announced that the casual vacancy in the seat of a member elected in terms of section 40(1)(c) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, had been filled with effect from 8 June 1983 by the election of Dr. Johannes Jacobus Vilonel.

Mr. Chairman, in the very few minutes at my disposal I want to complete some of the comments I was making yesterday with regard to the situation in Inanda and with regard to the announcement made the day before as to the Government’s tabling of the consultants’ report on Inanda. The point I was making yesterday was that in their interim report the consultants have indicated certain sums of money which they believe had to be spent on the situation which they regarded as urgent. They have indicated that in the first year, for example, some R20 million will have to be spent on housing and on providing services. They have also indicated in their official report that they envisage that the structure planned would be approved by mid 1982. We are now in the middle of 1983 and I asked the Government what has happened and why there has been delay so far, taking into account the report of the consultants appointed by the Government. The hon. the Minister has tabled the report and he has told us that it is still to be considered by the kwaZulu Government. He made that very clear during his speech the day before yesterday. I want to ask again why it has not been possible for the kwaZulu Government to give consideration to this report before now, bearing in mind that the report has been in the hands of the Government for some considerable time. On Monday the hon. the Deputy Minister announced that during the year 1983-’84 some R7 million is to be spent on development in Inanda. I again want to draw attention to the fact that in the consultants’ initial report they indicated that in the first year an amount of R20 million should be spent. There is a considerable shortfall which may indicate again a lack of appreciation of the urgency of the situation on the part of the Government. The hon. the Minister has told us that since 1980 4 000 plots have been allotted. This again is a far cry from the recommendations in the interim report of the consultants, namely that at least 3 000 plots should be developed each year. But the hon. the Minister has told us that since 1980 4 000 plots have been allocated.

While welcoming the tabling of the plan that we have not seen, and the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will make a copy available to us, one also welcomes the fact that something is being done about the Inanda situation. I note that the hon. the Minister has not in any way committed himself to any of the recommendations. He has told us that very clearly. I believe that if one is to look at the situation in Inanda, and if the situation is to be tackled in earnest, it is important that the Government must indicate its intentions at the earliest possible opportunity. The hon. the Minister will know that delay in this situation can only bring disaster. While one welcomes steps which are now apparently being taken with regard to the Inanda situation, I hope it is not going to be a question of too little too late. The whole emphasis on the consultants and all those involved is that this is an urgent situation. I want to say that quite clearly there is going to be a further escalation in the population of the area concerned and I want to warn of that danger. We have had experience in recent years of the tremendous, disastrous health hazard inherent in the situation arising out of drought conditions in the late 1970s. I want to warn of the immediate danger arising out the disastrous drought which the country is experiencing at the present time. The effect of this can be a disastrous effect on health conditions in what is an overcrowded area without proper facilities. The conditions will also tend to drive more and more people into dormitory areas, such as the Inanda area. The Government must be aware of this, and I want to warn them against the dangers inherent in that sort of situation.

The other point I want to make is to plead for compassion towards the people concerned, not only from the part of the hon. the Minister but also from the part of his officials who are looking after this area. As it is, already there have been incidents where the Commissioner at Verulam has refused people to erect shacks in the area. So I say there must be compassion. People must realize the needs and the problems of these people, and I hope the hon. the Minister will respond in this spirit.

Mr. Chairman, in order immediately to set your mind at rest let me stress the obvious: As you can see for yourself, I am calm, cool and peaceful and I intend remaining in that frame of mind, unless of course I am provoked by the Opposition!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea has raised quite a number of questions about Inanda. Many of the inadequacies he has referred to are due to the fact that negotiations with the kwaZulu Government has not yet been finalized. These consultants’ final report was handed to the Government of kwaZulu in December 1982. This scheme is to be executed by both Governments acting in collaboration with one another. The hon. member must understand therefore that many of the things that have to be done cannot be done until things have been cleared by the Government of kwaZulu. Because of socio-economic ties the Greater Inanda planning area cannot really be divorced from the Durban metropolitan region. I think that is obvious. Furthermore it has to comply with the guide-plan of the Durban metropolitan region. Secondly, the squatter areas and the Black townships within the Greater Inanda planning area are exclusively residential, supplying labour to the Durban metropolitan region. Sample studies of the area have shown that over 90% of the workers of Inanda work within the area of the Durban metropolitan region. Notwithstanding administrative problems workers from Inanda are employed in Durban, Pinetown, New Germany and also outside the metropolitan region of Durban. The incisive feature of the Umgeni River Valley has driven wedges between the development axes. Thus communications to and from Inanda are very difficult, resulting in relatively long and expensive journeys to places of employment and in relatively long and expensive lines of communication, as well as in respect of logistics. The Government realizes that the problem of squatting and the growth of the peri-urban settlements in the Durban metropolitan region are of major concern to the various authorities and undoubtedly require attention in the immediate future. The hon. member is perfectly correct when he points out the large amount recommended to be spent by the consultants. We appreciate all that. But I have tried to indicate that it has not been possible to do this for the reason that we have not yet had the all-clear from the Zulu Government. Whilst the squatters have solved their housing problem at a low cost to themselves, it must be borne in mind that difficulties have arisen as far as shortage of water, a lack of welfare and health facilities, overcrowding and exploitation by landlords are concerned. Studies during the period 1966 to 1979 show that within the Durban metropolitan region the number of dwellings within the squatter settlements rose from approximately 3 300 to almost 18 800—an increase of 176% over 13 years. Inanda exhibits a difficult Third World situation, with a high density, with shack development and with a lack of amenities such as piped water, sewerage and health facilities. With employment only running at 18%, the Black people’s expectations and quality of life are indeed very low. There is an urgent need, and the Government realizes that there is an urgent need, to embark on a programme to ensure that the living standards of the people of Inanda are substantially improved in the near future.

The hon. member for Berea quoted statistics which indicated that the substantial amounts which were required, and which should rightly be spent at Inanda, were not fictitious. We realize that, Mr. Chairman. We realize that those amounts have to be spent there. I have, however, already explained the difficulties we encounter there in respect of spending those amounts. The main difficulty is of course that all the points mentioned have not yet been cleared with the Government of kwaZulu. They have not yet given us the all-clear. However, as I have already pointed out, in the financial year 1982-’83 a total amount of R6,38 million was spent on the creation of an infrastructure, and during the financial year 1983-’84 an amount of R7 million will be spent on the establishment of an infrastructure there. That does not include, however, an amount of more than R1 million spent to purchase properties that belonged to Indians. We are therefore in the process of establishing an infrastructure so that as soon as the all-clear is received from kwaZulu we will be able to carry on at full capacity in developing that particular area.

Once we receive the all-clear the amount budgeted for annually in respect of this project will be substantially increased, as this is seen as a priority scheme in Natal. The completion of that scheme will require enormous amounts of money. To be specific about the amounts that will ultimately be required is at this stage almost impossible. It is a long-term scheme. That we must all realize. Certain matters are, however, tackled on a short-term basis, such as home ownership and self-build schemes, etc. As I mentioned on Monday, the facilities provided for those people require vast amounts of money. Over R3 million has already been placed at the disposal of people in the form of loans, for instance from the SADT, in order to enable them to build their own houses. The hon. member will also realize, however, that costs are escalating all the time, and since this is an on-going project there is no way of projecting how many people will ultimately be settled at Inanda. As I have already said, this is a long-term scheme. The amounts appropriated will escalate. The cost of the project will escalate, and also the number of people that will have to be provided for will increase to an enormous extent. That is something of which we can be sure. That is why this project will have to be seen as an on-going one. It will continue but for how long no one is able to tell at this stage with any degree of accuracy.

Furthermore that scheme is also seen as an ordinary urbanization process which will have to run its course within reasonable and manageable proportions. We cannot simply allow that scheme to develop into a bottomless pit. However, to estimate at this stage what the ultimate costs will be or how many people will be housed there is almost impossible.

The hon. member also referred to the fact that there was no administrative organization yet functioning in that region. As the hon. member rightly said that region is still administered by staff from the Commissioner’s office at Verulam. A personnel structure providing for 158 civil posts has already been approved and as soon as things develop and we get the all-clear from kwaZulu so that we can go all-out with the further development of that township, those posts will of course be filled. In addition, another 25 posts have been created in order to augment the personnel strength of the S.A. Police Force in that region. So I want to assure the hon. member that we have taken notice of the difficulties. We are aware of the backlog that is building up. We are aware of the priorities that this scheme requires, and I can assure him that we are as anxious as anybody else to continue with this scheme with as much haste as we possible can.

Mr. Chairman, the evening before last and again yesterday the hon. the Minister referred to his credibility and in particular the respect the Black people have for him in the post he fills. What I find interesting, however, is how short the hon. the Minister’s memory of these matters is. Has he already forgotten about Kangwane and Ingwavuma and all the matters revolving around the relevant decision of the hon. the Minister?

I have here in front of me an extract from the Daily News of 17 June 1982 in which Chief Minister Buthelezi was quoted. The hon. the Minister went on to say that the CP had the poorest track record in this House when it came to matters involving Black people. I just want to quote what Chief Minister Buthelezi had to say in this regard—

Treurnicht, because he is a man who shows his true colours, unlike Dr. Koornhof, who is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

He went on to discuss “this caricature of a man”. He said all this in the Legislative Assembly of kwaZulu. I quote further—

Koornhof could have the temerity to say “God bless you” to the Zulu people after what he had done.“I think it is blasphemous, as many of my colleagues indicated from the floor. If ever God’s name was used in vain, this was the occasion.”

I am referring here to the hon. the Minister who maintains that he has such wonderful relations with Black people. Yet this was what the Chief Minister of kwaZulu had to say about him.

I now want to return to the Rikhoto case. I was glad to hear yesterday that the hon. the Minister still adheres to the policy of separate development. It took a long time for him to admit this, and we greatly appreciate the fact that he still affirms it. But he must also apply this in practice. In connection with the Rikhoto case he said that he had the greatest respect for the courts. We agree with this. He went on to say that it has always been the accepted intention of everyone involved that contract workers should not be afforded rights in terms of section 10(1) (b). In that respect he is, however, not entirely correct, because his advisers and informed counsellors have told him the contrary. A very influential member of the Government has for a long time now been advocating the abolition or amendment of section 10. I am referring to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs. I assume he still adheres to his standpoint that section 10 should be re-considered.

The verdict in the Rikhoto case was given on 21 September 1981. It is interesting to note the wording of that verdict. In certain respects it is virtually identical to the verdict in the Appeal Court in 1983. I shall only refer to one part of the verdict in the Appeal Court last Monday. The hon. judge said—

These are exactly the same words as were used in the 1981 case, two years ago. What has the hon. the Minister done in the meanwhile? Surely one would have expected that the possibility of losing the appeal would have been considered. The Minister has experience of losing appeals and having to pay a great deal for them. He is answerable to the taxpayer for this. Now he is in a far more difficult position to deal with that matter for everyone has climbed onto the bandwagon. Prof. Wiehahn is on the bandwagon; so is Prof. Blackie Swart of Stellenbosch, the official Opposition and the NRP. They are all telling the hon. the Minister that he has to be careful how he deals with this matter. Remember, Sir, he believes in separate development. Now we are asking him to strike a blow for separate development in connection with this matter and to do so with retrospective effect.

There were times when he could have reached crucial agreements with Black people, for example when the 99-year lease-hold system was introduced, or when Black local authorities were established.

Then your man, Connie Mulder, was in control.

Yes, but then the hon. the Minister took control. When Black local authorities were introduced, he could have struck a blow in respect of section 10. However, he waited until 1983, and now he wants to make surveys to determine how many people are legally here, how many families are here, and so on. This just shows what happens when one vaccilates, makes concessions and finds oneself on the slippery slope of concessions.

The hon. the Minister has to take into consideration that the 15-year provision is also in jeopardy now. He has to take into consideration that mine workers working at mines under contract are also in jeopardy now. As a result of the Rikhoto verdict it is claimed that 800 000 workers are involved and that a third of them will have the right to remain in the prescribed area. Each of these workers will also bring about five or six people with them. It is claimed that a total of 1, 5 million people are involved. We maintain this is a conservative estimate. The provision of additional infrastructure, services, education, administrative matters, etc., must also be taken into consideration. The calculation is therefore that for every person provision has to be made for a further 33 to 52 people.

If this verdict is not neutralized, we therefore have to take into account that by the year 2000 there will be 11 million Black people in the PWV area alone. Irrespective of any other considerations, the metropolitan areas of South Africa will simply not be able to absorb this sudden increase in numbers. Just think of our water supplies. As far as this is concerned, the hon. member for Turffontein is correct. Reference has been made to a current housing shortage of 300 000 units. This is once again a conservative estimate. The shortage will not only double, but provision will also have to be made for infrastructures, etc. It should also be borne in mind that according to the Riekert Report housing and work are requirements for permanent residence. The White Paper also accepted this. Legal squatting is therefore going to increase by leaps and bounds. On the East Rand there are at present residential areas—the hon. the Minister knows this—where up to 11 or 12 families are living on one plot. These people enter the area with the aid of a lodger’s permit.

Surely the hon. the Minister has now said that he supports separate development. We have to take his word for it. He has also said that he has credibility. We would like to be-live that he has credibility. We now want to see whether he will strike a blow for separate development. If he does not soon neutralize the effect of this Appeal Court verdict with retrospective effect, it will herald the end of the policy which brought the NP into power. This is a very serious matter. According to the approach of the CP the hon. the Minister has to go into this matter intensively and speedily arrive at a decision. It is not sufficient to say that the matter has been referred to the Select Committee. Urgent steps should have been taken in 1968 when he was given that advice, and particularly after 1981 when judgment was passed against him. Anyone who read the 1981 verdict should have recognized the signs of impending danger and should definitely have taken the effect and the significance of that verdict into account. The hon. the Minister did not take the necessary steps in this connection, and the CP and the country reproach him for this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the discussion of this debate is now drawing to a close and you will note that we took considerably more time to discuss it than was originally set aside for this purpose. I think this is understandable and also justified in view of the dramatic events, particularly the court verdict to which the hon. the Minister will probably reply in detail, and the dramatic announcements the hon. the Minister made during the discussion of this Vote.

I also want to express my personal thanks to the hon. the Minister because notwithstanding his senior status in the Cabinet, he agreed without a single objection to our discussing his Vote last when we had to use the dates originally set aside for this discussion to make provision for the debate on the Second Reading of the Constitution Bill.

I think this is proof of the utter unselfishness of this hon. Minister when it comes to requests of this kind. In all the years I have been here—and I have been here 17 years now—I cannot ever remember there being so many vicious and hurtful attacks on the person of an hon. Minister in the discussion of a Vote as happened here and as the hon. member for Brakpan has also just done. [Interjections.] The Ayatollah would seem to be extremely impressed with the praise Buthelezi afforded him. The hon. the Minister should not allow himself to be intimidated by this despicable behaviour. Because he knows that he cannot expect any mercy from those parties, he should do what is expected of him and he should steadfastly do the right thing no matter how unpopular it is.

In the discussion of the Community Development Vote the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North—this also happened during the discussion of this Vote—referred in a rather unfriendly manner to my own personal standpoint not only in connection with influx control but also in connection with the control over Blacks in the Western Cape. I have the courage of my convictions to adhere to the standpoints I have adopted over the years in spite of attempts to intimidate me and even my household from time to time. I shall not always complain about this in public either. However, I am not living in a constricted little ideological world as the official Opposition tries to make out. I believe that lawful Blacks in the Western Cape are entitled to an orderly and decent quality of life. That is why the announcement by the hon. the Minister regarding Khayelitsha is such an important statement, if not the most important statement which has ever been made about Blacks in the Cape metropolitan area. I shall return to this subject later.

The primary threat to a better quality of life for legal Blacks here in the Western Cape in particular is the disorderly influx of large numbers of illegal Blacks to this area. It would do the official Opposition good to take cognizance of the fact that there is increasing resentment among legal Blacks as far as this illegal influx is concerned, which is interfering drastically with their standard of living here. It would also do them good if they were to take congnizance of the fact that the vast majority of industrialists in the Western Cape are becoming resentful of industries that base their labour force on illegal persons behind closed doors. It is in these circumstances that the most naked exploitation of Black labour imaginable takes place. If one tries to condone such a state of affairs, one is trying to excuse slave labour.

I therefore want to give the plea by the hon. member for False Bay for a minimum fine my wholehearted endorsement, though not a minimum fine on the Blacks, but a minimum fine on the employer who employs those Blacks illegally. Such a minimum fine should be compulsory and I suggest something like at least R500 for a first offender.

The Government’s long-term remedies to create meaningful employment opportunities in the Transkei, Ciskei and Eastern Cape at astronomical expense, should be aimed exclusively at the married workers in that area. We must to a greater extent try to restrict contract workers to unmarried workers who can come here to the Western Cape.

I want to return to Khayelitsha. The hon. member for Kuruman who made such a fuss about the decisions that were taken, crowed his head off here about how there was no longer any resistance left among residents of the Western Cape. The hon. member for Barberton went even further and added every Black in the Peninsula to the potential living space in Khayelitsha and then made the astounding statement that this would result in a larger Black component than in many Black States.

But surely that is true.

Surely it is a calculated misrepresentation on the part of those hon. members. In the first place they refuse to take cognizance of the fact that no…

You cannot even move one small Black spot.

Sir, the hon. member has such a big mouth that one cannot even make one’s speech.

Order! The hon. member for Tygervallei may proceed.

They refuse to take cognizance of the fact that no illegal Blacks will be housed in Khayelitsha. That is the first point. In the second place they refuse to take cognizance of the fact that there are a few thousand Blacks who are legally present in the Peninsula whose housing requirements cannot at present be met and whom we cannot wish away with the best will in the world. In the third place they refuse to take cognizance of the fact that the hon. the Minister expressly stated in his announcement that it was necessary for the orderly development of the Peninsula to make provision for the consolidated residential requirements of the Black people in the area. Surely this is not Greek and is easily understood from the announcement.

Are you going to shift even one of them?

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

I know the hon. member for Kuruman is excited because the CP has an instant solution to this problem: Turn the Cape Flats in which the present Black area is situated into a Coloured homeland or heartland and one’s responsibility and problems disappear overnight. That is his solution to the problem. One can content oneself with such ridiculous notions when one is living in Kuruman or Barberton, but not when one is living right next to this situation as my people and I are. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Government is going to do everything in its power to make Khayelitsha such an attractive and complete community that it will act like a magnet and can become the consolidated Black township par excellence here in the Peninsula. At this stage there is already a tremendous demand by Blacks who want to build their own homes, particularly on the plots with a view of the sea, people who can afford to do so. There is plenty of potential to create proper beach facilities and community facilities for people. I am convinced that Khayelitsha will become for the Blacks what Mitchell’s Plain has become for the Coloureds today.

The existing Black residential areas are totally misplaced and there is no doubt about that. Langa in particular is misplaced. I think in his heart the hon. member for Pinelands agrees with me that Langa is misplaced. By creating the necessary incentives in Khayelitsha we have to make it possible for a sector like Langa to again become part of the surrounding Coloured residential areas where it rightfully belongs. The official Opposition and the English-language Press are at this stage doing everything in their power to cast suspicion on Khayelitsha. The fallacious concept is being created—the hon. member for Houghton is not entirely blameless in this respect—that legal Blacks will forfeit their acquired rights if they move there. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who has already become notorious for his involvement with Blacks, is trying to represent it as a “dumping ground” for forced resettlement from the existing Black residential areas. The Progs fear that we shall achieve success, because success puts paid to their confrontation style, because it does away with the areas on which they prey. The Government has also robbed them of this through its dramatic success with Coloured squatters and the resettlement of Coloured squatters. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we received the answer to one question we asked the hon. the Minister during the course of the discussion of his Vote and which he did not reply to. We received the answer to that from the hon. member for Tygervallei. There is now no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the intention of the Government is to move Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu.

I never said that.

The hon. Chief Whip said that you do not need to be able to understand Greek to be able to understand the implications of what the hon. the Minister has said. He told us this in no uncertain terms. That is the trade-off for Khayelitsha. It is obvious to anybody that that is the trade-off.

The hon. the Minister was very disturbed because we impugned his credibility and tried to reduce his salary and all the rest of it. He thought, of course, that we would come to this House and give him accolades for having obtained a new township in the Western Cape, which up till now has been reserved as a special labour preference area for Coloured labour. However, what he did not tell us honestly and clearly, was about the trade-off. We had to ferret that out for ourselves by means of questions put by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and various other members.

I want to tell the hon. Chief Whip that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and I visited Khayelitsha yesterday morning. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will also be interested. It is a large area where there is a hive of activity. There is no question about that. Bush has been cleared for miles around, roads are being laid and earth is being compacted down. There are already a dozen or so of those tin shelters which have been put up and are already occupied by people who were at KTC originally. The project is, therefore, under way. We spoke to some very interesting officials who told us that water was being laid on and that electricity was being installed for the township. Fine. We are delighted about that, make no mistake about it. As the hon. the Minister has said, it is situated 30 km from Cape Town and not 40 km from Cape Town. That is the hon. the Minister’s own fault, because he gave the figure of 40 km to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens when he asked a question on 13 April. That is where the hon. member for Gardens got that figure from. The “ridiculous figure” of the area—I now quote the hon. the Deputy Minister of Cooperation—was also given to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens by the hon. the Minister. If it is ridiculous, it is the hon. the Minister’s fault.

We welcome the setting up of a new township. What we do not welcome, is the trade-off that has obviously been negotiated behind closed doors in the NP caucus before the hon. the Minister could get agreement that this be done. I think it is going to spread alarm and insecurity amongst all people staying at Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu. I am asking the hon. Chief Whip whether he is now denying this.

We never discussed this in the caucus.

No, of course not. The hon. the Minister just said that Khayelitsha is going to be laid out. Just like that. There was no discussion in the caucus. Absolute rubbish! I do not believe it. [Interjections.] I know what is happening there. Nobody is going to be moved now, because there is not a house in sight. I am talking about future intentions. Do these hon. members not realize the lack of security this engenders amongst the people of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu? There will be a deterioration in those townships, because no one is going to spend money on houses if they are going to be moved. Look at Alexandra Township and at what happened there when the people learnt that they were going to move it. The hon. member for False Bay made everything quite clear. According to what he said here yesterday he accepts that eventually the existing areas of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu will be moved to Khayelitsha “in the interests of proper consolidation of the town of Khayelitsha” and “in the interests of the proper consolidation of the surrounding Coloured areas”. Nothing could be clearer. Now let us have a test of the hon. the Minister’s sincerity, honesty, credibility, or whatever one wants to call it. Is it the intention ultimately to move those townships?

