I move—

We have now reached the Third Reading of this Bill. During the course of the other stages we have expressed, I think very clearly, our opposition to this measure. We are still opposed to it in the form in which it stands before us now.

The Bill itself re-states and widens all those powers which were previously contained in the Group Areas Development Act insofar as the implementation of group areas were concerned. It is true that it has been re-named and that it is now called the Community Development Bill, but all the terms and all the conditions to which we objected when it was in fact the Group Areas Development Bill are now transferred to an area which is not in fact a group area but becomes the whole of the Republic of South Africa. The effect of this will be to make this hon. Minister the greatest controller of land in the Republic. It puts to us an entirely new principle, as we understand it, in the development of land and in dealing with land in South Africa. Up to now the method of handling our lands and developing our townships has been through the various bodies which have been established by the laws of this land and whose powers have always entitled them to develop the areas over which they have authority, in the manner in which that particular community would like its affairs handled and developed. But now those powers are brushed aside. This Bill now vests in this Minister the power to take out of the hands of those local authorities, whether they be city or town councils or provincial councils, all the authority which they previously had. It is true that the Minister and his Department, under other measures, had certain powers to interfere in the affairs of local authorities, but in all those measures we have tried from time to time to ensure that there was adequate consultation between those local authorities and the Government Departments administering the various laws. That consultation has now been diminished; it has been diminished to a stage where, although the Minister has been prepared to insert in this Bill what he will in fact consult with the Administrator, it really means nothing and it is no guarantee whatsoever to those local authorities that they in fact have to be consulted. This is an aspect of the Bill to which we particularly object. We know that certain local authorities from time to time are dilatory perhaps in carrying out their duties but we still believe that where the spirit of co-operation exists on both sides, these obstacles can be overcome and that the job which has to be done can be done anyway.

It must come from two sides.

This Bill also introduces two new terms into our legislation, terms which are undefined and which remain undefined now that we have come to the end of the discussion on this Bill. I refer to the terms “community development” and “urban renewals scheme”. I accept that the term “community development” is probably a generally understood term, and the necessity for its definition was perhaps not very great until we came to Clause 19 of this Bill under which the hon. the Minister can appoint inspectors to go into properties to gather information which he requires, and whereas before this clause was confined specifically to proclaimed group areas it is now extended to any designated area; in other words, it can now happen in any area in which the hon. the Minister is interested from the point of view of development. He can now appoint inspectors to go into those areas and glean whatever information he wants and to question any person he wishes to be questioned; he can also demand that whatever documents he wants must be produced. Sir, in the case of group areas this Government was implementing its policy, and it proclaimed these areas, and these actions by inspectors were in fact confined to those specific areas. Those confines are now broken and these inspectors, on the instructions of the Minister, can now go into any area which he designates as an area in which he is going to carry out community development and they can interrogate anybody at any reasonable time and they can ask for whatever information they want. We believe that this is a further infringement upon the rights of people.

The other term which this Bill introduces and which remains undefined at this stage—and I think this is a very important term—is the term “urban renewal scheme”. Sir, this introduces an aspect into this legislation which I find quite frightening, because an urban renewal scheme means, as I understand it, having dealt with this Bill, and having attended the debate on it in this House in all the stages, that the hon. the Minister can decide to go into any area, where he will be exempted by this Bill from the provisions of a town planning scheme and from municipal regulations and by-laws, and declare it an urban renewal scheme. We do not quite know what an urban renewal scheme means but we do know that if he goes into that area and declares it an urban renewals scheme, he can do a lot of things which we believe invade the rights of property owners in that area. For example, he can sub-divide or re-divide the land. He can decide for himself the number of buildings which he is going to put on each piece of land. He can do all those things which basically can affect the rights of the small man, who has established his home, has always enjoyed. Sir, this problem is one which worries us considerably because in spite of any assurances that the Minister might give us that he will not use these powers for these purposes. we have to accept the fact that they are contained in this Bill and that this Bill does confer upon the Minister the right and the power to do these things. Sir. I give the hon. the Minister full credit for the fact that he has been prepared to consider an amendment suggested from this side. I do not know if he has arrived at a decision about that amendment yet, but I sincerely hope that with the assistance of his legal advisers we will be able to come to some arrangement and that he will be able to introduce an amendment in the Other Place which will in fact meet the problem with which we are faced in this Bill.

Another aspect of this Bill which we do not like but which we are prepared to concede is possibly necessary to some extent, is the new provision for the freezing of properties in a slum area. Sir. this is also something new and something which I do not not think the Minister has explained fully. He says that he wants the right to control buildings in areas in which he has certain development plans. I do not think that the hon. the Minister has given us adequate explanation of his exact intentions. I think there is one question which remains unanswered, and that is the question as to whether any buildings can be frozen which are not in fact in that area but which serve that area, and I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with this in his reply. This is a question which arises from this clause. For example, if the hon. the Minister decides to clear a slum area and he can accommodate the people during the course of that clearance in a building which is on the fringe of that area, has he the right under this clause to freeze that building too although it is perhaps not within the confines of that slum area? I am not sure whether that can happen; the point has been put to me, so I raise it here to give the Minister the opportunity to reply. This Bill also has the effect of altering the definition of a defined area, which means that the Minister and his Department can now set themselves up as a local authority in any area which is a designated area. Sir, that is an extension of power. We can visualize that this provision might well in the future cause a clash with established local authorities because it can, of course, establish them in areas where local authorities already hold sway. I believe that this is a provision which should be used with care and with caution. It is a provision which I would prefer not to see in this Bill.

Sir, there are some good provisions in this Bill, although not many. One of those provisions deals with the question of compensation for goodwill. We have already expressed our opinion in that regard. I am very sorry that we have been unable to impress upon the Minister the fact that one year’s net profit for goodwill for the loss of a business is quite insufficient and quite unrealistic. The hon. the Minister was quite adamant on this point and I am very sorry that he was. I sincerely hope that he will reconsider this aspect.

The other provisions that we do not like are the extraordinary measures which are being taken under this Bill to get rid of tenants from an area which has become a designated area. In the past the law as it stood made adequate provision, we believe, for getting rid of people who do not pay their rent or who do not fulfill their agreements but, Sir, the average private landlord copes with this situation very well. There are few landlords who find themselves unable for any reason at all to get rid of a tenant who is an undesirable tenant or a tenant who does not pay his rental, but in those cases they do it according to the due processes of law; both sides may appeal to the courts and both sides are bound by the decision of the court. Now, under Clause 8 of this Bill, that is no longer necessary.

We also believe, in connection with the eviction of these people, that the period of notice is quite inadequate, in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister says that he never gives less than 30 days or three months’ notice, I think he said. In spite of that, it is provided in the Bill that he can give this lesser period of seven days by way of notice. In those circumstances we must take exception to it. Sir, in the case of the cancellation of leases we can appreciate that the Minister must have some powers, if he is going to develop an area, to cancel leases in that area, and we are pleased to see that he has decided to give compensation deals improvements—and the compensation deals only with improvements—but I would like to ask him this: Should this be in the case of a business, will the goodwill clause apply in these particular cases as well? I do not know at the moment whether this provision will apply in both cases; whether a man will be entitled to goodwill or whether he will get compensation for improvements because his lease has been cancelled, or whether in fact he will qualify for both. I sincerely hope that in the case of an established business he will qualify for both.

Sir, I have dealt with the question of inspection. We do not like the thought and the idea contained in this Bill that the ordinary person living in an area which is not a group area, can be subjected to questioning and query. The hon. the Minister said in his reply yesterday that he cannot get this information anywhere else. I believe that this information could be obtained from other sources. It depends entirely, of course, upon how much information the Minister wants and whether in fact he wants unnecessary information or too much information, but I believe that the basic information which he requires is readily available, and I sincerely hope that in the application of this clause the ordinary householder, who is going to fall within the ambit of this Bill, is not going to be subjected to constant worry and inspection by inspectors appointed under Clause 19.

There is one other point that I want to mention at this stage—unfortunately I was absent when it was discussed—is the question of the Administrator. In the principal Act, as the hon. the Minister knows, the term “administrator” means the administrator-in-executive committee, and it says so in the first Section of the Act. I understand that the hon. the Minister had discussions with the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) in this regard. I believe there was some difficulty about arranging that “administrator” in this Bill should mean the same as it means in the principal Act, the Group Areas Act, and the suggestion was that just a few words should be omitted …

I have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North).

I am very pleased indeed to hear that. That removes one of our worries about this Bill as it was that “administrator” would mean something different in this particular Bill from what it meant in the principal Act.

To sum up, Sir, we do not like legislation of this type; we do not like this extension of powers. We believe that what the hon. the Minister is setting out to achieve could equally well be achieved by other measures, although we realize that he has to have certain powers to control authorities who are responsible for these jobs. Under these circumstances we must oppose this Bill.

The hon. member’s dutiful protest against the third reading has really convinced me that the existence of the United Party as an opposition is merely a dutiful one. These gentlemen exist as an opposition for the simple reason that they do not know how to get out of their misery. I agree it is a serious problem and we must simply leave it to the electorate. To come to the concrete points of difference I want to say in the first place that we on this side of the House welcome and accept this Bill as it has now been amended because of this crucial point: We welcome the fact that the concept “community development” has been widened to extend beyond merely group area development. At least three of the various points of objection raised by hon. members opposite dealt precisely with this widening of the concept “development” to extend beyond mere group area development. We have learnt in practice that, in spite of the fact that the development of proclaimed group areas is a designated and an unavoidable task because people who do not qualify have to be removed and substituted by people who do qualify, it is often urgently necessary, when it comes to the physical development of an area, to develop the adjoining areas as well. When we consider the task of the Minister not only from the point of view that he must convert an area which has been declared a group area from an area inhabited by people who do not qualify to live there to an area inhabited by people who are qualified to live there but from the point of view of physically reconstructing residential areas for the various sections of our community we can only welcome these powers the hon. the Minister is taking, powers which enable him to widen the field of operation of the Community Development Board to extend beyond the narrow concept of group areas. If we accept this principle we see where the basic difference between us and the Opposition lies, except that we once again have to emphasize this that we on this side of the House want the Group Areas Development Act to function; we are anxious to establish ways and means to make the Act function more smoothly. Because hon. members opposite are not interested in putting into practice the idea of group areas, they are against the granting of powers to the Minister which will make it easier to apply the Act.

To come to the specific objections raised by hon. members on that side: The Opposition adopt the attitude that the Minister, in cooperation with the Community Development Board, or the Board itself, is being empowered to by-pass certain town planning schemes and certain regulations entrenched in provincial or municipal ordinances in connection with the development of an area in order to accelerate development. In this connection I just want to re-state three points. I just want to state them without emphasizing them unduly. The first is that this party and the Government say clearly that hon. gentlemen opposite place a wrong interpretation on the traditional way of legislating in the Republic of South Africa, namely, that certain powers have been delegated to local authorities, sacrosanct powers with which the Central Government cannot interfere. We refer in this connection to the constitutional position—I think the powers of the provinces are set out in Section 84—that nowhere is reference made to municipal powers, let alone town planning powers; that the entrenching section in respect of the provincial powers, Section 114, refers back to Section 84 but that Section 92 of the Constitution refers specifically to municipal powers and provides that the powers municipalities had at the time the Constitution was accepted should remain in force. They are not even specifically entrenched in the Constitution in so far as they are entrenched. But, more important than that, we on this side of the House adopt the attitude that in a unitary state, such as our State, when the Central Government at any time takes powers unto itself which it has lent to subordinate governmental body it is not a case of it having acted improperly or of it having violated tradition from a constitutional point of view. All the powers of a unitary state like our State belong to the Central Government and the customary distribution of those powers to geographically decentralized governmental bodies does not detract from the principle that the Central Government has the right to take those powers back unto itself as and when it is necessary. That is the first point I want to make as far as this matter is concerned.

In that case you destroy local government.

You will only destroy local government if you are stupid enough to withdraw all power in one fell swoop; that is not relevant here. What is relevant here is the constitutional correctness, the propriety, the good taste, from a constitutional law point of view, on the part of the Central Government to take back unto itself any powers it has handed over to local, decentralized bodies.

The second point at issue in this connection is the entire concept of planning in South Africa. Let me say this to hon. members opposite: As a result of the historical circumstances prevailing in South Africa we have never yet done justice to the planning of our urban and peri-urban areas. The Provinces have stepped in to fill the vacuum which has come into existence and our cities have stepped in with their planning to a limited extent but a determined effort has never yet been made either by the old Union authorities or by the Republic of South Africa to tackle seriously the very important question of making a survey of the planning in our urban areas; and this is such an important function of the State that, as far as we are concerned, we do not have the slightest doubt that it is the duty of the Central Government to give the lead in planning the whole of South Africa and to lay down in principle, the basic direction and lines to be followed. That is why we fully agree that a Minister of the Central Government should have the right to step in where necessary when it comes to planning in order to achieve the limited object envisaged in this Bill. As a matter of fact we would be in favour of much wider powers in regard to planning, powers which we believe to be necessary and which we believe can only be supplied to the country in a co-ordinated form ex the Central Government.

The third aspect I want to deal with in connection with this interference with local and provincial enactments—the Minister has placed great emphasis on this—is this that in connection with the provision of housing we have reached a stage where new techniques and new prospects await us while our planning schemes and often the conditions of title of the past do not as yet take into account the presence of these new techniques. In order to apply these new techniques it is, from the nature of things, essential and unavoidable that the Minister should be able to cut right across those limiting provisions which make the application of those new techniques difficult or impossible. Let us even forget about new techniques; let us for a moment think of the problems which are created by the lack of standardization in South Africa because of the differences you find from one city council to the other in respect of many aspects of building, building regulations and so fourth. Obviously we cannot expect the Central Government which has to provide housing to regard itself as bound by the irrational, unstandardized building regulations in operation in various parts of the country.

I do not want to deal at length with the few points raised by the hon. member for Umlazi. They relate to certain objections regarding the inspectors. It was the same point I have already dealt with, namely, that the Minister was now getting the right to exercise his powers over an area wider than a group area. Let me just remind the hon. member that in terms of Section 12(1) the Minister has to announce in which additional area the inspector may act. It is not a question of an inspector acting in an arbitrary fashion. In the long run I think we can depend on the good judgment of the Minister not to proclaim areas unnecessarily. It is therefore not a question of the-ordinary householder being subjected to visits by the inspectors.

The hon. member also raised the question of the freezing of property in urban renewal areas and slum areas. That is the new Section 12(1). I do not want to undertake the task of the Minister but it is perfectly clear that freezing can only set in in the circumscribed area. It is very obvious why there must be freezing. It sets in because in the immediate for see able future the Minister wants to do replanning and rebuilding in that area. Surely the owners cannot be allowed, on the eve of a new building scheme, to change existing structures and then either expect the State to compensate them for the changes effected, changes which are useless in any case, or lose their money. I think the attack on this clause is the most unfortunate attack launched by the hon. member.

