Mr. Chairman, regional development is not a new concept in South Africa. This concept developed during the late sixties and also formed the basis for the National Physical Development Plan, the NPDP, which was published in the 1975. What is indeed new, is that during Good Hope Conference in 1981, the hon. the Prime Minister announced a new approach to regional development. Special emphasis is now being laid on developmental co-operation within a regional context. The philosophy underlying this approach is that thinking and planning is done, not for regions, but together with regions. Development policy is now being considered and formulated together, with a view to the optimal utilization of human and natural resources. Accordingly, during the year under review the NPDP has received considerable attention. Regional borders have been adjusted where necessary and the country has now been divided into 40 planning regions and four metropolises. This division also forms the basis for the division into eight national development regions which form the basis of the co-ordinated development strategy for South Africa.

At the Good Hope Conference on 12 November 1981 the hon. the Prime Minister put the matter as follows—

To give effect to this new approach as regards development areas, regional development advisory committees were established for the various national regions during Au-gust/September 1982. The overall purpose of these committees is, firstly, to promote regional development in the RSA by advising the Government, secondly, to achieve a more even spread of economic activities and, thirdly, to achieve in this way a better quality of life for its inhabitants. The specific objective of regional development advisory committees can be stated as follows: To advise the Government on all regional development matters for which the State must accept responsibility.

The question to which we must now find an answer is: How do regional development associations experience their role in this new dispensation? It will probably be as well if we take a brief look at the composition of the regional development advisory committees. Regional development advisory committees have a multi-disciplinary composition and are represented by the following bodies. Firstly there are the regional development associations; secondly the institutions of local government; thirdly the private organizations organized on a regional basis, such as commerce, industry, agriculture, mining and labour; and, fourthly, the provincial administrations and institutions of central government that are directly concerned.

In view of this composition of regional development advisory committees with the specific aim “of advising the Government on all matters relating to regional development”, regional development associations are now inclined to draw the following inferences: Firstly, the wishes of the inhabitants of a planning region are now being watered down, since all recommendations must now first be referred to the regional development advisory committees; secondly, that efficient decision-making is now being hamstrung by a longer line of communication; thirdly, that private initiative may not fully come into its own; fourthly, that private organizations such as commerce, industry, agriculture, mining and labour, are now all hesitant to serve on local regional development associations, since their regional representatives are directly represented in the regional development advisory committees; and, fifthly, that formal liaison with national as well as self-governing states between development points within the same development region can only take place on the level of a regional development advisory committee.

To stress the important role of regional development associations it will be necessary first to consider the meaning of the concept “development”. I believe that development can be defined as the result of actions which afford individuals and groups of people greater contentment. If a wider interpretation of the concept “development” is sought, then it really means the following: Firstly, that the establishment of factories is only one aspect, although it is often seen as the only form of development; secondly, that the development of agriculture is necessarily only a component of the total picture; and thirdly, that the increase in income per capita is only a means to an end, because there are other issues involved such as the social, the human potential, the cultural, the educational, the physical, the constitutional and many more.

I believe that at this specific juncture, regional development associations have a greater responsibility than in the past. If there is any reason, or even if regional development associations have any idea that they will play a less important role in the future, then this problem will have to be given positive attention.

There is no alternative for regional development associations as bodies that help to promote the immaterial and material development and maintenance within a planning region on a more integrated basis. Prof. P. C. Fourie perhaps puts the matter in a nutshell when he says—

In practice, this point of departure means that the possibilities for the provision of development are virtually unlimited. They are virtually as limitless as the Divine command to “cultivate and guard”. In this regard regional development associations have an important task which they are pre-eminently suited to performing.

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle. Indeed, I think he made a very sound contribution. I agree with his statement that planning is being carried out in co-operation with the local people in the regional context.

I also wish to thank the department for the completion of a regional guideplan for region 18. This is a growing region in South Africa, a region with natural growth, with potential. It is one of the few, if not the only, rural region in South Africa with an absolute natural growth potential. Not one of the towns in region 18 have gone downhill over the past decade. In fact, they have made phenomenal progress. [Interjections.] They have had a good member of Parliament over the past 13 years, they have him still and they will have him in future. I also wish to thank the hon. the Minister very sincerely for the announcement and his contribution to the putting into effect of the planning for the future of this highly important region. There was the extension of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line past Kuruman and Pudimoe which extends a new vital artery from Saldanha on the West Coast to the Rand. We appreciate that. This railway line will be an extremely important and vital artery in the development of this region. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for that contribution that he made and we hope that this project will be completed without delay.

I hope that it will be finished in my and your lifetime.

Yes, I hope that it will be done in my and your lifetime. I also wish to say that this is a growing region. I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that I find it a pity that there is no development growthpoint here. At Kuruman the border of South Africa meets the border of Bophuthatswana. This is an ideal position for an industrial growth-point. In the development of the steel indstury in the future consideration must be given to establishing a border industry here to the benefit of our neighbouring State Bophuthatswana and the Northern Cape. I wish to express my thanks and appreciation in this regard.

We have already listened to a number of speeches in this debate. Before 1948 reference was made to Dr. Malan and the Nationalist Party as the Malan Nazis. I asked the hon. member for Randburg to be present, but he has been paired off. The hon. member for Randburg who tried yesterday to fink the hon. member for Waterberg and the CP to Nazism, was born at a time when his father was with Advocate John Vorster in an internment camp. They say that is so. They were branded as Nazis and jingos. They were nationalists who fought for the Afrikaner and for what was sacred and precious to the Afrikaner peoples. We now find that the hon. member for Randburg is in the same company of jingos as existed then, the jingos that locked up his father as an Afrikaner Nationalist. The hon. member tries to depict the hon. member for Waterberg and the CP as Nazis. I want to say to the hon. member in his absence—I hope he reads it in my Hansard—that he ought to be ashamed of himself. I want to say to the hon. member that if the flame of Afrikaner nationalism has died in his heart—and in the hearts of those who think as he does—and has been replaced by a broad humanist South Africanism and inclusive nationhood of White, Brown and Indian, the flame of nationalism has not died in the hearts of tens of thousands of South Africans, because tens of thousands of nationalist Afrikaners who do not belong to that party, refuse to have the right of self-determination of the Whites locked up in a multiracial tricameral Parliament. The hon. member for Randburg tried to link the hon. member for Waterberg to Nazism. Before 1948 there was a Jan Hofmeyr who was Gen. Smuts’ adviser—“slim Jannie”, as he was called. With his liberal statements he was the cause of the fall of the then United Party. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that there is another slim Jannie, namely slim Jannie Christiaan Heunis who, with this new constitutional plan of his is by means of political integration leading the mighty party that this hon. Prime Minister helped to build up, to the precipice. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon. member for Randburg have shot down the idea of a “volkstaat”. They suggest that the CP wants to bring about an Afrikaner “volkstaat”. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that he said that. The programme of principles of the NP is enshrined in the manifesto we had in the 1981 election.

Do you still stand by it?

Yes. I want to quote from it—

Reference is made here to “the people of the Republic of South Africa”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who comprises this people of the Republic of South Africa. Who comprises the people of the Republic of South Africa if the NP states that we are talking about a “volkstaat” when we talk about the people (“volk”) of the Republic of South Africa who want the right to self-determination in this Parliament? Is reference made here to the White people of South Africa or is reference made to the crucible in which nationhood is formed, of which the hon. the Minister spoke? In terms of the programme of principles of the NP, does this also include the Coloureds and the Indians? [Interjections.]

In terms of the programme of principles of the NP the NP gave the Whites of South Africa certain undertakings. I quote—

Surely this White Parliament is one of the established rights of the Whites. I think it is one of the most important established rights of the Whites. Surely his right to self-determination is his most important established right. However, the new constitutional plan destroys these established rights of the Whites by degrading the Whites to a chamber of a multiracial tricameral Parliament. The Whites are now being deprived of their established right.

The other day, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Rissik as to whether he disagreed with the blue book, the hon. member for Hercules said that the blue book did not contain the NP’s official standpoint. He said that the policy of the NP was separate development.

I said it was not a party document.

I have the hon. member’s Hansard with me. In the hon. member’s absence, and since the hon. the Minister of Manpower said that there were mistakes in the blue book, since during the by-elections in the Bergs it was said that the blue book did not contain the official policy of the NP, but the Government’s guidelines, we asked questions in this House. For the information of the hon. member, I want to say that according to the reply of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information there are no misprints in the book and that according to the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister it is the official standpoint of the NP and the Government as approved by the, NP congresses. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning whether the NP’s policy in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians is still separate development.

I said parallel development.

The words “separate development” appear here. Is the NP’s policy in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians still one of separate development? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Roodepoort put certain questions to the CP in regard to Indian immigration in an effort to make the idea of an Indian national State seem ridiculous. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is going to ask the same question when KwaNdebele asks for independence. In the new dispensation immigration will be a matter of common interest. What is the hon. member’s standpoint going to be—unfortunately he is not present at the moment; perhaps the hon. the Minister can reply to this—if the leader of the Indian Party in the Cabinet asks that we canvass for immigrants from India? The hon. the Minister must tell us what the standpoint of the NP is going to be. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, for the fourth time this session I am following the hon. member for Kuruman, and for the fourth time he has dragged in politics while we were, in this case, discussing planning. [Interjections.] The hon. member must give me a chance, I shall reply to him. Whereas I wish to discuss statistics, I just want to ask the hon. member for Kuruman whether he still believes that he and his friends of the AWB can set matters straight by seeking to plant bombs and so on, as is being discussed at the moment in the court case in the north.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member …

Order! I have already called the hon. member to order. This matter is sub judice and the hon. member may not therefore refer to it.

Thank you very much, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member link this party to people who are at present supposed to be planting bombs? [Interjections.]

You link yourselves to them.

Order!

Yes, you link yourselves to them. [Interjections.] After all, that is true.

Order! I shall listen attentively to the hon. member and call him to order if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Both the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation and the Minister of Community Development say that it is true. They say that we link ourselves to them. [Interjections.]

Order! The AWB is not a prohibited party or organization. The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir.

You are the most foolish professor I have ever encountered.

The hon. member speaks about foolish professors. I should not speak about that if I were he and had made the statements that he and the hon. member who spoke before me, made here, statements that border on the most stupid statements I have ever heard. Those hon. members are fond of asking whether we still believe in various things and I now want to ask them whether they still stand by what the Rev. Olaf Scheuer said. After all, they are always asking questions. Now I want to ask them whether they still stand by that.

Then, too, I want to call upon them to discuss the Central Statistical Services in this debate and rather to drop politics at this stage. While we are discussing the Statistical Services I want to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate clearly to us what is going to happen in the Central Statistical Services because, in the first place, it performs the function of providing the essential information that is needed with a view to constitutional, social and economic development in this country. This is a subject of cardinal importance, particularly because in view of the evolutionary change that is under way in South Africa, it is of fundamental importance that reliable statistics should be available. To date this Central Statistical Service has rendered a very good service and we want to thank the people concerned for that. Certain members in this House express the criticism that we in this country are not changing, and progressing, and other members in this House consistently drag their heels and do not need statistics. Nevertheless I want the hon. the Minister to expand the statistical services in this country, specifically in order to make recent information available to us.

I say that in this week there have been two outstanding triumphs. One is that on Monday the Multi-lateral Development Board sat in Pretoria. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to make the statistical division of his department available, as far as possible, to assist the Statistical Services of the four other countries with which South Africa conducted discussions on 30 May. The statistics of these four countries are as essential as those of the RSA for the future planning of Southern Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to instruct the department to assist these countries in this regard. I should like to discuss a matter concerning which criticism has been expressed recently, viz. the fact that a population census is to be held in 1985. The Cabinet has already approved this census. I should like to support wholeheartedly the idea of this 1985 census. The criticism must be rejected with the contempt it deserves. In this regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister to design a system in accordance with which the statistics obtained therefrom will be made available sooner. Statistics based on the 5% random test survey of the 1980 census are very valuable in indicating trends and order sizes. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do everything possible to make all the statistics of the 1980 census available as soon as possible. This must also be done with regard to the statistics that will be obtained from the 1985 census.

It is imperative for the constitutional, economic and social development of this country to have those statistics available for the purposes of proper planning. In this regard I also wish to ask that the hon. the Minister expand that research branch of his department further. Whereas this branch uses the scarcest and most expensive staff and equipment, I want to ask that the activities of this branch be extended and that other bodies, too, be involved in research which is not of a confidential nature. I have in mind in particular, bodies such as universities, the HSRC, the CSIR and other research institutes with the time, staff and computers to assist the department. This could even be done on an advisory basis in terms of which these people could be paid and money transferred from the hon. the Minister’s department to these bodies. In this way, reliable statistics could be published as soon as possible to make further planning possible on that basis.

I also wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is in any way possible to make more money available to the Statistical Service in next year’s budget so that people may be co-opted from outside on an on-going or ad hoc basis to assist them in obtaining the necessary statistics as soon as possible. This division deserves the utmost praise for the work they have done in the past. We need that information to proceed with the work the Government is engaged in at present, irrespective of the criticism levelled at it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on a fine speech. I should also like to refer just very briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Kuruman.

When the hon. member for Kuruman was speaking, I thought to myself that what they were offering South Africa, was nothing new. It is what the Janizaries of Constantinople offered their people; it is what the Mamelukes of Egypt offered their people; it was the Manchus of 18th century China offered their people …

It is what the NP used to offer South Africa.

No, it is never what the NP offered South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to talk about the philosophical basis of what the NP offers South Africa with a view to constitutional planning. [Interjections.] Right at the commencement of this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

[Inaudible.]

Order! I have just requested the hon. member for Kuruman not to make so many interjections. I appeal to hon. members to afford the hon. member for Maitland the opportunity to make his speech.

Right at the commencement of this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the whole negotiating process in South Africa was wrong-minded—he was referring to our negotiating process that is under way—compared with the recipe that he has for South Africa. The recipe was that of multilateral negotiation; all-party, multiracial, simultaneous bargaining at the national convention and that only that can produce a valid result in South Africa, a result that would have the ring of legitimacy. I want to say—and he will forgive me for saying this—that I think that the PFP are guilty of political acrobatics. I say this because we were told that the President’s Council’s deliberation and the subsequent report somehow did not have the ring of legitimacy because it consisted of nonelected people and because it excluded Blacks. That is what we were told. But somehow the non-elected commission of the non-elected Buthelezi, which excluded the governing Whites of South Africa, the most powerful group in South Africa, in their eyes has a ring of legitimacy. That is quoted to us as being a legitimate exercise and contribution to constitution-making in our country. Somehow the constitutional steps taken in the building of the building blocks of confederation on a bilateral basis, where we have built national States in our country, where elected Blacks were included and where those negotiations have subsequently been confirmed by popular vote, to them do not have a ring of legitimacy. I think that the PFP are going to have to come back to the realities of our country. Bismarck said: “The statesman cannot create the stream of time; he can only navigate upon it.”

I now want to quote from Glaser and Possony’s book Victims of Politics: The State of Human Rights. On page 24 they have the following to say—

And this is important—

That I would underline because that is the basis of what we are doing. The PFP have been influenced for so long by the melting pot, by Anglo-Saxon liberal opinion, that they really must in the interests of our country re-examine their policies. I say this with tears in my eyes, and I ask them please to do so. I say this because new voices are being heard worldwide. There are new voices of understanding, and I may just add that it is a delight to me that we have not once heard the word cosmetic, neither from the Opposition or from outside this Chamber since the new constitutional plan has been launched. The PFP will have to come back into the mainstream of our politics and they will have to have a more positive approach because they too have a responsibility before history. Prof. Butterfield, a former professor of modern history at Cambridge, had the following to say in his book Christianity and History—

I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that if the PFP want to follow a road to some Utopia, that is all very well, but even the road to that Utopia can only be travelled step by step. Slowly but inexorably we are building in this country towards a confederation of Southern African States, and the bilaterial negotiations that have led to the founding of those States have in turn led to the multilateral negotiations which have followed upon that, such as we saw last Monday with the founding of the Southern African Regional Development Bank. That was only one of the multilateral conferences held following the important apex discussions between the hon. the Prime Minister and the TBVC countries in November last year.

Then we have also had the whole question of decentralization, and the work of the Decentralization Board. In the process we are strengthening and making more economically viable the building blocks of the confederation. In this decentralization process 701 applications have already been attracted over the past ten months, representing a capital of almost R1,5 billion by way of investments including eight from foreign countries, most of whom are first-time investors in this region. Employment opportunities will be created for 56 000 people by the industrialists involved in this process, and that will directly affect 350 000 people in those areas.

We have also had the whole question of the sale of housing in our country. Several hundred thousand houses will be sold to Black South Africans. We have seen the devolution of local government to urban Black communities. As we know this hon. Minister is chairing a Cabinet commission which will look into the whole problem of urbanized Black people in our country. We have also seen the hon. the Prime Minister increasing the number of members sitting on the Commission for Co-operation and Development by a further six people who are specifically looking into the problems, as well as the opportunities and the challenges in respect of urban Black people in our country. It is fundamentally true that we do not yet have all the answers in respect of the urban Black communities in our country. That is a fact. It is, of course, one thing not having answers to a particular problem and not engaging that problem, and quite another thing when that problem is indeed being fully engaged by the Government of the day. I should say that problem is engaging the attention of the Government. It will, however, obviously take place within the framework of the philosophy of this Government.

I should like to quote again briefly from what Glaser and Possony have to say in this regard. They say that there are two opportunities in Africa in terms of modernizing a country. That is exactly what we are busy doing; we are busy modernizing our country. They say, on page 144, and I quote—

They then go on to talk about the ethnic conflict in Zaire, Ruanda, Burundi and Nigeria, as well as in Sudan, Mauritania, Chad, Somalia, etc., where more than 1 million people have lost their lives. Then they pose the following question—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I dealt yesterday with the field covered towards the end of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Maitland, namely that of confederation. I also outlined the views of this party, as well as what we saw as our differences and what we believe should be done. I therefore do not intend to repeat what I said yesterday. However, I do want to say that there is one point he made with which I agree and with which this party agrees with the hon. member. The basic constitutional philosophy of the NRP is based on the concept of the accommodation of group identity, with control over the intimate affairs of each group by that group itself, and on joint decision-making and joint responsibility within one central structure on matters of common concern. In this respect we have agreement in regard to a basic point of departure in our approach to constitutional development. However, there are wide differences in regard to the method, to be applied. One of these was the particular point raised by the hon. member in regard to non-homeland Blacks while another is in respect of the style or structure which we believe a confederation should take.