I shall reply when I wish to.

Right, when the Minister wants to, Sir, which will be never. For once he will not be on record. That is the answer. I also want to know whether it is the intention to give 99-year leasehold in those areas. Let us leave freehold alone because nobody gets that.

Did you not read the hon. the Minister’s statement?

I read the statement up hill and down dale.

You read it only up hill.

Is there going to be 99-year leasehold? I want an answer. I want it on record in Hansard. The hon. the Minister cannot answer. I now want to deal immedately with the question of the Rikhoto case. I must say that the speeches of both the hon. the Chief Whip of the NP and the hon. member for Brakpan filled me with dismay. Does this Government have no sensitivity at all? Do they not realize what impact it will have on Black people if they reverse this judgment and make it retrospective? It is bad enough to do it for future people, but to make it retrospective for people who now believe that they can claim their rights will be a disaster. Do I have to remind hon. members that 16 June is coming up very shortly? We do not want to enrage people at this stage. It is madness. Leave it alone. The hon. the Minister is on record when the judgment of Judge O’Donovan came up in September 1981 on the Rikhoto case as saying that standing decisions of the courts must be respected. Does the hon. the Minister remember that? I have three quotations from three different newspapers, including Die Transvaler, where the hon. the Minister said that. Is he going to respect this judgment or is he going to come rushing to Parliament to change the law? That is what we want to know. As for the Chief Whip’s suggestion, to impose minimum fines of R500 on people who are giving employment to Blacks who need jobs is surely one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard of. There are hundreds, thousands of people in employment in the Peninsula, domestic servants particularly, doing jobs that Coloured people do not wish to do, and they will now be losing those jobs if minimum fines of R500, or whatever it was that the hon. member suggested, are imposed. Do not do these things. Stop being provocative, is all I am saying. It is bad enough as it is. Do not add fuel to the fire, for heaven’s sake!

The hon. the Minister said that the Rikhoto judgment was in conflict with every interpretation which his department had put on section 10(1)(b). I can only tell the hon. the Minister that eight judges disagree with him—five from the Rikhoto judgment, one, Judge O’Donovan, in the Supreme Court, one, Judge Schock, who gave judgment in the Booi case—also a case of a contract worker—and perhaps most important of all, Judge Tebbutt on the Mthiya case. That is a very important case because this contract worker who returned to his employer, had three periods of broken service: of four months, three months and eight months, yet the judge said that it could not have been the intention of reasonable men not to imagine that there were not times when people had to vacate themselves from their work, either through illness or through something going wrong at home, and if they returned to the same job, they had not broken their 10-year service. That is what the reasonable man would surely adduce. Equally, both Judge Tebbutt and Judge O’Donovan, and the judges of the Appellate Division who gave the judgment on the Rikhoto case, said that it was absolutely impossible in this day and age to imagine that a man could be in employment for an entire year without being allowed to take a legal holiday, and return to his original employer without breaking his contract. Do we have any reasonable men in this House? Can they not see that they are playing with fire if they deny some people the rights of graduating, of improving their status from section 10(1) (d) Blacks to section 10(1)(b) Blacks? That is what it means. And do not be scared off by this “Swart gevaar” nonsense of 1, 5 million streaming in. The illegals are here already, mostly. There are also many Blacks who do not want to bring in their families because they possess land in the homelands and they want them to stay there. They want to retain their stake there. And, Sir, there are also bachelors, unmarried men who are contract workers … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the end of this debate I want to thank those hon. members on this side of the House who have taken part in the debate for their positive contributions. As far as the CP and the PFP are concerned—I shall have a special word to say about the NRP later—I want to thank them for the fact that in spite of the personal attacks on me—or perhaps it was due to those very attacks—they nevertheless also contributed to a very good discussion in general. It was possible to make important announcements. So many positive things were said on this side of the House that members of the PFP and of the CP had no alternative but to resort to personal attacks on me. But they really reminded me of a windmill. Its wheel turns, and the harder the wind blows, the faster the wheel turns. At first glance everything looks fine and it appears to be as sound as a bell, but on taking a closer look one finds that although the wheel is turning, it is not pumping any water. Its internal mechanism is out of order.

Are you talking about the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central now?

I am speaking about him and about all the others, too. As I say, Sir, the wheel spins but fails to pump any water, because inside there is something wrong.

Once again I have a personal message for the hon. member for Houghton. That hon. member has been sitting in this House for many long years. She and I have been sitting here together for 20 years. Thus we have come a long way together. She and I have never agreed on political matters. As far as that is concerned we have always differed with one another. Nevertheless I have always had respect for the hon. member, despite the differences. But I would be unhappy if I did not tell her this unequivocally at this point: Her conduct here the other day really hurt me. There is not the slightest doubt about that. In the process I lost a great deal of respect for her. I have her speech before me, but to repeat what she said would do her the pleasure …

What do you think about the allegation made by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon? It is a two-way traffic.

I am addressing the hon. member for Houghton in all seriousness now, and through her, the Opposition. I do not wish to repeat here those acrimonious and sometimes malicious remarks which the hon. member has made about me—about me personally—but it is she who began the personal attacks in this discussion. It was very unpleasant. Why she did this I do not know. If she has arguments, let her state them and let us argue about them. We may make some progress in that way. But why these personal attacks on me? What did I do to the hon. member? What have I done to the official Opposition? I do my best …

That is not enough.

To maintain peace in this country and make a contribution to the solution of colossal problems. What was the gravamen of their attacks on me, apart from the malicious and personal remarks they made about me, so much so that one of the newspapers had to state this afternoon: “Koornhof under siege”? But in what respect is Koornhof under siege? I again ask: What was the gravamen of their charge? It concerned the squatters. One group attacks me here about one thing, while the other group attacks me for just the opposite. What, then, are the facts? The fact is that urbanization is a problem world-wide. One only has to read the UN reports. Not very long ago I pointed out in this House that the problem of urbanization would become considerably more acute world-wide within the next 25 years.

What do you do about it?

In fact, hon. members are paying me a colossal compliment. It is not for any one individual, let alone me, to solve a problem of that colossal scope, to have a solution up one’s sleeve. But in not one of the four metropolitan areas, where these problems are rampant, will one find that they are not being dealt with and tackled in such a way that we are achieving success. Thus I have made announcements here about Inanda and I have made announcements about the Eastern Cape. May I remind hon. members what the position was in the Eastern Cape a year ago? Are they so quick to forget? And what is the position today? Do I have to refresh hon. members’ memories about the squatting and exploitation that occurred in the Peninsula every winter, and everything that that involved? I am almost afraid to say so, because if I do, the incitement may start all over again, but has the hon. member not taken note that over the past few weeks, in the worst imaginable climatic conditions here in the Cape Peninsula, for the first time there has not been a single squatter, as far as I know, who has been exposed to wind and weather? I therefore regard the personal attack on me by the hon. members as a compliment in disguise, and I can only say to them that with the assistance of the people of my department I shall continue to attempt to seek solutions to these problems. But solutions only come by way of planning, hard work and, as I said yesterday, by creating economic employment opportunities in the de-concentration areas. In this regard I quoted astronomical figures here to attest to successes already achieved in that field.

Then the hon. member comes here this afternoon and harps again on her same old string by making the accusation, the insinuation, that there must have been a trade-off here with regard to Khayelitsha. I want to state categorically: “There was no trade-off”.

I don’t believe you.

Sir, if the hon. member does not believe me she can go to … Sir, I almost said where she could go to. In any event, she ought to know where I wanted to send her. But I am nevertheless grateful that I was able to control myself.

I say to the hon. member with all the conviction I can muster that there was no trade-off here and she can put that in her pipe and smoke it. There was no trade-off here. I hope the hon. member understands that. There was no trade-off. Get that?

We shall see.

There was no trade-off! [Interjections.] This matter is the result of two years of planning in regard to Khayelitsha. It has been planned for two years by the best planners at the disposal of this country; people from the office of the hon. the Prime Minister and also others who are involved in the matter. How, then, could a trade-off have taken place in this whole process? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am really sick and tired now of interference of this nature while we are engaged in finding real solutions for one of our most provoking problems. I am weary of it being exploited in this way and of the fact that when one gives assurances that our minds do not work in that way and that trade-offs do not take place, but that this is the result of sound planning, those hon. members stick their noses into these affairs in such a base fashion, while at the same time hon. members of the CP upset people with allegations about 600 000 people who are supposedly to be settled there, etc. All this is taking place while we are telling hon. members just the opposite, viz. that Khayelitsha is making provision for between 200 000 and 300 000 people. Why, then, are the hon. members being so wilful? Surely that is totally unfair. [Interjections.]

Apart from the fact that this is the result of planning, I wish to make a very earnest appeal to hon. members opposite this afternoon please to stop being so wilful. In the future, too, things will be done on the basis of planning. The hon. member for Tygervallei put it absolutely correctly when he said that what we were doing here was the same as what happened at Mitchell’s Plain. Mitchell’s Plain has become a model residential area which is even shown to overseas visitors. Do the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members opposite still not know that when one is carrying out sound planning and at the same time working with people, it is on record, as far as the Government is concerned, that everything we do, we shall do on the basis of due negotiation, and that we shall create better conditions for people? Moreover, in our planning we are making the necessary provision for just that. Accordingly, we ask that they give us a fair chance to enable us to proceed with the development of Khayelitsha, as it is truly fitting for our country to do.

I now wish to state categorically to the hon. member for Houghton and to other hon. members that on this very winter afternoon more than 200 families have been settled in Khayelitsha. They are people who have been duly settled there.

How many?

More than 200 families.

I was there yesterday. Where were all those people then?

Just before I rose to speak this afternoon I was informed that more than 200 families had already been established there this afternoon.

That probably includes the guests. [Interjections.]

No, it did not include guests. This could only have been achieved by way of proper planning. These things are the result of proper planning. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as this matter is concerned I now just want to make one final point. The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens are being unfair when they persist in levelling the charge at us here that we are now deliberately holding a sword over people’s heads. We are not doing that. We do not want that. It is unnecessary. If hon. members of the Opposition do not do that, still less do we want to do it. We certainly do not intend doing that. I repeat that what we are concerned with here is good planning. They must just give us a chance to show what a success we can make of it.

I replied yesterday to questions concerning the matter of Rikhoto. I also issued a statement in that regard yesterday. As soon as we have more to say about the matter at a later stage in the implementation of our decision in this regard, we shall bring hon. members up to date again.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell this House that it is not his intention to move the people who are presently living in Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu now or in the foreseeable future or in the future?

Mr. Chairman, I have already replied extensively to that question. I am not going to add anything more because it is completely unnecessary. [Interjections.]

*I replied in full yesterday to the question of a higher density of occupancy, etc. Hon. members can read the speech I made yesterday if they want to know what I replied to that. Just before the hon. member for Houghton put her question to me, I replied to that in full. I shall let that suffice. It is the correct answer. If hon. members of the Opposition do not exploit matters, there will be no problems. I can assure them of that.

The hon. member for Kuruman put certain questions to me in the course of the debate. I should now like to reply to him in that regard. Through a development agent in Matoepestat, the department is undertaking development in terms of an interstate agreement with Bophuthatswana. This year the department is constructing single-quarter hostels at the request of Bophuthatswana. The department is tackling the further planning of Matoepestat in co-operation with the Government of Bophuthatswana.

I now have a bone to pick with the hon. member. Surely he knows that in 1981, 967 men and 1 248 women were repatriated to the Transkei from the Cape Peninsula, whereas in 1982 the figures were 55 men and 51 women. Therefore it was unnecessary for the hon. member to try and do what he did in the debate. I do not want to be difficult with the hon. member. Nor do I want to make a diagnosis, as my hon. colleague did yesterday …

Do not be so nasty.

I shall not be personal. The hon. member need not be afraid of that. [Interjections.] I have just replied to this effectively, but the hon. member also sought to impugn my credibility in his speech. I want to say here and now that every time one of those hon. members does that to me—I shall not stoop to the depths of ad hominem argument to which the hon. members stoop in attacking me—I shall tackle them and I shall settle their hash. There must be no doubt on that score. They must be fully aware of that. They will simply have to take it from me, because I shall do it.

At this point I just want to remind the hon. member that a short time ago after he had become a member of the CP, there was a municipal election in Kuruman that the CP tried to win. They arranged a big reception, slaughtered sheep and I do not know what else, and then the joke of the year occurred: Not one of the CP candidates in Kuruman was elected. That is what that hon. member has reason to boast about! [Interjections.] Of course it is true.

I shall therefore furnish the hon. member with a full reply, as I have done today in the discussion of my Vote and in regard to those matters for which I am responsible. However, if he again casts doubt on my credibility I shall deal with him. I can assure him of that.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether we can assume that the Government undertakes to transfer the Black people of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu to Khayelitsha in the course of time and by way of negotiation? [Interjections.]

Really, Sir, I have finished with that. [Interjections.] I really think my colleague was right yesterday: Only a blockhead (“houtkop”) could ask such a question.

Order!

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.] I did not know Dr. “Nak” was such a good doctor.

It is only Pinocchio who has a wooden head (“houtkop”).

He does not want to say “yes” and he does not want to say “no”, either.

I thank the hon. member Mr. Pretorius for his fine contribution here. We shall go into certain points he raised.

†As regards the hon. member for Mooi River I have already given the reason for the delay with regard to kwaZulu’s consolidation. We have proposals in hand but we must await the Rumpff Commission’s findings. Then we shall deal with the matter as expeditiously as is humanly possible.

*As regards his ideas about the settlement of Black farmers, I can only say to him that this is already being implemented in practice by the department. His representations in connection with the future of areas such as Vinksrivier and Njaleni have also been investigated by the Commission for Co-operation and Development, and specific recommendations in this regard have been submitted to the Government. As regards the process of valuation to which he also referred, I can say to him that it has already been streamlined in order to reduce to the minimum the period between valuation and offer.

†I want to add one last word with regard to the consolidation of kwaZulu. I have all the sympathy in the world for the farmers of Natal and the hon. member has my word that as soon as circumstances permit we want to remove that sword which has now for a long time been hanging over the heads of those farmers. I myself feel morally bound and duty bound to deal with the consolidation in Natal as soon as it is humanly possible. I feel guilty about it myself. Had it not been for the fact that we have to await the findings of the Rumpff Commission, we would have been able to deal with it more expeditiously than has been possible up to now.

*I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that.

The hon. member also asked one or two other important questions, about the Administration Boards, for example. I shall provide him with a reply in writing. I do not want to reply to the questions now because it will take too long.

†I must say the hon. member for Johannesburg North is doing his homework well. I appreciate it and I want to compliment him on it. Some other hon. members in his party can take a leaf out of his book. That is absolutely true. The speech which he made here was indicative of that fact. I appreciate it. If he carries on like this he will not only make a contribution to his party, but he will also make a real contribution to the well-being of this country. [Interjections.] It is true; I am merely being honest.

I want to answer some of the questions the hon. member raised. The closing date for the feeding of data to the computer in respect of March and April with regard to the pensions pay period was 25 March 1983. The announcement was made on 30 March 1983. Pension vouchers had to be provided to pension offices in 283 districts for payment during May 1983. Separate bonus vouchers would entail sorting in by hand more than 327 000 vouchers with normal pension vouchers. In view of the staff situation in district offices it could not be considered. There are 1 445 pay points where social pensions are paid out in cash. The number of pensioners in the bigger centres are as follows: Johannesburg, 27 000; Port Elizabeth, 12 000; Durban, 2 000; Pretoria, 9 000; Cape Town, 3 000 and Bloemfontein, 9 000. Bonuses will be paid during July 1983 together with pensions for May and June.

*The hon. member also asked questions— I know the hon. member for Houghton is also very interested in this—about the formulas in respect of domestic servants in flats. We are in the process of carrying out that investigation. With this purpose in mind the Chief Commissioners and Administration Boards have already been requested to submit proposals to the department. As soon as we are in position to make a decision in this regard we shall do so. In the meantime the hon. member for Houghton knows—that is why I am so angry with her—how we have gone out of our way to be of assistance in individual cases on merit. She herself can attest to that. As soon as we have completed the investigation we shall make announcements.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North, too, referred, quite rightly, to the housing issue on the East Rand. The Government does, of course, realize the problems involved, but due to the new housing and urbanization strategy on the basis of which we are operating, the problem is not only constantly under our attention; we are also making a positive effort to do something about the matter. Without discussing this at length, I should like to make one point. Is the hon. member really unaware—with respect—that it is specifically due to proper planning that we began the large Bronkhorstspruit township at Ekangala and Ekandastria to provide for the overflow of people from the East Rand? We established it for that specific purpose. I take it that the hon. member is going to visit Black areas on the East Rand, because he takes an interest in them. Please go and visit Ekangala and Ekandastria, and then come and tell the House what the situation is there. It is not that we are not carrying out planning. On the contrary, our planning is of the finest. We are achieving real successes. I think that the hon. member will come and attest to that in this House.

Some time ago—he knows about this, because I spoke to him seriously about it—the hon. member made statements in this House without having the correct facts at his disposal. However, I did not insult the hon. member in this House. I spoke to him personally, and after that we understood one another well. The hon. member is now taking the trouble to ascertain the true facts. He has asked a series of questions. In this way we make this House a dignified place and are able to make a positive contribution.

There is one final thing I want to say to the hon. member. In view of the housing shortage on the East Rand, he has reservations about the demolition of a thousand so-called shacks in Katlehong. The East Rand Administration Board informs me that in 1982 as many as 32 000 families turned up illegally in Katlehong from Transkei and Ciskei. Action simply had to be taken. I wish to state clearly that they acted under my authority and that I asked them to act. Those hon. members who are so fond of berating me will do well to take cognizance of that. The Community Board then took the initiative and decided that illegal persons could not be permitted, particularly bearing in mind the additional burden on the provision of services that this would entail. To date, more than 8 000 families have been sent back to their national States from the East Rand, and the huts built there have been broken down. In my book, success has been achieved there.

I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Carletonville. I do not have the time now to go into the question of the remuneration of officials of the administration boards. I only want to say to him that we shall soon be able to make announcements in this regard, particularly when we discuss the legislation relating to the development of Black communities in this department. I shall meet the officials within 14 days and on that occasion I shall make the necessary announcement. I thank the hon. member for his very warm interest in this regard.

As always, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East made not merely a philosophical but also a very practical contribution. In my opinion, every time that hon. member speaks he makes an outstanding contribution, and I wish to thank him cordially for the contribution he has once again made in this debate.

I now come to the hon. member for Pietersburg. The hon. member and I were hunting companions, and I really want to retain my respect for those hon. members. However, I really have to say to that hon. member that he, too, must refrain from his extremely base and malicious efforts to commit character assassination, and that goes for this debate as well. I mean what I say, and I want to provide evidence for it.

The hon. member says that I act irresponsibly in dealing with the farmers’ land. In the first instance, the hon. member must not make such statements about me or about anyone else. To us land is not merely valuable. As a farmer’s son I am old enough to know what the value of the land is, and I also know how sacred it can be for people. It is so for me too. I take the strongest exception to that hon. member having the temerity to suggest in this Committee that either the Government or I deals irresponsibly with land. It is not true, and it does not behove the hon. member to make such accusations.

The hon. member went a little further, too. He said that the people could not rely on my word. In doing so he took a leaf from the book of the hon. member for Houghton. What kind of politics is this? Surely that is not fair, Sir. When those hon. members started their efforts to assassinate the character of the hon. the Prime Minister, I submitted those allegations to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. There is nothing more important to a politician than his word, and those hon. members should know it, too. Whoever may be sitting in this Parliament who does not have a high regard for integrity, I should like to preserve my integrity. If there are other hon. members sitting here whose word of honour cannot be relied on, I should like to preserve mine. Those hon. members must not direct that kind of remark at me. The hon. member did not only do that; he also advanced certain arguments in that regard. He mentioned only two reasons. Just like the hon. member yesterday who put his four things together that I dealt with, this hon. member came up with only two reasons. This appears in his Hansard, which I read.

He advanced two arguments to support the first reason he gave for his statement that my word cannot be relied on. What are those arguments he advanced? His first argument was that Matoks and Ramagoep had not been resettled. However, what are the facts of the matter? The facts of the matter are that there are more than 80 000 people in Matoks and Ramagoep. The further fact of the matter is that long before I appeared on the scene it had been decided that Matoks and Ramagoep had to be moved. 32 000 hectares of land were purchased in the Vivo/-Dendron area for the removal of those people. Then the Commission for Co-operation and Development—not I—having investigated the matter, came to the conclusion that it was important that that land at Vivo/-Dendron should revert to the Whites and that Matoks and Ramagoep should not be moved. This was then submitted to the Cabinet and decisions were taken about this after I had gone to negotiate with some of the interested parties. Surely the hon. member knows that when he was still a Nationalist and still on the right road, he and I addressed the biggest Divisional Committee meeting he had ever hold in his constituency—he said so himself. I addressed them about these matters. I gave them the facts. They were the first people to know about the decisions of the Commission of Co-operation and Development and the Cabinet in regard to Matoks and Ramagoep, but the hon. member has the temerity to stand up here and say that I ought not to be believed. He advances that as an argument. What kind of conduct is that?

I now come to the hon. member’s second argument. One can go and read his speech and one will find that these are the only two arguments he advances to support his two statements, viz. that firstly, I deal irresponsibly with the farmers’ land and, secondly, that I, as it were, do not have a word of honour.

The second point he raised concerns Block 24. An hon. colleague of mine has dealt with Block 24. I know Block 24 like the back of my hand, and the hon. member knows it.

Yes.

What are the facts in connection with Block 24? The fact is that the commission made recommendations on Block 24. Another fact is that the Cabinet has not yet been able to take a decision on those recommendations. I said that the Government would take a decision as soon as possible on the consolidation of Lebowa and its finalization. After that we shall make announcements in that regard. We shall deal with it in the same way as we dealt with the kwaNdebele situation. On what grounds can the hon. member stand up here and allege that my word is not to be accepted? Can he tell me that?

Because the White land did not revert to the farmers, as you promised.

Surely that is an absolute factual untruth. That hon. member says that behind my back. That land was returned by way of lease. 32 000 ha of land has been returned to Vivo. After all, he knows that, because he asked several questions about that in this House. What is more, a short time ago, I signed the proclamation to the effect that that land was to be resold to the Whites.

That is the compensatory land for Matoks and Ramagoep.

Precisely. The hon. member must therefore refrain from this kind of thing. I say to the hon. members over there that I shall tackle them mercilessly about this character assassination they are committing. They started it. They are engaged in the biggest campaign of character assassination …

You are guilty of the grossest character assassination.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member for Kuruman to say to the hon. the Minister: You are guilty of the grossest character assassination?

