of the pine-trees have not even been properly removed from the ground. The hon. member should go and have a look at it.

But I was there with you.

Why did the hon. member not complain when his friends, the rich people of Constantia, had houses built for themselves at the expense of the pine-tree plantations? [Interjections.] I simply cannot take this kind of mentality any longer. I think the hon. member should simply get it into his head now that there must be room in Constantia for the people of colour as well, and we are going to provide that room for them.

But that is what we are asking for. [Interjections.]

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 25.—“Improvement of conditions of service”, agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is typical of clauses that we have recurring regularly now in legislation in this House, in the sense that it is a clause permitting territory that was formerly part of the Republic of South Africa to fall under the jurisdiction of a body within South Africa, provided that the independent State that was formerly part of South Africa agrees. We welcome this kind of stipulation because, for of all, it ensures that we set some sort of standard and, secondly, it shows that despite the ideology of apartheid or separate development, South Africa remains one country. This kind of clause—and we have had a number of these during the past year or 18 months—I believe, is a statement that South Africa is still one country and that the international community’s refusal to recognize the independence of the so-called independent States which were formerly part of South Africa is effective. We recognize that fact in practice because we are highly interdependent and remain basically one economy and one community. We therefore welcome this clause.

In view of the fact that Chapter IV has specifically been excluded from the legislation affecting nursing in KwaZulu, in other words, the section relating to the disciplinary powers of the council, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in his view, clause 2 of this Bill has any relation to KwaZulu or whether it only relates to parts of South Africa that are now independent. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain to us how he sees that because the provision that he now seeks to amend actually occurs in Chapter V and not in Chapter IV. As I understand it, this clause only relates to territories that were formerly part of the Republic while clause 1 only relates to the Nursing Association. I presume, therefore, that it does not bear any reference to KwaZulu, but relates to countries such as Venda, Ciskei, Transkei and Bophuthatswana.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, I just want to indicate that he will see very clearly in the clause that reference is made there to independent States. Clause 2 has nothing to do with KwaZulu, because the clause deals only with independent States such as the four which already exist. It is the same provision which has been inserted in other legislation to provide that some of those people may make use of the Medical Council and other councils as well. Consequently, if we can agree on this provision, then those people need not establish a statutory body in order to lay down standards, curriculum and other duties of the board. It has nothing to do with the association. Nor has it anything to do with the establishment of the association, which is incorporated in chapter IV of the 1957 Act. In fact, chapter IV has nothing to do with the association. I think I have already explained the difference between the board and the association elsewhere in the debate. I think that replies to the hon. member’s question.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill arises from a proposal made by the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation that demonstrations in connection with court proceedings should not be allowed. Although not expressly provided in the Bill, the intention is to ensure that court proceedings—and this also applies to the proceedings at any inquest—take place in a calm and peaceful atmosphere. Such proceedings shall not be used as an occasion for tumultuous demonstrations or riotous assemblies. A recent example was a case in a Commissioner’s Court in Cape Town in which people had been charged with unlawful occupation of certain premises. According to a Press report, approximately 800 people crowded into the courtroom and were dispersed after a few hours by police using tear-gas.

The commission was convinced that demonstrations in or near court buildings were often of such a nature and magnitude that they not only caused considerable disturbance, but sometimes disrupted or delayed the court proceedings.

The principle that certain gatherings and demonstrations within a specifically defined area are prohibited, has already been established by the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act, 1973. That Act ensures that the deliberations in this Parliament may take place without disturbance from outside or in the vicinity of the Parliamentary building. The commission also gave consideration to the question of whether the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956, could not be applied to prohibit the kind of demonstrations referred to here. I concur with the commission’s conclusion that this Act cannot be effectively applied to prohibit all demonstrations. Practical experience has shown that it is frequently not known in advance, nor is it expected, that a demonstration or a gathering is going to occur at a certain place. This means that a prohibition cannot be proclaimed in advance.

† Let me give a run-down of the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 contains the definitions. In terms of the definition, a “demonstration” has a bearing on proceedings which are in connection with or coincide with any court proceedings and the proceedings at any inquest under the Inquests Act, 1959.

Clause 2 contains the prohibition on demonstrations in any building in which a courtroom is situated or at any place in the open air within a radius of 500 metres from such a building on days on which a court may be in session. It shall, however, not apply to any demonstration or gathering for which the magistrate of the district concerned has granted permission in writing.

In clause 2(3) it is provided that section 48 of the Internal Security Act, 1982, shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with the dispersal and the manner of dispersal of such a demonstration or gathering. The provisions of this Act were recommended by the commission and still have to be considered by this House. Section 48 corresponds with the provisions of section 7 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956. Clause 4 therefore provides that the Act shall come into operation on a later date.

Clause 3 sets out the offences and penalties.

Mr. Speaker, this is a short Bill of three clauses which the hon. the Minister has explained to us. I want to say that the first and most obvious point to be made in the debate on this is that this Bill of course adds to the large number of statutes already on our Statute Book which infringe on the ordinary civil rights of the people in this country. One of those rights is the right of assembly. We already have several Acts that restrict that right. I am, however, only going to mention two such measures, because they are relevant to this Bill. The first is of course the measure that was passed in 1970 as part of the General Law Amendment Act. I refer to section 15 of Act No. 92 of that year which made it necessary for a magistrate to give permission before a procession could legally take place. In other words, it took away from the local authorities the judgment to decide whether or not a procession would in any way impede the traffic or create any sort of public nuisance and it placed that judgment in the hands of the magistrate. It gave the magistrate the power to refuse permission for a procession if he had reason to believe that such a procession would endanger law and order.

In this Bill we have the similar provision that, should the magistrate decide that it would be all right for there to be a demonstration either in a court or within the vicinity of a court house, that could take place. I want to point out that since the 1970 measure was passed, I doubt whether any procession other than those associated with official or civic events has taken place in South Africa. It would be an interesting piece of research for somebody engaged in seeking the disappearance of the right of assembly in South Africa to see how many processions in fact have received the OK of magistrates for them to take place.

In that way law and order could be maintained.

The right of assembly has disappeared in South Africa. I want to point out to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, who is always very keen on law and order …

That is right.

We are all keen on law and order. [Interjections.]

Yoú are not.

Well, that may be the opinion of hon. members. I reckon we would have more law and order in this country if we did not have so many oppressive laws and so many discriminatory laws. [Interjections.] I also want to point out to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that there is plenty of law and order behind the Iron Curtain.

You should be able to tell us!

Why do you not go there?

Well, I am going there. [Interjections.]

Why do you not stay there?

I shall come back and tell the hon. the Minister of Law and Order whether he has missed out …

Do not come back too soon.

… on any of the oppressive laws which exist in the USSR. He will then no doubt introduce them in the House in the following session.

Assembly, as I say, may now take place only if a permit is obtained from a magistrate. You know, Sir, we have a history in this country. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg and other hon. members in the House have evidently forgotten the history of South Africa. It is absolutely studded with occasions where citizens have robustly exercised their right of assembly to protest against laws or actions of the government which they felt infringed on rights of some kind. The right to demonstrate or to hold a procession is one of the most widely accepted rights in any democratic country. It is accepted by the UN in its Declaration of Human Rights, it has been accepted by the European Convention of Human Rights and I think it a shame that in South Africa this right, so widely accepted in the democratic world, should be extinguished without a whimper. I wonder what General De Wet, or the ladies protesting against South Africa’s going to war in 1939 would have had to say if they had been deprived of their right to demonstrate. In those days there was still tolerance in South Africa. There was tolerance of dissidents in South Africa.

You have your facts all wrong!

My facts are not wrong.

Gen. De Wet was no longer alive in 1939!

