I move—

As I mentioned in my statement which I made when introducing this Bill, its objective is to prohibit strikes which do not have any bearing on the relations between employers and employees. As hon. members all know, a number of strikes of a fairly serious nature, which have affected not only the country’s economy but also the industry itself and in fact many employers, have occurred recently in the mining industry. This type of work stoppage is distinguished from the normal strike because it is simply and solely attributable to a quarrel in the ranks of the Mineworkers’ Union and has nothing whatsoever to do with the employer.

With every such display of protest against the leadership of the Mineworkers’ Union by a group of dissatisfied persons who are trying to dislodge the present leaders by means of unconstitutional methods, the victim of the strikers is not the opposing party in the ranks of the trade unions, but the employer. However, this kind of strike in the mining industry must not be seen as a new tendency, but as a repetition of incidents occurring in 1947-8 when the issue was similarly of a purely domestic nature and centred upon dissatisfaction within the ranks of the Mineworkers’ Union. The Government of that time had to make use of a War Measure to end the strikes and cause new elections to take place. Even that did not offer a final solution and when the present Government came into power, lengthy negotiations had to be set in motion until an agreement was reached in terms of which new elections were ultimately held. The strikes at that time cost the country more than R40,000,000, apart from a tremendous loss in wages for the workers. It was for the very purpose of preventing a repetition of those kinds of occurrences that the National Party Government inserted specific provisions in the new Industrial Conciliation Act in 1956 so that new elections could take place if serious dissatisfaction arose amongst the ranks of a trade union. Here I am referring to Section 12 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Right at the outset of this difficulty which has now given rise to the latest strike, I drew the attention of a deputation from the mineworkers to the fact that Section 12 had been inserted precisely so as to afford them the opportunity of holding a re-election in the Mineworkers’ Union in the prescribed way. However, it is a requirement, in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, that petitions be submitted by such dissatisfied persons and that the Registrar of Trade Unions must be convinced that there is a considerable percentage of the members in such a trade union who are dissatisfied before he is able to make arrangements for a re-election. They complied with this request in so far as that they tried to have petitions drawn up, but in the drawing up of those petitions they did not succeed in demonstrating the presence of a considerable percentage of dissatisfaction. But in spite of the fact that they did not succeed in doing so, the Government then instructed the Industrial Tribunal to try and find a solution for this dispute in the ranks of the mineworkers. The Industrial Tribunal was then instructed, inter alia, to investigate the causes of this dissatisfaction in the Mineworkers’ Union and to make recommendations for the attention of the Government. As hon. members are aware, the Industrial Tribunal succeeded in prevailing upon the parties to adopt a unanimous agreement in regard to a new election. In terms of that unanimous agreement all office holders of the Mineworkers’ Union have resigned, and a new election is to be set in motion, which will commence on the 19th instant. As hon. members know there is now this new strike and it is for that reason that this Bill is now before the House. In that regard I just want to refer to something else. I want to refer to prohibition on strikes which already exists in the Industrial Conciliation Act. The prohibition which does exist applies of course to the rendering of essential services such as light, power, sanitation, passenger transport, fire-fighting and municipal services. In the case of essential services, strike are totally prohibited. Disputes which arise in these industries must be referred to compulsory arbitration and the dispute must then be settled by means of negotiations and not by means of strikes. As far as the other disputes are concerned, I just want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are special regulations in the Industrial Conciliation Act which have to be complied with before proceeding to strike. But the latest series of work stoppages in the mining industry does not fall within the framework of this description in the Industrial Conciliation Act; it falls outside the purview of that provision. Of course the Industrial Conciliation Act was placed on the Statute Book to regulate matters affecting the relationship between employers and employees, and that is why it is really a pity that we have to introduce a measure such as this one. a measure which has really become necessary as a result of the actions of a group of workers who have resorted to a stoppage of work, an action which, in the first place, has nothing to do with conditions of service. I want to put it to the House that I am introducing this Bill reluctantly, but that I am afraid that the Government simply has no choice in this matter. It is also in the interests of the mineworkers themselves, all the mineworkers, that a new election should be proceeded with in order to enable the Mineworkers’ Union to continue with the negotiations for better conditions of service for that same crowd of mineworkers. Those negotiations could simply not be continued with if the election did not take place now. From the point of view of the interests of the country it is clear that the Government cannot allow strikes like this which affect the entire economy to continue. But I want to emphasize once again that any domestic problem in a trade union is a matter which must be settled within the constitution of the trade union, within the framework of the Industrial Conciliation Act. It can be settled within that framework without the workers having to have recourse to strikes. The Bill before the House imposes a prohibition on strikes which has no bearing on employer-employee relations, but in this regard I should like to emphasize a few matters. In the first place I should like to emphasize that this measure does not affect the normal right to strike which the workers have. The workers’ right to strike, when wages or conditions of service are at issue, remains unchanged therefore. The Bill before us is therefore limited to matters which have nothing to do with conditions of service or employment. In keeping with the Industrial Conciliation Act, in which certain provisions occur in regard to strikes as well as lock-outs by employers, it was found necessary to apply the provisions of this Bill to employers who may perhaps want to have recourse to lockouts of workers. As hon. members will note there are specific provisions in the Bill against persons who incite, instigate, command, aid, advise, encourage, or procure any employer or employee to commit any act forbidden by the Bill. But in this connection I wish to state very emphatically, particularly in the light of allegations that we now want to silence people and prevent them from expressing their dissatisfaction at the officials or leaders of mine trade unions, that the purpose of this measure is not to silence any mineworker; it is not intended to prevent any mineworker from criticizing anybody whom he feels dissatisfied about. The purpose of the measure is not to forbid him to express criticism of any trade union official or leader. The Bill has simply and solely to do with strikes such as the one I have already described, and the democratic right to give utterance to a feeling of dissatisfaction is not affected by this measure. This measure, as I said when introducing it, is without retrospective effect, and consequently It is not the intention—neither is it the legal position—to take action against the strikers who are striking at the moment; that is not the objective of this Bill.

In conclusion I want to express the hope that this measure will assist in restoring the industrial peace for which our country is known; I also want to express the hope that industrial peace will return, because South Africa cannot, for economic reasons, afford strikes of this nature, and I think it is in the interests of South Africa, since we are being attacked on a wide front to-day outside our borders, that we should not have strikes of this nature. In view of the hostile foreign countries with which we have to deal, strikes are not in the interests of South Africa. This measure which is therefore in the interest of all who have the interests of South Africa at heart, is, alas, essential.

With this Bill the Government is coming forward to deal with a problem which has a long history in South Africa and which is also a phenomenon which occurs in all countries of the world where a free trade union movement is allowed. We also find in other countries of the world that as the Government has to interfere more and more, on account of the circumstances of the way of life in our times, with the economic affairs of the nation, sterner action is taken against any irresponsible use of the right to strike which organized workers have. In some less-enlightened countries they even go so far as to restrict legal strikes in all kinds of ways. I was very glad that the hon. the Minister could give us the assurance in his introductory speech that it is by no means the aim of this Bill to in any way impose restrictions on the legal right to strike which many thousands of workers in South Africa enjoy. But we in the Opposition must admit that in an orderly community, and particularly in a community as the South African one where we must utilize all our economic means to strengthen ourselves against any possible events which might perhaps lie ahead for us, these wild, irresponsible strikes, which have nothing whatsoever to do with disputes between employer and employee, simply cannot be allowed. We realize that it has to be legal, except in certain essential industries, to allow strikes; where, after thorough negotiations as provided for in our Industrial Conciliation Act, an agreement cannot be reached and where either the employer or the employee feels that a desperate situation has developed they must then be able to make use of what is actually a last desperate resource, i.e. the right to strike. I am pleased to learn that we are still in agreement in South Africa that the right to strike must not be tampered with. It is an inherent right which is essential to ensure that the principle of common or collective bargaining works well. Of course we are dealing in this case with a strike which, as the hon. the Minister has said, is concerned with disputes within a trade union. We can realize that a man and a woman living in a flat have the right to live at variance with one another and quarrel if they want to, but it would be undesirable—and this we cannot allow—if they broke the owner’s lamps and window panes during the course of their quarrel and caused damage to his property. That is what happens to South Africa in this kind of case. Because there are disputes within a trade union, disputes which have nothing to do with either the country or the industry, the country’s economy as well as an important industry which is making a large contribution to the welfare of our nation, is being affected. We feel that the Government would be neglecting its duty if it did not take action in such a case. We can speak with understanding of this because, as the hon. the Minister reminded you, Mr. Speaker, we experienced major and serious difficulties with this same trade union in the same industry immediately after the war when the United Party was still in power. In those days the difficulties were aroused to a large extent on account of political considerations. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, as you, Sir, can remember, played a major role …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister referred to this.

The hon. member is enlarging too much on that point.

No, it is not my aim to enlarge on that. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, with the aid of the Marais Trust and the Neethling Fund, played a major role and we can understand the difficulties which the hon. the Minister is experiencing to-day with sympathy. We can only express the hope that the same body is not involved in the difficulties which are being experienced to-day.

I have only one point of criticism in regard to the hon. the Minister’s speech to-day. The public are to-day not clear as to what is going on within the Mine Workers’ Union. An investigation has been made by the Industrial Tribunal and a Report has been published, but nobody who has read that report really knows what the source of the dissatisfaction within that trade union is. One cannot judge whether this measure is going to be effective if the hon. the Minister does not take us into his confidence to a greater extent and informs us of what he has learnt in regard to this difficulty. It appears, as the hon. the Minister has said himself, that the Mine Workers’ Union would like to bargain for better conditions of service. We should like to know whether there are complaints of corruption and whether any political motives are at stake. I think the House of Assembly and the public is entitled to know what is really going on within that organization. In the days of the United Party government, although we took action under a War Measure, the public knew what was going on. We always took the public into our confidence and I think that we can expect the same from the hon. the Minister. We think that the hon. the Minister will now have to establish, through his Department. whether there are sufficient alternative means in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, as it has at present been drafted, to ensure that dissatisfied elements in a trade union or in a workers’ organization will also be afforded the opportunity of expressing that dissatisfaction of theirs to the full, of organizing and of making changes where they are necessary. We hope that they will be afforded adequate opportunities of disclosing matters which are wrong, irregular and illegal in the organization of their trade union and bringing them to the attention of the members of that trade union. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would give us greater clarity, particularly in regard to the last two points, when he replies to the debate. It is not our intention to extend this debate. We should like to help the hon. the Minister to pass this measure through Parliament as quickly as possible. We do not feel that we will be entitled to approve of all the stages of the Bill immediately. There may be reaction from outside, now that the Bill is better known. I think Parliament is entitled to await that reaction. Subject to that I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that we want to help him in every way to get the measure through Parliament without lengthening the Session as a result of this measure alone.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about the fact that the present Government and the National Party are favourably disposed towards the establishment and the existence of trade unions. We regard them as an essential and an indispensible part of our industrial conciliation machinery as a whole, and I think that in recent times in particular, when we adopted legislation to make it possible for membership fees of trade unions to be deducted, this party unquestionably demonstrated how favourably it was disposed towards trade unions. I also think that during the past 18 years the administration of our industrial laws, and of the industrial conciliation legislation in particular, by successive ministers of this party …

Order! I should not like hon. members to drag out the debate on this Bill ad infinitum. We are nearing the end of the Session, and if the hon. member’s remarks cover such a wide field, the entire labour legislation will come under discussion.

I just want to point out, Sir, that the public, and specifically the miners, should have no doubts about the Government’s favourable attitude towards trade-unionism and the machinery which has been provided for them. That is why I should like to advance this argument. That is why I say that the administration—and I am going to content myself with that remark—of the industrial laws, and specifically the industrial conciliation legislation, by successive ministers of this party, can leave no doubt about the attitude we are adopting in respect of trade-unionism.

But, as was said by both previous speakers, we cannot allow trade-unionism to be abused. It is in the interests of the worker, of the employer and even of the country that we should eliminate malpractices. That is why it is being endeavoured here to eliminate them. I want to make it clear that we are not the only country which has already adopted this legislation. In Britain, after the general strike of 1925, legislation was adopted to make provision for that, and I should like to refer to that legislation in order to show that we are not the only country which has to take preventive measures in this regard. That legislation contains the following clause—

1. (i) has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged;
2. (ii) is a strike designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship upon the community.

That is why I say that in other countries where these same problems arose, this attempt has already been made. But, as was said by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Yeoville, in this legislation we are not interfering with the basic principle of the strike weapon. That basic principle is that, if a grievance exists, the worker may withhold his labour from his employer. That is the basic principle involved in the strike weapon, namely that a worker may withhold his labour from his employer.

You are stating the principle a little bit too briefly there.

That is the basic principle, namely that the employee may withhold his labour from his employer if he has a grievance, in order to get redress of his grievance. That is the basic principle.

If he cannot get redress in other ways.

I shall deal with the other ways presently. But that is the basic principle, and we are not interfering with that basic principle in this legislation. And now I want to say at once that what we are doing here to-day, has already been advocated by trade unions in South Africa, and has already been accepted by trade unions. I want to refer to the trade unions in the local governments, where they voluntarily place themselves under arbitration, and where we subsequently made it compulsory in the 1956 legislation. Prior to the 1956 legislation, they were voluntarily placed under arbitration.

To-day we find industrial council agreements in terms of which trade unions voluntarily place themselves under arbitration. The trade unions have already given up the strike weapon. In other words, what we are really doing today is to do the trade unions which want to preserve and retain the strike weapon a favour, in that we are making the weapon safe and not bringing it into discredit. In view of the fact that people are beginning to realize more and more that the strike weapon are doing them harm, we should like to be able to tell the workers that we are preserving it for them by not allowing it to be brought into discredit.

I want to express the hope that the workers in the mining industry will resign themselves to this legislation, and that we may find a solution to this problem in that way.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Yeoville and therefore also to the Opposition for their support in this matter and for the fact that they rightly said that, if the Government did not take action in this regard, it would be neglecting its duty, no matter how unpleasant that may be.

I just want to reply briefly to what the hon. member asked me. He asked me what the difficulties were. He said that from the reports there was still no clarity as to what was troubling the people in the miners’ union. From the numerous discussions I had with them, I deduced that they had two major problems which troubled them. The first is directed at persons, at leaders. They do not only dislike certain leaders, but also have no confidence in them. That is one grievance. But, more deep-seated than that grievance—and it is a good thing that I state it here, too, to-day—is the question in regard to wages. That is a matter which troubles the miners, and I am only too glad that they have the opportunity now of resuming their negotiations for wages so that this entire question of improved working conditions may now receive the necessary attention, because I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that until such time as they are given greater satisfaction in that respect, trouble will always be brewing.

May I ask you a question? Will these dissatisfied miners have the right to establish a separate trade union, where they have a majority, in a particular mine or in a particular part of a mine?

Yes, they do have the right to establish a separate trade union and to apply for registration. That right they have.

The hon. member also asked a third question, and that is whether our present legislation makes sufficient provision for hearing grievances and giving attention to them. I do think that our legislation—particularly Section 12—makes proper provision for dealing with the grievances in a trade union. That is the section which both my predecessor, Minister Trollip, and I held up to him on a previous occasion; and we have done so since! Within that framework they can state their grievances.

But, apart from this real legal concession, the doors of the Minister of Labour still remain open to the miners, should they want to have talks. I am personally available at all times for talks with them. The majority of the workers know that the National Party and the National Government are their best friends, and that that will also be the case in the future.

I want to conclude by expressing my appreciation to the large group of miners who responded to the appeal not to go on strike, but to continue their work and to allow the election to take its normal course. I want to express my sincere appreciation as well as that of the Government to that large group of miners who responded to that appeal, and at the same time I want to repeat my appeal to those others who are still on strike so that in the interests of South Africa they may also respond to it.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned, I was discussing two points. The first one was that we on this side of the House believe that the Minister should have had this legislation ready on 5th August, when he made his statement about the so-called freezing of rents on 31st May—a term which he does not like—and the second one was our appreciation of having had the opportunity of seeing the Minister’s speech before this debate commenced. The reasons I gave for that were, you will remember, that we believed a White Paper should possibly have been issued and the speech took the place of such a White Paper.

That I was justified in indicating the necessity for having had this legislation on 5th August I think has been borne out adequately by the fact that the Press has carried comment on many occasions, and that both the Minister and ourselves have been approached by various organizations with a view to try and strike a a state of balance which will not only give the owner a fair return but will also provide housing at proper rentals for the people who have to rent such property.

We on this side of the House are going to support this Bill. We are going to support it, I suppose, largely for the same reasons that the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill. First of all we are going to support it because rents absorb such a large portion of the worker’s income to-day that the additional burden caused by exploitation through rent would be unthinkable to us on this side of the House. We believe that the worker to-day and the person who has to rent a house is at least entitled to the assurance that he will have to pay a rental which is fair and not a rental which is loaded because of exploitation.

I think that in considering this point of view it might well be mentioned that from questions I. have asked various people—my figures do not come from reports or anything like that—it would appear that the average worker earning in the region of R200 a month has to devote between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of his salary to rent. One can appreciate that if he has children and this amount is added to by unscrupulous landlords that he will find some considerable difficulty in providing properly for his family in other directions.

We are going to support it too because the Minister in his speech—and we believe that it is only the unscrupulous landlord who exploits people through the medium of loaded rentals —made out a good case for supporting this Bill, because he himself has said that his office has scores and scores of complaints coming in at the present moment every week. We too have had experience from various sources of the fact that people are being exploited in regard to rentals. We will come to the various methods which the Minister has adopted to try to stop this exploitation and we will have some comments to make there.

We also are going to support this Bill because the Minister has informed us that he has had difficulty in controlling the situation with the measures taken in 1964, and he has also promised us that he will review this legislation during the next session. So we want to help him to control a position which appears to us to be getting out of hand.

Now, Sir, whilst saying this, I should like to say that we were pleased, too, to have the assurance that he is going to try and make this a temporary measure—as temporary as possible, I think, would be a fairer way of putting it. He is going to have some difficulty in making this temporary because the position is a very difficult one, and I do not believe that it is going to be solved in such a short time as the Minister seems to have indicated in his speech. We are also pleased to have heard from him that he is not applying this measure to business premises. You know, Sir, that business premises are leased under a totally different code and set of conditions from those relating to residential property.

