Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement which is of general interest:

The time has arrived to inform Parliament as to the plans of a local financial group, in co-operation with other private bodies, to establish an aircraft industry in the Republic in so far as the Government has taken certain decisions in regard to the establishment of such an industry in our country and has already taken steps to give effect to those decisions.

The Government is interested in such an industry in so far as the South African Air Force may become an important client of this industry. It is particularly clear that thereby certain problems which have been experienced in the servicing of aircraft and in regard to aircraft equipment for the Air Force may be solved. The Government has already had all the possibilities investigated for transferring to a suitable private industrial organization part of the servicing done by the Air Force itself.

During the course of various investigations consideration was granted to a number of carefully considered projects for the local manufacture and the servicing of aircraft.

On the basis of these investigations and recommendations, the Government decided that steps should immediately be taken to establish our own aircraft industry in the Republic, based on private initiative, and to transfer to a suitable private undertaking 40 per cent of the Air Force’s peacetime servicing of aircraft.

The Government further decided that the Minister of Economic Affairs should take the necessary steps to give effect to its decisions in connection with local aircraft manufacture and the transfer to private industry of part of the servicing of aircraft now done by the Air Force.

The South African firm, Bonuskor Beleggings Beperk, which submitted the best project in respect of both manufacturing and servicing, has consequently been instructed to take the initiative in the forming of a company or companies in the Republic to carry out the envisaged manufacturing and servicing programmes.

Bonuskor undertook to establish the envisaged company (or companies) on a broad basis so that other suitable South African interests could also participate in the industry. Bonuskor was further informed of the Government’s desire that in the implementation of the manufacturing and servicing programmes use should be made as far as possible of the existing capacity in the metallurgical and engineering industries and in the electronic and electrical industries.

The Government has entered into an agreement with Bonuskor in regard to the basis on which the industry will be compensated for its manufacturing and repair services in respect of assignments given to it by the State, or which may be given in future.

In regard to the question of compensation, it must be mentioned that Bonuskor, in the light of the presently available information, has made certain estimates of the local manufacturing costs of aircraft, and also as to what it will cost the local industry to render the desired repair services to the Air Force.

These estimates were made in consultation with experienced overseas undertakings, but are nevertheless subject to so many uncertain and unknown factors that Bonuskor found it impossible to quote firm prices to the Government. Bonuskor has consequently submitted certain formulae of compensation for the various tasks which have to be carried out which in broad lines amount to this, that until Bonuskor has acquired sufficient costing experience the industry is to be compensated on a basis which will cover its total manufacturing and repair costs and give it a return of 15 per cent before taxation on the total capital invested.

The Government, however, was not prepared to accept Bonuskor’s proposal in its entirety, and after consultations between the two parties it was agreed that the Govern-men would for two full years of operation compensate the industry according to the formulae of compensation for the various types of work done which were submitted by Bonuskor, provided that the total compensation received by the industry for all its services would not exceed 10 per cent before taxation. On the total capital necessary for its activities, and provided further that the basis of compensation for all the services to be rendered by the industry will after the expiration of the first two years of operation be completely reviewed in the light of the information in regard to costs which has in the meantime become available to that industry.

The industry also intends, apart from the manufacturing and servicing which it will do for the Government, to enter into other related lines of manufacture which will strengthen its financial position and reduce its cost structure also in respect of the services it has to render to the Government, so that in the course of time it should be able to reduce its prices for those services.

For the implementation of the project as a whole, Bonuskor has already registered two companies, namely:

1. (i) Bonaero Beleggingskorporasie Beperk, as the controlling company in which Bonuskor, the I.D.C. and other approved companies will have the controlling interest and various other companies will have a minority interest; and
2. (ii) Atlas Vliegtuigkorporasie van Suid-Afrika Beperk, as operating company with an initial capital requirement of approximately R47,000,000, in which Bonaero will have the controlling interest while the I.D.C., other approved companies and later the general public will also have a share.

Furthermore Bonuskor, with the approval of the Government, has decided to establish the industry on a terrain adjoining the Jan Smuts Airport. This site is regarded for various reasons as the most suitable one for the industry. Approximately 85 morgen of State land has already been made available to Bonuskor at a nominal rental, and a further 30 morgen of adjoining private land will still have to be purchased. The initial cost of the undertaking will include industrial buildings with a total floor space of 1,160,000 square feet which will be erected on this terrain. The estimated costs of the industrial buildings, parking space for aircraft, hard surfaces and fencing are estimated at R7,600,000, whilst various types of equipment at an estimated cost of R16,900,000 will initially be needed.

A suitable piece of land at Kempton Park has already been set aside for a housing scheme which the company will establish at an estimated cost of R11,000,000 for personnel who will have to be employed by the industry and who do not have their own housing available within easy reach of the industry’s premises.

I wish to express the hope that this industry will one day be just as useful to our country as is the case in regard to Iscor, although private initiative, other than in the case of Iscor, will play such a large role in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, I know this matter cannot be discussed now, but I should like to say that I hope the Government will follow the customary practice in this House of informing the Opposition when Ministers are making statements.

In the absence of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), I beg to move the amendment standing in her name—

The word has been omitted because it is not felt that it gives rise to considerable danger, although we do admit that it can be a real danger under certain circumstances. It is really a danger when it is radio-active. Then of course it is highly dangerous but in such cases it falls under the Atomic Energy Act. It is therefore not necessary to deal with it here. Nevertheless, I am quite prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In doing so, I want to emphasize the fact that throughout the discussions in the second-reading debate it became quite clear that this Bill had been framed and would be implemented on the basis of co-operation, and I believe that on that basis of co-operation, the amendment standing in my name will assist. We have already detailed in the Bill the conditions concerning the appointment of inspectors and their qualifications, and we have the provision that they will be provided with a certificate of appointment. We also know that this certificate of appointment could be withdrawn. I believe that under those circumstances it is important in the interests of the smooth functioning of this Bill to have provision for an inspector to present his certificate of appointment prior to conducting an inspection. I look upon it purely from the human angle. If I were visited by an inspector who told me that he wished to inspect my premises, I would feel a little diffident in asking him for his authority, on the basis that it could immediately create a sense of antagonism in his mind. He might think that I was querying his bona fides. I believe this is a small amendment to which the Minister should give sympathetic consideration in order to allay any possibility of ill-feeling in the implementation of this Act. I would go further and say that the Minister has accepted this principle because Clause 23 (3) refers to “any person who fails to give or refuses admission for a person so authorized after the production by that person of the certificate issued to him under sub-section (2)”. Therefore I have pleasure in moving that amendment.

There is another slight amendment to this particular clause which I should like to move—

As the clause stands at present, it reads that anyone who obstructs or interferes with the chief officer will be committing an offence. Here again, in the interest of the smooth working of the Act I think it would be desirable to insert the word “wilfully”, because I believe there could be an occasion, when an inspection is being carried out, where the person in charge of the organization may have delegated his powers to someone beneath him, who is not fully aware of the functioning of the organization, and in carrying out his duties to the best of his ability he could well be considered to be obstructing the duties of the inspector, I am sure that in those circumstances it would have been done unwittingly and not wilfully. I therefore suggest that the addition of the word “wilfully” is desirable and I therefore move accordingly.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The word “power” does not seem to apply in this phrasing. Normally one would expect it to read “refuses or fails to answer to the best of his ability …” The word “power” may lead to all sorts of things. I do not know what it means, whether it is a reference to powers that may have been granted to him or delegated to him. Perhaps the Minister could explain, but at the moment it seems that the word is not correctly used. For that reason I want the word “power” changed to “ability” in lines one and five.

I fully understand the problem which the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) has raised and I think that we will prevent a misunderstanding if I accept his first amendment.

I also appreciate the problem of the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) although I do not think that his amendment is necessary. The English word “power” and the Afrikaans word “vermoë” mean the same thing, although I do agree with him that the word “ability” is a better word in English and so I am quite willing to accept his amendment.

I am unfortunately in rather a difficult position in regard to the second amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea). The specific provision is to the effect that anyone who obstructs or interferes with the chief officer in the execution of his duties, commits an offence. It is difficult to imagine how anyone can “obstruct or interfere” if it is not done deliberately. I have discussed the matter with the law advisers and they are in agreement with me. They say that it is quite unnecessary to insert the word “wilfully” here and, in fact, its insertion may even lead to misunderstanding. I hope that the hon. member will not resent the fact that, for this reason, I am unable to accept his second amendment.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Wood and amendments proposed by Mr. Miller put and agreed to and remaining amendments proposed by Mr. Wood put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I would like to move an amendment to Clause 18 in view of the reply the Minister gave me yesterday, as it seemed to me that the reply he gave did not meet my requirements at all. My suggestion was that the Bill should deal with internal as well as external smog. The reply the Minister gave that this could be dealt with as a matter of health and that proper ventilation is required as a health matter in all public buildings. Now I maintain that that does not meet the situation at all, as was found in many countries of the world where special provision is made for dealing with smoking in public places. It seems to me that what is needed here is the following amendment—

1. (a) prohibiting the smoking of tobacco in or upon any premises to which the public, or sections of the public, have access;.

It does not mean that I am asking that this should necessarily be done, but while we are passing a Bill to deal with atmospheric pollution I feel that power should specifically be taken to deal with this as a matter of atmospheric pollution, quite distinct from the question of ordinary ventilation, which is not sufficient to deal with the matter. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) especially drew attention to the fact that people can do without food for five weeks and without water for five days, but they cannot do without air for five minutes, and yet people sit for hours and hours in these public places breathing in polluted atmosphere to the detriment of their health. I can bring many quotations to show that the pollution of air by tobacco is a greater menace than is generally realized, and I feel that the reply the Minister gave to me in the second reading also indicates that he did not deal in any way with the authentic figures of the C.S.I.R. which I produced, and the quotation I gave was from the officer of the C.S.I.R. who was appointed to investigate atmospheric pollution. The Minister gave me no reply to those figures, but I feel that in those figures is the answer to the problems raised by the Minister himself. It is a question of proportion here, and I maintain that those figures give one a sense of proportion if they are properly studied. The figures I quoted were the deaths from lung cancer per 100,000, which are eight in rural areas for non-smokers. But in the five major cities it rises to 19, an increase of 11. The average person may jump to the conclusion that those extra deaths are necessarily due to smog, but I maintain that that is not so. I must continue with these figures to give a true sense of proportion in regard to the whole situation. In those same cities where the people all breathe the same atmosphere, the medium smokers, who smoke from 25 to 45 cigarettes a day, die from lung cancer at the rate of 100 per 100,000, and for the heavier smokers, who smoke over 50 cigarettes, the figure is 180 deaths from lung cancer. I maintain that this should give us a better perspective. The Minister’s Bill as it stands now is presumably aimed at dealing with the 19 deaths, i.e. the non-smokers who die of lung cancer in the cities, presumably from smog. But this Bill does nothing whatever to deal with the 180 heavy smokers breathing the same air who die of lung cancer. It can be assumed that because 19 non-smokers die of lung cancer in the cities therefore it is due to smog. But I gave quotations in the second reading from world authorities, particularly from the Royal College of Physicians’ official report, which showed that in countries like Finland, where there is no smog, they have one of the highest death-rates from lung cancer in the world. Switzerland is also mentioned as having one of the highest death rates in the world, while there is no smog. But I want specially to quote an English Ministry of Health report concerning the island of Jersey, which says—

The reason why I move my amendment is that I want to put forward the proposition advanced by Dr. McCurdy, one of the great authorities in Britain, that the reason for the increase in the cities over the country areas of lung cancer in non-smokers is not due to smog at all. This report shows that those who work in the cities, in the streets, like traffic cops and others, show no higher incidence of lung cancer than non-smokers and others in the same area. He maintains that the difference is because of the heavy congestion of population in public places like cinemas, cafes, hotels and public transport, where people are breathing in other people’s smoke. That is sufficient to counter the reason why there are more non-smokers who get lung cancer in the cities than in the towns. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) yesterday dragged the debate down to the dogs, literally and metaphorically. [Laughter.] I do not think there could be a better illustration of my point than the one he mentioned. He spoke about dogs. I suppose he does not mean the sheep-dogs in the country areas because they do not breathe in the smog of the cities. I presume he meant the city does. Where do you find dogs in the cities? They have all been wiped out by the traffic. The dogs in the cities are in the flats, the lap-dogs. They live in the flats day and night breathing in the tobacco smoke of their owners. Therefore I say that that is a conclusive point to show that the illustration used by my hon. friend is clear proof that even the dogs as well as the human beings need protection from this tobacco smoke in enclosed places in the cities.

I wish to move the following amendment—

In terms of this Act occasions must arise where powerful and rich industries will perhaps be faced with expenditure in removing such nuisances, and from their point of view it might be cheaper for them to continue to pay fines from time to time rather than to incur this expenditure. Therefore I think the punishment for a second offence should be much larger than is allowed for here, thus it can become so heavy that even an extremely wealthy company would hesitate before continuing to commit the offence.

I accept the last amendment because I realize that it is necessary in order to ensure that large industries do not break the law. But I hope that the hon. member will not mind if I change the wording of his amendment slightly so as to comply with the wishes of the law advisers. I take it therefore that the hon. member will be quite satisfied if the amendment is worded in the way recommended by the law advisers. Let me read it to him—

I accept that.

Unfortunately, the point raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) is not covered by the provisions of this Bill at all because this Bill deals with “atmospheric pollution”. This Bill deals with the outside atmosphere as such. The point raised by the hon. member is a problem which requires considerable research and thorough discussion in this House. It would not be right to insert a provision regarding indoor control into legislation which is actually intended to cover the outside atmosphere as such. For this reason I do not think that it would be right for the views of the hon. member to be incorporated in this Bill and am therefore unable to accept his amendment.

With leave, amendments proposed by Dr. Radford withdrawn.

I now move—

Sir, I have listened with great interest to what the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) has said and I am very struck by it. I made a very, very serious contribution to this debate and I do not think it should be treated as a joke at all. You see, Sir, I spoke three times of dogs in my speech and I am wondering to which of these he is referring. I only came into the debate because it struck me that if we followed the hon. member’s dogmatic advice about giving up smoking your wife would not get scabies and your dog would not get rabies and your cook would not get babies. That was my first reference to the dog. My second reference to the dog was of course …

Of course, that is not a joke.

Oh no, it is most serious. I then referred to Professor Ressang’s statement, who after all is said and done is the professor of pathology at the Veterinary Institute at Utrecht, a very erudite man. He definitely stated that dogs now had cancer of the lungs in large numbers, and that the increase had taken place in only a few short years: 1951 to 1956, and there was a great increase since.

I accept that.

I am glad you accept it. Unfortunately the dogs also have to accept it. But the point is that here is a serious statement by a professor who says that lung cancer in dogs has increased tremendously in five years. I think the hon. member will admit that the canine addicts to cigarette smoking are in the minority, and therefore one would think that there must be some cause for it. Now I am a wool farmer but I was not talking about sheep dogs, as the hon. member suggested, but about the dogs in the cities. Will the hon. member explain to me how it is that dogs get more lung cancer in the cities; is air pollution not possibly a cause and due to diesel fumes and smog generally?

Amendment proposed by Mr. Field put and negatived and amendments proposed by Dr. Radford put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker)—

Sir, there are very few cases indeed where expenditure by a local authority becomes a first charge on land, virtually in preference to all other creditors of the owner of that particular land. It applies mainly in those cases where rates are overdue or to charges for services provided by a municipality under the authority of the relevant empowering ordinance. But here we have a problem in that a mortgage-holder may find himself in this difficulty that where the repairs to be done are extensive, he might well suddenly find that the preferential rights enjoyed by him are seriously impaired by the costs in which the owner of the land would be involved. I think therefore that it is as well that the mortgagee should at least be advised of the notice which is served to effect these changes because he might well—it is not unusual in these cases—provide the necessary funds in order to protect his own rights and to ensure that the liability remains under the preference of his mortgage bond and secondly so that he will know exactly to what extent his rights could be prejudiced should he not be prepared to assist.