Then we have the question of the definition of “urban renewal scheme”. I think we are all agreed that if and when we or the Minister finds a good definition it will be inserted. We are all agreeable in principle; it is only the ingenuity that is lacking. The hon. member has once again attacked the State’s right to shorten the procedure and the question of goodwill which will only be paid in respect of one year. I do not wish to repeat the argument in connection with the collection of rent. In terms of our Constitutional Law the State is regarded as a decent person; that extraordinary powers can be entrusted to the State which you will not entrust to an individual; that there is no reason to criticize the granting of extraordinary powers to the State unless you can prove that those powers have been abused. That is something which has fortunately never yet happened in South Africa. The State has never yet even been criticized for having abused its extraordinary powers in the field of civil law.

I want to conclude by saying a few words on the question of goodwill. The hon. member for Umlazi was a little apologetic for having criticized the Minister for this amendment to the Act, an amendment which enables the Minister to compensate a disqualified person for one year’s goodwill.

Don’t say too much about that; the Minister’s heart has already softened.

I shall make his heart even softer. I say the hon. member was apologetic about criticizing the Minister because what actually happens is this: The public who are affected by the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act are treated very magnanimously. But instead of saying “thank you” for the magnanimous way in which they are being treated we are immediately told that they are not being treated magnanimously enough. Where this Act has been on the Statute Book for a number of years without any provision being made for the payment of compensation in respect of goodwill I think we should be grateful for two things: Firstly, that provision is now being made for the payment of compensation in respect of goodwill for one year and, secondly, let us be grateful to the Government for having disclosed a frame of mind of wanting to face up to this question of goodwill. Let us give the Minister a chance to administer the law for a year or two on the basis of goodwill for one year. By that time it will undoubtedly have become clear whether it is possible to make more liberal provision in this connection. We on this side of the House are as anxious as hon. members opposite that the inhabitants and citizens of South Africa are not disappointed in the way the administration of the country affects them. We want to do justice to everybody. But we do not want to insert a provision which will get us into trouble in that an excessive financial burden will be placed on the State or which may create administrative problems which we will hardly be able to cope with.

The hon. member who has just sat down first of all decried the effort of this side of the House to criticize this Bill and to oppose the principle contained in this Bill and further said he did not think it was one which merited much concern. He then proceeded to spend quite some time trying to justify the purpose of this legislation. It reminded me somewhat of small town governments both here, in the United States and in other countries, in which sections of the administration tried to build an empire for themselves. It seems to me that with this Bill, which we on this side of the House think is completely unnecessary for the purpose the hon. the Minister alleges he wants it, the Minister is trying to justify his appointment as Minister of Housing not merely by carrying out the duties laid down in the Housing Act and other Statutes, but by introducing an entirely new conception of housing and town planning; in fact, that he wants to take over into his Ministry all the planning for the whole country. I think I have said before that this is part of a pattern which is becoming very clear to us. It is a desire to control every phase of the life of the country. With this Bill the Minister is virtually trying to take control of the physical side of South Africa, as the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) put it, and to do the development through the Department of Community Development as the hon. the Minister now designates the Department in this Bill. I do agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park that if the Government wants to do anything at all, it wants to get rid of this unpleasant word “group areas”. It is something which has affected our image both here and abroad and something which we would do well to get rid of. The Minister seeks to do this under the nomenclature of “community development”. I don’t decry the effort to try to do something which can improve the image of South Africa but I do say this: It is not necessary to have a Bill of this nature. In trying to efface the unpleasant atmosphere that has been created it is not necessary to widen the powers so completely that, as has been said before, the Minister now virtually wants to emasculate all authority, authority which up to now has played an important part in this work. In a country so wide and broad as South Africa, a country with long distances which must cause costs to mount, I cannot understand why it is necessary to virtually interfere with the excellent work the various local authorities and provincial authorities have been doing over the years in their own areas so successfully and so ably in the interests of the development of our country. I well remember some 12 or 13 years ago when the country was faced with an even greater crisis in regard to community development when the hon. the Prime Minister was Minister of Native Affairs. He was faced with a colossal problem. Hundreds and thousands of persons were streaming into the country in order to find employment in the industrial revolution that was taking place in South Africa. They had to be housed. The position was chaotic both with regard to housing and health amenities, something which was endangering the stability of the community and also its health. What did the then Minister do? He co-operated with local authorities; he sought their assistance; he co-operated with the C.S.I.R., an important body in this country which deals with the latest techniques and new methods to which the hon. member for Kempton Park has referred. As a result of that the local authorities began to build houses. They did so at low costs; costs unheard of in the history of this country. A municipality like Johannesburg, for instance, built some 40,000 to 50,000 houses over a period of seven years.

Who built them?

If the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) is hot under the collar, I want to give the hon. the Prime Minister every credit for what he did at that time. It was my privilege to work very, closely with him on this very issue. I don’t need to be told by the little school children of the Reef who built houses. I don’t need to be told by them how the members of the Cabinet in those days co-operated with local authorities and how pleased local authorities were to play their part in that tremendous change in the community development of the country. We did not need Bills of this nature nor do we need Bills of this nature to-day, Sir. There is sufficient provision in the Housing Act and in the other laws which are already on the Statute Book, both with regard to the provision of funds and the necessary authority. There is sufficient power to enable this to be done satisfactorily.

What did your party say about the powers which the Prime Minister took then?

I am talking from the point of view of the work that was achieved. My party, if they criticized, must have had good reason to do so. I am concerned at the moment with the fact that it is not necessary to have a Bill of this nature. I want to say to the hon. the Minister who has introduced this Bill that he himself knows that in the case of Riverlea and Bosmot, for example, the relevant local authorities have been building houses.

Who built Bosmot?

I will not deny that the Department may have played a part. The Department built Meadowlands, for instance, based on the planning and the methods and the experience and with the help of the officials of the municipality of Johannesburg which was only too delighted to provide the skill and the experience necessary for that purpose. I say with the utmost modesty I was able to have one or two outstanding engineers of the City of Johannesburg seconded to assist in that work. Prof. Jennings, the professor of engineering at the Witwatersrand University, played a very important part in the section of housing development and techniques of the C.S.I.R. in those days. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister wants this Bill. Why does he suddenly decide that the development of the community life in South Africa in the physical sense demands a government department to take charge of it. He should be only too delighted with the work that is being done between local, provincial and government authority to attain one objective and that is to house the community. He knows that serious situations have on previous occasions arisen in this country. One does not want to repeat these things, it wastes the time of the House, but the Minister knows that the position at the end of World War II was worse than it is to-day with an immigration figure of 40,000 per annum. We would have been happy, if in following our policy, there were 100,000 immigrants a year to cater for. We would have been happy to share our houses as some of us had to do at that time and as they do in other countries where people are compelled to take in immigrants as lodgers so that they will have a roof over their heads. We have an immigration figure of 40,000, for which we are grateful, we hope it will increase, but it has not reached such proportions that a Minister must decide to elevate an ordinary ministry to one of the empires in the Cabinet. That is what the hon. Minister is seeking to do, Sir. It is not an uncommon practice. When you look at the different laws which have been passed in this House, laws where Ministers have taken fragmented departments, established fresh departments and then commenced to build empires, you realize that this is not an uncommon practice. I thought we had left the question of empire-building far behind us.

Just to give an example to the hon. the Minister why I think this Bill is completely unnecessary: He wishes to establish, as he calls it, a board with certain powers. What are these powers? He wants them to develop and assist in respect of such areas—not areas under the Group Areas Act—as he may from time to time designate in order to promote community development. This literally means that he can enter into any section of this country and decide to start building there. Surely it must be common sense that where you have a local authority, whether it be a municipality or a village management board or a village health committee, and you enter the field of these local authorities, you try to guide them, you provide the funds, you put ideas to them, you give them the opportunity of doing the work under proper guidance, that is a better way of making use of the already shrinking manpower we have in this country. Do you know what this can mean, Sir? It can mean a further demand for manpower, the overlapping of manpower, overlapping of thinking, waste of time in discussing things, waste of time in negotiations and consultations as to what is to take place. Hitherto the housing side of the country has worked very well. If the hon. member for Kempton Park wants to maintain that it is because of new methods and new ideas then is the next step going to be for the Ministry of Mines, for instance, to decide that because there are new methods in the field of mining to take over the whole of the mining industry? Must the Department of Mines, which is a junior ministry, suddenly become elevated to an empire? It will become the new Ministry of Mining Development in this country. There is something else. I can tell the hon. the Minister that there is some amazing development in regard to sewage disposal. [Interjections.] I do not even react to that remark on the part of the Minister. What I would like to say is this, that new methods are discovered daily in the various phases of the health of a country and community development. It is not necessary to create a ministry to make use of these new methods. Every local authority is only too delighted to be able to use new methods. With due respect to an ex-member of the Executive Committee of a Province, how can he say that we must not regard a province as holding holy and mighty powers? How can he disregard the tremendous part they have played? He says they have merely entered into a vacuum to try to play that part.

I am ashamed to hear an ex-member of the Executive Committee say that of an important province like the Transvaal. I hope the Cape members will forgive me for saying this. All the provincial authorities have done everything in their power to play an important part in this activity. I think we can be very proud in this country of the work our local and provincial authorities have done. If the hon. member for Brakpan wants credit for any member of the Government for the part he has played we are sufficiently generous as South Africans to give credit to all. We give everybody credit but let them continue to play their part. Do not ask us as an Opposition to assist in creating a fresh empire so that the hon. the Minister can do everything himself. There is one example of the completely unnecessary purpose of a Bill of this nature. We obviously have to deal with the details of this Bill and criticize them. In effect they are all of no value. The Minister can make all the amendments he wants to in regard to the Group Areas Development Act. Let him get rid of this as quickly as possible. Parliament put a limit on it until the year 1965. I understand the Minister even wants to extend that indefinitely. Hon. members with their own legislation, with their own “Frankenstein,” find themselves suddenly choked and now they are seeking a method of escape. The method of escape is to take something that is ugly and unpleasant, we clothe it and call it the new concept of community development in South Africa as if it has never been done in all the many years that this country has developed. What do tourists from abroad say about our cities and suburbs? They say it is wonderful to think that in a country like South Africa, a country far away from the centre of events, a country which is virtually young in every sense of the word, we have magnificent suburbs, outstanding gardens and development. We have done outstanding things in South Africa, things to which the world is prepared to pay homage. You, Mr. Speaker, know that visitors from abroad who have called on you personally have told you of the wonderful development they have seen in the Republic of South Africa, development in which every South African has played his part. We are not prepared to accept from any speaker on that side of the House, including the hon. the Minister, that a new concept of development has now come into being which requires the expansion of a ministry, entailing the taking over of powers and the decimation of the prestige and dignity of local authorities so that that department alone decides what must be done, how it should be done, when it should be done and where it should be done. No, Sir, that is not good legislation. This is not legislation which is necessary in the interests of the country.

There is the question of slum clearance. I would like to say this: The question of slum clearance has become a vital question to the hon. the Minister for a very simple reason. Instead of re-building and cleansing the established areas in our country it has become essential to his Government to uproot huge communities and transplant them elsewhere. That is why the Group Areas Development Act was brought into operation. Now, to do that one must rebuild virgin areas. and you must break down what already exists. Slums laws have dealt with this over the years but this is not something which was necessary in the country. We have developed traditionally over the years. Communities with a common interest, with a common religion, with a common thought and action, have settled themselves in a particular area. That is one of the natural reactions of human society throughout the world. It is one of the colourful things in South Africa we have founded. We have, in this beautiful part of the world, a part called the Cape. The Cape gives us an example of what this unfortunate new conception is going to do. It is going to take tradition, history and the colourful aspect of our life and clean it; it is going to make it into new marble statues; statues devoid of life, unappealing, just something ordinary; it is going to take away the attractiveness of virtually the mother soil of South Africa where our life started 300 years ago. That is what the hon. the Minister has in mind. He has not in mind a new conception of urban renewal development and schemes. Talk to the city engineers of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Bloemfontein …

Order! The hon. member is giving wings to his thoughts.

With your graceful guidance, Sir, I am going to conclude by saying this. We moved an amendment during the Second Reading to give expression to our thoughts.

I should like to say this: We think the hon. the Minister should have second thoughts. If he wishes to get rid of the words “group areas” good luck to him; we will help him to improve the image of South Africa to the best of our ability …

No, you won’t.

We do it daily. We will give him all the help we can. But let him not become an empire-builder which he will regret because he will not build an empire, Sir, he will be building something on sand. Because the local authorities and the provinces in our country are jealous of what they have done. They have every right to be. They are jealous in the interests of the community they represent.

I think we have long since listened to a more disparaging speech than the one we have just listened to. I can well understand why the hon. member has made such disparaging remarks and why the entire Opposition have been so disparaging in their remarks about this very neat piece of legislation. The legislation we have before us to-day gives form to an entirely new concept in the development of South Africa. The hon. member who has just sat down referred very disparagingly to the hon. Minister who, he alleged, just wanted to build “empires”; this Minister, in terms of this Bill, who he alleged now wanted to exercise control over the whole country; this Minister who wanted to control all the land in this country under this Bill. I fully understand why the hon. member has made such disparaging remarks. Hon. members opposite are very jealous of the good work this Minister is doing. They are jealous of the brilliant job of work this exceptionally capable young Minister is doing. Lacking any arguments we only had disparaging remarks from the hon. member. That impresses nobody most certainly not this side of the House. The hon. member says the hon. the Minister must rather co-operate with local authorities because if he does so he will be in a much better position to meet the housing needs and place the planning of our cities on a sound basis. I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion and that is that in 90 cases out of 100 the method will and does indeed work. I maintain that this hon. Minister co-operates much better with local authorities than was even done in the past.

Why all these powers then?

Unfortunately not all city councils are controlled by supporters of this side of the House, city councils who deliberately do not want to co-operate. It takes two to co-operate. The hon. the Minister offers to co-operate but if he does not get the co-operation of the other side he is obliged to see to it that he has powers to compel them to do what is necessary in the interests of the country.

For the first time in its history our country now has a Department of Community Development to look after these matters. It is a new creation. Are hon. members jealous of this creation of the Government’s? Why do hon. members not once and for all accept this wonderful creation and give it an opportunity of making a beautiful country of South Africa? This legislation is only giving effect to the activities of a new and very promising department. This Department is in the course of changing the face of South Africa, and I am convinced that hon. members opposite will in future still claim this child as theirs. In spite of the sudden and marked swing to the right the United Party is apparently still opposed to group areas and that is why they are opposed to any powers this Government takes to apply legislation dealing with group areas. They are also doing so in the case of the legislation we are dealing with this afternoon. Had it not been for the fact that they were whole-heartedly opposed to all group area development the United Party would not have made such a fuss. But because the United Party, in spite of the marked swing to the right, are still at heart opposed to group areas, they oppose this legislation behind the smoke screen of trying to protect the powers and rights of local authorities. Their concern about the powers of local authorities is nothing but a smoke screen because the party is at heart not well disposed to the principle of group area development. No, we heartedly welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister is taking power in this legislation to change the face of South Africa and to paint a new and beautiful picture to us.