I want to bring this one aspect of group control over “own” affairs down to the one field with which I have not yet dealt—it has hardly been dealt with at all in this debate—and that is the field of local government. The principle remains the same. A community should control its intimate affairs and, in our party’s philosophy, should determine the character of the neighbourhood that it occupies—whether it will be closed or open, the use of its amenities and so forth. In its joint report on Local and Regional Management Systems, the President’s Council made two important recommendations in this regard which are linked to this question of local decision-making and self-determination. The first was recommendation 10 dealing with small communities on page 107. This recommendation reads—

That is recommendation 10 of the President’s Council. On page 110 there is recommendation 20 which deals with interim measures that can be taken. Some of these are already before this House in the form of a Bill. That recommendation reads—

These are two basic recommendations of the President’s Council.

In response to this, the hon. the Prime Minister in his Bloemfontein address on the constitution dealt specifically with recommendation 20, the interim one. He stated that was one of a number of possibilities, and he listed the various possibilities that could be applied. However, this is the important point that I want to make. The hon. the Prime Minister was very specific. He said—

This was a clear and specific undertaking by the hon. the Prime Minister and is in complete accordance with the attitude and the policy of the NRP. Our “Natal Plan” which is largely reflected in the President’s Council report made exactly those proposals. Where it is possible that a viable authority could be created, there should be a local authority for each community, but where this is not possible minorities should be represented as an interim measure by local affairs committees or management committees. In such cases minorities should ultimately be represented in wards. The option, however, should be left to the local authority. I believe this is the key difference which one finds between the Government and this party in a whole field of affairs: The question of local option, the right of a community to determine for itself rather than to be dictated to in a centralized, regulated and single option by the Government.

Here the hon. the Prime Minister clearly made the point that local authorities should have the right…

Like Kings-borough?

I can deal with that, but I am now dealing with a serious matter. I am dealing with the constitutional structure of South Africa and I am not playing games like the hon. member is doing.

There was a clear undertaking that the needs of a community would be taken into account. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this question of local option, which the Government rejects but which is basic to our approach to many things, is an aspect which will have to be adopted if this whole constitutional structure is going to work. Unless one has a measure of local option, every local authority will be expected to conform to a straightjacket, to a dictated conformity in a pattern in which the local variations or needs are not taken into account. Without the crucial aspect of taking into account local desires and local needs, the flexibility which is vital for local government to operate smoothly is going to disappear. That flexibility to meet the circumstances of different situations is something which simply has to be applied if we are not to get conflict, friction and frustration.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to implement the undertaking of the hon. the Prime Minister that this would be the approach in the use of interim measures which were recommended pending the final solution which again is set out in the President’s Council report. To my mind this is something with which we must not play politics.

Kingsborough is a totally different situation. In the case of Kingsborough the Natal Provincial Administration said that they have the right to control the amenities they have provided, but they must also provide amenities for other groups. That is the issue. We say that if a community opts for the exclusive use of an amenity, a facility or an area, then alternatives must be provided where other communities can enjoy those facilities. In the case of a beach, which is a national asset, where a local authority wants an area to be exclusive, it is its right to do so, but what we deny is the right for one group, the White group, to hog the lot. We say that national amenities belong to everyone and while the right to local option remains, that right cannot be exercised to the exclusion of all others except Whites. That was the dispute. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to Mr. At Louw, the chief of the Statistical Division of this department, for the years of service he has devoted to this department. Since he is to retire at the end of October, we on this side of the House would like to wish him and his good lady everything of the best. Mr. Louw has devoted 43 years of his life to this department, and we want to thank him most sincerley for his many years of service.

I do not think there is anyone in this Committee who would differ with the statement that there is consensus that the status quo as regards constitutional development in South Africa must not be preserved. I recognize that there is a reasonable degree of consensus that some constitutional change must take place. The only party that wishes to maintain the status quo and cling to it immovably, is the HNP, which over the past 13 to 14 years has taken no account whatsoever of the demands of our present times. That, too, is the reason why they still lack even one representative in the House of Assembly and will probably never have one. Now, however, the CP is preparing to find a foothold for itself in the constitutional setup and establish its position in it. It may happen that they will score initial successes in the short term, as we have seen in Waterberg. However, I contend that this will only give them a temporary foothold. For the most part their political onslaught on the voter addresses the heart and ignores realities. It ignores the true facts of South Africa, and the closer they move to the HNP, the smaller their claim is going to be. They are going to have no alternative but to move closer to the political unrealities in South Africa, to the kind of politics that excludes them from various possibilities. Eventually their political thinking will link up with the extremes. A Tukkies student asked me what was meant by the term “remskoenparty” (“obscurantist party”). I looked it up in one of our dictionaries of definitions and read in it that a “remskoenparty” means a conservative party, a party that is opposed to rapid progress. It also states that “remskoen” politics means a political policy that seeks to delay, hold back or put a brake on everything. One also encounters the word “remskoenagtigheid”, which means a sickly conservatism. We must beware of our politics becoming sickly as a result of the touting of conservatism. This is when the population figures are juggled with to prove certain statements, statements which are sometimes so contradictory as to be in total conflict with generally accepted facts. Demographers regard four decades as a relatively short period for advance estimates, whereas economic planners, on the other hand, regard two decades as a long term. Therefore, making demographic estimates with a reasonable expectation that the assumptions and conclusions will be relatively correct, reference is not made to the year 2000 in respect of projections of the population increase. Let us first take a look at the present composition of the population in South Africa. At present almost 9 million Blacks, or 62% of the total Black population, are in the rural areas, as against 6 million Blacks, or 38%, in urban areas. There are 578 000 Coloureds, or 22,6%, in the rural areas as against 1,98 million, or 77,4%, in the urban areas. There are 69 000 Asians, or 8,7%, in rural areas, and 725 000, or 91,3%, in urban areas. There are 493 000 Whites, or 11,3%, in rural areas, as against 3,87 million, or 88,7%, in urban areas. Therefore it is clear that it is not only the Blacks that are established in the rural areas and are prepared to live in rural areas. The following data prove this statement. Over a little more than three decades, between 1946 and 1980, the Black urban population has increased from 21,6% to 37% of the total Black population. This represents an increase of 15,4%. As far as the Coloureds are concerned there has been an increase of 58,1% to 77,4%. This represents an increase of 19,3%. As far as the Asians are concerned, there has been an increase of 21% and as far as the Whites are concerned, an increase of 16,2%. It is therefore clear that the Coloureds and the Indians are more subject to the process of urbanization.

We have already had practical experience of the influence of urbanization on the development of Black national States. This has definitely had a retarding effect. I therefore contend that the growing trend of urbanization present among the Coloureds and the Indians makes it impracticable to establish them in rural heartlands or homelands. Therefore, if we accept the CP’s policy of so-called heartlands or homelands, that would mean that in contrast to the Black homelands, such homelands would have to be established in urban areas. The cost of this has not yet been calculated and I believe that the CP has not calculated the cost of their idyllic dream of a Coloured and Indian homeland either.

Let us take the demographic estimates a little further. It is generally accepted that development is an important prerequisite for a drop in the rate of natural increase of the population.

You are making us despondent.

The hon. member for Brakpan says I am making them despondent, but one does get despondent about the realities of their politics. The higher the level of development, the lower the rate of natural increase. We surely all agree on that. To a large extent the Coloureds and Indians are urbanized population groups. For the most part they are established in metropolitan areas. I repeat: They can only be established in urban areas. Therefore, their homelands will have to be in urban areas. They will have to be here in the heartland of the Cape Peninsula and in the metropolitan area of the Western Cape, not in an arid rural area somewhere in the Northern Cape or wherever. The NP is prepared to maintain the Coloureds and the Indians in their present established patterns. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid to Mr. Louw by the hon. member for Gezina. We wish him well in his retirement.

†I should like to start where I left off the last time, namely with the question of the bona fides of one’s political opponents. The hon. the Minister yesterday spent some time on attacking me for suggesting that there was no logical connection between the existence of a commission of experts and the compulsion on a party or an individual to go and give evidence. It is very simple to demonstrate. If Hitler had appointed a commission of experts to exterminate the Jews, there is no logical, practical or even ethical reason for them to go and give evidence, because if they do not associate themselves with the terms of reference of that commission, obviously they need not go and give evidence. As it happens, in this case, we did give evidence. We submitted evidence to the Theron Commission and we submitted evidence to the Select Committee on the Constitution. I want to quote from the letter written by the leader of the party at that time …

I accept that.

I know. I just want to dwell a bit on this issue, although I accept the hon. the Minister’s apology. I quote—

We have accepted the hon. the Minister’s apology for making a mistake. He has accepted that it is not true that we have not given evidence. However, does the hon. the Minister also apologize for questioning our bona fides? He built his whole case on the fact that we did not give evidence to the Theron Commission or the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution and on the fact that we are not serving on the President’s Council. Therefore, if the hon. the Minister apologizes for spreading those untruths—I accept that he spread them unwittingly—is he also apologizing for attacking our bona fides?

He should!

In the process he used arguments which I said were more fitting to high school debating societies. One of those arguments which is now used ad nauseam, he gets from the final report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Constitution, paragraph 9, on page 4. He said we signed this report which says that the evidence has to be given to the President’s Council. Then he said that, because we signed that, we therefore naturally assumed that council was a more proper institution to consider constitutional development. That is ridiculous nonsense. Part of the evidence that was submitted consisted of evidence submitted by the PFP. We have no objection to giving that kind of evidence to them. Maybe some of the wisdom therein will nourish those barren constitutional minds of the President’s Council and lead them to some kind of new initiatives, because the overwhelming weight of the evidence given to the President’s Council contradicts the existence of that council. That the hon. the Minister knows himself.

In any event, by sending evidence and refusing to serve we do not abdicate our responsibility in respect of constitutional reform. Our refusal is related to a fundamental constitutional principle, namely the exclusion of Blacks. We have argued the case point for point in this Parliament and we are still here and we are still arguing the case. It is a matter on which the Government refuses to enter into debate with us. Instead they simply refer to us as boycotters. That is not an argument. It is devoid of any analytical and intellectual content. It is just a shriek of indignation, because they have no arguments to offer us against our argument for not serving.

The President’s Council is also not the only forum in which we can negotiate constitutional change. Thank heavens for that. The parliamentary forum is a far more important one and this is where we have served. There are developments taking place at this very moment and we are serving on that Select Committee. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that those members of my party who are not serving on that Committee are also quite prepared to come and give evidence. We are quite happy to come and give evidence to that Select Committee.

As I have said, we accepted the hon. the Minister’s apology immediately and without qualification. However, I do not think it is possible for him to accept a similar kind of apology from us for the very reason that, if one says a man is a liar, if one says a man cannot be trusted with the truth, if one says a man’s word cannot be accepted, how can one accept his apology? Yet that is what the hon. the Minister said to us. He said it to me in particular. When I last spoke, I appealed to the hon. the Minister to state exactly what his position was on that matter, but he has not done so. I have seldom come across any person who so passionately professes his commitment to negotiation, alienating people and groups with whom he has to negotiate as much as this hon. Minister does. Negotiation involves argument, counter-argument and bargaining. I put it to you, Sir, that this hon. Minister will not recognize an argument or a bargain even if one gives him bifocals and double contact lenses. All this hon. Minister is interested in is in trading off insults and innuendoes. I have listened to him and that is the case every time he has addressed the arguments we have put to him. In constitutional debates this hon. Minister is more interested in style than in substance. He pontificates and he pronounces, polishing puerile little debating points and presenting them as great profundities. In the process he bluffs nobody but himself. In negotiating politics, if you do not have customers you cannot open up shop. This hon. Minister is chasing away the customers before he even has a shop. If he had a shop and if he had customers, he would have to display the merchandise and would have to deliver the goods. I put it to the hon. the Minister that he cannot give us one example of negotiating with Coloureds where he has promised them that statutory racial discrimination will be removed once they take part in the new system. I ask him to say that. Did he tell them that they could get rid of the Group Areas Act? Did he tell them that they could get rid of the Population Registration Act? These are extreme examples of statutory discrimination. He cannot, because these very elements are part of the new constitution. The new constitution depends on statutory discrimination. That is why we say that in its infancy this new constitution is already polarizing and tearing this country apart. It is not a constitution; it is a collection of constitutional contradictions. It is a pot-pourri that was conceived in ignorance and infamy, and this hon. Minister is persisting with it with bulldog obstinacy. Whatever arguments we put to him, he ignores, and yet through it all, we have strived to debate with this hon. Minister. He tells us that we have no alternative and when we put the alternative, he shifts his arguments and says that it is not good enough. When we motivate our alternative, he hurls abuse and untruths at us. When we ask him to debate an alternative outside the confines of this Chamber, he subjects us to equal abuse. He had the temerity to stand up in this House yesterday and to passionately strike his desk and to say: “In God’s name, let us stick to the facts and let us stick to the debate”. He must not try to make me laugh.

Mr. Chairman, it is evidently true that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is sensitive about his inability to make any contribution to the political debate and to give any leadership in his own party.

Are you trying to be funny?

Let us now examine his performance here today. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to make his speech.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to accuse other people of untruthfulness, but what did he do this morning? In order to launch a personal attack, he said that the fact that they had signed a report to the effect that the evidence that had been heard before the Schlebusch Commission could be referred to the President’s Council was used by me as an argument to accuse them of boycotting. What the hon. member deliberately omitted to mention was that was not all he signed for in the final report. He signed the final report and thereby intimated that he considered the President’s Council to be a more effective institution to carry out the inquiry that had been assigned to the Schlebusch Commission. The hon. the leader is shaking his head in denial, but it is stated in the report.

It is expressly stated there.

Yes, it is expressly stated in the report.

The proper institution. Does it make this one improper?

I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was unleashing his tirade. The hon. member signed a report to the effect that the President’s Council, in terms of its composition and its functioning, was better qualified to hear evidence over a very wide spectrum and make an assessment and give advice on a future constitution. The hon. leader cannot deny this, because his signature appears on it. But observe how selectively the hon. the leader quotes from reports. He said that all he signed for was that the evidence could go to the President’s Council. Surely that is not factually true. In his sanctimoniousness he then accused other people.

The second point he made was that I had based my entire argument on their not having given evidence before the Theron Commission and the Schlebusch Commission. Surely that is not correct.

[Inaudible.]

Order! While this debate continues, the hon. member for Greytown may not make one further interjection. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I want to accuse them of having started boycotts which they themselves said …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it implicit in your ruling that no further interjections are allowed in this debate?

No. It applies only to the hon. member for Greytown.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the reason for that ruling so that I can protect other hon. members?

The reason is that whilst the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, only a few interjections were allowed. I want to afford the same protection to the hon. the Minister.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if we could have respect for one another’s standpoints, I would welcome it, and he knows it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that we had discussions when we were members of the Select Committee. I have no intention of repeating those discussions today because I respect the confidentiality in which they took place.

I respect it, too.

Very well. I never quoted those discussions for or against him or myself. Nor do I intend to do so here. I do want to say, however, that in view of those discussions it does not behove him to adopt the standpoint he adopted this morning.

[Inaudible.]

I am talking to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That hon. member should rather keep out of it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister cannot say that he is speaking only to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is addressing the Committee.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I am addressing the Committee. Now it seems to me the hon. member for Sandton wishes to do so at the same time I am doing so. The hon. member for Sea Point is serving on the Select Committee on the Constitution, and he knows just as well as any other hon. member that on that committee we go out of our way to try to reconcile the standpoints of all the members serving on that committee with a view to a unanimous recommendation. I want to ask him whether he agrees with that?

We have made quite a lot of progress.

In all fairness, let us understand one another now.

It is a poor Bill.

No, wait. Let us understand one another now. It makes no difference what its subject matter is. I am talking about what we have considered so far. [Interjections.] Consequently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not quote selectively as he did this morning and then accuse me. He who professes to uphold such high codes should not conduct a debate in this way. I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that the information that had been furnished to me was incorrect. As befits any hon. member, he rose immediately and said that the information was in fact erroneous.

We accepted it immediately.

Very well then. I shall not debate the matter any further.

That was the essence of the argument.

No. The essence of the argument was that institutions had been created, and the hon. member must please accept this from me now. The essence of the argument was that he and I had agreed on the one matter. He had not agreed on the Erika Theron report. The one matter we had agreed on was the fact that institution—he did not agree about its establishment—could undertake a better inquiry than Parliament or any instruments of Parliament, and he signed it. He said: Let us take the evidence, including my own, and refer it to that council.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must contain himself.

I am dealing with the leader of a party. My charge against him was, in the first place, that he did not give evidence there and, in the second place, that he boycotted participation in that council. That is the gravamen of my argument, and on that my charge against the Leader of the Opposition rests.

I now wish to go further and indicate what else happened there. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Sea Point used the media as a forum in which to lay an indictment against me, one which was not based on the truth, and one for which there is no basis whatsoever to be found in the facts. It is that … [Interjections.] No, please give me a chance now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition conceded that his words quoted in the Sunday Times had to mean that we wished to dispose of the legislation within that specified period. Is that not what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said?

Yes, definitely.

On what basis?

We tried to explain it yesterday.

No, Mr. Chairman, I shall still come to the hon. member for Sea Point. I want to know on what basis that allegation was made. The hon. member for Sea Point knows that during the past year we have already reserved various dates so that hon. members should not fill their appointment books completely during a specific period. We did not sit on all the dates in question, and the hon. member for Sea Point knows it.

You people said we would sit on all those dates. It was clearly stated that those would be the days on which the Select Committee would sit; not would possibly sit.

But surely that is not with the exclusion of other days. Surely the hon. member knows that I do not alone determine …

Our objection is concerned with the inclusion of all those days.