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

They must refrain from this character assassination. They began this character assassination and I want to dwell on this for a moment.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member says that we must refrain from character assassination. However, I withdrew my statement that he was guilty of character assassination. Is the hon. the Minister not implying now that we are guilty of character assassination? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. the Minister implying that the hon. members of the CP are guilty of character assassination?

Sir, I withdraw it. The point I want to make is that those hon. members of the CP began undermining the hon. the Prime Minister on a programmed basis, overlooking nothing. Subsequently …

Even when they were still in the Cabinet.

That is absolute nonsense.

After all, we know what they were doing when they were still with us in the Cabinet. They tackled the hon. the Minister of Manpower, and they are still doing so. [Interjections.] The hon. members on this side can all bear witness to what the hon. members of the CP did in this debate … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity to make his speech.

Have you ever seen anything like what those hon. members are doing, by way of innuendo, jokes and anything one could imagine, to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning? What they are doing can only be described as a disgrace.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the fact that the hon. the Minister says that the Cabinet still has to take a decision on Block 24, may I ask him whether, if the Cabinet were to decide that Block 24 will no longer go to the Whites, all the compensatory land already purchased for Block 24 will revert to the Whites?

I am really not in a position to answer such a hypothetical question, since the Cabinet must first decide on that. I just want to say that we will of course act in a fair and just manner. In the case of Matoks and Ramagoep the compensatory land purchased has been returned to the Whites. Surely the hon. member knows that. I cannot anticipate the decision of the Cabinet. I therefore hope that I have furnished the hon. member with an adequate reply.

I want to say something else about what is going on here. The hon. member for Pietersburg did a third thing. He referred to land. The hon. member charged me with supposedly no longer having a say over the land and the leasing thereof. The hon. member’s insinuation is that the member of Parliament for Soutpansberg, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, has now obtained the power over that. Surely the hon. member knows as well as I do that when land is at issue it is dealt with in accordance with a certain fixed pattern. The agricultural unions, the local member of Parliament and the other bodies who may be involved are consulted. The department then makes recommendations and the whole issue is submitted to me. But after all, there is nothing legal about such a matter before it is submitted to this Parliament. Is it, then, fair to contend that I cannot be trusted, and to make the remarks that the hon. member has made? The hon. member ought to be just as well acquainted with the facts as I am.

I am speaking about leasing.

The same goes for leasing. [Interjections.] In reply to questions from that hon. member I spelt out clearly what the position was. Of course the local MP is consulted. That has always been the case.

In my constituency?

But there is no NP MP in Pietersburg. After all, the CP is not in power. As in other parts of the country, we appoint a guardian MP if there is no NP MP in a constituency. It is the most normal thing in the world to consult the guardian MP of the constituency.

Sir, may I ask the hon. the Minister, with reference to what he has just said, whether he means that if there is not an NP MP in a constituency, the voters of the constituency in question have no say in the Government?

I can understand that the hon. member asks such a question. We are fully entitled to appoint such a guardian MP. The hon. member for Pietersburg knows very well, however, that he can make any representations to me. I have never treated him badly. That is why I have been so at odds with him in the course of the debate. I honestly hope that the hon. member will take notice of what I am saying here and that he will use his influence with his leader and his colleagues so that we can refrain from this kind of thing in this House. Those hon. members are all very welcome to address representations to me or to any other Minister. After all, I am entitled to consult the guardian MP as well, am I not? I also consult the agricultural unions and other bodies. What could be fairer than that?

The hon. member for Smithfield made a very important speech. He dealt with the taxation of Black people and Whites. The way hon. members of the CP exploit the issue of the taxation of Blacks among our voters is absolutely incredible. The only difference is that they are one up on the HNP. I am therefore most grateful that the hon. member for Smithfield provided the facts. Hon. members would do well to take note of his speech, because what he said was quite correct. The tables are there to be examined. In some categories Black people pay more tax than Whites. In other categories it is just the opposite. However, the fact of the matter is that from 1 April 1984 this will be implemented and then there will be absolutely equal taxation in this country. Those are the facts in this regard.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier apologized for his absence. I want to thank the hon. member for the responsible speech he made here yesterday and also for the way in which he addressed me. I want to say to him that I profoundly appreciated it. Some of the problems mentioned by the hon. member are being given special attention.

I think I have already replied to the hon. member for Heilbron. In my modest opinion, every time that hon. member stands up in this House, his speeches attest to superior knowledge and good preparation. One can listen to him. I thank him sincerely for the fine contribution he made here.

The questions of the hon. member for Berea, too, have already been replied to by my good colleague. I need say nothing further except that we are working hard on the whole posisition of Durban-Pietermaritzburg. I battled to be ready to make an announcement during the discussion of my Vote which I think holds out the hope that the problems there may be dealt with more effectively, but unfortunately I could not make it. However, I hope to have something more to say about this shortly, because it is indeed a real problem. I thank the hon. member for his words of appreciation this afternoon, particularly his statement that it is clear that we are dealing with the problem in a way that he appreciates.

I want to give the hon. member for Innes-dal an undertaking. He took the initiative here with regard to certain problems in Pretoria. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member. I undertake to call a meeting, as soon as possible after this session, of the members of the Commission for Co-operation and Development from that area and all other interested bodies so that we can deal with the problems which the hon. member outlined here so brilliantly. As I learnt from my predecessor, I shall once again take it upon myself to promise that we shall come to this House next year to report what progress we have made between now and next year in providing an effective solution to those problems. I can do no more than that.

I now come to my good old friend, the hon. member for Pretoria West, the chairman of the commission. Someone said to me the other day that that hon. member was really blooming. It is a pleasure to us to see it. He is working day and night and he is making a tremendous contribution. I thank him most sincerely.

†The hon. member for King William’s Town has warmed my heart to such an extend that I do not have words to express my gratitude. I especially want to express my gratitude to the NRP as well. It was like music in my ears when he said that the hon. members of the PFP were busy with gimmickry and that the hon. members of the CP were busy with the same thing. He said that they would not vote against me so that I would not, as old Hendrik said, walk out of here this afternoon like a thin “what sis-name”. I really appreciated it very much and for his positive contribution my sincere thanks and appreciation. During the discussion of this Vote the other hon. members of the NRP really made nothing but a very positive contribution. I have taken note of the points raised by the hon. member, and as far as it is humanly possible I shall attend to the matters that he raised.

*To my amazement the hon. member for Albany, with whom I have crossed swords in earnest in this House in the past, made a very positive speech here yesterday, and I thank him for that and congratulate him sincerely. This is how we like the hon. member to be. About the drought, to which the hon. member referred, I must just say that we, too, are of course unhappy and concerned about it. It hits us just as hard as it hits those people. Our hearts go out to them, and it is our prayer that they will be afforded relief without delay. No one knows better than I what misery this brings. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Government is engaged in an on-going investigation as to how it can be of assistance to people in those drought-ravaged areas. Therefore the assistance to them has not been terminated and, as the situation deteriorates further, the Government will not evade its duty but will continue to make its contribution there, within the limits of its capabilities. I thank the hon. member for his contribution. I hope that he carries on like that.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for De Kuilen cordially for his contribution. He made a sound contribution here. He is of course an old and seasoned politician who is well acquainted with these matters. We also appreciate the good work which he does on the commission.

We shall attend to the problems pointed out by the hon. member for Walmer. We shall do our best to find solutions for them. The hon. member is also very welcome to come and discuss with me privately the problems he pointed out, so that we can consider how to provide further assistance in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Vryheid. Nor was this occasion any exception to the rule. He is a fighter after my own heart. I am very grateful to him for his contribution. We profoundly appreciate it.

I have now reacted to all the speeches of the hon. members to which I wanted to react. I do just want to say a few brief words, in his absence, to the hon. member for Rissik. I honestly believe that in every problem there is a unique opportunity. Even in this debate, in which I have been subjected to personal attacks and undermined until I hardly knew myself, I saw the situation as a problem in which there was a unique opportunity. By now I am old enough and I have been long enough in this game to understand very well that it is true that “you must change with the times unless you are strong enough to change the times”. You may be sure that there is no one in this House who could manage to change the times. I do not believe that is possible.

When hon. members opposite were going to such lengths to attack me in this debate, I thought to myself that Emerson was not far off the mark when he wrote: “To be great is to be misunderstood”.

Oh, my heart bleeds for you.

Yes, I hope your heart does bleed for me.

You must give her a broomstick. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the position …

You are just like a child with a new toy.

Helen, I shall give you a broomstick for Christmas. [Interjections.]

The situation with regard to the problems we are faced with in this country is complex and really very, very difficult. If I had to give a brief summary of the debate that has taken place here, I could do no better than to say that we spelt out the policy positively, and the priorities it involves. We pointed out the problem areas, and what is more they were discussed in depth here. We are faced with a process of urbanization which is not easy to deal with. We shall do everything in our power to maintain peace here, and we shall do so in as cool-headed a way as possible. The Government has in fact come forward with initiatives with regard to an urbanization strategy. Then, too, there is the Viljoen Committee, which investigated the question of accommodation, and the 500 000 houses offered for sale, autonomous local authorities that are to be established, the legislation on the development of Black communities, several towns and cities that are developing in the national States, etc. All these things are important initiatives displayed by the Government. Then, too, I want to refer to the Government’s major initiative concerning decentralization and de-concentration. I also provided this House with important figures in this regard. Then, in addition, there is the initiative with regard to education and training. At the time of the great gold bonanza the biggest single item on which we spent that money was the education of the people of the Black communities. The most important initiative in my time was the appointment by the Government of the Cabinet Committee to investigate the position of Black people in the urban White areas with regard to the future constitutional dispensation. Very good progress is already being made in that regard.

In conclusion I just wish to refer to another Government initiative. It is an initiative that the Government is still in the process of deciding on. It relates to labour-intensive schemes and methods that are to be found and concentrated on, as in the situation during the depression of the ’thirties in America—and in our country, too, of course—viz. that so many people may have to be employed in the rural areas by, for example, building dams, constructing roads, combating erosion, etc. We shall have to get away from mechanization and from the use of large mechanical instruments, e.g. bulldozers, etc. We must have people performing manual labour again. We hope to make announcements in this regard shortly. This is an initiative undertaken by this Government. I want to say that many of these initiatives emanate directly from our highly respected Leader-in-chief and Prime Minister. We owe him a special word of thanks in this regard.

I want to extend my sincere thanks to the officials of the department. That includes every official from the Director-General down. They are dedicated people who are making a gigantic contribution, as is indeed evident from the discussion of this Vote. They can be assured that I have special appreciation for what they are doing. We know that they work many hours of overtime. I want to pay tribute to them and thank them.

Sir, I wish to conclude. I think that the future that beckons to us is a bright one. Therefore we in South Africa must move forward without fear and in the full confidence that our fear and survival lies in fairness and justice. Our task of tackling everything that must be done and all the challenges that face us will be so much easier if we would just remember that the timing of what has to be done is often just as important as the implementation. Therefore we must look very carefully at our priorities in this country. I call for the co-operation of hon. members in this regard. I still believe that it is absolutely true that our country’s future is “om stralend oop te breek”, as the poet Opperman put it so beautifully. However, this will only be possible if there is maximum co-operation, minimum undermining of leaders and personalities, and contributions attesting to hard work. I shall continue to try to deal with these problems with great enthusiasm and to the best of my poor and modest ability, always from the point of view that the most important issue in our country is always stability, peace and the maintenance of good relations. If we are able to succeed in that regard then what we are dealing with is a success story, in spite of the many problems we are struggling with. I am very grateful to be able to say that I have a certain amount of spiritual strength, despite the red-hot coals that are heaped on my head. Mercifully, I do not receive my spiritual strength from any of the hon. members opposite. I receive it from a far greater source than any mere person. Therefore my most profound gratitude and homage go to Him for the fact that in general things are not going badly with the Republic of South Africa, or with regard to relations between White people and Black people.

Amendment moved by Mr. C. Uys negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Schedule

These amendments relate to—

1. (a) The increase of certain amounts in column 1 and column 2 of the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill; and
2. (b) The addition of a new column 2 item under Vote No. 18: Industries, Commerce and Tourism.

In the Budget Speech of 30 March 1983 the hon. the Minister of Finance proposed, in addition to the amounts which appeared in the Appropriation Bill and the printed Estimates of Expenditure, further concessions of R115 million to be included in the supplementary estimates, viz.:

An amount of R114,19 million was budgeted for in the printed supplementary estimates of expenditure which were tabled, which was R0,81 million less than the amount previously mentioned. This decrease is attributable to the rounding off of the final calculation of the anticipated expenditure on improved pensions. The supplementary amounts have been allocated to the Votes concerned and details in this regard are contained in the printed supplementary estimates which hon. members already have in their possession.

There has been ample opportunity for discussing the supplementary proposals in the course of the debates conducted on the Votes. If there are any further questions, the Minister concerned shall be pleased to reply to them.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief in this regard because we have been in possession of these figures for some considerable time now. There has been ample opportunity to discuss them during the discussion of the individual Votes and, in fact, the explanatory memoranda of most of the departments concerned deal with the increased amounts as opposed to the lower amounts that appeared originally in the printed estimates. Accordingly, Sir, as far as we are concerned we do not propose to ask any further questions in this connection and neither will we debate these Votes because we consider, as I have said, that there has been ample opportunity to do so and that they have been fully explained.

Under those circumstances, there will be no further debate in this connection from our side.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville. It is true that these particulars have been in our possession for some considerable time, and in the circumstances I want to content myself by saying that we shall support these amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the undertaking I gave that sufficient time would be granted for a reasonable discussion of the Constitution Bill, I now wish to announce, by your leave, that I shall move that the House of Assembly adjourn from 30 June 1983 until further notice to enable the Select Committee on the Constitution to continue with its work.

When a report is received from the Select Committee it will be decided when the House of Assembly will meet again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill concerns the common pasturage areas of certain Government irrigation schemes which were established years ago under the now repealed Land Settlement Acts of 1912 and 1956. In the initial years of these irrigation schemes, draught animals were commonly used on farms in our country and so when Government irrigation schemes were laid out there was a need for pasturage. Large tracts of Government land close to or adjoining such an irrigation scheme were set aside where draught animals could graze and a few dairy cows, too, could be kept.

As years went by the importance of the common pasturage areas has declined, however, to such an extent that in various cases the pasturage areas have been subdivided and allocated to the irrigation farmers. Today pasturage areas are still to be found at the Vaalharts and Orange River irrigation schemes consisting of Karos, Boegoeberg, Olyvenhoutdrift and Bucklands. Control of the pasturage areas is exercised by committees of management which derive their powers from the regulations made under the old Land Settlement Acts. Though the Land Settlement Acts have been repealed, the regulations under which the committees of management were instituted, are still in force. The expenditure incurred by the committees of management is covered by an annual levy collected from every land owner.

For the most part the pasturage areas are used and, unfortunately, abused as well, by a few farmers. Approximately 108 000 ha of State land has been set aside for the irrigation schemes to which I have referred for use as common pasturage.

†These common pasturage areas could be put to much better use than the purpose which they now serve. While the State is empowered to resume the State land comprising these areas, uncertainty remains as to the abolition of the committees of management and in regard to the assets, rights and liabilities of a committee once it ceases to exist. Provision had to be made for these matters.

This Bill accordingly provides for the withdrawal of common pasturage areas which had been set apart as such under the Land Settlement Act and the abolishment of the committees of management which had been appointed in respect of such areas. The landowners who had grazing rights will not be worse off as a result of the withdrawal of these common pasturage areas. The Bill provides that as soon as possible after a common pasturage area has been withdrawn, it has to be sold and 90% of the proceeds of the sale divided among the owners of holdings who were entitled to use the common pasturage area. The State will retain the remaining 10% of the proceeds. An equitable formula had to be found for the division of the proceeds of any sale, and the formula which is set out in clause 6 of the Bill meets with all the requirements. This formula is based on the irrigable land owned by each owner in relation to the total extent of irrigable land situated in the area of the committee of management.

*Finally, I should like to confirm that the proposed resumption and sale of the common pasturage areas have been discussed with the committees of management concerned. Although there is not 100% agreement among individual land owners, the Department is satisfied that the proposed measure has the support of the majority and is in any event in the best interests of those affected as well as those of agriculture in general. The S.A. Agricultural Union supports the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the legislation although we are unhappy about one clause of the Bill.

It is of course unusual to have to deal with a Bill which refers to regulations which exist under an already repealed Act. It is indeed a curious situation. I think it is appropriate to refer to the repealed Land Settlement Act, 1956, as well as to the previous Act because although they are no longer on our Statute Books they were at the time very important means by which the Government at the time was able to settle people, many of whom would otherwise not have been able to acquire land in free-hold, in communities. I believe it is important that we should go back to those Acts even though they have been repealed because I am of the opinion that this could be a vital means of land reform in areas where we have some of our commonly owned South African Development Trust areas. These commonages are superfluous, although they were necessary at the time. We agree with the hon. the Minister that they should be sold. In fact, it is interesting to estimate that the hon. the Minister could well find himself with as much as R100 million in hand if this 108 000 ha were to be sold for an average price of R100 per ha.

We are pleased that the hon. the Minister has told us where these settlements are. Since they are all quite clearly irrigation settlements with common land, a means of dividing up the benefits which will accrue is relevant under this Bill.

Today many of the Whites who bought this land initially have become prosperous and substantial farmers. Many have left. We hope that all of them will get a fair deal. However, we are unhappy with clause 3. I believe the House should spend some time looking at this clause. We will obviously do so in the Committee Stage, but in general our concern is that in the case of an individual feeling aggrieved, the hon. the Minister will have the final say. We believe that individual rights, even if they relate to property, are important. There is an amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Albany, which we will motivate more fully in the Committee Stage.

We will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the official Opposition is supporting the principles embodied in this Bill. This legislation has not simply materialized out of thin air. It has a long history. The object of the legislation is the regulation of the State land situated in the vicinity of Groblershoop, Boegoeberg and Douglas, and to rescue such land from misuse. This has become necessary after several past efforts to regulate the use of this land were not completely successful. Perhaps it is necessary to review the legislation that has been employed in the past to regulate such land.

These settlements had their origin in 1912 when provision was made for the surveying of land for irrigation purposes and for common pasturage. Initially this regulation worked very well, but as circumstances changed and farmers no longer ploughed with oxen, donkeys and horses, having changed to tractors, these pasturage areas began to be used for other purposes. The farmers started keeping sheep on that land, and that led to the beginning of farming operations there. That is why the 1956 Act was amended in order to regulate this situation and bring things under control. The legislation did not, however, completely succeed in its purpose. In 1966 the Agricultural Credit Act came into operation, an Act in terms of which an attempt was also made to eliminate the malpractices and to exercise some form of control over the land so that soil conservation works could be initiated. Attempts were also made to control grazing on this land. This did not work either. In 1971 a decision was taken to alienate and sell the land. This did not work out very well either, however, because farmers could not agree about this. The land was then given back again. In terms of the 1966 legislation committees of management were introduced. Committees consisting of the owners of holdings were established in order to control the employment of these pasturage areas. In 1977 the Common Pasturage Management Act was piloted through this Parliament, once again to counteract the relevant shortcomings, but that met with no success either. The problem was that although malpractices took place, this Act did not have the necessary teeth to prosecute offenders. That is why recourse was had to negotiations, with the people involved, so as to eventually alienate and then sell the land. I went to have a look at what the original purpose of this land was. I went to Hansard speeches of 1912, when the first legislation was introduced. There I read what the erstwhile MP for Prieska said. In column 208 of Hansard of 1912 Mr. P. G. Kuhn said—

As the 1983 MP for Prieska my question on the same subject is: What is the use of bringing in this new Bill? Circumstances have changed completely. Today the object of the original Act can no longer be realized in practice. That is why we must have new rules, and why I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on this legislation that is going to put an end to a long period of uncertainty and malpractices. I am sure that when this legislation is implemented in practice, it is going to bring development, progress and stability to our area. This is not a small piece of land, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has said. At Karos, in my constituency, there are 17 000 ha; at Boegoeberg there are 50 000 ha; at Olyvenhoutsdrif there are 21 000 ha—a total of approximately 90 000 ha. Then there is an additional 6 000 ha at Bucklands, near Douglas. This Bill is going to decide the fate of all this land. That is why we must clarify the principle that not all this land should be treated in precisely the same way. On the one hand we have low-potential land along the Orange River at Boegoeberg, Karos and Groblershoop. On the other hand, at Bucklands there is 6 000 ha, virtually all of which is high-potential, class A, irrigable land, and that is why each of these areas will have to be treated separately when deciding the fate of this land.

This Bill contains a few principles. The first principle is that pasturage is being withdrawn from present control because the State must take over the control. I go along with that. The problem which disturbed the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North lies in clause 3, in terms of which the Minister must give the final decision. I go along with that, because in that case there are so many variations on the theme that one would never really obtain unanimity for the whole area. That is why the hon. the Minister would have to intervene and give the final decision in the event of any problems occurring. I also have no objection to the sale of the land, neither do I have any problem with the disposition of the proceeds, i.e. the principle, which is laid down, that the proceeds be distributed in accordance with a formula. It is also important to lay down the principle that the Minister’s powers can be delegated to officials so as to allow them to do this work in practice.

I have basically talked about the principles of the Bill, but in terms of this legislation we are, in future, going to have quite a number of regulations dealing with the fate of each individual piece of land. Again, as a result of the potential of these various pieces of land, there are very important implications involved. I just briefly want to mention one single aspect. In the vicinity of Bucklands there are small irrigation units of 5, 10 and 15 ha. The irrigation potential there will, in some or other way, have to be linked up to the actual activities of those farmers so that when the units are subdivided we can get rid of uneconomic units which cause so many problems. A very important question involved in this is, of course, whether that land should be sold or whether the status quo should be maintained. Initially there was a tremendous difference of opinion, but in the course of time unanimity was achieved amongst the relevant farmers who expressed the conviction that that land should be sold. The idea that the land should be sold was not the outcome of the State’s desire to sell the land, but rather to the outcome of the farmers’ inability to co-operate in the relevant committees of management so as to ensure the orderly utilization of the land without any malpractices taking place.

To give hon. members some idea of what has taken place there, I simply have to point out that in one of the committees of management in the vicinity of Groblershoop, where there are 48 landowners who have grazing rights—grazing rights for six head of cattle and 25 sheep each, doubling as soon as a farmer has two plots of land—there are still six farmers who still make use of their grazing rights. Some farmers there have up to 3 000 sheep. They cannot be prosecuted either because of the shortcomings in the existing legislation. The Attorney-General therefore refuses to institute legal proceedings. It is therefore clear that these circumstances have given rise to an impossible situation, which cannot be handled and which has given rise to many disputes in the community itself. The majority of people wanted to withdraw from the undertaking, whilst there were others who did not want to cooperate. The legislation under discussion is now going to solve these problems.

