House of Assembly: Vol112 - WEDNESDAY 15 FEBRUARY 1984


Mr Speaker, in consequence of certain telex reports which I received yesterday, as well as a telephonic conversation I had, I should like to make the following statement:

Late yesterday afternoon I received a petition from the General Secretary of the General Synod of the NG Kerk, on behalf of the responsible persons from the following 16 church denominations: Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika Gereformeerde Kerk in SA Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk van Afrika Nederduitse Gereformeerde Sendingkerk Hervormde Kerk in Suider-Afrika Apostolic Faith Missions of SA Seventh Day Adventist Church Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in SA Reformed Church in Africa Presbyterian Church of SA Catholic Church of SA Federation of Jewish Synagogues Reformed Independent Church Association Baptist Union Church of England.

The petition reads as follows:

In view of the critical times we are at present experiencing, the churches address a plea to the Government to proclaim a general and country-wide day of atonement and intercession for conditions in our country. We request that the meetings should in essence revolve around the following theme: We listen with renewed obedience to the Word of God while we beseech His mercy and grace, and an appeal is made to all believers to pray, inter alia, for: —Rain in the drought-stricken areas. —Those who are in dire straits as a result of flood damage. —Peace in Southern Africa and in the rest of the world.

Owing to the exceptionally difficult circumstances in which our country finds itself at present, as well as the delicate phase we are now entering with a view to the search for peace in Southern Africa, the Government has decided to accede to the request.

†As requested, a country-wide day of atonement and intercession has accordingly been fixed for Wednesday, 22 February 1984. In order to give members of churches the opportunity to pray to God with their families in their own congregations, the Government appeals to all instances to terminate their activities at 15h00 on Wednesday, 22 February 1984, so that church meetings may be held from 16h00 in all churches and by all denominations.

Whereas it has been noted gratefully that local arrangements have been made for a day of prayer in some areas, it is trusted that those congregations which have not yet responded to the appeal, will respond wholeheartedly to this appeal and join in.

Irrespective of whether the circumstances change before 22 February 1984, the day will still be set aside as a day of thanksgiving and atonement and prayer.

Furthermore I announce that the House of Assembly will adjourn in time to afford members the opportunity to attend church services on 22 February 1984.


Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

That this House determine the annual salaries to be paid to the State President and the Vice State President in terms of section 14(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961 (Act No 32 of 1961), as follows with effect from 1 January 1984: State President: Eighty-four thousand rand. Vice State President: Seventy-three thousand rand.

Agreed to.



The following Bills were read a First Time:

Part Appropriation Bill. Post Office Amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, yesterday the hon the Minister, when he replied to certain speeches in the Committee Stage, tried to take a cheap shot at the PFP by suggesting that our opposition to this Bill reflected a lack of support for the Government’s efforts to combat price control transgressors who have been exploiting the public. I think that was an unworthy attack. The hon the Minister knows full well about the basis of our opposition. He knows full well about our record of supporting the Government in protecting the public from price control exploiters. It is the Government which is in the dock in this regard because their attempts to bring transgressors to book have been extremely feeble. Its record is not good enough to expect the PFP now to support a measure which departs from a longstanding legal principle. It is an easy way out to bring these transgressors to book. The Government has ample weapons in its armoury to do this and need not rely on this measure. The Government has not persuaded us that this is a necessary measure and has also not persuaded us that the circumstances are sufficiently severe to warrant departing from the long-standing legal principle that the onus of proof should rest on the Government, particularly in a straightforward matter like proving quantity.

We therefore oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.


Mr Speaker, I do not want to become embroiled in a political debate with the hon member for Constantia, yet I do want to tell him that I find it strange that the official Opposition, so it seems to me, are actually trying to defend the people who want to exploit the public. What I find even more astounding is that the hon member and his party did not come forward with an alternative. They merely contented themselves with criticism, criticism which had no real foundation.

I do not want to become embroiled in a learned juridical argument with the official Opposition. I should merely like to tell the hon member for Constantia what I think the general public believe. They believe that a law is made for people and not the other way round. I cannot accept that one should have a system, call it Roman-Dutch law or whatever you like, and apply it so rigoristically that one subjects people to a law which in this case cannot work. It is a fact that the consumer expects a government to protect him from exploitation, and surely it is a government’s task to protect its people. The fact of the matter is that the retailer who is guilty of exploitation pays the wholesaler or packer a price for a commodity as though the packet had contained the correct quantity. Why should he now change the consumer extra because he thinks on the quiet that a larger quantity has gone into the packet? What he is then engaged in doing—and let us call it by its right name now—is theft. He is stealing money from the pockets of the public, frequently people who are least able to afford it.

That is why it is a privilege for me to support this Bill because it is the task of the Government to take steps to protect the public.


Mr Speaker, when one considers this Bill, one must note that when one is weighing sugar or any other commodity, one’s equipment should be set to weigh a little heavier so that the weight is a few ounces over. As the hon member for Wellington said, no extra money is charged for it. The seller of that commodity is then acting in a dishonest and unlawful way if he charges more than the agreed price. Whereas the sugar, for example, should weigh 10 kilograms, it now weighs 10,2 kilograms and the seller then adds 10 cents to the price. What really happens is that all the sugar in that shop is sold at more or less the same price. There is someone who goes around putting price tags on the packets. The average weight per packet is worked out and the average price is then stamped on to the packets.

I went into this matter. I took a can of mixed vegetables with a weight of 410 grammes. I opened it, emptied out the water in it and replaced the lid. The can was then less than half empty. Here I also have the water which came out of the can. What it amounts to is that a person is cheated by exactly 50%. People buy this can which is sold by a supermarket, and it is usually the ignorant person who does not realize what is happening. The can is opened, tilted sideways, and the water runs out. One does not notice that 50% of the contents of the can, which should have a certain weight, is made up of water.


Are you sure that it is pure water?


It is absolutely pure water.

*That is why I say that legislation of this nature is extremely important. If one looks down into this can from above, one sees that one can insert one’s finger a long way down into the can without touching food. [Interjections.] This is a very serious matter. One must bear in mind that in an ordinary supermarket approximately 300 000 of these can are sold every month. Then that firm scores 50% on the contents of 300 000 cans. There is no shortage of peas and cut beans and carrots, and it is quite simply dishonest to fill these cans with water.

Years ago I was a member of a licencing committee that had to issue licences. I served on a committee in Johannesburg. There I learned that polony was mixed with up to 25% water. A chicken was washed, soaked in water and then frozen. Then almost 15% of its weight is in reality water. These are malpractices. This hon Minister is slowly but surely finding his feet in his department, although I think his footwork is a little slow. The point is that these are malpractices that we cannot allow.

There is a large group of pensioners in our country, a large group of people with a low income. They are being totally exploited, and it is for that reason that I cannot understand why people are opposed to price control legislation. There should be an indication of what the weight of the contents of a can is. The contents thereof should be the determining factor.

This is not an exceptional case to which I have referred. Recently I have carried out a number of random tests. You will be astonished, Sir, to know what one finds in these cans, and what the actual contents are after one has poured out the water.


Do you know what one finds in you? Ninety-five per cent water.


The hon. member for Kimberley South is making a very good point there. I am 98% water, or 95% water, as he said. The rest is brains. [Interjections.] I do not want to say what the percentage is in his case. In any event, we are not commodities that are being sold. No one is out to buy him.

But, Sir, we may under no circumstances be frivolous about such a matter. What does one find when it comes to the marketing of meat, the weight of meat and the selling of biltong? Certain of these commodities are being sold to ignorant people in an absolutely unreasonable way, and I think it is the duty of the Government to protect people against these malpractices. If you ask me, Sir, whether there should be any question of price control in the case of a can such as this, then I say “no”. According to our regulations, however, the contents are half of what they should be. The quantity of water in the can is 50% more than it should be.

I should therefore like to support this legislation. [Interjections.] I hope that the department will not be deterred by the hon members who are now laughing here—they are merely being friendly—but I shall persist in my efforts to restrict these malpractices.


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Langlaagte tried to make his point by means of a visual demonstration this afternoon. I am grateful for the support he offered us, although I do not think his argument was necessarily to the advantage of the cause he was promoting this afternoon. I want to ask the hon member—this is an important aspect—whether he weighed the contents of the can. If he did not weigh it, and if he did not also weigh the water, he cannot per se accept the weight is not correct.


Mr Speaker, can the hon the Deputy Minister tell us what is printed on the label on a can? Is it the weight of the contents? The hon the Deputy Minister should not come to this House and display his ignorance here.


Does the hon member know what the weight of the can without its contents is?


Of course.


Surely the weight stipulated on a can indicates the weight of the contents. The hon member is very welcome to argue his point further.


You are now protecting the Progs.


This side of the House is concerned about every form of exploitation of the consumer. We are concerned about the pensioner and we are also concerned about the unsophisticated shopper. The hon member will not outbid us in measures which try to protect the interests of the consumer. In any event, I want to thank the hon member for having given us his support this afternoon in such a humorous way.

I should like to thank the hon member for Wellington for his contribution, in which he replied very appropriately to the standpoints adopted by the hon member for Constantia. I shall deal in a moment with the arguments which the hon member for Constantia put forward this afternoon, and also during the Committee Stage yesterday.

I want to say at once that I do not think the hon member furnished any motivation for the standpoint of the official Opposition. The principle embodied in this amending Bill already exists in the existing Act. I want to explain this provision to the hon member. Only its application is being extended. Section 16(3)(b) reads as follows:

… if it is alleged in the charge in any criminal proceedings under this Act that any goods alleged to have been sold or purchased are goods of a particular class or kind …

That is the existing wording in the Act. In the amending Bill we are merely adding the words—

… or of a specified quantity …

I quote further from the principal Act—

… such allegation shall be sufficient proof of the facts alleged until the contrary is proved.

Therefore, on the basis of the principle, the hon member for Constantia and his party did not make out a case against the measure.

I want to point out specifically that we are dealing here with the rebuttable allegations. It is not an irrebuttable presumption which is being created here. I want to give this House the assurance that the inspectors will not act injudiciously or prefer injudicious charges against people. They are, after all, responsible people who want to protect the rights of consumers.

An advantage of the effect of this measure is also that it will facilitate the task of the price control inspectors considerably. The inspectors go on the road for up to three weeks at a time, and they have to seize the products in regard to which it is alleged that an offence was committed and bring them to court as evidence. This causes endless practical problems in regard to the quantity which he has with him after three weeks, and it also presents problems in respect of perishable products. The result is that the inspector is not able to carry out his task as effectively as one would like to see.

There is also the further advantage in the effect of this measure that it is going to be cost-saving measure for the State, and therefore the public. At present the inspector, after seizing any products, and after a possible court case, must return the product to the dealer, which could entail considerable expense. It is therefore in the interests of the consumer that the inspector should be able to perform his task as effectively as possible, so that exploitation can be limited to the minimum in this way. I want to emphasize once against that we are taking into consideration and protecting the interests of the consumer, and that we will clamp down on those unscrupulous persons who try to make a profit at all costs by contravening the Act and exploiting other people, and do so in every possible way, but always with fairness.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.


Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, when the hon the Minister of National Education first came to Parliament one of his former colleagues at RAU said to me one day that the hon the Minister would be like a breath of fresh air in Parliament and that he would set a high standard and a very good example to the Cabinet. In fact, one of the hon the Minister’s colleagues who left the Cabinet recently said to me that if one pooled all the brains of the whole Cabinet, the hon the Minister’s would represent about half of it. [Interjections.] As far as this legislation is concerned I was depending on that prediction to become a reality. I was depending on the hon the Minister to show a sense of insight, of broadmindedness and intelligence about the representations that we had made to him. However, as is the case with every Minister in the Government, he showed a remarkable inability to accept and profit from good advice, even when such advice is in the interest of the country and in the interest of whatever section of society such advice was given.

The Government simply never learns. Time and time again in the history of this Government they have been absolutely adamant about adhering to certain policies and practices. Indeed, they said that over their dead body would they change, but then, sooner or later, when a measure comes to Parliament, they change their practices and policies; they repudiate their own statements and their own history and accept the advice which members of the Opposition had given them. I can quote dozens of examples in this regard. Take sport for instance. How many times has this Government not said that under no circumstances will people of colour participate with Whites in sport in South Africa? Had they accepted the PFP’s policies in regard to labour decades ago, the Government would a long time ago have had the fine manpower legislation which we now have. It would have saved a great deal of money, a great deal of ill-feeling and would have made a tremendous contribution to South Africa. Another instance: We have been begging for decades for the acceptance of permanent Blacks. Ultimately the Government has been forced to repudiate their own ideas and policies and to accept what we told them.

During the course of the Second Reading debate and also in the Committee Stage we asked the hon the Minister to reconsider a provision of that legislation because we believe that that provision is not in the interest of education, nor in interest of the profession concerned and that in the end it is going to be embarrassing. The hon the Minister in fact conceded that it possibly could be a bad piece of legislation. He said that he would submit our recommendation and his legislation to the council for their analysis and response and, if necessary, he would change the legislation again.

This inability to accept sound advice, this inability to admit that one is wrong and then to change something, is not only embarrassing for the Government but it is bad for South Africa. It is costly and is the cause of a great deal of ill-feeling that is being created in this country.


You are now rambling so much that I cannot follow you at all.


If only that hon the Minister would listen. I am prepared to help him with his many problems too.

†I now want to deal with the one specific aspect, where a teacher has apparently done something wrong. It is alleged that a teacher is guilty of a misconduct. That teacher is going to be charged in terms of the provisions of the Act. The possibility is that in order to avoid the consequences of an investigation and the punishment that might be handed down, that teacher can withdraw his name from the register. Now, the answer of the Government to this problem is that that teacher, without being found guilty, without even appearing at the investigation, without even being charged and being given the opportunity of listening to the accusation against him and defending himself, is deemed to be guilty of the alleged offence.


By his own action.


By his own action, yes. However, that does not matter. On the record he is deemed to be guilty. It is of course possible for a teacher accused of misconduct to sign an admission of guilt. Then, without being tried, he has in fact admitted his own guilt. That is a different situation altogether. The situation to which I am referring now, does of course not amount to an admission of guilt. This is not an admission of guilt because, as we have already pointed out, there can be a hundred other reasons…


Avoidance of trial. That is much worse.


There can be a hundred other reasons why that teacher does not want to appear at a hearing. He may feel that the cards are stacked against him. He might feel that he is being victimized or that he is being framed. It is just possible that he does not want to go through the whole procedure.


That is still avoidance of trial.


Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister reminds me of the French girl who is marooned on an island with a large number of men. Some girls are asked what they would do. The English girl, for instance, is like the NRP. She says she will attach herself to the strongest man in order to be safe. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister, however, reminds me of the French girl. The French girl says: “The question I understand but the problem I do not.” Well, I understand the hon the Minister’s problem. He has a problem. He certainly has a difficulty with which he must deal. His solution, however, I cannot understand because the way in which he is dealing with the problem is one of not addressing the problem. He does not address himself to the problem. I believe the hon the Minister could have come to this House with a far better solution. I believe it is correct that a teacher who evades an inquiry should not be allowed to reregister. A simple provision, however, could be inserted in the legislation in order to solve this whole problem. It could be provided that a teacher who evades an inquiry cannot be reregistered until such time as he subjects himself to an inquiry.