I am talking about Gen. De Wet in 1914, during the Rebellion, and the ladies of 1939 who protested in their own way. That was during another war. In both cases though war had been declared. During World War I, Gen. De Wet and company objected to the declaration of war and protested against South Africa’s war effort. In 1939 World War II began and the ladies marched on the Union Buildings in Pretoria, to protest against South Africa’s participation in the war. [Interjections.] Everybody, it seems, has forgotten about that. In those days there was tolerance of dissidents in South Africa.

They were dissidents, nevertheless.

Let me tell the hon. the Minister that those dissidents had a legal way in which to express their disapproval of the actions of the Government. They had the vote. [Interjections.]

Oom Kowie, tell them about the jolly old “tolerance” of those days! [Interjections.]

They had the vote. Today, however, many of the dissidents in South Africa do not have the vote, and also do not have a constitutional way of expressing their disapproval of what is taking place. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association—all of these—are disappearing with the wind in South Africa. We do, of course, have all the usual assurances that were given in 1970, when the Act against processions was introduced, one of those assurances being that magistrates will act reasonably. As I have said already, however, processions that have any political undertone have seldom if ever, I believe, been held in South Africa since that particular Act was passed. I should point out that fierce penalties were laid down in the Act in 1970—a fine of up to R300, imprisonment of up to three years, or both, and the possibility—this was of course the worst aspect—of a whipping of up to 10 strokes. That was the penalty that was laid down in 1970. I use the past tense here by choice because, as we all know, the Internal Security Bill, which will be introduced later, has at least one good feature about it. It does abolish the penalty of whipping for defiance. After all, most of these processions or demonstrations are in defiance of something. Therefore I am delighted to say that at least the fierce penalty of whipping will be abolished, although we have pretty heavy penalties that are introduced by this Bill which we are discussing now. I refer to clause 3 of the Bill, which states inter alia—

1. (a) convenes or organizes any demonstration or gathering prohibited by section 2(1), or encourages, promotes or…
2. (b) prints, publishes, distributes or in any manner whatsoever circulates a notice convening or organizing the proposed demonstration or gathering, or advertises or in any other manner makes known the proposed demonstration or gathering;
3. (c) attends or takes part in any demonstration or gathering so prohibited; or
4. (d) demonstrates in contravention of the provisions of section 2(1)

Those are pretty harsh penalties. They do, however, exclude the possible penalty of a whipping for which, I suppose, one should be duly grateful.

I should point out that the interesting thing about this Bill is the definition of “demonstration” and the definition of “gathering”. According to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech one would imagine these would mean huge gatherings and demonstrations which cause disruption of court proceedings, or which may even hold up traffic, etc. In this Bill, however, “demonstration” is defined as follows—

That means that one person can be a demonstration.

Just fancy that! [Interjections.]

One little old lady, like myself, standing outside a court building hold up a solitary placard by way of demonstration, could be found guilty of this offence. The hon. the Minister smiles happily at the thought, while I could be sent to gaol for up to three years or fined R1 000.

One lonely little member of the Kappiekommando!

Yes, one little member of the Kappiekommando, standing outside a court building, or even …

Or even Miss Gladys Lee. [Interjections.]

Yes, I do not know whether little Miss Lee is still alive or not. Nevertheless, Miss Lee or her counterpart, who, I suppose, could be myself for that matter could, as one person, constitute a demonstration. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? I might say that this is not only a demonstration when it takes place in or near a court building; it also includes inquest proceedings. It is clear that the hon. the Minister has covered every possibility.

Only those inquests that you attend.

Yes, the inquests that I attend, and I will be attending them again. I must tell the hon. the Minister that. I will be attending them with or without the placard.

You will not dare carry a placard!

I might even take a little placard with me stating: “Down with Louis!” [Interjections.] In terms of the definitions clause—

Once again, then, one person marching down the street towards a courthouse can in fact constitute a gathering. I mean, how ridiculous can we get in this country, how absurd can we get! I want to point out too that a judge or a magistrate can always clear a court if proceedings become unruly or if there is noise outside the court which in any way disturbs the proceedings inside. I am in formed by the hon. member for Johannesburg North who has had a great deal of experience in this particular direction, that the judge or the magistrate can always order the gathering or noise-makers for creators of disturbance to be removed forthwith. Why, therefore, we need this blanket prohibition—because that is what it is; it is not even a restriction—I do not know. It does not even refer to a gathering of say, 50 people or even of more than 50 people. It does not provide that “50 people or more shall be removed”. [Interjections.] It is not a restriction; it is simply a prohibition on any gathering of one person or of any demonstration by one person. The position is absurd. It is a hopeless overkill. That is the only way in which I can describe it and I could not care tuppence whether this emanates from the Rabie Commission or not.

I have said that there were three pieces of legislation of this kind. The second measure of this nature was passed in 1973. That was the Gathering and Demonstrations Act which prohibited gatherings and demonstrations within a defined area surrounding Parliament, this hallowed building. This area in fact encompasses not only the immediate vicinity of Parliament but actually includes the entire city area of Cape Town, including, I may say, the city campus of the University of Cape Town.

I see you are scared.

They are absolutely scared to death!

May I put a question please? Is the hon. member able to give us one acceptable reason as to why anybody would find it necessary to hold a demonstration at a court of law administering justice?

That is a very easy question to answer because if several people are charged—and in some instances there are perhaps 18 or 20 people appearing in court—their relatives attend the court proceedings as well. That is obvious. In many cases they probably haven’t seen these people for about six months because they have been incarcerated in terms of section 6.

Surely they can attend the proceedings without their having to demonstrate.

It is not “demonstration”. They are there. Whether these accused people are finally found guilty or not, there is a natural tendency for the people there to demonstrate by shouting “Amandhla”, or whatever it is they shout.

Now you are really talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. [Interjections.] I have not yet finished answering the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. I say that relatives and friends of these people come to court. Quite obviously, in the first instance they are enormously interested in what is going to happen to these people.

That is right.

Then what is the objection?

But then they are not demonstrating.

What else are these people to do?

They can come to listen. Nobody is prohibiting them from doing that.

The problem is that who knows whether it is going to turn into a demonstration or not? My impression is that as a result of this legislation all gatherings are going to be forbidden. Nobody is going to say that the prohibition is only going to be slapped on when the gathering of people turns into a demonstration. This imposes a complete prohibition on any gathering of people inside a court or in the vicinity of a court, and “vicinity” means 500 metres.

That is correct.

That is quite a distance. [Interjections.] How is one going to know whether people are going to create an unruly demonstration or not? The hon. member is assuming that everybody who gets to the court or who is in the vicinity of 500 metres of the court …

You are assuming that.

No, the Bill is assuming it. Clause 3 of the Bill provides, inter alia, that—

A gathering is one person. I do not think these hon. members read the Bills which they so gaily pass. I really do not think any one of them bothers to sit down and read the Bills. They are like a lot of sheep. The hon. the Minister says his little piece, none of them knows what he is voting for and they all sit there and say “ja”, just like that. [Interjections.] None of them knows what is in the Bill. Certainly the hon. members who have asked me questions do not know anything about this Bill.

The Chief Magistrate could have given permission for a demonstration outside Parliament since the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act was passed. The Act provides that one may hold such a demonstration or gathering with the permission of the Chief Magistrate. Will the hon. the Minister tell me how many such gatherings or demonstrations have been permitted by the Chief Magistrate? Not one. I am not absolutely sure but I am prepared to take a small bet that not one single such gathering or demonstration has been allowed.

Can the hon. member name us one gathering where in her opinion permission should have been granted?