The other point that arises here is that the notice may be served either on an owner or an occupier, and it is suggested in the amendment that it should be served on both the owner and the occupier, because the occupier may be faced with certain demands, the owner may be completely unaware of that fact, the occupier may then decide to let the matter go by default, the municipality will carry out the repairs and the occupier may allow his business just to deteriorate and may decide not to carry on because he cannot meet the expense. On the other hand he might be very happy indeed to allow the thing to go by default so that the expense can be incurred at the cost of the owner. The occupier would then be in the advantageous position that he can carry on with the business and the liability falls on the owner because any expenses incurred by the municipality would be a first charge on the land. Therefore I think it is important, in order to keep everyone in the picture, that both the owner and the occupier should be given notice and, in addition, that the holder of the mortgage should also be given written notice. The proposed amendment provides that after a period of a month has expired from the date of the conviction of a person of any offence, for failing to carry out the injunction upon him, and written notice of a period of at least 14 days has been given to the holder of a mortgage, then the local authority may carry out the changes and it will then have a preferent claim for the refund as a charge against the land itself. With the acceptance of these amendments there will be a caveat to all those who are interested, and I do not think it would in any way detract from the object which is sought to be brought about by the clause. It is obviously necessary that there must be some form of penalty in order to enable the changes that have to be made, to be made, in order to give effect to the principle of the Bill which is to guard against air pollution. I think this is a very reasonable amendment. It does not in any way detract from the value of the clause; it does not interfere with the objective of the clause and at the same time it gives everyone sufficient and full notice of what is involved and it gives all interested parties an opportunity, if they wish to do so, to take the necessary steps to protect themselves.

I fully understand the hon. member’s motive; in reality he wants to protect the mortgagee. We share a common purpose with him in this regard; we also want to ensure that mortgagees are not treated unfairly. It is simply a question of whether the hon. member will not perhaps be doing the mortgagee a disservice in this regard. Let me explain the provisions of this clause. At the moment it is the city council which gives notice to the effect that a nuisance must be combated. In the first place, therefore, we are dealing with a body of high standing; it is not a body which is there to make money but is there in the interests of the community. The clause has been worded in such a way that notice can be served on either the owner or the occupier. The reason why it has been worded in this way is this: Let us imagine for example that the occupier uses coal which gives off a great deal of smoke; the city council will then instruct not the owner but the occupier not to use that type of coal in future. If there is any defect in the building, in the chimney or the stove, the city council will give notice not to the occupier but to the owner who then has to make the necessary alterations. Unfortunately, the amendment proposed by the hon. member makes it even more difficult for the owner, for the occupier and for the mortgagee, because this is what will happen: The city council will not say: “I choose you, the owner,” or “I choose you, the occupier”; the city council will now choose all three. It will serve a notice on the owner, the occupier and the mortgagee and which of these is going to repair the stove or whatever it is that needs repair? There are three parties and one will be waiting for the other one to do the work. If the one pays, how does he know that he will be reimbursed by the other? No provision is made in the clause in this regard nor is there any provision in this regard in the amendment moved by the hon. member. One will be creating a great problem by this means. That is not all. I want to point out to the hon. member that the mortgagee is actually in no danger because any repair to a stove or a chimney will not lower the value of the land but increase it. I do not think therefore that the hon. member need be concerned about the mortgagee. In the second place I think that his amendment may create a great deal of confusion. No one will know who is responsible and in the long run the matter will simply be aggravated.

I appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said. The difficulty is that, as our mortgage bonds are worded in this country, when where rates are due, for instance, the local authority having a priority claim in respect of those rates, over and above the mortgage holder in so far as the land is concerned, the bond contains a covering clause which covers the bondholder in a certain sum, which is usually R400 to R1,000, depending on the value of the land. In the event of the owner of the land falling into arrear with the payment of rates, it enables the bondholder to pay the rates himself when he becomes aware of the fact that the rates are in arrear and any money advanced by him for that purpose is covered under the bond. I do appreciate the first point made by the hon. the Minister with regard to the question of giving both parties notice. He may well be right and it may be confusing to both parties. Obviously in practice one would give notice to the individual who is responsible. I agree that there is no point in telling the owner to do something which the occupier should do, and the Minister is right in saying that if the work is carried out by the local authority, then obviously the value of the building will improve as far as its use for that particular purpose is concerned. But in the case of the bondholder the position is slightly different. Assuming that the cost of the improvement to avoid noxious fumes or gases is in the region of RX,000, then it might be just sufficient to tip the scales with the result that the price reached for that property at a forced sale is insufficient to cover the bond, if the expenditure involved in removing the nuisance has to be deducted first. I think therefore the bondholder has a case. We on this side of the House have been in touch with the Association of Building Societies in order to ascertain their view, to see how they react to this clause, and they also feel that mortgagees should be given notice as they will try to force owners and to give further advances to cover the cost and also because the creation of a preferent claim, which may be for a large sum, will cause loss and prejudice.” I am reading this from a telex received from the Association of Building Societies. I do not think it would be confusing to the person responsible if the holder of a mortgage were to be given notice. It may well be that the amendment could be reworded and if the hon. the Minister is sympathetically disposed towards this reasoning, particularly as far as the bondholder is concerned, the one person who is involved because he has a preference, over and above the costs provided on insolvency, for payment in respect of that particular asset: that is his security; then I would suggest that he might perhaps ask his legal draftsman to redraft the clause; the Minister can then move an amendment in the Other Place. I shall then be perfectly satisfied, but I do think that this is a case where the bondholder who is the one person directly involved and who could be prejudiced should at least be given some opportunity to do what he would normally do with regard to any charge which the municipality is at present allowed to levy as a first charge upon the land. I think the Minister’s own departmental law advisers will advise him that every mortgage bond in this country today contains a special covering clause to cover the moneys involved where the local authority has a preference claim. For that reason, while I do not want to press the earlier amendment because there may be merit in what the hon. the Minister said, in respect of the mortgage holder, however, I would like to press the latter amendment. Here it is not a question of creating confusion; it is a question of enabling the mortgage holder to endeavour to avoid any prejudice to the security held by him.

I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to re-consider this amendment. I support the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) because it is not only the building societies which are involved in this. There are many small businesses manufacturing on a small scale in some of our smaller cities. The manufacturer owns the land as well as the building, and somebody other than a building-society may have advanced money to him on a first bond to run his business, or even to set up his business, and I think it is going to make it much more difficult for many of these small people to obtain their money on first bond on their land if you take away the bondholder’s rights, or give him insufficient cover by not giving him sufficient notice, so that he can take the necessary steps to protect his own rights. Because as the hon. member for Florida has pointed out, if the local authority steps in and carries out expensive repairs to those buildings, or enforces expensive repairs to machinery or buildings, the total amount of the bill may be more than that business can stand; the man may go insolvent, and then the bondholder may be the loser to a considerable extent, and unless he is given the right to protect himself in time I think it would be very unfortunate.

From the nature of the case one is of course very sympathetically disposed towards the idea expressed by the hon. member. I do not think that any of us would like to see the bondholder detrimentally affected in any way. The question is simply whether we are doing the bondholder any good. Let me analyze the position: Let us imagine for the moment that the stove or the chimney of that building has to be repaired in order to prevent air pollution; it may be that the owner has to pay for those repairs. Let us imagine that the owner pays all the costs, in which case the mortgagee will not be worse off because the value of that land or that building will have increased. Imagine, for example, that the owner pays only a portion of the costs of repair; that a portion of those costs is eventually borne by the bondholder and that the owner goes bankrupt. The bondholder will then be no worse off because whether the owner had money or not. those repairs had in any case to be done. So the bondholder is not detrimentally affected. Let us take a third alternative. It happens when a city council gives notice to an owner to effect certain repairs and the owner refuses or neglects to do that work, that the city council itself makes those repairs. The city council then claims the cost of those repairs from the owner. But if it does claim that money from the owner, the bondholder can only score thereby because the value of the property has been increased. Let us imagine that the owner has nothing except the land. Those repairs must be effected. Eventually, therefore, if the bondholder has to pay that money, he receives the benefit of the increase in the value of the building as a result of the work done by the municipality. I do not see any possibility therefore that the bondholder can be detrimentally affected. But in order to satisfy the hon. member, after I had seen his amendment on the Order Paper I discussed it carefully with the law advisers. They agree with me that they see no danger to the bondholder in these provisions. The hon. member need therefore not be concerned in this regard.

Amendments put and negatived. (Official Opposition dissenting)

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

I should like to move a small amendment here—

This is merely to give an owner the opportunity to make improvements. Instead of six months he will now have a period of nine months in which to make these improvements.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In line 20, after “who” to insert “wilfully”.

I do not wish to reiterate the arguments which I advanced in the discussion on the same amendment in Clause 7. I trust that the hon. Minister will accept this amendment.

I am unable to accept the amendment as it is similar in substance to an amendment previously negatived by the Committee.

On Clause 24,

I should like to move an amendment here to widen the scope of these provisions and to enable us to have better control over atmospheric pollution. I move—

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 33,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

In a previous discussion on Clause 7 with regard to noxious and offensive gases, the hon. the Minister was prepared to accept a similar amendment. The object of this amendment is to make provision for any inspector to be called upon to present his certificate prior to making an inspection.

I am quite prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 40,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

Here again we have the same principle which the Minister has already accepted. This particular amendment will deal with the clause referring to vehicles and local authorities.

I have no objection to the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 43,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

In line 39, to omit “enter upon any” and to substitute “upon production by such person, to the person in charge of any land, of a certificate referred to in sub-section (3), enter upon such” and to add the following as sub-sections at the end of the Clause:

1. (2) Any such person entering upon land shall on demand by the person in charge of the land produce the certificate issued to him under sub-section (2) of Section 34.
2. (3) Any person who has been authorized under sub-section (1) shall be provided with a certificate signed by the chief officer or an official designated by the local authority, as the case may be, and indicating that such person has been so authorized.

The same set of circumstances applies here. Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 44,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This whole Bill has been framed on the basis of consultation and co-operation, and this particular committee which the Minister has appointed, the details of which were supplied earlier, will be appointed by the Minister himself. It is obvious therefore that the Minister will have full confidence in the committee appointed by him, and I suggest that in the interests of the smooth working of this whole Bill when it becomes an Act, it is desirable for the committee itself to be consulted in the matter of the framing of regulations. The functions of the committee are quite clearly set out in Clause 3(a), which says—

On that basis I believe that it is only just that this function should include consultation with regard to the framing of regulations. Sir, the Minister has a precedent in this regard; during his term of office as Minister of Health he will have become aware of the provision which exists in Act No. 13 of 1928, the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, where it is laid down that the Minister after consulting the Council and the Board may make regulations. It is on this basis that I put forward the amendment.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Where in terms of the old law it was merely the duty of a local authority to provide certain facilities it is now going to be required to do so. Flowing from that, may I ask the hon. the Minister, whether he would care to indicate whether he has any steps in mind as far as local authorities are concerned in three matters. These matters flow from the obligation on the part of the local authority to carry out the law. Number one is in regard to staff. Some years ago the subsidies were fixed at 7/8ths. Municipalities are having terrific competition, the one with the other, in getting competent public health staff, so much so, that if the one local authority offers more money than another the subsidy does not follow on the increase.

Point two is whether the hon. the Minister has in mind to make facilities available so that local authorities will be able to train Coloured and African workers to work in the Coloured and African villages attached to local authorities? My third point is that I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the State of the isolation hospitals in many of the smaller towns on the platteland where these people are treated. Would the Minister make some statement as to his intentions regarding the improvement of conditions in those isolation hospitals which are very unsatisfactory at the present moment.

This of course is simply a technical amendment. As I have explained, it simply means that where a duty is imposed upon a local authority to take action and to spend money in order to carry out its duty, it will also be authorized to perform that duty. So the point which the hon. member has raised falls completely beyond the scope of this clause.

Competition between local authorities, the training of workers and the building of clinics are all matters which are not covered by this clause. It is possible that city councils will now have the power to spend money on things of this nature. But apart from the general authorization, no specific duty is imposed as far as this clause is concerned.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I wish to move the following amendment—

This amendment is intended simply to clarify the meaning of the clause.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I wish to move the following amendment—

I said yesterday that I felt that the hon. the Minister should, in consultation with the Medical Association of South Africa, lay down standards in regard to the equipment in consulting rooms. These would be laid down by way of regulation. I realize that the South African Medical and Dental Council is the statutory body which was brought into being to serve as a liaison between the Government and the medical profession. That is why I am suggesting in my amendment that this consultation should take place with the South African Medical and Dental Council. I feel that the Medical Council should have a say in determining the standards which are required to be maintained in consulting rooms and in clinics where doctors practice surgery, particularly as penalties will be prescribed in the event of non-compliance with the prescribed standards. The Medical Council has always been regarded as the body which exercises control over the medical profession. When in the past a doctor was accused of misconduct or of an offence against any of the regulations, the Medical Council always had the right, in spite of what the court decided, to take acton and to discipline such a doctor. I feel therefore that it is vitally important that the regulations should be laid down in consultation with the South African Medical and Dental Council so that they will also be responsible for the putting into practice of the regulations. That is why I feel that the correct procedure is to recognize the Medical Council in this clause.

I wish to move as an amendment—

The South African Medical Association is not the correct term; the correct term should be the Medical Association of South Africa.

The most important thing is that there should be consultation with some technical body, some body which can give technical advice to the Department of Health. It is obvious that the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) thinks it should be the Medical Council. I feel it would be better if it were in consultation with the Association. This inspection may perhaps have to be undertaken in many parts of the country. It may perhaps have to be undertaken in country districts, the Bantu areas and in the larger cities. Different requisites will be necessary for different areas. It would therefore be impossible for the Medical Council to lay down standard equipment for the guidance and help of the Department of Health. On the other hand, the Department of Health itself could not act, I think, without having consultation with some other body. It must consult with some body which is concerned with the practising doctor. Therefore if it is to be the Medical Council it would mean that wherever the Department has to act it will have to inform the Medical Council and ask them to find out what the particular requirements are for the particular area concerned. To do this the Medical Council will probably be put to some expense to send one of its members to that area. A remote area perhaps where it does not happen to have a member. On the other hand there is no area of the country which is not covered by some branch of the Medical Association. The Medical Council—I can speak as a member of that Council—rarely acts in this type of case without the advice of the Medical Association. It always consults the Medical Association because it receives from that Association responsible advice on local conditions. As a member of the Medical Council I can assure the hon. member for Geduld and the hon. the Minister that I believe, in actual working, it would be simpler and wiser to consult the Medical Association. There is a branch of the Medical Association in every area of the country.