What the hon the Minister is doing here, however, is to place on record that a person is guilty without his ever being found guilty, simply because he withdrew his name from the register. I submit that it is unfortunate because the hon the Minister is in fact frustrating a very important legal principle; a very important principle of the rule of law in that a person is being declared guilty without being found guilty. We cannot as a party go along with something like this. I believe it is unfortunate that the hon the Minister is not prepared to accept our recommendation in this respect.

Another thing which I should like to place on record again, because I believe it is so fundamentally important, is the failure of the Government once again to move away from apartheid in legislation when they have the opportunity of doing so. The Government becomes very irritated, terribly irritated and annoyed, when people talk about apartheid these days because apartheid, which was their very proud conception, apartheid that was created by this very Government as their philosophy, as their fundamental principle, as the axis around which their whole existence revolved, indeed restructured South Africa and the South African society, its Government, its whole way of life, in terms of apartheid. In the process they did this country immeasurable harm, harm that can never be calculated in terms of harm to human relationships, and even in terms of the financial costs of the policy of apartheid. Only now are they slowly awaking to the heinous crime of apartheid. They are now suddenly realizing what they have been guilty of in this country.

Now they want to get away from it. We will assist the Government and encourage it to get away from apartheid in education as well, particularly in education. Getting away from apartheid is not just saying that apartheid is not what people think it is and saying that people refer to the caricature of apartheid but that apartheid is something different, either separate development or whatever the case may be. Apartheid is the policy and philosophy of this Government and that is that people should be separated wherever it is possible to separate them. Apartheid in education simply means separating children, schools, teaching staffs and the systems, even separating the curricula. I want to tell the hon the Minister that sooner or later this Government is going to come to this Parliament—to my mind, the sooner the better—and remove racial segregation from the teachers’ council and from education. They are going to have to do it because the circumstances, the facts and the realities will compel them to do it. However, they are going to hold out as long as they can. They will cling to apartheid for as long as they can and in the meantime they will be doing immeasurable further harm to South Africa and all its people.

Our appeal is to the Government for South Africa’s sake. Cannot they at this stage start taking effective steps really to get away from apartheid and to free South Africa from apartheid? The hon the Minister of National Education has the reputation of being an enlightened Minister and a man who adheres to the intellectual creed of Afrikanerdom and of the NP. Cannot he use his influence and his department to show South Africa that we can get away from apartheid and that the heavens will not fall in the process, that instead of the consequences spelt out by the right wing happening in fact the very opposite will happen?


May I please ask the hon member a question?


No, please sit down. I am not talking to that hon member; I am talking to the hon the Minister. Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister must realize that if he removes apartheid in education there will be a better understanding among the children of South Africa. There will also as a result be better understanding among the adolescents in South Africa. There will be better understanding at school and university level. When those young South Africans emerge from school and from university and have to work together in the interests of South Africa, there will be understanding among them, they will be able to co-operate with one another and suspicion and hatred will have been reduced. That is in fact more important than anything else as far as the future security and stability of our country are concerned.

We plead with the hon the Minister and the Government to use every opportunity that arises to move away from apartheid. They must not do what the hon the Minister has done here. In this regard he has reinforced and underlined the philosophy and system of apartheid in respect of one of the most important aspects in the life of South Africa and its people. I believe that in time this hon Minister and the Government looking back as they do now with regret upon all the things that they have done, all the harsh and brutal and cruel things that have been done in the name of apartheid, will come to realize their mistakes. Many of those hon members opposite look back with regret over 25 years of cruelty and harshness perpetrated on the people of this country in the name of apartheid. One day this hon Minister and the Government will look back in regard to what they have done in respect of education and they will look back with regret at the consequences of apartheid in education.

I say to the hon the Minister that he can move away from apartheid in education and that he will not in fact suffer defeat at the hands of the right wing. I believe that the majority of all the peoples in South Africa will support a positive and effective movement away from apartheid in the education of our country.


Mr Speaker, there is not much I can say in response to the last argument of the hon member for Bryanston. He keeps balking at the idea of present arrangements in our education structures being ordered and developed at present and he will continue to do so. They want to turn education into a highly emotional matter with their attempts to have all facilities thrown open to everyone.


Do you still support apartheid?


The hon member for Langlaagte must just exercise a little patience; We shall require a reply to his question in a moment.

Yesterday in the Committee Stage the hon member for Hillbrow objected to clause 6—and the hon member for Bryanston has now just done so too—because of the arrangements being made in it, which were actually requested by the Teachers’ Council. What is happening is that a provision is being added to the Act at the request of the Teachers’ Council. The two hon members to whom I have referred have never been teachers. They do not understand the spirit and the essence of teaching.


Were they ever at school?


Sir, that is an open question. [Interjections.]

They want to analyse the matter clinically. They do not understand the spirit, the essence and the needs of the Teachers’ Council in this specific field. The Teachers’ Council, as a professional body, is there in the first place to protect its members—ie the teachers—and not to prosecute them. In the second place, the Teachers’ Council is there to protect the profession. In 1974 we lodged a plea for a professional body with muscle to be established to act on behalf of teachers. In the first place, this body protects teachers and, in the second place, it protects the profession, jealously guarding the interests and status of the profession.

Let me conclude with this thought: The Teachers’ Council wishes to act in the same way as the Medical Council does in protecting its members and protecting the profession. The Teachers’ Council wishes to act in the same way as the Law Society does in protecting the legal profession and its members, but then it must be able to discipline its members and that is what this clause is making provision for. It is giving the council the opportunity to be able to take action when a teacher abuses certain opportunities provided.


Mr Speaker, the hon member for Standerton addressed himself more specifically to the hon member for Bryanston. I found myself in the position that I was able to listen to the hon member for Bryanston as well as the hon member for Standerton. I must say that the hon member for Standerton did not deal with the arguments advanced by the hon member for Bryanston at all. However, I shall leave the hon member for Standerton at that. I trust that the hon member of the Government party who speaks after me will return to the standpoints which the CP adopts in regard to this matter.

I am grateful that the hon member for Virginia is back in the Chamber again. I am sorry to hear about the circumstances which kept him out of the Chamber, but I shall say nothing further about that. In the course of my speech I shall return here and there to the hon member for Virginia.


You can make your own speech.


I shall make my own speech; I have always done so. I suggest that the hon member makes his own speech, too.

When the Third Reading of the principal Act was being dealt with in 1976, the then hon the Minister spoke after the then hon member for Rondebosch and said, inter alia:

Our policy differs from that of the hon member of Rondebosch, as he stated it once again here this evening. Our policy is that there will be a Teachers’ Council for Whites. In addition, we do not begrudge any other population group in South Africa also having its own—each of them—professional teachers’ council, just as we have. Surely that is fair, good and just, and there is nothing wrong with that. It also works much better in practice, for at present there are still many major differences in respect of qualifications, and hon members must not think that I am simply talking for the sake of talking here.

This was the present Minister of Co-operation and Development. He went on to say:

We sat down around the conference table and worked out this matter for hours and days, just the matter of non-Whites and their representatives. Therefore we are not coming forward with a half-baked measure. However, having said that our policy is a separate council for each nation according to requirements, we are providing in clause 18(g) that a co-ordinating council or an umbrella council may subsequently be established in which these people may discuss matters of common interest with one another.

It is interesting, Sir, to compare the terminology which the governing party used in 1976 with their terminology today. My experience has been that one should not merely listen to what they have to say; one should also listen very carefully and keep an explanatory dictionary ready to hand. At the time, as we heard, the term “nation” was used for the Whites. Recently the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs has been getting some kind of fever when we merely used the word “volk”. The hon member for Virginia also referred to the “volk” who voted in the referendum.

I would suggest that the hon members should sort out among themselves the meaning of this terminology. It is very clear from the original discussions of the Act that the then Minister of National Education referred to the Coloureds as a people and to the Indians as a people who, as such, could each have a council of their own for their teachers, with liaison among the various councils. Today, the hon member for Bryanston spoke in exactly the same way as the hon member for Rondebosch did then. Among them there is no difference in principle between the standpoint they are adopting here today and the standpoint they adopted at the time. I, too, stand by the same standpoint I adopted at the time. It is the hon member for Virginia and others on the opposite side whom I should like to ask: Where do you stand between these two poles?

Those hon members have the habit, when talking to conservative people, of asking whether they want to agree with the Progs, and to ask, when they find themselves among the so-called more verligte people, whether they want to agree with the verkramptes. In that way they are trying to play people off against one another. The governing party, Sir, is following the same course the old United Party followed, and will disintegrate, in the same way that party did.

We still adhere to the same principles that there should be a council for the White teachers and that that council should look after the interests of the White teachers to the best of its ability. Inherent in our programme of principles is that the standard of education should be high and that the teachers in this modern world in which we are living, in which the profession could lose some of its former glory since there are so many other professions emerging, should still be able to maintain a high status.

Our problem with this legislation is that it is rooted in the new constitutional dispensation, where we now have a new nation which has to govern itself in one and the same constitutional structure. Every facet of the existence of this new nation is rooted in the tricameral Parliament. Consequently the same applies to education.

I still remember very well the time when the first Afrikaners joined the Progressive Party, including Prof P V Pistorius, a person who was quite probably one of the hon the Minister’s lecturers. At the time they began with the motto of Cecil John Rhodes, namely “Equal rights for all civilized men”. In other words, one should begin integrating at the top, among the selected people, the “grand” Coloureds and the “grand" Afrikaner and the “grand” Indians—the upper crust—and from there work one’s way downwards. That is the pattern of behaviour we had from the liberals in South Africa.

During the recent referendum the hon member for Virginia was one of the people who adopted a very strong standpoint and said that education was an own affair. The Indians and the Coloureds would have nothing to do with the education of the Whites.

The Conservative Party and hundreds of thousands of other people no longer trust the NP. How must we accept the word of the hon member for Virginia in connection with these things if well-known NP thinkers such as Prof Sampie Terblanche adopt a different standpoint? He is a VIP in the NP and serves on the Board of the SABC. He is one of the thinkers in the NP. The NP of the Free State knows that they are ruled by the old guard of 30 Keerom Street.


You are sick.


I am as healthy as can be. It is that hon member who has become sick.


You are just not right in your head.


That may be so, but I want to tell the hon member for Virginia that he should be courageous enough to rake his own chestnuts out of the fire. He should not hide behind his leader, because he does not amount to much either.


Who is his leader?


I am talking about his leader in the Free State. The hon Leader of the House is sitting in the wrong place. Prof Terblanche said, inter alia:

Apartheid is more than a policy; it is a structure, and it is not possible to abolish a structure overnight.

The hon member for Virginia said in his Second Reading speech that apartheid, and not the caricature which the outside world and the hon member for Bryanston had made of it, was one of the principles to which the NP adhered.


Separate development.


Is there, consequently, a difference between apartheid and separate development? Even if it is separate development, I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he still has a great deal of work to do among his own people. He was correct when he said that apartheid was not a principle, but a method, a policy with which the NP wanted to protect other principles.

If the hon member for Virginia therefore wishes to be liberalistic and sincerely verlig, he should listen more carefully to the people who know what they are talking about. It is ostensibly conservatives who are half-baked and do not understand these things very well. Prof Terblanche went on to say:

All we can do is to start dismantling our structure over a very long period.

Whether the hon member wants to believe it or not, or whether he wants to accept it or not, he has been taken in tow for the gradual dismantling of separate development, which is not a principle, but a method. The separateness which he holds out to the people, is being demolished by academics such as Prof Terblanche and others. I want to read what Prof Piet Cillié said.


Does this have anything to do with the Bill?


Yes, it has a great deal to do with this legislation. It seems to me that hon members become a little restless when one talks about these things. Prof Cillié is also one of the NP thinkers, and he says the following:

Ek is bereid om my tastend en versigtig te begeef op die pad van integrasie. Die NP moet kiesers wat gekondisioneer is aan ’n volkstaat-gedagte bekeer. Dit is interessant om te sien dat een van die verkiesingsleuses…

He then spoke about the HNP and went on to say:

Die Regering sê dit nie, maar impliseer dat die land ons gesamentlike land is, beginnende by die Bruinman en die Asiër. Die volgende logiese stap is om ook die stedelike Swarte te betrek.

We are now making a start here with an umbrella council which is going to have certain functions given to it … [Interjections.] I just want to ask the hon the Leader of the House to behave himself.


First you must behave yourself.


I shall behave myself. That hon member cannot talk. I want to tell the hon member that Prof Cillié told the National Party and the general public the following:

Die Regering het ’n kommunikasieprobleem. As ’n mens sulke onaanvaarbare gedagtes wil verwesenlik, moet jy mense uitstuur soos Christus sy dissipels uitgestuur het.

I just wanted to tell the hon member this and get it off my chest. During the no-confidence debate the hon member attacked the Leader of the Conservative Party, the hon member for Waterberg, on his speech at Ellispark. The hon member himself knows what he said in the speech. I now want to tell him that he should first sweep before his own door and should first go and see what his own people are doing.

As far as education is concerned, the Government is ostensibly coming forward now with so-called own affairs and common affairs. The governing party is telling the White public that they are beginning with a great deal of self-determination and a small amount of co-responsibility and joint say. As the new constitutional dispensation progresses, however, and as we go ahead in this country, the self-determination of the Whites will gradually diminish and the collectivity will increased.


Madam Rose!


Yes, the hon the Minister may say “Madam Rose” if he likes, but this is on record. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Virginia referred to the White Paper on the HSRC report. He said that that White Paper had the new constitution as a basis and that the new constitution had been approved with acclamation. He also said:

If the majority of the people have accepted the constitution, it is logical that other legislation will also have the new constitution as its basis; in other words, in respect of education as well there will be self-determination, but also co-responsibility and a joint say.

I shall refer to the rest of his speech later.

I want to refer the hon member to Schedule 1 of the Constitution Act. It is stated there that education is a so-called own affair. However, it is subject to any general law in relation to norms and standards for the financing of running and capital costs of education, salaries and conditions of employment of staff and professional registration of teachers and norms and standards for syllabuses and examination and for certification of qualifications. This is where we now have the starting point for the so-called general affairs. The hon member for Virginia and I should share the same platform in the Free State and explain this, ie what self-determination will eventually …


The Free State will turf you out.


That hon member should simply resign where he is now so that we can hold an election. In any case, I hear the hon member is going to the President’s Council.

Section 18 of Act 116 of 1976 refers to the powers of the council as follows:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the council may … co-operate with any other councils or institutions whose objects or purposes are similar to those of the council.

The council may, in other words, co-operate.

The criticism is frequently levelled at the Conservative Party, particularly by the “acting” leader of the National Party in the Transvaal, that we are the rigoristic separation party. The hon Minister of National Education has also said this. Apparently we want a rigoristic separation of people.