Having listened to the arguments in both the second reading and the Committee Stages of this debate, it seems to me to be quite clear that this Bill represents an entirely new approach on the part of the Government to the whole principle of both land-ownership and land-distribution in South Africa at the present time. This becomes quite evident as soon as it is realized that this Community Development Bill, to be seen in its proper perspective, has to be read in conjunction with the two other pieces of legislation before the House this Session, the Housing Bill and the Group Areas Amendment Bill, both of which are on the Order Paper for discussion this week. What it amounts to is this: However much we may argue about the clauses of the Bill, the Government, in order to implement its apartheid policy, is claiming sweeping powers over private property such as we have never seen in the history of South Africa before. I would say this: Where else except in socialist or in Communistic countries will you find this concept of land being both controlled, and in some cases owned, and developed by the State? It is one thing to give a directive to local authorities, but quite another to take the powers that are envisaged in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Community Development Board, in terms of this Bill, is virtually exempt from the provisions of any by-law, town-planning scheme or regulation of a local authority and the conditions of establishment of any township is prescribed by any Administrator, it is exempt from the provisions laid down by any townships commission or townships board, and is exempt from the provisions of any ordinance in terms whereof approval must be obtained from a local authority for the subdivision of land. Mr. Speaker, that is a very frightening innovation. The Bill itself represents a serious inroad, and I think we cannot emphasize that enough, upon the recognized rights of private property-owners in South Africa. We do not like it at all, and we have made that quite clear. In South Africa land is privately owned, but in this legislation, and in the other two Bills which are coming up for discussion this week, there is startling evidence, and very clear evidence, that the State is intent upon radically extending its powers to interfere with the use and the nature of the ownership of private, domestic and industrial land in South Africa. The position is this: When the Minister of Planning can decide into what group areas he will divide South Africa, when he can decide, where members of all race groups will be allowed to own or occupy or use property, when he has this power untrammelled by any control of Parliament, a provision which is contained in the draft Bill to amend the Group Areas Act and which now before the House, and when the Minister of Community Development can come along in terms of this Bill and decide, with equally far-reaching powers, just how these areas are to be developed and at what speed, then I would ask the House what fundamental rights are left to the private property-owner in South Africa? You see, Mr. Speaker, we consider that the South African public has every cause to feel alarmed. The powers given to the hon. the Minister in this Bill, as has already been pointed out, do not stop at his providing accommodation in group areas for people displaced from another group area. That has been his function up to the present time. Now he will be empowered to take a long-established area, which may well have been occupied by one particular racial group for a long time, and he will now be empowered to change its whole character by declaring it to be subject to what he calls “an urban renewal scheme”, a term which the Minister’s department is unable to define. This is a very dangerous precedent indeed. Already the group areas legislation in South Africa has become so complicated that the public is baffled by it; the country is smothered by laws and regulations, and the people in South Africa do not know whether they are coming or going in regard to this legislation. That is a fact. The important thing for South Africans to realize, particularly those who live in crowded urban areas, is that no-one can really any longer be certain of any security of tenure, whether they are owners of private property, or in whatever other capacity they happen to occupy it. That is what this Bill really means and it is a wretched situation in which to find ourselves.

In replying to arguments in the Committee Stage, the hon. Minister in trying to justify the assumption of arbitrary powers for development purposes, made a very astonishing statement. This is what he said—

How the need to introduce new and up-to-date building techniques and methods for housing purposes can possibly be equated with the need to remove powers from the local authorities is something that is quite beyond our comprehension.

It is quite clear that it is beyond your comprehension.

I would say this that the real meaning behind this Bill is far more serious than anything that has been mentioned by anybody in this debate. Basically, it represents a failure of the Government’s policy. Why otherwise the need for the Government to impose its authority upon the local authorities? Perhaps the Minister would tell us whether this Bill does in fact mean that the whole machinery of local government, the process of consultation with the local authorities, has broken down. Because that is very much what it looks like. If the hon. Minister denies that, then why does he need these arbitrary powers? You see, Sir, if the Minister is going seriously to argue that local authorities are not as competent to use new and modern building techniques as he is, then that is so much nonsense. Of course they are. It is an argument that holds no water at all. In fact the local authorities would only be too happy to work in conjunction with the hon. Minister if they approved of his policies in regard to many of these things. Of course the Minister knows that a great many of them do not approve of this policies and that they very much resent continual ministerial interference in these matters. The country is sick of it, local authorities are sick of it. For all the hon. Minister may talk about the approval of the United Municipal Executive, I want to say something about the provincial councils and provincial administrations in this regard as a result of what was said by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) earlier on. This brings me to the whole question of local authorities and the Minister’s attempt in this Bill and in various other Bills to turn them into nothing but rubber-stamps. You see, Sir, the decline in local government in South Africa has taken place during a period of vast economic expansion. We recognize that. This economic expansion has in its turn led to an extension of the functions of the State itself, so much so since this Government came into power that South Africa is horribly over governed to-day. That is one of the causes of the Minister’s difficulties. That is what this Bill is about. The fact is that our rate of expansion in South Africa requires the laying out of countless new townships. We accept that; it is something that all of us accept. But this Bill, as other speakers have said, gives the Minister blanket powers in respect of any land, not only townships. That is our objection, and the wording of the Bill is such that there is no question of real consultation with the local authorities or with the provincial administrations. The hon. Minister knows perfectly well that, as in all other cases, they will be given their orders. The hon. member for Kempton Park sees every justification for that. I am afraid that I do not. I know that there are those who will argue that centralized control makes for greater efficiency. It is a very old argument. It is a moot one and I think it is a very dangerous one indeed. Our view is that a balance has to be struck between, efficiency on the one hand and the democratic process as we know it on the other. It is that with which we are concerned in this Bill, and we very much dislike the powers that the Minister is taking.

The ideal in regard to matters of this kind is that there should be a partnership between the Government, the Provincial Councils and the local authorities, but the powers taken by the hon. Minister in this Bill and in other Bills which will come before us during this Session, will lead to the invidious position, with which we have now become so familiar in the provinces, whereby large sections of existing provincial legislation will be rendered null and void. You have only got to take the Townships Ordinance in the Cape as a start.

When the hon. Minister talks about consulting the Provincial Councils, what is the position going to be the moment this Bill gets on to the Statute Book? Quite a number of hon. members in this House have been members of provincial councils; they know all about it. The position simply is that no ordinance of any province can be repugnant to an Act of Parliament. That is part of our Constitution. The result is that the moment this Bill is on the Statute Book, the provinces will have no option; the provincial councils will not have been consulted, they will have no option except to amend their legislation to fall in line with this Bill exactly as the Minister wants it. There is no real question of consultation with the provinces.

I will concede that a genuine need for coordination exists in this field as in others from time to time. Once would be quite unreasonable not to concede that. I can understand also that, in the national interest, the Government may feel obliged, under certain circumstances, to exert authority and to compel certain institutions, a local authority or even a provincial council, to fulfill certain obligations which, in the public interest, have to be fulfilled. But if that is the sole object of this Bill, if the sole object is to bully the local authorities into what the Minister wants them to do, then, Sir, the Minister must feel a need for that, and if he admits that need, Mr. Speaker, then his admission is an admission of failure to treat with the local authorities by means of the recognized channels that have worked so successfully throughout the years. That in turn is an admission that the Government’s policies are heartily disliked, and secondly, that the Government, this Government, unlike previous governments, has proved itself quite incapable of making the whole system of local government work satisfactorily in South Africa. That is what it proves. Hence the need for the big stick.

Finally, this Bill, to our way of thinking, amounts to nothing more than an admission of failure on the part of the Government to work amicably with the local authorities in South Africa. They have failed to gain the co-operation of local bodies; the Government has failed to inspire the local authorities to carry out their policy. That is what this Bill means, and we oppose most emphatically this very dangerous innovation of increasing an insidious government control, not only when it comes to the question of ownership of land, but also of the use to which land may be put. We deplore the inroads being made into the the rights of private and industrial property-owners in South Africa. We wish our protest to be most emphatically recorded.

In the ordinary course of events, a Bill to deal with community planning or town planning or country planning, or whatever it may be called, would be a day for praise and congratulations, but I would like the hon. Minister to know that I am opposed to this Bill, not only for the reasons advanced by the hon. members who have spoken against it, but because of the experience which I have had in dealing with the results of planning in this country where it affects Coloured persons and Asiatics.

We find ourselves to-day in the position that the Government has had all the powers in the world under the Slums Act, the Housing Act, the Group Areas Development Act, the Group Areas Act, and now the Community Development Act, to carry out all the things which the Minister wishes to do but the Minister in this Bill asks for further powers. I would like the hon. Minister to know that when he said to me the other day that we should tell the Coloured people of the advantages that flow from the planning, that is contemplated, and is being carried out, the Coloured people do not have to be told of the disabilities under which they suffer—they live with those disabilities. These are the people who are moved, who are shunted about, who in every case—and there are dozens and dozens of them—are the sufferers. In his reply to the second-reading debate, the hon. Minister referred to Bosnian’s Dam. He did not deal with the point I made, which was that the Coloured people are being forced out of the urban areas, the municipal areas. As the hon. Minister knows, right throughout the Cape Province, it is always the Coloured community, who are moved—as I said at the time —to the outer perimeter of every town. The hon. Minister conceded that they were moved out to bare veld—as I said, out to the old kliprandt, outside. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. Minister admitted. Therefore any Bill which is designed, not to make the best use of land for the benefit of the community as a whole, but which is designed to be, in my opinion, a disguise, because the Group Areas Act has now been changed in name and has now become “the Community Development Act”, must be opposed. It is obvious that a parallel is now being found, as was found in Britain, but for other reasons. In England the reason for a Ministry of Town and Country Planning was found in the fact that with bomb damage and the encroachment on agricultural land, something had to be done to control the development of cities and towns so that they should be placed in strategic spots and in places where raw materials and labour were available. Now, in this country, if that were the motive at the back of this Bill, I would say that it would be a Bill which we could compliment the Minister. But on observing the working of community development in this country and examining the powers which the Minister wishes to take and intends to take, it is quite obvious that there is going to be an acceleration in the removal of those groups of the community who have been affected by all this legislation. On those grounds I oppose the Bill. I believe that it is wrong in principle to use legislation of this type and kind to deal with that particular aspect of our daily life.

Another point I wish to make—I do not want to labour the question of the provinces and the local authorities—is this: I asked the hon. Minister whether or not the provinces had petitioned him to restrict their powers, or vary their powers, which might have been the reason for this Bill. In his reply he said that he had had consultations with the Administrators and with the members of the Executive Committees at a meeting when this matter was discussed. But the fact remains that the law requires that Parliament should be petitioned to make such alterations. I believe that the community development of towns and townships—that is, the provision of shopping centres and townships away from the congested urban areas, the provision of new houses in the place of old dilapidated slums* was proceeding at a reasonable pace, within the capacity of the country to carry and support both from a material point of view and from the point of artisans and manpower to carry out the work. Now we are having an accelerated effort. The cry to-day is that it is because of immigrants, when in actual fact the large number of houses being built are houses being built for Bantu who are coming to the cities and towns looking for work and finding it, and of Coloured people being moved out of established places in those towns. I put it fairly and squarely to the hon. the Minister: Is it fair, in dealing with community development, that he should say—because that is his attitude—that he and he alone will decide? I know that the actual declaration of group areas now falls under the Minister of Planning, and the onus and responsibility of the declaration now rest on that Minister’s shoulders.

Be that as it may, I believe that the procedure and method that could have been adopted, should have been by way of consultation with local authorities. As the hon. Minister himself admits, he has had the co-operation of local authorities and I can vouch for that. In his reply he quoted one small town council as being difficult, and he asked us by way of question and reply: Should he have to knuckle down to that small local authority? I believe that the method of dealing with that small local authority was through the ordinary channels of the Administrator. It is not a matter that should come to a Minister of State nor for him to deal with some obscure local authority.

I go further and say, that in the Bill, mention is made of compensation for traders who are put out of business, and the Minister did not reply to the question I raised. I ask the House to consider whether it is fair, reasonable and just to take a Coloured trader or an Asiatic trader—and I am going to ask the Minister to introduce an amendment to alter that, in the Other Place if necessary—and to say to that man, who has been in business for years, who has worked honestly, built up a clientele and created goodwill—to say to him arbitrarily: You shall now move, you shall now go to a township which has been set aside for your own people, and you will get one year’s profits as compensation. Is that just, or is it inhuman? It is, at least, unfair. I say that while this type of legislation exists we shall never improve relations in this country vis-à-vis ourselves and the Coloured people who are affected by all this legislation throughout the length and breadth of the Republic. Another point the hon. Minister referred to, was the question I raised with him of making it difficult for local authorities to act. I do not wish to burden the House with a reply to that matter at this stage, but when we get to his Vote, I will quote him chapter and verse as to how difficult it is for local authorities to get action. I do not blame the Minister personally, but as the Minister, he must take the responsibility. It takes months and sometimes years to get results where local authorities are attempting to get on with their job. Time is running short and I do appeal to the hon. Minister to realize that the efforts, the actions of the Government, the actions of the department in dealing with the Coloured community, are creating a tremendous amount of hardship, a great deal of frustration and a great deal of ill-feeling. It is easy for hon. members sitting there to laugh and to jeer, but I say, in all sincerity, that there is nothing that has caused greater hardship in this country; there is nothing that has caused more dissatisfaction amongst the Coloured community, than the legislation which is being pressed upon them, stopping up gaps, and which is designed only to have them removed from the urban areas to a place apart, where they must get on with the job on their own. That is what the legislation is doing, and has done. The hon. Minister has said so often that he has a tremendous amount of sympathy for these people. I ask him to exercise his sympathy and to give instructions that the time has come to turn the heat off from the Coloured people. If there is any heat to be generated or any pressure that has been put upon them; the time has come when these things should be relaxed. The time has come when the Minister must realize that we are dealing with people, with human beings, the same as we are. They are unable to voice their opinions as they should be able to, and they have to rely upon the poor method that is given to them, by having White men like myself to represent them in this House. But, I do my job as best as I can, and I say to the hon. Minister: Stop before it is too late, and stop pushing the Coloured people all around.

Once again we have heard hon. members opposite trying to create the impression in the outside world that the only reason why this legislation is being placed on the Statute Book is to deprive local authorities and provincial councils of all their power. When we study this legislation and we think of the various problems which confront the country we fully appreciate that community development is one of the most important functions of the Government of the day. We are very pleased that the Government is now placing legislation on the Statute Book in order to re-settle the various communities in our country properly and to see to it that those communities develop in an orderly way.