But because we are supporting this Bill and although we go a long way with the Minister for the control of these problems, it does not mean that we believe that this Government can be absolved from all blame. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister himself accepts the fact, and made the point quite clearly in his speech, that the laws of supply and demand which usually control rentals have been upset. He says they have. I believe that this points to a lack of foresight and to a lack of planning on the part of the Government. In saying this I believe that the reasons the Minister gave in his speech support me. In introducing this Bill he said that under normal circumstances the use of the law of supply and demand would determine the rent which had to be paid. He then proceeded to state that we were living in extraordinary circumstances, circumstances created by the rapid industrial development, the increasing number of immigrants, the temporary migration to the cities as a result of the drought and other conditions . But all these reasons, except the reason of drought, could have been controlled by this Government. Plans should have been made for that well in advance. It will be remembered that this Government claimed that it was responsible for this rapid industrial development and that they had in fact planned that. They also claimed that under their immigration policy they are increasing the number of immigrants. This year, for instance, they are looking for 50,000 immigrants. Having listened to the debates in this House, I believe the migration from the platteland to the cities has been brought about by the lack of a proper farming policy. So these three factors which are contributing, on the Minister’s own admission, to the housing shortage, are man made and did not just fall out of the sky. These are factors over which this Government should have had control at all times. But the Government has failed entirely to provide adequate housing. As a result the rule of supply and demand has been so upset that restrictive legislation of this type has had to be introduced. After all this, the hon. the Minister is suddenly realizing that he has to erect as much residential accommodation during the next 30 years as has been I built in the country over the past 300 years. These were his own words. What in fact he says is that the population is going to double within the next 30 years. And he has to make provision for that. But in our opinion restrictive measures of this kind will not furnish the solution to this problem. The Minister says that in addition to the necessity of providing as much housing in the next 30 years as has been built during the last 300 years there will be the demands made by urban renewal projects and slum clearance.

This brings me to the next question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. Has not the time come for him to review this policy and to consider whether under these exceptional circumstances he should continue going on demolishing properties at the rate they are being demolished at the present moment? Here I have in mind, for example, District Six. If District Six is demolished—I am not criticizing the decision in connection with District Six— the people living there now will have to be rehoused, something which is happening in towns and cities all over the Republic. These people have to be rehoused. Surely to goodness it is time that the Minister should consider the possibility of reconditioning some of these dwellings and in that way to make a contribution towards solving this housing problem instead of worsening it by demolishing these houses. For every one house he knocks down, he has to provide another one at very high cost.

Therefore I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has now come where he should seriously review his position in relation to housing, slum clearance and urban renewals schemes. I have, in fact, seen some very good housing, housing which cm probably still last for years but which will probably have to come down in favour of an urban renewals scheme. These houses might have been used by another racial group but that does not mean that they cannot be reconditioned for use by another group. There are, for instance, some Coloured cottages in the Newlands area which are being adapted for use by White people. If this is the case here, it can also be the case in other parts of the country. I have been approached by people who would have been only too grateful to get some of the Indian properties which are going to become vacant in the Durban area as a result of group area determinations. These are points which I think the hon. the Minister should investigate very thoroughly because I believe they are going to give him a lot of help in solving the problem which he has on his hands at the moment.

I now want to refer to an appeal the hon. the Minister made to investors when he introduced this Bill. He appealed to them to go on and to see whether they could not help him to provide all the housing that was necessary. This is what he said—

This is a very good appeal and I am wholeheartedly with him in this respect. But it is a question of on the one hand asking to build and on the other hand of introducing a Bill which will restrict them to a large extent. This will make them think twice before they build. One of the indications of this is that whereas before the hon. the Minister when bringing new buildings under control gave them not less than 6 per cent on their land and 8 per cent on their buildings, now he has made it a flat 6 per cent and a flat 8 per cent. I do not know under what circumstances rent boards could have granted more than 6 per cent or more than 8 per cent.

It is not less than 6 per cent and not less than 8 per cent on the actual building costs.

That is correct and I accept it. But my problem is that the hon. the Minister has removed the words “not less than”. I do not see why he did so. Up to now a person could have gone to the rent board and could have got slightly more than 6 per cent or slightly more than 8 per cent, as the case may be. However, I do not know under what conditions they would have given him more. So I do not understand why the hon. the Minister has removed this provision. After all, more than 6 per cent or more than 8 per cent could only have been granted with the approval of the Rent Board. By removing these words I submit the hon. the Minister has achieved nothing, except to create an impression of not wanting to meet people. In fact, I believe that he is restricting the incentive for people to build rather than increase it. He went further and said that as far as the percentages of 6 and 8 respectively were concerned he had an open mind on the question whether that was sufficient or not. But let me tell the hon. the Minister that he must have the courage to determine what is the correct percentages in this case. He should not put out bait to the Opposition to come forward and move amendments. He should have the courage to move his own amendment.

Arbitrarily?

The hon. the Minister has an open mind on this question but so have we. The Minister, however, has the means of investigating the matter. Furthermore, he has certain facts at his disposal and must have had representations to the effect that from 10½ to 11½ per cent will be reasonable on the basis that the interest on borrowed money is now 8i per cent. I am not saying that these percentages do constitute what is termed a reasonable return. The Minister has to take other factors into consideration as well. He knows, as well as I know, that people like to invest in property because it is one of the two things which in my opinion has retained its value while our money is depreciating very fast at the moment. That alone is an incentive to the average person to invest in properties. But the Minister has to give other incentives as well, that is, if he wants to build in 30 years what has been built over 300 years. He has to think up these incentives. It is part of his job rather than to introduce legislation of this kind, legislation which we are supporting although we do not like it. We believe planning is the answer and not restrictive measures such as this.

These are the questions to which the hon. the Minister should apply his mind and do it now. He has to induce people to put up all the buildings he can get them to put up in order to house those people for whom we have no accommodation at the moment plus all those we hope are coming. The private investor is, in my opinion, the man who will have to provide the bulk of the required housing. The schemes the Government provide at the moment are mostly for the non-Whites although also to a certain extent for the Whites. Without the private investor the Government can never hope to succeed in fulfilling the housing programme even to a small extent. The Minister has made up his mind to remove “not less than”—in other words, he is taking away the possibility of them getting more than 6 per cent or more than 8 per cent, as the case may be. However, he cannot make up his mind whether these percentages are fair. I say it is his job to investigate these things and to do his utmost to provide the incentive for people to put up buildings in order to provide homes for our people at a fair rental. It is for the Minister to find this balance. He is the one who has got to find it. He should not put out feelers like he is doing here but should get on with the job and tackle it.

We are very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has now opened up this question of valuations because in the past most complaints from people owning buildings arose from the basis on which their 6 per cent or 8 per cent, as the case may be, were determined. The value of money is changing so fast at the moment that is a question which obviously had to come up for review at some time. And here it is. But another speaker on this side will deal with this particular aspect because we believe it is a very important one.

The hon. the Minister says he is not freezing rentals but is only locking them at the figure they were on the 31st May until such time as they can be sorted out by applications from tenants and from landlords to the various rent boards. But the question which comes to my mind is whether the Minister is satisfied that the rent boards can in fact cope. The Minister himself in his speech anticipated a fantastic, almost an avalanche, of applications to the rent boards for valuations. Members of Parliament have themselves had the experience where the rentals of their flats here in Cape Town were increased rather excessively but it was done before the 31st May. In that case the occupants will naturally want to apply for a reassessment. On the other hand, those landlords who have played the game by not increasing their rentals before the 31st May would also want to apply for higher rentals. Therefore the hon. the Minister is going to have a spate of applications. Our experience of rent boards in the past is that they get behind with their work quite easily. That is understandable because they have to determine valuations and all the other factors necessary for a determination of the rental. I wonder, Sir, if when this legislation is passed and put into effect and applications come forward, the hon. the Minister is satisfied that his rent boards can cope with the spate of work and that this is not going to be carried over for too long a period, a period of uncertainty for both the landlord and the tenant, and the adjustment which the hon. the Minister talks about—I saw it mentioned in this morning’s paper—where he says that if the landlords do not make a refund, they are going to be in a position where they can be prosecuted. If this goes on for a long time, the hon. the Minister can appreciate that the amount of money that is involved is going to be quite an appreciable amount. So I want to know that his rent boards are in a position to cope with this spate of work that will have to be attended to.

There is another point that I want to mention to the hon. the Minister, and here I want to refer to a specific clause of the Bill. I want to refer to one aspect of this Bill which I personally dislike intensely and in regard to which we are going to move an amendment. It is on page 11, Clause 9, and I want to read it to you because I want the hon. the Minister to see what my point is in that regard. It says—

I will not read any further. I take very strong exception to the fact that this hon. Minister will take powers—he himself has put it in a slightly different way in his speech, because he said—

In other words, it gives the hon. the Minister the power to amend an Act of Parliament just by publishing it in the Gazette. I have had a chat with the hon. the Minister about this and I am quite sure that neither he nor I gwould like this enshrined in the legislation of South Africa. It is a step entirely in the wrong direction and we will propose an amendment to try and deal with this particular aspect of the Bill.

Then the hon. the Minister deals in his Bill and dealt in his speech with the question of conditional meals. He seems to be a little carefree about that aspect, but I would like him to appreciate that this is one of the methods by which the whole of the provisions of this Bill in relation to blocks of flats and buildings can be defeated. We have had examples already. I understand, from the hon. the Minister’s speech that the matter was being investigated and that if he found any abuses arising from the provision of meals and the like, steps would be taken. I think he should take steps now and should do so in this Bill. I believe it is very, very important. Already one of our own members here has had notice served upon him by his landlord that in future he is going to be supplied with a continental type of meal, a continental breakfast, at a high cost, and he is going to like it, or else …

Sir, steps are already being taken to defeat the objects of this Bill and I think that the hon. the Minister must not just say “if anything happens, I will do something about it”. It is happening, and I believe that if he wants to achieve some measure of control, he has got to do something about it now. This is very important.

It is important.

Then, Sir, we agree with him entirely on his investigations about overcharging in regard to parking spaces and the like. This is something in which we support him wholeheartedly, because we too know that not only has this been abused, but it has become something in the nature of a racket, and I believe that should not be allowed to happen.

The question of placing the onus of proof on the lessor in the case of the purchase of a building and charging rentals which are higher than those determined, we do not like, but nevertheless we appreciate the hon. the Minister’s difficulties, and as he has assured us that this measure will be a temporary one only, we are prepared to accept it. We do not like to place the onus of proof in that way, but we realize that there is no other way in which it can be done and we will support the Minister in this.

We believe that under normal circumstances this would be more a Committee State Bill than a second-reading bill, and we are going to submit certain amendments. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister knows the nature of our amendments already. After his second reading speech we had an opportunity of considering certain amendments in order to try and improve this legislation and we have submitted our amendments to the hon. the Minister.

We look forward in the new year to a proper housing plan which will not only provide the worker with good housing at a rental he can afford, but will provide the necessary incentive for the investor to invest in buildings. You see one provision of this Bill—let me hesitate there for a moment—we believe actually penalizes the true investor, the man who puts his own money into a building, because he is not allowed the extra balancing amount that the hon. the Minister allows. He is only allowed it on borrowed money. So the man who has financed his own building is obviously going to be penalized if the rentals do not give him a fair return on his money, whereas if he has built with borrowed money and the return does not meet the installments he has to pay, for instance, to the building society, then the rent board can balance it off for him, but only if it is borrowed money.

That is not quite correct.

The hon. the Minister can explain it to us, because at this stage it appears to us that it is only on borrowed money.

But he cannot earn any thing on borrowed money.

No, but at least he can come out square, but if it is his own money he can get no return at all. That is the point. That Clause also seems to place a burden, an extra burden, on the tenant who for instance occupies a flat or a house which has a big bond on it. If it goes the one way for the investor, it must in the other way penalize the tenant in a building which has been built with a large amount of borrowed money.

So whilst we support this legislation, we believe that the answer does not lie in legislation of this type. We believe it lies in proper planning, and that is why I sincerely put it to the hon. the Minister that he has a very responsible position (he has not been long in this job) and that we believe that he has got to get down and plan properly. I believe that if he plans these things properly and gets on with the job and makes sure that materials and the proper personnel are available, we can very very soon lift the provisions of this legislation.

The hon. member for Umlazi intimated that the Opposition supported the legislation, and I want to leave it at that, but in his speech he said two things with which I cannot agree. The first is that he said that the Government was to blame for this state of affairs owing to “lack of foresight”. He says that, owing to that, because the Government did not have sufficient foresight to anticipate the problem and take the necessary measures, the demand for housing has now exceeded the supply by far. Sir, I cannot accept the fact that the Government alone is responsible for this backlog in housing. I think that much more blame should be placed on the local governments which did not have the funds at their disposal during the past number of years; the Government was prepared to provide them with funds, but they did very little and not enough by far to meet their obligations in regard to housing. Well, this is not a housing debate and I do not want to elaborate on this matter. I want to mention to the hon. member a very recent example of what is happening in this regard. I want to refer to a report recently published in the newspapers of 7th October, 1966. It states that a report of their housing commission served before the Cape Town City Council and that it was discussed there. Major Berman, a former United Party Senator said there that, unless conditions in Cape Town improved, it would have disastrous consequences for the city. I just want to quote this further part of the report (translation)—

In the past few years they never came near to achieving a goal which was already too low—

And so this whole report continues to show that the Cape Town City Council is not nearly carrying out its duty in respect of housing, and they also specify that virtually nothing is being done about housing for Whites. In this respect, therefore, the hon. member for Umlazi cannot lay the blame on the Government.

Another matter he mentioned here and to which I want to refer, is that he urged the Minister not to be too hasty with the Government’s programme in respect of the clearance of slums and resettlement. I cannot agree with the hon. member there. I think the Government and the State have a tremendous task in this regard and they must continue unremittingly in their task of clearing slums and resettling unauthorized persons in those areas.

I just want to make a few general remarks in regard to the Bill we have before us. At the outset I want to point out, Sir, that in his second-reading speech the Minister very emphatically pointed out that this legislation, which extends rent control, should not be any indication that, or should not be seen as though, it is giving a sort of permanent character to rent control. That is a very important fact which should be underlined. The Government’s policy is to relax rent control gradually and to abolish it, where possible, and the Minister emphasized this aspect. But as far as this is concerned, we should also be realistic and practical and we must accept that the necessary evil of rent control will probably be with us for a considerable number of years to come, just as the proverbial poor. Taking into consideration the large number of areas in which resettlement and clearance must still take place, the great increase in our population, the tremendous migration to our major industrial centres and the number of immigrants we are getting annually, we must be realistic and we cannot expect to be without rent control in our country soon.

In the main this legislation makes provision for two matters only. The first is that by means of this legislation the Government wants to meet its obligation of protecting lessees, of protecting them against exploitation where the demand for housing exceeds the supply. The Minister does in fact have the powers to do so under existing legislation, the 1964 Act. In terms of that Act the Minister can virtually place any uncontrolled property under control, but it is a tedious process, and under present circumstances that legislation is in actual fact not sufficiently effective to implement the large-scale control programme we envisage. I also think that the 1964 Act was more specifically intended to be a sort of deterrent, and if we want to exercise control on a large scale, we shall have to have an Act such as the Bill we are dealing with at present, and that is why we accept the necessity of this Bill.

The second object pursued by this Bill, is to close loopholes in the existing Act. Loopholes used by unscrupulous lessors to exploit lessees, should be closed. In this case I am referring to the definition of parking spaces in particular; the provision of meals and furniture which are brought into dwelling units by a third party. But we must also accept that as far is this is concerned, it will not be the last time that we will have to amend this Act. There are always persons who are bent on seeking loopholes in order to evade the provisions of the Rents Act. Such people are successful and that is why we shall have to amend this Act from time to time. That is why I want to ask whether it is not time we thought of a consolidated Rents Act, since this Act has already been amended so many times. Speaking of amendments, this brings me to an announcement which was made here by the Minister and to which I also want to draw specific attention. The Minister intimated that next year he would be prepared to reconsider the provisions of the Act relating to the percentage of the value of the building and the land which may be permitted in the determination of rent. I think it is a matter which needs attention. In this regard I agree with the hon. member for Umlazi to a certain extent. It is a matter for which I also pleaded strongly in 1964. I think the bodies and persons concerned will be able to convince the hon. the Minister sufficiently that in this regard there is a rightful claim to a concession being made to lessors.

I want to mention the considerate manner in which the hon. the Minister submitted this legislation to the House. The Minister is obliged to take strong measures, but, on the other hand, he showed that he was not unsympathetic towards people who had invested their money in housing programmes. In particular I want to refer to two points in the Act. The first is his accommodating spirit in respect of the recovery of bona fide interest in excess of 8 per cent on registered mortgage bonds, and secondly, the indication he gave rent boards that, when they had to determine the rent value of a building or a property, they had to place the emphasis on sworn valuations or building society valuations. I say that this proves that the Minister is not unsympathetic towards people who invest their money in housing. The Minister’s general approach to the whole matter is such that every possible fear which existed that this measure would deter people from investing their money in the construction of flats and dwellings, has disappeared. This is always the greatest and most important argument against rent control measures, namely that by combating one evil, viz. exploitation, one may create a greater evil, and that is that one deters private enterprise from investing their money in housing programmes, and thereby one does in fact aggravate the problem. But the judicious manner in which the Minister handles this matter and the very emphatic assurances he has given private enterprise, gives us complete satisfaction to the effect that sound investments in dwellings will not be deterred by this measure.

I want to content myself by saying that this legislation does not only create unanimity and satisfaction among us here in the House, but I also made a thorough study of the memorandum sent to the Minister by the Institute of Real Estate Agents and Auctioneers of South Africa, in which they raised certain misgivings about the legislation, and after the concessions made by the Minister, specially those in respect of excluding business premises from rent control, I think that even these bodies and persons are satisfied. In conclusion, I just want to agree with the hon. member for Umlazi that the Minister should only see to it now that the effective implementation of this control will not be thwarted in that the rent boards will not be able to cope with the amount of work which they will be called upon to undertake. That is why the Minister will definitely have to appoint new rent boards and make timely provision to ensure that they can manage the work they have to undertake.

The hon. member for Umlazi has already told the House that we will support the Bill, but let me say immediately that we are not very enamoured of it. We do not like controls in any form, because we know from experience that controls defeat themselves. When one talks about controls it reminds one of that chapter in the Old Testament which we used to call the “begats”, where So-and-So begat So-and-So, and then he begat So-and-So. This is what happens with controls. You have a problem and so you begat a Bill to take care of that problem, but as the result of your action a new problem arises and then you begat again, and so it goes on and becomes an endless chain. Controls mean that you have to go on imposing further controls as soon as somebody finds a way of getting round the controls. The reason for this Bill is of course that people have been getting abound the controls imposed in 1950 and in 1964. If it were not for that and for the fact that there have always been a certain number of unscrupulous landlords, we would not have these problems. Controls always obscure the picture. You never know where you stand. You will remember that after the war there was a terrific shortage of motor-cars, and when you went to a firm to purchase a car, they said you could have one in a year or 18 months or two years, and every motor dealer had a long list of people who wanted to buy motor-cars. But then one of the dealers got wise and decided to do a survey of what was the actual requirement, and then found that ten or 15 dealers had the same people, on their lists. That is what controls do. The hon. the Minister says there is a certain shortage of housing. As you bring in more and more controls. the picture of what the actual demand for housing is gets more and more confused. So we do not like controls and we are not particularly enamoured of this Bill.