I personally feel that any gathering which is a peaceful gathering should be permitted, and it is only after any disturbance arises that one would tend to break up the meeting. That is what the right of assembly is all about. Hon. members are so used now to the sort of Bills that prohibit any normal civil rights that they think it is extraordinary for a civil right to be allowed. That is the trouble. The St. George’s Cathedral is a case in point. All those people wanted to do was to march from the Cathedral and present a petition to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, then the hon. the Minister of Police …

You were their leader.

No, I was not the leader. I was present there but I did not join in the demonstration. I warned the people. [Interjections.] I am a law-abiding citizen. Those people firstly did not know the law existed and, secondly, wanted to present a petition and they were entitled to it.

Yes, but you foresaw that it would happen.

Well, I warned them about it.

But it is a basic human right.

Yes, it is a basic human right. They were perfectly peaceful and were marching to Parliament to present a petition to the hon. the Minister who was quite prepared to receive it. He will remember the incident where the two of us marched bravely past the Alsatian dogs.

Yes, I remember.

He remembers. We were walking hand in hand practically. The hon. the Minister will admit that his decision to receive that petition prevented a very nasty incident. In fact, he should have said that that afternoon in Parliament when I was being attacked by the hon. member for Mossel Bay and other hon. members for participating.

Please leave me out of this.

I didn’t know that you were so dependent upon my protection!

I am entirely dependent upon the hon. the Minister’s protection. The hon. the Minister accepted that petition and we were then told to disperse the people. We had to disperse them in order to stop the police using tear gas and dogs. Two of us, myself and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, did exactly that and the people dispersed. [Interjections.] It was all perfectly peaceful; there did not have to be any incident at all, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that not a single procession or gathering has been allowed outside or near this House since the Act was passed in 1973. The Bill before the House now is No. 3, the third of the trilogy. There may now be no more demonstrations or gatherings, even of one person, in a court or in the vicinity of a court. That is a further incursion on the right of assembly. What worries me is the complete apathy with which those hon. members who used to be such robust dissidents in the old days are watching the freedoms being whittled away. Do they not realize that, comes the future, all these restrictions are going to be used against them as well?

As in Zimbabwe.

Yes, as in Zimbabwe. I say this is a ridiculous overkill and is going to result in scenes outside and inside courthouses. The hon. the Minister of Justice boasted that the prison population had gone down dramatically, because of the amnesty last year, but he will find that this time next year his prisons will again be grossly overcrowded with people who have gone to court to watch their relatives and to see what happens to them. They will be arrested and they will be put into the hon. the Minister’s jails, and I will watch the prison figures this time next year with this rotten little Bill on the Statute Book.

Sir, as you may have gathered, we will oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in reality the hon. member for Houghton repeated here tonight the speech she made on 11 May 1973 in this House on the Gatherings and Demonstrations Bill. During that debate she also spoke of Miss Lee, as she did again tonight. She then put the same question to the hon. the Minister of Justice as she did tonight, namely how many processions had been allowed by magistrates since the Bill in connection with processions was passed. Basically, therefore, she made precisely the same speech. I think I should give her the same reply as was given to her by the next speaker in that debate, Mr. Murray. He said that she had merely been fishing around and trying to find arguments which were not really able to achieve anything.

She also made the observation that the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who was formerly a judge, had said that a judge or a magistrate could cause the source of any disturbance outside the courts to be removed. That is indeed the case, but what she did not mention is the disruption of the process which that entails and the time which is lost. Such a demonstration can disrupt a whole day’s court proceedings. I do not know whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North omitted to tell the hon. member for Houghton that as well.

Demonstrations and processions are recognized as a safety valve and as a basic right in terms of many conventions throughout the world. Particularly in homogeneous States, for example in Britain, this was, until the early ’seventies, regarded as one of the basic reasons why Britain had shown such a reasonably large measure of stability. Since the first aircraft hijackings and general acts of terrorism in the late ’sixties, stricter steps have been taken by many Governments to maintain stability. The idea has also been expressed in this Parliament already that room should be made for legitimate protest. This was also done during that debate on the Gatherings and Demonstrations Bill. Personally I am not always convinced that demonstrations originate spontaneously. I think it is one of the basic methods of seeking confrontation with the authorities, with the ultimate object of forcing the Government to accord recognition to the demonstrators so that they may then for example participate in an election under their banner. If that happens, the banned Communist Party will of course re-emerge in our country. For that reason we must nip such attempts in the bud. Because it is not known in advance that a gathering is going to occur in a certain place and because there is a prohibition, in terms of the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act, on the advertising or making known of such a demonstration, I am personally of the opinion that such demonstrations are very carefully organized. The demonstrators make sure that the authorities do not know about it, and therefore go underground and plan in secret. Consequently they plot and scheme very carefully and I cannot accept that such demonstrations arise spontaneously and without having been planned in advance. No one can accept that 800 people simply gathered spontaneously and demonstrated without planning and organization in advance. In reality every step towards getting those 800 people together in one place was planned in advance.

What is this legislation in reality providing? Not all demonstrations are being banned and our courts are simply being afforded the protection which this Parliament enjoys in terms of the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act, 1973. What is more, the accused and/or witnesses in trials are also being protected. Surely we cannot deprive an accused person of the right to defend himself or herself against an indictment. Just as a magistrate or a judge ought to have the right to hear the case before him in peace and quiet, so every accused person has the right to state his case in peace and quiet, and every witness has the right to give his evidence with respect for the court. It is still possible for demonstrations to take place, and the legislation is very clear in this regard. The demonstration must take place at a distance of 500 metres, or within that distance provided it is inside a building, which shall not of course be the court building. Moreover it can take place anywhere provided it is on a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday. In addition a magistrate may consent to a demonstration being held, and this must of course be done in writing. Then, too, the prohibitions are only applicable if the demonstration is in connection with the circumstances as defined in clause 2(1). In terms of clause 3 a person is prohibited from convening, organizing, encouraging, or promoting a demonstration. As I have already said, the organization of demonstrations is prohibited in terms of the Gatherings and Demonstrations Act. That is why it is meaningful to prohibit the organization of demonstrations in this legislation as well, and in addition to curtail the encouragement or promotion thereof by placing a prohibition on such actions as well.

Frequently demonstrations which are held have nothing to do with the matter which is before the court. The demonstraters choose the occasion merely in order to raise a matter which has nothing to do with the case which is before the court. Primarily, therefore, the demonstration is for a purpose other than the purpose for which the court is sitting. We see this in simple slogans, with vague meanings, which are used all over the world, slogans such as “racist”, “liar”, “traitor”, and others, Usually, too, the demonstrators constantly make excessive demands which endanger the security of the State and its subjects. That is why it is important that this kind of behaviour should at least be controlled, particularly when the machinery of the State is functioning, the machinery which has to ensure the safety of every citizen of the country and which has to ensure that law and order is maintained. After all, laws are there to create order. This is the case in any country. That is why the State must ensure, in terms of those laws, that there is order. If we were to allow this kind of demonstration particularly those referred to in the Bill now under discussion, these people will get the impression that they are beginning to achieve success, and this they will consequently proclaim to the outside world. When they are then under the impression that they are beginning to achieve success, they would switch to more drastic steps. Once the prospect of success has taken root among them, they will switch to violence and will encourage their adherents, with escalating demands, to seek confrontation with our police and they will say that the Government has refused to negotiate or to listen to reason, or that the Government does not recognize the position and that the police are using violent means against them. In this way they will try to become martyrs in this process and to tell the outside world that there is no freedom in South Africa and that South Africa is a police state, as many countries in the world would like to believe.