I deprecate the fact that the Opposition tries to create the impression that there is no cooperation between local authorities and the provincial councils and the Government. I think this Government can boast of the fact that it is on the best footing with provincial councils and local authorities, including Johannesburg, as far as co-operation is concerned; and Johannesburg only co-operated after the hon. members for Florida (Mr. Miller) and Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) no longer served on that local authority.

I want to return to the hon. member for Florida. He went to great trouble to give the impression that it was the City Council of Johannesburg who was responsible for building the houses at Meadowlands. The hon. member told the Minister that he wanted to take powers unto himself to build an “empire” but he was too scared to answer my question. The hon. member for Florida said this Minister wanted to build a big empire for himself.

On a point of order, the hon. member is attributing words to me which I did not say.

The hon. member may continue.

He said the then Minister of Native Affairs had placed legislation on the Statute Book and that all the local authorities co-operated with him. That is quite right, he did get the co-operation of local authorities with the exception of the City Council of Johannesburg. That was the only City Council which was so adamant in its refusal to co-operate in re-settling the non-Whites of Johannesburg that the Government had to establish the Re-settlement Board to re-settle the Bantu of Sophiatown in Meadowlands. But to-day he accuses the Minister of wanting to take vast powers unto himself to build an “empire”. We who know what happens on a local authority and in a provincial council want to congratulate the Minister on having come forward with this legislation. Those hon. members opposite say the Minister wants to deprive the city councils and the provincial councils of their power. Our experience has been that when a local authority discusses a matter which emanates from the Government of the day there is always an argument and quarrelling as to whether it is the correct method to adopt. There is also an argument between the officials of the local authority and those of the Government as to the methods to be adopted while the people to whom the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) has referred suffer. Knowing what problems he has to contend with the Minister now introduces this legislation. I can tell hon. members that the various city councils on the Reef do not even have uniform building regulations. Conscious of all the problems that confront him the Minister now submits legislation to this House which will only operate to the advantage and benefit of the various communities and national groups. It is ridiculous to say that South Africa cannot be compared with England because it has not been through a war. I do not for one moment intend comparing the conditions prevailing in the Republic with war conditions but we very definitely say that the slums which still exist in the country to-day can only be cleared up quickly by means of legislation of this nature and it can also help to make the communities happy. We want to say this to the Opposition to-day: Why do they want to sow the suspicion in the world outside that this Government does not want to co-operate with local authorities or provincial councils and that there is quarrelling and dissension between local authorities and the Minister? That is not so. It is precisely this Government which has the full support of the city councils and the provincial councils. Time and again they say to the Minister of Community Development: We are aware of your problems and the big task resting on your shoulders; carry on and we shall co-operate with you as much as we can because we know with your knowledge and experience you are best able to solve these problems to the benefit of the various national groups. I want to make an appeal to the Opposition. Let us stop sowing suspicion. It does not bring us any nearer to solving this problem. The city councils are co-operating with the Minister and we want to say this to the Minister to-day: We pay tribute to him and his Department for the miracles they have performed in such a short space of time. You do the Minister an injustice to say he is building an “empire” because that is something he can definitely not be accused of doing; he does not deserve it but what he does indeed deserve is for us to say that he is honestly imbued with a desire to see to it that justice is done to the various national groups in the country. He honestly wants to see that only the best is done for them.

Perhaps because the lighting in this Chamber is somewhat subdued, I cannot always see very clearly, and so I failed to observe the blush on the countenance of the hon. the Minister of Community Development when he heard that impassioned eulogy of which the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) delivered himself; and he appealed to us to join in the chorus of praise of the Minister. He said to the Opposition that we should say “Thank you” to the Minister, and that he should take all these powers, “want u het die kennis, u het die ondervinding”. You know, Sir, he practically expected us to say The Lord’s Prayer to the hon. the Minister—because what he said sounded like “for Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory”.

Order! The hon. member should discuss the Bill.

That prayer does not sound well in your mouth.

I want to make it clear, in case the point has been missed by the Minister or by the hon. member for Brakpan, that we have not said “Thank you” to the Minister for this Bill, nor do we intend doing so. Surely we have made that painfully clear. Then why does he attack us because we criticize the Minister and the powers he seeks? Are we not entitled to do that? Is this no longer a democratic country?

Because you are being unreasonable.

Is this democracy—that I must be prepared to sit silent while I hear the unreasonable views of the hon. member for Brakpan, and not complain of them? Is that the test of democracy? In other words, as long as I agree with the hon. member and the Minister, I am a democrat, but the moment I dare to disagree, what am I?

Now I want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan a few home truths. I want to leave a few minutes over for the hon. member for North-West Rand, who promises to come and hit me afterwards.

Who is the hon. member for Johannesburg (West).

First the hon. member for Brakpan referred to Meadowlands as an example of the dereliction of duty of the Johannesburg City Council, whose battles I do not wish to fight here. But we have heard this flung across the floor of the House, yet every now and then the Minister himself or somebody over there will stand up and say that the Johannesburg City Council is a model of co-operation. The Minister has said it, and he referred to their urban renewal scheme in Fordsburg and in Newclare, in this very debate. The hon. member for Brakpan was here. Why does he seek to deny what Hansard has already recorded? This kind of nonsensical discussion is really a bit too much to expect, even from an hon. member who refuses to look at the facts of the case. Sir, I want to tell him very briefly the facts of Meadowlands. He should know them, because he lives in Brakpan, which is only about 28 miles from Johannesburg, and even in the 1950’s we had radio and newspapers on the Rand! So he must know something of what went on in Johannesburg. He should know that the issue there was the question of the removal of persons from the Western Areas and that the Johannesburg City Council said in effect that unless you would restore the rights these people would lose, the freehold title some of them had, wherever you were going to place them, they would not agree to this scheme. That was the fundamental issue.

You protected the slum-owners and you are doing it now also.

Very well, that is the Minister’s interpretation now. But I want to say this: as unco-operative as that hon. member alleges the City Council of Johannesburg to have been, the moment the Government saw the attitude of the Johannesburg City Council, motivated by the attitude of its ratepayers, the people of the City of Johannesburg who put them there—a little exercise in democracy that you should remember sometimes—when the Government found that the City Council had taken a certain attitude, it passed legislation; the Western Areas removal scheme came into being, and as a result, Meadowlands was built. But how was Meadowlands built? Why does the hon. member for Brakpan not tell us the truth and the whole truth, even if he refuses to tell us nothing but the truth? Why does he not tell this House that the moment that became an accomplished fact, that the legislation was passed, and that the removal scheme had to be undertaken, the City Council of Johannesburg cooperated fully in the development of Meadowlands? [Interjections.]

Order!

The very fact that all those services were provided for that enormous Bantu township which to-day is the apple of the eye of this Government … [Interjections.] The fact that all those services were provided with the least delay, and partly at the expense of the ratepayers of Johannesburg, is due to the fact that the Johannesburg City Council provided all those services, the roads, the water, the electricity and the sewerage. It is very sad that one has to go over all these facts again and again, when they are already recorded for posterity, which I say will one day weep because of the fact that there was once a Nationalist Government. I want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan something— he says that to-day the Johannesburg City Council does co-operate.

Yes, since you left the Council.

That only proves the truth of the old adage that one man’s meat is another man’s poison. In that case, since this tremendous improvement has taken place in the relations between the Government and the Johannesburg City Council, the hon. member for Florida and I should be made welcome here and the hon. member for Brakpan should thank us for coming here, because now there is co-operation. Imagine the City of London not co-operating with the U.K. Government!

The hon. member says that we have sought to create the impression that the only purpose of this Bill is the deprivation of the powers of the local authorities or the Provincial Councils. It is not merely an impression—I say he is absolutely right; that is the only purpose, because all these things which the Minister sets out to do in this Bill have been done and are being done and will continue to be done without any of these powers, if there is this co-operation which the hon. member says there is. It either exists or it does not. Sir, this must be simpler than the theory of relativity, but they make it so difficult for us to know whether they think there is co-operation between the local authorities and the Government or not. If there is co-operation, why this Bill? [Interjection.] The hon. member for Brakpan says I am stupid. We have a saying in the Transvaal, “Dorn is niks, maar, stupid’!” Sir, you heard the hon. member say that the Government can boast that it has the finest co-operation from the Provincial Administrations and the local authorities, but a minute ago he said that there was no co-operation, and so we have had this game of battledore and shuttlecock, so that anybody who does not have his feet firmly on the ground would get so dizzy that he would not know what the meaning was of statements made on that side of the House, and the same applies to the Minister. They do not use words as if they have an ordinary dictionary meaning, or an ordinary usage. I was very interested to see a few days ago that in a cartoon by Dawid Marais in the Cape Times the hon. the Minister was depicted as a ballerina—I must say a very stocky and overweight ballerina—being held by his colleague the Minister of Planning. I think that to show the Minister in the guise of a ballerina …

Were you the elf?

You are so simple that they could not even put you into the cartoon.

I was not even in the picture. The Minister was shown as a ballerina, but that is wrong. The Minister is better cast in the role of the Queen in “Alice through the Looking Glass”, where the Queen says: “Words mean what I say they mean. I am the master.” That is exactly the attitude of the Minister. Words mean what the Minister says they mean. A Bill is introduced and it is called the Community Development Bill-—and you can search through every line of the Bill but you will find no definition of “community development”. So what does it mean? The hon. member for Brakpan says it means what he says it means, and the Minister says the same. Then you come to the long title of the Bill and there is a reference to “the promotion of community development”. Now the long title is presumed to give the object of the Bill, and here the object is stated as being “the promotion of community development”. Then you are entitled to ask: The promotion of what? What is community development? Nobody knows. They say community development is what they say it is. In other words, like the Queen in “Alice through the Looking Glass”, the Minister says: Words mean what I say they mean. For all the difference it makes, this could just as well have been called the “Communistic Development Bill” or the “Socialist Development Bill”, because this is a socialist measure. This Bill contains a radical departure which is very surprising in a country like South Africa which prides itself on its capitalist and private-enterprise economy, in that the Government can now step in, in any part of South Africa, and whether or not it is the legal owner of the land, it can do what it likes with the land. I may be quite wrong, but if I were to look for definitions of a communistic kind of development, this is it. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Cradock proves nothing else, he always demonstrates without any doubt that in the National Party caucus, the common denominator is the ignoramus.

I want to deal briefly with a few points made by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). He said that members on the Government side welcomed this Bill because the community development concept is wider than that of the group areas concept. Now, we know what “group areas” means. We have had a principal Act and a succession of amending Acts, and in all those Acts the question is removed from debate because there is a definition of an “area” and a definition of a “group”, and there is a definition of a “group area”. The present Bill is the Bill which puts the finishing touch to the principal Act and all the amending Acts—but lo and behold, it is called by another name, the Community Development Bill, gainsaying all is predecessors; and we can do what we like, but nobody can give us a legal definition of “community development”, from the Minister downwards. So whatever the Minister or the hon. member for Kempton Park says about it, we see this Bill as a measure which gives the Minister certain Dowers without any rhyme or reason or justification, and we know that whatever we may say, when the voting takes place we will have lost the argument. But we are entitled to point out to the House and to the country and to the Minister that this is not good legislation. The hon. member for Kempton Park says, on a constitutional issue, that we are wrong in saying that there is a deprivation of rights as far as the Provincial Councils and the local authorities are concerned, and I wish that you had been here, Sir, because this is constitutional law at the highest level—in fact, so high that I have difficulty in getting up into that stratosphere. He says that in a unitary state like South Africa there is no such thing as an “assailable” Government action in regard to its powers. There is no such thing as the right to assail the Central Government on its action in taking away certain powers of local authorities. He says there can be no derogation of the power of the Central Government to deprive the Provincial Councils of their power. We who have read the constitution of South Africa can only gaze open-mouthed at the hon. member for Kempton Park, who is a lawyer by profession, when he makes this kind of statement; because if this is what he says is written in the constitution, then, again, words mean what the Government says they mean. The country, the people of South Africa and that side of the House, the Government, have always known that there are certain provisions in the Act of Union, which were taken over when South Africa became a Republic, and we have always believed that those words mean exactly what they mean in plain language—whether it is Afrikaans or English. But here we are told to-day that in a unitary state like South Africa, there is no situation in which a Government can be attacked in regard to any action it may take for the purpose of removing the powers of the Provincial Councils or the local authorities. I do not know whether this will bring up any other questions in future, but I fear that what we heard this afternoon, if we are to take it seriously, discloses something which is far beyond the framework of this Bill (which we call “community development” because we have no other name for it)—that there is an intention on the Government side to ignore any constitutional provision as long as a certain end must be served. I think we, as an Opposition, should warn the Government against this kind of action, and should alert the people of South Africa. If it is the intention to deny what the constitution says in simple language, then we should all be aware of it. I do not want to take it any further than that; I hope to do so at a more appropriate time.

Dealing with this Bill, the Minister told us quite early in the debate that we did not know what was going on in regard to the development of certain areas under the control of the Community Development Department to which the Bill now seeks to give certain powers, and he said that it was our own fault that we did not know. He said he had even invited the Opposition to go on a tour of new schemes, but the invitation had not been accepted. Now, I want to make it very clear that I have yet to find someone on this side of the House who received that invitation. I may live in the backveld, but I for one did not receive any such invitation, though I would have been delighted, because of my basic interest in the matter, to accept it.

But you will never be included in such an invitation.

Ah, precisely. Like his colleague the Minister of Justice, in another context, I am also fussy about the company I keep. No matter what the Minister says about me, it stands on record in Hansard and in the Press that he has invited the Opposition— unless the Minister now says that he takes unto himself one of the powers granted under this Bill, the right to excise one member of the Opposition—myself! I say he never invited anybody. [Interjections.] Ah, so it was a privilege. This, then, is democracy! Then he said that we, the Opposition, were creating a serious danger for South Africa. He said that if we kept on harping on the provision of housing and certain amenities, we would simply add fuel to the flames of the argument that too much was already being done for the non-Whites, and he said that if all the good work the Government was doing to house the non-Whites properly was continuously going to be derided by the Opposition, the White population might eventually resist the undertaking of further new schemes—and the day that happened, the United Party should bear the full responsibility! Sir, this is an amazing statement from a Minister of State. He says to the Opposition that we must not criticize him or the Government because if we do, we will simply draw attention to the fact that the Government is trying to do too much in regard to the housing of non-Whites.