Then there is a second factor in regard to this Bill. It seems to be considered as a temporary measure, but the hon. member for Parow is quite right when he says that this Bill is going to be with us for a long time, although perhaps not in this form. I certainly hope it will not be in this form. I understand that the Minister will consider amending it next year and we would all welcome a consolidation. But there is a certain modicum of permanency about it and a certain atmosphere of temporariness also. There are measures in the Bill which are not going to be implemented. There is the question of the control of business premises. The Minister says he is not going to implement this at the moment and if the landlords behave themselves he will not implement control over business premises, but it is there all the time and nobody quite knows where he is. Although, as I say, we have no great love for this Bill, we do understand the Minister’s problems, and therefore we will help to solve them.

But coming back to the problem of control, while the controls the Minister will now introduce will take care of a great number of malpractices that are going on, at the same time there can be no doubt whatever that it will put a curb on the very thing the Minister wants to achieve, and that is the building of additional dwelling units. It is one of these vicious circles. You do something to prevent something and you create a new problem instead. I know this is a very difficult problem. As the Minister brings in control, he is going to stop, to a certain extent, the building of new dwellings, and when he raises control he gets the problem of unscrupulous landlords, and so it goes on. It is a vicious circle. Of course, the only way out of the problem is to provide sufficient accommodation. The hon. member for Parow may or may not be right, but I presume he is, when he quoted figures to show that the local authorities are not doing their job. But basically this is not a problem for local authorities, to provide housing, unless we are going to move in the direction in which the British Government is going, where practically all the housing is to-day provided by the Government. But the provision of housing is still the major responsibility of private enterprise and you have to encourage private enterprise to build. There are certain problems, and one of the most vexed of these problems is the question of valuations. I think we all appreciate the Minister’s problem because the valuation of a property is basic to the rental that can be allowed. Municipal valuations used to be a factor. I think it is going to become less of a factor now. But if the Minister would look at the monthly analysis of property transactions for August, 1966. he would see that municipal valuations have no relation whatever to property values to-day.

No one talks about municipal valuations any more.

I think the original Act makes provision for it. It is still a factor to be taken into account. But we should remove that factor; it is no longer a factor, in any shape or form. In certain wards of the City of Cape Town you have the position that in one ward. Ward 6, there was minus 21.46 difference between the actual municipal valuation and the selling price. In other words, the municipal valuation was higher. In one ward, the actual selling value was 102.87 per cent higher than the municipal valuation, and it varies from 45 per cent to 94 per cent, and 46 per cent and 11 per cent. Municipal valuations have no relationship to values. The are imposed for quite a different purpose, for rating purposes only. I hope we get away from municipal valuations, as the Minister is doing, when he says he will issue an instruction that there is to be a preponderance of importance given to sworn valuations and to building society valuations. Of course, here you also have problems. It is amazing what differences you can get in sworn valuations. People view the value of properties from different angles, and whereas a sworn valuator obviously tries his best to give an impartial valuation, you get some very strange figures; you can get valuation differing by 50 per cent for any one building. I think the Minister has got to give some consideration to this matter, to see whether a formula cannot be found for fixing this vexed question of valuations, because this is the cardinal point. If your valuation is right, you can deal with other aspects. [Interjections.]

The other problem is in Clause 1 (b). Here the Minister is trying to provide some protection for the landlord who is paying high rates of interest on his mortgage bond. Rates of interest are high at the moment, but they can possibly go higher and many bonds to-day vary from 7½per cent to 9½ per cent and 10 per cent. Long-term money is hard to come by. My reading of Clause 1 (b) is that the Minister is trying to ensure that the investor, despite the rate of interest he pays on his mortgage bond, will be left with 6 per cent on his land value and 8 per cent on his property value. That is what he is trying to provide. But the hon. the Minister knows, of course, that a return of 8 per cent on your own investment in property is no return at all; people do not normally invest in property in order to get an 8 per cent return on their own investment.

But you must remember that it will now be 8 per cent on the inflated value of the property.

But it is still only 8 per cent on your own money because your mortgage is on the inflated value.

No, it works out at more than that because of the appreciation of the value of the building.

Yes, that is on its value. I say that 8 per cent on the value of the building is not an adequate return on your own investment. Sir, I am prepared to wager that the hon. the Minister would not tell us that he is prepared to invest his own money in a building at to-day’s valuation and be satisfied with a return of 8 per cent. No businessman would do so. You see. Sir, in the past the normal investor has made a profit out of the mortgage bond he raises; this is part of the way in which you finance buildings, but this is now disappearing; you cannot make a profit out of the mortgage bond that you get; you can only make a profit on your own investment and 8 per cent is not going to satisfy anybody. As the hon. member for Umlazi has said, you are going to get a very strange situation. You are going to get the situation that the bigger the bond the higher the rental, because you are going to get 8 per cent on what is your own investment, so if one property has a bond of R100,000 at 8i per cent, that must first be taken into account, and if a property of a similar value has a bond of R10,000 at 8½ per cent, you have to take that into account and there is an enormous difference. The rentals of identical properties are therefore going to differ because of the difference in the amounts of the bonds. But, Sir, there is another factor: The hon. the Minister will know that many bonds have escalator clauses. In other words, by giving six months’ notice or twelve months’ notice after a stipulated period of time, the mortgagor is entitled to raise the rate of interest. This has been going on all over our cities. If the rental value of a property is calculated at a time when the rate of interest on the bond is 8 per cent, one will arrive at a certain figure; then the rate of interest is increased to 81 per cent or 9 per cent in terms of the bond, and the Rent Board will then arrive at a higher rental valuation. You are therefore going to have changes of rentals up and down. When the rate of interest is reduced the rental in effect should be reduced: when the rate of interest is increased the rental should be increased. Sir, what is going to be the position regarding bond reductions? You are entitled to a return of 6 per cent and 8 per cent on your investment. Assuming, for example, that I have a property valued at R100,000 and that I have a bond of R70,000 at 8½ per cent. The Minister will take that into account in arriving at the rental valuation. In terms of the bond I am required after the first year to pay off R30,000. In the rental determination there has been a calculation at 8½ per cent on the R30,000 I am now going to pay, and I am only entitled to 8 per cent on it, although my bond was 8½ per cent: so is everybody going to start running to the Rent Control Board every time there is a reduction in the bond? I think that when the hon. the Minister brings in his consolidating measure he should make some provision that people will not be allowed to run to the Rent Control Board every time a bond is increased or reduced, because otherwise the situation is going to be absolutely impossible. In terms of this Clause the landlord is only entitled to a return of 8 per cent on his own money although he may be paying 81 per cent on his bond. Sir, I am glad that the hon. the Minister was fair enough to say that he had had representations on this return of 6 per cent and 8 per cent, that he did not have sufficiënt data at the moment, but that he would consider the matter if it could be shown to him that an injustice was being done. I do not think there is going to be much difficulty in proving that to him. I think if he is going to accept the representations made to him by developers, he is going to find that a return of 6 per cent and 8 per cent is not a satisfactory return and that it is not going to give any encouragement to developers.

The hon. member for Umlazi also referred to Section 9 but from a different point of view. The Bill, as it stands at the moment, entitles the Minister by proclamation to extend rent control to all dwellings occupied after the 20th October, 1949 and before the 1st June. 1966. and in terms of that proclamation to fix the rentals at the level at which they stood as at the 31st May, 1966, subject, of course, to an appeal or application to the rent board, but it goes further. The Minister can issue not only a proclamation dealing with rentals as at the 31st May, 1966, but next year or in six months’ time he can issue a further proclamation dealing with properties occupied after the 31st May, 1966 and before a date that he will determine, and he can go on doing this ad infinitum. In other words, the hon. the Minister has the power, in terms of this Section, to issue proclamations from time to time to encompass within his control any properties which were not occupied as at the 31st May, 1966. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what effect he thinks this is going to have on property development. Everybody who builds a property for letting purposes today knows that at any time the Minister can bring that property under rent control. Sir, this will not encourage people to build. The hon. the Minister knows that his formula of 6 per cent and 8 per cent is not going to encourage builders. If he changes the formula the picture may be different, but there is no certainty whatsoever, because even the first rentals can be changed. They come under rent control and in his next proclamation he will no doubt freeze rentals as he is doing now, subject to an appeal to the special rent control board. He will give everybody the right who has freely entered into a lease with a property developer or a landlord to apply to the Rent Board for a variation of his rent, so the landlord is never going to know where he stands. I think the hon. the Minister will have to give very serious consideration to this question of bringing in rent control continuously.

Then I want to deal with another aspect. The hon. the Minister has told us that building control was introduced in December, 1964 to give preference to the erection of residential premises. He told us that of the 1,052 projects which had been submitted to him he had rejected 266 and that he had saved R62,000,000 odd. But the interesting thing is this: If the hon. the Minister would care to be my guest in Johannesburg for a day I would like to show him where the real development of residential properties has taken place. It has taken place not in the middle-class suburbs, not even in the upper class suburbs, but in the wealthy suburbs. The northern suburbs of Johannesburg have more luxury flats than the owners can let, and the rentals go up to R300 and R400 per month. Despite the fact that there was building control it seems that the statement made by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor that he was not going to concern himself with luxury flats, that this was a matter between the rich man and the landlord, induced all the developers to go in for luxury flats. They have built block after block of luxury flats. I do not know whether the same thing has gone on in Cape Town and Durban; I do not know those areas well enough, but in Johannesburg the number of luxury flats that have been built is absolutely amazing. Things reached the stage where you had enormous advertisements in the Sunday papers week after week by property owners in the northern suburbs, offering flats to let. They have some fantastic flats, with fountains in the middle of the lounges and all sorts of gimmicks. Sir, that is not the kind of building we want. We want to build for the man in the street. Control over residential premises has disappeared altogether and I think it is a good thing. I do not believe in controls, but when the hon. the Minister’s predecessor was controlling buildings, which included residential premises, he was obviously not making a very good job of it. Too many permits were issued for the erection of blocks of luxury flats. All that money and all that effort could have gone to do something else.

Sir, there are a number of limiting factors with regard to this vexed problem of housing. They do not fall directly under the hon. the Minister but perhaps he can do something about it. The first one that I want to raise is the question of new townships. To get a new township to-day, it takes you a minimum of three years in the Transvaal—after you have done all the preliminary work which may take you anything up to three years—from the day you lodge your papers with the Townships Board to the day you receive permission to go ahead.

Order! Can the hon. member tell me what that has to do with this Bill?

It has to do with the question of making more buildings available so that we will not have to have control.

Supply and demand.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill before the House.

Sir, with all due deference to the Chair, the hon. the Minister is trying to deal with the problem of providing housing, and one of the methods that he uses is to control rentals. I want to suggest to him other ways in which he can improve the situation, so that he will be able to remove control as soon as possible.

Order! I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue that line.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. the Minister, in introducing this Bill, said that he wanted to restore the balance of supply and demand as quickly as possible so that he could remove this measure entirely, and I think the hon. member for Parktown is trying to show him how he can do that.

I am afraid my ruling is that this matter cannot be discussed. If the hon. member looks at the long title of the Bill, he will see that it is quite clear that this matter does not fall within the scope of this Bill. The hon. member must deal with a new point.

If I cannot deal with this matter, Sir, I hope you will allow me to deal with another matter which is directly related to the question of rentals. I think that the hon. the Minister, in conjunction with, for example, the Society of Architects and the building organizations, should plan a campaign so that people in this country will realize that they must not expect to live in mansions. Every South African wants to live in a mansion. I think what the hon. the Minister should do is to tell the people of this country that the pattern of housing has changed throughout the world. As a country develops you can build reasonably cheaply while there is lots of space and while there is adequate skilled labour available, but when you move into the pattern of industrialization, where cities are over-crowded, land values increase; labour costs increase and you cannot go on having houses of such enormous size. In the United States of America, for example, although the houses are as efficient, and perhaps more efficient, and certainly as comfortable as ours, they are perhaps only half the size of ours. A house with a floor area of 1,200 square feet is a large house in the U.S.A. for a wealthy person. In this country everybody seems to want a large area of ground, a large number of rooms, large-sized rooms and every modern convenience. They are entitled to modern conveniences, but unless we get people attuned to accepting lesser accommodation, we will never overcome this housing problem. I hate to see anything enforced, but you can bring this about by educating the people. I hope that the hon. the Minister will try, in conjunction with those people directly concerned, to educate the public of this country into accepting that they can have all the comfort and the convenience they require at a much lower cost and at a lower rental if they will accept the standards which are acceptable in all the highly developed Western countries.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown must excuse me if I do not respond to his arguments immediately. However, I shall come to those arguments in the course of my speech. I want to say at once that rent control is of the utmost importance in all civilized countries, because it actually forms an integral part of a nation’s housing project and the entire housing structure in modern times. It derives its importance from the fact that rent control aims at protecting the home or the dwelling which is the pivot on which family life hinges. The family is the most important unit of the community. This unit and this pivot does not only determine the prosperity of a nation, but also the culture of that nation. That is why rent control should always be viewed in its broader sense.

In the first instance we must view it as an attempt on the part of the Government to use it and to implement it with a view to the major housing problem. Furthermore, we must view it in the sense that if we were obliged to provide the nation with housing, our obligation does not end there, but that we should also see to it that order will always be maintained in regard to the letting of dwelling units. It is so that the whole idea of rent control is actually bound up with—and hon. members also mentioned it here this morning—and determined by whether or not there is a shortage of houses. In other words, it is the old classical idea of demand and supply. In view of the fact that we are faced with a housing shortage in South Africa—not only in South Africa, because the housing problem is also casting its dark shadow over all the countries of the world—we also realize that we should approach the rent control problem in our own country with great care. This morning hon. members on the other side gave me the impression that they would like to run with the hares, but that they would also as readily hunt with the foxes. On the one hand they support these fine principles contained in this Bill, but, on the other hand, they want to continue the hunt. What are they saying? They are saying that a profit of 8 per cent is not a good investment; that the local authorities are not obliged to provide housing, and that the proclamation in terms of which the hon. the Minister may now implement rent control, is not really a good thing.

Let us just analyse these three concepts which actually form the gist of the arguments raised by hon. members on the other side of the House. In the first place, let us look at the question concerning the proclamation. Are hon. members not aware of the fact that in terms of the 1964 Act the Minister had the Dower to place all properties under rent control by proclamation? This morning they are saving that it is a new thing and that they do not like it. I shall deal with the other arguments in a moment. However, during the last moments of this Session, I should like to make a few positive statements here. I say that rent control is of the utmost importance in all civilized countries. I shall test this statement of mine against the following. Where do we find rent control? We find rent control in America, and there it is not implemented by the federal government of America, but by the governments of the various states in America.

We find rent control in West Germany, France, Italy and Denmark, to mention only a few. The only country on the continent of Europe in which we do not find rent control is Belgium. England even goes much further. England says that dwelling units which earn £400 or R800 in rentals, must immediately be subject to rent control. Dwellings earning rentals in excess of the said amount, can be placed under rent control. In other words, rent control is a universal institution. All civilized countries employ this concept where it concerns the housing of a nation or of nations. The essence of our rent control is bound up with that very fine Act of ours, namely Act 43 of 1950. This Act has a very interesting history. At that time, during the second-reading stage, that Act was referred to a Select Committee. It is interesting to recall that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) is the only remaining member of that committee in this House. The father of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. the late Mr. G. P. Steyn, was the then chairman of that Select Committee. That Select Committee inquired into all the important principles of rent control. They formulated a standard law which will probably be of great value to us for many, many years to come. It is also interesting to note that our rents laws are based on and derived their origin from the old English law, namely The Restitution of Mortgage and Interest Restitution Act. Subsequent to that, the development of our rents laws took place.

The first was Act No. 7 of 1920, followed by Act No. 33 of 1942. Then came the important Principal Act, namely Act No. 43 of 1950, and finally the few amendments we had in 1951 and 1964. I mention this series of Acts merely in confirmation of what I want to say now. Rent control in South Africa was therefore implemented under the following circumstances. Firstly, it was implemented after the First World War, then again during and after the Second World War, and we are once again implementing it now that we are faced with the struggle against inflation which has given momentum to our housing problem. There were also other factors which were mentioned here this morning. One of these factors is our major industrial development; another is the major drought which prevailed in our country, causing a large-scale and much more rapid migration of people to our cities than usual. Then we are also in the fortunate position that South Africa is one of the most prosperous and one of the safest countries in the world, and as a country to emigrate to it is therefore a very good proposition for people who want to make a new start in life. That is why it is essential that we must still have rent control in South Africa at the moment.