The hon. member did not complain when we determined that.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

If the hon. member felt aggrieved about this, I ask in all fairness why he did not make use of the first meeting of the Select Committee to raise his objections there. Why did he run to the newspapers? The hon. member for Brakpan, although he and I differ substantially, did at least observe the rules of Parliament by writing to the Secretary to the House of Assembly. I do not agree with the contents of the hon. member’s letter. I am merely pointing out that specific procedures do, after all, exist. And then I was accused in the disgraceful way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did so this morning.

But you accused me.

Yes, but I accused you on the basis of facts. [Interjections.]

You had better be careful, Chris. You might just be obliged to apologize again. [Interjections.]

Order!

No, it will avail those hon. members nothing to try to run away from these things now. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Sea Point who, next to the hon. member for Houghton, is the most senior of the representatives of the official Opposition on that Select Committee, did not even have the common decency to pick up a telephone and tell me that he felt aggrieved about the sitting days.

I intended to do so on the Select Committee.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says he would have done so on the Select Committee. Why did he go and do it in the newspapers, while he could have done so on the Select Committee?

I did not complain about it in the newspapers.

Oh yes, you did. The hon. member said we wanted to steamroller that legislation through the Select Committee.

Through Parliament, I said.

No, through the Select Committee. In any event the committee—and the hon. member ought to know this—is an extension of Parliament. [Interjections.] Surely he knows that. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to ask the next question in all earnestness and fairness, Mr. Chairman. If White people cannot come to an agreement, what hope do we have of coming to an agreement with other people?

That is a good question.

Of course. I always ask good questions. [Interjections.] I want to make it clear to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now that I shall respect him, but then I also want to ask him to see to it that we conduct the debates in this House. Let us conduct the debates here in this House and on the Select Committees of the House of Assembly. If he agrees to that, I am prepared to conduct any debates with him.

On television as well? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to address myself to the hon. member for Durban Point.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Sandton say that the hon. the Minister was a lily-livered person (“bang-broek”)?

Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “bang-broek”.

Mr. Chairman, I said that in relation to the hon. the Minister’s ducking the television debate.

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

I do that with pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is it in order for the hon. member for Sandton to say that the hon. the Minister is ducking the television debate? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to the hon. member for Durban Point that there is nothing sinister about my not reacting to his speech yesterday.

There are various hon. members to whose speeches I shall not react because I am trying to structure the debate and to reply to those issues dealing with politics, and the hon. member raised various other matters. I should like him to have my assurance in this regard. I want to say at once that I have always had appreciation for the positive way in which the hon. member for Durban Point participated in the proceedings of this House although I—and he knows this very well—frequently differed profoundly and fundamentally with him. I have never had reason to criticize the way in which he attacked us. In the second place I am not denying him his right to do so.

In respect of the progress we are making with the establishment of the so-called confederation, the hon. member made statements which I do not think are correct, because he questioned the progress. In the first place I want to warn the hon. member about one thing, and that is in connection with the use of concepts such as confederation in connection with which there is not always clarity as to what the precise contents of such a cooperative institution is and in connection with which the interpretations of political parties differ. What we are actually striving for—and I should like to repeat it to this Committee—is that we want to ensure closer inter-state co-operation between the independent States within the traditional geographic area of South Africa because we should like to achieve certain goals in this way.

The first goal we wish to achieve is that we wish to further the development of the entire southern region because we share a common destiny in every respect and because we are threatened by the same powers that wish to destabilize Southern Africa. The hon. member will surely agree with that. Secondly, in furthering the development of the entire region we wish to ensure that the political sovereignity and the fiscal autonomy of the component States are retained. Hon. members will be aware that States are very particular about their sovereignty and their to make their own decisions. In this connection I wish to say that phenomenal progress has been made during the past few months. In fact, the first meeting of the inter-state Ministers’ council for economic development of the five States took place on Monday, 30 May 1983 in Pretoria. This meeting gave final shape to the inter-state co-operative structures of the various countries which was decided upon during the summit conference of 11 November last year. Apart from the liaison on ministerial level by way of the Development Council, which held its first meeting on Monday, the structure for inter-state co-operation also makes provision for liaison on the level of departmental planning by way of an inter-state economic and financial development committee and seven technical committees on various subjects.

On a multilateral basis?

Yes. It is also making provision for liaison on a regional level by way of regional liaison committees, established in each region.

The meeting of the respective States on Monday was the first occasion on which they met as equals within the framework of a comprehensive multilateral development dispensation. It was one of the most successful meetings of this kind ever held, because an open and extensive discussion was held on matters of common interest, directly or indirectly related to the furthering of regional development and development co-operation between these States, with mutual understanding of one another’s standpoints.

The subjects discussed in this particular connection, to which prior in-depth attention had been given by way of liaison on departmental level, included inter alia industries, commerce and tourism, agriculture and environment affairs, manpower development and education, financial relations, transport, post and telecommunications and health welfare.

As regards regional development in general—I am now linking up with what was said by hon. members who discussed this matter—and the promotion of industrial development in particular, a simplified incentive system for small and informal industries was agreed upon. While I am dealing with this, I must point out that we must bear in mind that these incentive measures are not only available to four States, but are also available to the self-governing States which have not yet obtained independence and which are situated within the jurisdiction of the Republic of South Africa. These incentives make provision for special interest and rental subsidies for formal and small industries as well as a special cash/wage incentive system for small informal industries. It was also decided to give close attention to the promotion of small businesses in general, including non-industrial undertakings.

Moreover, I want to point out that it was once again emphasized that regional development goes further than industrial development and that the promotion of other sectors such as agriculture, mining, tourism and so on, is equally important and should receive positive attention from the various technical committees on departmental level specifically created for that purpose.

For various regions and independent States, development possibilities are to a large extent situated in agriculture. In fact serious criticism has been expressed in regard to the utilization of land. In this connection general principles which ought to apply in order to ensure that the production capacity of land, earmarked for transfer to the States in question, will not be prejudiced prior to or after transfer, have been agreed upon. The land will therefore be productively utilized. This is the agreement that was reached.

The importance of manpower development, formal education and a sound public administration for the development of the respective regions was emphasized. In this respect announcements were made which I do not wish to discuss any further now owing to a lack of time, but I shall make full particulars available to hon. members.

One of the most important events is the fact that on the occasion of that meeting articles of agreement for the to be established Development Bank of Southern Africa were agreed upon. They were approved with an authorized share capital of R2 000 million, of which R200 million has to be taken up over the first five years. Of this amount South Africa will contribute R168 million over a period of five years and the other participating partners the remainder. In addition it was held out in prospect that the formal signing of the agreement by the heads of Government of the States will take place on 30 June of this year, on which date the appointment of the Board of Governors by the five signatory-countries will also take effect. It was also decided that the seat of the Development Bank of Southern Africa will be in the vicinity of Johannesburg, because the business and trade centre of the country is situated there. I wish to emphasize however that the fact that the Development Bank will be situated there—that is within the Republic of South Africa—will not and must not detract from the inter-state character of the bank.

As regards the contribution of the RSA to the development funds of the bank, the RSA has undertaken to pledge itself annually to an amount which will be paid into the Development Bank over a five-year period and which will enable the bank to lend out the capital funds which it is able to mobilize in the capital market on conditions suited to the nature of the infrastructure programmes and projects which it will finance.

The hon. member knows that to date this has been done by the economic division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. It has also been done by the Department of Co-operation and Development in respect of Black national States. The amount for the first five years totals R1 500 million. The hon. member must also take cognizance of the fact that as a result of this Bill which is at the disposal of the bank, its lending capacity in the capital market will in the longer term make considerable additional funds available which will generate a powerful potential for development in respect of the States of southern Africa. I want to make the point that a great deal of progress has already been made with inter-state co-operation in various spheres of development.

The hon. member also referred to the activities of the economic planning division, as well as to the multilateral structures which have come into existence among the neighbouring States. He also referred to the possibility of overorganization. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the new multilateral co-operation structures which have been created, amount to a large-scale rationalization of co-operation structures which did not previously exist. It remains a fact that under the old dispensation talks and negotiation on matters which received attention during the recent development council meeting had to be conducted in a cumbersome way and, in many cases, on an ineffectual bilateral basis. Consequently we have achieved great success and this does not imply overorganization, but rationalization of inter-state activities on a bilateral basis. The results we have achieved with what we have done must surely serve as a criterion of our success or failure. Finally, if we were to consider what has been achieved in the sphere of development co-operation, regional development, industrial development, monetary and fiscal policy, foreign trade policy, labour policy, the social, scientific, constitutional and physical spatial ordering policy within the space of a year or two within the framework of this system, we must in all fairness also question the norms which the hon. member is using to test or to gauge our success.

The hon. member for Umbilo apologized to me for not being able to be present here today. That hon. member also referred to the activities of the economic planning division and alleged that for the purposes of the housing study it was unnecessary to make its own projection of the housing needs since, according to the hon. member, a diversity of projections was already available and because additional projections would only add to the confusion as to what our real requirements in this connection are. I want to point out that the various projections to which the hon. member referred frequently reflected divergent results which made it difficult to obtain a picture of the true state of affairs. Nevertheless we are trying—I concede this point—to make use of existing projections as far as possible. As far as Whites, Coloureds and Asians are concerned, for example, the Department of Community Development’s own projections of the future housing needs were used. The projection in respect of Black housing is based on the comprehensive study which BERBD undertook a few years ago and in which a projection was made of housing needs up to the year 2000.

Apart from this I must point out that the housing study in our department was in the first place not a projection exercise in respect of housing. The investigation formed part of a far wider study programme and was also an initial exercise in the development of standardized methods by means of which investigations into functional priorities of State expenditure in future could be dealt with. Consequently it was concerned with financial planning in order to meet the housing needs. I would be pleased if the hon. member could convey this to his colleague.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member is not here at the moment. He said that the preamble to the Constitution Bill was an NP document. The accusation is being levelled at the Government that the national objectives described in the preamble are mere lip service. Now we must co-operate with one another. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants us to co-operate with one another. The Government is prepared to associate itself fully with the objectives contained in the preamble. As a practising politician, however, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to know how difficult it is going to be for us to attain these objectives in a country with a social structure such as we have. We must not ask other people to accept our bona fides while we reject theirs, as the hon. member for Sea Point did in his speech. We cannot converse with one another on that repared to identify itself with the preamble. Perhaps these things are not attainable within the realities of our society, but in any event there is not a country in Africa where they are attainable. However, that does not absolve us from the responsibility of introducing these things, identifying ourselves with them and striving to attain them. We shall try to attain these things. We shall differ with one another on the methods one should adopt in order to attain them, for that is what is at issue in the practical political situation we are all involved in.

I do not think there is anyone in this House who is not really trying to find an answer to our problems. We can condemn one another’s methods or motives as much as we like, but we are all seeking answers, because what we are concerned with here is our survival. We are concerned with the survival of the ideals we are striving to attain. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition prepared to identify himself with that?

Yes.

That is all I wanted to know. I do not want to quarrel. I just wanted to know that.

The hon. member for Sea Point, as well as the hon. member for Santon—I have already referred to this—alleged that we wanted to steamroller the Constitution Bill. Let us look at the factual basis of the charge. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as other hon. members, know that the process of constitutional reform is part of the history of our country. In fact, it is the one subject in regard to which the deepest division in White politics has existed, and still exists today. No one can deny that. Secondly, all constitutional development which the NP has brought about since Union has been in the face of opposition from the Opposition Parties of the country. This was the case when this country became a Republic; it was the case with the legislation on the independence of Black areas in 1971, and also with the individual laws in respect of Black States which became independent. I am not saying this in a spirit of reproach. I am simply making a point. Nevertheless that development has, in spite of the Opposition which it met with, brought greater unity of political thought in the country.

Nonsense.

Please give me a chance. There is no one in this country who wishes to go back to the period prior to the establishment of a Republic. There is not one of the Black peoples—I am not overlooking the problem of those citizens who are not physically present in their States—who wish to undo the independence of their particular States. In fact, all the political parties in the House accommodate the factual existence of independent States in their political views. Surely that is the case. In the case of Coloureds, the historical course of events has been painful. In the ’fifties they were deprived of their qualified franchise in the Cape and Natal; in the ’seventies their parliamentary representation here by Whites was done away with, and also in the seventies …

That was a big mistake.

I do not wish to recriminate; I am merely recounting the historical course of events. In the seventies the Coloured Persons Representative Council came to an end. Some people say that it was a negative course of events. However, I wish to state today, that however painful it may have been, it brought something in its wake which in my opinion offers a prospect of hope for the future for them and peace for us, for in that way the Coloureds, who were used as arbiters for White political differences, were removed from that arena and it became possible, if we pass the new constitution, to bring Coloureds and Asians to the Parliament of South Africa. That, according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, may not be enough. That, according to the hon. members of the CP, may be too much. The fact of the matter is that for the first time Coloureds and Asians will have representation in the legislative assembly of a country.

It is being said that we steamrollered the proposals. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this himself. The inquiry of the Theron Commission, however, was concerned with political rights plus the other matters. He knows that. Since that time, for more than ten years, there has been a continuous process of consultation and the hearing of evidence. Let us consider the facts in this connection. The Schlebusch Commission received 162 written representations from individuals and 86 from bodies and organizations. As regards oral evidence before the Schlebusch Commission—it was first a committee but was subsequently converted into a commission—34 individuals and 12 bodies gave evidence. The Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council—this is the basis of my charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I have already dealt with it and I do not want to take it any further—received 76 written documents from individuals and 76 from bodies and heard oral evidence from 24 individuals and 30 bodies. In aggregate, over a period of 10 years, 500 people and bodies submitted written or oral evidence. If anyone wishes to allege that means that we wish to steamroller the constitution through, I do not know what more we must do to deliberate on the constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I know the Select Committee itself has to decide whether or not it is going to hear evidence. The hon. the Minister is chairman of that committee. Is he of the opinion that evidence should be given before that Select Committee, specifically on the Bill itself?

It is a fair question and I should like to reply to it. However, I first want to come to the hon. member for Sandton. He is not serving on the committee. He put three questions to me. In the first place he wanted to know whether I was going to allow evidence. However, he knows that I do not have the authority to decide about that.

Sorry, but I did not hear that. Could you please repeat it?

The hon. member asked me whether I was going to allow evidence before the Select Committee.

Yes.

He knows, or should know, that I have no authority to decide on that issue.

But do you not have a view on it?

The hon. member did not ask me for my view. The hon. member for Groote Schuur must now allow me to reply to the hon. member for Sandton. [Interjections.]

*I shall reply to the hon. leader in a moment. The hon. member for Sandton knows that I do not have such authority. In the second place he asked me whether I would postpone the programme. He knows as well as I do that I do not determine the programme and that I only try to determine the sitting days under difficult circumstances in order to satisfy a large number of members.

In the third place the hon. member asked me why the Bill was not referred to a Select Committee prior to Second Reading. I have already indicated that we have been hearing evidence for 10 years now. Surely someone has to take a decision at some time or another, not so? Unfortunately it is a responsibility which the Government has to take upon itself. We cannot wait for the convention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; we must take the decisions now. My reply to the question of the hon. the leader, and I am replying on behalf of the Government, is that adequate opportunity will be given for the discussion of the Bill on the Select Committee. Our standpoint is that we shall provide adequate time for reasonable discussion of the constitutional proposals. In the second place, the Select Committee has the authority to decide to hear evidence on the clauses of the Bill, but not on its principles.

What is your personal attitude in that regard?

My personal attitude is that I shall recommend this to the committee. Hon. members must be reasonable, however, because we must have the matter disposed of, because while people are talking here, there are other people outside who have been disenfranchised. Everything I am saying now, are things the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Sea Point knew. If they did not know them, they could have used the Select Committee to find out, as they have every right to do. The hon. the leader must agree with that.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I cannot reply to any further questions now. I still have to reply to quite a number of other hon. members. I cannot spend all my time on that member only.

The hon. member for Barberton apologized for not being able to be here. He advanced a semantic argument on citizenship. I want to say at once that the reply to that is simple. The Coloureds and the Asians are South African citizens. Hon. members all admitted this. The Black peoples who are not independent, are also South African citizens. It has always been the policy of the NP that when Black peoples become independent, and they become independent by way of agreement, then they lose their South African citizenship. It has always been the standpoint of the NP that Coloureds and Asians must retain permanent South African citizenship. That was also the policy of all the hon. members who are now sitting in the CP benches. Is that not true?

Yes.

The hon. member admits it. As long as they admit it, we are at least making progress. Why are we then arguing as though the Black people and the Coloureds were dealt with on the same basis historically and practically. Surely that is not the case.

The hon. the leader of the NRP asked me what the responsibility of my department was in respect of the development of Black peoples in the country, since there was a reference to this in the report. I want to reply to him immediately. The constitutional division of the department is responsible for coordinating the overall planning policy in all the various spheres, viz. social, economic, constitutional and physical. We have a co-ordinating function. But we have no executive functions in that respect. This does not mean that the department is the only planning body in all spheres and that there are no responsible and executive bodies for that purpose. The department makes planning inputs by means of representation on interdepartmental committees and working groups and also on the Cabinet Committees entrusted with these matters. That is why it is important that we understand that we are not taking over the function of those departments whose responsibility this is. However, it is also true that the constitutional development of one ethnic group naturally has an effect on the other ethnic groups. In order to bring about synchronization here, there is a Cabinet Committee on constitutional matters, and there is also a Constitutional Committee that is giving attention to these matters.

†The hon. member for Yeoville made a surprise contribution to the debate. I welcome it. It brings evidence of the fact that the observations that I have made about his non-participation in the Second Reading was not unjustified or far-fetched. However, let me say immediately that I think that the issues that the hon. member has raised relating to the conventions that will be applicable in the new system and, secondly, parliamentary control over finances and budgetary proposals, are most important issues. But I would like to suggest that the appropriate time to discuss that would be when we deal with the Bill when it comes back from the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether in those circumstances he—I am talking about him personally, as the chairman—would support a request that on those issues I be allowed to give evidence before the committee?

If the hon. member requests to give evidence before that Committee, I shall surely recommend that we hear him on that. However, I say that it would be much more appropriate if the hon. member would give his evidence in this House. Then we could all hear him.