When land is sold, a distinction will again be drawn between the land with low agricultural potential and that with high agricultural potential. It will only be possible to develop that land if it is privately owned. To try to maintain the status quo, as some farmers do in fact want, would simply not work. They have had an opportunity, from as far back as 1950, to do this, but they have not succeeded in doing so. I therefore do not believe that it could succeed in the future.

Another principle involved in this, is that of dividing up the proceeds from the sole of the land between the farmers and the State. This takes place in accordance with a specific formula which has been accepted by all the respective parties. Of the net proceeds, 90% go to the farmers who have grazing rights and 10% to the State. This is rightful compensation to the farmers for the grazing rights they have had over the years. It will also enable those farmers to acquire that land if they should want to purchase it; even if they want to purchase it jointly. It does not, however, prevent other people from also purchasing the land. In the past the State obtained no direct benefit from the rent paid for the land. This, therefore, refutes the argument of those who allege that the State should receive all the revenue from this land and that the farmers have, over the years, derived enough benefit from the grazing rights themselves. By selling the land to private developers, in the long run the State is going to derive more benefit from the income tax on the profits that are furnished than it would derive if it held on to the land. Whether the sale of that land is in the country’s interests is, of course, also relevant. Whether the State should sell some of its land is a question that has also been raised by farmers. Again the majority of the arguments are in favour of the sale of the land, because only in this way can real development take place there. Only in this way can units be created on which farmers can establish themselves.

I now want to say a few things about the principle behind the sale of that land. There are quite a few problems involved in this. In surveying that land, a few aspects will have to be borne in mind. These aspects will have to be worked out so that they not only satisfy the farmer, but also the State. There will have to be reciprocity. To give hon. members some idea of what is involved, I want to point out that bordering on this land there are farms which are uneconomic units. Then there are areas within these boundaries which are irrigable. Specific surveys will therefore have to be conducted in regard to the irrigable areas, and a study will have to be made to ascertain whether these areas can economically and purposefully be incorporated in existing irrigation areas. The principle that it should be possible to obtain uneconomic units of this State land at market value rather than at agricultural value, is something that is also going to come to the fore. The price at which this land is to be sold is also a relevant issue. Are we going to talk of agricultural value, as some farmers would have us do, or are we going to talk of a free-market value, a value determined by supply and demand?

Since not all farmers with grazing rights are interested in purchasing the land, some rather wanting to be paid out in cash, there is no alternative in this connection, but the value will have to be in line with the reasonable price of such a unit under conditions of free competition. It will therefore not be a preferential price, but the price that is voluntarily paid by a willing purchaser to a willing seller. If we were to put some of this land up for auction, what would again happen is that eventually the big farmer would end up with all this land. That is why we shall have to look at other ways—for example tenders—of judging, to some extent, who should get the land and who should not. I think that many inputs could be made in this regard. Simply selling land and to make the big farmer even bigger, is not a problem as far as I am concerned, because in the long run matters sort themselves out, because the big farmer also has heirs, and eventually he subdivides his own land. At the moment, however, there are many young men who want to go farming, and here we have State land on which these young men can go farming.

Lastly I want to raise a few matters in connection with the dissolution of committees of management. In some or other manner, this land is going to be sold at the best possible price, whether by way of tenders of whatever may be decided upon. At present, however, we are faced with a tremendous problem as a result of the misuse of the land.

Everyone has his livestock grazing on this veld. These farms, without any control, are turned to dust-bowls. If it is at all our intention to include this land for farming purposes, we must give it a chance to recover. As soon as this legislation comes into force, everything possible must be done to take over the committees of management, or perhaps to maintain them on a temporary basis, so that they can ensure that no grazing of any kind takes place on any of this land. There will consequently have to be a total withdrawal of livestock. Machinery has already been set in motion in this regard, and I would be glad if the Government would expedite this matter and exercise the necessary control.

There are people who see great prospects in this land. Some people, looking at low-potential land along the Orange River, see visions of orange groves, fields of lucerne and dairy farms. They envisage the State again establishing large irrigation settlements there. That was the case in the old days. That was the purpose of the old Acts. I do not, however, think that this land lends itself to that purpose. Nor is there any question of this in the immediate future. The inability of the farmers themselves to exercise control over that land has led to its being alienated.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that there is general agreement in the House on the legislation before us. We in the CP also take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

It was a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Prieska because he is able to speak with knowledge and expertise on a field in which he is intimately involved. He mentioned various points and also emphasized the fact that it was important that the interests of the communities concerned be taken into account when in future consideration is given to selling the properties in these common pasturage areas which are to be surveyed, mapped and offered for sale. We wholeheartedly share those sentiments expressed by the hon. member.

It is true that any legislation which comes before the House and which involves depriving people of their rights or affecting their interests, is important legislation. That is also the case with this legislation. This legislation concerns the common pasturage, interests and rights of the irrigation farmers involved. These are established rights although it is State land. It is perhaps important to emphasize this point. We are dealing here with interests and rights vested not in one’s own land, but in adjacent or adjoining State land, via one’s own land. One could almost define it as a revokable right on a particular property.

It is a privilege.

Yes, a privilege. One could almost call it a concession. Referring back to those land settlement Acts which created these rights many years ago, we see that these privileges which, over the years, have indeed become established rights were embodied in them, too. They were embodied in legislation. It was even provided by way of regulations that the rights of common pasturage be protected. The Disposal of State Land Act is an example in this regard. One could, perhaps, argue that the State may have used this Act to sell these lands which are now being withdrawn as pasturage land. That would not have been the correct procedure, however, because we are dealing here with special circumstances as far as common pasturage in these areas is concerned. For that reason we appreciate that this is being done by means of this special legislation, in terms of which machinery is being created for withdrawing these common pasturage rights from the control of committees of management. This is, as it were, a right which is being taken away from the various irrigation farmers as it were.

This is nothing strange in the history of our country. There are many instances of similar irrigation lands where there was common pasturage and where it eventually became evident that it would be better to divide them up and map them out. There have also been instances of pasturage land being transferred to the irrigation farmers in the areas in question. As regards the practical situation in the private sector, too, there are many records in our deeds office of instances where such common properties existed and where it subsequently became evident that it would be more practical to divide them up, map them out and transfer them to the co-owners concerned.

We appreciate the approach adopted by the State in this regard. We also appreciate the fact that the State envisages that that land, valuable agricultural land, is to be kept available and utilized more effectively, as it were. The prospect of its being better utilized is an important factor. I believe one should be grateful to the State because through this legislation it is going to be possible to utilize that land better for agricultural purposes in future. As the hon. member for Prieska said, there will not be total satisfaction when those lands are offered for sale. In that regard, however, I also want to say that the formula according to which the compensation is calculated which is to be paid to the irrigation farmers who were entitled to those pasturages lands, is an acceptable formula, and one would like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department for finding an answer in this way. Having said all that, however, one again comes round to the matter of the day on which these lands are going to be offered for sale. Now I want to tell hon. members: I have always thought that the people who, over the years—some of them for a whole lifetime—have been farming in those areas, built them up and established communities there, should in fact have those lands returned to them. We shall still have to see how the department is going to do this, because at this stage we only know that the land is going to be sold. We want to express the hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give very serious consideration to the interests of the people concerned, the people who live there. It is so easy for a stranger to come in and to deprive the present users, as it were, of the common pasturage rights which they have had over the years—one might almost call it their established rights.

At this stage, then, I should like to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister, since those common pasturage areas are now going to be withdrawn, subdivided and sold, to take the farmers of those particular communities very strongly into consideration as future buyers. The people affected should be placed in the position that they are consulted. Steps must be taken to ensure that those now enjoying pasturage rights will eventually become the owners as well. I want to suggest that plans be made to grant them a pre-emptive right, and that when that happens there should be, wherever possible, enough water to enable them to utilize these lands as irrigation lands. I see that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is sitting there in front of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I hope he is listening to this request of ours. The hon. the Deputy Minister behind him had better tap him hard on the shoulder so that he can hear our request. I believe the goodwill is there, because he is a practical farmer with experience. We shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister will see to it that this request is acceded to.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prieska also specifically referred to the area at Bucklands, and I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister will also bear in mind that those people, too, need to be consulted and want to be noted as prospective buyers when those properties are again up for sale.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member Mr. Theunissen very sincerely for the fact that on so important a question as the apportionment of agricultural land we have unanimity in this House. I am saying that it is a very important matter, because it has an influence on a very important aspect of our country’s economy and its social structure, i.e. that of agriculture. In the heart of a country common pasturage areas are virtually as well-known as the oldest inland towns. All the towns in the North West originated on some or other large farm that was purchased at the time. On such farms a town then sprang up around the centrally located church. In the majority of cases the church was also the first owner and title holder of the property. The underlying principle was that of giving the town-dweller an opportunity to be self-supporting on a large plot of land, with the apportionment of natural fountain water to which he was entitled at the time. To be self-supporting was characteristic of the pioneer stock. With that fountain water, and on such a large plot of land, the town-dweller could grow vegetables, whilst at the same time keeping an animal for slaughter on the commonage.

That was a practice that the erstwhile Department of Lands continued with when the settlements were established. Again it was a question of the self-sufficiency of the relative communities. This assumed wider ramifications, as the hon. member for Prieska pointed out, when it was decided that the town-dweller could also accommodate his draft animals there, his erstwhile means of transport, as it were.

Since then times have changed. The commonage on which the towns sprang up, were later transferred from the church, to the municipality. In terms of ordinances and regulations, the municipality withdrew the towndwellers grazing rights. There was proper planning in regard to the town commonage and a system of grazing was adopted.

It is with a great measure of thankfulness that I can say today that whereas the ruination of the veld was an everyday occurrence a decade or two ago, today the municipal commonage provides some of the best grazing in the district. This shows what can happen when proper planning is done.

It is the aim of the department to restore about 108 000 hectares of productive land to agriculture, because we cannot deny that there is wasteful exploitation and misuse of this land. Because of a wide variety of circumstances, which I do not want to go into now, proper control and an efficient fencing and grazing system were not possible.

I can find no fault with the basis for compensation and the alienation of the land, as laid down in the legislation. I think it is all fair and I quite agree with it. What I want to advocate very strongly, however, is the manner in which the land can be restored to agriculture.

I know that there are problems in the sense that those who have common pasturage rights today are entitled to demand market-value compensation for what they have to relinquish. In restoring this land to agriculture, it is my view that two basic factors must come into play. In the first place the land must be restored to agriculture as productively as possible and, secondly, the community involved must derive the utmost benefit possible from this.

When it is not a question of promoting the vertical expansion, but rather the horizontal expansion of the agricultural potential of a community, there is a problem involved in the alienation of the land.

Today the farmer finds himself in an inconvenient position as far as the economy is concerned. The State bodies granting financial assistance do not, at the moment, have any money available for the purchase of land. The hon. member for Prieska also mentioned the necessity of converting certain uneconomic units into economic units. In many cases it is also necessary, in converting an uneconomic unit into an economic unit, for a new owner to be established on the land. If this land were to be alienated in the immediate future, one would be excluding that category of farmer that could apply for agricultural credit, simply because there is no money available for the purchase of land. I agree that it would actually be a good thing for agriculture if this land could be withdrawn as quickly as possible, so as to restore it to its maximum potential at a later stage, something which would also benefit the State. I also want to advocate that an opportunity be created for bona fide farmers to take over that land. There is also the problem I mentioned earlier, and that is that the price is also a determining factor. Here I am referring to the young man who is starting his farming activities, and also to the question of uneconomic units. In this connection there is an anomaly for which one will have to seek a solution. The State, however, is the owner of this land, and the State can therefore lay down certain conditions concerning the way in which the land will be alienated.

There is a further idea I should like to raise in connection with the occupation of land in the rural areas and the relevant population density. Care must be taken that the person obtaining this land is truly a bona fide farmer. If this were done by way of tenders, he would, in fact, have a chance to prove this. If, however, the land were to be offered by way of public auction, there is no chance or opportunity of determining whether the person purchasing the land is really a bona fide farmer who is really going to live on that land or whether he is a big farmer who is merely buying it as additional land, or perhaps altogether an outsider whose chief source of income is not farming. These are a few problems I wanted to raise in this connection, because they partly contribute to the concern one would like to articulate in the interests of agriculture and also in the interests of the rural community. We should like the necessary attention to be given to it so that the necessary solution can be found. I have acknowledged that there are indeed anomalies and contradictions, and we must therefore try our best to reach a compromise. Having said this, I should like to add that I support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP has pleasure in supporting this legislation. We think it is an extremely important piece of legislation which will result in far better use being made of valuable agricultural ground which is currently controlled by legislation that has been on our Statute Book now for a considerable period of time.

We have heard about this land in some great detail this afternoon, particularly from the hon. member for Prieska who knows the area well. I think it is very obvious that in many cases the irrigation lands have been bought up by certain farmers and as a result have extended their commonage rights or their common pasturage rights, and all the circumstances now point to the fact that the land has not only been mismanaged but that it has also been utilized inadequately and over-grazed and that these circumstances cannot be allowed to continue.

There are one or two further points that I should like to make in support of what has already been said by other hon. members. In the first instance, I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Beaufort West who made some good points in regard to the re-allocation or resettlement of those areas. In this regard I believe that one should look very carefully at the question of encouraging younger farmers to move into the area, of increasing the population and making every effort to ensure that it is possible for them to have the opportunity to practise farming. As the hon. member also pointed out, in the current economic circumstances that sort of money is not going to be available but I think that this factor can possibly be overcome by employing a strategy that was touched on by the hon. member for Prieska. That is that in view of the time period involved in which the ground has to be acquired and resurveyed and in regard to which all the administrative work has to be done, one should add on a further period during which the land can be conserved and restored to the best state possible given the particular climatic conditions in that part of the world. This should be done prior to the allocation of that land on whatever basis it is intended to allocate it. That might carry us through this period during which the economy is poor and enable people to make arrangements to compete for that ground.

The other point one must touch upon here, is that we do not see the objection of the official Opposition to clause 3 as a problem. In fact, if it were not present in the legislation, we would consider that there would then have been a problem.

It could lead to litigation.

Yes, it could lead to litigation. The privileges people enjoyed the terms of the historic use of this ground in relation to their draught-animals and “slag-goed” and in terms of all the farming circumstances surrounding the use of that ground, at that time are now being rescinded. I understand that their title deeds had in fact endorsed on them that these rights could be withdrawn by the State. The right of ownership of this ground therefore vested in the State as such. To imagine that each and every individual involved can have his own say about a scheme like this, will bring about enormous consequences in respect of litigation, costs, delays, etc. We therefore feel that under the circumstances the State is quite entitled to leave the final decision to the Minister. The Department of Agriculture will no doubt be contacted in relation to the planning and the proper cutting up of the properties.

I think the department deserves credit for this concept of trying to make better use of valuable farming land which one cannot afford to have used as is the case at the moment. I would strongly support the thought that it is used to increase the population of those areas and that serious consideration be given to a manner of disposal which will achieve this.

With these few words we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with hon. members on this side of the House in expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the Opposition parties for their support of the legislation. I particularly want to link up with the hon. member for King William’s Town’s argument on clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 must be retained.

I want to tell the hon. member Mr. Theunissen that I am sympathetically inclined to the idea of a pre-emptive right for the people affected. In a scheme like the Vaal-harts irrigation scheme, for example, where only a few hundred farmers own approximately 12 000 ha of land, we must be careful, in giving each owner a pre-emptive right, that this does not give rise to uneconomic units. One will therefore have to take a very careful look at the circumstances.

This legislation is a final chapter in a chronicle of history that began with the Land Settlement Act of 1912. The 1956 Act was merely a consolidation of the 1912 Act, which in turn was repealed by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966. The department is very serious about making a success of this legislation. It is essential for farmers to come forward with representations and proposals about how this land should be sold. The department will give these farmers a sympathetic hearing.

If one looks at the Vaalharts settlement, for example, one is struck by the fact that originally the whole area belonged to only a few families such as the Thompsons and the Van Niekerks. In earlier days it was also cattle country. In the thirties the State bought up land there. That settlement, like all the others, was in fact the product of necessity in the sense that it was the drought that drove farmers out of farming, and also the other setbacks that the farmers had in those years. It was subsequently the State’s aim to help the farmers re-establish themselves, and the State succeeded extremely well in doing so, if one just bears in mind how many farmers are successfully established on the various settlements. Added to this, the irrigation land on the settlements is worth a great deal today. I therefore believe that the land should be sold at market value. The State’s interest, after all, should also be protected. At a price of as little as R100 per acre, the approximately 108 000 ha will yield more than R10 million. What is more, the State is only going to receive 10% of these proceeds, whilst 90% will go to the farmers and will be divided up in accordance with the formula set out in clause 6 of the Bill. This does not mean that the farmers are now going to get thousands of rand. It must nevertheless be noted that the farmers are now obtaining compensation for a privilege and not a right. In support of my statement that it is a privilege for which the farmers are going to be compensated, let me quote to hon. members from the conditions relating to common pasture areas incorporated in the leases and the title deeds of the land. Let us have a look at the leases of the Karos, Boegoeberg, Oly-venhoutsdrif and Vaalharts settlement. The leases provide—

The title deeds of the same settlement provide the following—

Mr. Speaker, you therefore see that it is a privilege that the farmers have. At any time the Minister can simply take the land and do what he wants to with it. He can sell it and pay all the proceeds into the State coffers. Here we see further confirmation of the Government’s sympathetic attitude towards the farmers in our country. They are going to obtain 90% of the proceeds, and that money could be a handy windfall in times of tremendous drought, such as the drought we are experiencing at the moment. People are seldom compensated for the privileges they enjoy, but for years now the farmers have had the benefit of these privileges, and although they were taxed on the land over the years, such tax was not a significant annual amount. True to its traditional character over the years, however, the Government can once again prove to the farmers that it is on their side. That is not all, however, because we must also emphasize that this is not going to cost the taxpayer anything. Although the State can simply take the land and do what it wants to with it, it has never been—nor is it—the object of the Government to make people dissatisfied. Let there be no doubt about one thing, however: There are going to be dissatisfied people, even though the formula, set out in clause 6 of the Bill, is a good and a fair formula that ought to satisfy the majority of the parties concerned. The legislation is also in fine with the Government’s policy of getting rid of State land that is not needed for State purposes. If we also bear in mind that farms are disappearing with the establishment of towns, and the infrastructure that goes hand in hand with that, the provision of land for new farms can be seen to be beneficial to farming in general. The farmers are going to benefit from this and, what is more, no one is going to lose by it. The idea of coming along with this legislation germinated a few years ago. It was therefore carefully thought out and formulated before being brought to this House.

In conclusion: The hon. member for Fauresmith, who can unfortunately not be in the House today, has asked me on his behalf, to pass on a request to the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with the Riet River settlement in his constituency. The request is that the grazing there should provisionally remain in the hands of the State, for the sake of the regulation of the irrigation units. According to the hon. member for Fauresmith the viability of the irrigation units can be increased. In due course he will be discussing his ideas with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the Second Reading of the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank hon. members on both the Government and the Opposition sides very sincerely for their support for the legislation under discussion. In the first place I should like to say thank you very much to the hon. Whips on the Opposition side for ruling that we can take all the stages of this Bill today.

Mr. Speaker, here I believe we have a fine piece of legislation that reaches back into the annals of our history, referring back as it does to the establishment of people in the rural areas of South Africa. It was with a touch of sadness that I read through the relevant documents. As the hon. member for Beaufort West indicated, town commonages were common pasturage areas. There, as children, we played amongst the ant-hills. The mere thought of that brings back pleasant memories of days gone by. What is even more pleasing, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the Director-General of this department and one of the officials involved in this legislation both grew up in settlements like this. They consequently know these things inside out. That is, of course, why we were able to come up with the good 90:10 formula in this connection. I think it is a very ingenious formula for giving people generous and comprehensive compensation.

Hon. members all made such positive contributions that I do not want to go into all the aspects mentioned in any detail. I do, however, just want to single out a few matters. In the first place I do not think that we should propagate the idea that people had any specific rights. People never had any rights on that land; merely privileges. As soon as it is accepted that people have rights, the situation changes completely.

Secondly, I do not, at this point in time, want to bind any Minister or future Minister, or any department or future department, to any specific method of alienating the land. We may find that in certain cases alienation by way of tenders would be the correct method. In other cases we may find that alienation by public auction is the correct method. During the past week I received a deputation of farmers from the hon. member for De Aar’s part of the world. They were somewhat vexed about the situation. They did, however, also make a practical suggestion, which amounts to the fact that one can actually make certain that everyone who is there now and enjoys this privilege, would like to obtain that land. In such circumstances one could even agree to a private sale of the land, if there were the certainty that this would be proper under the relevant circumstances. We shall therefore have to ensure that these land deals are not dealt with too rigorously. The land does, after all, belong to the State, and we have already decided in principle that increasing amounts of State land should be alienated. We have taken note of the 500 houses which the hon. the Minister of Community Development spoke about and which are merely a starting point. We should also like to alienate the other State land, in cases where this is practicable, of course without detrimentally affecting the future needs of the State. This forms part of the hon. Prime Minister’s free-market strategy, which of course means that the State should take as little action as possible in the situation as a whole. We are now starting off with 108 000 ha. The State, however, owns quite a substantial amount of additional land. In this respect let me also refer again to the whole process of consolidation. Here, too, we are releasing land. So whereas, on the one hand, we must purchase land for the Trust, for purposes of consolidation, on the other hand we are releasing land so that people who want to settle elsewhere can, in turn, obtain land.

I should also like to point out that hon. members must remember that basically this department is only an agent; at least as far as this aspect is concerned. The department’s only mandate is to alienate the relevant land on behalf of the State. I am happy to see that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries are both in the House at the moment. From the fact that they can be present, it seems to me I have arranged things very nicely. The moment we have taken such a decision, the land is transferred to the Department of Agriculture, which will then take the necessary steps as far as planning is concerned. The hon. member for Prieska has asked that there should be proper planning. If it is found that the land is sold or made available, it has to be withdrawn so that the pasturage areas can recover, etc., the Department of Agriculture will undertake to do this. The relevant agricultural legislation will be made applicable. We are basically only the sellers. The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries will be involved in these transactions, because some of that land is irrigable land and there are, in any case, water rights on certain pieces of that land. There shall consequently have to be proper co-ordination.