As regards the second leg of my amendment the hon. the Minister will probably agree that it is an improvement to use the word “and” instead of “or”. Because they will be doing that in any case.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view adopted by both hon. members. I just want to ask the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) whether he will not be willing to amend his amendment by substituting the words “after consultation” for the words “in consultation”. It would be a great pity, and perhaps not quite the right thing to do, to say that the State may not do anything until it has obtained the permission of a private or subordinate body. That is exactly what “in consultation” means. When one says “in consultation” it means that the Medical Council may decide. This is not in conformity with the prestige of a State. I know that what the hon. member wants is in all respects the case because the Government or the Department is not given to taking action without the advice of the body which has been set up specially to promote the interests of medicine in South Africa. I do not think that this will detract at all from what the hon. member has in mind; it will simply be in conformity with the general principles of our laws and also with the status of the State as against that of a body subordinate to the State.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) pointed out that it is the Medical Association which in the long run is often consulted by the Medical Council. It is therefore hardly necessary to bring the Medical Association into the picture at all. The Medical Council is a body which has been specially established by the State. It was not set up as a trade union. It was not set up as a body to protect the private interests of certain persons. It was established as a body consisting of the leading doctors in our country, of whom the hon. member for Durban (Central) is one, as well as other eminent personages. They decide quite impartially in regard to matters concerning the interests of the country, not the interests of the medical profession. In the long run, my profession and your profession are secondary considerations; what counts first are the interests of the country. That is how all of us regard this matter. It is important that we consult a body which has been set up to protect the interests of the country as a whole. We know that the advice which it gives and the decisions which it takes are impartial. It would be wrong to approach practising doctors, people who sometimes exceed the rules of society, and ask them to decide what has to be done. They are the people whose consulting rooms are now under discussion. They are the ones who are sometimes regarded by the Medical Council to be persons who offend as far as their consulting rooms are concerned in the sense that their consulting rooms do not always comply fully with modern requirements. That is why I hope that the hon. member for Durban (Central) will not insist on his amendment. Our legislation is of a very high standard to-day. No one has any doubt in this regard. The status of the medical profession is an exalted one and it is so because there is a Medical Council which protects it. It would be wrong to demand that the Medical Association, that is to say, the medical profession, should be recognized in this. This would immediately create a doubt on the part of the public. I hope that the hon. member will realize that we should rather consult the Medical Council.

With leave, amendment proposed by Dr. Jurgens withdrawn.

I now move—

As a layman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell me what exactly is meant in sub-section (a) by “other facilities”. Three lines lower down it talks about “intends to carry on any surgical activities”. I have been round the Cape Province considerably lately, and I have been rather surprised at the condition of the consulting rooms in which Coloured people are obliged to wait for the doctors, especially for the district surgeons. In many cases there are no consulting rooms at all. These people sit outside under the seringa tree, in all weathers, and even on the sidewalks. I would just like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether this clause will take care of that type of thing and that there will be instructions, especially to district surgeons, to provide facilities so that these people may receive treatment befitting the disease they may be suffering from and for which they have to be treated. I have read this Bill very carefully but I do not see what these “other facilities” can mean other than the accommodation in which the doctor is going to consult these people and treat them.

I think one has to draw a distinction between the waiting room and the actual consulting room. The waiting room is the place where people wait or sit and chat and read until it is time for them to consult the doctor. This Bill is not intended to provide for waiting rooms. It refers to the consulting rooms themselves, the consulting rooms where patients consult their doctors and where they are treated. Hon. members will know that it is very important that these consulting rooms should be kept hygienically clean in order to ensure that the rooms are as germfree as possible when minor operations are done. This is one of the reasons why this clause has been inserted. It will, for example, cover the instruments used by the doctor and the way in which those instruments are sterilized. There is also the question of the chair or couch on which the patient has to sit or lie. We want to ensure all these items comply with the highest requirements of cleanliness. That is actually the intention of this clause.

I am not going to insist on it being the Medical Association as opposed to the Medical Council. I can well appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said and the way his Department will work in practice. If both methods will work I think mine is a little more convenient. His is perhaps one which will boost the dignity of the Medical Council and uphold the dignity of his own Department. So I am quite prepared to accept his decision in this matter without any further remarks.

The hon. the Minister has not told us whether he accepts the latter part of my amendment.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. English is one of those difficult languages in which one may say one thing and yet mean something else. In this case the word “or” really means “and”. I can quite understand that there may be people who are doubtful in this regard and for this reason I am quite prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Jurgens put and agreed to, first amendment proposed by Dr. Radford put and negatived and remaining amendment proposed by Dr. Radford put and agreed to.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I wish to move the following amendment—

I am moving the deletion of this sub-section because its provisions are redundant.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

When business was interrupted last night I was dealing with the objection of the Opposition to Clause 8. I indicated that the principle of simply giving notice to persons who are in arrears, or of taking action by evicting people from a house, was incorporated in the Housing Act of 1920. This was done by the South African Party Government of the time, the predecessor of the present Opposition. I indicated further that the alternative of a court case no longer appeared necessary because persons did not make use of court procedure to defend themselves and that, because it was not resorted to, the court procedure fell into disuse and was therefore deleted by the amending Bill of 1957.

I contend that a person can still make use of court procedure in these cases if he deems it necessary because the operative words in Clause 8 are—

In other words, there has first to be a decision of the board before any steps can be taken against such person. Once such decision has been arrived at, such person can always make representations to the board stating the facts of the case. Even if the board takes no notice of his representations, he will be entitled to apply to the court to have the decision of the board declared invalid. So to contend that the court is now being excluded and that we are going over the court’s head, is wrong. This was actually the parrot-cry of the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) last night when he said that we are again interfering with the rights of the courts. But his speech did not constitute a contribution towards this debate at all. I am convinced that the hon. member simply read the speech made by Mrs. Bertha Solomon in 1957, repeated a few of the sentences from that speech and thought that in this way he was doing something constructive. I think the then hon. member for Jeppes made a far better contribution at that time than did the hon. member for Florida last night.

Before I deal with the other objections of the Opposition I want to make a few remarks in regard to the actual aims of this measure. The actual aims of this measure are to bring about greater co-ordination and to give the force of law—I want to emphasize this point—to the composition and the functions of the Department of Community Development. We have up to the present had practical or actual experience of the state of affairs under which the Department functions at the moment but this legislation gives the force of law to those actions. The aim is not, as is alleged by the Opposition, to give the Minister greater powers. I shall return to this point later. In his speech the hon. the Minister stated that the idea of community development has gained more and more ground throughout the world over recent years. The idea of promoting the social, economic and cultural position of communities by means of a greater coordination and co-operation between those communities and their authorities is a comparatively new one which has actually only been put into practice over the past decade. This does not mean to say that various Departments have not been performing and implementing some of those functions for some time now. This co-operation did not exist in many countries, including this country. Certain Government Departments were responsible for various functions and all of these functions are now being co-ordinated under one Department. For example, since 1920, housing has been the task of the National Housing Commission in terms of the Housing Act. The same thing holds good for the clearing of slums under the Slums Act. This has been the position since 1934. The laying out of Government villages has been taking place since 1950. All these functions are all now being incorporated under the modern idea of community development. We have been doing these things for some time now though in an unco-ordinated fashion but they are now all being co-ordinated by the establishment of the Department of Community Development. I want to emphasize the fact that what is new—this is what the hon. the Minister said—is the establishment of a separate department to perform these functions in a co-ordinated fashion; in other words, the legislation for community development in South Africa does exist to a very large extent but a new administrative organ is now being established to co-ordinate and give effect to all those functions. I say this because the Opposition have tried to make capital out of the suggestion that a new principle is not being introduced by this measure and that the measure is simply a combination of existing laws; that it is in fact the Group Areas Act but simply in another form. No, Sir, that is not true. This measure streamlines the existing laws and their provisions and includes new functions which are part of the modern idea of community development.

This brings me to the accusations of hon. members opposite in regard to the Group Areas Act. I want to emphasize the fact that we in South Africa have a traditional way of life and that if within that framework of South Africa’s many race and population groups who do not live together as one community, each of which has its own culture and is governed by its own economic circumstances on different social bases, each of which lives its separate life in terms of its own development, there is a Department of Community Development which does not have regard to that pattern, it would not only be unthinkable but it would be senseless. It is therefore self-evident that in his announcement of the establishment of the Department of Community Development the hon. the Prime Minister emphasized this aspect of the matter when he stated (translation)—

He therefore emphasized two aspects, firstly, settlement of the population groups, and, secondly, housing of the population groups. These are the two most important tasks of the Department of Community Development. Housing is provided for under the Housing Act and it is obvious that the administration of this matter must be entrusted to Community Development. Within the framework of South Africa’s pattern of life the settlement of population groups which is given effect to in terms of the Group Areas Act must obviously also be entrusted to the Department of Community Development as far as the administration of this matter is concerned.

The hon. the Minister indicated in his speech that the scope and aims of the Department of Community Development are far wider than the functions of the two bodies which were brought into being under the other legislation. That is why it is necessary to streamline that legislation in order to adapt it to the present state of affairs. This legislation therefore gives stature and force to that increased scope and those wider aims of the Department of Community Development. Because this is the case, is there any sense or substance in the criticism of the Opposition that this measure is simply designed to give wider powers to the Minister—even to give him unlimited powers? I have made a careful study of the measure and I find that in the cases where powers are given to the Minister, he already has those powers under the existing Group Areas Development Act or has similar powers under the existing Housing Act. Is it right to say that this measure now gives the Minister Draconian powers? The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) referred to Clause 5, of the Bill, page 6. He referred to paragraph (d) of this clause which provides—

He then asked what consultation with the Administrator or with the local authority meant. He said it meant nothing. He said: “The words ‘with the approval of the Minister’ ring right through this Bill.” I want to tell the hon. member that we find these words “with the approval of the Minister” in this Bill because they are already there in existing legislation. They are contained in the Housing Act, they are contained in the Group Areas Act. Nothing new is being given effect to here. This is part of the past. Let us take this clause. The hon. member quoted paragraph (d) but this paragraph (d) is to be found, word for word just as it appears here, in the existing Group Areas Development Act. The only change as far as this sub-section is concerned—the hon. member criticized this sub-section strongly yesterday—is that in this Bill it is paragraph (d) instead of paragraph (c).

No.

In dealing with paragraph (d) the hon. member also mentioned sub-paragraph (i)—“to sub-divide, lay out, plan and develop any land or any portion thereof belonging to the board”. He said that this legislation was now going right over the heads of the provinces. But that provision forms part of our existing legislation; it has been taken over word for word just as it is. The only change is that it is now paragraph (d) and no longer paragraph (c). That is the only change.

He did not discuss it.

He discussed it and quoted it.

What about the next clause?

I am talking about the paragraph which the hon. member discussed here. His criticism was based on this particular portion which I am dealing with now.

No.

He quoted it in full; the hon. member will find it in Hansard.

But what is even more strange is that this paragraph (d) was inserted in 1959. Did the hon. member for South Coast discuss this particular provision at the time? Yes, but he did not raise one of the objections then which he raised yesterday. He mentioned it in another connection, as I shall indicate just now, but he did not have all the objections which he raised yesterday. He accepted it. Is it true that the hon. the Minister is assuming Draconian powers? The only real new powers which are being given to the Minister by means of this legislation are contained in the new Section 12sex inserted by Clause 8. But here too I must point out that the principle involved already exists in the Housing Act and that there are two good reasons why these powers must be given to the Minister. The first is that these new powers which will now be given to the Minister have been approved by the United Municipal Executive. They approved and accepted this fact. There is another good reason and that is that the Minister administers both Acts, the Housing Act and the Group Areas Development Act. The position would be impossible if the Minister had powers under the one Act but did not have powers under the other Act even though he administers both Acts. Because the Minister administers both Acts, it would be stupid to give him powers under the one Act but to withhold them under the other Act although he administers both Acts for the same purpose of community development. There is also a third reason and that is that hon. members must remember that there are some local authorities who do not want to co-operate.

Which are they?

I do not want to mention names because some people who ask which they are have guilty consciences themselves. That is why I do not want to mention names. There are two reasons why local authorities may not wish to co-operate. One may be a parochial reason, that they are only interested in their own circumstances, or else there are party political considerations. The hon. member can choose between the two. Because I intended discussing this allegation that the hon. the Minister is seeking to assume Draconian powers, I took the opportunity to peruse the Hansard debates on the Group Areas Act and its amending Acts. This covers a period of 10 years. During this period the Act was amended on a number or occasions. The conclusion to which I came was that the Opposition should not be taken seriously. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister not to take the Opposition seriously because the Opposition itself is nothing but an organ-grinder. The Opposition have been able to grind out only one tune on that organ over a period of 10 years and that is that “Draconian” powers are given to Ministers. We have heard the same old story over and over again. I think that the hon. member for South Coast should find something different to discuss. I found that on two previous occasions he made the same speech which he made yesterday. I think that we must call him the “organ-grinder of the South Coast”. There may be someone who will throw him a copper or two if he grinds out that old tune again but there will certainly be no one to throw votes into his hat if he grinds out this type of speech again. It is time he thinks of something new. I want to tell the hon. member what the attitude of the people of South Africa is. It is: “Take the powers that you need and when you need them and get on with the good work.” The public want that work to be done; they no longer listen to that old tune of the “organ-grinder”. We have here a Minister who gets the work done. He is in a hurry, he has a dynamic personality and he gets things done. He takes the powers which he needs and he gets on with the job. If hon. members want to call them Draconian powers let them do so, but the country wants the work to be done. That is why I say that we have already won the coming provincial elections even though those elections have not yet taken place.

There is another allegation that is made—that the whole country will now become one group area. But the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act are laws which are intended for the whole country. Most of the areas in South Africa have already been demarcated and established in terms of those laws. But to say now that South Africa will become one group area is something I simply cannot understand. We have different population groups in the country and we must take this fact into account. Those laws were made not only for the Cape Peninsula but for the whole country. The Act must be administered for the whole country. We are dealing here with a department which has been set up to provide housing and to fulfill all the other functions of community development throughout the country.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has just delivered a very lengthy speech on this Bill and there are one or two points he made that I wish to dispute, and in particular the point that he made about this being a “modern” Bill. That was the whole basic theme of his speech, that we are dealing with modern legislation. I want to tell him that of course exactly the opposite is the case. This is not the modern trend throughout the Western World. The modern trend in community development is to iron out racial differences, not to try and promote racial differences by allocating government funds in order to see that separate building schemes are instituted by the authorities to keep the racial groups apart, to have public accommodation for the different races—this is not the modern trend at all.

The old refrain again.

It is the refrain of the civilized world and the hon. member should learn that and he should not try and mislead his supporters into believing that what South Africa does is accepted modern practice. The hon. member should look at the United States Civil Rights Act which makes specific provision about public funds being used for housing and public accommodation, and the modern version there is very different from the hon. member’s version. The modern version there is that no agent (that is any state body, or any urban body, any organization going in for urban renewal) will be allowed to spend one cent of government funds if that money is going to be used to discriminate in any way on a racial basis. That is the modern trend, and that is what I mean by community development. The hon. member of course has a completely different basic concept of community development; he is always thinking in terms of different racial communities.

The hon. member also made the point that whatever provisions are laid down in this Bill, there is nothing to prevent anybody who feels himself aggrieved by the Board’s decisions, to go to a court of law and contest that decision. I wonder whether the hon. member has the slightest idea how many thousands and thousands of Rand have been spent by communities that can ill-afford that money, in trying to re-assert their normal rights. The Indian community for instance has fought the Group Areas Act from its inception and from 1950 onwards it has spent thousands of Rand, scraped together from individuals, some of whom could afford it, because there are rich Indians in this country, especially those who have vested interests in businesses, but there are thousands upon thousands of Indians who cannot afford it, and they have spent this money in fighting the Group Areas Act every inch of the way.

Unnecessarily.

They fought the legislation because they did not wish to be forcibly removed from houses, residences and businesses which they had peacefully occupied as law-abiding citizens for decades in South Africa. Also they contributed, just as any other section of the community, towards building up South Africa.

But the hon. member said that the court’s jurisdiction is ousted.