I want to tell hon members that what we stand for is that we should have our own sovereignty in respect of every facet of our pattern of life. However, we have no objection to having liaison and co-operation with all population groups in this southernland in every facet of our pattern of life. [Interjections.] Oh please, wait until we come into power and we shall show you how we do it. The hon member puts me in mind of how loudly the United Party shouted in 1943. In 1943 they were just as arrogant. One of the reasons which will lead to the fall of the National Party is the arrogance with which it approaches the voters. I maintain that we are not seeking a rigoristic separation. When we voted for this Act in 1976, we knew then that there would, of course, be opportunities to co-operate with the organizations of other population groups on the level of education.

Another point I want to make is that we are not a confrontation party, nor do we want confrontation in education. We are not seeking confrontation, but we are not afraid to confrontation either, particularly if it is confrontation with a corps of leaders in the country who are giving away our education together with our parliamentary sovereignty. We are not afraid of that.

This legislation is further evidence that the National Party has become a capitulation party, a party which is quite simply capitulating, and it is commencing with that capitulation right at the top. That is why we shall, as we move ahead, come into far more serious confrontation in these things with the Government. We feel very strongly that we should not subordinate the education of the Whites to any other group. To us there is no joint say in the sphere of education, regardless of whether it is a joint say of micro or macro ministers.

Consequently we cannot, at this stage, agree with this legislation. We agree with the legislation as we had it in 1976 in terms of which we retained our sovereignty, in the sphere of education as well. We are not prepared to embark on a course in South Africa in which we subordinate ourselves, in the sphere of education as well, to a kind of super body above us. We do not see our way clear to doing that, and therefore we shall fight against this kind of legislation.

The hon the Minister said that we were offering this kind of resistance simply with a view to the by-election in Soutpansberg. I want to tell him that we did not stand aside because we differed on anything else but the standpoint in principle that the Whites, as far as all facets are concerned, should govern themselves. We stood aside on that issue and on nothing else. As far as that principle is concerned I differ from the Minister. For a long time he walked the same road as I did and did not differ from the standpoints to which I now subscribe. The hon the Minister has changed. All the hon the Minister should do is to tell the general public that he has changed. We are not adopting the standpoint for opportunistic reasons or with a view to any specific election.

We have a great deal of appreciation for the members of the House. If the hon members unanimously supported the Minister and the new constitution they had every right to do so. I am not condemning them on that score. This is a political matter, however, and we as a political party have a standpoint on it. The respective members of the House adopt their own standpoint on it, and none of us will reproach them for doing so or intimidate them, as teachers who support the CP are in fact being unrestrainedly seriously intimated by people on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.]

We have appreciation for the work which is being done. Other hon members may differ from us in the political area but we are adopting a standpoint in the sphere of education which is interwoven with the political view which we have in South Africa, namely that the Whites, in their own right, will work out their future here as a sovereign group of people and that we shall co-operate with other people, but are not prepared to relinquish our sovereignty in respect of any facet of our pattern of life.


Mr Speaker, let me just tell the hon member for Rissik that with hate, envy, frustration and sharpness of tongue one does not achieve anything and cannot reason logically either. It is quite clear, from what the hon member said in the Second Reading debate, from what he said in the Committee Stage—I was unfortunately not present then and the hon member knows the reason why—and from what he said here today that his reasoning is based on absolute frustration and envy. In a moment I shall try to show that there are many contradictions in what the hon member stated here in this House. He and his party are of the opinion that none of the other parties, whether it be the PFP, the NRP or the NP, is heir to any wisdom, only the CP having any at all. According to them they are the saviours of the people, the ones who will protect the sovereignty of the people. According to them it is they who will protect the education of the people and ensure that nothing goes wrong as far as the people are concerned. [Interjections.] That is what they think, notwithstanding the fact that they have failed dismally in everything they have tried to sell the general public. This was also clearly proved by the result of the referendum.

Since the hon member has alleged that CP-orientated teachers are being intimidated by the NP, I challenge him to prove it. Why does he not do so? Why is he firing shots in the dark here? If he has the courage of his convictions, he must lay these allegations at the door of the bodies concerned. He should not make statements here in this House which he cannot substantiate at all. This is not in the best interests of the matter we are debating here today. The hon members contribution was a disgrace to the teaching profession in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon member is very fond—he has done so on several occasions—of taking statements from members of the public and laying them at the door of the Government. The Government has no need to listen to any member of the public when it comes to determine its policy. The Government is able to govern for itself and to determine its own policy. Should I ask the hon member whether Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche is the one who does the thinking for the CP? Do the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Waterberg agree with what Eugene Terre’Blanche says? Did they base their policy on what that gentleman said? Surely that is a ridiculous argument.

I now want to go further, but I shall be referring every now and then to what the hon member said. He should therefore keep listening. I was polite enough to listen to him. [Interjections.] That is, however, typical of the hon member. I want to quote from the unrevised Hansard of the hon member’s Second Reading speech. Referring to the Bill he said:

As it is worded here, the present measure is quite an improvement on the existing Act.

Later on in his speech he said:

Of course this is not owing to what is contained in the Bill itself. That we do not mind; we support the contents of the Bill.

We are now dealing with the Third Reading stage of this Bill. In the Second Reading stage the hon member said he could not find any fault with the contents of the Bill. As a matter of fact he said “we support the contents of the Bill”. This is what I mean when I say the hon member can no longer reason logically. Further on in his Second Reading speech he said that they rejected the legislation and would vote against it. Now, in the Third Reading stage, he does not discuss the contents of the legislation and its implementation, but makes politicals of it and reiterates that they reject the legislation. How is it possible for a man in his right mind to say on the one hand that he supports the legislation and does not find any fault with it, while on the other saying that they reject it? The question that arises is whether one should pay any attention to the arguments of such an hon member.

The hon member attacked me for supposedly having said in my Second Reading speech that we still adhered to a policy of separate development. I still stick to that today, however, and it is in fact because we adopt a policy of separate development that the right to self-determination of the various population groups is being protected in this legislation. In the tricameral Parliament this principle will also apply, namely that everyone’s right to self-determination will be protected. The fact that we have a separate professional council for Whites, is stated clearly in this legislation, and the hon the Minister and I myself have pointed out that the Teachers’ Council is a professional council for Whites, and that professional councils are also to be established for Coloureds and Indians. The hon member argues, however, that we are on the road to integration in education. In the White Paper, however, it is spelt out clearly that there will be three separate education departments. It is also spelled out very clearly that there will be separate schools. If not for political expediency, what other reason would an hon member have for wanting the idea to take root that this legislation is placing us on the road to integration? [Interjections.]

The hon member saw fit to quote from a speech which I made on 24 May 1976. He did not, however, quote the entire speech. Today I still stand by what I said on that occasion about separate schools and separate professional councils. I can find no fault with that; there is no conflict. What the hon member neglected to say, however, was that in that speech I said that consideration could be given to making provision for an umbrella council at a later stage, a council which could meet the requirements of all the various races. At that stage the hon member was still sitting on this side of the House. In his Second Reading speech he also said that he supported the legislation unconditionally at the time. What problem does the hon member have with it now? [Interjections.]

However, the hon member is so frustrated politically that he did not study the legislation or try to understand it in essence, because what have we said in regard to this legislation? We have said there are separate professional councils, and that the period of office of the White professional council is being enterdict with a view to our eventually having a central registering body in accordance with the provisions of the White Paper. That central registering body will only deal with the minimum qualifications for the registration of teachers. It has nothing to do with the status of education as such. It has nothing to do, as the hon member suggested here, with the code of conduct of the respective teachers’ group. The hon member dragged that in, however, and tried to show that the central administration body would also determine a code of conduct for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. I do not know where the hon member gets that from, unless he was merely intent on playing politics.

For example in his speech (Hansard, 13 February 1984) the hon member said:

The position is not going to be as we initially intended it to be, where each one of the population groups would have its own teachers’ council—Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians …

Where did the hon member for Rissik, on the basis of this legislation, get the idea that in the future there will not be three separate professional councils? He sucked it out of his thumb, and he knows it. This legislation specifically makes provision for a separate professional council for Whites. The hon member had the following to say inter alia in his Second Reading Speech:

That is why I told the hon the Minister that we would not support this Bill, because it formed a part and plan of the political dispensation of the Government in South Africa, and is gradually going to contribute to education becoming integrated and to the Whites losing their control in respect of education as well.

I want to put it to the hon member for Rissik that he can continue to conjure up spectres like this. He is also free to go on making his own assumptions. He will not, in doing so, pose any threat to the White members of the public. He will not pose any threat to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black either. The strategy of these CP individuals and their method of debating, their method of arguing outside this House, has already been rejected by the public at large. They know already and have already rejected the CP, specifically because of these wild allegations they make, allegations without any substance whatsover. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I just want to point out that this specific law amendment is a good measure, even if judged by what the hon member for Rissik said. It is a good thing to have specific further discretion granted to the Teachers’ Council, because this council has already proved that it can act responsibly. It is also a good thing that the period of office of the council is being extended because we shall also need the necessary expertise of those White people in the future.

As far as clause 6 of the Bill is concerned, the hon member for Standerton has already debated it. As far as I am concerned, when the amending Bill under discussion is implemented in practice, it will assist in achieving the best for everyone concerned.


Mr Speaker, the debate has raged thick and fierce over a piece of legislation which really relates to the question of amending the domestic affairs of the SA Teachers’ Council for Whites. It has developed into a debate in which the CP and the NP have been locked in battle trying to explain their various ideological approaches to education. The official Opposition has likewise used it as an opportunity to advance its point of view in respect of education in general.

I believe that one should at this stage perhaps come back to the essence of this legislation and that the attention should perhaps be focused on the question of whether this council, which, in terms of the principal Act, gave statutory recognition to a specific profession, does not create a situation in which all other professions will in future have their own separate councils. To my knowledge there are not separate councils for the engineering profession, the medical profession, for dentists and for other professions. This legislation does not deal with education per se; it deals with standards and with disciplinary action within the teachers’ profession. All other professions have one standard and one council. That is the point of view put forward by us in these benches in respect of this council. We are not concerned with the broader ideological arguments advanced by hon members of the official Opposition and of the CP, and with the replies by hon members of the NP.

Another point in review concerns the question of disciplinary action should a teacher who is subject to an inquiry, resign, in which case he will be deemed to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. One can understand the point made by the hon member for Bryanston in respect of a teacher charged but found guilty without the inquiry taking place. He suggested this afternoon that it may be better to allow such a person simply to resign. However, in that way he will be opening the door for a person who for one reason or another wishes to escape inquiry. He would also appear to be disallowing the application of discipline within the profession which is one of the main purposes of this council. Thinking about this aspect of the matter while the debate was continuing, it did come to mind that if there is the slightest shred of possibility that a person may resign for a praiseworthy reason then that may put another complexion on the matter. The hon member suggested that there could be a whole host of reasons but when asked for those reasons by the hon the Minister, he declined to give them. Let us say, however, that the resignation falls into the category of “for a praiseworthy reason”. Such a person may be protecting another person and this may appear to be praiseworthy while it would in fact be defeating the ends of the council. However, let us give such a person the benefit of the doubt. Would it not perhaps be possibly to bring about a change in the future whereby such a person could apply for reinstatement within a given period by going through with the inquiry? Such a person may make a wrong decision in resigning and have regrets about it. He may then want to go through with the inquiry and make application that the inquiry be proceeded with. If found not to be guilty he could then be readmitted by the council.

On the balance of probabilities, however, it would appear to me that once again the official Opposition has erred in favour of the person who is likely to have committed an offence. Any person who is placed in a situation where he is likely to be subjected to discipline and who has an easy way out by resigning will probably take it. Therefore, the very extreme cases would probably be very much the exception. Such a person would then have either to go through with the inquiry if he wished to prove his bona fides and his innocence or else accept the fact that by resigning he would lose his status.

In the main, those were the two areas covered by this debate—the question of status and the question of discipline. As I say, it developed into a full scale ideological battle. As far as the official Opposition are concerned, what is always so obvious is that one can have this great liberal ideal held up as the utopia to which perhaps all men would like to aspire. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is the way of getting there that is so important. There is the question of the ability to achieve it and not merely to throw everything to the winds on the basis of that principle—that because that is what we should aspire to we have to get there immediately and if what happens on the way is a “mislukking” and does not work, it does not matter because it was done in the best interests of this highest principle.


Do you aspire to it?


I am sure that all hon members in this House aspire to it. People have different ideas in regard to what that principle or ideal is. There might be differences of opinion in that regard. However, I would suggest that the ideal of the hon member for Bryanston in respect of that great liberal tradition, the maximum freedom of the individual, is not very dissimilar to that of the NP and of ourselves. However, the amount of discipline required to maintain the stability needed, within a given society is what is important. It has been shown over and over again in Africa that if one summarily takes that ideal and simply throws it ahead of one to be kicked and knocked about under whatever circumstances may prevail in Africa, it will inevitably not come out on top. In fact, it will die a sudden death, and the situation after it was disseminated is worse than it was prior to its being disseminated in trying to achieve that ideal. The mechanism to achieve that ideal is vitally important as well as the ability to achieve it in the given circumstances of South Africa. Where there are so many different value systems in a plural society as well as various threats and pressures which certainly do not make it easy for a sophisticated system that has been developed over centuries overseas and which some seek simply to apply overnight, to succeed.

I want to say that whilst we in these benches aspire to the highest ideals, we recognize the need for a mechanism to achieve those ideals. We do not see our way open to opposing the legislation because we simply have not achieved this immediately. Like the hon member for Bryanston I am quite certain that some of the ideals to which we draw the attention of the House today will be achieved by the NP and the Government in due course. Sometimes they have failed to take certain action and sometimes they should have done so earlier and other times because the time was right and matters had developed to a stage where it was safe to do so, they have achieved certain change. My feeling is that in this era of reform one should accept all positive changes, every movement in the right direction, and one should apply them to show the world that the sky has not fallen in. If we do that, it will give them more courage to apply further reforms and therefore speed up the process on a stable and safe basis.


Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for King William’s Town for his and his party’s support of this Bill in spite of the fact that he admits that in his mind there are perhaps still problems about the assumption, which is provided for in the proposed section 17, that a teacher is guilty of an offence if he has his registration cancelled after proper proceedings of a disciplinary nature have been instituted against him but have not been completed at the time of his request for the cancellation of his registration.

If I understood the hon member correctly, he suggested that there may be room for considering the idea that an opportunity should be granted to such a teacher to have his registration cancelled, but were he to apply later for re-instatement, the disciplinary proceedings could then be resumed. I think this would be highly impractical, with all respect, because in the first place one does not know how much later such resumption of the disciplinary proceedings would take place and therefore the possibility of gathering the necessary evidence and information could become highly complicated and it could then be very difficult to argue and prove the case. Furthermore there is also the likelihood that such a application for re-instatement could never take place. The result would then be that the very necessary disciplinary proceedings against a person who might in future once again become connected with the teaching profession would not have been finalized. In other words, there would be no clarity about the acceptability of such a person, about whether he should be entrusted with the very delicate and important task of taking responsibility for the teaching of minors put under his discipline and control. I therefore doubt whether this suggestion would be really practical and useful enough to follow up.