Therefore it is essential that this legslation be passed. We must protect justice and equity in order to preserve law and order, as has been done in this country all these years. If demonstrations were to be allowed, we would not be protecting our courts and we would not be protecting the accused persons and witnesses either. If demonstrations were to be allowed in or near buildings, it will also lead to the intimidation of State witnesses. We find this in the report of the Rabie Commission as well. Witnesses are frequently threatened with violence and sometimes with death. Sometimes, this also happens during the course of the court proceedings. Therefore it is essential to protect the witnesses, and with this legislation we are in fact affording them a large measure of protection.

In addition there is the responsibility of ensuring that our courts are able to carry out and conclude their task without interference. The principal method of protest is after all by way of the ballot box, but there are many other ways as well. Wild allegations will be hurled at us about the right to protest, as was indeed done by the hon. member for Houghton. However, it is clearly apparent from the legislation that demonstrations which occur in the open air may not be held within a certain radius of a court building. When such a demonstration occurs in a building, it may not be in the same building as that in which the court room is situated. Consequently people are not being entirely deprived of the right to demonstrate. When the right to protest is claimed, one still has no right to protest if one’s protest encroaches on the rights of other individuals. For example if a protest blocks a street and therefore prevents me from moving from one place to another, my right to unrestricted movement in a public street is being affected. Demonstrations in the streets lead to chaos, and the general public is also aroused. We cannot allow this.

It is also our duty to protect the atmosphere and dignity of our courts, and to enable the employees in our courts to do their extremely important work in peace and quiet. Consequently we cannot allow a clamour and rowdiness near our courts, for it undermines and curtails the proper implementation of our laws in order to preserve law and order. We have a responsibility to protect the general public, and the Government does not intend to deviate one inch from this responsibility. Every citizen and non-citizen of South Africa can therefore rely on the Government to protect his right of free movement at all times. For that reason we cannot allow undisciplined demonstrations, and consequently I should like to support the legislation and the hon. Minister’s motion that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us carries some of the recommendations of the Rabie Commission into effect. When one tests this legislation against the standards and norms applied by the commission to its findings and recommendations on legislation pertaining to internal security, there are a few questions to which replies have to be found. In the first place, is the prohibition which the contemplated legislation imposes on demonstrations in or near court buildings necessary? Is it adequate? Is it effective, and is it fair? These are the norms against which this legislation has to be tested. In order to assess the recommendations and findings of the Rabie Commission one must of course study the entire report. However, this is no easy task, because it is a long report. I nevertheless believe that most of us who are going to participate in the discussions of the legislation on the Order Paper, which arose from this report, have taken thorough cognizance of the recommendations of the commission.

Helen did not read it. [Interjections.]

Of course studying this report in detail is quite a task, but I believe that some hon. members nevertheless did so.

Chapter 6 of the report deals with the activities of such organizations as the S.A. Communist Party, the ANC and the PAC, and with the factual background this report places at our disposal I have no doubt whatsoever in my own mind that the legislation before us is adequate, fair and effective.

How did you manage until now?

I now want to motivate the necessity for this legislation. The commission found that demonstrations near court buildings were frequently of such a nature and magnitude that they not only caused a considerable disturbance, but sometimes disrupted and delayed court proceedings as well. For the sake of good administration of justice it is moreover necessary for court proceedings to take place in a calm and peaceful atmosphere and not as an occasion for rowdy demonstrations and riotous assemblies. For this reason the commission felt that there was a need for measures which consistently prohibited demonstrations connected with or coinciding with any court proceedings or the proceedings at any inquest being held in any building in which a court was in session, or at any place in the open air within a radius of 500 metres from a court building. I have already mentioned that the Rabie Commission’s point of departure was that any of its recommendations should be tested against the norms of necessity, adequacy, effectiveness and fairness. Bearing in mind the aims and activities of such organizations as the South African Communist Party and other organizations I have already mentioned, as well as many others I am not going to mention now, which are all engaged in devising methods and practices aimed at creating unrest and confusion in our country and who want to overthrow the existing order by means of incitement and protest meetings, it is imperative that legislation be introduced to prohibit processions, demonstrations and gatherings at court buildings and in the vicinity of court buildings.

[Inaudible.]

The commission found that existing measures are to a great extent sufficient to enable the Government to ensure internal security, but as the commission also recommended in its report in connection with other existing legislation on internal security in order to effect adjustments or improvements, the commission was satisfied, after it had gathered adequate authoritative evidence in this regard, that additional measures were necessary which would be adequate and effective to guarantee law and order in the vicinity of court buildings so that courts carry out their task peacefully and without interruption. If the legislation is tested against the norm of fairness, there will probably be general agreement that in the first place courts must do the important work for which they were established without let or hindrance, and in the second place that demonstrators and rioters have no right to proceed with their activities to do the country harm in the vicinity of our courts …

What about a gathering of one?

… particularly if those demonstrations or riots resulted from incitement by and the urgings, more often than not, of White clergymen and other fanatical, liberalistic bigots and progressive-minded apostles of violence and revolution.

What about the AWB?

This brings me to the wording of this specific definition in the definitions clause. It does not seem to me to be correct in law to say a demonstration is a demonstration …

Is a demonstration.

I do not think that is very neatly worded. I therefore want to suggest that consideration be given to stating that for the purposes of this legislation a demonstration is an assembly, concourse or procession aimed at disrupting or obstructing court proceedings etc. or prevent the orderly course of proceedings. We shall probably propose an amendment in this connection during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for his support. It is clear that he made a study of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation, the Rabie Commission report, and that his party tested this legislation against the findings of the commission. I cannot agree with his proposal to improve the definition of “demonstration”. I do not believe it is possible in practice to ascribe a common goal to a group of people who are demonstrating.

Of course you can.

Very easily.

I do not believe it is possible to prove or to discharge the onus of proof in this respect. We should rather discuss this matter during the Committee Stage.

In contrast to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen the hon. member for Houghton alleged that she knew what had been said in the Rabie report but that she was not taking any notice of it.

Of course not.

It does not interest her, she is stating her own opinion here. If she attacks the recommendations of the Rabie Commission one would expect her to indicate what evidence on which those recommendations are based she is attacking and not merely to express the general opinion that it does not matter what the report says because she says otherwise.

This discussion may perhaps have been understandable if it had not coincided with the discussion of the Justice Vote which took place on the same day and which the PFP adopted the attitude that we should make more use of our courts. All day long we had to listen to them telling us that we should not place restrictions on people but should take them to court. In the same spirit we then expect the PFP to have just as much to say about and try just as hard as we are doing to ensure that proceedings in our courts function smoothly and in an orderly fashion. We have heard so often that “justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done”. Nevertheless they do not support us in our attempts to ensure that the proceedings in our courts take place in an orderly fashion. It has been said that the presiding officer has the authority to have a demonstration stopped and the demonstrators removed. My submission is that it is not at all conducive to orderly court proceedings if we first allow disorder to break out and then put a stop to it.

The demonstrator has a specific aim with his demonstration. One of the most common of these is to influence witnesses and therefore the administration of justice. If this takes place inside the court, in facie curiae, it is contempt of court. Legislation to prevent crime is always good legislation. One must not allow a crime to be committed. In certain cases demonstrations in court are going to amount to contempt of court. I want to suggest that legislation which prevents an offence is very good legislation.

The hon. member for Houghton objected to the fact that one person could be considered to be a demonstration. I do not think she was able to convince anyone who was listening to her this evening that one person was unable to demonstrate on his own. She is the best example of a one man demonstration I can think of. [Interjections.] There is a further aspect of this legislation I want to point out. It also prescribes the action to be taken, and I want to suggest that it is a very fair way of taking action by first warning people before they are actually dispersed. Therefore it gives me pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will not be opposing this measure. [Interjections.]

We could have guessed that!