Through the mouth of the hon. the Minister, the Government has once again made the grand old ideal very clear. It is the intention of this State and it is our ideal to lift rent control as soon as possible, that is, when the great demand for houses no longer exceeds the supply. And should we test that against the steps the State has taken, we shall see that out of the 275 rent board areas, more than three-quarters have already been abolished. After the 1950 Act had been passed, Justice de Villiers made it quite clear that adjustments would have to be made from time to time. For instance, he said—

In this way new circumstances have arisen, and therefore it is necessary to introduce this Amendment Bill in this House. The three main principles this Bill embraces, were stated very clearly. One can summarize them by saying that firstly, the main object is to cope with malpractices. We must admit that over the years, particularly in our major cities and in my own constituency, malpractices have in fact been taking place as regards the letting of dwellings. Secondly, it is the object of this Bill to provide for the more effective implementation of rent control where it has to be exercised over dwellings erected and occupied after 21st October, 1949. Thirdly, and this is important—it appears that hon. members on the other side have forgotten this—this Act provides that properties occupied after 21st October, 1949, may at any time be exempted from rent control. I just want to refer to the statement made here by the hon. member for Parktown, namely that an investment at 8 per cent was not a good investment. I do not really find it strange that he mentioned that, because in the past, when we wanted to extend rent control in terms of the 1964 Act, the newspapers visualized the following ill omens, which served as a prelude to the conduct of the United Party in this House. In the first place they said—

Then they said—-

They also said—

These headlines were followed up by the hon. member for Jeppe. I should just like to explain that it is not the hon. member who is sitting next to me. He used to sit on the other side of the House. When that important Act of 1964 was discussed in this House, he said (translation)—

That was the view they held at that time, in 1964. This morning they are saying that they support our views. Let us look at the way rent control influenced investments in 1964 in respect of the provision of dwelling units. The hon. member for Parktown says that 8 per cent is a very bad investment. If I were to refer the hon. member now to the Bureau of Statistics and put it to him whether he knows what the capital return of industry and commerce is, I wonder whether he will agree with me. The average return based on the market price of ordinary shares, taken over a period of 12 months—that is the 12 months ended on 30th June, 1966—was as follows: Industry and commerce as a group, 5.05 per cent; industry alone, 5.08 per cent, and commerce alone, 4.78 per cent. If I were to specify these in any way, I arrive at the following conclusions in respect of that same period: food, 6.34 per cent; fish, 6.85 per cent; spirituous liquor and tobacco, 4.57 per cent; textiles, 3.37 per cent; clothing, 5.05 per cent; foot-wear and leather, 4.70 per cent, furniture, 4.98 per cent, and so forth. Here, in this hon. House, the hon. member admits that the investor can earn his 8 per cent in real estate. What is the result of the fact that real estate offers the investor a much better investment? In 1964 the private sector built 19.941 houses for Whites, and in 1965, 25,168 houses were built for Whites—two years after the important 1964 Act had been passed in this House. I would courteously suggest that it is not only the duty of the State to provide our people with housing, but also that of the private sector. I think I may avail myself of this opportunity to appeal to our private sector to avail themselves of this opportunity now, more so than ever before, to invest their money in that field, so that along with our State and Government they may be partners in this great and titanic struggle to cope with the housing problem in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in following the logic of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), who has just sat down. He commenced his speech by referring to the fact that rent control is pretty we universal. He named a number of countries in which rent control is maintained. He said it was necessary. I wondered whether he was aware of his own Government’s attitude towards rent control. He proceeded to quote from the speech of the hon. the Minister in which the Minister said that the Government’s stated approach still was that rent control wherever and in any way possible should gradually be relaxed. The circumstances to-day are such that in regard to the question of the availability of housing under this Nationalist Government, that we on this side are driven to accept what we believe is legislation which should be avoided, if at all possible, as a necessary evil. We must accept it because of the circumstances as they now exist. It is interesting to consider the legislation which has been before this House over the years in regard to rent control. One finds that in 1920, when the first step was taken after the First World War to introduce some measure of rent control, that control was directed as only one aspect of landlord and tenant relationship, namely the aspect of safeguarding the right of the tenant to remain in occupation provided he paid the rental, whether that rental was reasonable or unreasonable. In the Act which was passed subsequently during 1920, we can see that Parliament was reluctant to interfere with the normal rules and the normal law of supply and demand. It was a condition of that particular Act of 1920 that it should be enforced for one year only and should only be reimposed or re-enacted upon a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

It was, in other words, subject to an annual review. We are giving the Minister power under this measure from time to re-enact or relax rent control merely by means of proclamation. The question now is whether this measure should not be brought before Parliament from time to time so that Parliament may determine whether it is meeting the needs which it has to serve. The learned authors of a standard text book on the rents laws of this country have an interesting comment to make in an early passage in that book, as follows—

The reference of the authors to “half-hearted legislative measures” is not exhaustive. It is abundantly clear in the light of what has happened to our rents legislation from 1943 onwards. Certain landlords are forever seeking loopholes in the legislation and the result has been that Parliament has had to deal with amendment after amendment. To-day we are faced with another set of amendments, amendments which the hon. the Minister himself has admitted are not complete in themselves, and that further investigation is needed in order to bring new legislation forward next year. In considering legislation to make rents control effective, it is necessary that one keeps constantly before one the objective, the goal which one wishes to achieve by such legislation. Firstly, there are those who are responsible for the supply of accommodation and they must be assured of a reasonable return on their investments. That is necessary to ensure that there are no factors influencing the investor away from property investment. Secondly, there are those who require the use of those dwellings and it is necessary that they be not exploited because there happens to be a demand in excess of the supply. There has been general pleasure at the fact that the Minister decided to depart from his statement of 5th August to the extent that he will not now apply rent control to business premises. On that date he indicated that he intended to do this. The necessity for protecting tenants of business premises is not at the present moment considered necessary and the law of supply and demand may there for be allowed to take its course. We all welcome the departure from the original intention. I come now to this Bill as we have it here before us.

First of all I should like to deal with an apparent omission from the Bill in respect of business premises. This omission, I think, should be rectified because it may be that the Minister at some later stage may impose control in respect of business premises. Under Section 2 (1) (a) of the present Act it is provided that rent control became effective from 1st April, 1949. Then it is provided that if business premises are brought before a rent board for the purpose of determining a rental and there existed a lease which went beyond 1st January, 1952, the aggrieved party would be entitled to cancel that lease. Under Clause 9 the Minister provides for a reasonable accrual of additional rental under an agreement which might exist at the time he imposes the control. I do not think that meets the point that the aggrieved party should be able to get out of a lease if it is a long-term lease and which is affected by the imposition of rent control. At a later stage I intend moving that any reference to 1st January, 1952, be deemed to be a period two years after the relevant fixed date.

I will accept an amendment of that nature.

I am grateful for that. After having dealt with this, I now come to the question of the determination of value. Here I think it is the mechanics of the application of the Act which provide all the difficulties. It is no secret that rent boards are apt to visit a block of flats, be it in Sea Point or Wynberg. They walk around the block, have a look at the flats, examine the outlook and the surroundings and in their minds they decide that these flats are worth, say, R50 per month each. So they go back to the sitting of the rent board with a preconceived idea as to the value of these flats. At the end of the hearing when they have determined all the compulsory allowances, these are then added up and a value for rent purposes in terms of the Act is then determined which will come to R50 per month, i.e. the amount the board originally had in mind when it made the inspection. There are members of the rent boards who have confessed that that is the easiest way of applying rent control when it comes to dwellings. That does happen. It is appreciated that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will instruct rent boards to give a preponderance of weight to sworn appraisements and building societies values in these valuations. But I am afraid rent boards are going to run into some difficulties if they follow the Minister’s directions because such a direction will not have the effect of amending the Act as it is to-day. In terms of this Act rent boards are compelled to consider four factors and cannot therefore give preponderance to one or the other, unless they do so in their own discretion. But I think if rent boards act on the direction of the Minister and consider only one factor while ignoring the others such a decision would be subject to an effective action for review in that it has not been arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Act. For the record I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to comments made in a judgment on this very aspect. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows—

This is the difficulty which we have. It is also a difficulty which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has when he tries to equate the return to a return at the present time. When the 8 and 6 per cent were fixed as a return, looking at it from the investors point of view, money could be obtained on mortgage bonds at 6 per cent. The very fact that that is no longer the case is a clear indication that the return now is not relative to the return which was available to the investor under the original Act at the time it was enacted. But that return is relative when it comes to what the valuation is the valuation courts decides upon in determining the rental. I have referred to the way in which rent boards set about determining the value of flats. There is a lot to be said for that where you have a rent board consisting of men of experience and men who are conversant with the property market. In that case it is perhaps as good a determination of rentals as the determination in terms of the procedure prescribed by the Act. I must admit I do not know the answer. It is, however, a problem which arises whenever there is interference with the law of supply and demand.

On this question of the determination of rent, there is a point I should like to raise in connection with Clause 1 of this Bill. At the present moment there is a limitation upon a landlord that he can only recoup premiums on fire insurance. This leads to a lot of unnecessary work. The boards have to get composite fire insurance, receipts broken down, etc. Consequently I intend moving at a later stage that it be for fire insurance and insurance for damages consequential upon fire and for public liability. It cannot amount to much and I think it should be included. As far as Clause 5 is concerned, i.e. the shifting of the onus onto the owner to prove that he was not aware of the fact that the property was under control, I accept that the hon. Minister certainly has made out a good case for this shifting of onus under the circumstances. There is, however, one matter which I think could be corrected administratively. This is that inquiries at a rent board’s office should be answered in writing. At the present moment what can quite easily happen is that a prospective buyer phones the Rent Board office and speaks to an official asking whether a certain block is controlled or not. The official may say it is not but may have misread the records and then subsequently it comes to light that the particular property is controlled. But then there has only been a telephone conversation. There should be some procedure whereby such information should be supplied in writing. Then there can be no argument at all about this shifting of the onus. Under Section 21 of the principal Act there is another difficulty. Under the existing Section 21 (1) (c) a tenant is protected against eviction from a flat except where the lessor requires the flat for his personal occupation or for occupation by a parent or a child and has given three months written notice. But under modern practice it is frequently the case that a block of flats is built in the name of a company although, in fact, such block of flats is owned by one or two individuals. A lessor may own 99 per cent of the shares of the company which owns a block of flats, but he is not regarded as a lessor for the purposes of Section 21 (c) because the company cannot personally occupy the flats. It seems to me that there is a case to be made for deeming, a lessor a person who owns at least 50 per cent of the issued share capital of the company, to be a person for purposes of occupying the building or flats. Here again I propose to move an amendment.

Finally under Clause 8, the hon. the Minister has given notice of a proposed amendment dealing with conditional letting, but there is one further aspect that was referred to by the bon. member for Umlazi, and that is the condition of letting which provides that the tenant must take a meal of some sort at a particular restaurant at a fixed price. We hope that an amendment will be accepted that a lessor shall be prohibited from entering into an agreement that tenants take their breakfast at an exorbitant fee at a particular place.

In conclusion I would say one thing with which I am sure the hon. member for Port Flizabeth (Central) will agree in view of experience in his own city. It is unfortunate that the whole body of landlords, the majority of whom are genuine investors in property and are reasonable landlords, should be subjected to control because there are a few who in fact try to gain unreasonably from the shortage of dwellings at the present time. It is only for the reason that there are those unscrupulous few that this legislation has become necessary and the reason why we support it. But I would add my appeal to the hon. the Minister to lift this control, lift it permanently out of our Statute Book as soon as it possibly can be done. If in the interim there is an encouragement to every potential investor knowing that there is no intention of having permanent rent control, his aim can be achieved, the building in 30 years what it has taken 300 years to build to date,

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat and other hon. members before him have repeatedly emphasized that this Bill is not a popular piece of legislation. I think that they find themselves in good company, because the hon. the Minister himself mentioned repeatedly during his second-reading speech that he did not see this legislation as being permanent legislation.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I think that when one is dealing with legislation in connection with rents, one has to be realistic. We all try to avoid price control in regard to ordinary trade commodities, in the first place because it disturbs the balance between supply and demand, and in the second place because it must result in the establishment of unnecessary Government Departments to ensure that price control is applied properly. But when we are dealing with housing we are dealing with a particular commodity, and that is why I am not one of the credulous who believe that the legislation which was passed for the first time at the beginning of the ‘twenties in South Africa, and which was re-instituted in 1942, is something which will easily disappear from the legislative scene. We are dealing here with a basic product; we are dealing with something which is essential to every individual, namely, that he should have a roof over his head. It is also imperative to ensure that when he has that roof over his head he cannot be exploited if he himself is not the owner of that accommodation. In the second place we are dealing here with an immovable commodity. When shortages occur in our ordinary commercial life, it is very easy to lift import restrictions and to ensure that more goods are imported in order to make up the shortfall. It is obvious that we cannot do this in regard to housing. We are also dealing here with a product for which there is no substitute at all. For this reason, because it is not always possible to predict where development in one’s country is going to take place in the future, once cannot say that this type of legislation will be completely abolished in the future. I foresee rather that we will have to accept rents legislation as permanent legislation and in the lieht of this I think that a better approach to this matter would be to ensure, in view of the fact that one has to deal in this case with a form of price control which is one of its kind because this is a unique product, that such a legislation is drawn up in such a way that it will not hamper the provision of housing. and that it will not be unfair legislation in its practical application.

When we look at this particular Bill before us, we see, I think, that it has only two objects, namely to deal with exploiters and to close loopholes in our existing legislation. If then we must have rents legislation, we must support the Minister, because it is of no avail to have legislation if it is not good legislation. If we have legislation in which there are many loopholes, it is our duty as legislators who regard that legislation on as being desirable, to close those loopholes.

I do not want to deal with the details of the Bill. This can be done when we discuss the various clauses during the Committee Stage. I should just like to make a few general observations. I do not think that this legislation or the rents legislation as it exists to-day need deter anybody from investing in housing. Nor do I think that there need be any fear that this legislation will in effect deter investors in housing. As it happens, an association of investors in immovable property was recently founded. For the first time in our country an association has come into being which, as a body, can address the hon. the Minister on behalf of all investors in South Africa. Quite by chance the chairman of that association is a very great personal friend of mine and he remarked, after they had had tentative discussions with the Department and with the Minister, that they were quite satisfied that the Minister could apply this legislation reasonably, legislation which they accepted to a large extent. Because they will be approaching the hon. the Minister as the spokesman for their organization’s interests in order to discuss with him the question of valuations and the fact that a person ought to receive a fair return on his investment, they will be able to provide the Minister with scientific data. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has said in advance that he is prepared to give them a hearing, because I believe that the only way to have rents legislation applied really effectively is on the one hand to guard against exploitation and on the other hand to ensure that those who have to provide that housing will receive a reasonable return on their investments.

I just want to point out too that when Section 33 (1) (h) was amended in 1964, a provision was inserted to the effect that dwellings which were more than 100 years old and which were restored in such a way that the amount spent on restoration exceeded the purchase price of the property, or, if the property was not purchased, that the cost of the work of restoration exceeded the value of the property as at the date of acquisition, would be exempt from rent control. Nowhere in the debates of this House on this matter in 1964 have I been able to ascertain the motivation for this exception having meen made. In his second-reading speech the Minister concerned did not touch on this point nor was it referred to in any speech of any hon. Member. I wonder whether it was perhaps not taken for granted that this provision was simply intended to exempt from rent control those buildings of historic value which were restored. This also appears to me to be the only reasonable interpretation that can be given to this exception. Unfortunately a trend has now developed, a trend which rent boards have to contend with, that buildings which have no historic value at all, buildings which are simply dilapidated and which are more than 100 years old, are restored in such a way that the cost of restoration exceeds the cost of acquiring the property. I can well understand this. Now I should like to put this question to the hon. the Minister: Cannot further consideration be given to this exception which was made in 1964 in order to see whether or not a provision can be inserted to the effect that only those buildings which actually have an historic value and which are restored in terms of the provisions of Section 33 (1) (h), will be exempt from rent control? I am sure that it was never the aim of the legislators to allow any old building simply to be restored and thus to be exempt from rent control. Various rent boards have experienced this problem. A number of similar cases has already come before the Bellville Rent Board this year, cases in which the board has in each instance had to give the owner of the building best, against its better judgment, and, I believe, contrary to the intentions of all hon. members here.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments concerning the broad effects of this measure, except to associate myself with those who have said it is a measure we would all have wished to avoid had it been possible to do so. But unfortunately this has been forced on the Government and we have to deal with it as best we can now.

I think it is necessary to look at the two aspects of this Bill; it is really a double-barrelled Bill: one is the extension of control which has become necessary because of the exploitation of rents in respect of uncontrolled buildings. Some of us have tried to warn those who were exploiting tenants that this would have to follow if they continued with that exploitation. Unfortunately those warnings were not heeded and now we are faced with the position that restrictions must be imposed which essentially will reduce the desire of investors to invest their money in property. the problem is to find how you can get control without killing investment.

The other barrell of this measure is the closing of loopholes. That again is something which has arisen through evasion. I want to say here quite clearly, particularly in regard to Durban landlords, that they have one particularly unscrupulous and irresponsible landlord to blame for certain of the provisions in this measure, and I hope that particular landlord will be identified by his colleagues when they find this shoe pinching sometimes unfairly on them as a result of measures which he has forced on them by his own clever evasion of the existing legislation. There is a case which happened in my constituency where this particular man, with his legal adviser, have found ways of getting around the law.

As a result he has exploited people who were not in a position to defend themselves, in many cases pensioners and elderly people. In one case the person had a heart attack as a result of the worry brought about by the landlord holding a sword over his head and saying: Either you meet my conditions or I will get you out. Ultimately the man left, even though he may have been able to stay there, just to protect himself from the continuous abuse of this landlord. I mention this because this is an isolated case of one particular landlord which shows how only one man can create hardship for all the landlords in an area. Often, as the Minister has said, one refers to the small minority who create the abuses. Sometimes that minority consists of just one person and yet, if you allow it to continue, others follow his example and you ultimately find the evasions snowballing. It is to be hoped that this measure will be a lesson to those who still wish to follow the clever and the shrewd course of seeking evasions. Although this measure deals with certain of the evasions, it has not covered them all. The Minister has referred to others in his second-reading speech. This measure, for instance, covers provisional letting, persons giving notice before they are given a lease, the bed-and-breakfast racket and the garage racket.

The Minister and other speakers have dealt with flats providing meals. This ties up with the question of holiday flats, where you get an evasion of the Act in two ways. In the one case you have holiday flats serving meals and charging for the meals, and in the other case you have hotels taking vacant flats and using them as an annexe to the hotel. I know the Minister is aware of this and therefore I do not need to labour the point. But that is another of the weaknesses which still has to be dealt with. There is a correct procedure in the case of hotels wishing to use flats. They have to apply for permission and they have to provide for the existing tenants, whereby it is possible for a block of flats to become an hotel. That has happened in a number of cases, quite legitimately, and there is a procedure laid down for it. It is where it is done in conflict with the law that it becomes a danger.

Unfortunately there are other evasions of the law which are not covered by this Bill. One to which I asked the Minister to give his attention is that of the nominee tenant who may be the caretaker or a member of the landlord’s family. I found one particular block of flats where every single flat was let to one or other member of the family. None of them live there, but technically uncles and aunts and nieces and nephews and sisters were each the tenant of a flat, and they in turn sub-let the flat to the person who was living there. Whenever they wanted to put in somebody else, the tenant simply gave notice and then, because that person was the legal tenant, the sub-tenant automatically had to vacate. Others use the caretaker for the same purpose. Then there is this particular case I mentioned in my constituency where the conditional notice racket was worked. The caretaker was in fact the tenant and if they wanted to get rid of a tenant the caretaker gave notice and the sub-tenant had to leave. The other racket is that of selling shares. There is going to be an overlap here between the Rents Act and legislation which has been considered by a Select Committee but is not yet before us. It is worked in this way. A particular landlord applied to the Rents Board for an increase in rent. He did not get what he wanted. He got an increase but less than he had applied for, so he simply sold the building to a company which he established for the purpose, and in which he held all the shares. Then he went to each tenant and said: I want to sell your flat and I will sell it over your head unless you buy it yourself; you do not have to pay any deposit; I will sell it to you over twenty years, but you must pay me RX per month towards the shares in the company. So in fact the tenant is no longer paying rent. He is buying shares on the never-never system. Those shares will never really be bought because these are mainly elderly people who have been in the flats for 30 or 40 years and they do not want to move. So they scrape together the extra money to buy these so-called shares in order to save themselves having to move. We will have to find some way to avoid the selling of shares being used as a racket purely to evade rent control.