Can he be represented by counsel?

I do not think that he would need counsel.

*The hon. member for Meyerton is an astonishing person. He poses as a man of great righteousness, but consider what he does. Consider in what derogatory terms he refers, with his questions, to large parts of our country and many of our people.

Oh please, Chris!

Give me a chance now. The hon. member for Meyerton asked a number of frivolous questions about the referendum and the drought conditions, questions which testified to his complete lack of sympathy for the position in which those people find themselves. [Interjections.]

You are being unfair now.

He tried to make cheap and petty politics out of one of the gravest problems of the urban and rural areas. Worst of all, however, is that hon. members should just have seen how he donned the cloak of righteousness.

It is hypocrisy. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Kimberley South must withdraw the word “hypocrisy”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member referred to the blue pamphlet and said that he had quoted from it to persuade Nationalists to vote for the CP because it was stated in the pamphlet that a Coloured person could become a Minister. That is what the hon. member said. I have a problem with the hon. member. In 1977 the hon. member accepted that Coloureds and Asians could become Ministers. [Interjections.] One cannot shout down the truth.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to state his case.

In 1977 the hon. member voted for a Council of Cabinets in which seven—a fixed number—people of colour would have representation. This was stated in a pamphlet published for the election. Now I want to ask the hon. member this question: When, in 1977, he fought an election together with us, did he hide that pamphlet?

No.

The hon. member says “No”.

At the time there were to have been three parliaments.

No, we are talking about the Cabinet now. The hon. member cannot get out of it. I accuse that hon. member of having hidden his 1977 election pamphlet for five years. And now I am levelling this direct accusation at him: His reason for doing so was that he did not agree with it. [Interjections.] The hon. member must go and examine his own conscience on the basis of his own beliefs concerning what is just.

You know it was to have been a Council of Cabinets, Chris.

The hon. member for North Rand … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment on the speech made by the hon. member for North Rand. All I want to do is to confirm that what he said was in fact true, viz. that he stopped short in 1962. He was never part of 1977, and he is not part of 1983 either. [Interjections.] In fact, it is not I who say this; the hon. member says it himself. He says he still endorses the 1962 policy. That is true. [Interjections.]

The hon. member Prof. Olivier and the hon. member for Sandton both referred to paragraph 119, on page 19, of the department’s annual report. I wonder whether, with the permission of the aforesaid two hon. members, of course, I could provide them with written replies to their representations. Unfortunately I do not have the time now to reply fully to all their questions.

On the Government side I just wish to refer quickly to the hon. members for Klip River, Randfontein, Roodepoort, Johannesburg West, Kroonstad, Benoni, Umlazi, Hercules, East London North, Helderkruin, Randburg and Mossel Bay, as well as to the hon. member Mr. Van Staden, who in my opinion all made contributions of great value to the constitutional debate in this House. I regret that I am not able to react fully to their speeches. The hon. member for Sundays River, the hon. member Dr. Odendaal, and the hon. member for Turffontein discussed regional development and regional planning. I hope they will not take it amiss of me for not replying to their contributions now. I have already drawn up replies for them, which I shall let them have in due course. However, time does not allow me to furnish them with those replies now.

The hon. member for Innesdal—he tendered his apology for his absence—referred to the utilization of technology. I agree with what he said. In this respect I just wish to refer to one thing. It is that a study group on a strategy for industrial development—the Kleu study group-—identified important internal problems in its consideration of technology as a production factor, and these have been carefully taken into account in its recommendations. The most important of these is that the technological policy should be formulated within the framework of a national economic policy and that it should be co-ordinated with the industrial strategy of the country. The guiding principles of the policy are still to be proposed. The hon. member was therefore correct.

Next I just wish to refer to the acceptance of the Government’s national scientific policy and development programme, which I shall also make available to hon. members.

A number of questions were put to me in regard to statistics. The hon. member for Umbilo, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed discussed this subject. In due course I shall also furnish them with replies to the questions they put to me. However, I wish to conclude this debate now.

Mr. Chairman, may I put my question to the hon. the Minister now?

No, I wish to conclude the debate now. [Interjections.]

Order!

What are the facts we are dealing with here? I maintain that there is a survival fear among all the people in this country; a fear that our values may not survive. People are fearful about their ability to preserve their identities. This is true of all the people living in this country. This also explains why the political dialogue in South Africa is so emotionally charged. Our task is therefore to see whether we are going to succeed in allaying those fears, and in the second place, to see whether we can ensure that there will be stability and development in the country, and whether it is possible to satisfy the legitimate expectations—economic, social and political—of the separate peoples and population groups in the country. In addition, we are an African country, and according to statistics—African statistics—none of these things are possible.

The question therefore is this: What makes us an exception? Why will we be able to do these things, while the rest of Africa has failed? I believe we can do them. In Africa in general great emphasis was placed on the so-called political kingdom which must first be secured, while other matters, for example socio-economic development, were neglected. The result of this was that political power was absolutized, while every other aspect was politicized. South Africa, on the other hand, has already made a great deal of progress towards the establishment of divided and alternative political structures, each of which has decision-making powers over matters such as socio-economic development. However, this is neither complete nor adequate. In Africa tremendous emphasis is placed on nation-building. National unity is a total endeavour and consequently there is no room for ethnicity in the constitutional sphere. The destruction of ethnicity becomes an aim in itself in Africa, inter alia by means of compulsory integration, assimilation, persecution and even genocide. In South Africa the recognition of ethnicity and protection of minorities—in other words, the group existence—are cornerstones of the policy which has been and will be established on all levels of government. In Africa the tendency exists to centralize Government structures, as is manifested, for example, by one-party States, dictatorships and military governments. In South Africa, on the other hand, the tendency is to decentralize, politically and economically, and a good deal of progress has already been made in this direction, as manifested in four independent States and five national States and a comprehensive policy of decentralization of economic and industrial development. In Africa human rights and minority rights are quite frequently entrenched in constitutions which, in practice, are at the mercy of presidents, politicians and soldiers without any possibility of their being tested in the courts or by means of parliamentary procedures. In South Africa our legal system has a long tradition of impartiality, and the sovereignty of the country is vested in Parliament. In Africa regional and local governments are poorly developed. Regional and local authorities are made directly subordinate to the supreme power. In South Africa, on the other hand, there are four independent States, five national States, four provinces, 227 community councils and 304 municipalities, which are all signs and manifestations of the devolution which promotes self-determination and is a recipe for group survival. In Africa no distinction is drawn between own and common or group interests. In South Africa there are varying degrees of autonomy for dealing with own matters such as the self-governing States and the ethnic chambers which are a guarantee for the defusing of the conflict. The so-called free Africa is not free, not in terms of the precarious existence of millions of members of minority groups. It is not free, not in terms of the socio-economic crises in its national economies. Nor is it free in terms of the ability of its governments to maintain themselves internally or externally. Our Government is endeavouring to achieve significant freedom for all the peoples and all the population groups in our fatherland, and for that models and structures are necessary.

However, there are two other things which are necessary in the country. The first is the will to succeed, and the second is the acceptability of people as they are, which has to be enhanced, and this has to be done with an attitude which can give substance to a constitution which has to be realized.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, our attitude towards the Bill was made clear during the Second Reading debate when we moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. That amendment was negatived by the House and the Bill is much the poorer for it. During the Committee Stage we moved a large number of amendments, in fact, if I counted correctly, there were 41 amendments placed on the Order Paper and I think a paltry three or four embracing a couple of “ors” and “ands” were accepted.

The attitude of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare who piloted the Bill through the House makes one wonder. He showed an inability to accept or reject amendments which were of great importance to the Bill. His refusal to accept very important amendments makes one wonder. He said he would not accept certain amendments because they had not been placed on the Order Paper early enough for him to consider them.

What I find ironical is the fact that we had an argument, as the House will remember, about the right of a superintendent to make a decision whether a child should be operated upon as a matter of urgency when the child needed it and parental consent could not be obtained. Across the floor of the House the hon. the Minister said to the hon. member for Parktown: “I have done it and you have done it.” I believe the hon. the Minister has done it. I believe he has made urgent decisions of that nature. Although he can make urgent decisions on the spot to operate upon a child, he is not prepared to make urgent decisions in the House on a matter affecting a Bill which is aimed at improving the Bill. That I find very ironical.

Our attitude towards the Bill is its Third Reading stage is certainly one of mixed feelings. On the one hand we feel that we have not produced the sort of Bill that we need. We also feel that amendments which could have improved the Bill should have been accepted. On the other hand we feel that we cannot oppose the Third Reading because we are dealing here with the replacement of an existing Act and there are certain changes contained in the Bill which constitute slight improvements upon the existing Act. On those slight improvements I shall touch later in my speech.

One of the main reasons for our amendment at the Second Reading that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee was that we wanted the Bill to be held back because of recommendations of the Hoexter Commission which are in the pipeline. In terms of those recommendations the whole concept of dealing with children as such will change. We shall then move away from the children’s court which we are now constituting as it was constituted in the existing Act. In its place there will be a family court. There is a lot of merit in the idea of a family court. Mr. Coetzer, the then Secretary for Justice, tabled a report in this House about two or three years ago, if I remember correctly, in which the instituting of family courts was suggested to deal with matrimonial matters, with adoptions, with matters affecting children and with how one should deal with children who need the type of attention they should get if their parents cannot control them.

I suggest with great respect that the concept of a family court has great merit in the sense that all aspects of family life such as divorce, children and adoption can be dealt with in one environment. There will then be one point of control to which those aspects can be channelled and sorted out under the guidance of psychologists, psychiatrists and social welfare workers. In that sense it is a pity that the hon. the Minister had rushed the Bill through. If it does come about that the House accepts the concept of a family court, the whole of chapter 2 of the Bill will have to be changed. We shall then have to come to the House and reorganize the whole constitution of the present children’s court in order to institute a family court.

What we have done—this is of moment—is to shift the focus of attention from the child to the parent. An entire shift of emphasis has therefore taken place in terms of the Bill. I think it is a pity that we failed in accepting an amendment aimed at creating the right of appeal to another court. One of the instances in which parents can lose a child is in the case where the child has been assaulted by the parents. That is in terms of this section of the Bill. Under our law any person who assaults another person is entitled to a right of appeal if he is convicted. He has a normal right of appeal in a case of assault. There are many occasions where the superior court has found it necessary to reverse the decision of the basic court in so far as the conviction of guilt of assault is concerned. Yet, when a parent, in terms of an inquiry to be held under this legislation, is guilty on a charge of assault, he pays the consequence of having the child taken away from him or referred to an institution or such other place of care as the particular court may decide and recommend, and he has no right of appeal. Surely, Sir, this is the biggest travesty of justice that we are perpetuating at this stage. I sincerely trust the hon. the Minister will give this the consideration that it deserves and come back to the House, having considered it properly, to introduce a method of appeal so that this situation can be cured.

Another aspect of this Bill which is of great moment is the question of adoption. This is a sensitive matter affecting parents, children and family life. Figures given to this House show that many adoptions take place. There were 563 adoptions amongst Coloureds and 189 adoptions amongst Indians. There are not enough children available for adoption, certainly not among the White population. It is a tragedy of life in the sense that there are so many unwanted children where the mother does not want the child, and yet there are so many parents who want children but cannot get them. The question of adoption is guided by the religion of the child. I have no quarrel with that, up to a point. An infant really does not have very much of a background that should be given such due consideration, or even a religious background for that matter, as long as the parents have been declared suitable by the adoption court. Perhaps we should be a little more flexible in granting adoptions under those circumstances and not erect rigid walls by blocking adoptions because of those factors. I do not say they should not be taken into consideration, but I do not think they should be the law of the Medes and Persians. They should be nothing more than a guideline.

I want to come back to a point which worries me terribly and which I think worries this House. The hon. the Minister was not prepared to do anything about it. This Bill provides that, in a case of adoption having taken place, a birth certificate can be obtained. It will then be possible for the child to find out that he was adopted. He will in this way be able to establish the identity of his real parents. I think it is fundamentally wrong. As I mentioned in the Committee Stage, an infant will grow up with his parents and believe them to be his parents if he has not been told otherwise. There is no law which determines that the parent must tell the child that he is an adopted child. The parent, with all the due love and care that a parent gives a child, brings him up without telling him that he is adopted. However, one day the child has to get a birth certificate. He has to apply for it when he joins the Army, the Navy or goes to university, or whatever the case may be. Sir, can you imagine the tremendous shock and trauma to that child and the disruption of family love and life when that shock is given to them and they become aware of the fact of adoption? I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give more than serious consideration to reconsidering that aspect so that it can be amended as soon as possible.

I now come to the question of children being sent to places of safety. In smaller places, and even in larger places such as Soweto or other large townships where Black or Coloured people live, there are no places of safety as such. In those areas a child is taken to a goal. Imagine the trauma, the loss of confidence and the insecurity which a child of six or even seven experiences when having to spend one, two or more nights in a prison together with hardened criminals. The hon. the Minister and I both agree it is wrong. Yet the Minister has to perpetuate this wrong because there are no other places of safety. Since the hon. the Minister was not prepared to amend the definition, a clear onus rests on him to move heaven and earth to see to it that places of safety other than prisons are established to which children who are caught up in this net can be sent. I sincerely trust that this will in fact take place.

As regards the question of sending children to foster homes rather than institutions, the hon. the Minister may be aware of the tremendous change in attitude to foster homes to which children should be sent when the time comes. I want to refer to the hon. the Minister and the House to a report on a discussion held with a certain professor Shirley Buttrick of the University of Illinois in the USA when she visited South Africa. She outlined the change in attitude of officialdom in this regard. I quote from the report—

It goes on to say—

The policy should be one of permanent placement. When it comes to the question of age, according to this professor they favour the idea of spinsters, and not necessarily married parents, adopting or looking after such children. The Minister’s consent is not required for that sort of thing. It can be done quite freely. The report states further—

Why not? Furthermore—

In other words, a house is rented and the children are given to a couple to bring them up in that house as a family. That is a policy which I think the hon. the Minister might like to consider for children who require this type of care.

Another important aspect—and this is really why we are supporting the Third Reading—is that it is being made compulsory to report cases of what is commonly called child battery. There is of course no one more helpless than a two year old child being battered and not being able to get any kind of help from anyone. Therefore it is necessary that it should be made compulsory to report such cases. However, I think the hon. the Minister is making another error in not widening the net to teachers and chemists, for example. Consider aspects of the battering of a child under the age of two. In such a case it is likely that the child will be taken to a chemist. The child may appear dull and listless. These are medically well-defined symptoms of children subjected to child battery. Surely the teacher will be the first one to spot a dull and listless child. In the case of a child which cries too often, that can be noted by both teacher and chemist. In the case of a child with repeated injuries such as bruises, burns, abrasions and internal bleeding, that can also be noticed by both. In the light of these known and recognized symptoms, surely the net should be widened so that we can the better achieve our aim. The effect of going halfway, just as was the case with the Abuse of Dependence—producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act which was passed in 1971 and in terms of which very heavy penalties were imposed for being in possession of dagga and other substances, it tended to drive that problem underground. One therefore has to bring it to the surface. The net should be widened so that these people can be brought under the control of the measure.

About the question of legal fees, we may differ about the interpretation of the clause, but I have discussed this matter with my colleagues and they all agree with me that a strict interpretation of the clause would in fact preclude prima facie legal people from being able to levy a fee in cases where adoptions are concerned. We already provide in the Bill that legal representation can take place at an inquiry, and I therefore think that there is a contradiction in the Bill itself. This should be investigated.

Another aspect I want to mention is that of a child going out on adoption without the parents’ consent or where the one parent does not consent to it or where the child does not have any parents. It is a new concept which I could not introduce in the Committee Stage, because it has a lot of legal implications. I think the hon. the Minister should consider the question of grandparents when adoptions are investigated. It may happen that the mother and the father of a child are killed simultaneously, for example in a motor accident. In terms of the Bill that child can technically be given out on adoption. I feel there are many grandparents, some of whom are sitting in this House, who would like to have the first right to adopt such children. They would in fact not like a child to be sent out for adoption or not placed in their care. I think that is a matter that should be considered.

This Bill is based on the work of social workers. We welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement with regard to the increases in salaries of social workers. We think they deserve it, but we do think that a closer look at the whole structure should be considered. The initial salary structure is good and I do not think there is too much quarrel about that, but I think that salaries can be improved as regards the more senior people engaged in this sort of work. We will support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what the hon. member for Hillbrow had to say. What struck me immediately was that the hon. member had once again come forward with arguments that have been advanced during the Second Reading debate. I want to address an urgent plea to the hon. member for Hillbrow, and that is that when his party adopts a standpoint on a very important matter such as the Child Care Bill, he should at least be consistent in arguing the standpoint he has adopted.

During the Second Reading debate the official Opposition asked that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate this Bill. We told them that we could no longer take them seriously if they asked for a Select Committee to be appointed for virtually every second Bill. If the Select Committee makes a certain decision that is rejected by the PFP caucus, hon. members opposite say that their caucus has decided differently. It does the image of the official Opposition no good when they are consistent only in respect of one thing, viz. their inconsistency in dealing with a situation like this. I have a high regard for the hon. member for Hillbrow, but I also want to tell him that he is acting strangely here during this Third Reading debate. A number of amendments, which were dealt with by the hon. the Minister, were moved during the Committee Stage. After the Second Reading debate we had a very good response from a broad spectrum of social workers and from practically 90% of all the institutions active in this field. We received a positive response. Then the official Opposition withdrew a number of its amendments and moved new amendments. They must pardon me for saying that they remind me just a little of the UN and Swapo. The UN claims that “Swapo is the sole and legal representative of the peoples of Namibia”. Not a single organization in this country can arrogate to itself the right to deal with the total field of child care in South Africa. The spokesmen of the official Opposition leave much to be desired in this regard. They are merely the echo of one particular outside organization, whereas we expected them, as co-legislators, at least to look at this matter objectively. Hansard will prove to the outside world that there has been no logic in the arguments and standpoints of the official Opposition on this extremely important Bill. I wish to place on record here, during the Third Reading, that one of the feathers in the cap of the hon. the Minister and his department has been the very fact that all the various institutions have been consulted over a period of approximately eight years, and that many changes have been effected along the way. The churches and the national councils have been accommodated. Everyone who made representations has been accommodated. We are dealing, in the Third Reading, with a Children’s Act which I believe will be good for the next 20 years, just as the old one was good for 20 to 23 years.