And if we do that, the White people of South Africa will suddenly wake up to the fact that we are spending so much money on the non-Whites that they will say, “You must stop this completely”; so he says to us, in effect, “keep very quiet about this; if you want the Coloureds to be housed, if you want the Bantu and the Indians to be housed—let alone the White people—keep very quiet; do not criticize, because you are only drawing attention to the deeds of the Government”. Sir, I cannot understand how, in all seriousness, the hon. the Minister can expect us to swallow that kind of argument. For so long as this Government even pretends that South Africa is a democratic country and that this is a democratic Parliament, the forum of the people, for so long two must play that game, and the game means that he Government (which they tell us ad nauseam every day is democratic), as well as the Opposition does its best to see that it governs South Africa well (which this Government fails to do at all material times). This is the game; and if they want to put a stop to that, then they are going the right way about it, because now a person who criticizes, let alone an hon. member of this House, automatically becomes the enemy of the State, according to the views expressed here to-day. Sir, I do not have to go very far back to prove how dangerous that attitude is to democracy As I was saying, this is a sad day indeed, for reasons with which I need not burden you, Sir. I merely want to indicate to the hon. Minister that regardless of all the powers which are conferred on him and his Department and his officials in this Bill—and this may be considered no more than a prophecy to-day—regardless of all his powers, he will fail miserably in the provision of housing if he does not have the co-operation of the local authorities, of the public at large, and even of the Provincial Administrations. He will not succeed, because it is no use assuming that you can govern a country by pushing buttons, by saying, “There is a Bill; now you go out and do what the Bill provides”. There are people involved here, human beings who like to feel that, even if they are not loved, they are considered—human beings who, in our country, as in other countries, believe that when they elect a local authority or a Provincial Administration, it has those powers which the constitution of the Republic of South Africa arm it with. Sir, I am sorry to end the sentence with a preposition, but that is the only thing that is wrong with that statement! The moment people become disillusioned about this, Sir, you will not get any co-operation from them.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68 (1).

I do not think it is necessary for me to take up much of the time of the House, and it is not my intention to do so for the simple reason that practically nothing new has been said in this third-reading debate. The only thing we had that was new was a series of ridiculous statements by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), to which I do not propose to reply.

Say “thank you”.

A few points have been made here to which I do want to reply, one of them by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor). The hon. member says that we are violating provincial ordinances and breaking down the powers of Provincial Councils, but that is not correct. I am sorry that the hon. member is not here. What we are doing here does not violate any Ordinance or local bylaw, except in those cases where the State uses its own funds, where we give the State the right to act without being bound by antiquated methods and regulations. That is all we are doing here. There is no such thing that we are violating or ignoring ordinances. We are only giving the power to the State, where State funds are used and where the State provides the means, to act without being bound by antiquated methods and regulations. But, Sir, it serves no purpose to try to explain that to hon. members of the Opposition; they refuse to believe it. May I remind you, Sir, that only yesterday the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), when we were discussing another measure, adopted precisely the opposite attitude and said that he wanted me to take even more drastic powers so as to be able to do away with these antiquated by-laws. In other words, within the space of two days the official Opposition, in dealing with the same principle, adopts precisely the opposite attitude.

True to their nature.

Why do they do so, Mr. Speaker? As far as the Housing Act is concerned they adopt a different attitude. Last year when I gave certain powers to the local authorities under the Housing Act to get away from old by-laws, the Opposition raised no objection to it; they said that they agreed with it, but to-day they object because in this case the Development Board is being vested with precisely the same powers. Why? They object because this Board has to deal with separate residential areas. Sir, I say to you that whatever the protestations of the Opposition may be, whatever they may try to make the country believe, in their heart of hearts they are against separate residential areas. The Opposition do not want separate residential areas in South Africa; what they want is a hotch-potch urban community. They are not prepared to take the steps which are taken by this Government to ensure separate residential areas for Whites and for non-Whites. Their whole history testifies to that fact, and the attitude which they have adopted here to-day, in conflict with the attitude which they adopted when the Housing Act was under discussion, only reveals once again that in their heart of hearts they are not in favour of residential separation in South Africa. Sir, we will continue to make that charge against them; they cannot get away from it.

You ought to know that that is untrue.

Why then do hon. members opposite oppose every single measure that we introduce to bring about residential separation? Why do they continually attack the principle of group areas; why do they continually attack us when we try to clear up areas and to bring about residential separation in areas which were formerly mixed residential areas? Sir, they do not want separate residential areas and my charge against them is that they are trying to create a false image of themselves in this connection. That is also my reply to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden). The hon. member talked here about injustices suffered by the Coloureds. Sir, no Government in the history of South Africa has done as much as this Government to settle Coloured communities under decent living conditions. The hon. member knows that that is the position but he talks this way because he refuses to admit it; he talks this way because there is a Prog, ghost on his heels. He has just returned from the Kimberley constituency where the Coloured voters once again rejected their candidate to-day; the outcome has just been announced. Do you know, Sir, why the Coloureds are rejecting them? Not so much because the Coloureds are Progressives, but more particularly because they have nothing but contempt for the methods employed by the party over there.

Are things also going badly with your party then?

We put up no candidates, and we have never said that we adopt the attitude that the Coloureds should vote for us— never.

What about Mr. Scholz?

Mr. Scholz was not a National Party candidate.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that, but then hon. members opposite must not tempt me.

The hon. the Minister must not allow himself to be tempted.

That is very difficult, Sir; it is a human weakness to fall for temptation! I say that the hon. member for Karoo ought to know better; he ought to know about the measures which were taken in Kimberley itself. In the very heart of Kimberley there was an area which was the worst possible breeding-ground for slums, and it is because of steps taken by this Government, because of money made available by this Government, because of directives issued by this Government, that the Malay camp in Kimberley has been cleared up. It is because of the implementation of the Group Areas Act that the Malay camp in Kimberley has been cleared up.

And they opposed it.

May I ask a question?

No, let the hon. member take his medicine now. The fact of the matter is that this Malay camp in the very heart of Kimberley has been cleared up as a result of the declaration of group areas, and the fact of the matter is that the people who were resettled …

That is untrue.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say to the Minister that he is not speaking the truth?

Let him say it; I do not mind; his own constituency is beginning to scoff at him. The fact of the matter is that these people who were taken out of the Malay camp and resettled, were resettled at the expense of the State. The housing which was provided for these people in Kimberley and which is still being provided to clear up hovels and slum conditions there, was and is being provided at the expense of the State. The hon. member can say whatever he likes but his own City Council is laughing at him; his own constituency is laughing at him and this House is laughing at him.

Hon. members of the Opposition want to know why I am taking these powers if in fact I receive such wonderful co-operation from the city councils. Sir, I thought I had dealt with that already, but the trouble is that those hon. members never listen. For the sake of the record, therefore, let me once again read out this letter which was received in my office on 5 August 1964—

You will recall from previous discussions that the local authority had no power to refuse to pass a building plan where such plan complies with the by-laws and you will be well aware how this lack of power can frustrate the implementation of sound planning in redevelopment and renewals schemes. Besides the western development for Coloured ownership and occupation the Council is to your knowledge on the threshhold of redevelopment and renewals schemes for Whites also. The purpose of this letter therefore is to solicit your assistance in pressing this matter from the State level to the fullest extent of your convictions in this regard.

This letter was signed by the Town Clerk of Johannesburg. In other words, even though we have the co-operation of city councils, they admit that there are by-laws and regulations which hamper modern development, and all we are doing here is to ask for the power to get away from antiquated by-laws. That is also my reply to the accusation made here with regard to the freezing of buildings; it is also my reply to the accusation made here with regard to urban renewal schemes, because that matter is also dealt with in this letter; this is also my reply to the charge that I am not seeking the co-operation of the local authorities. I have said here on a previous occasion—and I do not want to enlarge upon it again—that as far as this point is concerned I have the co-operation of the United Municipal Executive. Not only do they welcome this measure but they admit that the Central Government must have the authority to intervene to help them out of this difficulty. But, Sir, do you think it helps to say that to hon. members on the other side? They simply refuse to believe it. They are against separate residential areas and they are against slum clearance. I do not want to deal at length with the observations made by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), but I just want to say this to him: He tried to create the impression that he was really the father of the scheme to clear up the undesirable conditions under which the Bantu on the Witwatersrand lived. But I want to ask him to bear in mind that there are other people who also have ears and eyes. We recall how the hon. the Prime Minister was called a dictator in this House; we recalled how he was called names because he was allegedly taking unto himself all sorts of powers so as to be able to control human lives; we still recall the fight that took place here with regard to the site and service scheme; we recall the fight that took place here over the establishment of the Resettlement Board and over the levy fund; we recall the fight that took place here because of the steps taken by the hon. the Prime Minister to clear up Sophiatown. At that time the hon. the Prime Minister had to endure the same abusive language that we have had to endure during the past few days. To-day, however, they come along and claim the credit for these things for themselves. They are welcome to it, but we say to them that they must not try to stand in the way of further progress. That is my reply to them. As far as the hon. member’s insults are concerned, I fling them back in his teeth. He is the last person from whom I am prepared to endure insults.

Who insulted you?

I will not do you the honour of insulting you.

The hon. member could never rise high enough even to get in touch with me. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member was extremely unpleasant here this afternoon; if I wished to become unpleasant too I could say quite a few things, but I regard the hon. member and his methods as beneath me.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) The hon. member made two points which are worthwhile replying to. He referred to the freezing of buildings and he wanted to know whether this would only take place in designated areas. My reply is, “Yes,” it will only be in designated areas.

The second point which the hon. member raised was in connection with compensation which is paid for buildings which are involved in these designated areas, not in group areas. The hon. member was concerned more specifically with buildings which are involved in other areas. If the hon. member looks at Clause 5 (2) (e) he will see that the Group Areas Board (now the Community Development Board) has no power to take that building away from the owner; the Board only has a preferent right to purchase; it does not deprive that person of the building, and the compensation which is paid in terms of Clause 5 (5) (a) is the compensation which is laid down in the Slums Act. The Slums Act, as the hon. member knows, was passed in 1934. In other words, if this is unfair, it was the then Government which passed this unfair measure. I think that explains the point in regard to which the hon. member wished to have clarity.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say so but except for these points, not a single new point has been raised here, and because I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, I move.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and H. J. van Wyk.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

It is not my intention, as far as this debate is concerned, to give a lengthy reply because hon. members on both sides of the House have indicated that they support this Bill, although I received rather strange support from the official Opposition. They said that they were in favour of this Bill and they then proceeded to explain in what respects they disagreed with it. That is something, however, that we can deal with in the Committee Stage. I leave it at that.

When the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was replying to certain points made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I made the point that we granted certain powers to local authorities last year to enable them to get away from antiquated methods. We were under the impression last year that the powers of the National Housing Commission were adequate until we came up against the problem that there was talk throughout the country of “town-planning schemes in the course of preparation”. This is a practically never-ending process, and because that is the position, the Act was not framed widely enough to enable us to cope with that problem. The hon. member then asked me by way of interjection whether we were ensuring that we would get the co-operation of the local authorities. The reply is “Yes”, we are going out of our way to obtain their co-operation. That was why the Department took what was an unprecedented step in the history of South Africa and that was to draw up a housing code which was made available to the local authorities. In this housing code, of which we gave quite a few copies to the Opposition—and I hope that the hon. member will try to peruse it because he has not yet seen it—we try to give guidance to the local authorities in respect of every facet of housing. But in addition to that we also made available to the local authorities the Louw Committee’s report which deals with new building methods and new building materials. Not only does this report throw new light on the use of new materials and new building methods, but since we have no standard regulations as yet, it goes further and specifies which specifications of the S.A. Bureau of Standards we can use in applying these building methods. Thirdly, in consultation with the Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. we are continually having research undertaken, research to which the Department of Community Development largely contributes in the case of special projects. We then make available to the local authorities the information thus gathered. The reply to the hon. member’s question therefore is in the affirmative.

The hon. member correctly points out that there is a great hiatus in South Africa as far as this matter is concerned. In spite of the fact that we are now taking these powers under the Housing Act and that we are also giving these powers to local authorities, the fact of the matter is that these powers only apply in those cases where State funds are used. In other words, private concerns which establish townships and local authorities which do not make use of State funds are still bound by these antiquated methods and regulations. I have two documents here which reached my office only this morning; the one comes from a well-known holiday resort here in the Cape, where the title deed conditions prevent the utilization of any of these new building methods. This is one of the best-known holiday resorts in the Cape Province, and these people are simply debarred from making use of these new methods. I received a letter only this morning from a well-known local authority in Natal. A large firm there, on its own initiative, wants to start with the erection of houses provided they can get the land. The local authority informed this firm that they were sorry but their by-laws prohibited the proposed building methods and that they themselves were against it. In other words, they want to adhere to the old methods. We are now asking for these powers so that the State will not be hampered in its efforts, in those cases where the State provides the funds either by way of a loan or by way of direct expenditure. I think in asking this question the hon. member really wants to know what steps we are taking to have these new methods applied generally. I do not think this falls within the scope of my Department, but there are discussions going on between the Minister of Economic Affairs and myself. There is an interdepartmental committee, under the chairmanship of a representative of the South African Bureau of Standards, which has almost completed the task of drawing up a number of standard regulations which we will be able to promulgate within the foreseeable future and which will be acceptable to the Provinces and the local authorities. This will cover a wider field than the field we are trying to cover where State funds only are used. Sir, I think I have replied adequately now to the points raised here by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) made a few statements here with which I do not quite agree. He referred to the “terrific backlog in housing” and “the housing crisis” amongst other things. He says, “The present crisis has been created by the incompetence of this Government.” I do not think the hon. member believes that himself. This is not the occasion, Sir, to give the hon. member figures to show what this Government has spent over a period of 16 years in respect of each racial group in South Africa. After all, those figures are well known; they are available, and I think the hon. member did himself a very great injustice.

I did not accuse you of not having done anything.

This Government has done more than any of its predecessors. As a matter of fact this Government has done more during this period of 16 years as far as housing is concerned than was done during the period 1920 to 1948, a period of 28 years.

There was a war on.

I am not talking about a war now; I am replying to the hon. member’s accusation that this Government is “incompetent”. Sir, how can an incompetent government achieve in 16 years what we have achieved in respect of housing? When one compares our achievements with the achievements of the Netherlands and Germany, where there has been large-scale building, I say that this Government has achieved a very great deal. That fact is admitted by foreign experts. Moreover, our sub-economic housing in South Africa is often of a higher standard than economic housing in other countries.

The hon. member talks about a terrible crisis. Sir, there is no housing crisis. I quoted here last year from an article written by Edmund Ward in the Financial Times in which he reviewed housing conditions throughout the world. Let me quote it again—

He then goes on to describe what happened. Amongst other things he says in this article that the great problem was that conventional building methods could not keep pace with urban growth and development; that the necessary housing could not be provided by adopting the conventional building methods. That is the position throughout the world, and that is why Europe has switched over from the conventional methods to new methods. They have done so on a large scale. Sir, has this Government been as incompetent as the hon. member suggested here? Immediately after this Government learned that new building methods were being applied in Europe, it took steps, through the Minister concerned and through experts in the relevant departments, to become au fait with these new building methods. Moreover, we took steps immediately and we timeously warned the local authorities; we said to them, “Don’t sit back with folded arms; with the influx of immigrants and the growth which is going to take place in the economic sphere, there is going to be a shortage of housing, particularly as far as certain income groups are concerned; see that you are prepared to meet the situation”. In order to be able to take the lead itself, the State asked Parliament for certain legislative powers last year and also in previous years. In the second place the State equipped itself so as to be able to give a lead in the field of new building methods. In the first place the State accelerated its housing programmes by not leaving it to local authorities only to provide housing; the State did quite a few extra things. Amongst other things, we bought land in large urban complexes. We bought individual sites where services were available. We started immediately to make housing available. We went further and launched new town-construction schemes such as Triomf in Johannesburg and Bosmansdam, amongst others, on land acquired and owned by us. I am now referring to Whites only. In other words, the State has not been asleep.