The hon. member may be perfectly correct that the court’s jurisdiction is not ousted. My point is that there should never have been this sort of legislation which people have to contest. I am against the whole basic idea of this Bill. But the hon. member must not pacify his conscience, which is what he is trying to do, by telling us that simply because people can appeal to the courts, that means that the provisions of this legislation are all right. I admit that they would be worse if there would not be such appeal to the courts, for which we have example after example in the laws of our country. There is that saving grace, but it is a very scanty saving grace, as communities have discovered to their cost over the last 15 years. And the tragedy is that every time a loophole is discovered, all that happens is that of course that the Government comes back to this House and plugs the loophole. That is why in my career in this House I do not think we have had a single session—and that is 12 sessions—without the Minister (whoever the incumbent was at the time) coming back to this House with an amending piece of legislation—if not of the principal Act, then the Group Areas Development Act that was passed in 1955 and to which this will be, I think the fifth amending Bill. And no doubt next year there will be another Bill for the simple reason that this is one of the most unworkable parts of National Party policy. It is trying to unscramble a socio-economic situation that has existed in South Africa for generations, and amending legislation is going to find it very difficult to kraal off every racial group in South Africa in a neat little group area according to race, colour or creed, and that is what these Bills have been trying to do over the past 15 years.

I do not have to repeat that I am against the whole principle. I was against the principle of the original Act and the principle of the Group Areas Development Act, which was simply an offshoot of the principal Act. So it is hardly likely that I will find myself in agreement with an amending Bill which simply seeks to broaden the basis of Ministerial authority and the authority of a board which is after all his creature. So I must unequivocally oppose this measure, and like other members here I am not any happier by virtue of the fact that a more attractive name has now been given to this process of removing people and that instead of the “Group Areas Development Board” we now have the Community Development Board. Other members have pointed out, correctly, that one does not need a Group Areas Act or a Group Areas Development Act in order to clear slums. To try and ease our conscience by pretending that this is an easy way to clear slums, just simply does not make sense to me. There is no logic in it at all. We have a Slums Act which can be used for clearing slums. We do not need a Group Areas Development Act, or a Community Development Act in order to build houses either. We have got a Housing Act for that. But, and this has not been pointed out yet, what you do have to have in order to implement apartheid is a Group Areas Act and a Group Areas Development Act. That is the only reason why you need these Acts, not for slum clearance, not for housing, but for apartheid. And in fact when the original Act was introduced in 1950, the then Prime Minister made it quite clear that that was the case. There was no hiding behind pretty names in those days, no talk of “Community Development” or “urban renewal”. He said—

Order! The hon. member is covering too wide a field now.

I am sorry, Sir, I am simply trying to say that that was the basis and that therefore we have had these measures and that is why we are now facing this Bill which is continuing the process of apartheid, nothing else, not slum-clearance and not housing development. And wherever the Minister of the time found it necessary, additional powers had been taken and if the Government’s objective is to be reached, more and more powers are going to be taken.

The pattern that this Bill is introducing is no different from what we have had before. Always, in every case, where the hon. Minister sets about deciding on areas for community development, we are going to have the same pattern, always the best areas will be reserved for the Whites and the worst areas for the non-Whites; in 99 cases out of 100 it is the Coloured community that has to move, or the Indian community, to new areas in order “to develop their own culture, their own community spirit”. I have not forgotten the evidence given by one of the city councils on the East Rand, only last year, appearing before the Board—I think it was the City Council of Germiston, my home town—and saying to the Board that it required the Indians who have been living in Germiston for decades to remove themselves to an area outside the City Council’s boundaries because “it would help them to develop a community spirit”. An extremely excellent basis, I must say, for the wholesale uprooting of a community that had been living there for generations! But this was the excuse given, and this is how members in this House satisfy their conscience, as does the hon. member for Heilbron when he tells us that the object of this Bill is to help to develop the cultural aspirations of the communities. I want to tell the hon. member that one does not need legislation for that. If a racial group or a religious group wishes to develop its own cultural characteristics or maintain its own characteristic religion it does not require legislation to do so. If people want to maintain their cultural development, they do not need legislation, and if in fact they do need legislation, they have already lost their basic culture. We have seen how these measures were unsuccessful in this regard.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) told us last night how grateful in fact the communities were for having been moved, and he referred as one example to Meadow-lands. Of course strictly speaking that was not done under the Group Areas Act; it was a community development scheme, but under a different Act altogether. Other members have also cited the happy communities set up elsewhere, the fine houses that have been built and so on. Well I think hon. members should not take it upon themselves to decide whether a community is happy or not. They should make it their business to speak to South Africans of different racial groups, not to decide what those people are thinking. Because it is my contention that the average Member of Parliament, and the average White person in South Africa, never talks to any non-White except on the basis of master and servant, never.

You are talking rubbish.

The hon. Minister might have had some consultations; he may have sat round a table and discussed with his Coloured Council, the various members of his Coloured Board, what he thinks they should do. I am quite sure that most of them are too frightened to tell him what they really want him to do. But I am quite certain that the average member of this House has never discussed with an individual in a different racial group what he feels about the situation. I wonder whether the hon. member for Paarl has ever discussed with a non-White these problems, except on the master-servant basis? I wonder whether the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) really knows what the Africans who were moved from Sophiatown felt about it. They do not enjoy some of these clean little houses and boxes that have been built for them in Meadow-lands.

You tried to stop them.

Certainly, and correctly so, because you can clear slums without uprooting an entire community, and Westonaria was not removed for slum clearance purposes …

Order! This debate is now developing into a general discussion on slum clearance.

Sir, I was trying to reply to the hon. member for Paarl, but in any case as I was saying people do not need to be legislated into communities, to come back to my original point, and so in my opinion it is just a smoke-screen to have all this talk about urban renewal and community development and so on. May I now come back to the Bill itself.

Hear, hear!

Coming from that hon. member who never makes a speech at any time, whether it is on a Bill or not, that, I must say, really takes the cake. As far as I read the Bill, and if I am wrong, I hope the hon. Minister will correct me, the powers are now extended beyond group areas per se. In other words, the powers are unlimited, particularly in respect of what is known as an urban development scheme. Clause 5 which amends Section 12 (2) (e) makes this very clear. Any urban development scheme, even where, shall we say, Indians were living in an exempted area outside group areas where it looked as if they might continue to trade peacefully for quite a number of years, they now may have their land taken away from them, or their businesses, under some amorphous scheme of urban development, urban renewal. The power provided includes the right to prohibit building, alteration, or even the use of a building, outside a group area. Under 12 (5) (a) where an area is affected by the other section of 12, that is 2 (e), if the owner wants to sell, he can be forced to sell to the Board at a price fixed by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister. I should like to point out that most people who own a bit of property generally have their life’s savings invested in that property, and the little difference they receive for it over and above the bond, that is, according to what the Board or the arbitrator determines, is hardly going to compensate them for losing their life’s savings.

There is one, to some extent, saving grace in this Clause 5, and that is in Sec. 12 (2) (h). That is to some extent an improvement because that now allows, where we previously did not have it, compensation for goodwill, so from that point of view I am duly grateful that this is now being inserted. However, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will not consider making this retrospective because there are thousands of people who have been dispossessed under this Act in the past who did not get any compensation for goodwill. I think it would be the right thing to do to make this clause retrospective. The Government is very quick to make retrospective legislation which is to the detriment of individuals it would now be very nice if on this occasion the Minister would consider making this clause retrospective to allow people who were dispossessed under the Group Areas Act to claim compensation retrospectively.

How are they going to prove it now?

Well, people do keep records.

After ten years?

Well, they can put in a claim and if they can produce reasonable proof that they were making certain profits they can be allowed some compensation. Anything they get will be better than nothing. The point I am trying to make is that there was an unjust omission of compensation for goodwill for people who were running businesses. Sir, no White person would put up with this, to be kicked out of a business in which he had been earning his living for years, without compensation. Why should we expect non-Whites to be satisfied with that position? The Minister knows that people did not receive compensation in the past and therefore I am now asking that this clause should be made retrospective.

The other thing is that I agree with hon. members on this side who have expressed objections to this clause, although, as I say. I am glad that we are getting this improvement, and that is that the same facilities for three years’ profits should be taken for the business instead of just the preceding 12 months.

But it is 12 months before the proclamation.

Yes, but that might have been a particularly unfavourable 12 months for business. [Interjection.] It is not done in any other field. It is not being done when the Transkei Whites are to be compensated, and it would be nice to have a non-discriminatory basis: therefore I think the period should be three years. I think that is a legitimate complaint which has already been made.

Now I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would just put me right on one point. I just want to be quite sure that there is no link between the basis of compensation to be decided on for these people who fall under 12 (2) (h) and the previous Clause 5 (4), which limits it to R1,000. [Interjection.] I presume that it does not apply at all. That is an ex gratia amount and has nothing to do with compensation. Very well, then I have nothing to fear there, but I was worried in case I had misread that clause.

I object to various other clauses and I shall quickly say what they are. I think Clause 8 is a bad clause. It is the one which allows the Board to take matters into its own hands if the tenant is late with his rent. Other members have expressed their objections here and I do not want to labour the point, but to put the ejection of a tenant on the same basis as, say, paying a telephone account, is quite absurd. After all, you are given seven days to pay your telephone account, and if you do not pay it is cut off. But according to this Bill, if after seven days the rent has not been paid, these people can be thrown out of the house. I think that is a very harsh provision. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), when he started his speech last night, said that this sort of provision had always existed in the Housing Act.

The principle is the same.

Yes, but there is a very big difference between three months and seven days. The principle is that you get notice, and I think everybody accepts that, but to give people three months in which to find alternative accommodation and to give them seven days in which to pay their rent is a very different matter, and surely the hon. member cannot consider this to be a reasonable analogy just because the principle is the same.

Then Clause 8 exempts the Board from town planning laws, and I think that is very unfortunate, particularly in regard to this Clause 12sex (b) which exempts the Board from any restrictions as far as sub-divisions are concerned. These restrictions were always designed to prevent the development of slums. The restrictions against multiple sub-divisions were to prevent the development of slums, but now the Minister relieves his Board of those restrictions, and this Board which is supposed to promote all this fine new living is going to be allowed, if it wishes, so to subdivide as virtually to create slum conditions again. [Interjection.] Then you do not need to be relieved of the restrictions, because the restrictions are against sub-division and not against consolidation. This clause constitutes a serious inroad into the whole idea of town planning and I do not think it will be to the benefit of any form of real community development. One has only to look at the old townships set up before town planning came into being in this country to see how absolutely haphazard they were. There is a township like Scarborough near Kommetjie, and there are others like Ferndale in Johannesburg that were laid out before the actual principles of town planning came into existence. I think it is a retrograde step for the Government to be taking now to remove these restrictions which I believe were correctly inserted in town planning provisions.

Then there is the clause which is Section 12sept, which gives the right to terminate leases. This is an arbitrary right which I think can lead to very grave injustices. I have the same objection to Clause 10 as I have to Clause 12. There is one other redeeming feature, and that is in Clause 13, which now makes it possible for agents’ commissions and advertising costs to be excluded. That is also an improvement in the Act. So I find two redeeming features, one small and one not so small, but the greater of the two could be much improved …

Be thankful for small blessings.

Well, with this Government I am always absolutely blissful at the slightest blessing we get. I used to demand great things, but now I am abjectly grateful for any concession, and I will certainly say a very big thank you to the hon. the Minister if he would make this particular clause retrospective.

For the rest, I see very little to redeem this Bill. It follows the pattern of the previous Bills introduced to carry out the old group areas principle of apartheid, but now of course a bit of camouflage is introduced. The Minister who introduced the original Bill told us that whatever flowed from that Bill would be carried out in fairness to all and for the common good, although he did warn us that the objects of the Bill could not be attained without difficulty, inconvenience and sacrifice. Well, he was certainly right in that contention. There have been difficulties, inconvenience and sacrifice. He was wrong in believing that the separation of the races could be carried out in fairness to all, and the present Minister is wrong, too. Unjust legislation can never be administered fairly, and that is why we have had to have all these amending Acts. In fact, by far the greater proportion of the inconvenience, difficulty and sacrifice experienced as the result of the passing of the principal Act and the amending legislation have been felt by the non-Whites. The Whites have not felt this inconvenience. For all the reasons I have outlined, I will oppose this Bill.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) contested the statement made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that this was a modern piece of legislation. She stated that in modern legislation races are not separated into different groups. I must inform the hon. member that if we in this country, under our circumstances, were to arrange our affairs without taking into consideration the different levels of civilization of the various groups, we would land in the same disastrous position as the Whites to the north of us.

I want to deal with a few points raised by the Opposition in regard to the constitutional difficulties, the accusation that we were breaching the Constitution by taking away or diminishing the rights of the provincial councils. Under the Constitution Act, Section 114, it is provided that Parliament shall not abolish any Provincial Council or abridge the powers contained in Section 84: and in terms of Section 84 the Provincial Councils are given certain rights with regard to municipal institutions and their functions. Then in Section 92 it is provided that the powers exercised at the commencement of this Act, shall remain in force until varied or withdrawn by Parliament. Now I want to refer to the authority, Dönges and Van Winsen on Municipal Law, at page 8 of the second edition, dealing with the validity of legislation relating to municipalities. Para. 1 reads as follows—

Then on page 10 they say—

I wish to point out that the Parliament has the additional power, and the Provincial Councils only have subordinate powers to deal with these matters. That does not deprive Parliament of the right of passing enactments in regard to the same matters.

What about the Constitution?

Under the South Africa Act, no question of legislative competition can arise. The power of Parliament is never in dispute. The inquiry in each instance can only be whether the subordinate legislature has exceeded the authority assigned to it. So that Parliament has the right to make any law in respect of those matters is undisputed.

The question is whether it should do so.

I am coming to that. The next matter to be considered is the township ordinance itself, which of course is directly connected with this matter. It has been said here by several Opposition members that the powers now taken by the Government is an unheard of thing; it was never done in the past to usurp the powers of the Provincial Councils. Here I again want to refer to Van Winsen, at page 601, where the position is stated as follows—

Now this Ordinance No. 33 of 1934 is the Town Planning Ordinance, and under the Housing Act the Minister has the right to exempt the Housing Commission from the provisions of the Town Planning Ordinance, and this Act was passed by the United Party Government. Then it goes on to say—

That was again another Act passed by the United Party—

Again the power was taken away from the Provincial Councils by an Act passed by the United Party Government. Then, coming to the next one, it says—

Here the powers were taken away from the Provincial Council and vested in the Foreshore Board by an Act of Parliament. So that there are several instances in our legislation where the powers have been taken away from the Provincial Councils.

Now there is another and even stronger point, and that is that any ordinance passed does not bind the Government. In fact, I go so far as to submit that this legislation is not necessary at all where the Government deprives Provincial Councils of certain powers, because the Government is not bound by any ordinance of a Provincial Council. The Government could therefore have acted highhandedly and gone straight ahead without coming to Parliament, but I agree with the method adopted by the Minister now in coming to Parliament and in providing for consultations with the Administrators, whereas strictly legally that is not necessary at all. Van Winsen also says that it is submitted that Ordinance 33 of 1934 does not bind the Crown at all.

I think I have now dealt sufficiently with that point, and I wish to go on to the next point, which is Clause 8, where powers of entry are given and the right to eject people who do not pay their rent. Here again we have been accused and it was said that this was unheard of in our legislation that a Government should act without recourse to a court of law, and we were challenged by quite a few hon. members opposite to give one example of where this is done in any other Act. I could find a very good example in the Land Bank Act, No. 13 of 1944, and I quote Section 55, in regard to the remedies of the bank against defaulting debtors. When the Land Bank has a bond over a farm and the farmer defaults, the Land Bank can take action if at any time any sum of money, whether principal or interest, due in respect of any advance made by the Bank, is unpaid. The bank can, after demand by registered letter for payment, addressed to the address of the debtor stated in the form of application for the advance, has been made for the repayment of the advance, and if the land or other security is mortgaged to any person other than the bank, after due notice to the mortgagee, and without recourse to a court of law, enter upon and take possession of and sell by public auction … the whole or any part of the security for the advance, upon such conditions as appear under all the circumstances to be just. That is directly in point. Here I may point out that the farmer is also ejected from his land. The land is sold out from under his feet. [Interjection.] What is good enough for the farmer is good enough for the defaulting tenant.