I think that for practical reasons it is important for us to get this legislation onto the Statute Book as quickly as possible. Thereafter, however, the department is going to need a little time to technically equip itself to deal with this situation. I also agree with the hon. member for Prieska that one wants to stop the land being trampled to dust and destroyed wherever this may be happening. There are, however, people who have grazing privileges. Once again we cannot simply lump them all together. Where the land has to be saved, we must do so. One must, not, however, simply throw a man off the land because we have the legislation on the Statute Book. That could be disruptive. At this stage the position in regard to the marketing of livestock also presents a problem. We shall therefore have to deal with the matter circumspectly.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North intimated that he would like to move an amendment. He informed me of what the amendment embodied. The aim is to have a portion of clause 3 deleted. The hon. member for Albany wanted the whole of clause 3 deleted, but it seems to me the two have since reached consensus. I would not, in any case, have been able to accept the hon. member for Albany’s amendment. We must accept the fact that in certain cases we are going to have somewhat of a problem. I am not trying to anticipate the Committee Stage, but here we are dealing with matters that were regulated between 40 and 60 years ago. It may be very difficult to determine who actually has grazing privileges on a specific piece of land. Where there has been a committee or management that has functioned properly over the years, that committee can determine who the people are who have those privileges. Then it will all be relatively easy. However, in the case of committees of management that have not functioned properly, one would have the problem—that is then the reason why we have the relevant provision in clause 3—of someone having to try to determine, at some time or other, who the people are who have the privileges and should therefore be compensated. I am quite prepared to consider the amendment the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has proposed. In my argument with the department I also pointed out that the Minister could even be placed in so impossible a position—the matter becoming so complicated—that the case should rather be decided in open court, instead of placing the onus on the Government to decide which of two people is right. Our problem is that not all the records dating back 40 to 60 years are still available. Some of those records have been destroyed, and in this process we want to be as fair as possible.

I am also sympathetically inclined towards the standpoint of some hon. members, i.e. that we should try to retain, in that area, those who have grazing privileges at present, if they are interested. The people are already in that area. They are used to it. They are probably also people who know that sort of land best. Their community exists and they have communal church, school and other interests. Whilst on the other hand we specifically accept the principle that the State is going to alienate some of its land, we must be very careful that we do not land ourselves up in a position where it could be said that we have given some people preferential treatment. We simply cannot afford that.

We must remember these few things. We must also accept that this piece of legislation is empowering legislation. It is possible for other legislation to result from this legislation. We are, however, placing the department in a position to set certain machinery in motion. In conjunction with the other departments concerned, for example the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, we can get the overall machinery together and set the process in motion. This is empowering legislation. As hon. members will see, at this stage it does not affect all State land either. At times the Minister can demarcate certain pieces of land and involve them in the process.

I should like to thank hon. members very sincerely for their support. We are busy making a bit of history.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment to this clause—

I myself am a goat farmer. [Interjections.] Let me invite the hon. the Minister of Agriculture right away to a goat-farmer’s jamboree (“boerbokdag”) we shall be holding in Natal on 28 June. He is welcome to attend. A “boer” is a “bok”, and a “bok” is said to be a difficult customer. I think we are all aware of the problems that the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department have. I think that only a small minority of people will have any problems with this legislation. I think it is fair and reasonable legislation. I can understand why the legislation has been drafted in the way it has. I believe, as the hon. the Deputy Minister himself has intimated, that he could find himself in the very difficult position of having to make a judgment in a situation about which he perhaps does not have enough background material. As a political head of a section of the department, he would then be in the difficult position of having to decide, in regard to something that has nothing to do with politics, about rights which literally existed 50 or 60 years ago, or perhaps did not exist at all. I think that a person who feels himself to have been aggrieved, should rather have the right of recourse to common law and should take the case to court. We on this side of the House believe that if the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees to this amendment, he will be doing his successors—here we are not referring to people, but rather to posts—a great service by giving people the right of recourse to the judiciary should they feel themselves to have been aggrieved by any decision.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to say that I accept the hon. member’s amendment. I have already referred to it in my Second Reading speech and I do not want to take up the House’s time any further.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, there has been some reference in the Second Reading to the means of disposing of the land. In fact, we had so many speakers in the Second Reading that I was not quite sure if we were all supporting the Bill or opposing it. However, I should like to make one point. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister would reply to this and tell us how he is thinking of disposing of the land. I believe that the principle we should try to apply is that the land be disposed of at market value. Then the State would have more money to redistribute to the people who had rights. It reduces disputes over favouritism, and I am sure that the people in the local community are the people who are going to want to buy that land in any case. Certainly, I do not see everybody in this House rushing to buy land at Karos, although I am sure it is a very nice place to live in. However, I think that the people who live there will obviously be interested. Whatever the particular means of disposing of State lands, I would like to urge that the hon. the Deputy Minister should apply the principle that it should be disposed of at market value. Whether it be by means of auction, a tender or through the fixing of a price by a professional valuation, is obviously up to him and his department. However, I think it would be unfortunate if this land were sold at less than market value. It should therefore be offered on the open market, whether by tender or by auction, and it should be advertised.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to add to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I support his concept. Disposing of State-owned land always has its difficulties. There is always the question of suspicion. If we use varying methods, then it is going to be even more under suspicion. Therefore I think one must establish a principle. I should just like to say that the hon. the Minister, who will be dealing with it after it has been acquired and planned and who will consider whether it is going to be conserved and rested for a certain time before it goes on to the market, would have to look at this very carefully, in consultation with the agricultural union concerned, with organized agriculture and even with the particular community whom it will affect. In case where land is being bought and then released to White farmers, there have been varying methods employed and this has created a great deal of dissatisfaction, because sometimes the original owner did not know about it and the local farmers may sometimes find that someone else has leased the land because it was not advertised in that community or though organized agriculture. It can cause a great deal of dissatisfaction. Therefore I should just like to support the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North where he has asked that one should look at this very carefully. It should be done on a uniform basis where there can be no possible hints of any nepotism and suspicion attached to it, while in keeping with the concept of building up the local communities and increasing the population in the rural areas.

Mr. Chairman, I can find no fault with the two hon. member’s arguments. The idea is that here we shall try to determine market value, whether by means of tenders or by means of an auction. I do not, however, want to bind myself today to any one specific method of alienating land throughout the whole country.

Circumstances may differ. From the very nature of the case, as we do in other instances as well, there will be on-going contact with organized agriculture in an effort to determine what is best for the region concerned. I can assure the two hon. members, however, that I have no problem with their standpoints.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to this clause of the Bill, the clause in terms of which the proceeds from this land are to be divided up, irrigable land is basic to the formula for dividing up such land. In clause 1 “irrigable land” is defined. In common parlance, however, we know that a certain meaning is attached to the term “irrigable land” and that this differs from the meaning attached to the term “scheduled land”. The Water Act deals with scheduled land, and the farmers in the area felt that the division should take place on the basis of scheduled land and not on the basis of irrigable land. This is how it is set out in the legislation, but it is merely for the sake of clarity that I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us that the intention is to have the division take place on the basis of scheduled land and not irrigable land. I should like to know whether that is the intention.

Mr. Chairman, that is definitely the intention, and it will take place on the basis of the number of hectares of scheduled land that a person possesses. I think that the new term that the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries uses is that it is land on which there are water rights, i.e. on which water rights have been granted. It is, however, a matter of scheduled land and not irrigable land.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have come now to the Third Reading of this Bill. I want to say at the outset that we know that the changes that are being introduced through the medium of this Bill concern firstly the definition of a developer; secondly, the whole question of sectional title and the amendments effected to it; and thirdly, the question of property time-sharing.

I want to say immediately on behalf of the hon. member for Sea Point and myself who serve on the Select Committee and whose recommendations were incorporated in this legislation subsequent to the Cabinet having approved of the recommendations, that we want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the manner in which he has chaired and is chairing the Select Committee that made these recommendations as well as for his deep concern for and understanding of the problem facing tenants today whether they are subject to rent control or not. I should also like to thank him for his attitude in handling this Bill and for his preparedness to accept amendments proposed during the Committee Stage in the knowledge that what we were trying to do was really to improve this legislation for the benefit of the public at large.

Having mentioned the Select Committee, I also think it would be remiss of me if I were to omit to mention the invaluable assistance that we are receiving from Mr. Karson—I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister does not mind my mentioning this—who has assisted us to such a large extent by gathering an enoumous amount of evidence and by giving us a direction and making positive suggestions and recommendations that have enabled us to produce legislation of this nature for discussion by this House.

The question of accommodation poses one of the most serious problems facing South Africa today. Basically there is a lack of accommodation, but even those who have accommodation need protection against rent increases from time to time which they cannot meet. They also need protection against threats of ejectment and against harassment. Those who do not enjoy the protection which the Rent Control Act offers face ejectment, harassment and enormous increases in their rent from time to time.

It is therefore incumbent upon us to bring about a balance. This is precisely what we are now doing in providing a developer the right to convert a building into sectional title units irrespective of when that building was built, because once such a building is converted, the supply of premises to be let diminishes. In today’s market it is difficult to build at a price commensurate with what the average person can pay on leasing premises. In these circumstances there is a tremendous responsibility on the Government through the hon. the Minister of Community Development and his department to provide all the alternative accommodation which it can in every possible sphere. The Government should not only provide such alternative accommodation, but it should encourage and make it possible for the private sector to do the same. This is paramount and fundamental to our attitude in so far as the amendments are concerned which are embodied in the Bill.

We are glad that we have reached the Third Reading of the Bill because now we can examine the effects of that we have approved of. In the first place we have substituted the definition of “developer”. Developers have unfortunately found loopholes in the existing definition and the effect of that is that they can appoint a third person or an agent to handle their sales. It is therefore possible to have flats advertised and deposits accepted even before the opening of a sectional titles register. It is pleasing to note that we now close that loophole. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister to promulgate some of the provisions, if not all the provisions contained in the Bill as soon as possible to ensure that this loophole is closed.

We must also look at the implementation of the provisions which deal with rent control in so far as sectional titles are concerned. It is important for those people who are protected tenants—they are protected because they occupy accommodation erected before 1949 or because they fall within the prescribed income limits and occupy accommodation erected before 1 June 1966—to take note of precisely what their rights are, especially now that we are opening the door for anybody to apply for sectional titles.

It is important for those tenants to know that if this happens, the developer must call a meeting and give 14 days’ notice. At the meeting he has to tell the tenants what it is all about, and in terms of the amendment he has to inform the tenants of their rights. He has to tell them that they have the first option to purchase the unit which they are occupying. People who are protected have 365 days while everybody else has 90 days to exercise the option. If they refuse to purchase, they have 180 days in which to find other accommodation. If a further offer is made at a lower price, then the tenant has a further 60 days in which to consider it. I think these are fair periods. Unfortunately a lot of people do not understand their rights and therefore we are glad that the developer is compelled to furnish an affidavit that all the tenants have been fully advised of all their rights.

We have reached the stage where we have now opened the door for sectional title to be brought about. The attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister has been drawn by the hon. member for Sea Point to certain points which were brought to his notice subsequent to our discussing the matter. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give attention to them and will examine them on their merits. If he finds it necessary, I am sure that he will at some later stage bring about amendments. However, I think there is one small aspect we should clarify, namely when application is made to a local authority for the registration of a sectional title scheme. I am referring to clause 4. There should be a cut-off date so that the local authority and the developer will know whether the developer’s application is covered by this legislation. If the application is before the local authority but it has not yet been granted and this legislation is promulgated during that period, does the local authority reject the application and tell the developer to go back and to give the lessees 14 days’ notice and then to submit his application afresh together with the affidavit, or can the local authority process the application because it is already before them and has not yet been decided? I know that when the previous amendment was affected, applications were rejected by the local authority and had to be submitted de novo. I think that guidance in the form of a cut-off date when this legislation comes into effect will be required in this respect. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider this situation. Apart from that, we are happy that these amendments have been brought about.

The other main aspect of this legislation is the question of property time-sharing. Here I must mention a statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is his intention and that of his department to rewrite the Sectional Titles Act. If that is done and when it is done, I take it that they will also bear in mind those amendments that will emanate from the Select Committee on Rent Control so that we will be able to co-ordinate what part belongs to the Sectional Titles Act and what part should form part of property time-sharing legislation. There should be co-ordination with regard to the rewriting of the Sectional Titles Act, with regard to the Rent Control Act and, if necessary, with regard to property time-sharing.

With regard to property time-sharing, we are now dovetailing this legislation with the Property Time-Sharing Bill we passed in this House earlier. I think we all accept by now that property time-sharing has become a way of fife in South Africa and that people have found fit to purchase unit accommodation for their holidays. They are doing so in the hope that there will be a capital gain, but also as an insurance against inflation. We know how the cost of hotel accommodation escalates annually. By doing this, they can also ensure that they do get accommodation. In this respect the hon. the Deputy Minister will also have to draw up regulations. He is no doubt aware that the regulations will have to ensure that when such a person turns up to claim his one week accommodation once a year, he will get it when he arrives, that the sheets, the blankets, etc., will be there and that there will be no problems in relation to that accommodation. There has to be proper administration and proper management if this thing is going to be successful.

There are quite a number of provisions concerning registration in the deeds registry of sectional title. It is a very technical matter for those who are not conveyancers, but basically there will be a certificate of registered sectional title to give a person that right. I think we must all understand that as far as the Sectional Titles Act is concerned in regard to this matter I am talking about now, it is permissive. It is not mandatory in law to register the sectional title or property time-sharing. It is permissive in terms of the Act and in terms of this legislation. We must bear that in mind. However, be that as it may, what we are providing for in the conveyancing part is the registration of the period, for example, 7/365ths of a year, that will be endorsed on the title deed, and the sectional title will be given on that basis. I think we have already discussed the possibility of a person being able to book for a specific period. For example, he may want to book for Easter each year or for Christmas each year. That may not be possible because certainly as far as Easter is concerned, it does not fall at the same time every year. I do not know whether we have left sufficient play in the legislation to provide for that. I rather think that we have chosen to confine ourselves to 7/365ths as such and I think that is the way it is going to be registered. But I do think that we should give this matter consideration in due course.

The last appeal that I want to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister is with regard to the limits that technically apply to a person who is 65 and to those protected tenants who fall under the income limits. Again, I must draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to Proclamation No. 32 of 1983 which states that a single person has an income limit of R360 per month and a family R650 per month. I know it is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention to give this matter consideration and no doubt a proclamation will be issued in future. However, I must tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that where there is going to be a change in formula, he and his Minister must please give consideration to raising these limits to a realistic level. I have in mind a figure of R1 500 per month for a family. We must match the higher cost of living and we must match inflation. We must not place a person who is earning a low salary and who is granted an increase by his firm in a position where he has to say that he would rather not accept the increase because it would put him above the prescribed income level which in turn would mean that he would lose his accommodation. This is a chance that he cannot take. Up to this stage the hon. the Deputy Minister has been sympathetic to the requirements that have been laid down by the Select Committee which in turn has acted according to the representations of hundreds of people who look to this Parliament for protection and for a roof over their heads so that they can live in security. This applies not only to the aged and people living on their own, but also to the young people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow must pardon me for not reacting directly to his speech. We had sufficient time, during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, to speak about the detail of the Bill and I feel that the issue during the Third Reading is the effect the legislation will have.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member had to say by also expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the Select Commitee, the hon. the Deputy Minister, as well as the officials who gave us such exceptional assistance in that Select Committee. The terms of reference of the Select Committee were to investigate the whole question of rent control and sectional titles, and it so happens that we dealt with the latter part of the terms of reference first because the matter was so urgent, and that gave rise to this legislation, which is taking final shape in this House this evening.

When one considers this legislation, one is extremely grateful to be able to say that we have eliminated a very important obstacle to the promotion of home ownership in our country.

It is true that home ownership will be promoted by this legislation, which is being given substance here this evening. It is also true that there are many tenants who have been living in such rented units for many years now, without ever having had the right to own one of them, simply because one or two people in such a high-density unit have objected to that particular unit being converted into a sectional title unit. Possibly these are people who would not like to move away from their particular environs, because they have close ties with their community, have built up a circle of friends there and are also active in their particular congregations and church circles. It is these people who, having been denied this right for many years, are now being granted the right to purchase a property in terms of the legislation under discussion.

A second important effect this legislation will have is that preference will now be given to the tenant of a unit when it comes to purchasing that particular unit. Furthermore, it is also very important that protected tenants will still be afforded protection. On the other hand, however, the Select Committee also had to take cognizance of the effect this measure is going to have on the developer. Yet I am convinced that in the process there has been in-depth consultation with the developer. I should therefore also like to express my appreciation to the experts in this field, the persons and organizations that gave evidence before the Select Committee, thereby also making their relevant contribution. Furthermore, I also wish to point out that this legislation is definitely a positive step towards the promotion of home ownership, which is in accordance with the housing strategy the Government has announced.

It is also important to take cognizance of a report of the Scientific Committee of the President’s Council which has a bearing on demographic trends in the Republic of South Africa. If we were to examine it, we would see that according to the report, R780 million per annum will be needed to provide for additional housing in the year 2020, in view of the growth in population in the Republic of South Africa. By the year 2050 the amount for this purpose will be R1 916 million per annum. As a result we will have to do some very serious planning for high-density housing. We certainly cannot merely accomodate people in low-density housing in the future. We shall have to consider seriously the question of high-density housing.

The reasons I want to put forward are, in the first place, the fact that our people are living much longer, that the number of single people is increasing and that flats are becoming increasingly popular with our young people. The HSRC carried out an investigation recently and issued a report in which it was revealed that there are 120 000 single people living in flats at present. Furthermore, it is true that in this process parents who have children at university are in a position to purchase a flat for their children. Such a flat is not only an investment, but also a means whereby the ever-increasing cost of living may be combated.

I also wish to mention another aspect, and that is that more and more of our aged are choosing to live in high-density units because they feel safer there. This is a very important aspect. Let us look at what the effect of this legislation will be. It has been estimated that, in terms of this amending Bill, all developers were to convert their particular blocks of flats into sectional title units, 80 000 units would become available for sale. I should therefore like to appeal to developers this evening to seriously consider reinvesting the money they receive, from the sale of sectional title units, in housing. Of course, this does not mean that they necessarily have to spend the total amount on the provision of dwelling units. From my calculations it seems clear that the sum involved here—calculated in terms of the value of the properties concerned—amounts to an overall sum of R2,25 billion. If that total amount were to be used for housing, and those units were to be sold over a period of five years, it would mean that 11 000 units would come onto the market annually. This would be of great value, since we want to build up a supply of houses. Let me just add that I based my calculation on an amount of R40 000 per unit.

I think we are making an important decision here this evening. I think it is important for us to look, for just a moment, at another important aspect. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development issued a Press statement on 2 June. I feel that the issue involved is the availability of land, something we shall duly have to take into account: The number of people is increasing, but the amount of land is not. The hon. the Minister said in his Press statement that the initial estimate of the land required for the growth of the Black community in Soweto, until the year 2000, is 6 000 ha. We must therefore take this into account.

I want to quote from a report, which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail on 13 March 1982, about what a visiting Professor from the USA had to say. The report appeared under the headline: “Praise from American Professor”. I quote the report—

I think we should take cognizance of these standpoints. It is true that for many people in our country, other groups as well, high-density will entail changes in their way of life. We will, however, have to give urgent attention to high-density living in the Republic of South Africa. I take pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we supported the principle of the Bill during Second Reading and we consequently support the Third Reading as well. It is true that the increase in the population and the high concentration of people in urban complexes can create vast problems for the world. In my opinion, legislation of this nature is a point of departure for further development towards the provision of housing for individuals and families, young and old. In fact, there are three categories of people involved, viz. the developers the people who are to live there, as well as the owners. The development that occurs in modern cities is of such a nature that in erecting this kind of housing, the developer has to plan ahead for the next 30 to 40 years.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one or two further remarks. As far as township development and establishment are concerned, there was a time when township developers and other developers—I am making specific mention of township developers, but what I am saying also applies to other developers—had the idea that the legislator was making it difficult for them to carry out their development plans. Through this legislation, however, we have now reached a stage where the developer can rest assured that his specific circumstances are being given attention.

Another problem we had was with purchasers. There was a stage when purchasers felt that to a large extent, their interests were being prejudiced by developers. I think this legislation is now providing for that problem as well.

I want to make a final remark. I am a trifle concerned about investment in sectional title units. When one invests in land, one knows that the value of that land will increase in time, despite inflation or a decrease in the value of our money. I think that in order to protect owners of sectional title units, one would have to see to it that this system would not be one in which an investor could lose his investment after 20 or 30 years. Having said these few words, I wish to indicate that we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the hon. member for Rissik this evening, I was thinking that it must be wonderful for brothers to live together in the same house or flat. [Interjections.] What goes on in all these flats, is another matter, of course.

If we consider the effect of this Sectional Titles Amendment Bill, we see a shift in emphasis in the provision of housing being initiated by the Department of Community Development. To us on this side of the House, and to the whole of South Africa, this is a significant record of an enthusiastic Minister, his deputy, the Director General, as well as the staff of the department, establishing housing for the middle income group as well. This legislation places the stamp on the illustrious record of the department over the past 21 years, during which no less than 531 362 housing units have been constructed for all population groups at a cost of R2 504, 7 million. In this process, 3 million people have been provided with housing, each in his own particular area. This is indeed a tremendous achievement.

Secondly, this evening this House is witnessing the fundamental principles of the free market system, i.e. that the State should not always accept sole responsibility for housing, but that other bodies should also contribute their share. The responsibility for housing for the breadwinner and his family rests primarily with the individual. This is a tremendous achievement for the department.

Thirdly, this presents employers, developers and financial institutions with the tremendous challenge of establishing homes which will be an asset to our people for every section of the population. It is fitting that this effort is being augmented by the Government. It remains the responsibility of the authorities to establish the infrastructure within the framework of the availability of the necessary resources. Now the individual can join forces with the authorities, the private sector and the developer in extending this housing policy.

In terms of the legislation plots may now be used for the construction of flats. On this basis, building societies can now also be called upon to assist in granting loans to purchasers. Certain projects can be financed. The purchase of land and essential services can be established. This Bill places the seal on the work of the National Housing Commission, since it has increased the loan limits, as well as the income limits, for State-subsidized building and purchase loans and has also made loans available for the purchase of housing units under sectional title.

If I understood the Deputy Minister correctly the other day, certain people with an income of less than R1 000 need only put down 10% now—I think he mentioned the sum of R900—in order to purchase a flat costing R30 000. I think I understood him correctly. I should like to know whether this Bill also makes provision for that.