Mr. Speaker, I thought that would get the cheer-leaders going! We have very good reasons for this submission. Before dealing with that, however, I should like to point out that we are not over-impressed with the title of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Jockey Club of South Africa introduced a rule prohibiting any race horse to have more than 14 letters in its name. Quite frankly, I believe, the time is very fast approaching that we should introduce a few rules in respect of names in this hon. House. Just look at the title of this Bill—Demonstrations in or near Court Buildings Prohibition Bill. This is the sort of title that makes one almost despondent. It is a cumbersome title.

It is not cumbersome; it is nothing but poor style!

I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister said in this Second Reading speech that there was no way in which they could amend the Riotous Assemblies Act in order to incorporate the provisions contained in this Bill. I do believe, however, that legislation brought before this House could be given more meaningful and more concise titles than that which we have before us here this evening.

Forget about cumbersome titles; it is the contents of the measure that we are worried about.

The hon. member for Houghton raised an argument, as she normally does, about rights; rights of assembly, etc. The hon. member for Houghton has a particular point of view, and I do respect her point of view. I must state, however, that in the years that I have listened to the hon. member for Houghton in this House, I have come to the conclusion that she and her party are sometimes obsessed with rights to such an extent that they forget about the wrongs. I believe that we have in this legislation something that is to prevent wrongs from taking place. It is all very well to be obsessed with the criminal but we must also not forget the tragedy of the crime.

Do not forget a person is only a criminal after he has been found guilty! [Interjections.]

What on earth are you talking about now? You are talking absolute rubbish!

Do not worry, Louis. I shall sort him out in a few moments. I shall put him in his place. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the hon. member Mr. Theunissen that demonstrations should be better defined. In this respect I believe the hon. member for Houghton made an excellent point. I believe we will support, or certainly give serious consideration to supporting, the amendment of which the hon. member Mr. Theunissen gave notice. I believe the word “demonstration is badly defined in this particular piece of legislation. However, for reasons not to oppose this Bill I do not believe one has to look any further than the fact that it is simply a fundamental principle of justice that the process of justice should never be subject to pressures or to intimidation of any form. Be it a demonstration by one person or not, it could still be intimidation, and justice should never be subjected to that sort of pressure. I believe that demonstrations against the process of justice in a free court should not be allowed. No form of demonstration of that nature should be allowed. A demonstration can in fact be carried out by one person. One person can intimidate a witness and intimidation of a witness is known to have taken place at or near our courts in this country.

There is a law in terms of which that can be dealt with.

There is a law for that, says the hon. member for Hillbrow. How is that law applied? I am sorry that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not here because I want to say when the hon. member for Houghton raises the point of clearing a court, that it is a simplistic argument. A judge or a magistrate may clear his own court but what does he do about the precincts of his court?

You are quite right.

What does he do about the area around his court? What does he do about the rest of the court building and what does he do about the street outside his court? How does that magistrate control what is going on outside his court?

He tells the police.

He tells the police! He tells the police after the mob has congregated. [Interjections.] After the wrong has been done, then he calls the police. Mr. Speaker, we hold the view that the rights of a judge or a magistrate must not be impinged upon and that respect for and the dignity of our courts must at all times be upheld.

For these few reasons we on these benches will not be opposing this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Umhlanga. As a matter of fact, if I may say so, I think the hon. member for Umhlanga has set out certain reasons for this Bill very accurately indeed although to the best of my knowledge he is not a lawyer.

*Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Houghton spoilt any possible case which she may have had by exaggerating. In the first place she began her argument by saying that this Bill put paid to demonstrations or the possibility of protest, but surely that is not true. Where in this Bill is anyone prohibited from protesting or demonstrating? It is only in respect of a particular area that that impediment or prohibition is placed on demonstrations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the right of protest. I challenge the hon. member for Houghton, who has had so many more years of experience in this House than I have, to justify that standpoint of hers. In this Bill there is nothing whatsoever to justify those exaggerations. [Interjections.]

I think the following question may in all fairness be asked: Why should it in fact be necessary to demonstrate at a court building? In this connection the hon. member for Umhlanga clearly indicated that any demonstration at such a court building was in fact the last thing that would be needed to ensure that justice was done and to promote the necessary atmosphere, the quiet atmosphere in which the administration of justice takes place, or ought to take place. Therefore, when such a demonstration occurs, surely such demonstrators cannot hope, for example, to influence the legislature with their demonstration, because the judicial officials present at such a court building had no part in the legislation, which they merely have to implement. All they have to do is to give effect to the law as it is placed before them. Why should these people want to protest at that particular place? One reason that was advanced was that perhaps they want to influence the witnesses. However, if we were to allow that, surely it would be irregular. Or does the hon. member for Houghton perhaps not wish to concede that? Without being guilty myself of the same flights of the imagination as the hon. member for Houghton, I want to say that such demonstrations could in fact constitute a danger. If there is a group of 30, 40 or 50 people congregating around a court building—it could even be 900 people—how many concealed weapons could there not be among that group of people? Who could say that they did not have bombs with them, which they could throw into that court building with a resultant heavy death toll? [Interjections.] I want to repeat that this legislation does not affect the right to protest. This legislation is simply attempting to ensure that the administration of justice will take place in the right atmosphere.

If we consider the motivation for the legislation, I wish to refer a little further back than the point to which the hon. member Mr. Theunissen referred. He referred to the Rabie report. However, let us consider the terms of reference of this commission. The terms of reference was to institute an investigation and report and make recommendations on the necessity, adequacy, fairness—I want to emphasize this—and effectiveness of legislation concerning internal security of the Republic of South Africa. The members of the Rabie Commission are people who are probably well-grounded in—one could almost say permeated with—a desire to see that justice is done. One need only consider the names of the members. On those grounds the hon. member cannot make any objection to any of these members. It is these people who, after thorough investigation, arrived at this conclusion. It is clear that this legislation, which is an outcome of the Rabie report, ought to be supported.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said, this Bill emanates from the report of the Rabie Commission and on a number of occasions in the report the hon. judge refers to the fact that we are in a period of transition in South Africa.

You are apparently taking the lesson to heart.

I am. The hon. the Minister will hear more about it just now. I am taking some of these views into account. In the Rabie report it is stated that during a period of transition one cannot have a peaceful transition if there is not some form of legislation which regulates and keeps in check the different movements and currents which are in existence. The hon. the Minister of Justice is getting excited because this is a topic which we dealt with in the Standing Committee earlier on today. He did, with approval, refer to a well-known textbook titled Law, Order and Liberty written by A. S. Mathews. The hon. the Minister quoted from page 310, with approval and, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the following passage. I think one ought to take this view into account and I think the hon. the Minister was quite correct that an interesting view is set out in this book. I quote from page 310—

I think that is where the hon. the Minister ended his quotation. I just want to add a further sentence because I think it is relevant to the debate in question. I quote further—

What the hon. the Minister of Justice has obviously appreciated is that in a society in a stage of transition, if one actually does aim at a peaceful solution at the end, one has to start easing and liberalizing the security laws. This is the gist of the passage he quoted and I agree with that idea. However, it does not seem as if the hon. the Minister of Law and Order takes the same view because whilst this learned author suggests that in a period of transition one should start introducing and extending the principle of legality, the hon. the Minister is in fact clamping down on it. He is in fact narrowing it and making sure that in this particular area there cannot possibly be a liberalization of it. In other words, he goes directly contrary to what the aims of the security laws should be during the period of transition.