Secondly I wish to make a few remarks about the concept of “adoption”, to which the hon. member for Hillbrow referred as well. The fact of the matter is that the number of children available for adoption is completely inadequate if compared with the tremendous need that exists. Adoption should not be like purchasing something over the counter. A whole process is set in motion or put into operation, a process involving not only the parents and the child, but also social workers, pastoral psychologists, therapists and clergymen, all trying to make their individual inputs and see to it that the child who is to be adopted—taking his or her background into account—fits in as well as possible with the couple with whom that child is to be placed. Basically, this is the principle of the well-known Stals policy we lodged a plea for in this House, saying we would very much like to re-endorse those principles. That ought to solve the problems the hon. member for Hillbrow is having in that regard. To be involved in an organization where the adoption of most of the children in the country who are made available for adoption takes place, is one of the most rewarding experiences one could possibly have. I want to state in this House today that I regard adoption almost in the spiritual sense of the word, it being even more wonderful than a natural birth since many children are unwanted or are born at an inopportune time or at the wrong time. In contrast, parents who apply to adopt children are motivated. To them it is an ultimate spiritual experience. Most of the organizations I know have the finest possible record, in the sense that they have the lowest failure rate as far as both the parent and the child are concerned. I wish to take up the cudgels for those children who find a place in the sun through adoption and become worthy citizens of South Africa. There are numerous distinguished people in our country today, people who have made vast, positive contributions in many fields, despite the fact, or should I rather say due to the very fact, that it was God’s will that they should become adopted children. I also wish to pay tribute to those couples who, in many respects, love the child they adopt more than one of their own children who may be born at a later stage. There are thousands of cases like that. I could devote an entire speech to this. The adoption of a child could lead to the awakening of maternal instincts and to psychological relaxation of tension so that the person who at first appeared to be infertile, is now able to bear children. This is one of the wonderful manifestations involved here. That is why I am telling the hon. member for Hillbrow that when we speak about these things, we should realize that we are treading on hallowed ground.

I also want to thank the social workers and the churches involved in this, as well as the national councils. We have here a broad multidisciplinary team that sees to it that only the best effort is made in this vitally important matter. Last week the hon. the Minister announced that social work as a profession is to be singled out as far as remuneration is concerned, something which is in line with the Government’s policy that the Commission for Administration should examine each profession and determine its merit rating. We wish social workers every financial advantage possible. Nor are we ashamed to say that the reconstruction services being rendered are the keystone of this new Children’s Act.

I do not know whether—perhaps due to the nature of his constituency, the most densely populated in the world—the hon. member for Hillbrow is aware of the fact that the latest trend is for parents with adopted children to inform those children, as time passes, that they are, in fact, adopted.

This is no longer something one hides under a bushel. For example, when such a child encounters other children at school who remind him of the fact that he is an adopted child, he could reply: Yes, my mother and father could go and fetch me; they were able to choose me. Your mother and father, however, had to take what they got.

I just wish to emphasize that adoptions usually take place in the presence of responsible people, after a diagnostic investigation into the whole case has been carried out. In any case, I personally am completely satisfied with that aspect. Since the hon. member for Hillbrow has referred to the possibility of the adoption of older children who have smoked dagga, etc., I wish to refer him once again—he surely ought to know this—to the S.A. National Council for Alcoholism and Drug Addiction which specializes in this field. The council renders specialized services and assistance in this particular field. As is always the case, however—after an hon. member has questioned a piece of legislation and has received replies from the Government, as well as having been given addresses where he can go to find answers—the hon. member for Hillbrow is engaged in plotting and scheming with his hon. Chief Whip as regards the next debate, and is not at all interested in what we are telling him.

I am listening to you. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the National Council for Mental Health. For the sake of the hon. member for Hillbrow, I just want to point out once again that I have just tried to focus his attention on the S.A. National Council for Alcoholism, which does extremely positive work in this very field; not to mention the churches that are everywhere in evidence.

In conclusion I wish to refer to the adoption of children by their grandparents. I believe that this is quite an obvious matter. If possible, of course, grandparents would want to adopt their grandchildren. To me it is so obvious that one does not even need to incorporate it into the Bill, nor even mention it, for that matter. We regularly deal with cases in which grandparents wish to adopt the child or children of their son or daughter. This points to one of the finest characteristics one still finds in our people, that grandparents can say that since it is not possible at present for their child to look after the welfare of a baby, they, the grandparents, are prepared to accept that responsibility until such time as it is possible for the mother or father to accept full responsibility for the child concerned.

Where do you find that in the Bill?

Mr. Chairman, there are certain things one does not write into legislation. There are certain things that should be indelibly imprinted in one’s heart of hearts, and if those things are not imprinted in one’s heart of hearts, no law on earth will be able to change one’s attitude or enable one to show any understanding of the deepest promptings of the soul.

My heart is in the right place. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am really enjoying making this speech, but the time has come for me to resume my seat. I just want to thank the hon. the Minister most sincerely for the legislation he has introduced in this House. I also want to thank the officials of the department for the hard work they have done. They and their colleagues have been doing excellent work for many years now. My gratitude also goes to hon. members who have contributed to making this piece of legislation one of the finest, one of the best, one of the most important in this year’s session.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that my participation in the Committee Stage debate on this Bill, as well as the amendments I moved and my discussion of them, had nothing to do with politics or with any political game. It was solely a question of the facts of the matter that we were dealing with; the child, the child possibly in need of care, the question of adoption, and in particular the function of the social worker in this specific case.

So in raising a few points this afternoon during this Third Reading debate, let me say that I do not, in the first place, want to enter into a debate with the hon. member for Hillbrow or with the hon. member for Brits about certain things they said. I want to link up with the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, in which he gave the reasons for the introduction of the Bill under discussion.

Because we are now taking our leave of the old Children’s Act, I want to point out that from personal experience gained over the years in which I worked with the relevant Act, I have become absolutely convinced that we have a Children’s Act—and I am now referring to the existing Act—which is one of the best in the world, which became famous throughout the world, and for that reason one feels a little sad at having to take one’s leave of that Act.

The first reason given by the hon. the Minister for the introduction of a new Bill was that the outdated provisions in the existing Act had to be done away with because they had fallen into disuse. I readily concede this, but I do personally still wonder if it is right to get rid of certain old provisions which have fallen into disuse and then to adopt new legislation which, in my opinion, does not incorporate something of the spirit of the old legislation.

I do not emphatically want to repeat what the hon. member for Hillbrow said. When one reads the legislation, there may be a slight difference in one’s specific interpretation. I am convinced in all objectivity, however, that there has been a shift in emphasis from the child to the parent. I do not want to debate this matter any further in the sense of wanting to score any points. I am merely mentioning this as a fact, and I merely want to say that I am absolutely convinced that this Bill will illustrate this in practice and that we shall, by degrees, have to make changes to the legislation to obviate that shortcoming.

The second reason the hon. the Minister gave involved the developments in the field of welfare and particularly in the field of social work, the reason being that this legislation wants to make more provision for that development and for the function of social work and the social worker. I think that this is where I am the most disappointed in what we have before us. It is true that in this legislation there are certain clauses also provide for the social worker to intervene and take children away from their families if they are suspected of being in need of care as well as for the grounds on which such action may be taken. However, I think that the greatest and most important function in connection with the child possibly in need of care is that which the social worker has to fulfil in court. On this basis I am of the opinion that provision should have been made in the legislation for the fact that in finding that a child is possibly in need of care, in regard to adoption, the court should reach a decision on the basis of a report submitted by a social worker. This was not accepted by the hon. the Minister. He reasoned on the basis of the fact that one should not prescribe to or bind the Commissioner of Child Welfare to such an extent. From personal experience I want to say today that the moment the children’s court is in session, or the Commissioner has to decide whether a child is in need of care and what should be done with it, the Commissioner is absolutely lost if he is not assisted by the social worker who can give him the entire history of that child up to that moment and can also spell out for him what should actually be done with that child in the future. From personal experience I know that the Commissioner of Child Welfare bases his decision about whether a child is in need of care or not on the social worker or the probation officer telling him what to say on the strength of proof he furnishes in that report. The Commissioner acts accordingly and his finding on what should be done with that child—whether it should be returned to its parental home or whether it should be placed in an institution or with foster parents—depends exclusively on what that probation officer or social worker recommended, in that report, should be done with that child in future. I am absolutely convinced that provision should have been made for this matter in this legislation.

I do not disagree with the hon. member for Brits about adoption and so on either, but I do also want to say that it is absolutely essential for the Commissioner of Child Welfare, before placing a child with parents for adoption, to acquaint himself fully with the background circumstances of that child and the circumstances of the adoptive parents so that these matters can be the best possible correlation. In this way it can be ascertained how the child can best be put up for adoption in such a way that it hopefully does not prove a failure. I am not suggesting that there are no failures, but I want to say that if it had not been for the role played by the social worker in this system, the number of failures would have been far greater than they are today, because the social worker investigates people’s backgrounds and presents a report in this connection to the court. The court then takes cognizance of the background and knows what type of child it is dealing with. When it places the child, it also knows exactly what the circumstances of the adoptive parents are, because not only their financial position, but also their domestic background, their personalities—in short, everything—is investigated. The court knows exactly what circumstances the child will be faced with wherever he is placed.

I am not convinced of the fact that because there is a shortage of children being put up for adoption nowadays, there also being a need for children to adopt, we should now make such severe inroads into the rights of parents. Even if ill-treatment or assault is at issue, a child of such parents should not, without further ado be put up for adoption after two years without their consent. We should not forget that we are not only dealing with Whites; we are also dealing with Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. We are dealing in particular, with Whites, Coloureds and Indians against whom steps will be taken in terms of the Bill. We are also dealing with various strata within these population groups. In the case of the parent whose rehabilitation need not take all that long, it is possible that as a result of the rehabilitation services he may, within two years, be so rehabilitated that the child can be returned to him. In the case of another parent it may take three years or even four years, but what does it matter how long it takes? The fact remains that in the first place we have to make every effort to restore family ties. We cannot say that after two years family ties should simply be severed because we have not yet reached that point in the rehabilitation process where the child can be returned to the parents. That point may be reached six months later.

As far as this matter is concerned, the legislation will be coming back to this House to be revised, because we are making a mistake here. It has been asked how long one should place a child in foster care, how long one should keep him in an institution, but in my opinion that question cannot be weighed up against the importance of eventually returning that child to his parental home, returning him to where he was born and where he belongs. In the first place he does not belong in any other home; he belongs in the home in which he was born. We cannot get away from that fact.

Another aspect is that recognition is now being given to the family as the normal social and biological structure within which the child has to grow and develop. This is given as the third reason for the revision of the legislation. This is an absolute endorsement of the argument I raised about why a child should not, without further ado, be given to someone else after two years on the basis of the fact that he was once ill-treated or assaulted by his parents. We have to remember that ill-treatment or assault could have occurred in circumstances which may change.

I am of the opinion that the introduction of the Child Welfare Advisory Council will hopefully have a positive effect in that the shortcomings in the Bill will gradually become clear to us and that the Child Welfare Advisory Council will assist in getting the Bill amended in future so that it will be really functional in full meeting the demands made of a Children’s Act in the South African context, as the old Act did so very successfully.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Koedoespoort, but his speech just highlights the amount of controversy which has gone around the Bill. I believe that a lot of the controversy has come from a certain source because the Bill was misread. The word “emphasis” was used by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He said that emphasis has been taken away from the child to be placed more on the parents. I believe that is a controversial point and I think it has been misread. I believe the emphasis in the Bill has been placed not only on the child but on the parents as well. It is the family that is involved. This is the important thing that should be looked at.

Because of the controversy a large number of amendments were tabled. Not all of them were accepted, and we agree with that. However, one must also accept the fact that we are making changes. The Act has not been changed since 1960 and one has to look at the reality of life and at what is actually taking place today. This is a very important point that must be brought into line. I believe time is going to show that this is an improvement on the existing Act, notwithstanding all the objections against it.

How many times do we not hear of problem children? It is always the problem child. I believe it is not always the child that is the problem. On the contrary, it is the parent who is the problem. These parents who are unfit or who do not want to look after their children, will now have to look to their laurels. It is about time too. With this Bill becoming law they are going to find themselves in some serious trouble, and it is not before time in my opinion. For too long has there been too much talking and not enough action in this regard. When this Bill becomes law this is going to change the position.

There are many good points about this Bill. I am only going to deal with one or two. The advisory council hopefully will be established as soon as possible to enable it to proceed with the urgent need for the co-ordination of the various functions of the various bodies that deal with welfare. This is a very important aspect. I hope that the hon. the Minister goes ahead with this as soon as possible.

I also want to refer to the position of the foster parent. Up to now, under the present legislation, the foster parent has been at the mercy of the parent of the child he is fostering. This has been an untenable position because in so many instances the foster parent has reared the child and has learnt to love the child, but the moment the child can go out to work and earn money for the parent, he is taken away from the foster parent and brought back home. This is an untenable position and this Bill is going to change that. I believe it is high time that this happened. How many times have foster parents not been absolutely heartbroken when a situation existed where they have had to battle with the child and rear the child, only for the child to be taken away from them just like that. Anyone who has been involved in this and who knows what foster parents have gone through will realize what an excellent change this Bill is making in respect of these people.

Lastly, I should just like to say that children are a very precious asset. There is no doubt about that. I believe that their interests must prevail at all times. It is they who must be looked after by means of the best possible legislation that we can offer them. I feel sure that we have achieved this with the legislation before us now. That is why we support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to cross swords with the hon. member for South Coast over the remarks he made. He made a short and valuable contribution and, as far as the brevity of his speech was concerned, I shall try to emulate him.

In my opinion this Child Care Bill basically makes provision for two matters. In the first place, it tries to a major extent to prevent child abuse and, in the second place, it tries to a major extent to prevent child neglect. One of the most effective clauses in this Bill aimed at preventing child abuse is clause 42, to which I also referred during the Second Reading debate. In terms of this clause medical practitioners, dentists and nurses are compelled to report cases of child abuse. Although this obligation has been placed on these people, I do not think that we as a community can now sit back and wash our hands of the matter, or walk past and look the other way like the priest and the Levite in the parable of the good Samaritan. In spite of the obligation for which the Bill makes provision, I think that the community itself is also in duty bound to report cases of child abuse.

Recently an article on this subject appeared in an Afrikaans-language magazine, and the title of that article was upsetting because it was a very accurate analysis of what is happening in our society. It read: “Kyk anderpad: ’n Kind gaan dood”. We are living in a society in which we do not want to become involved, least of all with other people’s problems. According to this article it clearly came to light that people who were aware of advanced cases of child abuse did nothing about it. Reference was made to a little boy who was tied up with a rope around his nec in a backyard. This went on for a month although the neighbours were aware of the fact. Because the neighbours did not want to interfere, this is how matters remained. Reference was also made to a six-month old baby boy who was assaulted virtually every day by his parents and was then locked in a dark cupboard, although the neighbours heard this baby boy crying. He eventually died. These cases could have been prevented.

Although the legislation compels certain people to report child abuse, I want to make an appeal to the community as a whole not to shirk this responsibility. The hon. member for Hillbrow expressed dissatisfaction because teachers are not included in the list of professional people, but surely they are not being excluded either. Yet it is not only their responsibility. I want to emphasize that it is everyone’s responsibility and I trust that we shall meet that obligation.

I also want to join other speakers who expressed their thanks regarding the fact that the hon. the Minister announced that social workers would be receiving better remuneration. I want to express the hope that this will definitely lead to more people entering this profession, because without social workers the problem of child abuse or child neglect can never be effectively combated. I also want to express my personal thanks to social workers who are faced with this problem every day and go out of their way to solve it.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in following the hon. member for Randfontein in the debate. I think this is probably the first time in the history of Parliament that one Geldenhuys has followed another in a debate.

And both from the same side.

When one deals with the rights and interests of parents and children, one is probably dealing with one of the most sensitive family relationships. Unfortunately it is also true that under certain circumstances children need protection, and this of necessity leads to laws having to be made to make the protection of such children possible. Because of the sensitive family relations which are affected, such laws are frequently not easy to draft. One can expect differences of opinion on the provisions of such laws. If one allows oneself to be led by the consequences of the laws which preceded this legislation and one notes the constant adjustments which were made to improve the consequences of the laws, the provisions in the legislation begin to make sense.

After Union consolidation legislation was extremely necessary to make provision for the protection of children and to introduce measures in connection with juvenile offenders. The Prisons and Reformatories Act, Act No3 of 1911, followed. This Act contained provisions on prisons, reformatories, schools of industry, children in need of care and institutions for alcoholics. Obviously one can deduce from this that this conglomeration that had been thrown together had to have certain adverse effects on the care of children. This Act was handled by the Minister of Justice, and was administered by the Department of Prisons. Children who were in a sensitive situation because their parents could not care for them were lumped with criminals in the same Act. At the time this was probably the correct solution, but because a stigma became attached to schools of industry, for example, because a magistrate also had the right to refer juvenile delinquents to schools of industry to mix there with children in need of care, a stigma was attached to these schools which exists to this day. To this day a child in a school of industry is considered to be a criminal, or at least to be part of the criminal set-up in the country. If there is something in this legislation that gratifies me, it is that this legislation which followed the legislation I have just mentioned, has made better provision for criminals to be separated from children and for us to establish institutions that can care properly for children in need of care. The legislation no longer makes provision for the establishment and maintenance of schools of industry and reformatories. The Department of National Education will make provision for this by means of their own legislation.

In this legislation provision is only made for children in need of care. The procedure of releasing children by way of concession has been done away with. This is a remnant of the days when institutions were administered by the Department of Prisons. That reason for a stigma has also now been removed. Depending on the circumstances, we are constantly amending legislation, including the Children’s Act.