This paves the way for housing utility companies. It has introduced a new marketing campaign for residential and business premises. This new housing strategy will fit in very well with the new dispensation we are going to have soon. Now the White, Indian and Coloured local authorities will see to it that they get a good deal when it comes to housing in their areas. Rent control, rent boards, tenants, developers and estate agents must finally realize what they are dealing with.

However, I want to know how it is possible—and this has been said in my own constituency—for people who earn R100 per month to live in the same building as another tenant who earns R2 000 per month. How is it possible for that person not to have a conscience about staying on in that flat? It is now possible for him to go and purchase a flat elsewhere.

How does one account for people acting illegally and engaging in malpractices? We hope that this legislation will solve this problem. In one case, for example, the flat rent was increased from R77 to R190 per month. Within 10 months the rent in one building increased from R100 to R120, to R140 and then to R220 per month. All these malpractices will now be eliminated by the Sectional Titles Act. In another case the rent was increased from R95 to R250 and then to R350 per flat per month. If only this money would be used to establish sectional title units, those people would be far less dependent.

Mr. Ron Kennedy, the Executive Director of the Property Owners Association, said recently—

I think that this is what is going to happen now. I have certain cuttings here. For 15 years the hon. member for Hillbrow and I, as members of the Johannesburg City Council, often had to deal in the slum courts with conditions in which people even lived in stables in certain parts of the city. We were made aware of absolutely dreadful conditions, and the slum courts had to clear up those conditions. We would have liked to have had more muscle for this Act at that time, since we could then have been able to create a new Johannesburg.

I have certain cuttings from a publication entitled Southern Courier, which is distributed in my area and which has a circulation of almost 26 000. They describe the problem which is now to be solved by this legislation as “A Struggle to Survive”, “The Case for Flat Owners” and “Government and Flat Rent”. Each week there is an article on the crisis people are finding themselves in in this respect. I also have a letter—one of the many I have received—I wish to quote from. It is a letter written to me by a D.R. Church minister in which he says, inter alia, the following—

Here is a case where, at last, rent can be determined by supply and demand, where abnormal circumstances due to a dire shortage of housing, which is beginning to have a detrimental effect, can at last be solved and the exploitation of tenants, which has reached a peak, can also be done away with.

I want to add that rent control—and that is another aspect this legislation deals with— is not the solution to the housing crisis. The lessor must receive a reasonable income from his investment, and that is going to be the case from now on. In turn, the tenant must pay a reasonable rental for his accommodation. All these people will now have a much better understanding of this matter, through this legislation, as well as the fact that there is now to be an increase of 15% for essential services. The developer will also have to receive an annual income of 8, 5%.

At preset, tenants are greatly shocked by the fact that the Rent Control Act is to be phased out eventually. They do not have enough of an understanding of the matter. This legislation will, however, give them new insight into the matter. It will even be possible for our aged, who in the past have sold their houses at uneconomic prices in order to go and live in flats, to be accommodated in terms of this Act. These people, who are struggling due to inflation, will now be able to purchase a flat on a sectional title basis and this will provide them with a solution.

This legislation will also bring about an upturn in the property market. It will also stabilize the flourishing sectional title market. It will also lead to the conversion of blocks of flats into holiday apartments. I also want to say that provision should be made for flats in large business complexes. At present I am living in a flat in Gardens Centre here in Gardens. It is a 21-storey block consisting of flats and business premises.

Why can the same principle not be extended to other premises? There are organizations such as the insurance companies and the pension fund organizations. These organizations only build offices in cities. Why can they not convert such buildings? In Johannesburg there was the Ansteys Building, which was previously a block of flats, but which is used exclusively for business purposes today. There was also the Greatermans Building, which today only houses a number of shops. There was also the John Orr Building, which consists solely of offices today. Why are our cities becoming ghost towns and why are they not protected in this way?

This is also what is happening to our new hotels. Hotels are being built in our city centres. All we do is build large buildings and then demolish them. Time and again we simply fan the flames of inflation, instead of trying to build a new South Africa.

I also want to refer to the protected tenant. Such a tenant now has 365 days’ grace, and there is also the question of the increased market value to which one can now have recourse.

I want to refer to a problem this legislation will eventually solve, and that is the question of unlawful intimidation aimed at existing tenants. I have some of these people in my constituency, and I am not going to allow them to get away with this. These people are unscrupulous estate agents who contravene the Group Areas Act time and again. I am on their trail. I will hound them. [Interjections.]

I will not allow them to evict poor people in my constituency and accommodate others who are able to pay higher rent. I will not allow the “fat cats” to push the poor aside. There are estate agents who say they can get more commission. It is not the developer who wants that money; it is the estate agent who says he wants more money. When he eventually comes before the Rent Board, he says that he is not going to improve the building in question, but he nevertheless wants more money. It is a question of move or pay, but for the rent, one never sees him there at all. It is these unscrupulous people who have to be called to account.

In Johannesburg 224 000 dwelling units are needed annually. Due to a lack of capital, the local authority are unable to meet these needs. Why can we not have a bigger input on the part of the private sector? [Interjections] I am thinking of the commendable effort of the Ford Company, which provided R10 million for housing in Port Elizabeth. Why can there not be more cases of employers following that example?

No new flats have been built in Johannesburg over the past five years. Owners are not renovating old flats. Here I am referring, in particular, to flats that were built before 1949. Although buildings are being candalised, no repair work is being done. We therefore have to contend with slum conditions. One building in Plein Street has been vacant for seven years. Owners convert buildings into offices; why are such buildings not converted into flats? In the Johannesburg city centre there are 300 flat units that have been purchased by pension funds and other developers and converted into offices.

In view of all this, I want to say: Let us build a new South Africa. Let us give our aged more assistance. If an amount of R3 000 is needed to purchase a flat costing R30 000—i.e. if my figures are correct—why can three children not each donate R1 000 and give that to their parents? Why should we have all the luxuries in the world and not care for our aged?

I therefore feel that we should build a new South Africa in which there are fewer industries in our central areas. Flat units should be built in our central areas. This Bill will be able to make a contribution in this regard, and I therefore thank the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Director-General and the wonderful staff in the Department of Community Development.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] … sometimes I wish I could enter into a debate before and not after dinner. I should like to say to the hon. member for Rosettenville that to a very large degree I must support what he has said. I shall, however, not react to his fairly wide ranging speech except to say that there was something rather unique about his speech. For the first time since the CP came into being an hon. member of that party and an hon. member of the NP spoke pleasantly to one another in the House.

I think I must as a consequence reciprocate in so far as the PFP is concerned. [Interjections.] I must say that I congratulate the hon. members for Hillbrow and Sea Point for the magnificent Bill they have produced today. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister had something to do with it, but the hon. member for Hillbrow did make a point in his speech that they felt that they deserved a considerable amount of credit. I am sure they do. I therefore give them full credit for the work they have done in this regard.

The Bill is a very good piece of legislation. As a consequence of believing this, we are going to support it. As I have said, I must congratulate all those concerned. Of course, I have to spread the congratulations tonight! There might even have been some officials who were involved in this and if that is the case, I would like to pass my congratulations in their direction as well. I would like to make a particular point to the hon. the Deputy Minister who will have to administer this, and that is that in respect of clause 15, the promulgation of this Bill may be effected in parts or delayed and so forth. I would suggest that this Bill is of such vital and urgent importance that the minimum delay be considered, because during the whole period of this delay, a lot of people will be worrying and suffering and, in other directions, a few people, the unscrupulous types, are in fact going to be doing a little bit of “verneu-king”—I think that is the word—and perhaps it would be as well to remove this temptation from their way.

As I have said before, this is a good Bill, but I do not believe that it should be looked upon as a panacea for all ills in this area. I do believe that there are certain aspects which have not been mentioned and which are of some small importance. The one aspect in particular is in regard to these rather unscrupulous individuals who are terrorizing their tenants into getting out of their flats on the basis of redecoration. Fairly recently, I have come across a few instances of this and I have given advice to the people and said: Stay put, do not get out, do not move to another flat to oblige the landlord because once you have done that, your protection is diminished. However, there are people who will still try to do that, in spite of this legislation, which will make life somewhat easier for both the entrepreneur and the tenant. I would like to suggest that a clear warning be given to these unscrupulous individuals that, if they continue to torment and persecute tenants on this redecoration basis, new legislation will be brought in to cover that particular aspect, because it is not covered in this Bill.

As I have said before, I feel that this Bill will serve a great purpose and that we shall be able to curb the dishonest and the sharp among the etate agents. To some degree, we shall also be protecting fools from their own folly. However, I think it was the hon. member for Langlaagte who made the point in the Second Reading debate that we must not endeavour to legislate to cover everything. He said that we cannot protect people from all of their own idiocies, and this is perfectly true. I believe this Bill does strike a reasonable compromise between proper protection, fair opportunities for the developer and protecting people from their own foolishness.

One further point that I would like to mention, is that it is of considerable importance that elderly people and pensioners are going to derive great peace of mind from this Bill, because even if they are not immediately in a position to raise the funds and buy or perhaps even raise the funds at all, they will now at least be given a reasonable period of time in which to re-establish themselves and, in many instances, they will be able to find the money to ensure their continued occupancy. I believe that the amendments that were put forward in the Committee Stage have made for smoother operation and I believe it was worthwhile to have had those amendments.

So with those few words and because of the promise that I made to my Whip that I would not speak for too long, I want to say I support this Bill on behalf of the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, I made a similar promise as the hon. member for Umbilo to my Whip and I shall therefore try to deal very briefly with the various points that have been raised.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Umbilo and all other hon. members for their support of this Bill. The hon. member for Umbilo said that it was a very good Bill and he repeated himself. I want to thank him for his impeccable taste and sound judgment in approving of this Bill. The hon. member referred to clause 15 in terms of which the Minister has the right to implement various provisions of this Bill at various times—to stagger the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. The hon. member appealed to us to ensure that there will be a minimum of delay and I can assure him there will be. I want to warn developers that there should not be a flood of applications now for conversion before this Bill has been promulgated. I want to give them the assurance that we shall promulgate especially this provision for conversion, i.e. the question of disclosure and the option to the tenant to purchase, and implement it as soon as possible.

Then the hon. member referred to the fact that certain unscrupulous developers were circumventing the whole spirit of the Act, i.e. section 28, by redecorating certain flats and then giving the tenants arbitrary notice. The hon. member would have seen that in the first report of the Select Committee we made mention of this. This matter was brought to our notice and there was evidence that there was abuse of section 28 of the principal Act. There were very few, but there were developers who were abusing this provision. I want to say in the clearest terms possible that developers must not reason that we shall only be amending this Act next year and that this will give them time to give tenants notice before the Rent Control Act is amended. I want to say that if we should discover—and I say this on the authority of the hon. the Minister because I discussed it with him—that there are developers who are abusing this provision we shall not hesitate to make the amendment which we hope to introduce later retrospective. I believe 1 have the support of hon. members opposite as well in this regard.

The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about the provision of accommodation by the private sector and the public sector. The hon. member is aware that this is the whole thrust of our second report which we hope to table in due course and that we have devoted much time to this matter. The hon. member will recall that there are already incentives. In his budget speech the hon. Minister of Finance made provision for development incentives in the private sector and only this afternoon when we discussed the supplementary estimates an additional amount of R10 million was allocated for these incentives introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and the hon. member approved it.

The hon. member also spoke about income qualifications and he thought that it should be a realistic figure. The figure that the Select Committee has recommended is R850 in the case of a family and R450 for single dwellers compared with the amounts of R650 and R360 that apply at present. The hon. the Minister will issue this new proclamation on 1 July. I shall discuss the matter with him, but I do not think that the figure of R1 500 that the hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned is a realistic one. I believe that the figure of R850 is more realistic because it takes cognizance of the inflation rate over the past two and a half years since we introduced the limits of R650 and R360.

*The hon. member for Witbank made a fine speech. He re-emphasized the importance of home ownership. He also referred to the deletion of section 4(6)(b) in the principal Act. This was the measure which was introduced in 1981 because the property market at that stage was completely overheated. Undisciplined sales of properties were occurring, and we had to take drastic steps. I believe that we have adequately contained that situation by way of the said legislation; and that there will consequently be no repetition of the abuses and the injudicious sales which we had prior to 1981. The hon. member also referred to another very important matter, the question of high-density occupation. I believe that the days of detached houses on large plots are over. The entire new pattern is that of cluster houses and high-density occupation.

Furthermore the hon. member referred to the HSRC report. I hope to come back to this in due course. He then touched upon another very important matter. He made an appeal to developers who are at present developing blocks of flats to plough back the profits they are making in this way into the establishment of new accommodation; to construct new dwelling units. I wish to support the hon. member very vigorously in that appeal. He mentioned astronomical figures in regard to the capital which can be recovered when those units are sold. Consequently I really wish to express the hope—and we shall see to it that the necessary incentives for developers are there—that that money is ploughed back into the development of new properties.

The hon. member for Rissik expressed concern about the possibility of this being an asset which could depreciate over a period of 20 years. No, Mr. Speaker, that has very definitely not been our experience. People who acquired flats 20 years ago find that they can sell them today for ten times the original purchase price, or even more. Our experience has been that properties appreciate tremendously. Consequently it is a very sound means of investment for anyone. The other day I was speaking to a person who bought a flat three years ago for R10 000. That flat is now for sale for R40 000. The hon. member need have no concern on that score.

Mr. Speaker, someone once said: “The best investment on God’s earth is in God’s earth”. Of course this also applies to the purchase of properties, particularly flats.

The hon. member for Rosettenville fought like a veritable tiger for the interests of his constituency. [Interjections.] He mentioned a whole series of matters here, to which I cannot react fully at the moment. Inter alia he spoke about a shift in emphasis whereby we were now making home ownership possible for people in the middle-income groups as well. This is after all the principal object of the present Bill. We are enabling the middle-income group to savour the joys of home ownership. The hon. member also referred to the financial schemes of the department by means of which people are financed when they wish to acquire their own dwelling unit, and also a flat. The particulars are as follows. Any person earning an income of up to R900 a month contributes a 10% deposit. The department provides a loan of 30%, and the building society a bond of 60%. Any person with an income of less than R800 per month may also acquire a 90% loan from the department to purchase a house or a flat. Such a person only has to contribute a 10% deposit. The hon. member went on to say that children should help their parents to purchase such flats. I believe that many parents themselves will have the capital. If they do not, however, have the necessary capital—that deposit of R3 000 or so—I believe it is the debt of honour of every child to ensure that his parent will live a carefree life in his old age and that the money required for the deposit will be found. I thank the hon. member for the appeal which he made.

The hon. member also discussed the conversion of flats into offices. This is something we are trying to combat. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the hon. the Minister issued very, very strict instructions to his delegates and to the regional offices to approach this matter with great circumspection and only to issue certificates for conversions of this nature in extreme cases.

The hon. member for Witbank referred a moment ago to the HSRC report. I should just like to say a few words about that report. At the end of the year the HSRC, at the request of the department, carried out a very comprehensive scientific enquiry into the occupation of flats. We hope that the report of the HSRC can be published as a schedule to the second report of the Select Committee. I have the report here “The Occupation of Flats built up to 1966—Some Social and Economic Aspects”. This is a very valuable document and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is a sociologist, and other hon. members will find a perusal of this document very useful.

There are very interesting facts in this document. For example 42% of all the flats in this sample group—the tendency will probably be the same throughout the entire spectrum—were occupied by single persons, and 39% by two persons, so that 81% of all flats in our country are occupied by two persons or less, while 13% are occupied by three persons and only 6,3% by more than three persons. The density of occupation of these flats is very low. It is as low as 0,8 per living room. Consequently we have lebensraum. With a few exceptions there is no overcrowding in our flats. Of the flat dwellers 23% are retired persons. In general this means that approximately 60 000 to 70 000 flats are occupied by retired persons. These people, who rent flats and who have a fixed income, are probably the persons who feel the pinch the most in these times of inflation and escalating rentals. That is why I so much appreciate the appeal made by the hon. member for Rosettenville to the effect that the tenants, and elderly tenants as well, should become owners and that the children have a debt of honour to help their parents in this respect.

This report also contains the other interesting facts. Here for the first time we have a clear profile of the flat dweller in South Africa. It tells us about the income of the flat dweller, his occupation, the rent he pays, about rent increases and a diversity of other matters.

Another prominent feature of flat life which becomes apparent from this report is its instability. The flat has become a place for human comings and goings. There is a tremendous turnover or fluctuation of people in our flats. This report indicates that almost a third of all flat dwellers have lived in their flats for less than a year and that another third have lived there for less than three years, so that two-thirds of all flat dwellers have in fact lived in their flats for less than three years. I think hon. members realize that every time there is an election and we canvass in areas containing many blocks of flats. We regularly find that half to three-quarters of the people registered in a specific block of flats are no longer there. In the schools in the flat communities there is a tremendous turnover of pupils. Our churches complain that annually a third of their congregation have simply moved away. Often, as a result of this instability, there is no healthy community life. For many a flat has merely become a transitional place. Consequently there is no real possibility of a community life. There is a very grave danger that the flat dweller is losing touch with his fellow-man. The danger is very grave that he can become a mass production person, a cog in a machine, just a number in the lobby of the building, a mere functionary, cold, impersonal and uninvolved. This reminds me of what Omar Khayyám said in his “Rhu-baiyat”—

There seem’d—and then no more of thee and me.

The same applies to flat dwellers, according to calculations there are 312 000 flats in our country. Of this number approximately 70 000 have been sold to individuals in terms of a sectional title or block-share scheme. Almost half of these, approximately 35 000 flats, are occupied by the owners themselves. As regards the total number of flats, we therefore have owner occupation of only about 11%. The predominant purpose of this Bill—and of the long investigation by the Select Committee—is to raise this figure of 11% in order to turn tenants into owner-occupants. Of course it will not be easy. Of course it is going to take an effort. Of course it is not always going to be possible to find a deposit of R3 000, R4 000 or R5 000. Nothing which is worth while, however, is ever achieved without an effort, and no ideal is attained without sacrifices. Our people will have to make those sacrifices and reap the wonderful benefits. If we can increase this 11% considerably it will lead to greater permanence and stability in our high-density areas. It will also mean a greater stabilization and enrichment of community life in that we will have people living in flats who have deep roots in the community. In this way the quality of life of people is enhanced. That is why this is a Bill to become excited about. Anyone can become excited about a measure which is calculated at improving the quality of the lives of our people. I think that for those of us who participated in this debate it was a very great privilege to be able to make a contribution to it.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. members once again for their positive and constructive ideas. Once again I wish to express a few words of sincere appreciation to the secretariat in the person of Mr. Neville Karsen, who made a very important contribution on the Select Committee and also to this Bill. I also thank the other officials who assisted him.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a great privilege for me to introduce the Second Reading of the Bill which is now before the House.

When the measures proposed in this Bill are placed on the Statute Book, it will not only be the realization of an ideal for the University of the Western Cape. The Bill also testifies to a commendable dedication to the task which the university has set itself.

From the outset, the university has had to lay its foundations and to plot its course with care, and to forge ahead, in spite of the initial antipathy to the establishment of the university, to join the ranks of the other established universities as a full-†edged member. Just like a living organism, the university has also had to pass through various phases of development before achieving full maturity. It had its growing pains to contend with, as well as threats from various quarters, but in spite of all this, the university has been able, within the very short period of 23 years, to develop into the magnificent institution which it is today.

The growth which the university has been able to maintain since its establishment in 1960 is indeed remarkable. From a very humble beginning as a university college with 164 students who were accommodated in the temporary classrooms of a primary school, it has developed into an institution with more than 4 000 registered students who are accommodated in a functional complex of buildings. Ten years after its establishment, university status was conferred on the institution. At the moment, a variety of courses are offered by seven faculties. A sports stadium of more than R5 million which is under construction, the planning of a student centre of approximately R5,5 million and the building of residences for more than 1 000 students, the first phase of which is being embarked upon this year, are further indications of the vigour of this university.

†This institution was initially branded as inferior. It has since weathered many storms, and apart from respecting it as one of our foremost seats of learning, we should also pay tribute to the Principal, the Council, the Senate and the staff for their idealism and their contributions towards the provision of the highest standards of education for their community. Not only is the community served by providing the trained manpower for which there is an ever-increasing demand in the country, but the university also serves its community by rendering dental care to about 13 000 persons per annum, by training potential businessmen and by offering serving teachers part-time assistance in the bettering of their qualifications.

To fill the gap between school and university and to improve the quality of its teaching methods, the University of the Western Cape boast one of the most sophisticated systems of computerized education facilities, not only in the country but also in the world. It also needs mentioning that the achievements of the institution are to a large extent due to the sound financial procedures and disciplines followed by the university. For the past three years the university has also operated according to the principles of the Van Wyk de Vries formula, like the other autonomous universities.

*I have referred to the achievements of the University of the Western Cape, but this is not the only important aspect. A university renders a special service to a community, not only to the community in its immediate environment, but also to the community in a much wider sense. A university becomes the catalyst of development in the economic, social, constitutional and political spheres. It acquires a place in the lives and in the hearts of the people whom it serves. To many, it is the symbol and the instrument through which the desire for development can be realized. When we think of what the universities of Stellenbosch, Pretoria, Potchefstroom and Bloemfontein meant to the Afrikaner in his early formative years, one realizes that a university also has a calling. I believe that the University of the Western Cape has a similar calling in its community. I believe that it is worthy of that calling and that it will maintain and develop the position it has already acquired in its community and in the country as a whole. What I have just said about the University of the Western Cape applies equally to the University of Durban-Westville, in respect of which similar legislation will soon be dealt with. We are concerned here with universities which have realized their potential and which are now of great service to their communities.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a technical aspect of the Bill which I should like to clarify at this stage. The proposal embodied in clause 20(3) was initially incorporated into the Bill as a further transitional measure for the protection of the students and the university. However, it appears that the proposed measure would have the effect that obligations which exist at the moment, such as the auditing of the university’s accounts by the Auditor-General, would not fall away as a result of the repeal of existing legislation. It is not the intention that arrangements of this nature should remain in force after this Bill has been enacted, and for that reason I am going to move during the Committee Stage that subsection (3) of clause 20 be deleted. The university as well as the students will be afforded adequate protection by the remaining proposed transitional measures.

Mr. Speaker, I also consider it a privilege to react, on behalf of the official Opposition, to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech on this University of the Western Cape Bill. As the hon. the Minister indicated, this university is now 23 years old. This is a long period and it is quite a study to see what has already been achieved by this university, what has taken place on that campus, and what that university has already contributed to the national life of South Africa.