Then there is the deliberate deterioration of buildings, the failure to keep buildings repaired, so that ultimately people leave in despair. There is no hot water because the boiler has been out of action for three months. The place is dirty and ill cared for, until eventually the tenants leave. Then the owner applies for a demolition order or converts it into holiday flats, or something else. Here I want to ask the Minister whether there is no way in which use could be made of the hundreds and hundreds of empty flats which owners will not lease because they are trying to empty the building for some purpose. At the moment, to get a demolition order or to convert to holiday flats, you first have to get rid of all the tenants in the building. As people die or leave their flats, so are these kept vacant until there is a minimum number left who can be housed elsewhere and then the whole building can be converted. But this process takes anything up to a year and in the meantime those empty flats stand there unused. We are adding to it in one respect here by the amendment in this Bill regarding conditional notice. It is a problem which perhaps can be solved in the Committee Stage, where I shall deal with it in detail, but I ask the Minister to consider whether he cannot add an amendment granting permission for buildings which have already received a demolition order to be occupied temporarily. It would have to be a proviso to the condition that a tenant may not sign a notice to vacate on a certain date because this amendment would make that illegal. But if we were to introduce a proviso that where a demolition order has been granted for a building and a flat is vacant, the landlord may let that flat for a fixed period up to the demolition date, so that it can be occupied for the three or the six months while they are waiting for the other tenants to get out, it will help. There has to be six months’ notice given in the case of demolition. In other cases the notice is three months. During those six months, where there are empty flats, they could be let temporarily for the four or five months which are left. There are many cases where people require accommodation urgently and for a short period. I raise it now so that the Minister may consider the matter before the Committee Stage.

Another racket is the over-charging for compulsory services. We have had reference to the meals—making the taking of meals a compulsory condition to occupancy of a flat. In one case I think they are charging something like R34 a month extra for one meal, breakfast, over and above the normal rent. Those are some of the evasions we have not covered in this measure, or have only partly covered. It is necessary that between now and next year very serious consideration be given to these problems so that when the Act is consolidated those evasions which can possibly be blocked will be blocked.

One last point I would make is that of the lease rents. It applies mostly along the beach front in Durban. The land there is not bought but leased, on a long lease of 99 years or a short lease of ten years or so. That is not provided for in the existing Act governing the calculation of cost. The value of land is provided for, in the form of valuations, but the City Council often charges a rate on a lease very much higher than the valuation. I realize that one cannot have both. You cannot have the value of the land and of the lease allowed. Either alone is unfair. I do not know whether it can be provided for at this stage, but it is something we will have to consider so that the lease fee which is charged can be taken into account in working out the cost on which rentals are based.

With these remarks I support the efforts which are being made to deal with these problems, and we on this side of the House offer the Minister our full co-operation and assistance in trying to overcome these unpleasant-problems.

Allow me right at the outset to express my thanks and appreciation to hon. members for the spirit in which they have conducted this debate. It has been a fruitful and an illuminating debate and many interesting matters have been raised, matters which can profitably be considered, either now or at a later stage. It is not my intention to reply at this stage to all the various points that have been raised, because many of them will be ironed out during the Committee Stage, particularly in view of the fact that I have already intimated that I myself shall be moving a few amendments and that I am prepared to accept quite a number of the Opposition’s amendments either in their original form or perhaps in improved legal language. I think that that will be the occasion on which we shall be able to discuss this matter in more detail. At this stage, therefore, I want to confine myself to the questions which cannot be discussed at the Committee Stage and to which I have to reply in general terms now.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to cases in which an entire block of flats had been let to one person who in turn sub-let flats and possibly evaded the provisions of the Rents Act in that way. He also referred to the question of the sale of shares to occupiers in an irregular way. In addition thereto the hon. member for Vasco referred to the exception made in Section 33 (1) (h) of the Bill in respect of buildings which were more than 100 years old. There is quite a lot to be said for all these arguments and I want to give the undertaking that I shall investigate these matters during the recess to see whether it is possible to find formulas for eliminating malpractices which may arise as a result of this type of thing. Therefore I shall not take these matters any further now.

The hon. member for Parow pointed out the necessity of consolidating the Rents Act. I want to agree with him whole-heartedly and where we shall, during the recess, be considering various amendments which must be effected, it is our intention to effect such amendments as soon as possible whereupon we shall try to consolidate the Act.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the municipal valuations as being one of the considerations which ought to be taken into account by the Rent Board. I am aware of the fact that there are various of these considerations, and I am also aware that what the hon. member said is true, namely that municipal valuations often gave one no indication of the real value of a building. However, sworn valuations are also included in the same series of considerations which the Rent Board may take into account. Therefore that is only an indication of the various standards which Rent Boards must take into account. In any event, I shall investigate this matter, too, in order to ascertain whether it is necessary to retain the reference to municipal valuations in the legislation.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to what might possibly be a practical problem, namely, that where the owner of a dwelling unit has a mortgage bond on which he must pay a higher rate of interest than the average of 6 per cent and 8 per cent which he is able to obtain for his land and buildings, he must be able to obtain a higher income than 8 per cent for that portion of the costs of the building so as to enable him to meet his obligations under his mortgage bond. The hon. member remarked quite rightly that the mortgage bond was paid off gradually and that the ratio between the portion that was borrowed money and the portion that was his own money was changing with every payment, something which might constantly give rise to problems. I shall go into the practical implications of that. As far as the legislation is concerned, it ought to be no problem. It will only be necessary to give rent boards an indication by means of a directive how they ought to act in this connection. I think in this connection it would perhaps be reasonable to regard one revision per annum as being the right thing to do. Because it is a revision which is purely a matter of making calculations, the matter need not be referred to a meeting of the Rent Board; in terms of the powers which the chairman of the Rent Board has, he may simply look at the calculations in his office and if he agrees with them he may make the allowances which ought to be made according to such calculation. Therefore I do not think that we need concern ourselves about that.

Then I come to the most important argument mentioned by the Opposition in connection with this legislation. In the first place, the hon. member for Umlazi made the statement that this legislation was essential as a result of the fact that a disproportion had arisen between the supply of and the demand for dwelling units. As a matter of fact, I said so in my introductory speech, but the hon. member said that the Government should really accept the blame for that state of affairs. He admitted that there were contributing circumstances but he said that the Government should have foreseen that state of affairs and should! have planned for it. The problem we are experiencing with lessors who have increased their rentals considerably during the past two years, is their very contention that a surplus of dwelling units was available in 1963 and, 1964; that they could not succeed in letting their dwelling units and that for that reason they had to charge abnormally low rentals for those dwelling units. Whereas one had those conditions two years ago and the Government anticipated at that time that problems would arise as a result of future development, the Government approached the local authorities —who are in the first place responsible for providing in the housing needs, particularly from the lower income groups—and encouraged them to start housing schemes. Many of the local authorities simply said: “We are not going to do so because we are not going to run the risk of taking up housing loans while we have no certainty that we shall be able to let such housing, because then we would have burdened the rate-payers of the local authority”. These were the problems with which we had to contend. The position became so serious that as a result the Department itself, under the guidance of my predecessor, had to set to work to devise a crash building programme because it had foreseen these things but could not get the local authorities and the local investors to cooperate.

You took the big stick. What have you done with it?

At that stage we could not get them to co-operate because of the fact that hon. members opposite had predicted that South Africa was experiencing a temporary economic revival only and that our country was, in reality, heading for economic difficulties. We could, of course, have taken measures to force them to provide housing to a larger extent. However, the hon. member for Parktown is quite right; if one starts a housing project—and this has been our experience with the crash building programme— one first has to provide the necessary services there; one first has to proclaim the area and it takes a considerable time to settle these matters. For that reason the Government on its part, when the economic revival began, when it became clear that we were beginning to get the immigrants we wanted, immediately started the necessary projects and immediately undertook the necessary planning. Therefore the hon. member cannot attach any blame to the State in this connection. These things form part of the consequences which flow from a sudden economic revival on a large scale, such as we have experienced in South Africa, plus the other additional considerations I mentioned on a previous occasion. Bandying about reproaches as to who is to blame will bring us nowhere. The important thing is that the local authorities and the State have made a tremendous effort during the past number of years to overcome the housing emergency in this country and that we shall continue to do so to an increasing extent in years to come.

The hon. member for Parktown and other hon. members said: “We do not like control”. None of us would like to have control if one can do without it. We are living in a free economy and if it is possible for one to allow the economy to run its free course, it is, of course, so much the better; then it is even quite conceivable that one may allow a state of affairs in which investors virtually exploit lessees, the public, in order to derive large profits from that sector in order to provide a stimulus for further investment in that field in order to make up the leeway. That would be the natural thing which one would allow in a free economy such as we have here, but circumstances are not normal as far as that is concerned. We know, as a result of many other factors, that we shall not be able to provide in the housing needs within the foreseeable future by allowing the economy to run its free course, because, with the best will in the world, even if investors wanted to invest in that field on a larger scale than in the past, we would still have to contend with the problem of a shortage of manpower. At present there is no unemployment in the building industry and if investors were to provide housing on a larger scale it would mean that they would have to employ artisans on a larger scale and such artisans simply are not available. Therefore it will have to be a gradual process of making up the leeway. As a result of these abnormal circumstances we have to employ abnormal methods to cope with these problems so as to enable us to bring about a normal state of affairs gradually.

Hon members said that these restricting measures, these measures of control, and the threat hanging over the heads of investors that rent control could at any time also be extended to new dwelling units, would discourage investors and that they would consequently not invest in that direction. Mr. Speaker, all these things are bound up with what possibilities there are for a proper income for the investor from that field of investment, and in this regard we should remember that with the development of our country and with the increasing population, not a single investor who wants to invest in the field of housing need have any fear that he will be saddled with vacant flats and vacant houses in years to come, if he builds such dwelling units for the right income groups, In this connection I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that it would be wrong to invest in luxury flats only, and I shall come back to that at a later stage, but if the investor makes his investment in the field of providing housing for the middle and lower income groups then I can see no risk being attached to such investment in years to come; I can only see that he will be certain of an assured income and an assured, reasonable income ought to offer any investor an inviting field for investment. That I think we do have in the field of providing housing, especially housing for the lower and middle income groups.

Then hon. members said that the interest earnings we allowed, namely 6 per cent on land and 8 per cent on buildings, were too little. The hon. member for Umlazi asked me why I was omitting the words “not less than 6 per cent” and “not less than 8 per cent” from the Bill, and why I did not rather retain those words. But now the hon. member should remember that it was provided in the Act, as it read before, that if buildings erected after 1949, in other words those which are not subject to control at present, were made subject to control, the income in their case would be 6 per cent on land and 8 per cent on buildings calculated on the costs of erection. That would land us in serious difficulties. Now. the hon. member should remember that many of those buildings have been occupied for 16, 17 years. In the meantime they have changed hands two, three, four, five times. The present owner is simply no longer able to submit evidence of the costs of erecting the building. In other words, erection costs will present a practical problem. However, even if that would not be the case and it would perhaps be possible to determine the erection costs, it would mean that the rent boards would have to decide in every individual case that a building erected in, say 1950, cost R100,000 to erect, but that its present value was R200,000. On that account they must allow not 8 per cent but 16 per cent in that case. Another building built in 1960 for R100,000, too, now has a value of R150,000 and in respect of that building they must now allow a rental at a rate of 12 per cent. In other words, each time the Rent Board makes a determination, it must manipulate the rate at which rentals are charged to give the person a reasonable income on the value of his investment. Then, as a result of the arbitrary determination which the Rent Board must make, anomalies may arise. As the position is to-day, everyone receives 8 per cent on the building and 6 per cent on the land, but this is accompanied by the instruction that that should be based—I am referring to the post-1949 buildings which are also made subject to control now—on the real value of the building. The person then receives his income of 6 and 8 per cent, not on his investment but on the appreciated value of his investment. Therefore I cannot agree that 6 and 8 per cent will be an unfair and unreasonable income on an investment, because that is not the income on what he had invested in the asset but it is the income on the appreciated value of his asset. We all know that immovable property—buildings especially—has appreciated in value to a considerable extent in the past number of years. In other words, the real income the person will receive on his investment of a number of years ago, will be much more than 8 per cent according to this formula.

That money is worth less, because it has depreciated.

Yes. Then hon. members told me that I said in my second-reading speech that I had an open mind on this question of 6 per cent and 8 per cent. I subsequently said that I was not convinced that it was an unreasonable income. They then said that I should not have said that I had an open mind on the matter but that I should have had the courage to say that the income must be X per cent. However, I am not going to take any decision on that matter arbitrarily, without any particulars or without any basic facts. In this connection we have the body to which the hon. member for Vasco referred, namely the body of investors in property which was established recently and which already is fairly representative at present. Such bodies may approach me with data which they have collected and may furnish me with particulars relating to what the real income is in comparison with their investments and in comparison with appreciated values. They may convince me whether this can be compared with other fields of investment and if they succeed I shall be able to work out a reasonable rate on that basis after consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, who, through his Department, deals with various fields of investment daily. And that is what I have undertaken to do. I do not want to take any arbitrary decision on that matter by myself, because then I may say, because I may be thinking of my many voters—that 8 per cent is too much and that they should only receive 1½ per cent. I prefer to act on the basis of sound, discerning judgment, instead of simply taking an arbitrary decision.

The hon. member for Green Point also asked me about—and I hope the hon. member for Green Point will listen now—the undertaking given by me that I would cause an instruction to be issued to the Rent Boards that they were to attach the utmost significance to sworn valuations in their consultations. He asked whether that was permissible or whether it would not perhaps be deemed inadmissible by the court as something which infringed on the free judgment of the Rent Board. But now the hon. member should bear in mind that Section 15 of the Rents Act provides for the functions and the powers of the Rent Control Board. The Rent Control Board may, inter alia—

The Rent Control Board may review any decision of a rent board when such revision is desired. If the Rent Control Board informs rent boards that in connection with every case submitted to it for review, as well as those cases which it itself will demand for review, it was going to use such valuation as a yardstick, it would be an indication to the rent board that it must use that yardstick in arriving at its decision. In view of this I think that it is completely within the spirit of the law that this may, in fact, be done in this way.

Because we are all expecting that rent boards will be flooded with applications, hon. members also asked me whether the rent boards would be capable of coping with the situation. My Department and I have already taken steps to review the grouping of full-time rent boards in the major urban areas. I may inform hon. members that in the Western Cape area, where we have two rent boards at present, I intend appointing three rent boards with a small extension of their areas of jurisdiction. In Durban, for instance, where we have one rent board at present, we shall immediately appoint two full-time rent boards. On the Rand we have three full-time and two temporary rent boards at present, and we are going to change those into five full-time rent boards. In Bloemfontein the area of jurisdiction of the rent board will be extended so as to include parts of the goldfields. Therefore we are already engaged in re-organization and as applications are received and experience is gained of the volume of work we shall immediately, on very short notice, make further adjustments to enable the rent boards to dispose of this work.

May I ask a question? Are you having difficulty in getting valuators to give you valuations where no valuations exist?

No, we shall have no difficulty in this connection. The rent boards and the Rent Control Board may make use of sworn valuators. They may appoint them on a contractual basis to make valuations.

Arising from what the hon. member for Parktown said, only two small matters remain to be considered. He referred to the construction of luxury flats in the more well-to-do areas of our cities and pointed out that according to advertisements in the newspapers quite a number of those luxury flats were unoccupied. I have also noticed that. But the only alternative would be that flats exceeding a certain size should be made subject to rent control whereas we have really tried to make rent control applicable to non-residential buildings only. I think for the present we should leave the position at that, because the hon. member himself said that we should not like to have control; the free economy should run its course. However, these flats of luxury standard are beginning to remain unoccupied and that can only have the effect that investors will now begin to make provision for the middle income groups and others. Apart from that, even if provision would be made for more luxury flats, it would mean that everyone who moved into them would be vacating another cheaper place which would then become available to some-one else. Therefore I do not think that I am too concerned about that situation.

The hon. member also said that we should initiate a campaign to prepare the public that we would have to provide in the needs for housing on another basis than each person having a house surrounded by a large garden. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. In view of the expansion of our towns and cities which must inevitably take place owing to the fact that our population will be doubled within the next 30 years, the density of our population in our urban areas must to a large extent become more concentrated. But this will have to go hand in hand with exceptional planning, because if the density of the population is to be increased it should be effected in such a way that sufficient open spaces for the residents are left amongst buildings. I have spoken about this matter in public on various occasions and my Department and I shall continue urging local authorities to plan in such a way that, although it will be possible to achieve an increased density of population, sufficient provision would be made for open spaces so that our people would not be couped up in concrete jungles and asphalt streets only but would have the opportunity of setting foot on soil and on grass.

Proper planning in this connection is absolutely essential. Unfortunately my Department only has control over the schemes for which it provides the money. The Department may only take a hand in the planning of schemes which are carried out with funds of the National Housing Commission or in the planning of schemes which it is carrying out itself. In cases where private initiative or others are responsible for development my Department up to now has no authority to take a hand in such development. However, I take it that the committee of inquiry which is being appointed for the prevention of areas deteriorating and becoming slums, will be a first step in the direction of enabling us to issue certain directives to local authorities in regard to the conditions with which they will have to comply in their housing and development schemes to prevent them from becoming slums.

Bill read a Second Time.

House in Committee:

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment which is merely for the purpose of clarifying the wording—

Sub-paragraph (e) of the definition of “reasonable rent” in Act No. 43 of 1950 provides that a rent board in determining rental shall allow the lessor any premiums payable by the lessor in respect of plate glass insurance and the insurance of the premises and any furniture, fittings or equipment therein against fire. As I indicated in my speech on the second reading of the Bill I now want to move an extension of that definition by means of the following amendment— To insert the following paragraph to follow paragraph (a):

(b) by the substitution for paragraph (e) of the definition of “reasonable rent” of the following paragraph:

“(e) any premiums payable by the lessor in respect of insurances effected by the lessor in respect of the premises and any furniture, fittings or equipment therein against fire and consequential loss arising there from and against public liability.”