In this connection I should also like to refer to the remarks of the hon member for Bryanston, who said that he understood the problem but not the solution in so far as the proposed section 17(2) was concerned. I cannot see that he does in fact understand the problem. There are two parts to the problem which he fails to see. First, this is not a case of depriving a teacher of his right. He can still exercise that right provided he does not interfere with properly instituted disciplinary proceedings. The problem is to prevent him from abusing this right in order to frustrate the continuation and proper finalization of disciplinary proceedings already instituted against him. In the second place, the other aspect of the problem which he does not see and the point which I emphasized during the Committee Stage of this Bill, is that it would be an anomaly to give a professional council authority to continue with a disciplinary trial of a person whose status as a member of that profession had in fact been cancelled by the council itself at the request of that particular person; in other words, it would imply that the professional council is dealing in a disciplinary way with a person who no longer belongs to that profession. That is an anomalous situation which was pointed out to both the SA Teachers’ Council and to my department by the law advisers when we were preparing this Bill and we accepted that advice. I therefore fail to see that in the way suggested by those two hon members we can arrive at a more satisfactory solution to this problem of the possible abuse of rights by a teacher by having his registration cancelled in order to stop disciplinary proceedings against him.

*I should like to express my appreciation to the hon member for Standerton for the way in which he dealt with some of the arguments of the hon member for Bryanston. I also want to thank the hon member for Virginia for the effective way in which he exposed the frustration, enmity and wild accusations in the hon member for Rissik’s contribution to the debate.

I want to challenge the hon member for Rissik here—if he has any feeling of responsibility towards the teaching profession—to adopt the proper procedure and take the matter to the logical consequences dictated by his accusations that members of the teaching profession who support his party’s standpoint are supposedly being intimidated by members on this side of the House. He must do so by lodging a proper complaint with either the organized teaching profession, ie the relevant teachers’ association, or with the relevant education department or the SA Teachers’ Council for Whites, a body which, on his own admission, he respects. If he were to lodge such a complaint, he would be meeting his responsibilities. Then he would be evidencing his concern for that profession. Then he would be evidencing his desire to protect the profession. Only in that way can he escape the accusation that hangs over his head as a result of his contribution, ie that he is abusing this profession for the sake of party-political opportunism at a petty level. I reject his accusation with contempt and challenge him to take the matter further by the proper means.

I also want to tell the hon member that I, and all other hon members on this side of the House, decisively and with contempt reject the accusation that he has repeatedly been making in several debates now, ie that in the new constitutional dispensation the Government is taking the path of capitulation, as he calls it, by moving ever further away from self-determination and making increasingly more matters subject to the joint decision-making process. The hon the Prime Minister and several hon members—in particular the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Minister of Internal Affairs—have emphasized on several occasions, in the House and outside…


And in South West Africa.


… that in this matter it is the Government’s standpoint that it regards self-determination as an important, an essential, priority in the new constitutional dispensation and will continue to uphold it. I want to reject these incessant innuendoes and mere gossip and suspicion-mongering on the part of the hon member and his people because it takes place at a level that does not contribute to proper political debates in this country. The hon member for Langlaagte, who has just mentioned South West Africa, must tell us if it is his idea that the House should prescribe to the people in South West Africa how their constitutional development should take place. Or is it still his standpoint, as it was when he sat with hon members on this side of the House, that the people of South West Africa should decide for themselves about their future constitutional dispensation? He must not try to join the chorus when it comes to things he does not understand, or we may yet jam him into that tin he had so much to say about a little while ago.

I should like to refer to a very important passage to which the hon member for Rissik referred in quoting what the hon the Minister said in the then Third Reading debate on the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act. If I heard him correctly—I do not have the exact text here—he quoted the then hon Minister as having said that apart from this Teachers’ Council being established for the Whites, as far as the Government was concerned there could be an individual professional council for each population group or people to deal with the professional matters relating to the particular group concerned. Secondly, the hon the Minister is supposed to have said that there could also be a co-ordinating or umbrella council in regard to matters of common concern. I think that is what he quoted the hon the Minister as having said. In 1976 the hon member for Rissik was still a member of the party whose Minister of National Education introduced that Bill in the House. I therefore take it that that hon member went along with the hon the Minister’s statement.


Yes, I did.


If the hon member for Rissik says he went along with the standpoint adopted at the time, he is morally compelled to go along with the policy put forward by the Government on page 9 of the White Paper on the HSRC report, because it is precisely the same policy. What this amounts to is that for all categories of teaching staff up to the secondary level there shall, in the first place, be a teachers’ professional council for each population group. Such a council will, amongst other things, deal with the exercising of professional discipline, the determination of disciplinary procedures and the implementation of a professional code of conduct for the relevant population group’s profession. That is what the hon the Minister stated in 1976, something with which that hon member associated himself at the time.

Secondly, as specifically mentioned at the time, a co-ordinating or umbrella council on matters of common concern is to be established to deal with one specific matter of common concern, ie the professional registration of teachers from all population groups who are fully qualified, and in fact by way of a central registering body composed of representatives of the various teachers’ professional councils. This is what is stated in the White Paper, and it is fundamentally the same as the second point put forward in 1976.

That hon member is now spreading stories here about this side of the House moving away from its standpoint. But he is the one who cannot adhere to a standpoint, or else he did not know what standpoint he was endorsing at the time, just as he did not understand at the time what happened in connection with the 1977 election. In the 1977 election he thought he was endorsing a standpoint that merely related to self-determination and did not accept, as stated by the National Party at the time, that it was also a question of joint responsibility in matters of common concern. That hon member must stop spreading that story of his about this side of the House being on the skids. He is only doing it in an endeavour to hide his own slipping and sliding, his own manipulations, his own about-faces.

The irony of this debate is that in regard to the same matters about which the hon member for Rissik says that this Government is moving down a slippery slope towards integration, the hon member for Bryanston says that this side of the House is not taking the opportunity to create essential co-operational structures and bring about essential contact. I do not want to go into that, however, because I have already put the position to the hon member for Rissik. From the passage I had quoted from the White Paper it is very clear that the Government accepts as its policy that apart from separate teachers’ professional councils for the various population groups, provision should also be made for a central professional registering body. It will be a new body which as a matter of general concern in education, will have to deal with the professional registration of teachers of all population groups.

The hon member for Bryanston has developed the habit of making all kinds of snide and sarcastic personal remarks about me. That is not something I normally associate with his spirit and his attitude. I just want to tell him that if I were to repeat the stories and jokes his colleagues in the Johannesburg city council and others have told me for my amusement, this House would probably have quite different thoughts on the matter.

I should like to come back to the Conservative Party’s fundamental standpoint on this Bill. I want to express my appreciation for the incisive way in which the hon member for Virginia exposed this whole matter. The hon member for Rissik, on behalf of the Conservative Party, acknowledges that he could see and accept the merit in each of the provisions of this Bill, but he refuses to vote for it because a new constitutional dispensation has, in the meantime, been introduced in the country. What is the implication? The implication is that we have had a new form of gross political irresponsibility on the part of the Conservative Party, in the sense that because of the new constitution that they do not like, all legislation and all improvements to the law must now be stopped or thwarted in principle.

They begrudge the South African Teachers’ Council any improvement in its effectiveness, because they objected to and rejected each and every clause of this Bill aimed at achieving improved effectiveness for that council. They lodged an objection to each and every one of them. This has been recorded in the minutes of the House. They begrudge that council the improved effectiveness which the council itself deems to be justified, which the council has asked for and which, as the Conservative Party itself acknowledges, the council needs, because they said it had merit. They are therefore begrudging the White teaching profession the improvements to the control it exercises over itself and its disciplining of its members. Each of the positive provisions were rejected by way of a protest against the new constitution—not against the content of the provisions—because after all the new constitution is what all other matters, and not only education, will be based on in future. For that reason they must oppose here, in principle, each and every matter that will also be based on the new constitution, must oppose all improvements and simply sit around here in sackcloth and ashes.

The implication is that for the sake of petty and small-minded party-political protest, a boycott action is being carried out here at the cost of improved government and improved administration, and this also applies to education. The implication of the Conservative Party’s attitude is that in consequence of the referendum result, in which the electorate accepted the new constitution, Conservative Party members are now acting as detractors and underminers of every effort at improved government and sound administration.

They objected to clause 2 of the Bill, thereby begrudging the White teaching profession, through the existing South African Teachers’ Council, the chance, by way of an extended term, to take part in working out the particulars of the new educational dispensation. Their attitude is: This new dispensation is tainted in every respect and teachers should not touch it with a bargepole, should not even try to improve it. The South African Teachers’ Council should, just like the Conservative Party, bring everything to a standstill, in conflict with the democratic decision of the electorate, and must now bemoan the fact in sackcloth and ashes.

In contrast with this lamentable attitude on the part of the Conservative Party, I want to quote the responsible standpoint adopted by the teaching profession, as reflected in the official journal of the largest of the professional teachers’ associations, ie the Transvaal Teachers’ Association. In the December issue of the journal Mondstuk I read the following in the editorial columns:

Vriend en vyand moet erken dat die RGN-ondersoek en die Witskrif van die Regering ’n ontsaglike arsenaal van moontlikhede vir onderwysontwikkeling in die Republiek van Suid-Afrika open.

Then they add:

Dit is egter van besondere belang dat die dinamiek en die byna dramatiese tempo wat sedert die aanvang van hierdie ondersoek gehandhaaf is, behoue moet bly. Dit kan alleen gedoen word as die samewerking van almal wat by onderwysvoorsiening belang het, op ’n heelhartige wyse gegee word.

That is the attitude the profession is asking for, and not this sitting around in sackcloth and ashes and this boycotting and undermining of improvements and progress. Let me quote further from the editorial columns of Mondstuk of December 1983, where the following standpoint is adopted, a standpoint the hon member of the CP would do well to take note of:

Die boufase vir ’n nuwe stelsel van onderwysvoorsiening in die Republiek van Suid-Afrika vereis egter ’n nuwe styl van samewerking wat ook sal insluit die bereidheid om met mekaar in onderhandeling te tree, samewerking te verleen ten einde voortgang te verseker en die goeie wil om nie eise op die spits te dryf nie. Dit is van die grootste belang dat al die belanghebbendes nou sal aanvaar dat daar binne die raamwerk van die Regeringsbesluite aan nuwe strukture vir die onderwys gewerk sal word en dat almal wat daarby betrokke is hulle as wetsgehoorsame burgers sal neerlê by die besluite wat langs demokratiese weg geneem is. Daarmee word nie die eis gestel dat daar nie langs die weg van politieke deelname steeds geywer kan word in belang van bepaalde standpunte nie, maar dit moet as voorwaarde gestel word dat onderwysstrukture nie gebruik of misbruik moet word om sake na eie politieke oortuiging te probeer buig nie.

It is with approval that I quote this standpoint here, one which was adopted in a responsible manner by the leading educationists of our largest teachers’ association, and I want to recommend this standpoint, in contrast to the distorted standpoints of the hon member for Rissik and his comrades.

The hon members of the CP also lodged an objection to clause 4, thereby denying the SA Teachers’ Council the right to strike from the roll the name of someone who has failed to comply with a condition set in regard to his provisional registration. In other words, they are undermining the SA Teachers’ Council’s ability to improve their disciplining procedure. They also objected to clause 5, thereby denying the SA Teachers Council the right to give a teacher who has been found guilty a chance to remain in education, subject to such conditions as may be laid down. They also object to clause 6, thereby denying the SA Teachers’ Council the right to refuse registration to anyone found guilty of misconduct in terms of the Education Act. They also object to clause 8, thereby denying the SA Teachers’ Council the right to protect the interests of a child under the age of 18 years by not having his identity made public in the course of the disciplinary process. In short, the CP is refusing to allow the SA Teachers’ Council, a respected and responsible body, to continue furnishing an improved service to the White teachers and White education. They must apparently, just like the CP, sit around mourning in sackcloth and ashes. They must throw a tantrum like a disobedient child because they, the CP, suffered a clear-cut defeat in the referendum and cannot take it.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.


Clause 1:


Mr Chairman, I want to put one or two points to the hon the Minister on this clause, as well as a couple of other points dealing not so much with the substance but with the hon the Minister’s attitude towards the application of this clause.

Firstly, I believe that we should distinguish between this clause which deals with a tenant and an occupier and the next clause which deals with a person who moves in, a “plakker”. This clause deals with somebody who is either there because he is a tenant by way of a contract, or he is an occupier who must have had permission, because under the next clause, if he does not have permission he can be evicted. So this is somebody who either is a tenant by way of a contract or an occupier with some kind of permission from the department. That is what it is. The existing legislation allows the Minister to act and evict a tenant without a court order if the Minister believes that he has either not paid his rental or that he has not vacated the premises by due date. In the case of a tenant who has no fundamental rights, or who has no basic rights other than those contained in his contract, the hon the Minister could perhaps have these powers in terms of the Act, although even in such a case there is a good argument to be made even in such circumstances the Minister should still have to get a court order. However, the hon the Minister is intending that to include a tenant who does not only not pay his rental but “any other amount as the case may be”. I want the hon the Minister to realize that we are moving into a very sensitive area. He is aware that, especially in respect of low cost housing, rentals are normally determined on a very fixed basis. However, a new pattern is developing in that we are now saying that there shall be other charges as well. Those other charges are not necessarily as carefully defined in law as are the original rentals. They can be extraneous charges that are not levied in the same rigid and contractual way as are rentals. In those circumstances, I think the question as to whether these amounts are payable by the tenant is not necessarily so easy for the hon the Minister to determine with an even hand as he would in respect of a formal rental contract. We believe, therefore, that the extension of the provision to include “or other amount” should also include a provision that the validity of those “other amounts” should be determined by a court and not be at the discretion of the Minister.

We come now to the new category of person “or other occupier”. A person cannot be an occupier unless he originally got permission, and the next clause deals with that.


That is not so in all cases.


T am saying that if he does not have permission, the hon the Minister can deal with him under the other clause and therefore one has to assume that in this clause the occupier at some stage had permission to occupy the premises. Now the State is saying either that such occupier has not paid his dues or he has been asked to vacate the premises and he has not done so on the due date. The hon the Minister is aware that there are circumstances in which the occupier as opposed to the tenant has certain residual rights. He may have certain residual rights under common law. He is not merely a tenant but is a person who may have been in occupation for a considerable time. He may have been an original owner. There may be a whole range of matters which give him rights in regard to which the Minister which may be in dispute. The hon the Minister even argued in his reply to the Second Reading debate that there may be a dispute as to what compensation should be paid. Now if there is a dispute as to what compensation should be paid, does one first evict the man and then say he can go to court to claim such compensation?


That is not the practice.


I understand that, but the hon the Minister gave this as one of the illustrations; he said there may be an unresolved dispute. If there is an unresolved dispute, is the appropriate way for the hon the Minister to evict the man …


He can continue with the dispute.