I therefore find it difficult to understand why the hon. member for Hillbrow, for example, almost created a false impression here this afternoon that this legislation provides that children have to sleep in prison cells. This is not true. All that is meant by this provision, is that if there is absolutely no alternative, a prison cell may not be excluded for this purpose. That is the intention of this legislation.

I also find it strange that hon. members of the Opposition were upset because only three or four of the 41 amendments proposed were accepted. One would think that the hon. members of the Opposition feel, as the hon. member for Brits said, that they are the only beneficial influence in this House. I think hon. members should begin to realize which side of this House is governing and should also begin to realize that the motives of this side of the House are also the best motives to promote the care of children in need of care.

As far as the hon. member for Koedoespoort is concerned, there is his plea that we be more lenient towards a parent whose child has been taken away from him. He feels that two years is too short, that we have to endeavour at all costs to bring about rehabilitation of the family. As I see it, the child therefore has to keep on suffering for years. After all, there is much to be said for a child that has to be adopted accepting his new parents as soon as possible, getting to know them and becoming part of that family—spiritually, socially and religiously. Why should the child be punished because the parents made a mistake? The hon. member is shaking his head, but this is an honest, sincere question. If there could be the assurance that a parental couple would be rehabilitated within a specific period, I would still agree with him, but there is no assurance of this. In the meanwhile the child has to mark time, the child has to pay for the sins of the parents. I myself steadfastly believe that if a parent has made that mistake, if he is too useless to care for his child, he has no right to have children. Then I personally would be in favour of such a child being given immediately to parents who are able to act in a more responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of a long debate on this Bill. On the official Opposition side the hon. member for Hillbrow once again conducted himself in the way in which they normally conduct themselves when it comes to anything they are dissatisfied with, and there is so much they are dissatisfied with. They come along here and say that we want to “rush” the Bill through Parliament. We have heard that quite a few times this morning. The Bill we are now dealing with has, in the process of its preparation, been submitted on various occasions to bodies which wanted to make representations in connection with the Bill. Subsequently it was re-written and again submitted to those bodies. After further representations, it was again re-written. This is a process that took quite a few years. Eventually the Bill came to this Parliament. Only one organization, one single organization, agitated throughout the country in an effort to prevent the Bill being passed through Parliament. In the process that body moved amendments conflicting directly with previous amendments from the same organization. The official Opposition then allowed themselves to make use of this. The official Opposition asked for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee so that they could move their amendments there. There is another Bill, the Constitution Bill, which has recently been referred to a Select Committee, and I can predict, even at this stage, that when that Bill again comes before this House, they will once more come to light with a whole lot of amendments, and again advance the same complaint about our supposedly wanting to “rush” the Bill through Parliament.

This afternoon the hon. member for Hillbrow simply repeated what they had said in the Committee Stage and set out his objections to the Bill. At the Third Reading Stage of the Bill, however, one discusses the effect which the legislation, as it is before us now, is going to have, and the amendments negatived in the Committee Stage have nothing to do with that. [Interjections.] Yes, one can have any kind of effect; it just depends on how one’s mind works.

The story of the Hoexter Commission was conjured out of thin air. There is no indication that the Hoexter Commission is going to make any proposal that will make any change to this legislation necessary. It may, of course, be the case; that much I do concede. But must I sit and wait for that?

The hon. member also complained that here there was a shift in emphasis from the child to the parent. Sir, the emphasis is not being taken away from the child. All that is happening is that the emphasis is being shifted to include the parent as well, i.e. the family. That is what we want, and anyone who wants to place the emphasis anywhere other than on the family, is making a mistake. The hon. member was also opposed to the rigid approach to adoption. He wants no guidelines as far as adoption is concerned. He simply wants things to run their course. He does not like that sort of thing. What is interesting is the fact that is the reason why he now wants it referred to a Select Committee. If he had come to light with that in the Select Committee, he would in any case have got a bloody nose from the hon. member for Koedoespoort, because the hon. member for Koedoespoort would not have agreed to that. Nor would we have agreed to it.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also complained because his amendment concerning a birth certificate was not accepted. He regarded that as the most frightful injustice on earth. Clause 25 of the Bill does not differ in any way from the present section in the Children’s Act.

It still remains an injustice.

It is no injustice. The situation in which an adopted child finds itself cannot be put right by way of a certificate. It must be put right by way of proper education and training, by co-operation between the child and its parents. That is the only way in which it can be put right; there is no other way. One cannot correct these matters by way of legislation.

The hon. member also referred to the so-called places of safe custody to which he had certain objections. I think the hon. member for Swellendam gave him an adequate reply in that regard. The hon. member for Hillbrow also quoted from an American report he had with him, a report by an American professor who must now come and teach us how to handle these children. I want to make it very clear now that it is the policy of this department—and I hope it will stay that way; that it will also be South Africa’s policy—that we afford children who are up for adoption a steady and stable environment as quickly as possible. That is, after all, in the interests of the children themselves. Because it is in the interests of the children, it is not our endeavour to extend the system of children’s homes in South Africa. It is unnecessary to extend the system of children’s homes. We shall indeed be looking after our children, but it is necessary for us to work along the lines of giving children an established place in a family. That is the normal place for a child. That is why we are working along those lines. Children who cannot be returned to their own parents, we want to have placed, as quickly as possible, in new and better circumstances in a family. That is necessary. It is possible. It can indeed be done.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to a few other matters to which I shall not be reacting at the moment. I shall therefore leave him at that.

The hon. member for Brits spoke from his individual depth of experience, and I have respect for what he said. He also replied, to a large extent, to the hon. member for Hillbrow’s arguments. The hon. member spoke appreciatively of the experiences he was involved in with the adoption of children, the experiences that can befall one in those circumstances and the help one can extend to those children and to the parents. The hon. member also emphasized that it is indeed the family that is involved, and not only the child. It is a question of the family and the child in the family context; it is a question of the child’s adapting in that environment as quickly as possible.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort also referred to the shift in emphasis. He does not like the shift in emphasis. We do like the shift in emphasis. We believe it is right. We also believe that it is correct to address this problem as a family problem. It is not merely a matter of the child’s need for care. The child must also be seen in the family context. That is why we address ourselves to both the child and the parents, and I think it is necessary that we also address ourselves to the parents. I think that in future this will also have to be the case.

The hon. member also objected to our not being prepared, in the Bill, to make provision for the Commissioner of Child Welfare to make use of the advice of a social worker. The present legislation contains no provisions to the effect that use must be made of the services of a social worker. The hon. member waxed lyrical about the importance of a social worker. There is no provision whatsoever in this Bill before us which would prevent the services of a social worker being made use of. In this legislation, in fact, there are more powers included for social workers than in the present legislation. Nowhere in the present legislation is it provided that a social worker has the right to remove a child, and yet in this legislation it is included.

The hon. member himself conceded that in this legislation we are not dealing only with Whites. We are also dealing with Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. What I am saying is that it is not possible, in this legislation, to provide that use must be made of the services of a social worker if there is no social worker available. It is as simple as that. One cannot make use of anything that does not exist. If we were to include such a provision, we would be frustrating the court’s progress. One cannot do so, because it is impossible. Just as one cannot provide for a person to go to heaven, one cannot provide, in this legislation, that the services of a social worker must be employed. It cannot be done. We can, however, create every possibility for people to be helped, and to help the church to convey its message to the people. That we can indeed do, and as far as social workers are concerned that is something we are doing in this legislation.

This legislaton also provides for the Minister to appoint an assistant of the children’s court, and that assistant will be none other than a social worker. It is the social worker, appointed by my department, who will have to arrange the proceedings of the children’s court. Our point of departure is that if I were able to appoint an assistant of the children’s court, I would not be able to honour my undertaking to the church that I would try to ensure that the so-called old Stals principle is maintained. That is what is contained in this legislation.

The hon. member also referred to the Child Welfare Advisory Council. I have high hopes for that council. If, in the course of time, the council points out shortcomings in the legislation that we shall have to put right, we shall do so. I do not know of any piece of legislation passed by this Parliament which has not, at some time or other had to be amended. If it proves to be necessary, we shall do so. It is as simple as that. In the meantime one must not, however, express unjustified criticism. Hon. members who criticized this legislation extensively have not read it properly.

I now come to the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast touched upon quite a few matters and expressed his appreciation for the Bill.

†As he put it, a lot of controversy about this Bill came from the same source. I fully agree with him—it came from the same source. The hon. member pleaded for foster-parents. According to him, and he is correct, children are one of the most precious assets we as a nation can have. He pleaded for the foster parent who, he said, is sometimes and very often abused almost to the utmost.

*The hon. member is finely attuned to this aspect in the sense that he realizes what it means to be a foster parent. A foster parent grows to love the child, but after a few years the child is summarily whisked away in a heart-rending fashion. I have great appreciation for the hon. member’s contribution.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister is talking about children and the interests of children, may I ask him whether he and his department intend looking at the problems of the child born as a result of artificial insemination and what he intends doing about that problem?

Let met tell the hon. member that we are looking at that aspect. We shall be taking a further look at it, and we shall decide on what to do after we have had a look at the matter. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Randfontein spoke about the ill-treatment of children, and expressed his appreciation for clause 42 of the Bill which compels doctors, dentists and nurses to report any ill-treatment they come across, making it an offence not to do so. In addition he replied in detail to the hon. member for Hillbrow who also objected to our not including teachers and others in this provision. At the time I explained to the hon. member for Hillbrow, here in the House, that it is an offence for anyone not registered with the Medical and Dental Council or the Nursing Council to examine a patient. I therefore cannot provide in the Bill for anyone, who has not examined the child, to be guilty of an offence for not having reported that the child has been ill-treated. We therefore have conflicting elements involved here.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member and point out that one can help to save the life of a child. Even more: One can help to make the life of a child more pleasant. One can do this by reporting what one has seen happen when a child has been ill-treated. Because we are afraid of perhaps having to appear in court, or because we may possibly disrupt neighbourly relations, we must not shy away from doing our duty as human beings by taking the small child, whoever he may be, by the hand and helping him. I do not mean by this that it is always possible to take him physically by the hand, but that it is possible to help by the right word in the right place. I thank the hon. member for his contribution.

The hon. member for Swellendam made an exceptional contribution by sketching the history of the development of child care in South Africa. He replied to what the hon. member for Hillbrow said about the detention of children in police cells. Here the same argument holds good. No one unnecessarily wants to detain a child in a police cell, but under certain circumstances it may be necessary, for his own safety, to detain him in a police cell for a night or two, if there is no other suitable place available. It is the department’s policy to build as many places of safety as possible, but it is not always possible to get to a place of safety. One will never be able to build enough of them. Although this is contrary to accepted policy, provision must sometimes be made for those few cases.

The hon. member also advocated achieving the quickest possible stability, so that children could be given a firm foundation and a new life with a new family. I thank him for his contribution. I should also like to thank all hon. members for a pleasant discussion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

In the main the effect of the amendment is to bring the English text into line with the Afrikaans test. When one looks at the Sectional Titles Act, Act 66 of 1971, one sees that in the Afrikaans text the definition of “deeltitelbewys” is as follows—

In the English text “sectional title deed” is defined as follows—

Mr. Chairman, we certainly have no objection to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Witbank. I should like to move two amendments to this clause, as follows—

Section 8A is the one that has given a lot of trouble. In fact, on page xviii of the report of the Select Committee on Rent Control one sees that evidence was given, and confirmed by the Department of Community Development, concerning the alleged circumvention of section 8A. Originally the definition of “developer” with reference to section 8A prohibited a developer from accepting any deposit for the sale of a flat under sectional title until the sectional title register had been opened. That is good and well. We all support it and know from recommendations of commissions which considered this aspect that it is important to protect the buyer who should not pay his money and then have to wait for years and years until the sectional title register is granted. The developer could decamp and go insolvent and therefore provision has to be made for this. However, the original definition of “developer” apparently contained a loophole. The person who acted as an agent on behalf of the developer was able to sell the flat, enter into an agreement and take the deposit. That was not considered to be a contravention of the Act. The definition we have before us goes a long way towards closing that loophole in the law.

I am, however, concerned that we should ensure that all the loopholes are properly closed. If my first amendment is not accepted, what could the effect be? Take the example of A, the owner of a block of flats, who sells those flats to B. It could take three months or even six months until the balance of the purchase price is paid, a guarantee is furnished, the lawyers get through with the registration of transfer, etc. During that period B, unbeknown to A, could start to sell the flats and take the deposits. With great respect, I think that in this regard there is a loophole in the law. Although I am aware that there is an amendment on the Order Paper with reference to “the developer or his agent”, the only way in which that loophole can be closed is if it is suggested that B is the agent of A. However, B cannot be the agent of A unless B has a mandate to act on behalf of A. If A then disclaims any knowledge of giving B such a mandate, the latter will get away with that. That is what I am afraid of. I should like us to close this loophole if we can.

As regards the words “directly or indirectly”, that amendment is again aimed at closing any loophole where a person may have been acting indirectly. I suggest that if the hon. the Minister agrees to that, it will tighten the legislation further.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Witbank is quite acceptable. I think that the reference to “certificate of registered title” instead of the legal term “sectional title deed” was actually a bad translation. As I said, I accept the amendment.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow was courteous enough to discuss his amendments with me a few minutes ago because they are not on the Order Paper. I indicated to him at that stage that I was not prepared to accept the first amendment as I thought that the words “is, was or will be”—the past, present and the future tense—rather all-embracing. I thought that was superfluous and did not think it would change the meaning. In fact, to include any developer who “will be” is rather all-embracing because it includes me and any other person here who may be a prospective developer. I consequently indicated to the hon. member that I did not think that was acceptable.

As regards his second amendment and the words “directly or indirectly”, I must confess that I indicated to him a couple of minutes ago that I thought that might be acceptable. On reflection, however, I wonder whether this is not superfluous, whether we are not busy introducing tautology here. The hon. member said that he wanted to make it all-embracing and therefore wants to have the word “indirectly” inserted. However, I cannot understand how one can act indirectly on behalf of a developer. The present wording “or any other person” covers any person and is very all-embracing. As the hon. member has said, there were loopholes in the principal Act in respect of the definition of “developer”. There were circumventions of the Act, but we have been trying to close those loopholes. We have had a very thorough discussion with our legal advisers. We also discussed this matter with the law societies and with people from Sapoa. Prof. Cowen was here yesterday and this morning and he is an authority on sectional title and time-sharing. He agrees that the present wording is foolproof and that there cannot be circumventions. I therefore regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Deputy Minister’s view on this matter. I am obviously in his hands. However, I sincerely believe that a person can act indirectly. If he has not been given a mandate to act directly, he is in fact acting on behalf of someone and therefore indirectly. This is quite accepted in law and an accepted tenet in drawing up agreements. To tighten up agreements, one finds that lawyers do use the terms “directly” and “indirectly”. With regard to my first amendment, I sincerely believe that I am right. In my example of A selling to B where B, without the knowledge of A, accepts a deposit, B is committing an offence. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that will cover everybody else. That is of course exactly what we want. It must cover everybody else. If everybody else, for example C, D and E start selling flats and taking deposits, we want to nail them too. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister should reconsider my two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a rather invidious position. There is an old saying that when doctors disagree, what shall we say? I am not a legal man and I now have conflicting views between the legal authorities I consulted this morning and the hon. member for Hillbrow who is also a legal man. I must now make a choice. This is a highly technical matter and I can only say that we are busy revising the whole Sectional Titles Act. We have appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Murdoch, the retired Registrar of Deeds, who will be looking into these matters. While I accept the hon. member’s very good intentions, I hope he will accept the fact that we should allow Mr. Murdoch to look into the matter.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 and 3 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order paper, as follows—

The first amendment provides that a developer who has to call a meeting for all his lessees can also hold that meeting elsewhere. The fact is that in a block of flats there is not often a suitable venue where all the lessees can be brought together in one meeting. Therefore, what my amendment amounts to is that the developer can hold that meeting with his lessees at another venue in another building. There is also the problem that a developer may arrange a meeting at a venue several kilometers away from the building referred to here. The amendment has the further effect that the developer is compelled to hold that meeting in a building within the area of jurisdiction of the local authority. A third principle which is important here and which is also contained in the amendments I am moving, is that provision is also made, in the event of the developer being a company, for it to appoint an agent to act on its behalf at that meeting.

Mr. Chairman, we shall gladly support amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 as printed on the Order Paper and moved by the hon. member for Witbank. However, with regard to amendment No. 4 which reads “on page 4, in lines 43 and 44, to omit ‘in the building’ and to substitute: To be held in the building or in another building within the area of jurisdiction of the relevant local authority”, I have a slight difficulty because my interpretation of lines 43 and 44 is that we are now dealing with the notice that has to be given “at least 14 days after the date of the notice of a meeting of such lessees in the building”. My interpretation of this is that these lessees are the lessees in the building. They are the people who should be receiving the notice. But the amendment refers to the meeting to be held in the building or in another building within the area of jurisdiction of the relevant local authority. If, for example, a company owns the building and while the company’s offices are in Pretoria, the building is, for example, in Springs or Nigel, I agree that the meeting should be held within the area of jurisdiction of Nigel or Springs as the case may be. However, I believe that the notice should be given to the lessees in the building. I just hope that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Witbank covers this situation.

As the hon. member for Witbank does not wish to respond to me now, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 1. On page 4, in line 41, after “developer” to insert:
   , by letter delivered either personally or by registered post,
2. 2. On page 4, in line 45, after “with” to insert “(aa)—”
3. 3. On page 4, after line 47, to insert:
   (bb) the information regarding their rights as set out in section 8B of this Act; and

With regard to my first amendment, we are dealing with the notice that has to be given in writing. I believe that the mere reference to a notice in writing is not sufficient unless one qualifies it by saying how the notice should be given. I say in my amendment that notice should be given in writing “by letter delivered either personally or by registered post”, otherwise the developer can say that he did so in writing and left it say, in the letter-box. However, there is no proof that the written notice was given to the lessee. I want to make sure that this is done and I can only make sure that it is done by saying, as is done in many pieces of legislation, that the notice should be delivered personally or by registered post.