I believe the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection against the principle of the amendment. After consultation with my Department and the legal advisers, however, I should like to move the following amendment instead of the amendment moved by the hon. member—

The hon. member will realize that it is only a question of wording. My legal advisers tell me that this wording is better than that of the amendment of the hon. member.

I think the only effect of the Minister’s amendment is the insertion of the words “plate glass insurance” and as this extends my amendment I am quite prepared, with leave of the Committee, to withdraw it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Community Development, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

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

Order! I am sorry that I am unable to accept the amendment as it seeks to introduce a new principle not contemplated in the Bill as read a Second Time.

It is something which can be considered in the recess.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

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

This is to meet the problem which I explained during the second-reading debate of flats remaining empty pending the demolition of the building. The wording of the amendment is that of the legal advisers. Sometimes I feel that this wording is much clearer when drawn up by a layman, but I must be guided. And I assume that this wording means what I want it to mean. I am sure the hon. the Minister will be well advised on this matter and therefore I am not going to debate it any further.

Order! Will the hon. the Minister please move his amendments as long as I am considering whether I can allow this amendment or not?

Mr. Chairman, in order to meet points raised by the hon. member for Green Point and in the place of the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper in respect of this clause, I should now like to move as an amendment—

These amendments I think are self-explanatory. I may perhaps add that the reason why I have omitted the words “addressed to the lessor” is that the lessor may get somebody else to get the contract on his behalf. Therefore I think it is very necessary that we omit these words. Otherwise I think my amendments also meet the difficulties hon. members opposite had in connection with continental breakfasts being supplied at flats.

We are indebted to the Minister for having amended the amendment of which he has given notice to include this matter which we have discussed with him. I am also pleased about his provision relating to the supply of continental breakfasts as a condition to letting. In view of the Minister’s amendment I shall not, as indicated in my second-reading speech, move any amendment from my part. I must tell the hon. the Minister however that I find him every day more and more informed about the plight of tenants. I am referring here to the omission of the words “addressed to the lessor” which constituted a loophole in the original Act.

Order! I have decided to allow the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment, the reason being that I think the hon. member’s amendment is quite unnecessary. Perhaps the hon. member does not know it, but there are very strict control measures which may be exercised, and which are in fact exercised, in cases of demolition orders in respect of buildings. Section 85 (2) of the Housing Act provides that notice to a tenant to vacate a building because the building is going to be demolished or is to be used for other residential purposes, may not be given without the written consent of the Minister. In addition, Section 21 (1) (e) of the Rents Act provides that a lessor may obtain an ejectment order against a lessee if he has given the lessee six months’ notice to vacate the premises because a reconstruction or rebuilding scheme in respect of the premises is going to be carried out.

In terms of Section 24 (b) (iii) such an ejectment order cannot be obtained unless the entire building will be demolished and unless the lessor has had the plans for the reconstruction scheme approved by the local authority concerned. Then the scheme also has to be submitted to the Rent Board, while authority for demolishing the building, which has to be granted by the Minister, has to be obtained in terms of the Housing Act. The idea behind these provisions is obviously that the person who wants to demolish a building must have his plans perfectly in order and finalized before he can obtain permission to demolish such a building. He may cause the lessees to vacate the buildings only after he has obtained consent to demolish. He also has to commence his renewal scheme not later than 15 months after the date on which notice was given or not later than three months after the building has been vacated, whichever period is the longer. If he does not comply with this requirement he is liable to a fine of not more than R200 per dwelling, as well as to any claim for damages that may be entered against him by the lessee he has ejected. Therefore very strict control exists already. Another aspect is that when authority for demolition is granted in respect of buildings as laid down in the Housing Act, it is a prerequisite that the tenants must have alternative accommodation. After all, it will only be right morally if this principle is likewise applied in respect of families who have been exploited and who have occupied accommodation during this period of 12 months which is being asked for now, simply because they did not have other accommodation. What the hon. member is suggesting here really amounts to the following.

There is this interim period between the time when the person is allowed to serve ejectment orders on the lessee and the time he has to commence demolishing in terms of the Act. If the rental or certain provisions relating thereto are suspended during that period, it means that the lessees may be exploited by the lessor during that period and that an enormously high rental may be demanded from the lessees as a result of the fact that the lessees are unable to obtain other accommodation. I know what the hon. member would like to achieve here. His suggestion really amounts to the quite the opposite. It amounts to these people being further exploited. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment at this stage. I am, however, quite prepared to give further attention to this matter and if cases occur where lessors allow flats to remain unoccupied for a long time because they want to demolish the buildings eventually, I shall have to see whether there are not other methods of taking action against those people. If the building is subject to rent control he dare not allow the building to fall into disrepair. If he does, the rent board may act because there is a provision in connection with the 2 per cent which has to be allowed for repairs and renovations. The rent board has to be satisfied at all times that the building is being kept in a proper state of repair. I shall go into those possibilities in order to see whether there are certain shortcomings. I hope, however, that the hon. member appreciates that if I accent his amendment at this stage we will find that from the time of the demolition order until such time as the reconstruction of the building has to commence in terms of the law, the lessor may charge any rental he likes without our having any hold on him. The lessor is in a position where he can demand such rental for the very reason that the tenants may not have succeeded in obtaining other accommodation.

Mr. Chairman, this was exactly what I was afraid of when this got into the hands of the law advisors and legal gentry. Because when it came back it was not anything like it started. As the hon. the Minister quite correctly says it does not meet the position. What I was looking for was an amendment which provided, with the consent of the Rent Board, that empty accommodation awaiting demolition could be let. At the moment it cannot be let because immediately a tenant is admitted he then has occupational rights. The owner then becomes responsible for finding him alternative accommodation when the building eventually has to be demolished. A six months’ notice period has to be given. Very often, however, when a building is about to be demolished a third or even half of it is already empty before the demolition order is given. The owner cannot let that accommodation. He will not let it, because immediately he puts a tenant into one of those flats the person is protected by the Rents Act. And if the conditions of demolition are that all the tenants should be rehoused, he has only added to his problem of rehousing those that are left in the building. So he will not let it. What I am looking for is a provision— and I feel it should be done with the approval of the Rent Board and by negotiation—that where there are buildings of such a nature with empty flats that those flats can be let for a limited period.

Subject to rent control.

Yes, subject to rent control. Most definitely I accept that the amendment as worded does not cover the question of rent control. It merely covered the one aspect of being able to make a short-term contract, but I am quite certain that it is possible to get a simple amendment that would meet this problem. It is not only buildings awaiting demolition. It can also be buildings awaiting conversion to holiday flats or for other purposes. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of empty flats, but the landlords will not let them. They leave them empty because they do not want the problem of new tenants being protected by rent control and therefore not being able to use the flats for its ultimate purpose or to demolish it when the time comes. This would be a matter for negotiation. I will not press the amendment but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider bringing this into the consolidated and amended legislation next session.

Amendment proposed by Mr. W. V. Raw withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The purpose of this, Mr. Chairman, is that although we want the Minister to have the right to gazette this Act as applied to new buildings, in other words, those after October, 1949, we do not want the hon. the Minister to have the power to modify an Act of this Parliament. I indicated this to the hon. the Minister during the second reading. And I think he feels somewhat the same as I do. It would not be a good thing if we allowed this particular clause to go through in this form. I think the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

I move—

(v) to the first day of January, 1952, shall be construed as a reference to a day two years after the relevant fixed date;

and to add the following paragraph at the end of the proposed sub-section (1A):

The purpose of this amendment is to obtain greater clarity in connection with what our real intentions are. I shall accept the amendment moved by the hon. member, namely in line 39 to omit “modifications and”. I just want to point out to hon. members that is is a practice contained in many different Acts that when regulations are issued such regulations may effect an amendment. But then it also means that those amendments may not go beyond the provisions of the Act. In other words, one may only omit or delete certain parts of the Act or of the provisions. It is something which can only be to the benefit of the people concerned. I do not think it can be to their detriment. I shall not make an issue of this. For that reason I shall accept it at this stage.

I move the following amendment—

(iv) to the first day of January, 1952, shall be construed as a reference to a date two years subsequent to the relevant fixed date.

As indicated in the second-reading debate, the purpose of this is to provide a corresponding date for the date 1st January, 1952 as it appears in the principal Act. I believe this to be an omission in drafting. It did not appear at the bottom of page 13 where references were made to the other corresponding dates, namely the 1st April and the 1st October.

Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with the hon. member as far as the principle of the amendment is concerned. It is only a question that where the hon. member uses the wording “date” and “subsequent” I am using “a day” and “after”. That is according to my legal advisors.

I bow with respect to the opinion of the legal advisors who have advised the hon. the Minister. But might I suggest to the hon. the Minister that it would have been tidier to have numbered this “(iv)” as I suggested. In other words, to follow the other dates and not to be inserted where the hon. the Minister has suggested it should come in. If the hon. the Minister would refer to pages 11 and 13 of the Bill, he will see that sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) reads “to the first day of April, 1949, shall be construed …” and sub-paragraph (ii) “to the 21st day of October, 1949 shall be construed …”. I thought it would be a bit tidier to put in there the 1st of January, 1952. If the hon. the Minister prefers to use the word “date” instead of “day” I have no quarrel with him and am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report stage.

I move— That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

As hon. members have probably noticed, this measure contains a variety of provisions, which are in the main aimed at amending a number of Acts to a greater or lesser extent. Most of these provisions are self-explanatory and do not really need any further explanation. Before dealing with certain aspects of the Bill, however, I want to say in passing that I should have liked to have made this measure available to hon. members at an earlier stage I of the Session, but that in the circumstances it S was simply not possible to do so.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is customary for measures of this nature to be discussed I more fully in the Committee Stage. At this early stage I nevertheless want to draw attention to those provisions of the Bill which deal with the security of the country. In this connection I am thinking of the following provisions in particular.

Firstly, the provisions in terms of which a presumption is created that persons who have left the country without the requisite travel documents have received certain training, which in practice actually amounts to military training and training in sabotage.

Secondly, the provisions in terms of which it is proposed to exempt from prosecution persons who are not accomplices but who may nevertheless incriminate themselves in giving I evidence. In this connection we have in mind particularly such persons as receive illegal military training in foreign countries.

Thirdly, the provisions by which the doubt existing in legal circles as to whether the amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act apply in South West Africa is to be removed.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with this clause 1 want to make it very clear at this stage al-ready that this is not at all a matter of extending the Suppression of Communism Act so as to apply to South West Africa as well. This particular Act has applied to South West Africa from the very beginning, that is to say. since 1950. I refer hon. members to Section 18 of Act 44 of 1950.

What we are doing here is to remove some measure of doubt that has arisen. Consequently the clause is of a purely technical nature and nothing more. The position is that since 1950 amendments to the original Act have been passed by this House from time to time. All of us accepted at the time that those amendments, like the original Act, would also apply to the territory of South West Africa.

Some doubt arose in regard to this matter, however, and the question of the legal position was decided in two court cases in South West Africa. In the first case, in which judgment was given by a single Judge, the court decided that, while the original Act did apply to South West Africa, that was not the position as far as amendments to the original Act were concerned, because that had not been expressly provided by the legislature in so many words.

In the latest case, namely Rex vs. Ntoni, 1961, in which judgment was also given by a single Judge, the decision was the very reverse, namely that the original Act and all subsequent amendments thereto did in fact apply to the territory of South West Africa.

In view of this measure of uncertainty, and in view of other legal opinions differing in the same way, we thought it fit to place the matter beyond any doubt—hence this clause.

For this reason the particulars of the original Act and of subsequent amendments thereto are in actual fact not involved here. What is involved here, and that is all that is involved, is the technical point which has arisen, as well as the further point as to whether or not it is desirable to remove that uncertainty.

Fourthly, I mention to you the clause in terms of which the legal provisions relating to sabotage will henceforth apply to South West Africa.

Lastly, I mention those provisions of the Bill which may probably be regarded as the most important, namely those in terms of which provision is made for the arrest and detention of terrorists and saboteurs. They are to be found in Clause 22.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, all these provisions relate to the security of the country. Accordingly I want to place all these provisions in one group and to deal with them as such.

Everyone that has eyes to see and ears to hear is aware of the onslaughts which have been made against the security of our country during the past number of years and particularly of late. This fact was emphasized by the discussion under the Police Vote. It is common knowledge that the third phase in the major plan to force South Africa to its knees has already commenced, and that it is intended to continue increasing in intensity. We must have no illusions about the fact that we are not dealing with clumsy amateurs and that South Africa’s enemies are in earnest in wanting to destroy us, if it is possible.

The Government cannot and does not intend to await the next onslaught with its hands folded. It is called upon to act and to act timeously in order to remain master of the situation, and the public can rightly expect the Government to take the necessary precautionary measures to protect both life and property.

It is in these circumstances that I come to this hon. House to ask for the powers I deem necessary in order to be able to meet the immediate danger.

Except in the case of Clause 22, there is nothing extraordinary in the security measures proposed in the Bill. As a matter of fact, the matters I have mentioned are measures which may normally be expected to be taken in circumstances such as those in which we are living.

As hon. members will notice, however, powers for the detention of terrorists, saboteurs and persons who have received certain training are being sought in Clause 22. It will also be noticed that in this measure I am departing radically from the approach adopted in the past in the case of other similar measures which served before this hon. House.

Provision is now being made for a suspected terrorist or saboteur to be arrested and detained for a period not exceeding 14 days by, or on the authority of, a commissioned police officer of at least the rank of lieutenant colonel. If the further detention of such a suspect is necessary, such detention may only take place by order of a Judge of the Supreme Court. It is also expressly provided that such an order may be granted only on the personal and written application of the Commissioner of Police, and that the application must be based on information taken upon oath that there are reasonable grounds of suspicion against the detainee. In addition the Commissioner must furnish reasons why the further detention of the person concerned is considered necessary.

You will notice too, Mr. Speaker, that the Judge considering the application will act in his sole discretion. He may grant the application and order the detention of the detainee for such period as he may deem fit or he may reject the application in toto, just as he deems fit. What is more, he may order at any time that the detainee be released.

That then, Mr. Speaker, is briefly the contents of Clause 22, which may probably be termed the heart of this Bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if one sups with the devil one must have a long spoon. But I think that even though we have had to grapple with the devil we have at least retained our sense of fairness in this Bill, because we have gone out of our way here to ensure that a person’s liberty will not be interfered with lightly. Not only have we seen to it that the freedom of the individual may in the very first instance only be interfered with by highly responsible agencies, but precuations have also been taken to ensure that his further detention may only be applied for by the highest authority in the Police Force and, please note, ordered by a Judge. In this respect we go much further than is the practice in other highly civilized countries in times such as these.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members may now ask me whether it is really necessary to ask for powers of this nature once again. My reply to that, Mr. Speaker, is unequivocally “yes”. The security of the country demands it and it would be foolish to gamble with our security for the sake of temporary popularity. The terrorists who are infiltrating the county are trained men and are bent on sowing death and destruction. They are not going to wait until we have investigated the first case against them before they strike a second and a third and more times. Nor are they going to allow persons who are aware of their activities to furnish the information which they have at their disposal to the Police. Their policy is one of terrorism and chaos. Seeing that we are aware of these people and their activities, we cannot allow their being afforded an opportunity of bringing about our downfall here in our very midst.

Having gone out of my way, in the case of this measure, to meet objections raised in this connection by the Opposition in the past, I trust that hon. members on that side of the House will demonstrate to the world that we are in earnest as regards safeguarding our country, and that if circumstances should demand it of us, we shall stand united to protect life and property with all our strength against those forces which are planning our downfall. However highly we, in common with all civilized countries, may value the freedom of the individual, we believe that, if it is necessary, even the freedom of the individual must give way to what is essential to ensure the safety of the community.

While we are at this stage called upon to take precautions against what is threatening us, I want to emphasize, and I may say with the greatest conviction, that there is no cause for panic whatsoever. On the contrary, the circumstances call for realistic thought and action on our part, and it is as realists that we come to this hon. House to do the obvious in order to meet the situation which has arisen. I am presenting this measure to the House in the sure knowledge that it is justified by the circumstances of our time, and in the firm belief that hon. members on both sides of the House will not flinch from taking those steps which we are required to take at this stage in order to protect our fatherland.

To me, Mr. Speaker, this measure is so obviously essential, in the light of the prevailing circumstances, that I find it inconceivable that any hon. member (with possibly one single exception) will oppose this Bill. And accordingly I expect, and I believe the people outside expect, every hon. member—whether he be on the Government side or on the Opposition side—to give his wholehearted support to this measure.

It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I now move the second reading of this Bill.

The General Law Amendment Bill is usually a troublesome measure introduced at the end of a session. It has no one principle but many principles and it contains many completely dissociated matters. Full discussion of the General Laws Amendment Bill is usually better done in the Committee Stage than in the second reading. However, I intend dealing with the more important clauses of this Bill very briefly at this stage.

The interest naturally centres on those provisions mentioned by the hon. the Minister which have to do with the security of the State. It is necessary for the Minister to go to some trouble in justifying these provisions because they go against the grain of legal men and, I should say, of the public generally, but especially the legal men, who are trained to safeguard the freedom of the individual. It is part of their duty by training and by tradition to protect the individual against persecuton and unwarranted intrusion into his private life and affairs by officials of the State. So I say that especially legal men are very critical and suspicious of powers given to officials to meddle in the private affairs of the individual. [Interjection.] There may be some justification for the powers given, but all legal men should critical of the powers being sought and should be opposed to them unless they can be justified. The lawyers, however, are just as concerned as laymen and the Government with the maintenance of law and order and with protection against assault of the person and the property of the citizen and, of course, with the protection of the State itself against treachery. We all know that crime is on the increase not only in this country but throughout the world. We know too that the old order has changed and given place to the new, not only in our way of life or in the forms of government but also in the habits and actions of criminals as the result of modern appliances and rapid means of transport. Sir, this Bill is intended to deal not with the ordinary criminal or robber: it seeks to deal with a comparatively new type. i.e. the political offender who seeks to attain his political ends not by the normal democratic methods but seeks to do so by unconventional means. It may be said, of course, that he cannot adopt the conventional means; that he is not given the opportunity to adopt the conventional methods, but it must be remembered that the type of offender that the Bill seeks to deal with is the man who does not wish to supplant the present Government with a more democratic form of government. In fact, when we read the evidence given in certain cases which have appeared before the court, we find that this type of person rather tends to work towards anarchy in order to achieve his ends. In considering these matters we must therefore bear in mind that however much we might resent any intrusion into the private affairs of the individual and the granting of powers to restrict his freedom of movement, that we are dealing with a serious issue. Sir, we do not believe that this Government is the proper one to bring about a feeling of greater security or to lessen the tension between the various races in the country. It is not necessary for me to delve into the differences between the ideology and the approach of the Government that of hon. members on this side. We believe that we could better control the position and bring about more harmony …

To which clause are you referring?