Now I wish to pass a few general remarks with regard to this Bill. The Government is responsible for keeping law and order in this country. It has an unenviable task to perform, and this task becomes most difficult in a multi-racial country where we have so many different races in different stages of development; and this task is not made any the easier by an Opposition which takes every opportunity and makes use of any incident, however trivial, for political gain, ignoring the interests of the country. In regard to housing, we are faced with this position. There are existing subordinate bodies through which these functions must be performed, and many of these bodies are unfortunately controlled by supporters of the United Party. The Government finds that it is often thwarted by delaying tactics which hold up vast schemes which must be carried out to ensure the orderly development and the racial peace of the country.

Where has that happened?

In Johannesburg.

Then there are also practical reasons, namely that the local authorities do not have sufficient resources or manpower to deal with these vast schemes. There is a further accusation that this Government comes, time and again, and takes more powers. Sir, I have been in this House for nearly four years now, and it is true that the Government has taken many powers, but one must ask what the Government took these powers for. I submit that it has been proved time and again, in every instance, that the powers taken were absolutely necessary for the safety and good government of this country, and no instance of abuse has been mentioned or proved in this regard. This accusation has been made every time. The mam example of it is of course in regard to the 90 days’ clause, but that, I notice, the Opposition has now dropped like a hot brick. The Opposition comes here, like the hon. member for Hospital, and makes wild accusations of dictatorship, but during all these years he has not brought one example of abuse of those powers by the Government. [Interjections.] If there have been cases of abuse, then I accuse him, amongst others, of neglecting his duty in not bringing it to the notice of the House.

I now come back to the reasons for this Bill. There is. as we all know, an acute housing shortage. Further, to avoid friction among the races, certain housing projects have become vitally necessary. As a matter of fact, the Opposition is actually blaming the Government for the shortage of houses. Must we allow things to develop until there is chaos, or must the Government act timeously? We have a duty to proceed with our housing projects as speedily as possible. I hope the public will take note that where this Government wishes to tackle the problem on a proper scale, we are being opposed by the United Party. I hope the public will take note that where we are out to provide housing for the less privileged, we are being opposed. We find that under the existing arrangements where we do not have the proper control of the local authorities, community development is not keeping pace with industrial development, and accordingly the Central Government has no alternative but to act. If the Opposition is satisfied with the present housing position, then I invite them to vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to remind the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) that we are not dealing here this afternoon with the Housing Act.

It is all one thing.

It is not all one. The Minister knows that he will get the wholehearted support of many of us on this side of the House for the Housing Act, but this Bill deals with a different subject. It is an extension, in general terms, of the Group Areas Development Act, as I shall show presently. I should also like to say that I have no intention of becoming involved with the hon. member for Omaruru in a constitutional argument as to whether this Parliament has the right to legislate in conflict with provincial ordinances. I do not know how the matter arises, but I agree with the hon. member absolutely that Parliament can, if it so wishes, pass legislation overriding provincial ordinances, because this Parliament is supreme. But the legal aspects are not involved in this dispute. It is the moral aspects of this Bill which concern us, and the moral aspect I want to deal with very crisply is this: whether it is right for us to be asked, as we are being asked in this Bill, to vest in a Minister—and it is not a question of the present Minister: my remarks would apply to any Minister—the powers to interfere with, if he so wishes, and override the planning schemes which have been evolved as the result of many years of experience by major municipalities and town planners in this country. I think the hon. member has missed the point completely. I wish to record my objection to this Bill and I propose to put in general terms the reasons for my doing so.

This Bill seeks to amend the Group Areas Development Act of 1955. As I see this Bill, one of its main provisions is to vest in the Minister of Community Development and his Board powers which could possibly enable the Minister and his Board to nullify the existing position in regard to town planning in any part of this country, as well as regional planning, in respect of such areas as fall under the control of the hon. the Minister.

It must be remembered that major municipalities throughout the whole of the Republic of South Africa have spent considerable time, money and labour on their various town planning schemes. These schemes have been formulated as a result of an intensive campaign and effort on the part of town planners who have been engaged by these major municipalities to evolve these schemes. This Bill seeks to vest in the Minister the power, if he so wishes, completely to overlook these schemes and to carry out his wishes, totally disregarding the schemes of these major municipalities. Under the provisions of this Bill all these town planning arrangements could be destroyed if the hon. the Minister of Community Development or his board decided to do so, and that is our objection to this Bill. I do not for a single moment suggest that the present Minister or his Development Board or even his successors would exercise the powers which are vested in him under this Bill.

Why worry then?

I repeat that I do not for a moment suggest that the hon. the Minister or the Board or his successors would for a single moment do what they could do under this measure.

You are going too far now.

I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I do claim—and this is a matter that requires the most careful consideration of this Parliament—that it is possible for the Minister, with his tremendous powers completely to change the local authority’s concept of town planning and regional planning.

But you say that he will not do so.

I do not say that he will do it but he could do it. Once you pass this law you vest that power in the Minister, and it would then be possible for the hon. the Minister, if he so wished, completely to change the local authority’s concept of town planning and regional planning.

Only where the State is providing the money.

I say that even where the State provides the money, town planning and regional planning schemes which have been evolved as the result of years of exploration and research, should not be interfered with by the hon. the Minister; that the Dower should not be given to him at his whim to override these schemes. Sir, if you refer to Clauses 5 and 8 of this Bill, which must be read together, as I hope to do in a moment, you will see that they deal with the objects and the general powers of the Board and of the Minister. You will appreciate, when I deal with these clauses, the excessive powers which this Parliament is now being asked to vest in the Minister and the Board. Let me say immediately that when we talk of “board” we really mean the Minister because the Board is going to be the mouthpiece of the Minister. The Minister must accept responsibility for what the Board does, and the Board in point of fact will do whatever the Minister wants it to do. Let us be absolutely clear about it therefore that when we talk about the Board we mean the Minister.

Let us examine carefully the provisions of Clause 5. Clause 5 provides for a new Section 12 (1) to be inserted in the principal Act, and that sets out the objects and the general powers of the Board. This is what appears under the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister—

“subject to the directions of the Minister”. I emphasize these words because they are new words which are being introduced into this section. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who is not here was at pains to point out to the House that this clause was taken almost word for word from the existing law. What I have read now, Sir, is something new that is being introduced by the Minister—

I will deal in a moment with the areas which fall under his jurisdiction. Except for the exclusion of certain areas which I will refer to in a moment, it means that he will have control virtually over the whole of the Republic of South Africa …

1. (b) to assist in and control the disposal of affected properties; and
2. (c) to assist persons to acquire or hire immovable property insofar as in the opinion of the Board may be necessary or expedient …
3. (2) For the purpose of achieving its objects the Board shall, in addition to any other powers vested in it by this Act, …

have the power to do certain things, to bring into effect everything that is necessary for the effective performance of the Board’s functions. Sir, the governing words here are “subject to the directions of the Minister.” It is true, as the hon. member for Heilbron has pointed out, that under sub-clause (d) it is provided that with the approval of the Minister the Board has the right, subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine, to subdivide, lay out, plan and develop any land, etc., and it is true that as far as (d) is concerned, the Minister has taken over the wording of the existing Act. But I want to stop there for a moment and point out that whilst it is true that under (g) the Minister may do certain things after consultation with the Administrator of the province concerned and with the local authority of the area concerned, I agree with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) when he says that there is no value at all in the term “after consultation.” The Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper to amend Section 8 of the Act and I shall deal with that in a moment, but I submit that even that amendment means absolutely nothing when you get down to practicalities. Sir, what is the value of the term “after consultation.” We know from experience, from our unfortunate experience in this country, going back many years, when the principal Act was first passed in 1950, that this merely means a word from the Minister to the Administrator and that constitutes consultation. I agree absolutely with the hon. member for South Coast that this is no safeguard at all as far as our people are concerned. Having consulted with the Administrator concerned in terms of (d), the Minister would have complete control over the town planning and regional planning. The regional and town planning would be subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine. The Administrator and the local authority in those circumstances would have no say whatsoever. Sir, these are grossly excessive powers which I consider to be wholly unnecessary in the present circumstances. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that I do not for a single moment say that the hon. the Minister would act in defiance of the existing laws or in defiance of the local authority’s concept of town planning, but I feel this Bill as it stands at the moment gives the Minister or his successor the right to act in such a manner, and I think that is something that we should guard against. I regard it as wholly unnecessary that we should vest in any one man, whoever he may be, these extraordinarily excessive powers. With the powers that the hon. the Minister seeks to take under this Bill, the thought occurred to me that there is really no necessity for the continuance of the local authorities at all insofar as town and regional planning is concerned. The Minister waves his hands but that is so. The Minister can totally disregard a local authority’s town planning scheme, and in those circumstances there is no point to my mind in vesting the town councils with powers to formulate their own town planning schemes.

In regard to sub-section (d) of the new Section 12 (2) (Clause 8 of the Bill) the Minister takes unto himself virtually all the powers that vest in the local authorities in regard to planning, sub-division, layout, planning and development of any land belonging to the Board. Those are the powers which he is taking. Sir, take as an example the case of the mother city of South Africa, Cape Town. If the Minister were to exercise the powers that he seeks under this Bill I venture to suggest that he could place the most insuperable difficulties in the way of the Cape Town local authority. He could impose upon the City Council the strict enforcement of Government decrees in Group Areas with a total disregard of the careful planning which has gone before and which has cost a vast amount of money, time and labour. Sir, the latest decree which emanated from the Minister with regard to segregated audiences at places of entertainment is a glaring example of the ineptitude of his Department to handle important matters of this kind. I want to say most emphatically that Cape Town is not equipped for providing these segregated facilities which are being inflicted upon Cape Town by the Minister. What consultation has in fact taken place between the hon. the Minister and the local authority?

Cape Town would not accept the country’s policy.

Cape Town would not accept the Government’s policy so the Minister forced it upon them. The hon. the Minister tell us that the local authorities are always going to be consulted; where was the consultation in this case?

This is the Government, not the Cape Town City Council.

I do not ask that Cape Town should govern the country but I am asking the Minister to consult with Cape Town …

They have been consulted for 16 years.

Why not consult Cape Town before imposing conditions which it is impossible for Cape Town to carry out? Cape Town, the mother city of South Africa is not equipped for this new system of segregated facilities which is being inflicted upon them by the Government. I want to come back to the question of consultation. What consultation has in fact taken place between the Minister and Cape Town with regard to the new proposed segregation laws? None whatsoever. The first thing that the City Council or the citizens of Cape Town know of this decree was when they saw it published under the name of the hon. the Minister. That constitutes the consultation which is supposed to have taken place between the Minister’s Department and Cape Town. There is no gainsaying the fact that the Minister has arbitrarily forced his ill-advised decision upon Cape Town and upon the entire Cape with a total disregard of the wishes of the authority concerned. It is this type of decision arrived at by the hon. the Minister without prior consultation with the local authorities that makes me opposed to granting him additional excessive powers. Sir, the powers sought by the Minister in relation to any immovable property or area, except the areas referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection 3 of Section 20 of the Group Areas Act, are so tremendous that it vests in the Minister virtually the power to deal with every part of the Republic of South Africa, not only the Cape. The only areas which are exempted in terms of Clause 5. in terms of the new Section 12 (1) (a) are the areas referred to in paragraph (c) of Section 20 (3) of the Group Areas Act. What do those areas consist of?—

Except for the exclusion of these small areas, the whole of the Republic of South Africa falls under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister and we are being asked here to give him what I regard as grossly excessive powers to deal as he thinks fit with the whole of South Africa, excluding the areas I have mentioned, and, in doing so, to override the wishes and decisions of the local authorities, if he wishes to do so. To my mind it would enable the hon. the Minister, if he thought it expedient, to prohibit the erection of or alteration to any building or structure. The hon. member for Heilbron glibly said that the whole of Clause 5 was virtually the existing law, but sub-paragraph (e) is not the existing law: it introduces new provisions. In sub-paragraph (e) the hon. the Minister takes the power, if he is satisfied that it is expedient to do so, in furtherance of any slum clearance scheme or any urban renewal scheme, by mere notice in the Gazette, to prohibit the erection of or alterations to any building or structure, and he can go further and stipulate the purpose for which such building or structure is to be used. Sir. these are new powers which the hon. the Minister is asking us to give him. This is not an old power under the old Act.

I hope you will be here when I reply.

Yes, I will be here and I will await the hon. Minister’s reply with a great deal of interest. Sir, to my mind these powers virtually usurp the functions of local and provincial administration. The most alarming factor is that this Bill extends the powers which the Minister already has and which are most extensive powers. I feel most strongly that these powers should not vest in any one person, and I want to register my protest again.

But, Sir, there is another complication. Under this Bill the Minister of Community Development has the power to develop group areas and generally to deal with any immovable property situated in any group area throughout the Republic. A few months ago we were told that there had been a re-alignment of group areas responsibility; we were told that this had taken place since the establishment of a Government Department of Planning headed by the new Minister of Planning. In point of fact, following on that announcement, a number of group areas announcements were published in the name of the new Department of Planning instead of in the name of the Department of Community Planning as before. In public utterances which were made by the hon. the Minister himself, and by his colleague, the Minister of Planning, it was announced that preliminary group area investigations were now being carried out by the Department of Planning and that the Minister of Planning was responsible for the proclamation of group areas. Previously, these proclamations were issued entirely by the Minister of Community Development. We were told that what used to be the Department of Community Development had now largely been incorporated in the new Department of Planning. South Africa was presented with the statement that the Minister of Community Development and his Department would only come into the group areas picture after the area had been proclaimed for one of the races. But, Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what powers are going to be vested in his colleague, the Minister of Planning? What powers is he going to come and ask Parliament to give him? Surely with the re-alignment of the responsibility between the Minister’s Department and the Department of Planning, some thought should be given to the powers of each Minister. Are we going to be asked to vest in the Minister of Planning the same powers that the Minister of Community Development is now asking us to give him under this Bill? Sir, will this not lead to a great deal of confusion in the minds of our citizens, and are we not over-legislating in regard to this matter. It appears to me that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is now trying to obtain as much power as possible and to usurp powers which ordinarily vest in the Minister of Planning. In any case, I think an explanation is due to this House as to what the position is going to be, and I am glad to see that the Minister is nodding his head to indicate that he will give that information. All this, to my mind, unfortunately, lends support to the claim that was made yesterday by the hon. member for South Coast that the Minister was determined to take every possible power in order to enable him to sweep aside any town planning scheme that stands in the way of his ideological goals. Quite frankly, Sir, I am not prepared to support any legislation which will give the hon. the Minister powers additional to the enormous powers he already possesses. I can see no valid reason why the Minister or his Board should come forward to ask for these powers. I can see no reason at all why the hon. the Minister should ask that he or his Board should be exempted from some of the very important provisions set out in the new Clause 8. Clause 8 provides for new powers. The proposed Section 12sex in Clause 8 provides that the Board shall be exempt from the provisions of any by-laws. I am leaving out the town planning scheme which is referred to here because the hon. the Minister has said that he will consult with the Administrator. The new section says—

The Board shall be exempt

1. (a) from the provisions of any by-law … or regulation of a local authority and the conditions of establishment of a township prescribed by any Administrator, townships board or townships commission relating to—
   1. (i) the lodging or approval of sub-divisional diagrams of land and of plans of proposed dwellings or other structures.

Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister why should his Board be exempted from any of these by-laws? Why should the Board not be obliged to carry out the law as we know it to exist? I should have imagined that the hon. the Minister and his Board would have gone out of their way to set an example to the citizens of this country; to show that they also comply with the law. Under this Bill they are asking to be exempted from the necessity of lodging diagrams or plans of buildings. Sir, can you imagine anything more chaotic? No plans, no diagrams, are going to be lodged by the Department; they can just willy-nilly go ahead with any scheme they like, with a total disregard for town planning schemes, schemes which have been in existence for many years and which have been brought into being as a result of the most expert investigations. Sir, they go further. They are going to be exempted in terms of this Bill from the provisions of any by-law, etc., relating to the type of dwelling or structure to be constructed, the siting of a dwelling or structure or any portion thereof, from obtaining the permission of the local authority or owner of an approved township to commence building operations from any restriction to which the transfer of land is subject. He is seeking exemption from the condition that prescribed requirements must first be complied with in respect of the construction of streets, the provision of water, electricity or gas, the removal of rubbish, or the disposal of sewage or night-soil. All these by-laws and regulations of local authorities can be completely disregarded by the Minister under this Bill. Sir, I ask in all seriousness why should the Minister and his Board be exempted from these provisions? I say that they should set an example to the rest of the country. They should be able to say, “When we develop a scheme we will do it in compliance with the law or we will come back to Parliament, if necessary, to change the law.” We are here being asked to give the Minister unfettered rights to disregard these existing laws. I do not think that these are powers which Parliament should give to the Minister or to any one person. I repeat that my objection is not against the Minister personally. I would object to the granting of these powers to any person, whoever he might be. I see no reason why the Minister should be exempted from complying with the regulations with regard to the submission of plans and the building of houses. I say that as far as the sub-division of land is concerned, the Minister should be obliged to comply with the law like every other citizen and every other organization. The Coloured people whom we represent in this House cannot be left to the mercy of any one man, but I want to say that it is not only the Coloured people who fall under these tremendous powers now sought by the hon. the Minister. The entire population of South Africa, White and non-White, are affected. This measure does not apply only to the Cape but to the whole of the Republic. [Time limit.]

The speech of the hon. member who has just sat down has indicated to us that the City of Cape Town will certainly come into conflict with this Bill. I can well believe that the hon. the Minister and the Department have repeatedly crossed swords with Cape Town and its City Council. When one considers a few of the reports which have been brought out in recent years—I think of the report of the Diemont Commission and the recent Slater Report—one realizes that it is high time that something be done in this regard. I think that in these reports we have a revelation of conditions as they are under the jurisdiction of the City Council of Cape Town and these conditions certainly merit the attention of this House. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction and on the grounds of those reports that there are many indications of clumsy administration and also a considerable amount of corruption. When one considers the contents of these reports, the question arises involuntarily to one’s mind as to whether it is right that the State, the Department of Housing and the Government should make millions of rand available annually to be spent by the City Council of Cape Town without the Government’s having a say in regard to the planning in this regard or the spending of this money. We have reached a stage in the development of our country when we can simply not permit further development and planning to be left in the hands of certain local authorities which simply go their own way. When one looks at the Peninsula to-day one sees that we have a very well planned road system here which has cost the country a great deal of money, but when one approaches Cape Town along the main roads, one is immediately struck by the fact that we have here an urban area which I would almost say was one of the most unsightly and dirty urban areas to be found anywhere in our country. One wonders how long this will continue. One wonders how long it is the intention of the local authority to allow these conditions to continue. This is the position and yet it is the task of the hon. the Minister of Justice to maintain law and order under these circumstances and to try to protect the persons and property of people under conditions which are in all respects so impossible and so unplanned and unsightly that one is actually ashamed that such areas are situated close to the heart of Cape Town.

I want to tell the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) that his plea this afternoon has been a very hollow one and that I cannot but regard it as coming from people who are always seeking to foster either their own or group interests in some or other way, people who do not foster the interests of the community and have no idea of long term planning. That is why I want to ask that we should see this Bill in its correct perspective. South Africa entered an era of swift industrial development during the middle of this century; we are experiencing a period of swift growth and development in our large cities and towns which have to provide accommodation not only for thousands and tens of thousands as was previously the case but for hundreds of thousands and even for millions of people. The era of the almost uncontrolled slow growth of important towns has also very definitely passed in South Africa. That period of unplanned development left us the type of heritage to which I have just referred—District Six, an unsightly, crowded, unhygienic and tumble-down urban area; a residential area which I am sure presents the City Council of Cape Town with a very great problem in that the replanning and the clearing of this area is going to be a very expensive process because it is a very thickly populated area. That is why I say that I think that this amending Bill springs from a two-fold need, in the first instance, for the speedy laying out of planned urban areas in order to provide accommodation for our growing population, particularly in our large industrial centres, and secondly, for clearing certain slum areas and replanning and rebuilding those areas. I think that this is the two-fold need: The swift provision of suitable housing and secondly, the clearing of slum areas which have come into being over a period of years.

I can refer to what has become necessary to-day in industrial centres like Port Elizabeth, and even here in the Peninsula, where the need for housing has really become urgent. I have already referred to an area like District Six in Cape Town. In this we see the other aspect of that need—the need for the removal of a festering sore here in the mother city which is a relic of the past. I should imagine that District Six is a paradise for the exploiter to-day, the man who has a number of semi-detached houses for which there is a good demand, houses which can be let for a good rental with few commitments on the part of the landlord and at little expense. One wonders sometimes, Mr. Speaker, when one sees that nothing is being done in these areas, that no suitable clearing or improvement plan has been drawn up, how many people there are who are members of the City Council and in whose interests it is that those conditions should continue so that they can continue to take money from the pockets of those people—those people who may possibly see themselves being detrimentally affected if the State steps in and rectifies matters. That is why I want to tell the hon. member for Peninsula that I have very little sympathy with him. If he has objected to this legislation on behalf of Cape Town, I want to tell him that the City Council of Cape Town has had ample time in which to prove that it is worried about the position of these people about whom it is sometimes ostensibly concerned; that it has had ample time in which to draw up a master plan like the plan which it drew up in connection with Cape Town’s main roads.

I want now to discuss the Bill. I want to associate myself with what has been said by hon. members on both sides—that it is clear from the Bill that the development of the various departments is now entering a new phase; that we are no longer at the stage of the demarcation of group areas but that we have now entered upon a broader field—that of community development. That is why we have the establishment of a Community Development Board and a Community Development Fund. The aims of the Bill are very clear. They are, subject to the decision of the Minister, to develop areas designated by the Minister, or to assist in the development of those areas and to promote community development in any of these designated areas. The hon. member for Peninsula objected to the extraordinary powers which are being given to the hon. the Minister. But because the hon. the Minister and his Department must account to Parliament for their actions, I am far more in favour of the idea that the Department of Community Development and Housing, under the guidance of the hon. the Minister, should have far-reaching powers than that certain local authorities should have the right to do things or not to do them. I think that this right not to do things has assumed considerable proportions. I would prefer to see the hon. the Minister, not local authorities, having these extraordinary powers, powers to frustrate development, to lead development in a completely wrong direction to the detriment not only to Cape Town or of the Peninsula but of the country as a whole. Cape Town does not belong to the City Council of Cape Town but to the Republic of South Africa. I say I welcome this idea that the hon. the Minister will now have legislative powers to guide urban planning in the right direction and in accordance with the wishes of the Government, to co-ordinate it and to plan it with an eye to the future; and not only to plan and guide it but to take positive action in regard to the forceful elimination of evils, particularly in our older urban areas. We are aware of the fact that this will cost a great deal of money. We can well believe that this work will cost millions of rand, but in my opinion it is a good thing that this will be done by the Government: that there will be sound guidance and control on the part of the Government in this regard rather than that these matters should be left in the hands of local authorities which, broadly speaking, are often not in sympathy with Government policy.

It is very clear to us from Clause 5 that in the promotion of a slum clearance scheme, one of the aims of this legislation is the control over the erection of certain buildings if the erection of those buildings is in conflict with the proposed clearance or development plans. Provision is also made in the Bill for payment in respect of goodwill connected with a profession or business in a particular area. We are pleased about this; it proves to us the reasonable and sober attitude of the hon. the Minister and his Department and indicates that where drastic action has to be taken and where far-reaching changes have to be brought about, proper account will be taken of the personal interests of the people involved. Provision is also being made whereby the owners of property in a clearance area which is affected by control must offer their properties, if they want to sell them, to the Community Development Board. We can understand that it is very necessary when the large-scale re-organization of a specific urban area is planned by the State, to prevent anyone erecting an expensive building in the middle of that process without regard to the broad aspect of that planning. That is why I welcome the particular clause which provides that the Community Development Board will have an option and that people will simply not be able to act on their own.

There is a variety of provisions in the Bill from which it appears that one of the problems of the Department of Community Development is to be able to acquit itself of its task reasonably quickly. I conclude from the provisions of this Bill that the Department is often hampered by the regulations of local authorities and has therefore to resort to a large number of administrative measures which delays the work enormously. That is why provision is being made for the taking over of public places in an area where the Community Development Board acquires all the premises. Provision is made for the cancellation of the general plan by the Surveyor-General which will not be necessary if the work can be accelerated thereby.

Clause 8 makes provision for legal remedies against tenants who neglect to pay their rental. Certain hon. members opposite also objected to this provision. They objected to the fact that the Community Development Board is exempted from complying with the regulations and by-laws of certain local authorities, such as the conditions governing the laying out of towns and so forth. It is obvious to my mind that because large-scale and expensive planning, in which an enormous amount of administrative work will of necessity be involved, has to be done in these areas, the Department and the hon. the Minister cannot be frustrated and hampered in every possible way by certain local regulations. There is, for example, the provision in Clause 10 to the effect that if the layout plan of a town is not approved of within three months after submission, the Minister may, with the approval of the Administrator, authorize the Board to go ahead with the plan. This is another indication that an earnest effort is being made to streamline town planning and community development. This is a requirement of the times. We will simply never be able to meet the housing needs of our growing population if this streamlining is not incorporated in our legislation.

This legislation also solves other problems. We think of Clause 11 which provides that only the person who was the owner on the specific day of the proclamation of a group area will be considered for the payment of depreciation contributions and so forth. This provision enables us to identify the registered owner beyond all doubt. The Department is often sent from pillar to post because people have conflicting claims, and this clause merely identifies the person who is entitled to the actual benefits.

As I have already said, it is clear to me from the various clauses of this Bill that the hon. the Minister and his Department are making a very earnest attempt to set up legislative machinery to eliminate in a swift, unswerving and planned manner, certain evils in our urban areas, to provide for proper planning and to provide for the swifter provision of suitable housing for our people. Hon. members opposite are continually complaining about the dictatorial powers of the Minister. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Minister is after all the head of the Department. He is at least responsible to this House and this House must account to the taxpayers. The money which is made available to the Cape Town Housing Commission is not simply money which has been paid by the Cape Town taxpayers; it is money which comes from the pockets of taxpayers throughout the whole of the Republic of South Africa. That is why I welcome this step. We are certainly modernizing our legislation in this connection.

It has happened in certain Western European countries that a war has actually proved to be a solution to certain social problems in the sense that urban areas have been completely destroyed and that Governments have been compelled after the war to build new cities. We were fortunately spared that process of destruction but on the other hand we are still saddled with our District Six and other slum areas. In other words, circumstances have not actually compelled us to take the positive action which we should have taken. But if we allow these conditions to continue, where will we be in 50 years time; where will we be in 100 years time? We will then find ourselves not only with a District Six but a District Six and other areas in Johannesburg and Durban which will be far larger. That is why I am convinced—I think that the provisions which have been inserted in this Bill have been inserted because of what the hon. the Minister has seen in countries overseas; we are grateful that they are the fruit of his study tour overseas—that the Government is planning on a comprehensive basis and will build strongly for the future of our people and of sound communities in our country.

I am not at all concerned about the lessening of the authority of the provinces and local authorities. I think that we are dealing here with certain relics of the past and it has certainly become necessary for local authorities and even for provincial authorities to realize that they perform their functions under the guidance and supervision of the Central Government. Hon. members opposite have complained about the fact that inspectors will have the power to confiscate the homes of certain people. I do not know what right anybody has who does not pay or does not want to pay rent, to continue to live on those premises. I think that the appointment of those inspectors will prevent a loss in rentals or at least reduce that loss.

Our reply to the objections which have been raised here is briefly that we have reached a stage in which the co-ordinated and planned development of communities and the clearance of dilapidated residential areas has become necessary. I think that we can congratulate the hon. the Minister and we can be grateful that he has had the courage to introduce legislation which will make it possible for the Government to take action. Hon. members opposite can no longer think constructively. They are always wondering, in the case of any constructive legislation, what that legislation has to hide, which was the idea expressed by the hon. member for Florida. They have become extremely suspicious over the years. Because he has become accustomed to looking in dark corners, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not see the light of this Bill at all. But we must forgive him; it is perhaps simply because of his past and his association with one of our larger local authorities. The hon. member defended local authorities although those local authorities have in the past showed themselves to be completely unwilling, and completely unable, to do necessary work. When I look at the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) then I feel sure that he was one of those who was unwilling to do what had to be done. I admit that it may not always have been unwillingness on their part but I am sure that local authorities were to a large extent impotent. When one considers the Peninsula and Cape Town, one is struck by the fact that a great deal of large-scale planning and a large amount of money will be required to rectify matters here. One can imagine that if a member of a local city council has personal interests in these matters, he will be very slow to co-operate in bringing into being a plan which may possibly redound to his personal detriment. That is why we cannot leave these existing evils and slum conditions to the local authorities and why we welcome the fact that the State and the Department will now take positive action. If necessary, they will now simply overlook local authorities and bypass them if those local authorities are unwilling to do the urban planning that is necessary. When people see places like Windermere and other areas, they ask: Why do such conditions exist in a country like South Africa, a country which is so prosperous? I am sure that when anyone puts this question to hon. members opposite, they say: Do not ask us; ask the Government. They do not say: Ask the City Council of Cape Town. They say: Ask the Government of South Africa why these conditions exist. When someone has to be blamed, hon. members opposite are very anxious that it should be the Government which should be blamed. That is why we feel that it is necessary for the Government simply to take the responsibility of doing what has to be done. When a serious shortage of housing arises, when people have to pay unfair rentals for a flat or a house, the finger is immediately pointed at this Government. It has been said repeatedly during this Session that it was because of the short-sightedness of the Government that it was unable to foresee this prosperity.

With this legislation I foresee a new regime for community development in South Africa and a swifter tempo in the building of houses for people in the lower and middle income groups. I am convinced that they will appreciate it and welcome it. I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister for the various schemes on which he has embarked to provide housing for hundreds of thousands of people in the lower and middle income groups. I predict that the day will come when these slum conditions in and about our large cities will be a thing of the past. I hope that when this legislation becomes law, the hon. the Minister will make use of its provisions to bring these things about. Let certain people who are interested in local authorities fuss and complain. In my opinion they have had enough time. I welcome the steps which the hon. the Minister is taking to do this work. I trust that the aims of this Bill will soon be realized.

It is quite amazing what a little taste of power does to members of this House. I remember when the hon. member for Piquet-berg (Mr. Treurnicht) came into this House. He was regarded as a moderate, quiet, well-behaved member. Yet, Sir, within a very short time this little taste of power has changed him into the same as all the other members on that side of the House. He started off his speech to-night with a quite unwarranted attack on the local authority of Cape Town. He then went on to a demand that all planning in South Africa, as it stands now and as it has always been understood, should be wiped out. Do away with these people! We are taking over! We are taking over all the planning for the whole of South Africa! We know what is good for you! I am surprised to hear that coming from that hon. member. Because you see, Sir, he has done all this in support of this Bill. He has been prepared to make statements here in support of the Minister and his Bill, merely to justify his existence. I sincerely hope he believes what he says, because then my judgment of him is correct. But he joined with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who also got up, first of all, to draw a red herring across the path and also to tell us that he was now getting sick and tired of our reaction to this Minister and other Ministers when they come to this House seeking powers such as are sought in this Bill. Has it occurred to either of these hon. members, and to all hon. members on that side, that we on this side of the House are also getting a little sick and tired of hon. Ministers coming here and asking for powers such as are asked for in this Bill? Excessive powers and unnecessary powers. They forget when they make these statements, that we have a little experience, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the angle from which you approach the matter, of both the Minister concerned in this particular case and the board concerned, because neither of them is new. This is just a renaming process which transfers the same power to the same members, plus new powers, and gives them all a new name.