It has only been happening over the past three years since you took over.

What did we do until three years ago? Until three years ago we went ahead full-steam to provide housing. I just want to refer the hon. member to our Estimates. Let him look at the amounts that we have voted in this Parliament every year over the past 16 years in respect of housing. Do not let him be unreasonable in his criticism.

I come to Durban now, and I hope the hon. member will listen. The hon. member worked out a little sum here as far as Durban is concerned. He says that according to his calcuations there is a shortage of 60,000 houses in Durban; that is the figure for all races. What is the position more or less? My figures may be out by some hundreds. The position is as follows in Durban: In the case of Indians, the population is more or less 240,000. Taking the average family at six persons, it means that there are 40,000 families, of whom there are approximately 25,000 in Durban, which means that there are approximately 4,000 families. Those members of the Indian population who have to be given new housing are living under the worst conceivable slum conditions, as the hon. member will probably concede. At most 20,000 houses are needed, of which a large number is already in the process of construction, in order to cope with the problem there. Approximately 2,000 houses are required for the Coloureds. At the present moment we are developing a scheme involving 1,500 houses in Wentworth. As far as Whites are concerned, we estimate that there is a shortage of approximately 3,000 houses, making a total of 25,000, which is less than half of the 60,000 which the hon. member says are needed.

What about the Bantu?

The Bantu are dealt with under the Bantu Housing Board. The hon. member knows that as far as Bantu housing is concerned, more has been done in Durban than in most other centres in this country. Does he deny that? Where does the incompetence of the Government come in? The hon. member estimates that there is a shortage of 60,000 houses and he wants to know from me whether we are in a position to provide these houses; whether, in our incompetence, we will be able to wipe out this backlog. My reply is this: The money is available and guidance is available from the Department, but the question is whether the building industry can cope with the situation. That is the question. That is why this Government stated timeously that if the conventional building industry could not meet these demands, then other methods would have to be devised. Sir, are we getting the assistance of hon. members on the other side in this connection? We have just passed the third reading of a Bill which is designed to make those things possible, and what was the attitude of hon. members opposite? [Interjections.] Of course it has everything to do with it. Mr. Speaker, it is useless arguing with hon. members on the other side. Here I have the figures showing what was spent in Durban only from 1962 to 1964. As far as economic housing is concerned, loans amounting to R 14,609,000 were given to the Durban City Council. As far as sub-economic housing is concerned, the amount is R5,668,000, making a total of R20,277,000. Apart from these loans granted by the National Housing Commission, it is busy in Durban with its own schemes which will cost R419,000. The Development Board— and hon. members voted a little while ago against a Bill in which provision is made for these powers to be given to the Development Board—is at present erecting buildings to the value of R712,000 in Durban. Sir, do you see the hollowness of the complaints made here by hon. members opposite?

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) wanted to know yesterday whether we were able to spend this money. But in the same breath he wanted to know whether in addition to this money we were also going to get the money which formerly went to the Public Debt Commissioners and which will now go into the fund of the National Housing Commission. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. We do not have millions of rand available from that fund immediately. These schemes are at present in the process of amortization and this amount will only grow over a period of years, because most of these schemes have not yet been in operation sufficiently long to make it possible for us to draw this money in large amounts at this stage already. Surely the hon. member ought to know that. After all, he told us this afternoon what an expert he was in this field. He ought to know that this money does not come back to us in large amounts. In other words, at the present moment we still have to ask the State and Parliament for this money. We want this money so as to be able to strengthen the National Housing Fund over a period of years. That is why we want it, and another reason why we want it is to use it for improvements and for concomitant development.

Another point that has been raised here and to which I have to reply is that we are lowering standards by means of the powers that we are taking here and that we are subdividing sites, although it is perfectly clear what we have in mind here and that is that we want to be able, because of the scarcity of land in South Africa, to subdivide excessively large sites. The National Housing Commission has its own standards and plot sizes which have been worked out by experts. We are not going to subdivide land injudiciously, it is alleged that in taking these powers we are going to lower standards! I do not know whether hon. members have seen this periodical, but here I have a periodical published by an independent body, without interference from my Department. I refer to the South African Brick Association. In their recent issue they write as follows, and I want to read it out so that it can go on record. The whole of this issue is illustrated with photographs which show what is being done by the Department of Community Development, and this is being done not by employing new building methods but by employing ordinary, orthodox methods. This is what they say—

A visit through the streets of Triomf conjures up an immediate impression that the houses are of the same standard and design as those which are to be found in some of Johannesburg’s middle-income group areas. Generally the only difference is that the homes in Triomf are roughly half the size and at least a third of the price of their counterparts in the city’s more affluent areas. Another immediate impact that is made on the minds of newcomers is the thought that the Triomf plan has inculcated a spirit of home-ownership responsibility in people who, until two years ago, had absolutely no chance of owning their own homes in a new suburb.

Here we have a testimonial from an outside body which judges this thing on its merits. That is my reply to the charge that we will possibly lower the standards.

I want to conclude by saying that I am convinced that once this amended legislation has been passed and once the other legislation in connection with the Development Board has been passed, when these two bodies will be able to operate on the new basis under the Department of Community Development, we will have an instrument in South Africa which will compare very favourably indeed with the best that is available in Europe for urban development and urban renewal. Hon. members opposite are at liberty to try to belittle these measures but time will tell whether we in South Africa took timeous steps to enable us to cope with our future urban problems. Moreover, these steps will result in the establishment of a new industry in South Africa, namely a pre-fabricated housing industry. This industry is already showing the first signs of development; it is already getting tenders from us. This industry is going to enable South Africa to become one of the countries which will be able to help her young cities to overcome the social problems, with which the old cities of Europe have to struggle at the present time and where it is almost too late to overcome them. Sir, this Government is not incompetent. This Government has not failed in its task; this Government, in spite of petty opposition, is looking to the future and is building the bulwarks behind which our urban population will be able to lead a sound family life and a sound community life.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

A convention, which is aimed at providing uniform rules for deciding the contradictory legal principles existing in the various countries of the world in respect of the formal requirements in the execution of wills, was prepared during the ninth session of the International Legal Conference in The Hague during 1960. The Republic was approached with a view to joining this convention. Joining the convention implies that legal provision (in so far as it does not already exist) must be made to ensure that wills, in so far as formal requirements are concerned, will be accepted as valid in every country subscribing to the convention if they are executed according to certain formal requirements. The requirements in question are mainly the same as those which already apply on the international level between all civilized countries. In view of modern international relations between people and the desirability that as far as practicable effect should be given to the wishes of a testator, and the fact that the objects underlying this convention already to a large extent form part of our common law, the Government intends joining this convention in due course. It is necessary, however, for reasons of efficiency, that the relevant rules should now be embodied in our statute law, where they do not yet appear. For the information of hon. members it may be mentioned that any state may join the convention. The convention remains in force for five years and may be tacitly renewed for periods of five years, and membership may cease on the giving of at least six months’ notice.

Great Britain has already joined the convention and passed the necessary legislation in 1963. The Bill now before the House contains the provisions which are necessary to give effect to the objects of the convention and agree in principle with the British Wills Act, 1963.

I refer briefly to the various clauses of the Bill. The amendment contained in Clause 1 is necessitated by the provisions of Clause 2.

In regard to Clause 2, paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) provide that a will is not invalid merely because of its form, provided that the formalities observed in executing it comply with the law of the State or territory—

1. (i) in which the will was executed;
2. (ii) in which the testator at the time of the execution of the will or at the time of his death was domiciled or was habitually resident;
3. (iii) of which the testator was a citizen at the time of his death; or
4. (iv) in which the immovable property which was disposed of in the will was situated.

It sometimes happens that the fiduciary is granted the power by testamentary disposition to indicate the testator’s heir or heirs from amongst certain nominees. If in such a case the fiduciary nominates the testator’s heir in a will which the former executed in a foreign state or territory, such will, in terms of Clause 2 (1) (c) is not invalid simply because it has been executed in terms of the formalities prescribed by the law of that state or territory.

There seems to be no good reason why the law which applied to the execution of a will in so far as the form of the will was concerned should not also apply when such will or part of it is revoked. Clause 2 (1) (d) contains the necessary provision in this regard.

In terms of international private law, vessels or aircraft are regarded as forming part of the area of jurisdiction of the State or territory where they are registered. It is of course possible that a will may be executed on board a vessel or aircraft. I can see many good reasons why people who are on such a vessel may think of making a will. Therefore provision is made in Clause 2 (1) (e) that the law in regard to the execution of wills of the state or territory in which such vessel or aircraft was registered at the time of such execution, or with which it was otherwise most closely connected at that time, will apply in respect of a will executed on board such vessel or aircraft.

In some countries the competence to execute a will on the basis of the testator’s age is regarded as a requirement relating to form only, whereas in other countries it is regarded as a qualification to execute a will. It is essential that uncertainty in this regard should be eliminated. In this regard Clause 2 (2) gives the necessary certainty. Clause 2 (3) merely contains an enabling provision which is aimed at ensuring legal certainty in regard to the legal provisions in connection with formal requirements in the execution of wills in those countries where more than one legal system exists in regard to this matter.

The convention also provides for the reservation of certain rights. For example, wills executed by South African citizens in the Republic must, according to our law, be executed in writing. For obvious reasons it is essential that wills executed by South Africans outside the Republic should also be executed in writing. For the rest, the provisions of Clause 2 (4), which are self-explanatory, are aimed at achieving efficiency. The provisions of Clause 2 do not effect the interpretation of the content of wills. They are only concerned with formal requirements.

This proposed Act will, in terms of Clause 3, not be able to come into operation immediately because the Republic must first join the convention.

These are the provisions and principles of the Bill and I move.

We on this side welcome the fact that South Africa is to adhere to the International Convention in this matter, and we also approve of the legislation which is before us, which we regard as necessary, and we hope naturally that this legislation will be adopted by many countries and will come into force in most countries of the world. But obviously, as the Minister has said, in these modern times when there is a great deal of travel between the various countries of the world, when you find the citizens of one country spread throughout the countries of the world, there should be provision of the sort that is contained in this Bill, not only in the interest of citizens of other countries who happen to come to or to be in South Africa at the time, but in due course in the interest of South African citizens who may have complied with the South African law which might not be adequate to provide for their wills to be valid in foreign countries, and reciprocal legislation in that respect would be for the benefit of the citizens of this country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is the first time that a complete Bill dealing with arbitration is being introduced in our Parliament. The legal provisions in regard to arbitration in the Cape Province, Natal and Transvaal are contained in a number of Acts, some of which date from the year 1898. In the Free State, on the other hand, there is no general Act at all dealing with arbitration and the matter is regulated by Acts which mainly regulate other matters, such as, e.g. the expropriation of property. In South West Africa arbitration is regulated by Proclamation No. 3 of 1926.

The Law Revision Committee, which is under the chairmanship of the hon. the Chief Justice, has recently reviewed the legal provisions by which arbitration is regulated in the Republic and also in certain other countries, and it now suggests that the Republic’s legislation regulating arbitration in general should be combined and adapted to present-day conditions. The Bill before us was prepared by that Committee.

I shall deal briefly with the clauses. Clause 1 merely contains the definitions required for the purposes of this Bill.

As in the case of the existing Acts, a matrimonial matter or a case connected with such a matter or a case with reference to status cannot be referred to arbitration. The reason for this is so obvious that comment is not necessary in regard to Clause 2. Where changes of status are concerned, that can only be done by the Supreme Court and not by way of agreement between the parties or arbitration.

Clause 3 provides that the arbitration agreement shall not be capable of being terminated except with the consent of all the parties thereto, unless the agreement provides otherwise, and grants the court the power to intervene in suitable cases. That is done to prevent any hardship which may arise from the agreement.

I come to Clause 4. The provision that an arbitration agreement is not terminated by the death of a party is not new. The suspension of all steps and proceedings in connection with a reference is, however, also being extended where a party vacates his post or is dismissed from it. For the rest, certain provisions which apply in respect of such a suspension are set out in the clause. The provisions of the clause do not affect the application of any legal provision in terms of which a right of action is extinguished by the death of any person.

In regard to Clause 5 I just want to say that the existing legal provisions are. not clear in regard to the effect which the insolvency of a party or the liquidation of a company which is a party has on an arbitration agreement. It is now being expressly provided that the agreement or the appointment of an arbitrator or umpire in terms of it will not be terminated by insolvency or liquidation unless the agreement so provides. Hon. members will see right throughout the Bill that where certain formal requirements are provided for, the parties still need not be bound by the provisions contained in the Act, but may make their own rules within the general framework of this Act. The legal provisions concerning the sequestration of insolvent estates and the liquidation of corporate bodies are now also expressly declared to be applicable as if the reference of a dispute to arbitration is an action or proceeding within the meaning of such legal provision, and referring a dispute to arbitration is considered to be an action or proceeding when that legal provision is applied. Any periods of time fixed by or under this Act are extended by any stay, suspension or cessation of arbitration proceedings resulting from insolvency or liquidation.

Clause 6. Legal proceedings in any court may be stayed if an arbitration agreement exists between the parties that the matter concerned must be referred to arbitration. The application for a stay of proceedings must be made after the entering of appearance but before any pleadings are lodged. Similar provisions are contained in the existing laws.

The power granted to the court by Clause 7 to order that a dispute be determined by way of interpleader proceedings or that interpleader disputes be decided by arbitration, is new and is based on Section 5 of the British Arbitration Act, 1950. These provisions are useful and we consider that they may advantageously be used here.

Clause 8. The court is now expressly being granted the power to extend the periods within which arbitration proceedings must commence according to the arbitration agreement if it is of the opinion that undue hardship may otherwise be caused.

Clause 9 simply provides that the reference shall be to a single arbitrator unless a contrary intention is expressed in the agreement. This provision is in agreement with the existing provisions in the various laws and ordinances.

Clause 10 prescribes the powers of the parties to appoint arbitrators to fill vacancies and the procedure to be followed in regard to such appointments. These provisions are really only a re-enactment of the already existing provisions.

The powers of the parties to appoint umpires and to fill vacancies, which are contained in Clause 11 are not unknown to our law but are now being more clearly defined.