Yes, but the hon the Minister must realize that possession is a very important factor. The State has enormous powers while the individual has limited powers, and one of the powers that he has is physical possession of a piece of property. For the hon the Minister to evict a man and then say that he can claim subsequently is not nearly the same as in the case of an individual who believes that he has those residual rights asserting those rights and saying that the court should decide. It is a question of balance.

I understand that from the hon the Minister’s point of view it is convenient that, when he is having a dispute and he believes that the man is acting improperly, the Minister can evict him. We are arguing that in the case of a tenant this is relatively clear. There is a contract and it is quite clear whether he has in fact broken that contract or not. When however, it comes to the other occupier, as the hon the Minister has conceded, he may be claiming other rights, and we argue that if he has that claim to other rights, it should be tested by the court before he is evicted. The Minister should not first have the right to evict him, and then say to him: You have lost your property now; if you want to you can go to court in order to claim it. I do not believe that there are a great number of these cases. In our view the wise procedure would be to leave it as it is. In the case of an occupier, where that man believes that he has certain residual rights which allow him to continue to occupy, we believe it should be the courts that should decide before such man is evicted, and not the Minister, who is going to be the judge in his own case.


Mr Chairman, I should like to deal with the last point first. The hon member for Sea Point says that where this clause deals with rentals and other amounts the Minister should not determine the other amounts. The hon member believes the other amounts should be determined by the courts.


I did not say that.


Yes, the hon member did say that. [Interjections.] That is specifically what the hon member said.


I did not say that.


The hon member said the other amounts should not be determined by the Minister but by the courts. [Interjections.] All right, Mr Chairman, allow me to ask the hon member how the other amounts must be determined if not by the Minister. He should tell me how they must be determined.


You have made up that story; you must answer your own questions now.


No, the hon member for Sea Point should answer my questions. How must the other amounts be determined if not by the Minister?


Once you decide to tell the truth I shall begin to answer your questions. [Interjections.]


Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point must tell us how the other amounts must be determined if not by the Minister or his department. [Interjections.] Without any doubt, Mr Chairman, the hon member used the word “courts”. Does he deny that he used the word “courts” in respect of the other amounts? We can check his Hansard.


Carry on with your speech.


I shall carry on. [Interjections.] Again the hon member for Sea Point is misunderstanding the total situation. I was hoping the hon member, having listened carefully to the Second Reading debate, would understand the situation by now. It seems to me he understands less of the situation now than he did before the Second Reading debate. [Interjections.]

In respect of the position of the tenant I should like to point out that that is already dealt with in the existing Act. There is only one addition to that provision in this regard. Why should the occupier enjoy greater rights that the tenant? The hon member for Sea Point advanced certain arguments. All his arguments, however, are completely unfounded. The tenant has arrived at an agreement with the department or with the development board, which is the landlord. The occupier is someone who is virtually there in illegal occupation. Why should the illegal occupier then enjoy greater rights than the tenant? I cannot understand the difficulty of the hon member for Sea Point. He served on a select committee and subscribed to a recommendation in the report of that select committee that landlords and tenants should enter into agreements. Here today, however, he expresses himself in favour of a situation in which a tenant is someone who has entered into a written or verbal agreement with the department at the moment. The hon member wants the tenant to have fewer rights that the occupier who is staying there illegally. An occupier is someone who has just moved into the premises and occupies it.


That is not true.


Mr Chairman, the hon member also heard the hon the Minister tell us yesterday that there are 750 000 properties under the control of the Department of Community Development. Out of the 750 000 properties there is only a very isolated number of cases in which problems are experienced. Why then does the hon member for Sea Point want the occupier to have greater rights than the tenant? The tenant has established legal rights. Why then should the occupier have greater rights? I should like the hon member for Sea Point to tell us that.


Mr Chairman, I find it difficult to understand the objection of the hon member for Sea Point. Let us look at what the principal Act states, and I quote:

If a tenant of immovable property belonging to the board fails—
  1. (a) to pay the rental payable by him on the due date; or
  2. (b) to vacate such property on or before the date on which he has lawfully been required by the board to do so…

These are the conditions at present on which the board can take the action provided for in the Act. That is the law at present.

What this Bill does is firstly to extend the commitment of a tenant to pay the rental to another occupier. I cannot see how one can object to a person occupying the property of the board, who is liable to pay rental, being treated in the same manner as a tenant should he fail to pay his rental. I cannot visualize these other hypothetical cases in regard to compensation and other matters arising. This does not deal with compensation or agreements; it deals solely with the failure to pay rental or to vacate on a set date.


That is the law as it is.


No, the law as it is that a tenant is liable. This Bill now says that an occupier shall also be liable, not in respect of all the matters that were mentioned by the hon member for Sea Point but that he shall be dealt with in terms of section 18 of the Act if he does not pay his rent or if he does not vacate when he is supposed to. That is what the first amendment does. It places an occupier on the same footing as a tenant if he does not pay his rent. This party has no objection to that because we do not see why an occupier should be able to get away with not paying rent when a tenant has to pay his rent. We cannot see why an occupier should be treated differently. Therefore, we have no objection at all to the addition of the words “or other occupier”.

The second amendment is the addition of the words “or other amount”. In addition to the rental, there are other charges that are levied. During the Second Reading debat I gave the example of water charges. If a person has been using water and has not paid for it, I see that as being the same thing as having had occupation and not paying for it. This provision applies to “rental or other amounts payable by him”. This must be done in terms of some scale that has been laid down according to which he has to pay. In some cases one may find that the “other amounts” can amount to a considerable sum of money, as was the situation when water penalties were applied in Durban. Once again, therefore, I cannot see the objection to a tenant—let us take the existing law—being subject to notice of eviction in terms of this procedure if he pays his rent but does not pay whatever other amounts he owes. This has nothing to do with expropriation, other rights or residual rights. It is something for which he is liable, something that is payable by him. If a tenant does not pay it, it is the same as not paying his rental and therefore we have no objection to the addition of the words “or other amount”. Therefore, if one takes each of these amendments and applies them to the existing Act, I can see no logical objection to them.

The hon member for Hillbrow had certain remarks to make in regard to the attitude of this party in respect of clause 1.


Clause 2.


No, it was clause 1. I said we had no objection to this measure because it introduced no new principle. I said we would support clause 1, oppose clause 2 and support clause 3. The original Act, No 3 of 1966, was a consolidating measure so there was no specific debate in respect of the clauses. In 1977 it was amended by clause 3 of Act 126 of 1977. The PFP supported it and so did we. It was a minor amendment that provided for the liability to pay rental and a commitment in respect of the payment thereof. The Act was gain amended in 1980 and once again the NRP supported that amendment. The PFP opposed that amendment because that amendment changed the procedure to one of putting a notice up on the door, etc. When that Bill was debated in 1980, the very previous Bill which was debated was the Housing Amendment Bill which contained the identical provision. The hon member for Sea Point said this about it (Hansard, 1980, col 525):

We have checked on the Housing Act, and in terms of section 44 notice is only in respect of arrear rentals …

That is the issue here—

… notice either issued by the local authority or by the department itself. So as far as this legislation deals solely with serving notice in regard to the lapse in fulfilling a contractual or financial obligation to pay rental, we can have no objection to this form of notice.

The provision was the same as that in the Community Development Act.

The same day in the Community Development Amendment Bill we dealt with the same provision in an amendment. The hon member for Sea Point then objected to it, but the basis of his objection was not the procedure, not the fact that one could pin a notice on a door and simplify the eviction of anyone; the basis, the only basis of his objection was that this could be used to evict people in terms of the Group Areas Act. In other words he did not object to the provision per se; he objected to its use or potential use to evict people. I quote the hon member for Sea Point (Hansard, 1980, col 534):

Therefore we do not want to support an administrative procedure which will assist the Government to dispossess people of their homes in order to apply the Group Areas Act in favour of someone else. This is the prime reason why we will not support the Second Reading of this Bill.

In other words his objection was to the Group Areas Act and the application of the provision in order to further the application of that Act.

Now we have a further extension which inserts the words “or other occupier” and “or other amount, as the case may be”, and the hon member opposes it in principle. I am sorry, but it is not logical. We shall do as we did in 1980 when we supported the amendment. We shall continue to support it and to accept these two extensions.


Mr Chairman, we dealt with most of the problems of this nature that we have encountered in the past in terms of section 18(1) of the Act, and we got away with that because we regard a person who stays in a place on the basis of some kind of agreement, as an acceptable tenant. I want to point out to the hon member for Sea Point that it is not always necessarily the case that we entered into an occupation agreement with these people. It may also be the case that when the Community Development Board took the area over, the person concerned was there. He could have occupied a house there. All we had to do was expropriate him, but we did not come to any arrangement with him in advance; he was there and we accepted him as such. We found him there. In any event, until fairly recently—that is to say, before this court judgment—we dealt with problem cases where people failed to pay the necessary moneys, as the hon member for Durban Point pointed out, by giving them notice without their having access to the courts. We did so in terms of section 18(1), and we got away with it. We were able to take possession of the land and buildings and could proceed with the development. The hon member will concede that in the normal course the ordinary man cannot go to the Supreme Court when he is involved in a dispute with the department about a matter such as this. Therefore people accepted it when we took action against them in terms of section 18(1). We make concessions by helping them to find alternative accommodation, for example. We are not really responsible for that, because the person obtains his price for his house. Nevertheless we help him to find another place. However, a certain rich man made it his task to be as obstructive as he could in this regard. He had the money and went to the Supreme Court. Now it is no longer necessary for anyone to have money to obstruct the department. A principle has now been laid down by this court case. Now people need only say that on the basis of the Mia case they claim to be able to occupy premises without needing to comply with their obligations towards the department. That is how simple it has become. That is why we have come to this House with this amendment. We are not impatient, as the hon member for Hillbrow seeks to pretend, but we have reached a deadlock. If it had not been for that court case it would not have been necessary for us to come to the House with this legislation. However, we are encountering endless problems in this regard. Already there are more people who say that they will not budge and that they rely on the finding in the Mia case. What right have we to draw a distinction, as the hon member for Durban Point and the hon member Mr Aronson argued, to take action against a man who has a legal obligation towards us with regard to rental in terms of section 18(1) without obtaining a court order? It is now apparently unnecessary for the people who occupy premises in terms of a special concession from the department to comply with their obligations. How does the hon member explain that? I played open cards with the hon member for Sea Point by telling him about the problem we were experiencing. Had it not been for that court case it would not have been necessary for us to amend the Act.


Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has given us a further explanation and it would appear that we are not going to budge him as far as the provisions of his amendment are concerned. I want to say once again that when it comes to a tenant it is quite easy to determine what his contractual relationship is and that therefore there may be a case for the Minister acting without a court order. It is an easily determinable position. However, when one comes to the occupier, it is not always as easy to determine what his rights are. The fact that the hon the Minister has lost a court case would indicate this. The hon the Minister now says that because of that difficulty he wants to be able to determine the rights and that a person can only assert his rights after he has been evicted.


That is not the case here. Can I explain it to the you?




Mr Chairman, the hon member has come back to the question of the price. He alleges that we may evict a person and that he may subsequently argue with the department and continue his dispute over the price. That does not apply here and what is involved here is not that kind of money. We are dealing here with the fees which the hon member for Durban Point referred to.


Mr Chairman, the point is that the hon the Minister has to be satisfied that a person has not paid a rental, because then he would be a tenant, or that he has not paid some other fee, which is not a formally structured sum of money such as a rental would be, or that a person has not vacated on a date on which the hon the Minister wants him to vacate. What I am saying is that the hon the Minister has conceded that there has been a case where it has been shown that certain people have rights, whatever they are, to remain there irrespective of the hon the Minister’s notice. That is what has happened. The hon the Minister’s point of view, and I can understand it, is that he cannot be held up by litigation or by people refusing to move. He wants to get them to move and if they then want to assert any rights they can go to court, because they still have the right to go to court subsequently.




The hon the Minister is going to assume these powers and I want to ask him if he will give us an assurance that he will be very circumspect in the way that he uses these powers.

The question of a levy or another sum to be paid other than a rental, I suspect, will become an increasingly sensitive factor. There is a tendency to say that the rental is pegged but other amounts will be added. I want to ask the hon the Minister first of all to be very circumspect in applying these powers when it comes to those other sums of money which are not paid. Secondly, I think he should take into account the position of the tenant and the question of alternative accommodation. I do not think the hon the Minister would like to assert these powers without a court order and then to find “daar is nood”. He said that the other day. There may be a person in need but the hon the Minister simply says that he will assert the new powers which he has.

I would like the hon the Minister to give us an assurance that in acquiring these powers, it is his intention to act in a very individualistic and sensitive way, taking into account all the circumstances affecting the person whom he is to evict.


Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Sea Point has the right to ask me for this kind of undertaking and therefore I give it to him on the department’s behalf. I shall not always be there. Therefore I give it to him on behalf of the department. I do not think there are people in this country who go more out of their way to treat people in a decent and fair manner than the officials of my department. I can give the hon member that assurance and that is why he hears so little of us. As soon as we put a foot wrong, or even before we put a foot wrong, there are people who want to crucify us. The fact that we are so little in the limelight just shows how careful and circumspect our footwork is. I can therefore give the hon member that assurance.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 2:


Mr Chairman, after the debate on the Second Reading, we took another careful look at this clause to which we objected so strenuously to see whether we could perhaps move an amendment to try to meet the situation. However, we find this clause so unacceptable that we have come to the conclusion that the only way we can deal with it in the Committee Stage is to vote against it and to have our objection recorded.

The fundamental reason is, of course, that this clause creates a bad precedent that should not be followed. It is that one is circumventing the court and a person’s right to go to court, and we cannot go along with that. In taking away the right granted to a person under common or any other law, not only is he deprived of his initial right to go to court but he is also deprived of his right, after having been evicted, to go to court or have recourse to the court for compensation or reinstatement or for a mandement van spolie order.

I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he has no faith in the judgment of the courts and their ability to come to a quick decision. Have we now reached the stage where we need to amend an Act to do away with the rights contained in another law such as the right to go to court and the rights contained in common law? Let us say that a person has for instance committed one crime. He has, in the opinion of the hon the Minister, occupied premises unlawfully. If a person has committed theft or murder, he can go to court, he has the right of recourse to the courts and the right of appeal, but what heinous crime has the person envisaged in clause 2 committed? He has taken occupation of a house with his family and children. There is nothing in this clause to say that he has moved into the house overnight and must be ejected the next morning. Such a person and his family may have stayed in that House for years for all we know. He may be there for many, many years and all of a sudden the department wakes up and says: “Hey, this chap does not have permission to be there. What is he doing there?” Then all of a sudden, boom! Out he goes! He has no recourse to the courts. Is that what the hon the Minister is asking us to agree to?

This amendment does not only take away a person’s common law rights. It goes further. It says: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law”. If a person should perhaps have a right in terms of some other law, which in this case would probably mean he has protection under some other statute, that is also taken away from him. If he does not have rights under any other statute but only his normal rights under common law, that is also taken away from him. He is therefore being deprived of any right whatsoever.