Let us take our experience of the hon. the Minister. We had a little experience of him in the House this afternoon. After sitting quietly through yesterday, we had one of his outbursts. He says: We are the Government; we shall do what we want to do.

Of course, we are the Government.

Yes, Sir, I accept you are the Government. Nobody can deny that. We can see you are the Government; you are sitting on the Government side of the House. It is obvious. But it is not that; it is the spirit in which the Minister approaches this House. This is why we are chary, to say the least of it, and I am putting it mildly when I say that, about giving this Minister and his board the powers which he asks here. We have had other experiences of this hon. Minister. We believe that these extra powers asked for in this Bill are asked for by Ministers from time to time because they are incompetent and incapable of handling an ordinary situation. What is so extraordinary about community development that it needs powers such as these? Community development—call it what you will—has been handled in many lands for many years without the necessity for extraordinary powers such as these. In this particular case the hon. the Minister already has excessive powers. Now he comes back for more. Let me give you an example of what I mean, Sir. We had the case of this hon. Minister in October 1963 when he published a proclamation covering certain areas of Durban, one was Isipingo where he displaced 2,000 White people and the other one was an area in Durban where he displaced 49,000 Indians.

You promised to take it up with me in the House and you never did.

We shall talk about that when the Minister’s Vote is under discussion. We have taken it up; we have already discussed it with the hon. the Minister and as I go along I will show him that we have. What happened? This hon. Minister is supposed to handle these things justly and correctly. He had a hearing. And I challenged him in this House to show me one demand in that evidence that the township of Isipingo should be other than White. He has not produced it, because it is not there. But in spite of that, he proclaimed it for Indian occupation. The other part, following on that, is that the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) and myself brought up in a debate the whole question of proclamations on the South Coast of Natal, because it was obvious that this hon. Minister in his own peculiar way was going to walk in and without any consideration of all the factors involved, he intended to proclaim the South Coast in relationship to group areas as he wished it to be. We got him to accept the principle of a regional plan. He was very wise to accept it. But what has he done now here in this Bill? He has got round the backdoor of that acceptance of regional planning. That is what he has done, because with the powers he has taken unto himself in this Bill he can override the regional plan. We are not inventing things, we have to take what is in the Bill. On the strength of that agreement, not only one but two regional plans have been started in that area of Natal, one embracing the South Coast, and one embracing the whole area from Howick, including Durban and the North Coast of Natal, and this hon. Minister and his Department have representatives on that committee. So the consultation is adequate, and I am told that the committee is working better than any committee has ever worked before. So he can do all these things without this legislation. But in spite of that, in the spirit that the hon. member for Piketberg came and exhibited in this House, this hon. Minister must have powers greater than the regional committee on which he has representation.

What committee are you referring to?

The Regional Planning Committee in Natal on which every department is represented, including the Minister’s Department. So there we have evidence which shows how unnecessary it is to grant these powers, and we don’t like granting the Minister these powers—I am quite frank about it—because we believe that if he were competent to carry out his duties and if he were able to deal with the situation properly and able to plan ahead, which is the main thing this Government is not capable of doing, these powers would be unnecessary. In any case, we have given him powers of this nature before, and what has he done with them? What has he achieved with the powers we gave him under the Slums Amendment Act? What can he show this House resulting from those powers we gave him? But instead he has come back for more powers because he believes that that will solve all the problems he has not been able to deal with. Of course, he cannot solve his problems. There is only one way to solve a problem and that is by co-operation, because the problem concerns many people, many bodies and many groups of people, and it is not a big stick that solves these problems. Everybody wants to solve them, I am sure, and a little co-operation on the part of the hon. Minister I am quite sure would achieve very, very much more than all these fantastic powers incorporated in this Bill.

Then let us come to the question of the board to whom we are going to hand these powers. It has a new name, I agree, but nevertheless it is the same board with the same members. What happened after this hon. Minister proclaimed the area of Isipingo Beach for occupation by Indians? The Board came in and took over to implement the proclamation. And, Sir, we have experience of the incompetent manner in which that Group Areas Development Board handled just that one small area of 2,000 White people. We have had practical experience. We had the experience that they did not even compile a list, in reasonable time, of the affected properties. We had the evidence and the experience that they did not determine basic values for those properties, which are the first two things they are supposed to do and at least they did not do so within a reasonable time. Instead of carrying out the provisions of the Group Areas Development Act, what did they do? When an owner said: “What is the basic value of my property?”, they said “You go and get a buyer and come to us with the offer and then we will fix the basic value of your property”. Is this a way to implement the Group Areas Development Act?

Very sad.

Very sad for the owner. You were fortunate enough not to be affected. The hon. member can sit there and cackle because he is sitting on the sideline, and the hon. member knows that it cannot happen to them, but it happened to many thousands of people whom this hon. Minister and his Board have thrown out of their homes.

Very sad.

Mr. Speaker, there you have the perfect example of the approach of this Government in these matters. There he sits and he should be ashamed of himself, laughing like that.

You will get the Oscar as an actor.

We have many other examples of the inefficiency and incompetence of this Board to carry out their duties. As I have pointed out to this Minister in the past, we had the question of the damage done to properties which the board had already taken over, where vandalism has created terrific damage and wastefulness to the State. We had the case when proper arrangements were not made to show buyers the properties because there were no arrangements to convey them in State motor cars, and so they had to find their own way to see the properties. In other words, a very inefficient selling organization. The whole organization of this Board has been one of absolute incompetence and inability to cope with the position up to now. But this is the Minister and this is the Board that we are now being asked to give even greater powers to apply in an even greater area. Let us make no mistake about it, this is an extension of the powers of the existing Minister and of the existing Board. They will now get the powers which they have under the existing Group Areas Development Act plus the others which have been discussed during the course of this debate. They are extending their operations to designated areas, and what is a designated area under this Bill but any area the Minister likes to designate as such? And once he has designated an area, the whole of this machine moves in and takes over. So I am here to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast, and in dealing with the first leg which says—

I have made my points on that, with one exception. I can appreciate and understand the hon. Minister’s desire to change the name of this department as quickly as he can from anything to do with group areas. Therefore the change to “Community Development”. But let me say to the hon. Minister that he will never shake off the stigma of what he has done under the Group Areas Act; it will stay with him for ever whether he changes the name of his Board and Act or not. This hon. Minister has displaced more people from their homes in South Africa than I should imagine any Minister has ever done before, or probably ever will in the future. So he won’t achieve the objective, that I think he is after, by renaming the board—putting up a new sign outside the old shop.

The second leg of this amendment reads—

Sir, the regional plan which covers a huge area of Natal, seems an excellent plan. I went and had a look at the basis on which it is being designed. It is taking into consideration every possible factor which could go towards the planning of this large portion of the province; it is taking into consideration the various population groups, their needs regarding housing; it is taking into consideration present industrial needs and the industrial needs of the future: it covers the field of the transportation and the locating of those various groups—the transportation of those groups to their employment, and it takes into account the transportation of goods produced by industry and the accessibility of those industries to ports, and every possible factor that can be taken into consideration. And here this hon. Minister and this Board are taking powers to override those factors. I cannot possibly understand why any Minister concerned with community development, as he calls it, and any board concerned with the same subject would want to duplicate or override work that has been carried out on a basis like that, and especially, Sir, when this hon. Minister has representation on that Committee which is doing the planning, and which I am told is working better, than any other effort in the past has ever worked in the way of trying to cope with the position of planning on a regional basis.

The powers taken here, I say, are excessive and unnecessary because they are designed, as we have heard from the hon. member for Piketberg, to override all the existing concepts we have, all the existing ideas we have of the way that planning should be done. And I think it has always been recognized that planning is the right of local communities, local groups of people to develop, within reason, in a manner in which they want to develop. I believe they have the right, and should always have the right, to develop the type of town or city which they wish to develop. I believe that is a basic right. But here that right can be denied these people under this Bill, the right to plan along their own lines, to suit their own particular desires and wishes. That right can definitely be denied to them, and I believe that it is iniquitous that we should give powers to a body such as this, I believe that it is wrong that this hon. Minister should want powers to override those authorities in these cases, and I believe that if he had applied himself better to helping them and co-operating with them to achieve the objectives that they are trying to achieve, to better their towns, to plan so that they are more useful, then I think far more would have been achieved.

That brings me to the third leg—

In this Bill the hon. Minister has the right to sub-divide any land as he wishes, to override all the provisions of townships and to do all those things which should not happen. In other words, we have over the years, over the centuries, one can say, built up a system where conditions in title deeds, restrictions in regard to township planning and things of that nature have become a safeguard to the home-owner. Let me give an example of what I mean, let me give you the example of a man who works hard for many years and gets together sufficient money to buy himself a home. He wants to buy the best he is capable of buying for himself and his family. But he buys in an area where let us say there are restrictions which say that plots may not be smaller than half-an-acre and one acre and that homes must be to the value of not less than R5,000 or R10,000, whatever the case may be. This man buys there, and when he buys and builds his home for that value, he does it in the belief that he will have the protection of similar houses, similar sized plots in a locality where he believes he belongs and can fit in. What is the position now? If perchance the Minister decides to make that a designated area, what then happens to this man’s protection, what happens to the rights he has always enjoyed? They are swept away, because this hon. Minister and his Board take the power to re-divide that land into as many plots as they wish to do; they are not restricted in any way at all; they can build as many houses on each of those plots as it suits them to build at the time. So that if an industrial complex might change or be planned on one side of the city where it was not planned before, he can come along where the better class of township has been developed and destroy the whole nature and character of those parts. I think it was the hon. member for Peninsula who said that it is possible that the hon. Minister will never use any one of those powers. I accept that. I don’t believe he is capable of using all these powers because he has not got the staff and he has not got the ability to plan at the rate which will probably necessitate using all these powers. Nevertheless this Bill gives him powers to do that in future if one man and one board have the power dictatorially to do these things, what do safeguards mean any more to the home-owners? After all a home is a man’s castle, and he likes protection. You can have all this nonsense anywhere else, but you must not touch his home and I hope that the people of South Africa will react and will realize the lines along which this Government is moving: To have complete control of every phase of our lives. And now it has come on to our doorsteps. One of the aspects I want to mention here is that this affects all those people who have been smugly sitting on the side line in the full and firm belief that “It can’t happen to me”. Now it has moved right on to their doorsteps and it can happen to them under this Bill. This Minister can interfere with anybody’s home and the conditions on which it was built and founded.

Now we come to the fourth leg of our amendment which says—

I don’t want to go deeply into that because I have touched on it to some extent, but I still believe, and I want to repeat, that the system which has been devolved over the years whereby local communities at local authority level control their own building and planning arrangements, subject to the overall authority of the province, where by consultation this hon. Minister could get all the control he wants and by which he could direct things along the right lines—I believe that that should remain for all time. I believe it is a system which should be honoured by this Minister, not in the breach but in the observance.

It has been stressed in this debate, as I have already said, that this Bill might well be designed to deal only with certain areas. The hon. Minister has mentioned some previous slums or Bantu areas in cities which have been changed, and these powers will possibly and obviously be used to deal with those areas and areas contiguous to them, and that is what we are against, Sir, because this will be like a creeping paralysis. If once we give this hon. Minister permission to deal with areas contiguous to areas he wants to redesign, areas that were previously slums or suchlike, where is it going to stop? It never will stop. So we say, “No, this Bill does not limit this Minister in anyway whatsoever”. The Minister uses the term called an “urban renewal scheme”. I have never seen it before and I don’t think the hon. member for Kempton Park has and I think he is at one with me in not liking this term “urban renewal scheme”. It covers everything and anything, and it is one of those provisions which if the hon. Minister embarks upon it to the extent that he can and he achieves results, then he will go to new areas which we can ill-afford to break down at the moment. This type of planning at this stage might well slow down the provision of other houses for people and not speed them up as has been suggested in this debate.

The other point I want to deal with is the question of compensation in Clause 5 (h). I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe this is the only good clause in the Bill. It provides for compensation for goodwill based on one year’s net profits, either before the date of purchase or before the time of proclamation. In the light of the fact that this is probably being paid to a person who is not a willing seller and also because this Bill empowers the hon. Minister now to launch out into other areas, or areas other than slum areas, businesses can well suffer, well-established businesses, and if this hon. Minister thinks that one year’s net profit is compensation for the loss of a business which has been built up over the years is correct, I am sorry I cannot agree with him. We will move an amendment in the Committee stage to try and cover this point, and I am quite sure that the hon. Minister will see that in the light of present-day values 12 months’ net profit is quite inadequate as compensation for any business which because of the application of this Act will perhaps have to be closed.

What I want to say in conclusion is this: If this hon. Minister is really sincere in his desire to develop communities or to proceed with community development, I am going to suggest to him that he investigates, possibly for the first time, whether the process of co-operation is not a far better method of achieving his objective than by waving the big stick and if the stick is not big enough, making it bigger. I believe he can achieve far more by co-operation, in spite of all his contentions that the people who will not co-operate, probably do not want to co-operate because they don’t agree with Government policy. I think that that is just so much nonsense, because basically there is not one local authority in this country, whether it be the supporters of the Government side or this side of the House, that does not want to better the conditions of its inhabitants. I challenge the hon. Minister to tell me that there is such an authority. He knows just as well as I do that such an authority does not exist. So I am going to suggest to him that if he changes his outlook, changes his psychological approach to this matter, he will achieve far more. Other governments have done it throughout the world, and if we are all aiming at the same thing, the development and the betterment of the people and the communities, I am quite sure that we can do it without any trouble at all. The hon. Minister’s problem as I see it at the moment is that by usage he has become so accustomed to group areas, that now with this Bill he is regarding South Africa as just one big group area.

It is very interesting to listen to the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition because, in the first place, this Opposition has revealed itself during this Session to be the persons who speak about “White leadership over the whole of South Africa”. But over the past two days they and their whole policy have been exposed because it appears that they do not want a White society as such in South Africa. They have shown us that they are opposed to the Group Areas Act in general. Nor do they want group area development to take place. For this reason they are also going to vote against the second reading of this Bill. They do not want group area development in South Africa. They want the position to be as it was in the old days when Whites lived among non-Whites and vice versa. That is what they want and this is also clear from the amendment which they have moved in which they say that the principle of group areas will be extended throughout the whole of the Republic by means of this measure.

That is true.

Yes, it may be quite true.

I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) whether he is in favour of group areas. Will the hon. member for Durban (North) tell me whether he is in favour of group areas?

What you have said is untrue and you know it.

On a point of order, may the hon. member say: “It is untrue and you know it”

I withdraw.

I want to ask whether he and his party are in favour of group areas. You see, there is no reply. Not a word is said, that is why I say that hon. members who say that they believe in “White leadership over the whole of the Republic” are not telling the truth because when they oppose this Bill—they are going to vote against the second reading—it means that they are rejecting this principle and are saying that there should be no group areas in South Africa. They will have to reply. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) will have to explain on 24 March why he is opposed to group areas. Will the hon. member tell us why he is opposed to group areas?

I said nothing about it.

I am prepared to sit down if the hon. member wishes to reply.

Not now.