Clause 12. It may be that the parties to an arbitration agreement cannot agree on the appointment of an arbitrator or that a party who has to appoint an arbitrator fails to do so, or that the parties fail to appoint a sufficient number of arbitrators or an umpire or to fill a vacancy which has arisen, as a result of which the implementation of the provisions of the agreement may of course be thwarted. In addition a more or less similar position may arise if the arbitrator or umpire appointed is removed from office or his appointment is terminated. In order to avoid a deadlock in such cases, the necessary powers are being given to the court in Clause 12 to appoint an arbitrator or umpire, and the procedure applying in such cases is prescribed. For the rest, the powers of an arbitrator or umpire appointed by the court are prescribed. These provisions are more or less in accordance with the existing provisions but have been adapted wherever necessary.

The circumstances in which the appointment of an arbitrator or umpire is terminated are set out in Clause 13. For obvious reasons it is necessary that the appointment of an arbitrator or umpire should not be terminated unilaterally, unless the agreement authorizes such a step. The necessary clarity in regard to this matter is now being provided. For the rest, the provisions are fair and reasonable.

Clause 14. It is understandable that it is essential that the powers of the arbitration court should be clearly defined. The court’s powers in respect of the discovery of documents, the answering of interrogatories, the submission of pleadings, the inspection of goods, the recording of evidence by a commissioner and the procedure to be followed in the arbitration proceedings are regulated by Clause 14. Furthermore, the manner in which a decision has to be arrived at in cases where the arbitration court consists of two or more arbitrators are also clearly defined in the Bill.

Clause 15 simply regulates the procedure to be followed in order to notify the parties of the place and the time where the arbitration proceedings will be held, and in cases where a party fails to appear at the proceedings.

Clause 16 is mainly a re-enactment of existing provisions regulating the procedure to be followed to ensure the attendance of witnesses in the arbitration court.

The recording of evidence is provided for by Clause 17. For the first time now parties are being given the right to agree as to the manner in which and the extent to which the evidence should be recorded. Seeing that this is being done for the first time, hon. members will realize that one can save much in time and costs by entering into such an agreement, e.g. to hear only a portion of certain evidence. The reference of questions in regard to procedure or of an interlocutory nature to an umpire, as provided for in Clause 18, is simply a re-enactment of existing provisions.

For obvious reasons it is essential that there should be no uncertainty as to the powers of an umpire, and the powers set out in Clause 19 are mainly in agreement with the existing provisions.

The only new principle introduced by Clause 20 is that the arbitration court can be requested or ordered to submit a special case to an advocate for his opinion. Such a step is possible in Britain and hon. members who practice here will realize that we can also usefully do so and that it can lead to a saving of costs in an arbitration.

There is a lack of statutory provisions in this country prescribing the general powers of the court in respect of a reference in terms of an arbitration agreement. It is desirable to obtain certainty in regard to this matter. The powers granted in Clause 21 will enable the court in suitable cases to grant the necessary relief and it is in agreement with the powers the court has in other cases. In order to ensure the smooth running of the proceedings of an arbitration court it is necessary to prescribe sanctions, as in the case of any other court case, in case witnesses or other persons obstruct the proceedings. The provisions of Clause 22 will ensure effective action being taken against such people and are more or less in agreement with the already existing provisions which apply in the case of the proceedings of a court of law.

Clause 23 is really only a re-enactment of existing provisions prescribing the periods within which an arbitration court must make its award. In order to have certainty it is now being expressly provided that the award of the arbitration court must be put in writing. Hon. members will find that in Clause 24, and they will agree that this provision is essential for the sound administration of justice we want to achieve.

The provisions of Clause 25 in terms of which the award of the arbitration court shall be delivered in the presence of the parties really only confirms the rule which applies in practice to all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Clause 26 grants the arbitration court the right to make an interim award, while Clause 27 empowers it in certain circumstances to order the specific performance of any contract. Both provisions are new to our law, but can advantageously be applied to arbitration proceedings without creating serious problems.

Clause 28, which provides that an award shall be final and not subject to appeal unless the agreement otherwise provides, is only a re-enactment of existing provisions and ensures the speedy settlement of disputes. The provisions in regard to the payment of interest on the amount of the award are new in so far as arbitration awards are concerned but are in line with the legal provisions concerning the payment of interest on any judgment debt in any other normal case. This principle is not unknown in arbitration proceedings in other countries.

The power granted by Clause 30 to the arbitration court to correct any patent error is well known in the proceedings in a court of law and is not only useful but also an essential provision. Clause 31, which provides that an award may be made an order of court and can be enforced in the same way as an order of court simply reaffirms the existing practice. The provisions in regard to the remittance of an award contained in Clause 32 simply constitute a re-enactment of the existing provisions. The power of the court to set aside an award in certain circumstances is long-established practice and is simply being re-enacted in Clause 33. The provisions in regard to the remuneration of arbitrators contained in Clause 34 are not new and are essential in order to protect the rights of parties. In fact, the taxation of accounts in the case of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is well known and exists in practice. The provision in Clause 35, that the awarding of costs in regard to arbitration proceedings is within the discretion of the arbitration court, introduces no new principle. The arbitration agreement may, however, provide otherwise or the arbitration tribunal may fail to tax the costs or to determine them. In both cases the taxing master of the Supreme Court may tax the costs. The court may also fix the scale on which the costs should be taxed if the award is made an order of court and the arbitration tribunal has not taxed or determined the costs in the first place. The parties are now, however, prevented from providing in an agreement which makes provision for the reference to arbitration of future differences that each one will in every case have to pay his own costs.

The court’s power to make an order in regard to costs in matters decided or considered by it is being retained in Clause 36. It is necessary to have clarity in regard to the way in which documents in arbitration proceedings are to be served. The method of service set out in Clause 37 is in agreement with the provisions for the service of documents in ordinary civil cases. The power granted to the court in Clause 38 to extend prescribed periods is necessary in order to prevent hardship. According to the rules of interpretation, the State is not bound by an Act unless the Act makes it clear that it is bound. It is therefore necessary expressly to provide, as is done in Clause 39, to what extent the State is bound. Numerous legal provisions exist regulating the reference of matters to arbitration. The provisions contained in this Bill can in many instances fruitfully be used in cases of arbitration in terms of the aforementioned legal provisions. There may, however, also be cases where special circumstances make it necessary that the reference to arbitration should be done according to special provisions. The provisions of Clause 40 are therefore necessary on the one hand to make the provisions of the Bill in regard to reference to arbitration in terms of other laws, applicable and on the other hand to leave the door open for the application of special measures in cases where special circumstances demand it.

The Administration of South West Africa wishes this Bill also to be applied to that territory, and that is being done in terms of Clause 41. Apart from the repeal of certain legal provisions for which provision is made in Clause 42, the continuation of arbitration proceedings which were commenced before the passing of this Bill and the application of the provisions of this Bill to arbitrations in terms of arbitration agreements entered into before the coming into operation of this Bill, are being provided for. That is necessary in order to remove any doubt as to what provisions will apply in such cases.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the principles and the provisions of this Bill which I heartily recommend to the House.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side support this measure. It has obviously been the subject of study over long periods and it is a measure which is very much overdue. The present position is entirely unsatisfactory, and the sooner we can have the position that in matters of this sort we have standard provisions affecting the whole of the Republic, the better it will be, not only for the legal profession, but also for the general public.

The provisions of this measure will require careful study, also in the further stages of this Bill, but I will say here that we are very anxious to see this measure on the Statute Book. The oldest provision goes back the best part of 70 years, and one of the provinces there is no satisfactory provision whatsoever.

Then, too, Sir, there is great uncertainty in respect of this matter in various respects, most of which—as far as I have been able to ascertain—are covered by the provisions of the measure now before us. I think that some of the provisions will have to be looked at carefully, and as an example I should like to refer the House to the provisions in respect of the taking of an opinion from the Court or from an advocate.

What clause?

Clause 20, Sir. It reads as follows:

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that opinion of the court or the opinion of counsel is in no way binding upon the arbitrators, and yet there is a provision to the effect that no appeal lies from the decision of the arbitrators. I think it is a point which may warrant further examination. It seems to me off-hand quite wrong that where a matter of law is referred to the court, the arbitrators are not bound by the decision of the Court, a decision which would, presumably, be a judgment of the court which could be appealed against to a higher court in that event. But if it is purely an opinion, I have some doubts as to the legal effect if the arbitrators do not accept the opinion of the court. I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I hold the view at this moment that if the arbitrators do not adopt the opinion of the court to whom the point of law was referred, their decision would not be open to appeal. It would not be the first time that such a situation would have arisen, because there is the famous Transvaal case which served before the Water Court. Now, that Court consisted of a judge, a lay assessor and an engineer assessor. When a point of law had to be adjudicated on, the two assessors over-ruled the opinion of the judge. Naturally the unsuccessful party appealed, believing there was no result until surprisingly the court of appeal held that the law was in fact as laid down by the assessors, and not as laid down by the judge.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this point—and others in this measure—should be carefully studied, a measure which, I must say, appears to be very well drafted and very well considered, and I, for one, believe it will work very satisfactorily in practice. Therefore we will support this measure, but we would like further opportunity of studying the Bill which, I may say, has been the subject of study by this side for quite some time. We to-day had the advantage of a speech by the Minister on the various provisions of the Bill, and he went into considerable detail, something which might with advantage be followed by some of the Minister’s colleagues.

You had better start studying to-night because the Committee stage will be dealt with to-morrow.

Well, I can assure the hon. the Minister that we have studied this Bill, but we will not have copies of the Minister’s speech for several days at least. However, we regard this measure as necessary and important, and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes said that the cost of litigation is high and that the courts take a long time to decide matters. Well, if that was so, one would have thought that great use would be made of arbitration; yet it is surprising how very little use is made of the procedure. One does find that where arbitration proceedings are obligatory, use is made thereof, but in many instances when matters could be referred to arbitration, the parties prefer to go to court.

I do not think there are five cases a year.

The hon. the Minister has indicated, that there are only about five cases a year dealt with by way of arbitration; that proves many things. First of all I think it proves what we often affirm in this House, namely the confidence that people have in our courts. It also, I think, shows that they have come to realize that there are considerable delays in arbitration. Indeed, with certain recent steps designed at speeding up the processes of the courts, coupled with steps to improve the rules of court by creating uniform rules, the delays in the courts, if they were considerable in the past, will be much reduced in future. But in arbitration you get considerable delays because the arbitrator is normally a professional man in some field and you have to fit in the sittings to suit his convenience and that of counsel, attorneys and everybody else. Where you have had such little use made of arbitration, I think there are also other reasons for it in additions to those I have mentioned. One is, of course, that you have to pay the arbitrator, whereas the parties do not pay a Judge, and this can be a very considerable item. I think another important reason why it is not used much is because of the uncertain procedures, the uncertainty as to what the procedures were in certain cases. I think it is in this respect that this Bill is so much to be welcomed. While there may be points where one might prefer something slightly different it undoubtedly sets out many provisions with great lucidity and it covers many gaps that there have been in the position up to the present.

The hon. the Minister said that he was improving upon the Arbitration Acts of the three provinces. The Orange Free State had no Arbitration Act at all, and to that extent this is an improvement. But even where the various provinces had their Acts, the provisions here are so much fuller that they represent a big improvement. They remove the uncertainty which a person wishing to resort to arbitration may have had as to the procedure he should follow. It is an expensive business not to follow the right procedure because one’s opponent is ready to spring upon any procedural mistake, and that may cause extra costs and delays. So where we have a Bill like this which has clearly been drawn with a great knowledge of the subject, a Bill which appears to have drawn upon legislation in other countries, as well as taking the best of what has been in our own legislation for many years, one can but welcome it. I must confess that notwithstanding this improvement, I feel that people will continue to prefer to go to court, but if they are obliged to go to arbitration or choose to do so, they will now have a much better instrument for their purpose. One is glad to observe in the Bill that a fair degree of flexibility has been retained. One finds in many clauses of the Bill that while a certain procedure is prescribed, that need not be followed if the parties choose a different one. That applies to many matters. It applies to the fee to be paid to the arbitrator. Agreement can be arrived at and if there is no agreement a certain course must be followed. It applies to other matters too. I welcome the fact that the State is also to be subject to these provisions. I think there is too often a tendency to put the State in a privileged position as against the subject in regard to any matter, and it is good therefore that it was deemed fit to bind the State in this regard. One is glad to see that in Clause 14 various matters of detail are covered; e.g. it is now laid down clearly that there can be orders for the discovery of documents and for the answering of interrogatories and orders to produce documents, etc. In addition, the various pleadings are specifically mentioned and the possibility of amending those pleadings. It is perfectly true that in the past arbitrators and those appearing before them have probably arrived at a position where they did make use of these various procedures I have referred to, but there was often uncertainty, and so it is good to have it all clearly set out. One is struck by the fact that no time limits are laid down for filing the various pleadings. The hon. the Minister will know that there are specific time limits laid down for Supreme Court pleadings, which have to be complied with, and which tend to ensure that the action is speedily heard. One is of course often grateful where there are no time limits or where extension can be obtained … [Interjection.] I am dealing with Clause 14, which refers to the various pleadings, and as far as I am aware it does not lay down any time within which they must be filed. It is true, of course, in regard to all time limits laid down in this Bill that they may be extended by agreement with the arbitrator, and that is a very reasonable provision. I only touch upon this because, as I have pointed out, people tend to prefer the courts and not to go to arbitration, and where one is creating a good instrument for those who wish to resort to arbitration, one may be leaving arbitration at a disadvantage if the time can drag on and there is no spur to bring the matter to a hearing. In that connection I mentioned that there is no time limit within which any particular pleading must be filed in an arbitration.

We are glad that this further fruit of the Law Revision Committee has been brought to this House by the Minister and that they are continually keeping an eye on aspects of the law which require careful and prolonged study and improvement. We are glad that this Bill has come forward after considerable labour on their part, and we feel confident that when people do resort to arbitration they will have a better instrument to achieve their purposes than hitherto.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has said that approximately only five cases a year are referred to an arbitration tribunal. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has pointed out that the costs of arbitration are appreciably lower than those in an ordinary court, and I hope that after this Act comes into operation more use will be made of arbitration. The reason why people do not make use of arbitration more often is that it is not provided for in the agreements. You will note from the Bill, Sir, that the agreement has to provide that a dispute should be referred to arbitration. I am sure that if this Act goes on the Statute Book, attorneys will make more use of it and they will specify in an agreement that if a dispute arises from such agreement it must be referred to arbitration. I myself have been concerned in two arbitration cases, both concerning building contracts. The Provincial Administration of the Transvaal, when accepting tenders and entering into contracts, always stipulates in the contract that in the event of there being a dispute it will be decided by arbitration. Therefore they never go to court with building contracts, but the matter is decided through arbitration, because that takes much less time and is much cheaper.