Previously one could evict a person under the circumstances outlined beforehand. Surely that was enough. The Minister says he has the right to go to court if he wants to or to use the machinery provided for in this Act. He has, however, found that the machinery provided for in this Act is not sufficient. Now for the sole reason that it is more expedient and a cheaper process he has moved this amendment. Is the truth not really that just possibly that person occupying a property may win his case in the end, may win the right to stay there and thus defeat what the Minister and his department feel should have happened? Is one then not depriving that person of his rights as well as the courts of their rights to make a judgment in such a case?

The Minister is setting himself up as prosecutor and judge. He is deciding that a certain person is occupying a property illegally. He is in fact deciding that that person has no rights in this case and he is depriving him of any rights. As I have said, such a person’s only crime is that he has moved into certain premises. It is exactly the same precedent as applies to a person who has committed an offence against the security laws. It is the same precedent as is established by the 90-day provision. Such a person cannot see a lawyer and he has no recourse to a court of law. This is now being applied to a person who has moved into certain premises.

I do not think I need belabour the point any further. I think it speaks for itself. I think we have made our attitude very clear and we have no option but to vote against this clause.


Mr Chairman, in the Second Reading debate I motivated our objection to this clause. We voted against it in principle for the reasons I gave. The provision is now being extended and improved. There is no doubt that it is being improved administratively, which will make it easier to apply—that we do not dispute. We are, however, opposed to the provision as it was and as it is being amended and we shall therefore vote against the clause and so be consistent with the line we took in 1980 when we also opposed this provision.


Mr Chairman, I think we must agree to differ on this clause. I have told the hon member for Durban Point that we are dealing here with a special group of people. They are not tenants. If they had been tenants or if they had had any kind of arrangement with the department concerning occupation, I could have tolerated that and I could have dealt with them without evicting them without a court order. The Act gives me that right but, as is indicated in the Bill, I also do not wish them to make use of the common law because these people knowingly occupied unlawfully. I might mention that we have had cases in the past—similar provisions already exist in the Housing Act—of a group of houses being completed, and just before the contractor was able to hand over the houses officially to the department so that tenants on a waiting list could be placed therein, a group of people occupied the houses overnight.


Eldorado Park?


We have had it there too. What does the hon member for Durban Point expect the Government to do in a case like this? After all, he is a level-headed person. Surely he will realize that one cannot grant such a person a right to go and tell a magistrate or judge some story. Surely it goes without saying that we must pick him up and throw him out. That is the one aspect of the matter.

However, we are also dealing here with a different position. I do not believe that the hon member has sympathy with people of this sort, but it is being proposed that the department should first pay the purchase price to an affected person before such a person needs to leave the premises he is occupying. That would create an absolutely untenable situation. Sir, do you know what it means to get involved in expropriation cases, how many years it can take and how difficult people can become? In 99 out of every 100 cases people vacate their properties before the money is paid because otherwise one is unable to proceed with development. That would mean that many thousands of people would be sitting around for whom I should not be able to provide accommodation. For example, I cannot wait for one farmer to leave his farm if he does not want to leave his farm because it is not possible to agree on a price. Hon members are aware how long court cases and arbitration cases can carry on. What is wrong with doing it in this way? According to law the Community Development Board is the owner of the premises the day the person takes occupation of it, whether the land or the purchase price has been paid or not. If the court decides that a person may remain in his property because he has not yet received his money, and in fact he never wanted to accept any money because he was not interested in agreeing on a price and in fact had done everything in his power not to reach an agreement, what does the hon member expect me to do in this case? I can only come forward with legislation such as this. That is what I am doing.


Mr Chairman, with great respect for what the hon the Minister has said, let me put the following example to the Committee. If I as an individual develop a housing scheme which provides, say, 100 units for 100 families and I have a situation where people move in unlawfully, what can I do?


You will not do that. You will never be in that situation.


It can be done. It is done in various parts of the world. Of course it is done. Can I force such an unlawful occupier out without any recourse to law? Why should the board have a greater right than an individual?


Did I not explain that to you yesterday?


If I had such a scheme and I found myself in that situation. I would have one of two remedies. Either I would report it as trespassing if it amounted to that, or I would go to court immediately for an ejection order. I do not see why the Minister should be placed in any better a position than the individual.


Mr Chairman, I want to deal with one point raised by the hon member for Hillbrow, namely the question of the private developer developing a township instead of the board. I should like to point out to him that when a private developer develops a township his first motive is profit. He goes for the maximum profit he can make. When the board on the other hand expropriates a property it is actually assisting people, mostly in the lower income groups, but the private developer is not assisting people in the lower income groups. The hon member gave the example of a private developer who builds 100 houses. If such a developer has problems, he has recourse to the courts. However, he has built the houses and he has shown a profit because he is building these houses for wealthier people. The development board is building houses for people who are in less fortunate circumstances than those who buy houses from private developers. That is why the development board cannot wait indefinitely to get the ground. They have to proceed with the installation of services and with the building of houses.

The hon the Minister has explained that one tenant who refuses to vacate a house can stop an entire development. In other words, thousands of people are deprived of housing because of one man who holds out. The private developers on the other hand, does not have that problem. Moreover, the private developer’s motives are totally different from the development board’s motives for developing.

The hon member for Hillbrow also asked whether the hon the Minister had no faith in the courts. The hon the Minister proved today that he has because it is as a result of a court judgment that he has come to Parliament today for assistance. Furthermore, the rule of law can only be upheld if there is law and order in a country. With no law and order in a country a chaotic situation will develop. The hon the Minister explained yesterday that a man can merely allege verbally that some or other official gave him permission to occupy a dwelling. However, if a man wants to occupy a dwelling and he gets the written consent of the Director-General to occupy it for 12 months, neither the hon the Minister not anybody else can interfere with that right. The Director-General has given him permission in writing to occupy the house for 12 months and if anybody tries to usurp those rights the occupier can go to court because he has a cast iron case. Why not therefore allow that situation to prevail? The people whom the hon member for Hillbrow is protective of are, however, those people who apply to the Director-General for consent, who are then refused consent and, despite the refusal, move into the house. After they have moved in, they then refuse to vacate the premises, and the hon member wants the hon the Minister to have to go to court in cases of this nature.

The man who is occupying such premises may be holding up the entire development, and thousands of people may be losing the prospect of obtaining housing sooner while in the meantime the costs are escalating as well. I think a man who genuinely wants to occupy a house owned by the development board will have no difficulty with the proposition of going to the Director-General for consent. Should he get such consent he knows that he will be occupying the premises legally. On the other hand, should the Director-General refuse consent, he knows that he is there illegally. I think therefore that the hon member for Hillbrow must be reasonable about this matter.


Mr Chairman, I am very surprised at the attitude of the hon member Mr Aronson. He is well versed in law because he has practised law for many, many years. He is a man who is supposed to have some knowledge of the law; a man who is supposed to have some respect for the law and also for the rule of law. However, now that he is on that side of the House, he has forgotten all his training and all those principles. He knows as well as I do and as well as the hon the Minister and all hon members in the House that the Minister can go to court on an urgent application. He can go to a judge in chambers on a Saturday, a Sunday or in the middle of the night, and he can obtain an order. If the occupier has no defence, he is not going to defend the application. The only way that he can delay an order is when he has a defence in terms of any other law or the common law, and we are now depriving him of those rights.


Mr Chairman, something the hon member said a moment ago disturbed me somewhat. I agree 100% with the hon the Minister that the case of Essop’s Fruiterers, the Lichtenburg case and others are such clear cases that in my opinion the Minister must have legislation of this nature. He must suspend the common law by statutory right to some extent. This is something that happens. The suspension takes place when the common law is suspended in terms of legislation; when statutory legislation is introduced with a view to rectifying a matter.

There is something, Mr Chairman, that the hon the Minister said yesterday which I not quite understand. I am often told by hon members on the Government side that I do not quite understand things. However, for my own edification I just want to ascertain whether I understood the hon the Minister correctly. He said that when land was expropriated, on a certain date it became the property of the Community Development Boards. I agree with that. I heard him go on to say—and I hope I did not hear correctly—that subsequently, payment for that is left largely in his hands. That is, if they do not want to accept it.


That is not what I said.


Thank you. Then everything is quite in order. I take it, therefore, that that is not the intention of the hon the Minister. I thank him for that as well.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—95: Alant, T G; Aronson, T; Barnard, S P; Blanché, J P I; Breytenbach, W N; Clase, P J; Coetzer, H S; Conradie, F D; Cronjé, P; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, W H; De Pontes, P; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, G C; Du Toit, J P; Fick, L H; Fouché, A F; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Hayward, S A S; Hever, W J; Hoon, J H; Hugo, P B B; Jordaan, A L; Kleinhans, J W; Kotzé, G J; Kotzé, S F; Landman, W J; Le Grange, L; Lemmer, W A; Le Roux, D E T; Le Roux, Z P; Ligthelm, N W; Lloyd, J J; Malan, W C; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, M D; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, W D; Morrison, G de V; Munnik, L A P A; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Pieterse, J E; Poggenpoel, D J; Pretorius, N J; Rabie, J; Schoeman, H; Scholtz, E M; Schutte, D P A; Scott, D B; Simkin, C H W; Steyn, D W; Streicher, D M; Terblanche, A J W P S; Terblanche, G P D; Treurnicht, A P; Ungerer, J H B; Van Breda, A; Van den Berg, J C; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Merwe, H D K; Van der Walt, A T; Van Eeden, D S; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J (Rosettenville); Van Staden, J W; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Van Zyl, J J B; Venter, A A; Vermeulen, J A J; Visagie, J H; Vlok, A J; Weeber, A; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L; Wiley, J W E; Wilkens, B H; Wright, A P.

Tellers: W J Cuyler, W T Kritzinger, C J Ligthelm, R P Meyer, J J Niemann and H M J van Rensburg (Mossel Bay).

Noes—18: Barnard, M S; Bartlett, G S; Boraine, A L; Eglin, C W; Goodall, B B; Hulley, R R; Moorcoft, E K; Olivier, N J J; Page, B W B; Raw, W V; Rogers, PRC; Sive, R; Slabbert, F v Z; Suzman, H; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Rensburg, H E J.

Tellers: P A Myburgh and A B Widman.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:


Mr Chairman, very briefly, our objection to this clause stems from the fact that the provisions of the Expropriation Act, 1975, have been delegated to local authorities in the sense that a local authority is now to act as an agent of the Department of Community Development in regard to the question of expropriation. Had such delegation had the effect of the diminution of authority, as we stated during the debate on the Second Reading, the position may have been different. In any event, where a local authority needs to expropriate it does have power to do so. In this case, however, a local authority will actually be expropriating on behalf of the board itself. While acting as an agent, it is just possible that the local authority may be an unwilling agent of the department in having to carry out certain expropriations which that local authority may not wish to do for one reason or another. The question of expropriation is not pleasant at the best of times. It is not really something that the acquirer of expropriation rights welcomes. It is therefore not a very nice thing to begin with and to delegate such a power to a local authority which may be unwilling to carry it out is not acting for the best. It is for that reason that we are opposed to this clause.


Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Sea Point advanced a better argument than that of the hon member for Hillbrow. The hon member for Sea Point said that he would have preferred the department to do the expropriation itself and then make the area available for development. The hon member for Hillbrow was speaking about an unwilling agent. Surely we would not tackle a matter of this nature with an unwilling donkey. Therefore that is not at issue and I do not want to react to that argument.

I can understand the argument of the hon member for Sea Point. In many instances we do this, particularly in the smaller places that lack the necessary machinery to do these things. Therefore this is done in many instances, but why should I do it in the case of Durban or Cape Town? After all, there are people who can do it just as well or even better than I. In one part of Cape Town the city council acts as my agent, and on the other side the department itself effects development, or the divisional council does it. Each has its own expropriation procedure. Therefore, when development initiated by the department takes place in such instances, we should like it to be done in accordance with a uniform expropriation procedure. I think that is an acceptable standpoint.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.


Mr Speaker, before the adjournment of the House yesterday afternoon I was explaining that we must have as little duplication as possible of the work of provincial administrations and local authorities, because if there is duplication it entails expense which in my opinion is unnecessary.

How does one remove these restrictive conditions? Either it is done in the title deed of land or in the conditions of township development. Therefore one has no reason to investigate further. Anyone can look up the necessary information in the offices of the Registrar of Deeds. Every municipality in this country that is worth its salt has officials that go there daily, or every other day, to look up information.

Now the applicant has to pay a deposit, and that deposit can be increased after it has been specified because the municipality or the local authority can say that it had incurred heavier expenditure.

I believe that the officials of the provincial administrations also deal with this work every day. They have the right officials. If people want to make use of the local authority, then the money that is paid in initially by way of deposit should be enough. I do not believe that we must now single out the work done by an official of a local authority in the normal course of his work and regard it as separate work. There may be restrictive conditions in a township development scheme. There, too, one needs a member of the city council or city council officials.

When one looks at this aspect one finds that the moment we revert to the old dispensation, the city council first looks at restrictive conditions. After that the provincial administration looks at the same restrictive conditions. One has then to approach the city council again. When that happens, we shall encounter problems. In cases of this nature 80% of the work is done by the applicant. The applicant finds out whether there has been registration of the land he has bought. He may find that there are unregistered servitudes on that land. He may also find that in earlier years there may have been a burial ground on that land. There could also have been mineral rights on that land registered in the names of 10 to 15 people and that the people in question are scattered across the country. The applicant tabulates all these things and draws up a full report. He submits this report and in most instances he is granted remission. The Administrator may decide that the restrictions should be removed. The attorneys handle the legal aspects involved. In this clause reference is made to both the Administrator and the local authority. I want to request the hon the Deputy Minister to see to it that the wording of this clause is improved. The clause can only be changed by removing the reference to the local authority. I feel that the reference to the local authority in this clause should be deleted. The Administrator or the province will have the right to call a meeting of those people and ask them whether such restrictive conditions apply in their area. We must not make unnecessary expenditure part of this very good measure, because by doing so we shall detract from its effectiveness.

In general, this is outstanding legislation. The provisions will result in much saving of time. As far as mineral rights are concerned, in the past it was necessary to place advertisements for six months if one was unable to get hold of the people. Subsequently, one could discover that the man in whose name the mineral rights were registered had transferred the option to someone else 10 years previously. Then one has to advertise again. Matters could carry on like this for a long time before one eventually arrived at the right man, who might tell one that one may not take over those mineral rights. In the meantime one may be planning a project which would cost R2 million or R3 million and one has to pay interest on that amount. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister … No, I mean the hon the Deputy Minister. When I have mistakenly called a man a Minister two or three times, it is not long before he becomes one. This is a good measure which will contribute a great deal to effecting improvements in regard to township development. We take pleasure in supporting the legislation.


Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in associating myself with what was said by previous hon members who congratulated the hon the Deputy Minister on the first legislation he is handling in this House. As a virtual neighbour of mine, I can give him the assurance that we are very proud of him.