We will never have a reply. This debate has made it clear to us that the Opposition are opposed to group areas. To judge from his expression, I imagine that that is why the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) is so concerned. What should happen is that hon. members opposite should try to improve the provisions of this Bill at the Committee Stage, but they should have accepted the principle of this Bill instead of rejecting it.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If the towns in the Transkei are now zoned as “Black”, will Whites live next to Blacks or not?

It is very easy for the hon. member because he wants Blacks to live next to Whites. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is at least honest in this regard. She wants intermingling to take place. And that is what hon. members of the Opposition also want but they do not want to admit it. I want to say that we will be entitled as from now, and during the months which lie ahead, to tell the country that the United Party do not want group areas and that they want intermingling. But we can also go further. What is the purpose of this legislation? Its purpose is to accelerate development where such development is to take place. But what is the attitude of the United Party? They want to delay that development. They are trying to employ delaying tactics in every sphere. We are trying to accelerate slum clearance by means of this Bill; we are trying to clear the slum areas as soon as possible, but they do not want to give these rights to the hon. the Minister. They talk about negotiations. They say that the hon. the Minister is going to consult the administrator in terms of the Bill but they say that this means nothing, absolutely nothing.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear!” But in the same breath they say that city councils and local authorities must be consulted. Why should city councils be consulted and not the administrator? We have seen what the local authorities are doing. That is why a Diemont Commission had to be appointed. This Commission was appointed as a result of the fact that local authorities did not carry out the task which was entrusted to them. It is for this reason that we find that certain flats in Cape Town to-day have to be demolished because of the actions of the Cape Town City Council. Are they satisfied with that? But these are the city councils which we have to consult and which never do anything wrong! Sir. it is an impossible state of affairs. The city councils must be consulted but not the administrator.

The hon. members opposite have also resorted to delaying tactics in regard to Clause 8. They say that the right of recourse to the courts is also being taken away. What is the position there? The people know that they have to leave but they have still to be given the right to draw up petitions and to go to court. Things can be delayed for months in this way and this will interfere with the work of the Department. That is why I say that they are resorting to delaying tactics in every respect. But not only this; they also want agitators to be able to become active. We saw this with the Indians. The Indians did not want to leave. They did not have suitable homes. They lived in shanties. Those were the homes mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She said at the time that it was wrong to compel them to vacate those homes, and the hon. member for Umlazi said the same thing. [Interjection.]

But they had to be taken 20 miles away.

That makes no difference because they were given transport facilities. They were also given better housing in all respects, but as a result of the delaying tactics which were resorted to, some of these people took three years to go to their new homes. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Umlazi and other hon. members said that city councils should be consulted in connection with the planning of cities and towns. Of course they will be consulted. But it is continually being said here that we must have a national plan in all respects. That is all that the hon. the Minister is doing here. He is establishing planning machinery for the whole country and his projects have to fit in with the national planning projects we have. Must each town or city be planned piecemeal? Does the hon. member for Durban (North) want the city council there to act as they please?

We just want you to leave us alone.

That, of course, is what they want so that they can do just what they want to do. No action will be taken against local authorities. Action will only be taken—and this is something which must be done—against local authorities which do not want to do their work, such as those in Johannesburg and Cape Town and perhaps Durban as well. This Bill will deal with local authorities which do not want to co-operate. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), who has just interjected, was Mayor of Johannesburg and he knows how we struggled in regard to planning at the time. The hon. member may laugh. Was it not true that the Department of Bantu Affairs had to take drastic measures at the time in connection with Johannesburg? But all the hon. member for Durban (North) says is “leave us alone”, so that they can continue to do nothing and delay everything. The speeches which have been made here have been the same as the speeches which are continually being made in regard to the great dictatorial powers which the hon. the Minister wants to assume. If this Government had not taken these steps in the past, where would South Africa have been to-day? We had to assume powers because those hon. members sought to frustrate us on every possible occasion. If we had not taken those steps, what would have happened? [Interjections.] This Bill deals with human relationships. It deals with human relationships in South Africa but the hon. member says that he is only concerned about gold and not about the conditions under which people in South Africa have to live. That is why I say that by its actions the United Party has revealed itself in its true colours. I think that the hon. member for Durban (North) will probably speak after me and I should like him to tell the House whether he agrees that there should be different group areas in South Africa. That is the first question. Secondly, whether there should be group area development and thirdly, whether that development should be accelerated or not. I should like a clear reply in this respect. We should like to know whether this development should take place in certain areas only or throughout the whole of the Republic. Fourthly, the hon. member must tell us whether he agrees that the Government should take action if there is any city council or local authority in South Africa which is not prepared to apply group areas and assist the Government to apply them?

What has that to do with this Bill?

This Bill is a consolidation of various laws in order, as the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) told us, to make the law more streamlined and to assist the hon. the Minister in carrying out his duties.

They no longer accept separate residential areas.

These are the questions I want to put to the hon. member, and, if he is not going to speak, I shall be pleased if the next speaker on that side will reply to these questions I have asked.

It is very difficult to deal with an hon. member such as the hon. member who has just sat down when he makes a speech such as he has just made, because in the back of my mind all the time I have to have regard to one fact; I know that he is a lawyer and I also know that he knows better than to say what he did here. He says that this is a Bill to consolidate all the various laws. He said “dit is ’n samevatting van al die wette”, But the hon. member forgot to listen to the hon. the Minister. That was not what the hon. the Minister said about this Bill. This is not a consolidation of all sorts of laws, as far as the hon. Minister is concerned, and it is certainly not that either as far as we are concerned, otherwise we would not be opposing it at this stage. Sir, the hon. member talks about White leadership. Here again we get the repeated bleat from the hon. member about leadership, and he says that our policy is White leadership over the whole of South Africa ….

So now it is only a “bleat”

The hon. member is dead right. What is his policy? White leadership only over a part of South Africa. If the hon. member had read this Bill instead of making noises that he made here, he would have seen in Clause 5 that certain areas are excluded from the operation of this Bill. This is not a Bill which deals with the whole of South Africa; it is a Bill which excludes certain areas.

What about your amendment?

If the hon. member will look at Clause 5, paragraph (a) of Section 12 (1), he will see that the land excluded from the operation of this measure is any land situated in an area which is a scheduled Native area in terms of the Native Trust and Lands Act, i.e. the existing and the future Bantustans; locations and villages, Coloured settlements for the Colouredstans and other communal reserves and other matters.

They are also included under the Group Areas Act.

They are also excluded under the Group Areas Act; that is what the hon. member has been talking about—the Group Areas Act.

Look at (a) of your amendment; read it.

It means exactly what it says. It means that this is not something that just deals with Group Areas. It is now being extended to all the other areas; it is not confined just to group areas, as we have indicated to the Minister. But then, Sir, the hon. member comes along here and he has the impertinence, after the hon. the Minister’s interjections in this House, to talk about consultation and to say that we say “Our policy is consultation; we want the Minister to consult with the Administrator but not with the local authority”. That is what he said.

That is not what I said.

Oh, yes, the hon. member did. Sir, what hope of consultation is there with a Minister like this? Did we hear the hon. the Minister, when the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) was talking, saying, “we are the Government, you (the Cape Town City Council) are not the Government; you have to toe the line.” that is his attitude, and that is what he is going to use this Bill for, that is to say, to make everybody toe the line to do what he wants. How can the hon. member talk about planning? What on earth has this Bill to do with planning? What this Bill envisages is to upset all the planning that has taken place in South Africa if this Minister wants it. Sir, the hon. member raised a laugh from his colleagues when he said “What do you want in Durban (North)?” and I said “In Durban (North) we want you to leave us alone”. That is what I said to him and I want to tell hon. members on the other side that when the contents of this Bill and the powers taken by the Minister become known to their constituents they will also want the Minister to leave them alone. You see, Sir, here is an hon. member, a lawyer, dealing with a Bill in exactly the same way as it has been dealt with by all the other hon. members on that side; in other words, not one of them has dealt with it, and it started with the hon. the Minister. The Minister introduced this Bill as if it was just some little act which was being put into operation because of what the hon. the Prime Minister had said during the recess; that it was going to promote community development and lead to the clearance of slums and to all sorts of other things, and he hoped that everyone in the House would support it.

Sir, hon. members opposite have talked about the Constitution. The hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) first raised this matter. Sir, I am a great believer in an upholder of our Constitution and I would have thought that hon. members on the other side were too; I would have thought that they might have reformed when we became a Republic. I know their record before we became a Republic—the rapists of constitutions. The Nationalist Party were the greatest rapists of constitutions before the establishment of the Republic. Sir, all constitutions have to work, not just by the letter of the law, but also by the spirit of the law. The hon. member dealt with various aspects of the Constitution. The hon. member for Omaruru dealt with Section 114. It is quite simple. This is our Republican Constitution. Section 114 of this Constitution was put there by this Parliament; it was put there by a joint Select Committee. What does it say? It says—

May I ask a question? Are the powers conferred upon municipalities dealt with in Section 84 or in Section 92?

Powers were conferred upon municipalities long before the Republic came into being—long before Union came into operation and they were incorporated here. Provincial councils have the power to deal with local authorities. And the power is specifically given to them in Section 84. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) ought to know. We have amended it to include all the most extraordinary local institutions that there are. Here is Section 114. What does it mean? We would have raised this matter as a point of order were it not for the fact, Sir. that you have already ruled that this point is not a good point of order to take in this House. Indeed the President of the Other Place has also given such a ruling. Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned with a point of order; I am not concerned with the letter of the law; what I am concerned with is the spirit of this Constitution. I am concerned to know what the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa means to hon. gentlemen on that side. I know what it means to the hon. the Minister. He treats it with complete and utter contempt if it in any way comes between his personal aspirations and power, his little empire he is building here. He treats it with contempt and I shall indicate exactly how he does it. Here is Section 114. What does it mean? Why, Sir, did the joint Select Committee keep it in? Why did this Parliament pass it? Did it mean nothing at all, Sir? Why was it put in in the first place? Will the hon. Minister tell us whether any provincial council has petitioned for this legislation to strip it of its power in those fields in which a provincial council alone is qualified to decide these matters? Has one of them petitioned? Did he consult a provincial authority? Did he get a reply from them? Those are the things we should like to know.

Tell us where the provincial councils’ power is affected.

The hon. member must look at Section 84. I think he can read it himself. Read it, Sir, and you will see where the powers of the provincial councils are affected. Local authorities, local works, local planning—those were the powers given to the provincial councils by our Constitution. But the Constitution did something else. It provides for a pattern and for a system of government, a system of government which is our traditional government. Certain powers were given to the central authority, Parliament; certain powers were given to provincial councils and the local institutions had the power some 250 years before the Union of South Africa was born. They had them then and they have exercised them ever since. They were the first representative institutions of the country. Provision was made in our Constitution that their powers would remain until they were repealed by the competent authority. Of course Parliament has the power to override any of these things. Of course Parliament has the power to do what it likes. That power was never excluded; it was never intended to be excluded. Provision was made for a division of government, a division of government which was traditional, as I have indicated; a division of government which, I believe, is the best form of government in any country. It is the best form of government in South Africa where you have a Government like this; where you have a Minister like this. Because it divides your power. It spreads the power. It provides for the agencies with which people are in touch. It provides for elected institutions to decide what is best for the community. And the Minister’s attitude is a negation of that. When the hon. the Minister said to the hon. member for Peninsula this was the Government not the Cape Town City Council, they had to toe the line, then the hon. the Minister was usurping, I think, his functions as the Minister. The hon. Minister’s function is to see that the Constitution works; it is to try to work through this Constitution. That is an attitude of mind. The attitude of mind of the hon. the Minister is such that no Constitution could work. What is his attitude of mind? It is that every single institution, the local authorities, the provincial authorities, everything, must bow to the supreme being of the hon. the Minister.

They must bow to this Parliament.

This Bill does not provide for anyone to bow to this Parliament. This Bill provides for Parliament to give the Minister all the powers Parliament normally has. They have to bow to the Minister and no one else. As the hon. member for South Coast pointed out, right through the Bill we get “with the permission of the Minister”“on the advice of the Minister”, and so on and so on. That is the line. Not Parliament. And don’t let the hon. member confuse the concept of his Minister as to Government and Parliament, with his concept as a lawyer. These are two different things. Who has got to toe the line? What is this hon. Minister trying to do? You can’t govern this country with a bludgeon. You can’t govern the everyday affairs of South Africa with a bludgeon, like this Minister wants to do. He thinks he can. One must remind this hon. Minister, as he was reminded so ably by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) that when he talks about town-planning, when he talks about local authorities, he is dealing with something which is not a word or a phrase; it is a machine which was created from the earliest times, it is part of our traditions, something which the centuries of experience has created, and which the hon. Minister cannot, with all his thoughts and all his bludgeons and all his administrative wits do from his office in Pretoria.

Then he talks about consultations. Why did the hon. Minister not tell us when he talks about “consultations with the Administrator” what the Administrator is. What does “Administrator” mean in this context? As far as I can see it does not mean the Administrator and the Executive Committee. Whom is he going to consult with? He is going to consult the Administrator alone? I say so because this Act which is being amended here provides that in this Act (now of course called something else)—

And what does the Group Areas Act say? it says—

But in this Act it means something else and the only other thing it can mean …

Where does it state that it means something else?

Hon. members in their speeches have argued that there will be consultation with the provinces. What consultation with the provinces is there here when it is consultation with one man, every single one of them a Nationalist, appointed by the Government? No consultation is necessary between the Minister and the Executive Committee.

Where do we give another meaning to the word “Administrator” than stipulated in the main Act? I challenge the hon. member to read it out.

Why does the hon. Minister not say “the Administrator and Executive Committee”. Does the hon. Minister agree with my interpretation or not?

I really do not know what you are dealing with. You are talking nonsense.

Does the hon. Minister agree that “Administrator” in this Act means the Administrator alone?

Where does it stipulate that?

Now we have to start all over again.

In this Community Development Bill it says—

So all the words have the same meaning as in the Group Areas Act, except “Administrator”. As far as “Administrator” is concerned it has a different meaning. It does not have the meaning here of “Administrator in Executive Committee”. It does not mean that, so what does it mean?

Where do you get that?

I have just read it to the hon. Minister. If the hon. Minister does not understand he must consult his Department. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) is laughing about this. He said that we were saying that “you can’t rely on the Administrator to do his job”. Of course that is not correct. The scandal of this Bill, the scandal of the hon. Minister, the scandal of anyone on that side who is supporting this, is that they have avoided the question of what is in this Bill and what this Bill does. There has been much talk about slums. The hon. member for Piketberg spent his whole time talking about District Six and the removal of slums. It seems that the hon. Minister is fond of excess, and perhaps one cannot say too often what the hon. member for South Coast said in this debate, last night, as he has said in the past: We want the hon. Minister to get on with slum-clearance; we gave him the powers to get on with it. We are giving him the powers in this Bill. But we want to know what he is doing about slum-clearance. This is the impression that he is giving that he wants to deal with slum-clearance. But there is one word the hon. Minister, I think, owes an explanation to this House about, and that is the expression “urban renewal scheme”. What does that mean and where does it come from? Then we get the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) telling us about a professor from America who had used this expression. But what does it mean? This is the heart of the Bill as far as those people who want to be left alone is concerned, because an urban renewal scheme, whatever it means, is what this hon. Minister wants it to mean. In terms of this paragraph (e), it says “if he is satisfied that it is expedient to do so in furtherance of a slum clearance scheme or an urban renewal scheme, he can declare an area to be such an area”. Every property that is frozen in that area, if you want to sell it, you have to sell it to the Board. And they can expropriate too. The Minister can do that in Durban (North). I ask the Minister to deny it. As this is worded here, he could do this in Durban (North), he could declare Durban (North) or any suburb in South Africa, regardless of whether it is a slum or not, to be an urban renewal area and then gradually take it over and change its character.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.