The speech made here this afternoon by the hon. the Minister is the sort of speech to which we have become accustomed in this House; we have often had this sort of speech before from Ministers of Justice in which they appealed to our patriotism and to us to stand by the Government and in which they have warned us that the position is becoming more critical. The hon. the Minister has told us this afternoon that we are now entering the third phase …

That is well known.

We have had speeches of this kind delivered to us every year in this House over the past 18 years, and then we are always subsequently told that the back of Communism has now been broken, that the position is under control—when they wished to impress the people outside—and then in the very next session of Parliament an appeal is again made to us to give the Minister of Justice and the police more powers to deal with any possible insurrection.

Lesser powers.

I want to say this for the hon. the Minister that he has not gone as far in this Bill as his predecessors have gone, but they have gone so far in the past that it is not necessary for him to go as far as they did. He is exercising all the powers that they have exercised in the past and he is asking for just a little more. Even the hon. the Prime Minister did not ask for the powers for which the hon. the Minister is now asking, and surely the hon. the Prime Minister must be regarded as the Minister of Justice who asked for more powers than any of his predecessors. We on this side of the House and most reasonable, thinking people, and especially people in the legal fraternity, are prepared to give the Government powers reluctantly, but many of the powers asked for by the Government go against the grain. We have given the Government a lot of powers in the past simply because the Government has told us that those powers were necessary in order to maintain law and order. It is unfortunate for the public and the country that we on this side are not the governing party; that we cannot enforce law and order as we think it should be done. Perhaps under our policy it will not be necessary—we hope that it will not be necessary— to take such stringent measures as those asked for by the Government, but we have to face up to the fact that we are not the Government, so when the Government comes to us and asks for certain powers, we have to consider those powers and give them where necessary.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with a few of the clauses. He spent some time on Clause 5, which makes the law applicable to South West Africa. The hon. the Minister quite rightly stated that he was under the impression that the law did apply to South West Africa. One judgment says that all the amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act do apply to South West Africa, but there is another judgment which says that they do not apply so there is some confusion. The Minister has appealed to us to support this measure because be said that this is really just a technical amendment. That may be so; there is a great deal in this argument. He says that in fact the law has been applied to South West Africa and he is not asking for anything more. In general we are quite prepared too to endorse the application of the various measures which have been taken to South West Africa. Although we have opposed many of the amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act we are prepared to see them applied to South West Africa, because we understand the necessity in the light of the new developments which have taken place there. But, Sir, there is one amendment to the Suppression of Communism Act that we have fought tooth and nail, and that is the provision with regard to house arrest. It is not necessary for me to go into the pros and cons of the house arrest provision. It is well known to the Government, to the Minister and to the country that we are bitterly opposed to that form of detention. We have said time and time again that we will repeal that measure when we come into power because we feel that the courts should deal with cases of that nature and that a person should not be detained in that manner without being given an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal. Although the Minister may say that this provision already applies to South West Africa, we say that if there is any doubt as to whether or not it applies, we must voice our objection to its application to South West Africa. We propose therefore in the Committee Stage to move an amendment to exclude the house arrest provision and, if necessary, to call for a division.

The hon. the Minister has also dealt with Clause 8, which authorizes the prosecutor to indemnify a witness who may incriminate himself in giving evidence in a case. Previously this indemnity could only be given to an accomplice. We appreciate the difficulty in which the prosecutors find themselves, especially in dealing with this new type of offence where people leave the country illegally, without a passport, for training abroad. We realize the difficulty experienced by the prosecution in some of these cases and therefore we are prepared to agree to this provision. But I would like to point out to the Minister that in the case of an accomplice, his evidence is weighed up very carefully, for the simple reason, of course, that an accomplice may be tempted to involve others in order to get indemnity himself. The law has always provided therefore that there must be evidence aliunde to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Bearing that in mind and bearing in mind the fact that that will not apply, I think, to evidence given by a witness who is not an accomplice, but who is to be given indemnity, I ask the hon. the Minister to consider the advisability of making this provision applicable only, to offences affecting the security of the State, particularly offences under the Suppression of Communism Act and in cases where people illegally leave the country for training in sabotage abroad. We will move an amendment to that effect in the Committee Stage. The Minister says that the most important clause of this Bill is Clause 22. I agree with him that it is important, but before we come to Clause 22, I want to refer to Clause 19 which I think the hon. Minister overlooked. There again I want to say that Clause 19 applies the Sabotage law to South West Africa. That law goes very far. We are not fully aware of the circumstances appertaining in South West Africa at the present time. We hear news about invasions by guerrillas but there is uncertainty as to exactly what is happening there, and when we read what General van der Bergh has to say we are worried as to what the true position is out there. Bearing in mind the fact that the situation may be very serious and that these powers may be necessary, we are prepared to agree to the extension of the Sabotage law to South West Africa.

I now come to Clause 22, and here I want to say that this hon. Minister has not gone as far as his predecessor. As I understand the position—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the 180-day provision does not apply to South West Africa, nor does the 90-day provision. The hon. the Minister in fact wants to apply something similar but he has been more lenient than his predecessor. He has limited the period to 14 days.

And a Judge.

I will deal with that in a moment. He has limited it to 14 days; he is very modest in limiting it to 14 days but he does not stop there; he also makes provision for the period to be extended, but he does bring a Judge into it, knowing very well that the public will always be prepared to give a great many powers if they know that the person who is affected will have access to a Judge. In fact, I might say that we are almost prepared to give the Government any power provided the person concerned is given access to a Judge, because of the faith that the whole country has in the impartiality of our judiciary. The Minister has provided in this clause that if the Commissioner of Police wishes to detain a person for more than 14 days, he must then apply to a Judge for leave to do so. But, Sir, the Judge has not got very much power in considering the application. All the information on which the Judge acts is given to him by the Commissioner of Police. The Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper in which he provides that the Judge may ask for information from the detainee as well. We feel that the Judge should be given greater power and we intend moving an amendment in the Committee Stage, of which the Minister has been given a copy, which will provide that the Judge shall have the power to ask the Commissioner for any evidence which he may think is necessary to enable him to decide the issue. In other words, if the Judge thinks that it is necessary for him to see the detainee, he will be allowed to ask the Commissioner of Police to produce the detainee before him. Sir, that is a most important provision. If the public knew that the Judge can ask for a detainee to be brought before him and that the detainee can appear before the Judge to state his case, then I am sure that nobody would have any objection to this provision. But the Minister in his amendment only allows the Judge to ask the detainee to state in writing what his objection is. Now, these detainees are kept incommunicado. They are not allowed to see lawyers. And if a Judge wants to hear what a detainee has to say, the Commissioner says to the detainee, “The Judge wants to hear what you have to say, you must put it up in writing.” Now, there is nobody to assist the detainee in doing so.

The provision, we have understood from the Minister, will apply mainly in South West Africa because of what is happening there. Now, the people involved, that is, the detainees, may not be able to state in writing what their case is; they may not be able to object in writing to the case put up by the Commissioner. If the Judge is advised that the detainee cannot write, he cannot put up a statement, or if the Judge receives a statement which obviously is by an illiterate or a person not able to explain himself fully, the Judge should then have the right to say, “I want to see this detainee to find out exactly what he is trying to tell me.”

Therefore I ask the Minister to give second thoughts to this question of allowing the Judge to ask to see the detainee if he wants to do so. It does not give the detainee the right to ask for the Judge. But if the Judge is going through the papers and he feels that there is something he wants cleared up and he wants to see the detainee, we submit that the Judge should be allowed to do so. There is no question of having the detainee represented by counsel. We are not asking for that. There may be some objection to that, because it may be felt that you are encouraging a trial by having the detainee represented before the Judge. All we want is to have the Judge interview the detainee without representation.

Now. I want to say this with regard to South West Africa. I mentioned earlier on the uncertainty as to what is happening there. I know that the chief of the security police does not fall under the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Justice administers the Suppression of Communism Act. In an Afrikaans paper over the week-end we saw headlines. “Oorlog in S.W.A.” I think that was the headline. Apparently from an interview given by Major-General Van den Bergh and from the contents of a speech given by him they came under the impression that he was embarking on an all-out campaign in S.W.A., and the impression was given that there are a number of guerrillas running about still. We do not know what the position is.

Then the General gave another interview to the Cape Times in which he said that he is going to see which way the wind is blowing— I think those are the exact words he used— and he would change it if necessary. He denied then that he had given a statement to the Beeld. But reading the Beeld there is no doubt about it and they say quite clearly that they did have an interview with him. I want to ask this Minister to use his influence with the Prime Minister, who is in charge of the police too, and to stop officials giving statements to the Press. We have had trouble before about officials giving statements to the Press. If any responsible statement has to be made about S.W.A. at this stage, the Minister should do it in the House. Because, Sir, Parliament is sitting now. This is the place where the statement should be made. And if Parliament is not sitting, the Minister must still make the statement. The country looks to him and he is the person responsible. We cannot tackle the Generals and the other officials for statements that they make.

The hon. member can tackle the Minister of Police.

We cannot get to the Minister of Police now, unfortunately. So I ask this Minister to use his influence with the Minister of Police, and I ask him to see that his own officials do not make statements any more on matters of national importance. The Deputy Minister can do it.

There is one other matter which is not of such importance as it does not deal with the security of the State, namely the second clause in the Bill which we are opposed to. It deals with temporary liquor licences. I do not intend addressing the House on this matter now. We object to the provision. We think that it is unfair to make temporary licensees carry out the arduous provisions of the Liquor Act, and at the Committee Stage we will deal with that matter more fully and oppose it.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will appreciate that we have gone far in offering assistance here this afternoon. He will know that those matters to which I have objected are matters of very great importance and cannot be lightly tossed aside. I ask him before the Committee Stage to review the position and to see if he cannot meet us as well in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we are meeting here this afternoon in an atmosphere I hardly thought possible and it is a heartening improvement on the debates on the General Law Amendment Bills of previous years. In previous years poisonous debates were conducted here but there has been a major improvement and I am glad to see that the United Party has once again donned its new garb of patriotism and I hope that it will continue to wear it.

In the past we could never convince them of the serious threats to South Africa emanating from abroad, threats which were approaching our borders, but it seems to me that the latest occurrences have brought them to their senses and have made them realize that we in South Africa find ourselves in very real danger.

In regard to previous legislation passed here I just want to make the general statement that if such effective and far-sighted action had not been taken as had, in fact, been taken by the previous Minister of Justice during the past number of years, by means of legislation, the situation most probably would have been quite different to that this afternoon which would have made it impossible for us to introduce such a mild Bill as the one introduced here this afternoon. However, those very effective measures which have already been taken have made it possible for us to come forward with no more than the few amendments contained in this measure.

Now, I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. member for Transkei that it is very difficult to make a second-reading speech about this type of legislation because it involves so many principles. However, this afternoon I want to emphasize that there is at least one basic principle which emanates from this measure and with which most of the clauses are concerned, namely, the security of the State. And because that is so, I want to confine myself to that matter.

The hon. member for Transkei said that measures of this nature taken in the past as well as the one taken this afternoon “go against the grain”. In addition he said “All legal men should be suspicious”. In other words, if one is a lawyer one must be opposed to this kind of legislation, apparently, as he put it, from the nature of one’s training. I want to tell the hon. member: On the contrary. I know of many good lawyers who know that we most certainly require this type of legislation, who know what legislation is required for maintaining the system mentioned in this House before, namely, the system of “preventative justice” in this country, in other words, for maintaining law and order by being able to take precautionary measures. Many good lawyers are most certainly aware of that and know that we cannot tackle, on the basis of the so-called Queensberry Rules, scoundrels fighting with bicycle chains. In this case we are actually faced with a state of affairs in which we are dealing with people who do not follow the ordinary rules of democracy, or even the ordinary rules of the ordinary criminal, but who perpetrate organized crimes, not organized by a band of criminals but by foreign powers, with foreign money and with foreign ideologies. He is not an ordinary criminal in the ordinary sense, here we are not dealing with ordinary crimes, but with very dangerous persons, persons who are dangerous to the State.

The hon. member for Transkei complained that the Minister gave the assurance from time to time that he had the position under control, that there was proper control, but that more and more powers were always requested. He said that he could not understand that, because if the position were under control to such an extent those additional powers would not be required. But that is exactly the point. In this case we are not dealing with ordinary crime. This is cold warfare, and in cold warfare certain developments are continually forced on us from the outside. At present the position is under control, but the enemies outside have already planned something new which changes the situation and such changes are everyday occurrences. Therefore we continually have to take more and more powers in order to resist the new dangers.

I cannot understand why the hon. member made that statement. The hon. member also said that “they have given more and more power”, that the Opposition had agreed that the Minister should have “more and more power”. With due deference, I do not know of a single power which the Opposition has given the Minister or the National Party for combating these crimes, because all powers we have obtained in this regard we have had to fight for in this House, except this afternoon when it is not necessary for us to wage that struggle because the United Party has donned a new garb of patriotism.

He also referred to the South West clause He only had one objection to that. He said that they had been opposed to the provision concerning house arrest right from the outset and that on that account they also had their misgivings about this clause this afternoon. Now, my submission is that that, too, does not hold good this afternoon, because the question of house arrest is not relevant in this case. The only thing which is relevant is to place it beyond any doubt that this Act does apply in South West Africa as well. As a matter of fact, I personally was of the opinion that this cause was, in fact, not necessary at all. However, we cannot allow there to be any doubt whatsoever in view of what is developing in South West Africa at present. And for that reason we must support this clause, because the position with regard to the two matters about which the Minister told us, is the following. The first ruling stated that an act may apply to South West Africa, but that subsequent amendments of that Act need not necessarily apply to South West Africa. The judge who gave that ruling was Justice Hof-meyr. Approximately three years later he heard a second case—once again it was the same judge—and then gave a contrary ruling. However, he added (translation)—

—he finds that his own ruling was incorrect the previous time—

We accept the Minister’s word—you do not have to read the whole judgment.

I am just mentioning it because it is my submission that this clause is not really necessary. The latter ruling by this judge is, after all, the present legal position. However, it may happen that one or two judges will reconsider this case and may decide otherwise. This clause has been included in this Bill in order to remove every doubt in this connection. Therefore I am saying that it is really not necessary for the hon. member for Transkei to make this one reservation, i.e. concerning house arrest, because even house arrest does apply in the case of South West Africa. It applies and will continue to apply in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. There is no question that it does not apply. The only reason why this particular clause has been included is to remove any possible doubt which may arise in the future. The hon. member said that this legislation dealing with the security of the State “goes against the grain”. However, I want to mention two examples from this legislation which I believe are not “against the grain” but which I think are really very laudable. As such we ought to welcome them. The first of these is the provision relating to indemnity for any offender for whatever offence as long as he can give evidence in a case and such evidence is required for obtaining a conviction. If such evidence incriminates him he may be indemnified. I say that this is a fine extension of the principle which, up to now, has only been applicable to accomplices. It is a pity that this provision was not adopted previously. I can think about many instances in which connection this provision will be a good thing. For instance, suppose two persons are following each other in cars while both are exceeding the speed limit. Suppose the motorist in front knocks down and kills someone and is charged with culpable homicide. If the question of speed is raised, can the second person who is also guilty of exceeding the speed limit admit that he was driving at. say, 100 miles per hour and that he was close behind the man who knocked down and killed that person. His evidence may be of real significance for convicting the accused. I think other hon. members may be able to think up much better examples than this one. However. I regard this as being a very sound principle which is introduced into our ’aw. namely, that indemnity will now also be granted to a person whose evidence, though he himself may be a minor offender, will assist in proving a serious crime. This is a major improvement of our Criminal Procedure Act of the past, and, as far as I am concerned, it does not go “against the grain”.

In addition I also think that Clause 22 is a major improvement as regards the 90-Day Clause. This, of course, does not mean that the present 90-Day Clause and 180-Day Clause are not effective. That I do not concede for a single moment. I am only saying that this clause is an improvement on those clauses. Perhaps the procedure which the Minister is now proposing will prove to be a very good measure, a measure which will perhaps satisfy hon. friends opposite, too, because they have always been very concerned about those people who do not fight according to the Queensberry Rules. Hon. members opposite have always taken up the cudgels for them. This new provision may satisfy them in this regard. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to allow himself to be misled by the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Transkei. That hon. member said that the ideology of the United Party would make measures such as this unnecessary. However, I want to tell them that that may be so on condition that they take a stand closer or very close to Communism, i.e. a leftist stand.

The hon. member for Heilbron seems to think that one should be grateful to the hon. the Minister for asking for new powers which are not as bad as former legislation.

It is not intended as a Christmas present for you.

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will allow me to continue with my speech. As far as I am concerned, every time the Government has to come to this House for legislation of this kind, whether it is a little better or not, to me it is a recurring nightmare. Over and over again the Government has come to this House asking for increased powers. The original Suppression of Communism Act was passed way back in 1950 and anyone who has eventually to write a book on South Africa’s political history from 1950 onwards will be hard put to it to keep up with all the amendments and further powers which the Government has acquired since then. The same applies to the Criminal Procedure Act. There seems to me to be no “last territorial claim” in this area of jurisdiction. Every year one can expect some changes, and increased powers being asked for. I wonder whether hon. members realize that there have been at least 80 amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act in innumerable Bills. These amendments can directly be related to an aspect of the Minister’s jurisdiction in respect of which he is given more and more bureaucratic powers. I do not know how many amendments we have had to the Criminal Procedure Act, amendments similar in nature.

It is only during the last six years, however, that there has been these Draconian changes, starting with the “no bail” clause which was fought tooth and nail in this House. We were told it was a temporary measure but to-day it has become a permanent part of the legislation of South Africa. In 1962 we had another far-reaching measure which the Opposition fought tooth and nail. That measure extended further the banning powers which the hon. the Minister of Justice had under the Suppression of Communism Act. It gave him wider powers to restrict persons to certain magisterial districts and also gave him great powers in connection with prohibiting the attendance of any gathering by a restricted person. That was the clause which introduced house arrest, that twilight existence to which dozens of people have been condemned.