If we must pause for a moment we can see how radically our attitude to the concept of the right to peaceful gathering has changed in the past 11 years only. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order is fully aware of the Supreme Court decision here in the Cape in the case of The State vs. Turrell and Others which arose out of the demonstrations at the St. George’s Cathedral. He probably knows that case better than I do. He knows that in that case the Acting Judge President of the Cape Province in 1973 set out the court’s basic views on the concept of freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech, which in this case is not relevant. That was reported in 1973 in Volume 1 of the Law Reports at page 248. I want here to refer to page 256 and the reason why I refer to this particular passage which I will read just now, is to give this hon. House an indication of how the judges, how our courts which are the guardians of the standards, see this particular basic right. I want to compare that to the attitude which is being adopted by this Minister in this Bill. The Acting Judge President says the following:

and following upon that he says:

That is, before the 1974 amendment; the judge says at that stage, in 1973—

Thereafter, as a result probably of this case, there were amendments to this particular Act in 1974. Now, not even 10 years later, the Minister has introduced this Bill which wipes out the right altogether of gatherings and demonstrations at courts.

Since when has there been a right of demonstration?

It is a basic right. [Interjections.]

If we compare the measures in this Bill and the basic principles which it puts forward with this passage I quoted from this judgment which ought to be the standard which we ought to apply in judging our rights then it is an alarming development within a short period.

We have heard from the hon. member Mr. Theunissen an interesting suggestion as regards amending clause 1. It concerns the definition of “demonstration”. The hon. member suggested that a demonstration ought to be defined as a gathering etc. for the purpose of interfering with or disrupting court proceedings. Those are not the hon. member’s exact words, but that is the gist of suggestion. On the face of it, that sounds to me like a very healthy suggestion. That specific principle which would then be dealt with in the Bill would be a completely different one. An interesting position now arises where the NRP almost trails behind the CP when it comes to measures of protecting the rights of individuals.

The hon. member for Umhlanga suddenly found that he was being outdone by even the CP as far as his watchdog role over the issue of the rights of individuals was concerned and then as an after thought he felt he should actually support the suggestion made by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to give the suggestion of the hon. member Mr. Theunissen some thought because in my view that would at least alleviate to some extent the drastic and harmful effects of this legislation. If this legislation is in fact directed at those who gather with the purpose of disrupting court proceedings, then why not say so? On a number of occasions by way of interjection the hon. member for Houghton has asked the question: Why suddenly this Bill? Is it merely because the Rabie Commission has dealt with it and made recommendations? Or is it because there have actually been requests by judges for it? It will be interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister whether there have been requests from the judges for this type of measure. There are a number of ex-legal practitioners on the other side of this House and in this House generally and I would be interested to find out whether any of those legal practitioners, including the hon. member for Johannesburg North, have had the experience of having a court hearing disrupted by a demonstration. Events where demonstrations have taken place have occurred, but at no stage have either the public or hon. members here gained the impression that the demonstrations reached such proportions that law and order generally was being endangered; neither on the face of it, as far as my information goes, does it seem that any of the judges who were directly involved thought that those demonstrations or gatherings had assumed such serious proportions that they ought to make an issue of it and report it to the Minister. That may have happened but certainly I myself and the public are not aware that this is in fact the case. I agree with the hon. member for Houghton that what is being done with this Bill is that the hon. the Minister is resorting to a drastic overkill. Demonstrations do not only relate to political demonstrations. In passing I should just like to say that hon. members of the CP may soon find that when one of their supporters or organizers is charged for some reason or other with some offence, their enthusiastic supporters may come to the court not for the purpose of disrupting the court proceedings but in order to support that member. In terms of this Bill they could then be prosecuted and it is perhaps for that reason that they have taken the precaution of making the very sensible suggestion that the definition ought to be amended.

It shows just how objective we are.

But if there has been no request from judges and if there has been no indication that law and order will be endangered generally, why then this drastic Bill? Demonstrations and gatherings do not necessarily relate to political trials only. In theory one can have a trial in which a sensational personality is being tried for an offence that has nothing to do with politics, for instance the Eschel Rhoodie trial in the Supreme Court in Pretoria. Let us assume that in that case there were hundreds of interested people who were anxious to find out what was happening to their friend, Eschel. If they gathered outside the court buildings in order to find out what is happening and perhaps even to say a few words in support of the accused, they could in terms of this Bill be charged and sentenced to these drastic penalties that are provided.

This is an overkill, Sir, and therefore we cannot but oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North who he would prefer to advise him in a matter of this nature: A judge of the Appeal Court, a judge on a provincial bench, or one of his colleagues behind him.

[Inaudible.]

That is not a fair question. [Interjections.]

The hon. member is after all a respected former member of the Bench, and I am putting a fair question to him now. [Interjections.] The hon. member knows that two eminent judges from our Bench served on this commission.

Quite correct.

The one is the present chief justice designate of South Africa and the other an esteemed member of a provincial division.

Unfortunately they can also make mistakes. [Interjections.]

The hon. member should not be so disloyal.

On this point my reply to the hon. member for Durban Central is that, just like the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I should rather allow myself to be advised by two such competent judges on the question of whether this legislation is necessary or not.

The hon. member asked whether any judge in South Africa had asked for legislation of this nature. But two judges in South Africa recommended it. One should not speak in one breath of the high standard of the Rabie Commission report—and hon. members opposite will probably do so in the coming week or two—and then, like the hon. member for Durban Central, ask whether any judge had asked for this legislation. The best answer I can give him is to tell him that I am grateful that the hon. member for Johannesburg North agrees with me. [Interjections.]

† If I understood the hon. member for Durban Central correctly, he said that because we are in a period of transition there should be an easing of the security laws. [Interjections.] We are in no period of transition, Sir, and, what is more, there is an escalation in the activities of the people threatening South Africa.

Because you are not extending democracy.

The most recent example of this is a very serious act of sabotage that took place in Johannesburg earlier this evening, when part of the West Rand Administration Board’s offices were blown to pieces. Yet the hon. member talks about an easing of security laws.

Why don’t you do away with some of the pass laws?

Earlier tonight we have had a serious case of sabotage in Johannesburg. [Interjections.] And yet that hon. member pleads for an easing of the security laws.

It has got worse every year over the past 20 years!

That hon. member knows absolutely nothing about this subject, and should therefore rather leave it to his principal. [Interjections.] I therefore cannot agree with the hon. member for Durban Central when he puts such a request to me. I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban Central has read the whole report from which he quoted—I am referring to “Reported cases ’73”. I have not read that report recently, but I have some recollection of that case because during that period I was involved, in this House, with certain 1974 legislations. [Interjections.] As far as that report is concerned, there seems to be something missing, but I shall have a look at it and, if necessary, reply to the hon. member during the Third Reading debate.

*The hon. member for Durban Central also asked whether it was necessary to come to this House with legislation of this kind so soon after the legislation of 1973 and 1974. Is the hon. member not aware that during the past few years there has been a change in the way in which people demonstrate at our courts? In earlier years there have been wilful incidents at our courts, but during the past few years this kind of occurrence has assumed a pattern, inside and outside the courts, in the immediate vicinity of the building in question, and even in the building itself. There is after all a vehemence or a wilfulness in the actions of people …

And so too in the actions of the Government. You are tightening up.

… a disregard for authority of a derogatory, contemptuous nature which we have never seen before in this country. The hon. member himself could probably think of quite a number of examples that occurred during the past year or two. That is why this commission made this recommendation to the Government, and why the Government accepted it. We have had many examples of this, and provision now has to be made for this precise type of demonstration, because we cannot carry on in this way.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is so fond of talking about “overkill”. In that connection he also referred to the Eschel Rhoodie case in Pretoria.

† In what sense, however, was there a demonstration at that court-case?

I merely mentioned it as an example.

What form of demonstration took place there?

I merely mentioned it as an example. I did not refer to that specific case.

Why did the hon. member refer to that particular case, when he knows that there was absolutely no demonstration whatsoever? [Interjections.] Did the hon. member want to tell this House …

There were a lot of people outside.