This university was born in discord. The hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side will concede that when this university was first established, it was extremely controversial, and that many people felt at the time, and perhaps still feel, that this university was established for dubious reasons. However, the University of the Western Cape is a fact of history today and a fact which no one can ignore. This university has grown in spite of political resistance—which was perhaps very well founded, in my opinion—to its establishment. There was also resistance on the part of a potential student community, resistance to participation in this university, and also, perhaps, resistance on the part of potential academic staff of the university and so on. Gradually—and I think this is a good thing—this resistance crumbled somewhat, there was a softening of attitudes, and as a result, this university has achieved a great deal in the sense that the academic staff of this university very often feature prominently in public debates on national problems these days, often, I suppose, to the annoyance of hon. members such as the hon. member for Standerton. They do not always say the sort of thing which the hon. member for Standerton would like to hear. However, I hope the hon. member is nevertheless gratified by the fact that it is a person who is an academic at that university who is discussing these matters.

During the past few years, a certain degree of unrest has been observed in student activities at that university, and I want to say at once that it would have been strange if this had not been the case. That unrest may be a good rather than a bad sign. It means that that community of students has already settled in there, that there has been scope for independent thinking, that such independent thinking has in fact developed there and that for this reason, a kind of rebellious attitude has developed among many groups on that campus. In a nation which is structured along the lines of the South African nation, this may be a good thing.

At this stage, a greater degree of autonomy is now being conferred upon that university in terms of this Bill, and I think that this is a good thing too. It is an act which betokens confidence in this university on the part of the authorities generally as well as self-confidence on the part of the university itself.

Among the aspects which one could single out is the fact that the provisions dealing with the regulation of the admission of people belonging to other race groups to the University of the Western Cape no longer appear in the Bill. I would have been so glad if this was all one could say in this connection, but unfortunately, we know that there is another Bill on the Order Paper which will take the place of these provisions, with the result that the regulation on the basis of race will be continued in accordance with the provisions which used to be embodied in the University of the Western Cape Act.

Since we are now granting greater autonomy to the University of the Western Cape with regard to the administration of the university, and the authorities are telling the university in this way that they now regard it as an absolutely full-fledged, autonomous university and that they are fully confident that the university will administer and control itself successfully, it is regrettable, perhaps, that the university has not also been told, as a token of confidence, that it may henceforth admit any student whom it is prepared to admit. Although it appears from the Bill that this may be the case, we are unfortunately aware of the fact that because of other legislation, this will not be the position.

Nevertheless, the Bill which is before us very definitely represents progress. It represents growth, and as I have already indicated, it represents a motion of confidence in the university on the part of the authorities, of the State. We on this side of the House should like to endorse this. Therefore we take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Green Point with very great interest. I wish to thank him for his support of this Bill. I must say that this is in striking contrast to the situation 24 years ago, when the legislation in terms of which the university was established was piloted through Parliament. At that time, the official Opposition objected vehemently to the legislation. Even outside Parliament, vehement objections were raised. I still remember that the ladies with the black sashes paraded outside to demonstrate their opposition to the legislation. There was even an academic procession against the legislation. This goes to show that good judgment is vindicated in the end. [Interjections.]

Have you read the original Act?

It is interesting that at the time, a former Leader of the Opposition, Sir De Villiers Graaff, told the people who were responsible for the university—

One greatly appreciated this sentiment expressed by Sir De Villiers Graaff.

It is always very gratifying when an institution which was established under very difficult circumstances, as the hon. member for Green Point said, and which faced very difficult problems to begin with, but which also gave rise to very great expectations, comes of age and makes an effective contribution to our national life. There is not the slightest doubt about the fact that the University of the Western Cape is fully qualified today to rank among the great universities of South Africa and of the world. This is the situation today with regard to the University of the Western Cape, which was established in 1960 in terms of Act 49 of 1959, and which is now coming of age in terms of this legislation.

I want to dwell for a moment on the background to the whole situation. The Act to which I have just referred was aimed at providing for the establishment, maintenance, management and control of university colleges for non-Whites. That was the principal objective of the Act, as defined in its long title. At that stage, the academic facilities for non-White students in South Africa were actually rather sporadic. A few universities did admit them, but even at those institutions where they were in fact accommodated, they could never participte in the social life, student affairs and sporting activities of those universities.

Why not?

This was the position in the old days. At that stage, there were 271 non-White students at the University of Cape Town, 214 at the University of the Witwaterstand, 327 at the University of Natal, 370 at the University of Fort Hare and 1 154 at the University of South Africa. In the aggregate, therefore, there were only 2 300 Coloured and Black students at South African universities during the late ’fifties. Two things were evident from this figure. The first was that there was a fair number of non-White students who really needed university or post-matric training. The second was that they were widely scattered over the length and breadth of South Africa. For that reason, the 1959 Act envisaged the establishment of four university colleges. There was the one in the Western Cape, the one at Turfloop for the Sothos, the one in Natal for the Zulus and the one in Durban for the Indians.

It is interesting to note that the resistance with which this legislation met in this House and outside in 1959 had a serious effect on the establishment of the University College of the Western Cape. The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that this university was at first accommodated in a primary school in Bellville South. People referred to that university college as a bush college, as a kitchen college and as a glorified high school. Arson was committed two days before the inauguration of that college, while at the official opening, people demonstrated for all they were worth. If ever an institution had a difficult birth, it was the University of the Western Cape.

The University College of the Western Cape, as the university was known at the time, came into being under extremely difficult and adverse circumstances, but thanks to the dedication and perseverance of the people who established that university college and thanks to the dedication of the first students at that college and of the lecturers and officials, it is today one of the respected universities of our country. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the number of students had increased from 160 in 1960 to 4 500 last year. I am not aware of any other academic institution in our country which has shown such enormous growth. The university has not only grown in numbers. At first, it offered only two courses, namely literature and natural sciences, while seven disciplines are represented there today. The other five are: Education, economy, theology, dentistry and law. The result of this increase in numbers and disciplines is that Coloured graduates are rendering professional services to their community and to society in general in several spheres all over South Africa today. One is very grateful for the fact that this institution has been able to develop to such an extent during the 23 years of its existence that legislation can now be passed in terms of which it will be fully independent in all respects. There are one or two hon. members in this House who used to be lecturers at that university. Here I am thinking of the hon. member for Bellville and of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. One is deeply grateful to those people who helped to develop this university. One cannot but appreciate the faith which people showed in getting this university off the ground under extremely difficult circumstances and often under provocation.

Finally, I want to say that I trust that those students who are at present being equipped for life at the University of the Western Cape will continue to be inspired, as in the past, by the desire to serve their fellow-man, and that they will find their greatest reward in such service, and not in self-enrichment and self-glorification, as so often happens in the case of students. Any student, at whatever university, should be able to find his reward in the desire to serve his fellow-man.

The task of this institution, and of any academic institution, is not only to serve science and to impart knowledge, qualifications and skills to students, but also to engender in its students a willingness to serve. This is how I like to view the calling of this institution. May the enhanced status which the University of the Western Cape is to enjoy in terms of this legislation serve to inspire those people who are associated with the institution.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. members who have spoken so far I want to state that I am not going to say anything tonight about the disputes or misgivings—perhaps I should use the word “controversy”—which surrounded the establishment of this university. I think these belong to the past and I believe that this university has proved its worth over a period of 23 years and that all the reservations and disputes which surrounded its establishment were unjustified, probably based on prejudice and perhaps influenced by politics. But as I have said, as a good university this institution has proved over the past 23 years that this attitude was wrong. Tonight we are faced with the reality of a university which has been in existence for 23 years and which has proved and vindicated itself in every way during this period of more than two decades. It is an institution which has become rooted within its own community, within the particular population group for which it was established, and which has developed, as the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Paarl have indicated, into an institution of which one may be proud today in every respect. Over a period of 23 years this institution has trained many members of its own community in the field of tertiary education and equipped them for the life of the community which they have to serve and in many ways for the country in general.

Tonight we may say, however, that the establishment of this university was a timely and essential step. It is indeed a creation which we may be proud of. Over the years that university has grown to the point where a more mature status is now being conferred upon it in terms of legislation, a status which I believe will confirm and strengthen its autonomy. We are concerned here with the tertiary academic training of the Coloured population in particular. It is of the utmost importance that we should create the best full-fledged educational institutions for the Coloured people of this country in their own areas and for their own purposes as well as for their own communities. We sincerely rejoice in the fact that an institution such as the University of the Western Cape is available to those particular people. We trust that this university will continue to grow and develop, as it has done over the past 23 years, and that it will provide those for whom it was established with that high quality of education in every respect.

The University of the Western Cape is a milestone in the history of the development of the Coloured population of this country. This university plays a major role in the lives of the Coloured people, and we trust, therefore, that it will continue to play that very important role.

We are gratified to learn of the development and growth which have taken place there. We welcome the fact that this university has grown to such an extent in serving the interests of those particular people that the head of that institution can be a member of the community which it serves. This is a good and positive thing. This is the way it should be.

This Bill serves to redefine the constitution and powers of the University of the Western Cape. It provides for its top structure, its management. It lays down all the requirements for the institution of a Senate and a Council as well as for their functions. We are very pleased to learn that this university has grown to the point where it has seven faculties today. We trust, therefore, that it will be enabled to continue its development and to offer courses in other fields as well, in other faculties, such as medicine, engineering, architecture, etc.

Furthermore, I want to take the opportunity of drawing the hon. the Minister’s attention to one aspect relating to clause 8. This is something which could perhaps be rectified in future, I believe. There is another Bill which is due for discussion in this House, namely the Coloured Education Amendment Bill. In clause 2 of that Bill, provision is made for the terms “senior secondary school” and “junior secondary school” to fall away. These designations are being deleted, with the result that only the designation “secondary school” will remain. However, clause 8 of this Bill still contains a reference to “senior secondary schools”. Perhaps we should consider deleting the word “senior” during the Committee Stage, since it has been deleted in the legislation which will be considered in due course.

I do not wish to discuss any specific clauses at this stage. I just want to say that provision is being made in the University of Durban-Westville Bill for two matters which are not provided for in this Bill, namely the religious tests and the admission of or refusal to admit students. I understand the position as far as the first one is concerned. With regard to the second matter, provision should perhaps be made for it in this Bill as well. I am referring to the admission of or refusal to admit Students. I think this is perhaps an aspect which is of material importance to this Bill as well.

We on this side of the House, therefore, support the Second Reading of the Bill. In conclusion, I just want to say that we do disagree with the provisions of clause 18. We believe that the principle of this Bill is of such a nature that it will not be materially affected by the provisions contained in clause 18. For that reason we support the principle, but during the Committee Stage we shall either move an amendment to clause 18 or vote against it. We reserve our opposition to that particular clause. For the rest, we gladly support this particular Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Koedoespoort and his party for their support of this very commendable Bill, even though it is only conditional support. However, I shall leave the hon. member at that. I do not wish to spend any more time on him.

Since the University of the Western Cape will obtain full autonomy with the passing of this Bill, it is a very great privilege for me to participate in this debate, because of my association with this university over a period of many years. From a humble beginning in 1960, as we have already heard, with only a few hundred students and a nucleus of departments, this institution has developed into a full-fledged university with many departments belonging to seven different faculties and with approximately 4 000 students. The hon. member for Paarl has already indicated that the university lived through stormy times in its early years, but these and many other problems have been overcome, and I want to congratulate the University of the Western Cape tonight on its new status and on the new era which it is now entering.

Since the University of the Western Cape is now being granted the same status as that of universities falling under the Committee of University Principals, the CUP universities, and will therefore be subject to the same requirements, it is necessary that some material differences between the University of the Western Cape on the one hand and the CUP universities on the other be identified. I want to do so against the background of university financing. An important difference which I want to point out is the fact that the University of the Western Cape serves a less privileged community than the CUP universities. The present rector. Prof. Van der Ross, has on more than one occasion referred to the University of the Western Cape as “the university of the working classes”. This means that the University of the Western Cape accepts students who are at an educational disadvantage compared with those admitted by the CUP universities.

In this connection, I want to refer to a few illuminating facts. In Die Burger of Thursday, 2 June, quotations are made from the report of the rector of that university for the previous year. From these it appears that approximately 70% of the new students at Stellenbosch achieved a C aggregate or higher in the matriculation examination. 12, 5% of these students achieved an A aggregate. The comparable figures in respect of the University of the Western Cape are that 17% of the new students achieved a C aggregate or higher in the matriculation examination, while only 0,5% achieved an A aggregate. Perhaps it should also be mentioned in passing that approximately 26% of the students at Stellenbosch are postgraduate students against less than 10% at the University of the Western Cape. Of course, the postgraduate students are much more heavily subsidized.

Furthermore, I want to draw attention to the big difference in the quality of the intakes of the two universities. The reason for this is the fact that the new subsidising formula for universities was recently announced. It is a formula in terms of which production by the university is rewarded. I am strongly in favour of this. Of course, it will also bring about uniformity. It is certainly important, too, that the quality of their respective intakes should be comparable.

It is quite clear from what I have said that there is a difference between this university and other CUP universities. Finding itself at such a disadvantage with regard to the quality of its intake, it is inevitable that the University of the Western Cape—obviously, the standards are the same as elsewhere—should have a much smaller production. Therefore a uniform subsidising formula in terms of which production is decisive would cause this university to be penalized, relatively speaking. We as Government will have to give attention to this matter and ensure that it does not happen. I certainly do not wish to advocate any other subsidising formula, however, since the present one has a great deal of merit. I am just saying that since the UWC has to provide tuition for its first-year students, over the above that provided by other universities, specific assistance should be rendered in this connection as far as its intake is concerned.

In this way, for example, this is a university which is strongly orientated towards computer-assisted methods of tuition. This is the most sensational and revolutionary educational technique of the past decade. In this case, too, the university is doing this with its own funds and with its own staff. In this way, the university is trying to improve the quality of its intake. It is being done by the training of teachers in the secondary educational sector, by offering refresher courses, by means of an “out-reach” programme in terms of which the university is providing intermediary training—by means of the provision of computer terminals in high schools—to pupils who intend to receive tertiary education. In order to practise this complicated and sophisticated educational technique, the staff have to be trained. This has to be done in the USA, the leader in this field. Out of its own funds, the university recently sent staff to the USA who are at present receiving the necessary training there in computer-assisted methods of tuition. The State must render assistance in this connection, and it has in fact done so by donating an expensive hardware component to the university with which the present Plato computer-assisted tuition system is being operated. The university was forced by the need of its particular circumstances to find a way of overcoming its disadvantage with regard to the quality of its intake, and by means of the systematic use of computer-assisted tuition, it has now acquired a position of leadership among the South African universities. The University of the Western Cape must be helped to maintain this position.

There is another respect in which the University of the Western Cape is unique among South African universities. This university has a full-fledged nature reserve, the Cape Flats Nature Reserve. It is operated by the university as an integral part of its campus. This unique small reserve of 21 ha consists mainly of coastal fynbos, with a strong strandveld component on stabilized dunes. The value of the reserve is underlined by the fact that it has been declared a provincial reserve by the Nature Conservation Division of the Cape Provincial Administration. In 1978, the university was greatly honoured when this reserve was declared a national monument. The leading role in the establishment of this reserve was played by Prof. N. M. du Plessis, who was very strongly supported in this by the present rector, Prof. Van der Ross, who realized the value of this at an early stage. The university has done pioneering work here in various fields. A simple, effective operating procedure has been devised, and in order to protect plants which occur outside the reserve in related veld types, a nursery complex has been built in which rare and threatened species can be cultivated. As is to be expected at a university, the function of the reserve is not only that of conservation. It is also extensively used in the training of students and in research. Many students in the biological sciences at this university have this unique privilege of doing a part of their training and research in a piece of unspoilt nature right at their doorstep. In order fully to utilize the research and training potential of the reserve, plant pathologists have been appointed who are conducting specific research into the problems connected with the cultivation of our rare and threatened species, and a department of plant pathology has been introduced. This department is already engaged in the formal training of students. In so far as the university has to incur expenditure with regard to the training of students, research and the appointment of staff for the academic functions associated with the reserve, the expenditure is incurred in the course of the performance of its normal function, so it is reasonable that it should bear this cost itself. However, when the university is forced to perform another function as well, namely the conservation of our natural heritage, as it is in this case, I believe that the State should provide ad hoc assistance to the university in this respect as well.

I want to conclude by suggesting that since the Western Cape is now becoming fully autonomous, sympathetic attention should be given to the special position which it occupies. If this university is going to be financed on exactly the same basis as the CUP universities, a burden will be imposed upon it which, if it can be borne at all, will have a crippling effect on its functioning.

I take pleasure in congratulating the university on this great day in its history and I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been clearly indicated, basically this Bill appears to be one giving the University of the Western Cape the same sort of autonomy as is enjoyed by the other universities in South Africa. This, of course, must be a good thing and we are very happy to see it happen. I am not quite sure which member it was who made comment on the issue that there was not as much change as there should have been, but when one looks at the original Bill, No. 50 of 1969, and compares the number of references in it to ministerial authorities and powers and to what the Minister could and could not do with this measure, one sees that this is an enormous improvement on the original Bill. So, naturally, we are very pleased with this change. I may add at this stage, with no disrespect to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, that in terms of our policy, of course, we believe that tertiary education should be on a totally non-racial basis and therefore that the universities of the Western Cape and Durban-Westville and all the White universities should be under the Minister of National Education. However, we are grateful for the small mercies that we have. The main thing…

That will come.

You are quite right, my friend. That will come and we are grateful for the small mercies that do come our way. This certainly is no small mercy, because to give the university the autonomy that any university must have if it is truly to justify the name of the university, is of considerable importance.

Now, in this particular Bill, it is of some interest to note that there does not appear to be a restriction on the students on a racial basis. Now, I am perfectly well aware that this university is in fact accommodating citizens of the Coloured community, but nowhere in the Bill does it appear, unless I have overlooked it, that there is a restriction on a racial basis. This again, of course, we are happy to see, although possibly there are people who might not be.

There is one question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. In the other Bill that is on the Order Paper and that we shall be discussing shortly there is a clause providing for freedom of religion. I notice that there is no such clause in this Bill and I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate to us why he feels there is no necessity for the insertion of such a clause in this Bill. I would not normally have drawn attention to this matter but once the Bill has been passed we shall not be able to revert back to it in dealing with the University of Durban-Westville legislation. However, there is this difference between the two Bills.

In so far as the faculties are concerned, obviously clause 16(b) allows for a number of additional faculties as and when they are required. I was wondering whether in regard to this particular community there is not the need to build up faculties of engineering and architecture and similar faculties of that nature. I say this because we are desperately short of members of these professions in South Africa and I cannot help but feel that because this community has shown great talent particularly in the construction industry, this suggestion should be kept in mind. I feel that this is one area in which it may perhaps be advantageous to endeavour to increase the number of faculties in existence.

Hon. members who have already spoken have covered most of the other points that I would normally have raised. I want to conclude therefore by saying that we are grateful for what we have before us, we are very happy to support this Bill and we know that eventually it will happen that all these universities will be placed under one control.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by conveying my sincere thanks to all the hon. members who have participated in this debate for their constructive support of this Bill. It is quite some time since I was involved in such a calm and peaceful debate in this House, and I do not intend to disturb this peaceful atmosphere unnecessarily. If one wanted to examine the history of this matter, however, it would not be difficult to find quite a number of political debating points with regard to the change which there has been over the years in the attitudes of some hon. members and parties and standpoints which they represent. However, I shall not yield to this temptation.

Tonight is a great night for the University of the Western Cape. This is an important moment in their history, and I think it is appropriate that we should not abuse it in order to attack one another, as all hon. members have in fact refrained from doing.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the fact that although this Bill does not contain any specific provisions concerning the particular character of the university with regard to the population group which it serves, such control is nevertheless embodied in another Bill, and he involved this aspect in the debate. I do not wish to take umbrage at this. He will be able to debate this matter with my hon. colleague when that Bill comes up for discussion. However, I just want to make it clear again that the Government believes that in the field of tertiary education, too, every population group should have an institution which is able to render a particular service to that population group.

What about the Chinese?

For the Chinese and the Van Rensburgs we shall make other arrangements. This policy of separate institutions for every population group at the tertiary level as well has created opportunities. I should like to state that I am convinced that the opportunities which have been created by this institution of their own have been more comprehensive and have been accessible to a greater number of students than accommodation in existing institutions would have been. When we consider what had been achieved during the entire previous history of the White universities that had in fact been admitting people of colour over a period of half a century or more, and we notice that just 20 years ago, they had only a few hundred such students, then we see that this was not the way in which tertiary education could be made truly accessible to the Coloureds and Asians in South Africa and opportunities could be created for them. The establishment of this institution, which has now developed into a fully autonomous, self-governing institution, which is rendering the comprehensive services that we are discussing tonight, proves that such institutions were necessary and that it was right and proper that they should have been established for a specific population group.

The hon. member for Paarl made a very constructive contribution. He obviously has an intimate knowledge of this university. Tonight must have been a great moment for him, because in a certain sense he grew up with the university. His father was the first rector of the University of the Western Cape. [Interjections.] It must have been quite an experience for him to be able to rise 23 years later and to help place the final seal on the activities and the process of development which had been begun by his father in the early years of this university.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort also supported the Bill. He called it a milestone in the history of the Coloured population. I want to be a little mischievous and to say that I was struck by the fact that he did not refer to the Coloured people (“Kleurling-volk”), but to the Coloured population (“Gekleurde bevolking”). [Interjections.]

The hon. member referred to other faculties which might be necessary. The hon. member for Umbilo also referred to the possibility of other faculties. I answered a question in this House this afternoon in connection with further medical faculties, and I indicated that an announcement in respect of an inquiry in this connection could be expected shortly, and for this reason, I do not want to say any more about the matter tonight.

Nevertheless, I want to say that although it is certainly our ideal to allow every university and these two universities in particular, to offer as many disciplines as possible, thereby making possible the development of more faculties, our country cannot afford to go on multiplying faculties. The solution to the shortage of engineers does not simply lie in the creation of more engineering faculties. There are certain engineering faculties which are not fully staffed at the moment. We must realize that in addition to the millions of rands which it costs, the establishment of a faculty makes an enormous demand on a very small source of manpower, namely the teaching staff. In this sphere, too, there are shortages. When new faculties are established, even heavier demands are made on those resources. Therefore the Government is continually evaluating the needs which arise in the light of the financial ability to meet those needs, but also in the light of the ability to meet those needs in terms of the available manpower. Then we must also look at the balance between supply and demand. Hon. members may rest assured that when the need exists, if it can be financed and if it can be administered in the sense of being staffed, we shall naturally allow the establishment of new faculties.