My third amendment is the insertion of certain words after line 47. When a meeting is held after 14 days notice, the developer, in terms of this clause, has to provide the lessee with such particulars of the relevant scheme as may be reasonably required, and I am saying that in addition to that he must give them all the information as set out in section 8B. When one looks at section 8B hon. members will know—we dealt with this during the Second Reading—that we now want to tell the lessee what his rights are; for example, how much time he has in which notice has to be given him, how long the option has to be, what happens if he does not accept the option, how much time he has after that refusal and what the rights are of a person over the age of 65, because the average person does know his legal rights. All we are asking for is that one should make sure that the people in question obtain this information, and that such a stipulation should be incorporated in the legislation. This fits in quite aptly with what was said in his speech by the hon. member for Maitland during Second Reading. He then pointed out that there should be a notice setting out the rights of tenants, and that should also be contained in this legislation.

Therefore I believe we cover the whole situation by way of the amendment I have just moved.

Mr. Speaker, several amendments to this clause have been moved. However, I am in a very accommodating mood today, and I am going to accept all the amendments.

I thank the hon. member for Witbank for his amendments. They will bing about definite improvements. As the hon. member said, we do have a practical problem. A venue suitable for a meeting is not always available in such a block of flats. Now we are merely providing that this may take place within the area of jurisdiction of the local authority concerned. I thank him for going through this Bill with a fine toothcomb. The amendments moved by him in this regard will effect a definite improvement. I accept them.

I also believe that his proposed addition to “developer” is correct. He wants to have the word “agent” inserted after “developer” so that the wording will be “developer or his agent”. What the hon. member said is true—the developer is often a company. Therefore we must also give the agent the right to conduct that meeting. I accept that amendment moved by the hon. member. I also accept his several consequential amendments. Most of these amendments are in fact consequential.

†The amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, in which he seeks to have inserted in line 41 the words “by letter delivered either personally or by registered post”, I believe, is an improvement to the clause. Therefore I am happy to accept that. I also accept the other two amendments moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I believe there should be no question about ignorance on the part of any of the attendants or prospective buyers in respect of their rights. Therefore I believe that those two amendments moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow will also improve the Bill, and I consequently accept them.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 2. In the Afrikaans text, on page 9, in line 22, to omit “gee” and to substitute “mag”.
2. 3. On page 8, in line 38, to omit “give notice to” and to substitute “require”.

Since clause 5 is such an important clause in this whole Bill, it is necessary that I highlight a few issues involved here in order to motivate my amendment. Clause 5 deals with the eventuality of the possible sale of certain units by the developer to certain lessees being able to take place only under specific circumstances. Now, what are those specific circumstances?

In the first place, the circumstances are that when a unit is subdivided into sectional title units, the developer cannot offer them for sale to anyone except the lessee himself. In terms of this particular clause, the lessee then has 90 days to decide whether he is going to exercise his option, and after that he has 180 days to find alternative accommodation should he not exercise his option. This is a very important provision in the whole regulation of sectional title units.

We also have the provision the hon. member for Sea Point proposed in the Select Committee, viz. that in the case of a lessee who qualifies in terms of section 19(1)(c) of the Housing Act, i.e. a protected lessee of 65 years or older, such unit cannot be offered for sale to anyone else. The clause further provides that a pre-emptive right be incorporated, as proposed by the hon. member Mr. Aronson in the Select Committee, and then we come to the provision in respect of which I move my amendment. I am referring here to the proposed new section 8B(3). My proposed amendment is of a very technical nature; nevertheless it is very important.

There is an obligation on the developer, if he wants to sell a unit, to offer that unit to the lessee, an obligation which is embodied in the legislation. However, there is no provision—and we cannot incorporate it in the legislation either—that a developer is compelled to offer a unit to a lessee for sale. Consequently the following possible loophole may be created as a result of what may happen in practice. A developer may, for example, decide, if he owns a block of 40 flats, to offer 39 of those units for sale. However, because he does not like a certain lessee he may simply decide not to make that particular lessee an offer. The lessee is then placed in the position that he would like to buy, but the offer is simply not made. In order to provide for this eventuality in which the lessee may eventually, out of pure frustration, decide that he is going to vacate the unit because the developer does not make him the offer, I am moving my amendment which provides that in such a case the developer may not give notice to the lessee concerned. This is a loophole which may emerge in practice, and therefore I personally think that this amendment to the Bill should be effected.

The proposed new section 8B(3)(ii) further deals with another important eventuality which I think should be mentioned briefly for the record. There are certain time limits in terms of which an option has to be exercised—that is 90 days—and there is also a time limit in terms of which alternative housing has to be sought should the option not be exercised, viz. six months. However, this provision now makes it clear that the common law practice of the normal notice of one month or two months is included in this period of six months for finding alternative accommodation, within which period two things may not take place. In the first place, the rent may not be increased, and secondly, the security of tenure has to be guaranteed, in the sense that the lessee enjoys his right of occupation during that period. Basically this is a technical amendment to make provision for an eventuality which may arise. I am moving the amendment to prevent this eventuality.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bellville. As the hon. member said, it is true that there is a difference of nuance between giving the lessee concerned notice and requiring the lessee concerned to vacate the unit. It could mean that a lessee could stay there on an artificial basis for longer than the legislation intends, because in terms of the common law or the provisions of his lease he can in fact stay longer, whereas that was not the intention of the legislation. I think we are being very accommodating towards the lessee whose flat has been sold because he did not want to exercise an option to buy the flat. As the hon. member indicated, he still enjoys the benefit that he can stay there for a certain period. After the property has been sold he can stay there for a further six months. It was not the intention that this period should be extended beyond the date of notice. Consequently I accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he is prepared to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bellville. It is therefore only of academical interest to say that we support the amendments of the hon. member.

I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The same argument applies here. This is a most important matter, probably the most important matter in the entire Bill because here we are dealing with the options to which a lessee is entitled. I trust therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

Clause 5 is a very important clause, probably the most important one in the Bill, because here the tenant is given protection. The door is now opened for a developer to apply for sectional title in respect of any building irrespective of whether it was erected before of after 1949 and irrespective of whether there is a protected tenant living in that building. The door is now wide open for sectional title to be applied on any building. However, there is protection for the lessees, not only for the lessees who are entitled to protection in terms of the Rent Control Act, but also for those who are not protected in terms of that Act because they have a 90-days option. This important clause is the one which gives them that protection.

People who fall within the ambit of the Rent Control Act must take note that they will lose their protection as a result of clause 5. People who enjoy the protection of the Rent Control Act and the Sectional Titles Act are still protected in terms of a provision which does not appear in this Bill. That provision appears in section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act and because that section is not being repealed by the Bill—I trust that we do not intend repealing it at any stage—tenants will continue to enjoy that protection.

I want to comment on the proposed new section 8B(4) which gives a slight additional protection to somebody older than 65 years because of the fact that such a person’s unit cannot be sold to anybody else. A person over the age of 65 is qualified in terms of section 52(1) of the Rent Control Act by proclamation. I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to a proclamation in this connection. The hon. the Deputy Minister will recall that there was a proclamation which set the limits. Here I refer to proclamation 91 of 1980. Those limits were set at R300 for a person without dependants and at R540 for a person with dependants. Unfortunately, in the Demiter case, a Cape case, it was found that previous proclamation did not give the protection that it was intended to give in terms of section 52(1). Therefore this amending proclamation, No. 32 of 1983, closes whatever loophole has existed. We are very happy that the hon. the Deputy Minister has seen fit to issue this proclamation.

I want to draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to the amendment in the schedule to the proclamation, whereby with effect from 10 September 1980 the amounts were increased to R360 in the case of a person without dependants and to R650 in the case of a person with dependants. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister, as well as to the hon. the Minister, that these amounts are totally inadequate in the light of the cost of living today. I would urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider issuing a proclamation as soon as possible in order to update these amounts. The amounts should be raised within the limits which have been discussed—the hon. the Deputy Minister knows about it—and I hope that more realistic limits will be proclaimed as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, I am happy to say once more that I am going to gladden the heart of the hon. member for Hillbrow by accepting his amendment. It is wonderful to discuss these matters so dispassionately where there are no political considerations involved. I know there is a very genuine desire on the part of the hon. member to improve this Bill. For the same reason that I accepted his previous amendment I will also accept this amendment. I want to set his mind at ease and tell him that we have no intention of amending section 39(1) of the Act.

As far as the issuing of the proclamation is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that the hon. the Minister will be issuing a new proclamation to increase the current limits of R360 and R650.

I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The amendment deals with the transfer of undivided shares on the basis of the timesharing development scheme. This is a very technical amendment dealing with the registration of units purchased under the property time-sharing scheme. The amendment I have moved has been cleared with the institutions concerned, with the Law Society, with Sapoa, as well as with the Registrar of Deeds. The amendment provides that the words “and such a certificate in respect of the undivided share in that unit retained by the developer, in his favour” be deleted, since the following situation could arise. What is the position in terms of the present wording of the clause? When it comes to the registration of these units, it could happen that a developer has registered, say, 40 subdivided sectional title units at the deeds office. Now the owner of one of the sectional title units could convert it into a holiday apartment with the aim of using it for the purposes of property time-sharing. He could then issue 52 certificates if he sees fit to divide this up into weekly periods. The 52 purchasers then obtain such certificates which are registered at the deeds office. As the Bill reads at present, the Registrar of Deeds has to issue a new title deed each time a unit is sold for such a period. Then the 52 transactions have to be removed separately from the original title deed. This is a tedious procedure which puts tremendous pressure on all parties concerned.

Allow me to indicate what my amendment aims to achieve. When the property time sharing units are purchased and transferred to the various owners, each will indeed receive a certificate, but then the original deed in respect of each time-sharing purchase can simply be endorsed. The original deed is therefore retained and endorsements are merely effected to indicate which period of the sectional title deed concerned has been purchased. This is endorsed in the deeds office and the deeds office will have a complete record of the original deed and of the history of the purchase of the time-sharing units. The person who purchases a flat at the South Coast for a week will have his certificate, which is a negotiable document. He could, therefore, resell the flat which could serve as security in the normal course of events. This amendment simplifies the process. In fact, the result is that the entire history of the subdivision of a unit in terms of this new form of property ownership can, at a glance, quite clearly be established at the deeds office.

As I have said, this amendment simplifies the procedure. It has been cleared with the deeds office, and the hon. member for Sundays River and other colleagues assure me that our deeds legislation is the best in the world. If they agree, and if the Registrar of Deeds agrees, I should like to recommend this amendment to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Unfortunately the acceptance of this amendment would necessarily lead to a number of other amendments to this clause—they have already been printed in my name on the Order Paper. However, in order to clarify this matter in principle, I have only moved the first amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the hon. member for Bellville is certainly an improvement on the provision. The provision, as it read previously, was very cumbersome and gave rise to a continual flow of documents between the seller and the deeds office. This could occur as often as 52 times. This is a cumbersome process and the amendment of the hon. member makes a considerable contribution to streamlining the process of registration. I thank the hon. member for his amendment, and I accept it. As he pointed out, the amendment has been cleared with people who know more about this than I do. The large number of amendments of the hon. member on the Order Paper look very impressive, but the remainder of his amendments are really just consequential to the first amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for being prepared to accept the amendment. Consequently I move amendments 2 to 10 printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 2. On page 12, in lines 45 to 49, to omit subsection (3).
2. 3. On page 12, in lines 50 to 58, to omit subsection (4).
3. 4. On page 12, in line 60, to omit “deeds” and to substitute “deed”.
4. 5. On page 12, in line 61, to omit “a developer and”.
5. 6. On page 14, in line 17, to omit “deeds are” and to substitute “deed is”.
6. 7. On page 14, in line 20, to omit “deeds have” and to substitute “deed has”.
7. 8. On page 14, in line 23, to omit and subject to subsections (3) and (4),”.
8. 9. On page 14, in line 43, to omit all the words after “share” up to and including “respectively” in lines 46 and 47.
9. 10. On page 14, in lines 51 and 52, to omit “supersessions referred to in subsections (3) and (6)(b)” and to substitute:
   transfers or supersessions in terms of this section.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

This amendment is merely consequential to the amendments I moved on clause 7.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bellville.

We are now dealing with the regulations, and I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should like to ask him to see to it that the regulations are framed as soon as possible. I know that he cannot bring them back to Parliament, but we should like to see the regulations after they have been framed. In order to make the system work properly, it is important that the regulations are framed to ensure that there is proper management and control at all times, as well as that the provisions of sections 8A and 8B are carried out strictly.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member for Hillbrow that we shall draw up those regulations with our usual diligence. However, we shall have to wait for the promulgation of the Property Time-sharing Control Act before we can draft those regulations.

*The amendment moved by the hon. member for Bellville is merely consequential, it merely amends the numbering and I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have come now to the Third Reading of this Bill. This is another Bill which we actually asked to be referred to a Select Committee and on which there were a large number of amendments at the Committee Stage. There is nothing political about the Bill; it is a commercial Bill, but I think we were all intent upon bringing about the best results and that was the purpose of the amendments. We in this party shall be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill because we are going to regularize a situation that has grown, i.e. a new phenomenon in leasing in that the timesharing of units, particularly at the coast and holiday places, is available to people. This is being done at the moment. Therefore it is important for the protection of people who are paying fairly large sums of money for the time-sharing of properties, as far as I can see from various advertisements for these properties, particularly along the South Coast of Natal, the Mecca of the Transvaal holidaymakers. Therefore this is a step in the right direction.

We in these benches would have preferred a real right to have been given to a person purchasing a time-sharing proposition. However, one can only give a real right where that right can be registered. Where a timesharing proposition is in a sectional title building, there is no problem at all because in that case there is registration. This registration takes place in the deeds registry and will therefore afford the purchaser the necessary protection. However, when it is a share block property one cannot have that same degree of real right registration because it is merely a share. It is a sort of second prize compared with sectional title. There is also a third prize which gives really very little consolation from a legal point of view and that is where a development is neither a share-block nor a sectional title scheme. Where a time-sharing scheme is arranged for such a situation there is really no protection. What happens here is that an agreement is drawn up which purports to sell to people a week or longer in a unit which belongs to some person or body. This is done in terms of an agreement which, quite frankly, is disguised because it is really only a lease. That person is really only acquiring a lease so that for a certain period of the year he can occupy those premises, usually for holiday purposes. He has no greater right than that.

I think quite frankly that an investment in such a proposition is not really an investment for capital growth. I do not think that a person should enter into such a transaction in the hope that there is going to be real capital growth over many years in respect of his one week of time-sharing in a block of flats. I think that what he is actually investing in is a safeguard against inflation in regard to the costs of holiday because, with inflation, this is increasing each year. In addition to this, he is able to guarantee for himself a specific period in a year in which he is able to occupy those premises. To that extent, therefore, there is an element of attraction for a person who is entering into such an agreement. However, where such an agreement falls into the third category—which I say is nothing more than simply a lease—the operation of our common law will come into effect. If, for example, the owner is not a company but an ordinary person, and if the tenant is an ordinary person, then, normally in law, such an agreement will terminate on death. Therefore, people entering into such an agreement will have to make provision in their wills in order to cover themselves against such a situation arising in order to perpetuate the agreement and to ensure that nobody loses his rights if death occurs. If the legislation is seen in the light of the compulsory share block system then at least that person will have his share and, although it is not registered in a deeds registry, the share will be registered with the Registrar of Companies as being in the shareholders’ book in the case of a company.

One of the important provisions of this legislation is the question of regulations. In framing these regulations, I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will tighten up the question of management. People who occupy premises for one week out of 52 in each year do not have any real control over the management of those premises. This is left to a body corporate or some other controlling body. It is essential that there should always be somebody in control such as a manager. I think that the regulations should make it compulsory for the appointment of a permanent person to control, manage and administer those premises. I think that speaks for itself because the premises have to be maintained in a tidy and clean condition. The comings and goings of the people using those premises have also to be controlled otherwise there will be complete chaos in this regard. There is also the question of insurance which must form an important item in the regulations. We discussed this matter during the Committee Stage and it should also be covered here.

Provision is also made whereby a scheme of this nature can be controlled by a club. Here again I want to reiterate the misgivings I expressed previously in regard to people entering into time-sharing agreements and paying substantial sums of money in this regard to a club. A club is not the most secure kind of financial institution. Normally a club has various sporting facilities and, as far as I am concerned, it is very expensive to maintain large grounds for these purposes. Very often clubs have to rely heavily on the subscriptions of their members and the ability of those members to lift their elbows often and in the right places. Unless they receive sufficient revenue from these sources, many of these clubs find themselves in financial difficulties and therefore for an institution of this nature to become a time-sharing proposition could be somewhat hazardous. Therefore, quite frankly I am very much against a club. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister argued against this and he said that he felt that clubs were a sound proposition.

I also mentioned the question of the Alienation of Land Act and the fact that a person entering into a transaction of this nature who has to pay more than two instalments in any one year would fall under the definition in that Act in which case such an agreement would have to be registered. Of course, we do not want to saddle the deeds registry with a vast number of registrations especially if one takes the example of a large block containing, say, 1 000 flats. If 52 people are going to occupy each flat for one week that will amount to 52 000 registrations in respect of that one block alone which would obviously sink the deeds registry. Obviously one would not be able to handle that number of registrations. Nevertheless one should keep some sort of record, and also see to it that it is kept properly.

Furthermore, many advertisers claim that one of the attractive aspects of such a scheme could be the introduction of an exchange system in terms of which shareholders in time-sharing schemes in South Africa could swop units with shareholders in the Mediterranean or elsewhere in the world. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister should want to give consideration to such a possibility when he has the regulations drafted. I am not exactly sure where and how this should be covered. I take it that people are obviously free to do so at will. I do think, however, that when they enter into any such agreement as a result of one of these advertisements, they should nevertheless do so with great circumspection, and also obtain as much information as possible before pledging themselves to any undertaking of this nature.