… that if members of the public are interested in attending a court-case they run the risk of being charged in terms of this Act? Is that what the hon. member is trying to tell the House? [Interjections.] I think the hon. member is being quite silly in even suggesting that.

Oh yes, the way it reads now.

The way it reads now any policeman can arrest them.

One cannot go that far.

*Since the hon. member for Houghton cannot wait for one to talk to her …

I can wait all night.

Sir, she becomes so excited if one does not take enough notice of her. [Interjections.] She asked me tonight what Gen. De Wet would have said if he had had to take cognizance of this legislation.

Yes.

Gen. De Wet would however have been terribly ashamed of the Progs of today. What is more, I would not have minded if we could have had a few more Gen. De Wets, because are hon. members aware of what one of Gen. De Wet’s good capabilities was? He could lay about him with a sjambok as few other people could, and I know hon. members I mean I know people in South Africa who could definitely do with a few blows from a sjambok.

Order! Surely the hon. the Minister does not mean hon. members! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I can give you the assurance that I definitely do not include the hon. member for Houghton in any such reference! Among other things, the hon. member for Houghton referred to a procession in 1939 of what was probably 20 000 women to the Union Building to protest to Gen. Smuts against the declaration of war. Surely that is not analogous with what we have to deal with today. That was in reality a demonstration of the right of the individual to demonstrate and to protest. That is one of the good examples of that right which we can cite. There may be other good examples as well, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they emanated from. That was an orderly demonstration of people who went in an orderly fashion to the leader of the country and tried to put a case to him in an orderly fashion, and not this kind of crude clamour, rowdiness and dancing and the kind of nonsense we have to deal with these days in our courts. Surely the hon. member cannot quote such an example as an analogy.

She is frequently among them.

Yes.

† I also want to ask the hon. member why she refers to there being lots of law and order behind the Iron Curtain.

Of course.

Whom is she trying to impress?

What do you mean “impress”? I am telling you!

Is the hon. member trying to impress her friends in Moscow on the eve of her visit to Moscow? Whom is she trying to impress?

I was not paying them a compliment.

Would the hon. member agree with me that Poland is also a country behind the Iron Curtain?

Yes; and look at what is happening there.

And what is the position in Poland lately? Is there plenty of law and order?

Yes, it is the iron fist again.

The hon. member will agree, of course, with the steps taken by the Government in Poland …

I do not agree. They are applying the iron fist.

She points out how it is being done there, but when we take steps to a lesser extent in South Africa she criticizes us for it. Where is the hon. member’s logic?

*I know there is no logic in women, but never mind, we shall say nothing further about that.

She is still going to get a doctorate for this in Moscow.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton cannot simply go on talking. She has had her turn to make a speech.

The hon. member criticized the words “demonstration” and “gathering”. She referred to an old lady like herself—I cannot agree with that—standing outside a court demonstrating. I want to tell you, Sir, that that hon. member on her own, as she has demonstrated in the House, is quite capable of causing a hell of a demonstration at any court of law, placard or no placard, and whether she may have on the placard. That is a fact.

So she is right in her interpretation.

I am grateful for the contributions other members made in support of this legislation. The hon. member for Losberg indicated very clearly that a demonstration does not simply arise spontaneously. Behind the demonstrations for which we wish to make provision there is malicious planning. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the case of people who, after they had been locked up for months in terms of section 6, wished to give expression to their feelings. That is no justification whatsoever for disrupting the administration of justice in a country. I do not think the hon. member for Houghton can feel happy at having adopted such a standpoint in support of people who, willingly and knowingly and deliberately, try to disturb the administration of justice. It is not simply a matter of their greeting their friends. The intention is to disturb the administration of justice.

Define it in that way in the legislation.

The hon. member for Houghton is therefore condoning this now in this House. I do not think it behoves an hon. member of this House to raise such an argument in support of that kind of wilful disruption of the administration of justice in this country. It went much further than the right to demonstrate; much further even than the right to lodge a protest. It was a wilful and calculated attempt to disrupt the administration of justice. I should like to point out to hon. members certain elements of which they will nevertheless have to take cognizance when it comes to the definition of the words “demonstration” and “gathering”. During the Committee Stage I should like to take cognizance of the amendment which the hon. member Mr. Theunissen wishes to move. However, I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the definition of “demonstration” in clause 1 (1) of the Bill, the following is stated—

*Mr. G. B. D. Mcintosh; “Coincides with any court proceedings”.

Yes, surely that is the way it is stated here, namely—

Consequently it is not any form of protest which may be made in the street. It is not any form of demonstration which is being prohibited. It must be connected with or coincide with the court proceedings. In the same clause the definition of “gathering” reads as follows—

Once again the impression should not be created that the exercising of the so-called right to demonstrate is being prohibited in this way. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen referred to the definitions. As I have already said, I am waiting with interest for the amendment he is going to move.

The hon. member for Nelspruit emphasized one important point in particular. It was that court proceedings should take place in an orderly fashion. After all, we are no longer prepared to allow the court proceedings in South Africa to be turned into a circus. Hon. members will simply have to accept that. We are no longer prepared to allow court proceedings in our country to degenerate into a circus as a result of the irresponsible action of hostile people.

The actions of ordinary people.

Yes, and if the hon. member for Greytown tries to do anything of this nature, I shall include him in this definition as well. After all, it was the hon. member for Greytown who alleged earlier that a person is only a criminal after a court has found such a person guilty. That is the kind of inanity which one hears from a civil engineer who knows nothing about the law.

† The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the particularly long title of the Bill. I really cannot improve on what he has said. If, however, he has any suggestions, I should gladly consider them. I thank the hon. member for his support of this measure.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North also pointed out very effectively that the present legislation does not prohibit protest as such. I have already referred to the hon. member for Durban Central. I do not wish to take up the time of this House any further. I thank the hon. members for their support for this legislation.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill arises from findings of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation— the Rabie Commission. Information before the commission indicated that intimidation was occurring over a very wide front. In this way, for example, persons who were testifying in judicial proceedings, and sometimes, too, in proceedings of another nature, were frequently threatened with violence and sometimes even with death. This happens in all kinds of ways—sometimes even by means of mere gestures.

Other forms of intimidation which occur is, inter alia, the threatening of persons to induce them to participate in riots, demonstrations and processions, to join or resign from specific organizations, or not to work or not to work at specific places. In addition, the threatening of businessmen and business undertakings to do certain things or to abstain from doing certain things or to abstain from certain actions, and the threatening of persons because they hold certain political opinions and to induce them to abandon such standpoints, have already occurred.

The commission in question recommended the present measure in order to combat intimidation over a far wider area than common law and the existing statutory measures makes it possible.

Several common law offences and a number of statutory measures render behaviour by means of which fear is instilled in persons for an unlawful purpose, liable to punishment. Examples of this in common law could, inter alia, occur in the case of blackmail, defeating the ends of justice and robbery. Statutory measures which render certain forms of intimidation liable to punishment are to be found in section 2 of the Civil Aviation Offences Act, 1972 (Act 10 of 1972), section 27(1A) of the Explosives Act, 1956 (Act 26 of 1956) and sections 10 and 11 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956 (Act 17 of 1956). The latter two provisions, which also serve as a basis for the present measure, originated as far back as the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1914.

† Initially the 1914 Act and sections 10 and 11 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956, prohibited the intimidation of persons only in relation to their employment. In 1961, however, an amendment was introduced by section 8 of the General Law Amendment Act, 1961 (Act 39 of 1961), in an attempt to widen its scope to cover all forms of intimidation. This amendment has the result that all forms of intimidation are regarded as unlawful unless an accused proves, firstly, that he had a lawful reason to act in that manner or, secondly, that his action was not connected with any similar action by any other persons to achieve a particular purpose.