The hon. member also referred to clause 8. The idea which he expressed, that an amendment should be considered, is indeed relevant in the light of another Bill which may be discussed at a later stage. We shall go into the legal technicalities of the matter. There will be a phasing-out stage, but if it is really necessary and if it would be more meaningful to change it now instead of keeping it as it is for the time being, we shall naturally try to change it. I shall go into the matter and report back on it.

I inferred that this was the only objection which the hon. member and his party had to clause 8. I do not know whether there are any other objections which he did not raise, but it seems to me that this is the only objection. When we come to the Committee Stage, therefore, we should be able to finalize the matter on an amicable basis.

The hon. member also referred to the fact that there is no clause in the Bill which specifically authorizes the university to refuse people admission as students, although there is such a provision in the University of Durban-Westville Bill. I was also struck by this difference when I was studying the Bill. I then learned that the University of Durban-Westville had laid great emphasis on this, while the University of the Western Cape had not asked for the insertion of such a clause. The fact is, however, that the umbrella Act with regard to universities does contain a general enabling provision and that it is not really necessary—I have checked this with the law advisers—to repeat it in this Bill. The power does exist and the Council of the University will therefore be able to exercise that power.

The hon. member for Uitenhage made a very interesting contribution about the financing of universities. One could see that the hon. member had an intimate knowledge of the subject. I had some inquiries made and I found that he was a member of the board of trustees of this university and obviously had a thorough knowledge of the financing problems experienced by such a young and developing university. I agree with the hon. member wholeheartedly that special circumstances obtain in the case of this university and that there are special problems which they have to contend with in this transitional phase. In reply to the hon. member’s plea, I want to give the assurance, therefore, that the financing pattern will be carefully examined, and that although, as a fully autonomous university, it will probably be subject to the same normal financial discipline and regulatory measures as other universities, it is in fact possible—as in the case of the RAU and the University of Port Elizabeth—to take special measures in the transitional phase, in the form of special establishment allowances and financing formulas, to help the university to deal with these problems.

†In conclusion I want to refer to the hon. member for Umbilo. He said that there was no specific clause in here authorizing a restriction on the admittance of students. I have already dealt with this. He also referred to the question that no reference was made in the Bill to religious freedom, whereas we do have that reference in another Bill. The position is that we have inserted this provision in the one case following upon a special request by that institution, while we did not have such a request in the case of this institution. Obviously this does not mean that general policy does not apply, viz, that we live in a country where there is religious freedom and that, in so far as universities are concerned, there cannot be discrimination against any person on religious grounds.

*Sir, this brings us to the end of the Second Reading debate on the granting of outonomy to the university of the Western Cape. I should like to add my congratulations to those which hon. members have conveyed to the university on this occasion. On this historic occasion, I should like to say on behalf of the Government that we hope and expect that this young institution will come to be a symbol—more than a symbol, in fact: that it will come to be an institution which will render a real service and which will play a vital role in the dynamic process of development of this population group. They have our best wishes. We are fully confident that all will be well with the University of the Western Cape.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am honoured once again to be the Minister responsible for the introduction of a Bill that will result in autonomy of yet another university, namely the Bill before the House. Acceptance by parliament of this proposed measure will be the final step towards the University of Durban-Westville also taking its place among the other autonomous universities of South Africa. However, this Bill also serves as a testimony of the dedicated services of the teaching and administrative staff which to a very large extent enabled the university to reach this important milestone in its relatively short period of existence.

From a college housed in renovated naval buildings and with a student enrolment of 114 it has grown in a mere 22 years to a fully-fledged university on a well-planned and beautiful campus with an enrolment of over 5 700 students. Since 1961, 7 501 degrees and diplomas have been awarded. Its departments, presently offering approximately 450 courses, have grown to more than 70 as against some 20 in 1961, and in the same period more than 20 000 students have enrolled.

Several fields of study not available elsewhere in this country, such as Islamic and Oriental Studies, Indian Philosophy and a range of eight Far Eastern and Middle Eastern languages, are offered.

The university also boasts a faculty of which there are very few in the Western World, namely the Faculty of Health Sciences, offering paramedical degree courses and also valuable health services to the Indian community.

The cost of developing the campus to its present level amounts to approximately R51 million, including furniture and equipment but excluding some major projects such as lecture halls and extensions to the library still under construction.

Other large projects, such as a new cafeteria and health sciences building will be commenced during the current financial year, while the new multi-purpose sports complex is nearing completion at a cost exceeding R5, 6 million.

The university is one of few in the Republic of South Africa with a professionally prepared master plan to serve as a guide for future developments, a plan providing for more than 15 000 students by the year 2000.

*The rector, council, senate and staff are deserving of our praise for the remarkable achievements of the university in its relatively short existence.

In the academic as well as in other spheres the university has carved a niche for itself which would not have been possible without the selfless service, dedication and zeal of those people who are at the helm at the university. For that I thank them on behalf of the Government, as well as the Indian community of the Republic.

In conclusion I refer, as I did during the discussion of the previous Bill, to, in this case, clause 23(3) of the Bill which was intended to serve as a proposed transitional measure in order to protect the students and the university. As in the case of the previous Bill, it has been ascertained, after thorough investigation and after consultation with the State law advisers, that the proposed measure would perpetuate present statutory regulations in conflict with what is intended. In addition, it seems to regulate nothing more than what is being envisaged in the other proposed measures containing clause 23.

Consequently I am going to move the deletion of subsection (3) of clause 23 during the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the PFP I should also like to express my support for the Bill under discussion. I feel this Bill now places the final seal of autonomy on this educational institution, which definitely proves that the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that at the age of 14 the university is quite mature enough to attain its majority.

The fact that no reference is made to race or colour in the relevant measure of course creates rather a distorted picture. However, this will facilitate matters considerably when we do actually acquire open universities one day. Then this legislation at least will not have to be rewritten. It is also with the fervent hope that that wonderful day will soon dawn that I should like to request that not too many faculties be introduced at that university, particularly faculties which already exist at the University of Natal. In particular one would prefer not to see expensive faculties being duplicated, but that each separate university should rather specialize in a few specific fields of study. The hon. the Minister has already mentioned this himself, and I therefore do not want to elaborate on it. However, I do want to point out that the Government’s policy at this stage is unfortunately making it difficult for universities to specialize and therefore frequently also to rationalize.

The hon. the Minister has also already pointed out the minor differences between the legislation which was dealt with a moment ago and the Bill we are now discussing, namely differences in connection with the prohibition of any religious tests, as well as refusal of admission without giving reasons. I shall therefore not elaborate on this.

Mr. Speaker, in Natal there is of course the feeling that we do not need separate universities for the various race groups. I think that is a very general feeling. For that reason, I feel that the hon. the Minister should ask the hon. the Minister of Law and Order how many people he had to disperse because they wanted to put this message across in public; the message that we do not need separate universities for the various race groups in Natal.

Who do you classify under “we”?

All the people of Natal. [Interjections.]

There were thousands of people gathered there to put this message across very clearly, and I think that the few people who were not willing to do so, should go elsewhere. [Interjections.]

Of course, the control over the university is also causing disunity, particularly in the ranks of the academics and also in the ranks of the students in so far as it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of National Education, but in particular because it is feared that this control could be transferred to the Indian Council. Of course there are two reasons for this. The first reason is the feeling that in the ranks of the Indians themselves it is unnecessary, if not impossible, to establish an entire education bureaucracy in order to deal with a department which is actually very small. It is unnecessary to appoint qualified Indians to do work which is actually a duplication of work done by an existing institution. In the second place, there is the feeling that the Indian Council is, of course, an arm of a racist Government, and that for that reason they do not want to be under its control.

On the other hand, of course, the Indian Council is eager to take over control in order to have greater powers and in that way to exercise greater influence in the community. This is yet further proof of the divisive consequences of the Government’s policy.

In spite of all this, Mr. Speaker, we do support the relevant measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greytown has rather reluctantly pledged his support for the Bill under discussion. Of course he did so because he could do nothing else. After all, he knows that the whole of South Africa supports the character and essence of this university. The mere lip-service of the hon. member, of course not without once again giving this measure a racist connotation, is precisely what one can expect from the PFP. One does not hold this against them; one can expect it. Particularly when one considers the language used in 1960 when the nucleus of this university was established, one can indeed be grateful for the moderation which has since come to prevail.

This university had its origin in a proclamation of 1 November 1960. The university was established and enrolled its first students in January 1961. What is interesting is that the first campus was the Navy barracks on Salisbury Island in Durban harbour. Every day 112 students were taken by boat from the Gardiner Street jetty to the campus. They went to the campus in the morning and returned in the afternoon. Approximately 12 years later the university moved to the new campus at the present site in Westville. By that time the number of students had grown to 2 500. Initially that campus cost R14 million, which at that stage was the largest initial capital investment for any university in South Africa. Today the total capital investment, as announced by the hon. the Minister, is already R51 million.

Like certain other modern universities this campus was planned from the start as a comprehensive self-contained campus. It was easy to plan for everything on a new site in order to create an ideal university campus with hostel facilities, etc. In the first phase 3 000 students were planned for. In the second phase it was expanded to make provision for 5 000 students. The hon. the Minister has indicated that the present number of students exceeds 5 700. It is 5 730 to be precise. The university is at present in the third phase of development, and for this phase provision is being made for 7 000 students. The hon. the Minister has indicated that this is not final either, but that the intention is to make provision for many more students in the future.

It is interesting to note that at present 35 Coloureds, approximately 5 Blacks and 70 Whites are registered students at the university. They are mostly post-graduate students, but a few are undergraduates. At the moment the University of Durban-Westville is larger than Rhodes University and the University of Port Elizabeth. The Durban campus of the University of Natal only has 300 more students than the University of Durban-Westville. This gives an indication of the size and status of this university as it has developed over the years.

One cannot do otherwise but refer to people who have left their mark on the university. I want to refer to two people in particular who have given many years of excellent service. The first rector was Prof. Fanie Olivier who was the rector from the time the university was established in 1961 up to the end of 1981. He was therefore the rector of the university for 21 years. In later years he was in fact the doyen of university rectors. It was largely thanks to his planning and initiative in building the university, particularly in the years of storm and stress, and his calming presence at the helm, that this university grew into a university of which the community can justly feel proud.

The present rector, who took over in 1982, is Prof. J. J. C. Greyling, also known as “Jaap” Greyling.

Another person who has given many years of service is the present registrar, Mr. Gawie Heystek. He has been the registrar since 1962, the second year of the university’s existence. He is in his 22nd year at the university and at the moment he is the doyen of university registrars in South Africa. He also went through the years of storm and stress and rendered very positive service during the difficult years to make this university one of the finest universities in South Africa.

40% of the lecturing staff and 90% of the non-lecturing staff are Indians. An increasing percentage of Indians are being employed as their qualifications improve and staff becomes available from the Indian community to build up the university.

One of the faculties at the university is the arts faculty, including Eastern languages and Eastern religions. This also includes Islamic and Hindu studies and languages such as Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Gujarati. Tamil, Sanskrit and Persian. English and Afrikaans are also offered. One of the characteristics of this university is the opportunity to study Eastern languages and religions.

Other faculties at the university include philosophy, natural sciences, education, commerce and administration, law, engineering, health sciences and technology. According to my information the Cabinet has already decided in principle that a medical faculty will be established there when the need arises. This faculty could be linked to the new Phoenix hospital. This would be an ideal situation to allow this faculty to develop in practice.

It would also be possible to introduce a dentistry faculty, although this possibility is at present being impeded by the fact that approximately three quarters of the students in the dentistry faculty of the University of the Western Cape are Indians.

The University of Durban-Westville renders a very important service to the Indian community of South africa. At the moment the university offers training to 75% of all Indian campus students. I specifically said “campus students” because I did not include the University of South Africa, which is a correspondence university. The standard of education at this university—external examinations take place there—is in all respects equivalent to that at other universities and is of the highest quality. The university council is particularly insistent upon the university retaining its present unique character. They are therefore aware that this university, which was initially referred to as a “bush college”, a “glorified high school”, or a “tribal college”, has in fact developed into a university with a character of its own. Consequently the university council is extremely proud of the character it has developed.

With the prospect of autonomy for the university, action Committees have already been established to give attention to the recruiting of students and collecting funds. The 1983-’84 budget has voted R25 million for current expenses. A further R8 million has been voted for capital expenditure under the Vote of the Department of Community Development.

A calculation of the subsidy per student indicates that at the moment it is in the region of just below R4 000. This therefore compares very favourably with established, developed White universities.

I want to say a few words about the Indians as a community. The Indian community has been extremely education conscious for many years now. They are the one non-White community in South Africa that has taken the initiative over the years to contribute to the development of the education of their own people. Long before the State took over Indian education as part of a Government department, the Indians did a tremendous amount to develop their own schools. They not only concentrated on primary and secondary education, but also on technical education. It is well known that the M.L. Sultan College and other colleges contributed to the development of education in the Indian community. The Indians have the highest percentage of academically qualified people of all non-White population groups in the whole of Africa, and it goes without saying in India and Pakistan as well.

In conclusion I want to point out that we have to accept that a degree of radicalism can be expected among students at any university, but if one sees this in perspective as a transitional phase in the development of these students, one accepts that this radicalism may lead to the development of individualism and may also contribute to cultivating a stronger element of leadership in the economic, academic, professional, social and political spheres.

I should like to wish this community, students and staff, everything of the best in the years which be ahead, particularly now that the university is to become autonomous.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say that to a great extent I disagree with the ideas expressed here this evening by the hon. member for Greytown. However, I do not want to enter into a debate with him in this regard now, because I feel that if I say that unlike him I am not a supporter of open universities, I have said sufficient in this regard.

Owing to the nature of this Bill, by this time one is in danger of beginning to repeat what previous speakers have said. Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Klip River have already sketched the development and growth of this specific university. The hon. member for Klip River gave us a synopsis of the Indians and their circumstances. He also painted a picture of the students and of radical elements one finds among them.

I just want to say that what I said a while ago about the University of the Western Cape also to a major extent applies to the University of Durban-Westville. In order to compy with the request of the hon. the Minister, I want to say that in the same way that the University of the Western Cape meets the requirements of the Coloured people of this country, the University of Durban-Westville meets the needs of the Indian people of this country. I trust that the hon. the Minister will now be satisfied that I used the correct terminology which he told me to use earlier this evening.

After 22 years, I feel that the University of Durban-Westville, like the University of the Western Cape, fully serves the specific community for which it was established—in this case, of course, the Indian community. I feel that it plays its role, and through academic training which it offers it has equipped men and women for the community and for serving that specific people.

It gives one pleasure to hear about the growth of faculties. I do not want the hon. the Minister to misunderstand me in this specific connection. I just want to express the hope that as the university grows and develops and as the need may arise in future years for those faculties that have not yet been established, there will be the possibility that faculties such as medicine and dentistry will eventually be established. I am not suggesting that this should be done at the moment under difficult circumstances if the manpower and funds are not available; I am holding out the prospect, if one thinks of a university which has to grow and develop and has to meet all academic requirements, that as the need may arise there will also be growth in that field so that those faculties can be established.

I want to express the hope that in the years ahead, as in the past, this university will grow and develop and that it will continue to serve the community for which it was established.

Upon looking through the various clauses, I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister for explaining clause 15 which has specifically been added here in connection with the refusal to admit students. I accept this explanation.

It goes without saying that we support the Second Reading of the Bill except that we have a reservation in regard to clause 20. During the Committee Stage we shall therefore either move an amendment or vote against the clause. We are nevertheless convinced that because what is essentially at issue here is the redefining of the composition and the powers of the university and to make provision for its administration and control, this specific clause does not affect the essence of the principle. For that reason we support the principle of the Bill subject to the proviso that we shall deal with this clause in the Committee Stage as we see fit.

Mr. Speaker, we stand here on the eve of the emancipation of the highest seat of learning of the smallest community in our country. The community that this university serves numbers about 800 000 people. The fact that this university can today become a fully-fledged university speaks for the fact that this Government sees to the interests of all the population groups in South Africa. The coming status of this University of Durban-Westville is not only a tribute to the dedication of the Indian community itself to academic learning but also to the staff and to the students over the past 23 years at this institution. However, as far as the inception of this institution is concerned, I think that this measure before us is also a monument to the foresight of this NP Government.

Listening to the support given to this measure by the hon. members of the CP and especially, surprisingly so, by the official Opposition, it is not difficult to realize why the official Opposition has never really shown any real growth potential in this country. This measure before us is the culmination of a development programme in the academic life of the Indian community. If, as is apt on an occasion such as this, we look back to the development of this institution, we see that as has been the case in the industrial field and in the constitutional field, this Government has had to drag the official Opposition along screaming and kicking all the way.

But you must admit that we do it well!

As I have said, we have seen the same progress in all these fields of endeavour from the most violent opposition to begin with, to grudging acceptance and even to some measure of enthusiam as we have heard here this evening from the hon. member for Greytown.

In his support for this measure, the hon. member for Greytown made one grievous error in that he said that the feeling in Natal is widespread and has always been widespread that there is not need for separate universities. In saying that, the hon. member displayed a grave lack of knowledge of this history of Indian education in Natal. It is perhaps fitting that on an occasion such as this we should look back at this history the culmination of which we find, as far as university education is concerned, in this Bill.

The Cape Town Agreement of 1927 was an agreement entered into between the Government of this country and the Indian community. Although it dealt mainly with the limitation of the numbers of Indian people through repatriation, it also provided for or envisaged the upliftment of the Indian people. That was in 1927. In 1931 Sir Maharaj Singh, then the Agent-General of India, pleaded for the admission of Indian students to the Natal University College campus. The college authorities appointed a committee and on their recommendation it was decided that Indians should be admitted to the campus of the Natal University College as students, but on a separate lecture basis only. The Indian community had to accept that because the university college authorities were adamant that lectures would have to be on a separate basis. So much then for the hon. member for Greytown’s assertion that separate universities are unwelcome in Natal. May I remind the hon. member that when the late Dr. E. G. Malherbe pleaded the cause of his college for autonomy in the year 1948, before an NP Government could have had any effect on the shaping of Indian education, he was quite emphatic in saying before a Select Committee of this Parliament that mixed classes at the University College of Natal would have the effect that feelings between the White and Indian communities would be exacerbated, and he pleaded the cause of separate campuses quite persuasively.

Be that as it may, on this separate lecture basis, in 1936 the University College of Natal admitted Indian students to the Arts, in 1946 to Commerce courses and in 1951 to courses in Education and Medicine. All students wishing to enrol for other courses were referred to the Universities of the Wit-watersrand and of Cape Town.

I think it is important to note that 24 years after Sir Maharaj Singh’s plea, in 1955, there were only 444 Indian students enrolled at South African universities of whom 411 were enrolled at Unisa. Only 33 or 7,4% were enrolled at all the other universities, that is, all the universities which were at that time so-called open universities. Yet, despite this sorry record, in 1959 when the NP Government introduced the Extension of University Education Bill, which was the basis on which the University College for Indians was established in 1960 and the basis on which this autonomous university was established, it had to pilot the Bill through this Parliament in the face of the most vociferous opposition from the Opposition in this Parliament. If I may remind hon. members, at the time the hon. member for Houghton referred to “the limited number of students leading inevitably to completely inadequate library and laboratory facilities at the so-called tribal universities.” The hon. member for Durban Point who was also a member of Parliament at the time, asked whether these university colleges would teach medicine or witchcraft.

Despite this disparagement, the university college was established in 1960, 23 years ago. In the same year the Indian community in South Africa celebrated its centenary in this country. It so happens that the NP Government accepted the Indian people as a permanent part of the population of South Africa in the same year. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Umhlanga can, against the background of his party’s administration of Natal, hardly talk about taking time to realize something. In Natal and under the guidance of the hon. member for Umhlanga’s predecessors, it took 70 years of residence in South Africa for the first Indian to obtain a university degree at a South African university in 1930. That is the record of a certain political party in Natal.

In the 23 years that this institution has been in existence, 7 500 graduates and holders of diplomas have passed through the portals of the University and the University College of Durban-Westville. As I have already said, this is a monument to the foresight of this Government and to the diligence of the Indian community and its young people.

It has already been said that the university started with 114 students in buildings on Salisbury Island that had been vacated by the Defence Force. The expenditure in that year was a paltry R50 000. Today it is one of the most modern universities in the world and certainly one of the most modern catering mainly for Indian students. It stands on 162 ha of prime land. Buildings have been erected to the value of R33 million and equipment has been installed there to the value of another R18 million. It has been said that expenditure this year will amount to R33 million in total. Compared with an enrolment of 114 students in 1961 the number is now 5 700. If added to the 2 000 at other universities and the 5 300 at Unisa it gives a total of 13 000 students from the Indian community out of a total population of 800 000. This is one of the highest ratios in this country. It is not because they wanted to accept it, but that is the reason why the Official Opposition have reluctantly been forced to take cognizance of these achievements. Even in 1978, when the last amending, legislation dealing with the University of Durban-Westville was passed in this Parliament, their criticism was fairly subdued. At that time the hon. member for Berea pointed out their two objections against the measure in 1978, namely that the university had an ethnic character and that it was wholly dependent on the State. Even then the hon. member conceded that the ethnic character was not as pronounced as it used to be. His second point of criticism, I submit, is now being totally removed by the autonomy that is being granted by this measure.

However, I think it is important to note that whereas the university has been totally dependent on the State for its finance, that dependence on the State has not only had the bad effect of having the Minister of Indian Education and now Internal Affairs having a say in the running of the university, but also the very beneficial effect that it has enabled the university to cater for the students of that community at a very much less expensive rate than has been possible at the other universities. For example, a B.Sc. course at the University of Durban-Westville costs R542 per annum whereas the cheapest class fees for a similar course at any other university in this country are more than R1 000 per annum. Hostel accommodation at the University of Durban-Westville is R750 to R900 per annum which is also siderably cheaper than that at any other residential university.

In mentioning the low rate structure of this university I want to echo the plea of the hon. member for Uitenhage in respect of the other institution whose legislation we have dealt with this evening. We live in a time when it is of the utmost importance for every community in this country to have the largest number of students capable of passing a university course attending a university. It may be that there are rich members of the Indian community but by and large they are not a wealthy group. I would therefore like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that if this autonomy means that in due course the University of Durban-Westville will also be placed on a par as far as its finances are concerned with the other universities, it should be done in a gradual way. With the new constitutional dispensation to be introduced in this country, the Indian community, probably as much as any other, needs its most capable men with the best possible academic qualifications to run its affairs, as is the need of all the other population groups in this country.

I have much pleasure in supporting this measure.