I also associate myself wholeheartedly with what the hon member for Langlaagte said and I want to thank him for his and his party’s support of the legislation. Last night, however, when the House adjourned, he contended that in the cases when they had legislation at their disposal and they could collect monies from people, in this case from the applicant, local authorities claimed so much money from him that it shocked him rigid, as he expressed it. The hon member insinuates thereby that local authorities make use of this kind of legislation to collect additional monies from an applicant, whereas in fact that is not the case. In this particular instance the legislation provides expressly that the local authority as well as the provincial administration concerned can only collect from the applicant the expenditure they incur. Therefore they are unable to make a profit.

I also believe that it would be unfair to the other inhabitants of the area of jurisdiction of a local authority if their local authority had to pay those costs, whereas in fact the applicant derived the benefit. Since it only makes provision for expenditure, this is not an unfair provision in the legislation.

In several of the older towns provisions of a restrictive nature were included in the title deeds. This ensured that the necessary control whereby to ensure orderly development in those towns did exist. As regards town planning schemes, which are in operation at present in the majority of important urban areas, the position at present is that effective control of land use does exist in the urban areas. Therefore in several of the older township areas there is duplication of control in that both the town planning scheme and the title deed contain measures restricting utilization of and changes in the utilization of land. The utilization of a property for a purpose that conflicts with the provisions of the title deed and the town planning scheme therefore requires the removal of the restriction in the title deed as well as the rezoning of the provision relating to use in the town planning scheme. The town planning scheme is the most obvious instrument whereby to regulate changes in land use because, in the first place, it was established for that purpose and, in the second place, it makes provision for procedures and rezoning as well as changes in usage and, thirdly, the monitoring of land use is entrusted to a specific authority, viz the local authority. It is true that where restrictions are contained in a title deed with regard to property that is also effectively controlled by a town planning scheme, the provisions of the title deed ought to lapse. Moreover, with a view to an efficient system of registration it is necessary that the necessary rectifications be made and that absolete conditions of title be removed from title deeds.

Then, too, there are the cases where these provisions are set as a requirement by the township developer. In many of these cases the change in land usage is subject to the approval of a township developer or his successor in title. Unfortunately it is true that several of these instances of the responsibility for control that have been entrusted to the township developer are at present being exploited, and a consideration is called for in return for such permission for a change in usage. There are several variations of such entrenched rights of the township developer. Several of these rights may be deemed real rights and removal would result in claims for compensation. Because in many instances the exercise of these rights amounts to exploitation of the owner of the property by the original township developer or his successor in title, the community rebels against this form of legally sanctioned injustice. One should also look at restrictions relating to servitudes registered on property. A servitude registered on a property, in terms of which specific rights are granted to the owner of adjacent property, is a real right. The unilateral removal of such a servitude could entail the loss of specific rights by a specific party or parties. There is no way in which the meaningfulness of a servitude can be decided on without complying with the procedures that exist at present for the removal of servitudes. It is essential that an independent body should decide on the usability of such servitudes. The Removal of Restrictions Act makes provision for such objective assessment.

In general it is a good decision to make this improved measure available to the administrators of the four provinces, and for that reason I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.


Mr Speaker, we on these benches also congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on introducing his first piece of legislation in the House and wish him every success with his portfolio. I may say that he serves two departments and that this is probably the more peaceful and somewhat more tranquil one. It is therefore as well that he started with this. The other department of course involves consolidation, removals, farmers’ land and prickly problems like that. I hope, of course, that the hon the Deputy Minister has had time to build up a very good relationship with the hon the Minister of Finance to make sure that we get some real progress with consolidation, the finalization of boundaries and things of that nature. We wish him great success, particularly in that direction.

The amendment before us is entirely a positive one. In fact, the principal Act, when it was brought in in 1967, was a very far-reaching measure which was viewed with some misgiving at the time. Up to that point the derestriction measures were sometimes matters for the Supreme Court. This Act was therefore very novel at the time. Since then, a great deal of water has of course passed under the bridge. Authorities have learnt to deal with these matters and have become more expert at them.

This particular piece of legislation of course represents a further devolution of power similar to the Bill which has just gone before us in respect of expropriation. Here we have a further devolution of power and the streamlining of legislation in order to facilitate the derestriction of certain land.

As regards the question of expenses incurred, the hon the Minister, or rather the hon member for Langlaagte—I am sorry I referred to him as Minister …


We are on our way.


He is the Minister-maker of Langlaagte. The hon member for Langlaagte had some reservations about the question of local authorities being able to claim for expenses incurred in respect of the investigations and the consideration of those investigations. I feel that, in keeping with the representations of the United Municipal Executive, there if often a very good case for them to be recompensed. Indeed, it is in keeping with the situation regarding rates being paid on Government buildings in order to assist municipalities with their financial handling of affairs. It is therefore very positive that they should be able to claim on expenses incurred. Obviously, such claims will be considered on merit. Where local authorities are perhaps taking a chance, they will probably have little chance of getting away with it. However, in cases where small municipalities have in fact incurred expenses, I think it is only right that these should be met. We have much pleasure in supporting this amendment.


Mr Speaker, since we are now coming to the end of the Second Reading debate on the first Bill I have introduced here, I wish to convey a word of thanks to the hon members for Fauresmith and Losberg on this side of the House and to the hon members for Sea Point, Langlaagte and King William’s Town for their good wishes and their kind words to me.

The hon member for Fauresmith imputed this Bill to me and I want to rectify that to some extent. In view of the short time I have been occupying this post, I see myself as merely an instrument whereby to pilot this Bill through Parliament. Perhaps, too, it is only right that I should refer to this occasion to my predecessor, Mr Hennie van der Walt, who represented Schweizer-Reneke here for a long time and later became a nominated member. According to our information he is very ill at present and has been admitted to hospital. On behalf of myself and this House I wish to convey my thanks to him for the years of service he rendered in this House. Perhaps not everyone would agree with many things that he did and with his approach, but his knowledge, and his zeal in performing the tasks entrusted to him, are to his credit. I believe that this House owes him a debt of gratitude for the years of service he gave. Unfortunately this House had no opportunity to take leave of him since he resigned after the end of the previous session. I believe that in occupying this post for a long time, he played a major role in the drafting of this legislation.

Allow me to say that in the short time that I have been co-operating with the officials of the department, they have shown me that they have the interests of the country and the administration at heart and that they do everything in their power to make the administration run as smoothly as possible. They deserve tribute for that.

Most of the hon members advanced the reasons as to why this legislation is being introduced. Accordingly I do not wish to go into that again. However, I do want to react to one aspect with reference to what the hon member for Langlaagte said. He saw a problem with regard to the monies that have to accompany applications in terms of clause 3. This clause contains an amendment to the effect that local authorities are remunerated for certain expenditure they incur. The principle at issue here is, firstly, that where expenditure is incurred by the provincial administration, it is covered in the principal Act as it is worded at present. In this amendment the same principle is applied in regard to local authorities. The reason for that is that an application with regard to land situated within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority must go through the local authority in question. The question in principle is whether one can make an exception so that a local authority is not entitled to expenditure it incurs with regard to a benefit that falls to the share of the applicant. That principle already applies to provincial administrations. I think it is only right that that expenditure should be borne by the applicant and not by the ratepayer of the local authority, which will in fact already be incorporated.

The second aspect involved here is that the benefit in respect of such an alteration to the restriction of the limitation accrues to the applicant and not to the ratepayer of the local authority. Therefore the cost involved is payable by the applicant. I believe that the principle is a sound one and that it complies with the dictates of reasonableness.

In conclusion I want to convey my sincere thanks to all hon spokesmen on both sides of the House who supported this legislation, for their very kind words about this legislation and for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.


Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill now under discussion provides for the establishment of a South African Council for Town and Regional Planners and for the registration of town and regional planners and town and regional planners in training. Before discussing the specific provisions of the Bill in greater detail, I wish to indicate briefly why it is deemed necessary to regulate the matter by legislation.

The South African Institute of Town and Regional Planners has long advocated the introduction of public legislation which would properly regulate the town and regional planning profession. This institute has been in existence for almost 30 years, and is the only body composed and representative of qualified town and regional planners in South Africa. The great majority of town and regional planners in South Africa, namely 519 out of an estimated number of between 550 and 580 trained town and regional planners, are members of the institute. The SA Institute of Town and Regional Planners is generally recognized as the representative body of the profession by the public, State departments, provincial administrations and local authorities, as well as the other professions such as professional engineers, architects and surveyors.

In South Africa, this profession already enjoys professional status, and several State departments, provincial administrations and local authorities have professional posts for town and regional planners. Town and/or regional planning is also a specific function of, for example, the provincial administrations, local authorities, the Department of Community Development, the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Department of Co-operation and Development.

After studying the town and regional planning profession for years, the institute came to the conclusion that as a result of the importance of town and regional planning to the country as a whole and the fact that similar legislation had already been passed with regard to other professions such as surveyors, architects, quantity surveyors and professional engineers, with whom town and regional planners co-operate closely, there was an urgent need for legislation in order to give professional recognition to the profession of town and regional planning and to exercise control over this profession by means of a council, in the interest of the public. The institute recommended, therefore, that legislation be passed which would provide for the establishment of a body which could promote the interest of town and regional planners and could deal with the registration of town and regional planners and related matters.

†The Government has accepted the recommendations of the institute, and the Bill now before the House provides for the establishment of a South African Council for Town and Regional Planners consisting of 11 members. Members of the council will be appointed by the Minister of Community Development from persons nominated by the SA Institute of Town and Regional Planners and the Committee of University Principals, and from persons in the full-time employment of the State.

The Bill provides for the registration of two categories of persons, namely, town and regional planners and town and regional planners in training. The town and regional planner can be described as that person who has acquired an adequate academic qualification and has the required practical experience necessary for the performance of work in town and regional planning. Persons who may also qualify for registration as town and regional planners are those persons with other academic qualifications and/or practical experience who are not engaged in the performance of work in town and regional planning on a full-time basis but who combine this kind of work with other professional work and who have for a number of years been engaged in work of a town and regional planning nature which is of sufficient variety and of a satisfactory nature, extent and standard. Persons in this category are land surveyors, professional engineers, architects and quantity surveyors. Persons who do not qualify for registration as town and regional planners may be registered as town and regional planners in training if such persons are enrolled at an educational institution for a course in town and regional planning.

The council is empowered to prescribe the tariff of fees to which a town and regional planner shall be entitled for services rendered by him in that capacity. The tariff will however be subject to the approval of the Minister of Community Development.

An important principle is that the council will be financially self-sufficient. As the council will no doubt, especially during the initial years of its existence, be pressed for funds, provision has been made for moneys appropriated by Parliament to be advanced to the council. These advances shall, however, be repayable.

The Bill naturally also provides for various other matters which are normally provided for in legislation of this nature and I need not deal with each provision separately. The main object was to submit a Bill which will enhance town and regional planning in this country and put it on a sound footing.

*I am convinced that this legislation is necessary and as it enjoys the strong support of the South African Institute of Town and Regional Planners, I believe that it will be welcomed everywhere.


Mr Speaker, we in these benches welcome the Bill which the hon the Deputy Minister has introduced. It is a Bill which for the first time gives statutory recognition to the profession of town and regional planning. It follows, as the hon the Deputy Minister has indicated, a pattern of legislation which began, I think, in 1970, with the Professional Engineers Registration Bill, which was followed by similar legislation in respect of architects, quantity surveyors, planners, valuers, and various other professional associations.

It had been traditional until the early 1970s for professional associations to act on a voluntary basis outside of the formal legislative stature, other than was the case with architects and quantity surveyors, who had a Private Act since 1927. It has, however, been the pattern to accord professional associations formal legal status, and it is quite true that it is high time that the town and regional planners of South Africa were also given this status.

It will enable them to have a controlling council for the affairs of the profession as a whole. It will enable them to have machinery for maintaining professional standards and for improving educational facilities, and generally for seeing that the standards are not only high but will be ever higher; not only in the interests of the town and regional planners but also in the interests of the wider South African public that they serve. It is appropriate to indicate the very important role which town and regional planners are playing in South Africa, and which they are going to have to play in future. I am not a town or regional planner but I do have links with them, and I contend that it is one of the most important constructive professions in South Africa. It is one which is geared towards a constructive approach.

While the engineer may design a structure, and the architect can plan all the features of a building, while the quantity surveyor can monitor and control the cost factors, and the land surveyor can record the lay-out of the site, and the valuators can place a value on that, and an estate agent can market the property, it is in fact the town and regional planner who determines the overall environment in which development is going to take place, and in which individual citizens are going to live. The planner is critically involved in the space frame in which South Africans are going to live their lives. All in all, I believe that in their profession, perhaps more than in any other profession in South Africa, their work affects the quality of life and the quality of the communities that are going to have to live their lives in South Africa.

One should not underestimate the complex nature of the mandate which the town and regional planners have to execute. It involves an understanding and a sensitivity of individuals and communities, of the interrelated concepts of residential, economic and leisure activities, of such things as transportation, power lines and services, of economic feasibility and economic trends, of demographic projections and of the use and usages of land, of the whole question of the environmental impact of their activities, and indeed also of such things as urban and regional legislation. Their task has become, and I think will continue to become, increasingly difficult. Some of the reasons for this are that we have in South Africa a whole series of overlapping authorities at various levels and in various compartments of our government in the whole field of town and regional planning, and this complicates the procedure. We also have outdated planning regulations and procedures. I have been very pleased to be able to serve on a commission under the hon the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism which investigated the whole question of the streamlining of town and regional planning procedure in the interests of the community as a whole. In the third place, there is the problem that town planners in South Africa in particular have of very often having to reconcile functional town planning principles with the racial philosophy of the government of the day and compromise in that regard. This often becomes a very complicated procedure.

Having said that, there is no doubt—and this is why the Bill is important—that the work of the town and regional planner is going to become increasingly important. As our population grows from 30 million to 50 million and 60 million, so the way we use our land, the environment in which we live, our regional and urban development is going to become more important. As we move from what was originally a rural community to an increasingly an urban community, the whole process of urbanization be comes totally interlinked with sound urban and regional planning. Especially when one takes into account that this migration to the cities, this increase in the population is not taking evenly among all sectors of the population but is taking unevenly, let say, between Whites on the one hand and Blacks on the other, sound urban and regional planning has a very significant impact upon sound intergroup relationships. I mention these factors, Sir, because in my opinion this Bill deals with a profession that is going to make a profound impact upon the way people live in South Africa and, in fact, even upon the politics of South Africa.

I also believe that in spite of not having the advantage of a legislative umbrella under which they can operate, we in South Africa can be proud of the town and regional planning profession even as it exists in South Africa today, as well as of the high standards that are maintained and particularly the very significant contribution that certain individual town planners make towards enriching the urban and rural environment of our society. In the field of town planning, we relied in the past very heavily upon overseas expertise. Twenty or 30 or 40 years ago it was the done thing to invite an overseas town planner to look at important town planning features and problems and projects in South Africa. To an ever-increasing extent we have now come to use our own South African town and regional planners, and I believe that they fit the role very well. It is not because they are introspective and it is not because they are nationalistic in their approach. Yes, they are South Africans but they have been prepared to study abroad and to learn from the experience of other countries that have perhaps preceded us in the process of urbanization. They have also attempted to relate their overseas experience and expertise to the very real problems of South Africa and the South African community.