Then there is also the question of protection in the case of mortgages, protection, which, I believe, should be given to the people in question. Finally, I believe, we are left with a piece of legislation which ties in quite well with legislation in respect of sectional titles and also in respect of the alienation of land. I should say one can look upon these three closely related pieces of legislation as a trilogy of laws covering the whole matter of the registration of properties. Although this is a positive step forward, I do not believe it is the end of the road yet. Ultimately this legislation will have to be amended again to iron out any further difficulties that might be discovered in the course of time. In respect of this whole matter of property time-sharing we will only have to learn the ropes through trial and error. Nevertheless, we will support this measure because we believe that we are placing on the Statute Book legislation that will afford people protection in an area in which they have never enjoyed it before.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can show appreciation for the way in which the hon. member for Hillbrow has stated the standpoints of his party with regard to this measure. Although he still has misgivings about a few aspects, I do not believe that these are of such a nature that it is necessary to enter into a dispute with him about the matter.

I just want to make a few general remarks in connection with this measure, since we now find ourselves in the Third Reading Stage. I believe that the introduction of this measure proves once again that the protection of the consumer is a matter to which the Government attaches great importance; this time in the field of the property industry as well. Therefore one may rightly regard it as another chapter in the Government’s programme of consumer protection.

I believe that this Bill can be regarded as the third of a trilogy of statutory measures aimed at protecting the buyers of immovable property, or the buyers of rights or interests, of whatever nature, in immovable property, and at protecting their interests as well: in fact, it is aimed at safeguarding them against the risks inherent in transactions of this nature. The other two statutory measures to which I am referring, and which, together with this Bill, form the so-called trilogy, are, of course, the Alienation of Land Act and the Share Blocks Control Act.

Because of a variety of factors and circumstances, the acquisition of immovable property and of rights in such property carries an element of risk. Those circumstances are fairly well-known, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss them in detail. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred during the Second Reading stage to the risk which is run by buyers in this connection of suffering financial losses—as he put it—as a result of the conduct of irresponsible developers. Perhaps he put it somewhat euphemistically. I think we should recognize the fact that in this industry, too, there are developers who could perhaps be described in stronger terms, as the hon. member for Vasco did when he referred quite rightly to unscrupulous opportunists.

With this latest measure in the trilogy of protective measures, we are now entering the sphere which is probably the most difficult one to define. It is somewhat of a grey area from the point of view of effective control, and also, therefore, from the point of view of the protection which it should afford the consumer. It differs from the other two related measures in that we are not always or solely concerned with full ownership in the provisions contained in this Bill; this is not always the basis for the acquisition of rights and interests. The developer or seller from whom the buyer obtains protection of his rights and interests does not necessarily have to be the registered owner of the immovable property or unit concerned.

Leasehold may also form the basis of the control which is provided for in the Bill. Naturally, this is not as firm a foundation as full ownership. Moreover, we shall be faced here with what one might call a more plural situation, where the buyer or buyers do not obtain the sole right in respect of the house, premises or dwelling unit which is the object of the transaction, by reason of the fact that so many more individuals are going to obtain rights, which will therefore be rights of a more limited nature in respect of that dwelling unit. Consequently, a greater variety of interests is possible here. There is also a greater variety of interest situations. In addition, there is the possibility of a conflict of interests, the possibility of abuse, and therefore the possibility of exploitation is greater than in the other two forms of property control.

Inevitably, this will make the whole position in connection with the acquisition of occupational interests much more complicated, and the possibility of a conflict of interests, the possibility of dispute and the possibility of legal uncertainty will be considerably increased. This can result in all kinds of complications. All this is inherent in the nature of such transactions. All this also emphasizes the urgent need to regularize this system, for we must remember that the system already exists. It is a hard fact; it is not as though the Bill were creating a system.

Although it is not functioning satisfactorily in all respects, the operation of the system is not illegal at the moment. The Bill does not seek to prohibit or undo what is being done in this field at the moment; it is simply aimed at subjecting the existing system to proper statutory control. Therefore it is primarily and exclusively aimed at protecting the interests of those who participate in the system as buyers.

The Bill creates the necessary mechanism for such protection, and this mechanism is certainly not perfect or ideal, as the hon. member for Hillbrow also pointed out. Most probably there are still deficiencies and inadequacies. We have already taken cognizance of some of these during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage, and some of them, we believe, have been eliminated during the Committee Stage. We may also expect that further shortcomings will be revealed by experience in the course of implementation. Experience will also show us how such shortcomings and inadequacies can be rectified.

Another question in connection with the implementation of the measure to which time and experience will most probably give us an answer in due course is the adequacy or otherwise of the protective measures embodied in the Bill. The question is whether these are enough. The question is also whether provision is being made for all eventualities. In this respect, too, experience may show that the measure goes further than is really necessary. Hon. members also argued in this direction during the Second Reading debate. Whatever the case may be, it will be necessary to reconsider the matter in the light of experience and of the practical implementation of the measure, and on the basis of the superior knowledge which experience will provide.

What we can say with certainty today is that the measure as such, i.e. some form of protection of this nature, is definitely necessary and that this attempt at protection, flawed or inadequate though it may be at this stage, will undeniably bring about a great improvement in respect of the prevailing uncontrolled or inadequately controlled situation.

Finally, I just want to make the point that the powers conferred on the Minister by clause 12 will enable him to do a great deal by means of regulations to supplement the provisions of the Bill itself and to streamline the functioning of the measure. I think this is also what the hon. member for Hillbrow had in mind: That the Minister should use that power to streamline matters in this connection. It may even be possible that shortcomings of which we are already aware or which may be identified in due course may to a large extent be rectified by means of regulations. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not hesitate to use that power in order to achieve this result.

I want of conclude by saying that this measure can rightly be regarded as a deserving one. I think it also deserves the unanimity which we have experienced today as well as at the Second Reading in that all the parties are supporting the measure.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill. We anticipate that this legislation will to a large extent meet a constantly growing need in South Africa, as I shall try to indicate.

Property time-sharing is a unique proposition. It enables anyone to buy a holidayhome for a lifetime as well as a growing asset for himself or his descendants for as little as R2 000 to R3 000. Usually it can be paid off in instalments and only a small deposit is required. As against this, the cost of a holiday for six persons at an average hotel is between R1 500 and R2 500 these days. It was pointed out at Second Reading that a three-bedroomed house on the South Coast may cost as much as R60 000. If interest is calculated at 15% a year, the expenditure on the house, excluding maintenance costs, already amounts to R9 000, and then the holiday has not even started. The cost of food, furniture and maintenance must also be taken into consideration. It is very clear, therefore, that only a small percentage of the South African population can afford such a holiday home.

One is often struck by the fact that when someone buys a house or land, our legislators are very worried about, firstly, the protection afforded the buyer by law, secondly, the interest he pays and, thirdly, the benefits he obtains in terms of the contract. On the other hand, this same person often buys a car on hire purchase without any legal protection. The price of such a car may vary from R7 000 to R65 000 for an expensive sports car. The effective interest usually varies between 18% and 21%. In many cases, the car is a luxury. Housing, or holiday housing, which will be made possible by this legislation, is essential.

If a law does not afford both parties real protection, the party that has been prejudiced often tries to find loopholes in the law in order to circumvent it. I believe that this measure meets the requirements that have already been laid down, namely that the Minister of Community Development should afford full protection to buyers without restricting sellers unnecessarily. I believe that as the public becomes more aware of this scheme, participation will increase drastically.

I also believe that it offers a solution to our holiday accommodation problems. Our hotels will be more freely available to tourists who can afford to pay the high hotel tariffs. This scheme will make it possible for people who cannot afford expensive holidays in hotels, not only to make an investment, but also to buy a holiday home for a lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that this legislation is being defended and welcomed by all hon. members as another form of consumer protection. It is also very clear that this method of property acquisition is expected to become very popular in future, because it is regarded as a method of saving, as a hedge against inflation, and also as a mechanism for obtaining holiday accommodation in future. It can be divided into peak periods and those periods that fall outside the peak periods, with all the additional advantages involved, for example in respect of traffic on our roads, commerce, etc. It is also very clear that certain forms of property time-sharing offer much better consumer protection, namely sectional title or share blocks. However, ordinary leases and membership of clubs give cause for concern. Therefore I particularly welcome the provision that when a new scheme is developed or devised, the Minister may bring such a scheme within the purview of the Act and may administer it accordingly. This gives him the right to take action as a matter of urgency and simply to promulgate this.

I do want to break a lance for responsible property developers. Not all property developers are intent only on making as much as possible out of the public. There are many responsible property developers and they have organized themselves into an association called Sapoa. This is an association which exercises very strict control over its members and which tries to uphold an exacting professional code. Their problem, of course, is that they can only make requests to members. They cannot really lay down requirements. However, they can warn the public against certain practices which are developing and they can also notify the public of the dangers involved. I want to suggest that this association may serve as a watchdog which may help the hon. the Minister to identify in good time certain dangerous tendencies which may develop, and which may also warn the public in good time if the public is inadequately protected in any respect. They are the people who deal with these matters every day. Regulations can then be made in order to counteract any such new developments.

With this legislation we are entering a new sphere, and we may therefore expect that certain amendments will be necessary. The people who are best qualified to recommend and foresee such amendments will be this association. I want to suggest, therefore, that the hon. the Minister maintain his present good relationship with them.

Generally speaking, I may say that we all welcome the fact that there will be the necessary control in respect of this new development as well, which will afford the buyer or the consumer the necessary protection.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nelspruit has said that this measure is essentially a measure aimed at protecting the consumer when he becomes involved in a time-sharing scheme. It is very clear from what has been said that this is required at the present time. The hon. member for Meyerton clearly listed the advantages of entering into a time-sharing scheme. In the first instance it provides inflation-proof holiday accommodation, which is very desirable at the present time, particularly for people with families. It is a form of low-cost holiday accommodation and as such it solves many of the accommodation problems experienced in some of our popular resorts. We therefore welcome the development of this type of scheme. We in the NRP particularly welcome the measures the hon. the Deputy Minister has brought to the House because like the hon. member for Nelspruit, we believe that the consumer needs protection in respect of these schemes. During the Second Reading debate I said that one “cannot protect a fool from the consequences of his folly”. As has been clearly pointed out throughout this debate and again this afternoon by the hon. member for Hillbrow, there are many dangers when it comes to entering into a time-sharing scheme. I think we are indebted to the hon. member for listing some of them. I personally would like to call on the media to inform the public of these pitfalls. I also think the public should be informed of the wisdom of seeking professional legal advice when entering into any timesharing scheme, because of the pitfalls which have been mentioned.

The Bill before us provides a set of ground rules which are designed to protect people entering into time-sharing schemes. We have, to the best of our ability, attempted to draw up a set of ground rules for this type of property ownership. However, as a number of members have said, we cannot for one moment think of this Bill as the final solution in this matter because experience and circumstances are going to force the hon. the Minister to come back in the future, as the hon. member for Nelspruit and others have said, with amendments. Having said that, I want to reaffirm that we welcome this measure and that we will support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his support of this measure. I agree with him that there might still be problems. There are many pitfalls in respect of this type of property ownership. However, I feel that the most important thing is that this piece of legislation really gives effect to the fourth type of property ownership that is possible.

*We discussed this during the Second Reading debate. With this legislation, a fourth form of property ownership is in fact being made available. I am very grateful for the fact that all the parties, including the official Opposition, are supporting the Third Reading of this legislation.

There is no doubt about the fact—hon. members have referred to this—that this form of property ownership has been gaining ground enormously all over the world, but especially over the past five or six years in South Africa. The Government has no alternative but to provide for this by means of legislation.

The three principles which the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned during the Second Reading debate were very interesting, I thought. It will be interesting to examine them once again at this stage. He referred to the way in which such a scheme should be advertised. We introduced an amendment during the Committee Stage to ensure that advertising would take place in the correct manner. The hon. member for Yeoville was satisfied with this idea. The one advantage which the taking of the Third Reading will have is that the hon. the Minister will be able to make regulations to ensure that the advertisements that are published in this connection contain the necessary information. The second principle with which the hon. member for Yeoville agreed was the need for the agreement and for certain requirements in this respect to be embodied in regulations. The third principle which the hon. member for Yeoville discussed, and which has been referred to again this afternoon, by the hon. member for Hillbrow as well, is the question of the acquisition of title. I believe it would be wrong to restrict the free market mechanism by means of legislation. It would be wrong to provide that it may only be done by way of share blocks or perhaps only by way of sectional title. If people are silly enough to buy property time-sharing in respect of rented premises, they should be free to do so. I consider it extremely important that under those circumstances, the advertisements and the agreements should spell out quite clearly to these people exactly what they are doing.

That is why I say that I do not believe one should prohibit it. In fact, I am pleased that hon. members now recognize this. I am very grateful for the fact that the legislation is now being finalized, because I believe it is a matter of urgency. Thousands of people who have become involved in these schemes have to be protected.

The hon. member for Meyerton referred to the question of inflationary circumstances, and to the fact that the consumer has to be protected. I fully agree with him on that. During the Second Reading stage, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the danger that the owner of such a block of flats, which has perhaps cost him R1 million, may now receive R10 million for it. That is also true. To me, however, the primary consideration is the protection of the consumer. Then I want to add one important aspect, however. I do not have the slightest doubt that the success of such a scheme will ultimately depend on good management. This was mentioned during the Second Reading stage as well. However, I believe that one cannot sufficiently emphasize the fact that just as in the case of sectional title, the success of a property time-sharing scheme will depend on management. Just as in the case of sectional title, it will depend on the owner himself whether there is going to be good management or not. In the case of sectional title, after all, it is in the hands of the owners themselves, and in the case of property timesharing, it is also in the hands of the owners to ensure that there is good and proper management.

Finally, I want to point out—as the hon. member for Sundays River and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti have also done—that it is quite possible that problems may arise in future, which it will be possible to rectify by means of amendments to the legislation. For example, I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading debate whether he would not consider changing the word “tydsdeling” into “deeltyd” in the Afrikaans text. I believe that this would be a much better description of what actually happens in practice. However, we shall continue using the word “tydsdeling”, as long as it is healthy time-sharing. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member for Paarl that we can sometimes share time together. Then we may perhaps arrive at a solution concerning the use of the word “tydsdeling” or “deeltyd”.

†In the first instance I should like to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for his support of this Bill. With due respect, however, I must say that the hon. member advanced no new arguments. He merely reiterated his fears already expressed during Second Reading and during the Committee Stage of this Bill. The hon. member for Hillbrow referred again to his original plea that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It is quite evident, however, that we would not have reached agreement in a Select Committee, and that we would still have had to deal with amendments during the Committee Stage here in the House. Later during my reply I shall deal with other arguments advanced by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

*Then I should like to thank the hon. member for Sundays River for the speech he made here this afternoon. The hon. member very competently explained to the House the problem areas in which this legislation would have to be implemented, and I thank him for his support of the measure.

The hon. member for Meyerton pointed out the increasing need which existed for these particular schemes. The hon. member also gave his support to the legislation, and expressed the opinion that this measure provided adequate protection for the public, especially for the consumer. I thank him, too, for his support in this respect.

The hon. member for Nelspruit also made a contribution for which I wish to thank him. I also wish to thank him for the contribution he made towards the improvement of this Bill during the Committee Stage. The hon. member broke a lance for the responsible property developers, and also referred to SAPOA. I also wish to say that the work which is done by SAPOA in this field is greatly appreciated.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his contribution to this debate, as well as for his contributions throughout the various stages of this Bill. The hon. member welcomed this measure, and I want to thank him for his support. I do agree with the hon. member when he says that it could only be in the public’s interest if they sought advice before entering into any contracts of this nature.

*I also wish to thank the hon. member for Paarl for the contribution which he made here once again this afternoon. The hon. member has made a very thorough study of this legislation and he also advanced some sound arguments in refutation of certain allegations made by hon. members of the official Opposition in particular. I also wish to thank this hon. member for the contribution he made to the improvement of this Bill.

Quite a number of amendments, emanating from the Government as well as the Opposition side, were effected to the Bill during the Committee Stage, but the basic premise throughout was that there should not be any absolute impediment with regard to the legal process on the basis of which a particular time-sharing interest should be marketed. In the light of this premise, therefore, it was not possible to accede to any proposal which would have had the effect, firstly, of prohibiting property time-sharing by way of leases or club membership, and, secondly, of restricting it to transactions in terms of the provisions of the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980, and the Sectional Titles Act, 1971. In this connection I should like to repeat that it would be unfair, even with regard to legislation for the protection of consumers, to consider only the interests of the consumer, while ignoring the interests of the other parties. In the case of this Bill, too, a healthy balance has to be achieved between the interests of the developer or seller on the one hand and those of the buyer on the other.

As far as the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, is concerned, there is a connection between that measure and this Bill, in the sense that the alienation of an undivided share with regard to a unit as defined in the Sectional Titles Act is made subject to the provisions of the Bill which is now before us, as a result of which a buyer of such an undivided share receives the protection envisaged in this Bill. Because this Bill is to a certain extent enabling legislation, which means that the Minister may introduce regulatory measures by means of the making of regulations, it is the intention to afford every interested party ample opportunity to state his standpoint with regard to any such measures before they are put into operation. In this connection specific reference must be made to the amendment which has been made to the definition of “property time-sharing scheme”, as a result of which the Minister obtained the power to declare certain schemes, arrangements or undertakings to be property time-sharing schemes for the purposes of this legislation, and in this connection I should like to refer with appreciation to the contribution made by the hon. member for Sundays River, who also referred to the regulations. As regards the regulations referred to in clause 12, it is the intention that these will first be published for general information and comment before finally being put into operation.

Furthermore, I should like to repeat that a close watch will be kept on the practical implementation of the legislation. We shall not hesitate to regulate, by means of these regulatory powers, any malpractice which is brought to the attention of the Minister or of the department, if this is possible. Nor shall we hesitate to combat malpractices by way of further amendments to this legislation in future, if it were to appear that the existing powers of regulations are inadequate.

Finally, I just want to repeat what I said during the Committee Stage. If any problems are experienced by the public, if any undesirable practices arise, if there is any question of exploitation, the public should not hesitate to report these. In the same way, I request the co-operation of the private sector, the developers and the administrators, in order to ensure that the interests of the consumer are taken into consideration. I trust that this Bill will be of real value to the public.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.