The hon. member for Pinelands has said that in Clause 14 no time limit is mentioned within which pleadings have to be submitted. I hope the Minister will not introduce such a time limit, because it is not necessary in this case. The English Act which was drafted in 1889 is similar to our law, and it works very well. In England many more cases are sent to arbitration than in our country. There is no provision in the English Act for a time limit within which pleadings must be submitted. In any case, it is not like an ordinary court case where a declaration and a plea have to be submitted. The contract provides what should be done and the dispute is generally about something emanating from the contract, and it is very easy for an arbitrator to decide the case. The arbitrator is generally a person who has specific knowledge of the subject. I hope the Minister will not introduce any amendments in regard to the submission of pleadings within a certain period.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) also referred to Clause 20, which was taken from the English Act. It provides that a matter may be submitted to an advocate for his opinion during the arbitration proceedings. I shall be very glad if this Act can be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible so that attorneys may stipulate in the agreements that use should be made of this Act. That will save costs and it will save the time of the courts and it will be much cheaper for the parties.

This is undoubtedly a very well-drafted piece of legislation and the Law Revision Committee should, I think, be complimented on their very good work. I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House, but there is one matter I want to raise. It could properly be raised in the Committee Stage, but as I can deal with it quite briefly I think it would save time if I raised it now to give the Minister the opportunity to consider it between now and the Committee Stage.

This matter arises from Clause 40 of the Bill and it has to do with the proviso introduced into that clause by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place. When the Minister introduced the proviso, he stated that the object was two-fold, firstly, to make it absolutely clear that as far as provincial ordinances are concerned this Bill when it becomes law will supersede provincial ordinances; and the Minister stated that the object was that only in the case of Acts of Parliament promulgated after this Bill and in which this Bill was specifically excluded, or was inconsistent, would this Bill not apply. I have no quarrel with that object, but as it is framed at present it seems to me that it has a result which was not intended. The result it seems to me to have is this, that in the case of an Act of Parliament promulgated before this Bill but which is inconsistent with this Bill, this Bill will not apply because the proviso reads as follows: “Provided that if that other law is an Act of Parliament, this Act shall not apply … to any such arbitration in so far as this Act is inconsistent with that other law”. Now, “that other law” could be a prior Act of Parliament, and in that case this Bill will not apply. I am sure that that was not the Minister’s intention. I raise the point at this stage to give the Minister an opportunity to consider it between now and the Committee Stage.

I thank hon. members for their reception of this Bill and the compliments they have paid to the Law Revision Committee. The matters raised by hon. members on both sides can conveniently be discussed in the Committee State. I just want to tell the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), in passing, that speaking superficially, because I have not had an opportunity to go into the matter more deeply, I think we are dealing here in the first place with the agreement in terms of which counsel’s opinion is sought; secondly, it is the same provision that is contained in the British Act, and they have had no problems or difficulties; and thirdly, I believe that in terms of Clause 33 action may be taken if a wrong decision has been obtained in this way.

In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), I think it is implicit in Clause 14 that where the arbitration court has the right to ask for particulars, or has the right to order that something be done, in view of the fact that the court is in session it will say that it must be done within a certain period, and the court will then resumably adjourn until such time as that act has been performed; and the court is of course also entitled to award costs, and if any party refuses to do what the court has ordered it will of course be taken into consideration.

In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie), I shall discuss that with him in the Committee Stage after I have had another opportunity of looking at the clause. I agree with the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) that we should be careful not to prescribe too many rules and regulations. We should have a broad framework, but we should be careful not to establish a lay court. The hon. member for Pinelands will also agree with me that we do not wish by means of this Bill to establish another court consisting only of laymen, or to spoil the confidence people have in our existing courts. We just want to establish an orderly procedure in case people, for many reasons, do not wish to go to court but prefer to resort to arbitration. So all we really need is to establish the skeleton of that organization to make awards if the parties fail to set their own conditions. I think then we would have gone as far as we could be expected to go.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The measure we have before us is one which replaces the Administration of Estates Act No. 24 of 1913, and while there are considerable improvements I feel that we can well compliment our predecessors who placed this measure on the Statute Book over 50 years ago. I find that it. has been amended in only very minor respects. Through the years this law has served us well. I think all of us will agree that the time for amendment is due and in fact, in some respects, overdue. Previous attempts to revise this law basically, made some 13 or 14 years ago and even five years before that, foundered and unfortunately they did not reach the Statute Book.

It is interesting, in examining the 1913 Act, to find that that was one of the early laws passed by this Parliament just a few years after Union, and it replaced no fewer than laws which had been passed on this subject over the previous 100 years. The original measure was passed in the Cape in 1833 and there followed some 13 laws amending the law in respect of the administration of estates. In Natal, commencing in 1868, there were no fewer than 11 statutes. In the Transvaal there were only three, and in the Orange Free State only four. There were apparently no comprehensive measures on the law books of the two Republics in respect of this matter, and in 1903 in the one case, and in 1904 in the other, more comprehensive measures were placed on the Statute Book replacing the existing laws. Consequently it is quite clear, in view of the length of time that this piece of legislation has been on the Statute Book, that there certainly has been no hasty legislation in respect of the administration of estates.

This measure has been before the public for quite a considerable period. It has received very wide study. I think it is fair to say that while I and other hon. members on this side have had comments from various organizations, one can well pay a tribute to the law advisers who drew this Bill, because I know of no measure of this importance and complexity which has attracted less memoranda and letters, which one comes to expect in respect of such legislation. Basically I think we will find when we come to the later stages of this measure that there is relatively little objection to the provisions, notwithstanding that there are over 100 clauses.

Coming to some of the points dealt with in this Bill and referring to the Minister’s second-reading speech in which he dealt with some of the more important provisions, I should like immediately to express my satisfaction with the provision in Clause 2 that the Master or the Deputy Master or the Assistant Master must be in possession of certain stipulated legal qualifications. I think that in general that has been the practice. I think it is sound that it should become a part of the law because there is no question that it is essential that they should have this knowledge. Here I should like to pay tribute to the services which have been rendered to this country by successive Masters of the Supreme Court. I should like to say, from a long period of practice at the Side-Bar, that I know of no Government office which has been overworked to a greater extent than the Master’s Office, because generally it is my belief that these offices have been hopelessly under-staffed. The staffs there have worked under very great difficulties and they have not always been able to deal with the work with the speed one would like to see, and that in spite of the absolute devotion to duty which I have always found in these offices. I should like to make a plea to the Minister. Perhaps something has already been done. If so, I should like to hear of it, but if not, I should like to see an investigation into this matter because I believe that it is of the highest importance that the offices of the Master should be fully and adequately staffed because it is important in respect of the administration of estates that accounts which are lodged with the Master should be promptly dealt with. I can say from my own experience, while paying tribute to the services of the officials concerned, that I believe that most of us who have had experience of the administration of estates have found that there have been long delays, not due to the officials in the Master’s Office, but due to the fact that those offices have generally been under-staffed.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue along those lines.

I am glad you gave me the opportunity to make my point, Sir, because it is of some importance. But I did not propose to carry the matter any further.

Regular inspections are made of these offices.

Yes, I know there has been some improvement in recent times, but I felt it to be my duty to raise the matter here. The majority of the other provisions can best be dealt with in detail in the Committee Stage, but I want to refer to some of them.

I welcome the provision which allows of the Master calling for security even in cases where the executor is normally exempt or has been exempted from finding security by the will. I think that is a very important provision, because very often the rights of other persons are concerned, and the Minister will know that there have been many cases where people have not been able to get their just dues because in cases where security had not been furnished there was no remedy. That remedy is now contained in this Bill and it is a very definite improvement on our present legislation on the subject.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us a little more about the requirement that a banking account may be opened with a banking institution approved by the Master. I take it that this is intended as a measure which will be in the interests of estates, because if a particular banking institution is not a sound one, then action could be taken. If that is so, this is an improvement on the present position, but in general, of course, I think most estate banking accounts have been opened with established banks. Section 34 now provides that where creditors do not give instructions that an estate must be sequestrated in terms of the Insolvency Act, the estate must be realized in terms of the simple procedure laid down in this clause. Sir, that provision has been in the law up to the present time, but I must say that I welcome the fact that further provision is being made here to amplify the present law on the subject. I think these further provisions are necessary.

I welcome the provision which deals with the diminishing value of money and which permits the Master to allow a summary procedure to be followed in administering estates up to a value of R2,000 instead of R600 as at present. I believe that that is a very wise provision. It is quite unnecessary in respect of comparatively small estates of this sort to take all the time which inevitably has to be taken in administering these estates—a procedure which is proper when there are big amounts involved but which causes quite unnecessary expenditure in the case of small estates. I wonder whether in appropriate cases, especially where security is given, one could not even increase the figure above the figure provided for in this measure.

We can discuss that fruitfully in the Committee Stage.

I merely want the hon. the Minister to give it some thought in the meantime.

Sir, I do not want to traverse all the provisions of this Bill. It is a measure which, as I said in my opening remarks, can best be dealt with clause by clause in the Committee Stage. We welcome this Bill; we will help to place it on the Statute Book. I understand that we are likely to get a White Paper in the course of the next day or two from the hon. the Minister’s Department …

It is being printed at the moment and it will be Tabled at any time now.

We look forward to getting the White Paper and having the opportunity of studying these provisions in the light of what is said in the White Paper, and I take it that there will be a reasonable interval after the Tabling of the White Paper before the next stage of the Bill is taken. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to give us that assurance.

It certainly will not come up again this week.

Well, that sounds reasonable enough. I hope it will take a little longer before the next stage is taken.

I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). This Bill is very welcome. I also agree that the 1913 Act which was drafted by our forefathers was particularly well drafted, so much so that to date hardly any amendments have been made to it. But times change and therefore it has now become necessary to make certain amendments to the Act. I am very glad that Clause 2 of the Bill now provides that Masters of the Supreme Court must have legal qualifications. I am thinking of a case where a dispute arose in regard to a claim in a deceased estate and where a senior advocate appeared before the Master. I do not know whether this particular Master had legal qualifications, but I do not think one would feel very comfortable if a senior advocate appeared before one with all the various court decisions and one then had to give a judgment. I think we can state that the Masters we have had in recent years have performed their duties excellently. We cannot but be proud of what they have done for us in their capacity as Master.

I do not want to say much about the shortage of staff. I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) that the staff of the Masters are sadly overworked and that much can be done to facilitate their position.

In passing, I just want to refer to Clause 17, which is being taken over from the old Act—it is Section 31 (4) of the old Act—in which provision is made that letters of administration may be issued to a woman, but only if her husband agrees to it in writing if she is married and the marital power is excluded in terms of the antenuptial contract. Sir, in 1953 we passed an Act here in which we granted more rights to women, and I wonder whether the time has not arrived to delete the provision that a woman must obtain the written consent of her husband, so that a woman, even though the marital power is not excluded in the antenuptial contract, may be appointed by a testator to act as executrix. The fact that such a testator appoints a woman as executrix proves that he has confidence in her, and I think that in such a case a woman ought to have the right to accept the appointment whether her husband gives his written consent or not. I do not wish to say much more about this.

Another point which struck me is that when a person dies it is no longer necessary to hand in the will, the death certificate, the inventory, etc., at the magistrate’s office. It can be sent direct to the Master. I am very glad of that. It saves quite a lot of time and eliminates the possibility of these documents being lost. I am very glad that this amendment is contained in the Bill.

There is something else which worries me, and I wonder whether it cannot be amended in the Committee Stage. When the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill he continually referred in his introductory speech to the “Weesheer”. But nowhere in the Bill is there any reference to a “Weesheer”; the reference is to the Master. I think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) will certainly agree with me if I ask the Minister to change the word “Meester” to “Weesheer”. “Meester” is a literal translation of “Master”.

Order! This is a matter which may be discussed in the Committee Stage.

Sir, I am asking the Minister whether it can be amended in the Committee Stage. For the rest, I have no comment. In regard to the other clauses, I will wait until we get to the Committee Stage. I am glad that eventually, after all these years, we are now having a new Administration of Estates Act.

As a practising attorney I feel it is my duty to say a few words. I am sure I am speaking on behalf of most of the members of the Side-Bar throughout the country when I say how pleased I am to see this particular Bill before the House. It is streamlining the original Act of 1913 which, despite the fact that it has been one of the greatest Statutes in so far as the protection of the rights of heirs and others is concerned, nevertheless did require a certain amount of streamlining to meet the progress of the day.

There are two interesting aspects I wish to refer to. I notice that in Clause 52 the right of substitution of the executor is taken away. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would reconsider that because in most wills that are drawn in this country it has become customary, in appointing an executor, to provide that he shall have the right of substitution. As the clause is worded it may well be a peremptory clause depriving the testator of the right to make provision for such substitution.

The clause dealing with administrators is an entirely new innovation in this type of legislation and a very welcome one, if I may say so. I would like the hon. the Minister to know how pleased we are that this has been brought about because hitherto administrators have been appointed in wills and have virtually, in a sense, been able to do as they wish. The Master has had no actual control over them although there has been a tendency of late on the part of the Master to ask for security even where it has been provided in the will that no security need be found. I think the object of the Master’s office has been to try to maintain some form of control. Provision is now made for the first time for proper control to be exercised over administrators. I think that is a very pleasing feature indeed, a feature which I hope will become widely known so that the public will be aware that in this particular respect the same control which is exercised over executors will in future be exercised over administrators. Proper accounts have to be kept and an administrator can be obliged to get an accountant to certify the correctness of the accounts from year to year. We find in practice that this is really essential. We know the difficulty in amending this type of legislation, legislation which deals with deceased estates, wills and so on because of our background of Roman-Dutch law and so forth. It is good to know, however, that, despite all the years it has taken eventually to introduce amending and fresh provisions of this nature to the light of day, the provisions we find here have at last been introduced. The profession will appreciate it because I think it is good for the profession and good for the public.

I will have a little more to say during the Committee Stage because in the light of the White Paper we may study some of the clauses a little more closely and raise other issues. But the general principle contained in this Bill is a welcome one and I think the profession and the public will appreciate the fact that the Minister has had the courage to amend one of the pillars of our Statutes namely the Administration of Estates Act.

I thank hon. members for their reception of this Bill. I may say that it is the result of long consultations between the Department and all interested bodies. I particularly want to mention the name of Mr. van Vuuren. He is a very efficient officer of the Department who was entrusted with the drafting of this Bill before it went to the law advisers. I shall welcome it if we can discuss all the interesting points raised by hon. members like the hon. members for Florida and Germiston, in the Committee Stage. We do not amend the Administration of Estates Act every day, and therefore we must welcome our having an opportunity to go into these points, particularly hon. members who are attorneys. In the light of their experience over the years, they can discuss these matters fully. I fear that I shall not be able to take the matter much further from my own experience, because the one thing I never did in all the years I practised was to administer an estate. I left that to my partners. I never had the desire to do so myself. I am therefore quite willing to be guided by hon. members who have practical experience of this matter, and I think that particularly after the White Paper which is now being printed has been handed to hon. members, we can have a very fruitful discussion on this Bill in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.