Therefore, Sir, I think that it is appropriate that this profession now be recognized in law—all the machinery and the paraphernalia and the additional authority that it will have as a result of the legislative powers and the structures that have been created. We should also remind ourselves that legal structures and institutions can on occasion be inhibiting. They can be stultifying. One can have too much rigidity when it comes to control. Of course, there is always the risk in a creative profession that this may take place. I believe that at this stage at least in the history of South Africa the present generation of town planners have a high degree of sensitivity and a creative zeal. I am sure that they will not allow the new institutions to stultify or inhibit them but rather to enable the institutions that are being established by means of this legislation to make them even more effective and more efficient and enable them to make a greater contribution towards the lives and circumstances in which people in South Africa live.

It is for these reasons, Sir, that we in these benches have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.


Mr Speaker, I rise to thank the hon member for Sea Point for his support of this important Bill. I also thank him for his well-considered remarks about this important profession, the profession of town and regional planning. I also appreciate the fact that he pointed out how important the task of these people is and how indispensable their functions and services are to the development of our country.

There is one small note struck by the hon member which I could perhaps have ignored, but perhaps one should react to it. The hon member alleged that the task of these town and regional planners would be complicated by the ideologies which the Government propagates. Surely that is not true. Surely it is history which brought multinationalism to this country, which brought different cultures, different habits and lifestyles. I think we should concede to one another on this day that to this extent and in respect of these things, our town and regional planners will be able to render an inestimable service to all the population groups of this country and to the country as a whole by planning in such a way as to bring about peace and prosperity for all our people.

It goes without saying that the well-known professions of land surveying, professional engineering, quantity surveying and architecture already share in the benefits arising from the separate pieces of legislation which already exist in respect of these professions. Therefore it goes without saying, too, that the Institute of Town and Regional Planners has been doing its utmost over the years to have such a piece of legislation introduced in respect of this profession as well. We are very pleased, therefore, that the department has now been able to submit this Bill which has been introduced by the new hon Deputy Minister.

It is not necessary for me to say any more at this stage about the importance of the services rendered by this profession, but I would like to refer to a few of the fundamental principles in this Bill which we may call the statute of the town and regional planners, a statute in terms of which this profession will not only be regulated or better regulated, but in terms of which the profession will also be able to protect itself on the one hand, while on the other hand, the public will also be protected. Surely this is the fundamental purpose of any piece of legislation dealing with a professional institution: One wishes to protect the profession on the one hand and the public on the other. I think the department and the hon the Deputy Minister have succeeded in submitting a masterly piece of legislation to the House, which is likely to form the true constitution of the institutions of town and regional planners for many years, and in terms of which they can continue to develop and to regulate themselves more effectively.

I should like to refer to the SA Council for Town and Regional Planners. I think it is wise to provide that it will consist of 11 members, of whom eight will be members of the profession, two will be members of the Education Advisory Committee for Town and Regional Planners, and one will be a member of the Public Service. While I am on the subject, I want to say that I believe it was also a wise decision to establish this advisory committee which is able to advise our town and regional planners in so many different ways. One has only to think of the examination requirements and academic qualifications which are prescribed and which prospective town and regional planners have to comply with. I cannot imagine that this could have been done if the hon the Minister and the department had not involved our highest academic institutions. As a previous speaker pointed out, we are grateful for the fact that our town and regional planners can be trained in South Africa. We are grateful for the fact that they are South Africans who were born and bred in the country in which they have to work. One may accept, therefore, that they will understand the challenges and ideals of this father-land of ours and that they will be able to act accordingly.

I also want to refer to another part of the legislation, the one dealing with registration. The registration procedure contains the real teeth of the legislation, as an hon member said earlier in referring to another piece of legislation. It is important to bear in mind that no one will really be prejudiced when this legislation comes into effect. The three categories of persons who may qualify upon application are clearly specified. In the first place, there are the academically qualified applicants who have gained the necessary practical experience. Then there are the persons who may be drawn from other professions and who are involved in the profession, perhaps not on a full-time basis, and who comply with the requirements of the legislation. Finally, there are the town and regional planners who are still in training. It is important for the young men who want to qualify themselves in this direction to know that their rights, obligations and registration are protected by legislation of this House.

Finally, I want to express the hope that these town and regional planners will make a major contribution in the years ahead by proceeding with this important task of theirs in the interests of our country and all its people.


Mr Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that an official body for this profession is now being created by means of legislation. The work done by town and regional planners over the years has been a credit to South Africa. Regional planning was only introduced at a late stage and in my opinion, we have not been very successful in this sphere up to now. I believe that there have been too many people from outside the profession who have interfered with the work of the people directly involved in it. With the introduction of the SA Council for Town and Regional Planners, this profession will now receive the necessary recognition and it will receive the co-operation of other institutions in future. This has not always been the case in the past. Town and regional planners had to proceed with their work virtually in the dark. They first had to submit their plans before any consideration was given to them. I can still remember the years when regional planners talked about better connecting roads between Johannesburg and Vereeniging, and the controversy that went on about this for years. Some people felt that it would be better to improve the roads between Johannesburg and Bronkhorstspruit and Brits. Reasons were advanced for giving priority to certain areas which did not coincide at all with the thinking of the town and regional planners. When one looks at our cities, one sees that our town planners have used the available space very well. One could say that this took place on a voluntary basis. In certain parts of the city, the 59 line was used to bring more light into certain areas. The blocking of streets by the type of bridges which one finds in many cities promotes business, but causes the cities to suffocate. This means only one thing. In the absence of any real co-ordination, these people did excellent work.

A company which I used to work for appointed people from Germany, including a Mr Flemming, who is working for the State today, and who is one of the most brilliant people in the field of regional planning that I have ever encountered in my life. At that stage, however, when he was at his best, we could not make use of his services because it was not yet acceptable in this country and also because he belonged to an organization that was not quite legal.

The hon the Deputy Minister and I visited Columbia in the United States. The planners in my company planned Restin there in 1964, in co-operation with the town planners of Restin. It was originally planned in 1964 by me and by the people who were working with me in a company. The Americans continued developing it. This indicates to hon members that registration can be in the best interests of this profession. The registration of these people is very important. It has often been felt that these people do not operate on a firm and proper basis.


Mr Speaker, on behalf of the NRP I would like to extend congratulations and good wishes to the profession of town and regional planning and the town and regional planners in South Africa. I wish them well with this their own council and statutory recognition of their professional status.

It is perhaps a pity that we are only dealing with this now whereas mistakes were made 50 to 70 years ago which need never have been made if we had appreciated the importance of proper planning. Still, I believe this comes at a crucial time in the development programme of South Africa, a time when we are planning deconcentration areas, industrial and economic development areas and while our population is growing at a rate which will place a tremendous load on our future planners. This is therefore the right time to give this profession recognition and professional status. It is not that I have anything against town planners, but I must say in passing that I have personally never been a great enthusiast for “closed shop” organizations which lay down specific tariffs. However, I will make this exception and give this my full blessing. I believe in the right of a person to be paid according to his work and to compete freely. Still, it is essential that we have this type of legislation and we have no objection or problem with the Bill as it is. I would like to conclude on a personal note. One of the first documents which I read when I came back to Natal at the end of the forties, the beginning of the fifties, was the Natal Administration’s town and regional planning report on the Tugela Valley. As long ago as that people were looking ahead. Had that report been implemented, we might not have had much of the heartbreak and suffering which we have had in Natal with the drought, water restrictions and the distribution of population. It was late in the forties that that report was written, but it shows, as far back as that, the wisdom of an administration which looked ahead to the future and planned for the future. This was part of the legacy which Douglas Mitchell left. It was part of his post-war reconstruction planning to establish a Town and Regional Planning Board when he was Administrator. He looked not just to the next few years but he looked decades ahead. As I have said, that plan was one of the first documents I studied after I got involved in politics in Natal. If the wisdom of that plan had been appreciated fully at that time, that plan could have been of tremendous value today!

I am sure that with this new Bill the profession will go from strength to strength. I agree with the hon member for Sea Point that our own town and regional planners are the people best suited to tackle this work. In Durban the city council engaged overseas consultants at a vast cost to come and plan the city beachfront and the city centre. That plan is still gathering dust. It was a South African planner who eventually drew up and recommended what is now being implemented. So I agree with the hon member for Sea Point that this is a profession in South Africa which as a big role to play in the future. This party will support the Bill in all its stages.


Mr Speaker, I want to convey my thanks to the hon members who have participated in the debate on this Bill for their support. I also appreciate the fact that the parties all agree about the need for this Bill.

I have nothing to add to what the hon gentlemen have said about the reason why this professional group in our society should be organized into a council that is structured in terms of this Bill. I think the matter has been adequately dealt with. Still, there are a few aspects which one should take cognizance of. It appears from the discussion in this House that the impression may exist among the public that there was little or no planning before this council was established. If that impression has perhaps been created, I just want to say that there was a considerable amount of planning. The organization of this professional community under a council which is able to promote its own interests, and which is also able, therefore, to be of assistance in the future planning of the country as a whole, is important. Therefore I feel that as far as this organization is concerned, we can render an important service to the country as a whole.

Another aspect, which was raised by the hon member for Sea Point and which is very important, is the fact that urbanization is going to play an increasing role in future. I think we all accept that. We should also accept the fact that the milieu in which people are going to live in urban complexes in future is going to be important with regard to those people’s capacity for work and their social attitudes. Because of this, there will be an important task resting on the shoulders of this profession to use their organization to provide for the milieu in which they live. In that spirit I also want to thank my hon colleague, the hon member for Newton Park, for the competent way in which he supported this Bill and underlined its importance.

In conclusion, I want to convey my sincere thanks once again to all the hon members who have participated, the hon member for Durban Point, the hon member for Langlaagte, the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Newton Park, for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.


Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Sea-shore Act of 1935 provides that the State President is the owner of the seashore and the sea within the territorial waters of the Republic, and also provides for the letting or selling of certain parts of it. Control is exercised in practice by means of regulations made under the Act. In this connection, the provincial administrations of Natal and the Cape Province, which have delegated powers under the Act, play a very important role. The Bill which is before the House is indeed the result of representations received from the provincial administration of the Cape Province and from the United Municipal Executive, and is intended to facilitate the administration of the Sea-shore Act and to enable better control to be exercised over beaches.

Hon members will notice that the Development and Service Board of Natal and the Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation of the Cape Provincial Administration will have the same powers as local authorities for the purposes of the Sea-shore Act. The purpose of the provision is to place these bodies in a position where they will be able to exercise control themselves over the beaches falling within their areas of jurisdiction.

The way the Act reads at the moment, only local authorities and their officials can be authorized to implement sea-shore regulations. Where the sea-shore and inter-tidal zones adjoining nature reserves form a unit with the conservation area, it is deemed desirable that the Cape Provincial Administration should also have the power to exercise control over the sea-shore itself. This will bring the position in that province into line with that in Natal, where the Natal Parks, Game and Fish Preservation Board is deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of the Sea-shore Act.

Section 3(2) of the Sea-shore Act provides that the Minister of Community Development may permit the removal of any material from the sea-shore and the sea. This provision creates confusion, because in terms of the various mineral laws, the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is in control of precious stones, precious metals, base minerals and natural oil, while the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries exercises control, in terms of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973, over the removal of aquatic plants, shells and salt from the sea-shore and the sea. The confusion is now being cleared up and the Minister of Community Development will henceforth have no power with regard to the removal of these substances.

It is a requirement that before any part of the sea-shore or the sea may be leased for any purpose or before a permit may be issued for it, the intention of doing so must be announced by way of notice in the Gazette and a newspaper circulating in the neighbourhood. At the insistence of the United Municipal Executive, it is also being provided now that the place or places where and the times at which full particulars of a proposed lease or permit will be open for inspection must be specified in the notice, and that it must also be mentioned in the notice that objections may be lodged. The same provisions will apply in the case of any proposal for an alienation, letting or permission with regard to the sea-shore or the sea with the approval of Parliament. This amendment will make it easier for any interested party to obtain information concerning the proposed letting or alienation.

†The State President has the power to declare, by proclamation in the Government Gazette, that any local authority defined in the Health Act, 1977, may exercise, in respect of the sea-shore and the sea situate within its area of jurisdiction or adjoining such area, any of the powers which are conferred by or under the said Act on such a local authority. The Department of Health and Welfare is experiencing difficulties with this stipulation as it does not include the Director-General of Health and Welfare who, for the purposes of the Health Act, 1977, has the same powers as a local authority in areas where no local authority exists. This shortcoming is now being remedied.

Local authorities are experiencing difficulty in exercising proper control over undesirable material and articles brought on to beaches. In order to make control in this respect more effective it is felt that regulations should in future provide for the attachment confiscation and disposal of such articles and material. A proposal in this respect is, therefore, contained in the Bill.

The view is also held that the prescribed penalties are no longer an adequate deterrent to potential trespassers against regulations. A person who is found guilty of a contravention of a regulation made under the Act is liable to a fine not exceeding R200. It is proposed to increase the fine to R500.

The Bill also provides that local authorities must in future be consulted before regulations are made applicable to State land adjoining or situated near the sea-shore. This will ensure better co-ordination and control of the area in question.

Officers of the State have never had the authority to apply sea-shore regulations. This is a serious shortcoming as outdoor officials of State departments are often in a good position to take steps regarding illegal use of the sea-shore or contravention of the sea-shore regulations. The relevant provision is now being amended to provide for the delegation of powers also to any officer of the State.

*Finally, I should like to point out that when sea-shore regulations are made, they must twice be published in full in a local newspaper and in the Gazette. The first publication is merely for the purposes of information and comment. The cost of publication is very high today, and the making of sea-shore regulations may involve a local authority in considerable expenditure. It has been decided, therefore, to provide that draft regulations will henceforth be open for inspection locally, and that only the final regulations will be published in full.


Mr Speaker, we in these benches support this measure. On examination it is quite clear that this is an attempt by the Government to tighten up the control over sea-shores and also to fill certain of the voids which from a practical point of view existed as far as the control of this valuable piece of real estate is concerned. Overall control is to be tightened by improving the liaison between the various authorities, in particular the State on the one hand and affected local authorities on the other. Those of us who live close to the sea realize how important and how sensitive the sea-shores are, I think it is necessary that local people, through the local authorities, together with the State, should have a major input into the control. To the extent that the Bill brings closer liaison between local authorities and the State in control of the sea-shore, we welcome it.

Secondly, provision is made in the Bill for more public disclosure and more detail of intentions as far as leases and other things are concerned, and this we approve. In our view the public should have good forewarning of any intended leases or any intended alterations so that if there are objections to them there can be representations made.

In regard to control, there is provision made in the Bill for confiscation and for increased penalties. Taking into account both the sensitivity and the importance of the seashores, there is every justification for having firmer control measures over those people who abuse or despoil the sea-shores of South Africa.

In accordance with Standing Order No 22, the House adjourned at 18h30.