The first-mentioned excuse is obviously necessary and is therefore include in clause 1(1) of the Bill. The second is clearly a remainder from the time when this provision applied only to labour matters. However, it had the result more than once that intimidators were acquitted in court when they acted on their own. The case of State v Bhengu 1966 (1) SA 673 (D) is an example in this regard. There is no reason whatsoever why a person who may have inspired others with the utmost of fear should go free only because he acted on his own. This excuse is therefor not included in clause 1(1) of the Bill.

The proposed measure is really self-evident and requires little elucidation. Summarized, clause 1(1) makes it an offence if any person, without lawful reason, threatens another with violence or with damage to his property if he does or refrains from doing something.

The penalty provided for in clause 1(1) may seem to be high. Very serious cases may, however, and do in fact occur. A number of State witnesses have, for instance, in fact been murdered because they gave evidence in courts. In Sechaba of the first quarter of 1978 the death of “Traitor Nkosi”, who was murdered for this reason, was reported with great relish. It was said, “It was a fitting end for this traitor of the people”, and further that his death “is a lesson for those who betray the people’s cause”. In the reported case of State v Sekete 1980 (1) SA 171 on page 174, Mr. Jucstice Hefer of the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court said the following—

Clause 1(1), however, also provides for the possibility of a fine, and the courts shall in cases arising out of this measure, no doubt impose the sentences which are fitting in the circumstances.

*Clause 1(2) makes provision, in the first place, for cases where the onus will rest with an accused to prove the existence of a lawful reason for his action. This will entail that there is a prima facie presumption that any action which is of such a nature that it falls within the definition contained in clause 1(1) is unalwful. An accused will consequently bear the onus of proving the lawfulness of such ostensibly unlawful actions. This is no new principle and is taken over from the provisions of the existing section 10 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956. An accused need only acquit himself of this onus of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The second possibility which presents itself in this connection is cases where a statement clearly indicating the existence of a lawful reason is made by or on behalf of an accused before the close of the case for the presecution. This provision is consequently applicable in those cases where the particular action is admitted or is not in question. What is important in this respect in particular is the procedure for which provision is made in section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 and which is at present the procedure which for the most part adopted in practice. Should this procedure be adopted, the onus of proof remains with the State, as is customary in all criminal cases, to prove the unlawfulness of the actions of the accused in the normal way. In addition to this, the aforesaid presumption shall not come into operation either if a similar statement is made by or on behalf of accused, for example in statements during cross-examination of State witnesses or in other ways, before the close of the case for the prosecution.

In clause 2 sections 10 to 15 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956, are being repealed.

Clause 1 of the measure will include all the cases of intimidation for which provision is made in sections 10 and 11 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956.

Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956, related exclusively to labour matters, while section 15 contained the penal provisions in respect of the offences concerned. Certain penal provisions in the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956 (Act No. 28 of 1956), and this Bill, which declare intimidation in general to be an offence, result in these sections now being redundant, and consequently it is possible to repeal them.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is short in text but long in problems. Before dealing with it, however, I wish to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, despite what the hon. the Minister has said, what does this Bill in fact create? If it merely created, as it seems to do at first glance, heavy statutory penalties for recognized crimes where those crimes were committed with a particular intent, we on this side of the House would have had problems in opposing it in principle. I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech and I have heard what he has had to say about the cases of Bhengu and Sekete. I can accept that in those cases that kind of intimidation should be avoided and that one should legislate against it.

All kinds of intimidation should be avoided.

What is the particular intent that this Bill seeks to prevent? The intent is that if a person commits a crime with the intent to cause—I am leaving out induce or compel—another person either to do something or to abstain from doing something or to assume or to abandon a particular standpoint, in other words, if a person commits a criminal offence with the intention if intimidating someone, then the Bill provides that such person will be liable to a heavy penalty. These penalties are set out in clause 1 of the Bill and may be imprisonment for for a period not exceeding ten years or a fine not exceeding R20 000 or both. If the position was in fact that the Bill provided that if a person committed a criminal offence with that particular intent he would be liable to that heavy penalty, we would accept it. This Bill is similar to an Act that was passed by this House in 1953, Act No. 8 of 1953. If a person committed any offence with an intent, mainly an intent to protest against any legislation, that Act provided for a much higher penalty than that offence would normally warrant. The penalty laid down there was a period of imprisonment not exceeding three years. I forget the amount of the fine.

The Bill now provides for this intent.

So far I am ad idem with the hon. the Minister. However, I now want to deal with the problem that we have with the Bill. If a person assaults somebody—for the moment I am leaving out the question of “without lawful reason”; I shall come back to that later—with that particular intent, then we on this side of the House accept the principle that there should be a heavier penalty. I am not saying that we accept the penalty as laid down in clause 1, but a heavier penalty is acceptable. If, for example, a person injures somebody with that particular intent, then we accept that a heavier penalty ought to attach to that kind of situation. In our view assault and injury or, alternatively, the threat to kill, assault or injure somebody, as provided for in clause l(1)(b) of the Bill, are criminal offences. I do not want to go into all the refinements of the law but it must be remembered, for example, that when a person threatens to assault somebody, in terms of the law the implementation of that threat must be imminent etc. In general terms, however, if a person assaults or injures somebody, it is a criminal offence. If a person kills somebody it is also a criminal offence. It a person threatens to assault or injure somebody it is also a criminal offence. Therefore what the hon. the Minister is saying is that if that is attached to a particular intent, namely an intimidatory intent, a heavier penalty must apply. That we can accept, but the difficulty we have with the Bill is that he then adds that if a person causes or threatens to cause damage to somebody, that also, if it is done with a particular intent, attracts the heavier penalty. To cause damage is not a criminal offence per se. I can be involved in business and I can do something in business that may cause damage to somebody else, but that is not a criminal offence. It is not even a delict in law. It is not even an actionable wrong.

What are you trying to say?

As hon. members on that side of the House who are acquainted with the law will know, if a person causes damage with injuria, with intent to cause damage, that will be a delict.

If one causes damage with injuria, with intent to cause damage, that will be a delict. If one causes damage by negligence, that will also be a delict. In other words, if we have negligence or intention to cause damage in the form of an injuria, that will be a delict but in our law it is of course not a criminal offence.

If we have a Bill that provides that any person who causes damage to another person with particular intent is guilty of a crime and is subject to this penalty, we are creating a new crime, the parameters of which are not at all clearly defined. Let me give a simple example. If a person is not, for example, patriotic towards South Africa, I could say to him that I am going to organize people to boycott the product that he is producing. That will no doubt cause damage to that person.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Does the hon. member not agree with me that if I blow up the house of a witness in a particular court case with a view to intimidating him into not giving evidence, that should be a criminal offence? Is that not exactly what this Bill is providing for? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that question illustrates the point I am trying to make to the House. If somebody threatens to blow up my house, that in itself is a criminal offence. If he threatens to blow it up with the express intention of preventing me from giving evidence, I clearly support the view that a heavy penalty ought to attach to an action of that nature.

What then is your particular difficulty? [Interjections.]

The problem I have is this—and I want to put it in contradistinction to the example the hon. the Minister gave—the hon. the Minister postulated a criminal offence against me to cause me to abstain from giving evidence. However, if somebody tells me that unless I do something specific, he is going to boycott the products that I manufacture that in my view is not a criminal offence. It is not a criminal offence to boycott the products that I manufacture. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member another question? Does he agree with me that included in that boycott action must be the intention to cause damage to a particular person with a view to the aims as envisaged in this Bill? Is that not also the position? [Interjections.] It must be read in its context. Is that not so?

The problem is that that is not what the Bill provides. If it provided that, that would be fine. It provides: Any person who, with intent to compel, causes damage.

Why leave out the words “without lawful reason”?