The amending law of 1962 also defined the crime of sabotage in the broadest possible way and laid down the minimum punishment of 15 years’ imprisonment for persons found guilty in a court of law, and laid down the death penalty as the maximum penalty. This Bill extends the operation of that law to South West Africa. In 1963 we saw the infamous Sobukwe-clause being introduced, under which a person could be retained in gaol after he had served his term of imprisonment. That clause is being re-enacted year after year. New crimes have been created—for instance for advocating or defending the bringing about of changes by forcible means. Onus of proof was placed on the accused. This Bill extends the provisions of that particular Act. Then the notorious 90-Day Clause was introduced, a law which is now suspended. I should like to remind the House that under that provision 1,095 persons were taken into detention, 575 of them were ultimately charged, 272 were found guilty while 210 were found not guilty. This is according to the latest figures I could get. 1964 saw further amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act and to the Criminal Procedure Act. There was a provision for sentencing a recalcitrant witness to up to 12 months’ imprisonment.

In 1965 we had another amendment to the Suppression of Communism Act introducing the 180-Day Clause giving the Attorney General the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of witnesses in respect of certain crimes and to detain them for a period of up to six months and thereafter for further periods of six months. So far as I have been able to ascertain, up to the 1st August this year 125 people were detained under the 180-Day Clause. Since then, however, I have not been able to obtain any information since the Minister stated that it was not in the public interest to give further information.

Well, here we are in 1966 and, true to type, the Government comes during the last days of this Session—not that I would have objected less had this Bill been introduced at the beginning of the Session—asking for further powers along the same sort of lines to which we have now become used—in fact so used, so punchdrunk are we that now apparently the hon. member for Heilbron thinks we ought to be grateful towards the Government because this new clause, this 14-Day Clause, is such an improvement on the 90-Day Clause. We have had the usual explanation from the Minister. Ever since I can remember we have had these explanations and even way back in the 1950’s when I was not in this House, we had them too. I read up the debates of those years and we had the statement of the then hon. Minister of Justice regarding poisoned wells in 1953 when the Whipping Bill was introduced and the Anti-Defiance Campaign Laws were introduced. Every year hon. Ministers came to this House and we were told that there were emergency situations requiring emergency measures. My answer to that is, that if that is so, we should have declared a state of emergency. Time after time we have had the same explanations when Draconian powers were given to successive Ministers. And may I say they used these measures not only in the form in which they were explained in this House but almost always in an extended form, in ever widening circles. The Suppression of Communism Act which was to be used only against communists and anarchists had been used and is to-day still being used in terms of banning orders and restrictions, house arrests, etc., against people who cannot by the wildest stretch of imagination be considered as being communists or anarchists. When the house arrest clause was introduced we were told by the then Minister of Justice that it would only be used in a most careful way and after warnings had been given to people. It was presented to us as being one way of restricting a person without depriving him of his means of earning his livelihood. Since then the twenty-four hour house arrest system has come into action and how anybody is meant to earn his livelihood under 24 hours house arrest I do not know.

I give these examples to show that these powers lend themselves to further and further extension without even requiring amendment, because they are so broadly couched as to enable Ministers to use them, and officials to use them in such a way. And what is more, they lend themselves to abuse in their implementation because they are laws which are carried out behind closed doors. They are not laws which are such that justice can be seen to be done as we understand it under the normal democratic process of the law. None of the safeguards of the normal law of the land in fact are used in regard to these laws, these Draconian powers that Ministers have taken. Therefore they are intrinsically bad laws. That is why laws such as the 90-Day and the 180-Day laws are bad. I argued against those laws because I knew that they would lend themselves to abuse. It was virtually an impossibility for the hon. the Minister to keep an eye on everything that was going on under cover of those laws. And we have more than enough evidence regarding the sort of confinement to which people have been subject, solitary confinement, the sort of interrogation to which they have been subjected—standing interrogations for hour after hour—to know that these are just not the sort of laws that one would expect in a normal democratic country. I know what the answer to that is going to be. The hon. member for the Transkei gave part of the answer. He said he knew full well that the people against whom these laws were aimed were not people who respected the normal democratic process. It may very well be true that they are not democrats. However, he did not add the rider that the vast majority of the population of this country are denied access to normal democratic measures. [Interjections.] Yes, they are denied the vote.

Nonsense.

Hon. members say “nonsense”. Can they tell me how the African population of South Africa—people born in this country, African citizens—are able through the ballot box to get changes introduced in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is that relevant to the principle of this Bill? [Interjections.]

Will the hon. member please proceed?

I would give them the vote. I certainly would give all qualified and educated people the vote. The Coloured people have the most limited rights and therefore they are unable to exercise the normal democratic processes of changing the Government. The same of course applies to the Indian population. I will come back to this point later. Because of this, and because the grievances under which these people suffer are never examined and are never even conceded to exist, we are constantly going to have laws which go counter to the rule of law, because “apartheid” and the rule of law are mutually incompatible. As long as we have laws put on the Statute Book which do not receive the consent of the people to whom they apply—these people are not even consulted about these laws—we cannot expect them normally to accept democratic processes, and therefore we are going to have this sort of law put on the Statute Book over and over again. The hon. the Minister tells us this time that we are now entering the third phase, in other words, people are trying to drive South Africa to its knees and we are in very dangerous circumstances. At the same time that the hon. the Minister is telling us this, and this has happened in the past as well, our representatives overseas are assuring people there that everything is peaceful in South Africa, that the communists are completely under control and that South Africa is a good investment risk. Exactly the same thing is happening right now. It actually happened last week, that is practically at the identical time. The hon. the Minister to-day tells us that we are entering perilous times, that this third phase has now been entered. But I have an interesting cutting here about our representative at the United Nations, Dr. Muller, our Minister of External Affairs. “Muller debunks S.W.A. invasion” says the Cape Argus of the 13th of this month, just a few days ago. And it says that in replying in the General Assembly at the United Nations to people who were asking that the independence of South West Africa be granted immediately because of the dangerous situation that has arisen there because of terrorists—and this whole Bill is aimed at these terrorists—Dr. Muller said—

So what?

“So what”, say hon. members. So what do we need this Bill for? That is what I want to know. Here the hon. the Minister is telling us that we are entering this dangerous third phase, that terrorists are about to take over South West Africa and then are going to beat it across the border into South Africa, and hence this need for emergency measures, which the official Opposition —God help them—accepts, which they swallow hook, line and sinker in this new cosy togetherness that we are having in this House in this Session, this new mantle of patriotism which all of us have to adopt now. The Opposition which has fought other Bills in this House—though by no means all of them— swallows hook, line and sinker the story of urgency, of terrorists, of the third stage while only five days ago Dr. Hilgard Muller, our own representative at the United Nations, was telling us there was no basis for panic.

There is no reason for panic.

I say there is no reason’ for this Bill, because I have the greatest faith in the efficiency of the Police Force. How often have I heard this from hon. members? Everyone is always thanking the police. I have the greatest faith in them and I am quite sure that they are able to cope with any of the terrorists, that there is no need for panic, and that we should not be giving the hon. the Minister these additional powers to-day. I think it is very foolish of us to undermine Dr. Muller’s efforts in the General Assembly by introducing this Bill. What do they think is going to happen as a result of this? Our adversaries in the United Nations are going to go—hot-foot, I assure you—to the General Assembly to tell everybody there that there is after all need for panic, that there is a dangerous situation developing in South West Africa and therefore there is a need for the immediate independence to prevent this position developing further. I think this is extremely stupid and that is why I am voting against this Bill to-day [interjections], and that is why that patriotic gentleman over there should be voting against this Bill too. All the patriots on this side should also be voting against the Bill. This Bill applies to South West Africa. There are three clauses which apply directly to South West Africa, and the hon. the Minister mentioned them in his Second-Reading speech. There is the one that makes assurance doubly sure about the Suppression of Communism Act and its amendments; there is the one which applies the Sabotage Act to South West Africa; and there is this Clause 22 of the Bill providing for a 14-day detention clause which also applies to South West Africa. For these reasons—the ones that I have given already, and this additional reason that I have now given I am going to vote against the second reading of this Bill.

I was against the principle of detention without trial in 1963 when the 90-Day Bill was introduced. I have always been against the principle of arbitrary powers being given to hon. Ministers and their officials. I believe that if we have emergency situations, we have enough laws on the Statute Book under which hon. Ministers can deal with the situation and indeed where they can easily declare a state of emergency in a limited field, even in a limited area if they so require. I know that inevitably powers like this tend to be abused, with the best will in the world. I give this new hon. Minister of Justice the benefit of the doubt that he does not wish to abuse this power. I will give him that. But he cannot possibly control every single official who is going to be dealing with the powers which he is taking to-day. Bills of this kind, measures of this kind always lend themselves to abuse, because, as I say, they are implemented behind closed doors. Justice is not seen to be done. And that is the fundamental principle of justice, namely that it should be seen to be done. And that is why we have public courts and laws. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister’s amendments to Clause 22 make some slight difference, but they do not make a great deal of difference. Even the hon. member for Transkei admits that further amendments are going to be required at the Committee Stage. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister, however, by placing those amendments on the Order Paper, has induced the official Opposition to accept this measure. It enables the hon. the Minister to get this Bill through more quickly, and it enables the official Opposition, it hopes, to save face on this Bill. I do not think it is going to do so. Because it is voting again for another measure that is putting the skids under the rule of law in South Africa. Let us not deceive ourselves. This is another law on the Statute Book which undermines the normal rule of law in South Africa. I do not believe that any explanation has been offered to give us any real reason why we need this Bill. As I say, it goes contrary to everything that is being said about South Africa outside right at this very minute by our representatives.

I find that it is much easier to stick to principles when one is in any difficulty like this. I was against detention without trial, I was against the original Sabotage Bill, and I am against the extension of all these measures to South West Africa. I stand four-square for the rule of law.

What is the rule of law?

I will tell the hon. member. He should know by now, but I will tell him what it means. It means that a man is tried in a court of law for anything that he has done. It means that he is tried in an open court of law, that he is told what the charges against him are, that he is given the opportunity of countering those charges, that he may have the assistance of a lawyer.

Order! The hon. member must not turn her back towards the Chair.

I beg your pardon. Through you, Sir, and I am sure the hon. the member can hear me …

The hon. member is addressing the Chair.

Yes, Sir, I am addressing the Chair. Through you I wish to tell the hon. member who asked that silly question, the meaning of the rule of law. I thought that since he was a Member of Parliament, he might have known that by now. But he does not. It means a person is confronted with the charges against him in an open court of law, that he is given the opportunity of denying those charges, that he is given the opportunity of defending himself, and that he is given the advice of legal counsel. This is what is meant by the normal processes of the courts of law. Most important is that he is not deprived of his liberty, unless he is found guilty by a court of law and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. That is what is understood by the normal rule of law, and that is what I stand for. And since this Bill—though it is not as bad as the 90-Day Bill and, as I say, our threshold of tolerance rises all the time, and despite the hon. the Minister’s amendment—goes counter to the rule of law and to everything that I believe in, I wish to move as an amendment:

To omit “now” and to add at the end “this day six months”.

The hon. member for Houghton used the expression “true to type” in the course of her speech. If ever there has been a case of somebody being “true to type”, it was that hon. member this afternoon. While she was putting up such a performance it occurred to me that she could easily get an appointment on the Council for the Performing Arts, because she was both literally and figuratively “playing up to the gallery”. She gave a lengthy account of the legislation passed by this Government and which she condemned, but do you know, Sir, what she has really done? She has placed on record in Hansard the history of the success achieved by this Government in its struggle against subversive activities. Apparently she adopts the attitude that we should have contented ourselves with the Ten Commandments and that we should never have passed any further laws. She wants to deny this Parliament the right to pass legislation and to make amendments to meet the prevailing circumstances. The efficiency of this Government was proved over and over again by the things she said and the statistics she quoted. You know, Sir, when she came forward with this terrible witches’ brew of poisonous mud-slinging against South Africa, she reminded me of the saying “gogga maak vir baba bang” (the bogey-man is scaring the baby), but we have now reached the stage where “mama is scaring the bogey-man”. I leave the hon. member at that. Her knowledge of the rule of law is not very impressive, rather theatrical, but we lawyers will leave it at that. We have more important aspects of the matter to deal with, and the question that occurs to me is whether the highest legislative body of this country has been established for the purpose of advancing a plea for the protection of terrorists and whether we are not here to entrench the “rule of law” for the law-abiding citizens. The hon. member for Transkei has said that he admits that the type of person who is affected by this legislation is the type who does not want to exchange democracy for democracy. They do not want to exchange one democratic government for another, and that is the crux of the whole matter, and also of the reply to the hon. member for Houghton. We are dealing with people who do not want to act constitutionally and who do not want to exchange one democratic government for another. For that reason I want to deal with the principles contained in the legislation, the principles Healing with onslaughts against the security of the State.

Week after week we receive reports, not only from within our own country, but also from abroad, of terrorists being trained in various territories who are threatening other territories. Only this morning we heard over the news that the Prime Minister of Israel has objected most strongly against people being trained in a neighbouring state to threaten his state. This phenomenon that people are being trained to threaten another state is not a South African phenomenon; it is becoming a world phenomenon. As a matter of fact, during the past weeks various states have lodged complaints with the UN against fellow member states that allow themselves to be used for the purpose of training terrorists who want to attack the first mentioned states. As far as we are concerned, this matter was pointedly brought to our attention in respect of South West Africa in the course of this Session. I now put it that it is the duty of a government to govern, and that that includes the duty of a government to protect and ensure the security of the State. Sir, you know the classic statement that the price of freedom is perpetual vigilance. What is involved is your freedom and my freedom and the freedom of every law-abiding citizen in the country, and the price of that freedom is that the Government must be vigilant. In its vigilance it should prevent people from abusing their freedom to destroy the freedom of others. That is why we are coming forward with this law, which is supplementary to the legislation we already have.

Briefly, what is the principle involved in the legislation in respect of the security of the State? Firstly, it creates the presumption in Clause 3 in respect of the training of saboteurs. Secondly, it removes legal uncertainty, on which this House has been addressed at length by the hon. member for Heilbron. Thirdly, Clauses 8 and 9 encourage the citizens of the country to fulfil their duty as citizens by giving evidence to safeguard their country, even though they may be in difficulty themselves. Fourthly, it makes the crime of sabotage applicable to South West Africa in future, as the hon. the Minister has said; and finally, it provides for the detention under judicial supervision of terrorists, communists and suspects, amongst others, who have received training elsewhere and who threaten the safety of the country. As the hon. the Minister has said, the provisions of the Bill relating to the safety of the State contain nothing new or extraordinary or radical or drastic. On the contrary, it is only the implementation and the consistent application of the existing and accepted policy and legislation accented by this House from time to time in order to keen South Africa and South West Africa safe. Now, if these are the circumstances and if we get this vehement resistance on the part of the hon. member for Houghton, I want to ask whether this House of Assembly may be abused in order to enable terrorists and saboteurs to run free. Every criminal even of the worst type, is granted a fair trial in this country. When the hon. member for Houghton wanted to read to us the “rule of law” a moment ago, she made a statement which may create the impression abroad that the worst type of criminal is not granted such a trial. If one had been in a place where one could have used unparliamentary language, one could have used an appropriate term for this kind of action. Our primary task—and we are primarily concerned with that—is to ensure the safety of the law-abiding citizens, and we are not primarily concerned about the terrorists and the saboteurs. I want to say to you, Sir, that the people of South Africa have sent us here. The people of South Africa have rejected the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton and her party. The people of South Africa trust us. That is why we are here.

That is also why I am here.

The hon. member for Houghton says that is also why she is here. She can never address us on behalf of the people of South Africa. She and her party have met the people of South Africa in the election and she has come back here only because in South Africa too there are a few places where people perhaps do not use their brains properly. The trust which the people have placed in us requires us to act, and it is our duty to act. I want to remind the hon. member, who has given such a lengthy account of the charges against South Africa, that in the years ahead South Africa will remember who had the courage to clamp down on the communists, who checked saboteurs and sabotage and who introduced legislation to frustrate those who undermine the safety of the State and their accomplices. South Africa will remember that the rule of law, which has been referred to so many times, is the possession of the law-abiding citizen and that it was this Government that entrenched it in its legislation and at the same time destroyed those who destroy the rule of law. Does the hon. member not realize that we are fighting for our survival, that we are fighting for the preservation of democracy and that we are fighting against saboteurs and terrorists We on this side shall do our duty and we shall carry out our responsibility to the entire nation.

There is not very much the hon. member who has just sat down has said which requires a reply, but perhaps the hon. member will, next time he talks, keep it in mind that he should talk more about the Bill and the points of law made, instead of talking in such terms as he did about other members of this House, especially when they are ladies. I hope he will in the course of time learn to do that.

I would like to say a few words about what the hon. member for Houghton has had to say about this Bill. The hon. member has been very upset that we are going to support this Bill at second reading. The hon. member described the Bill as being one by which the Government was seeking further power. I thought perhaps if the hon. member had considered this in a little more detail she might have appreciated that the extraordinary aspect of this Bill is that it is seeking in fact less power than the Government already has. That is the extraordinary feature, and this being so, one must ask oneself why does the Government ask for less powers than it already has? The answer is very simple. It has been mentioned by everyone who has spoken. The answer is that this Bill is intended to deal with a specific situation in a specific area in Africa, and that specific situation is obviously the one which has arisen on the borders, and the situations which might arise in future, in South West Africa. Otherwise, if it was to deal with the South African situation it would be unnecessary to amend the law. So, inasmuch as this Bill will also apply to South Africa, this is to be welcomed. I think every lawyer in this country will welcome anything that is less than the powers which already exist in relation to interrogation and detention.

Is it less than the 90 days?

Of course. The hon. member for Houghton must ask herself this question when she says she is opposed to the Bill: Which would you prefer to apply in South Africa and in South West Africa, the 90-Day Clause and the 180-Day Clause, or this Bill?

But I do not want either.

The hon. member says she does not want either, but here provision is being made to ameliorate the law relating to detention. When his Vote was being discussed in the Committee of Supply the other day, the hon. the Minister made a very interesting remark about the 180-Day Clause. He said if this provision went through, it would not be necessary to use the 90-day provision for the purpose of interrogation.

Then it is being misrepresented entirely.

Which the Opposition suggested did take place.

The hon. the Minister indicated that the Opposition would have nothing to fear in that regard if in fact this provision went through. That is in effect what this provision does. Why would the Government now come and ask for less power than it has if it were not for the fact that it has to deal with that particular situation. I hope the hon. member for Houghton, when she thinks about it in this light, will appreciate that if it is necessary to have these powers in relation to this new situation which has arisen in South West Africa, then this is a far better provision than any other provision we have had so far. The hon. member says she does not want it.

I do not want either of them.

Clause 22 in this Bill, which provides for this new procedure of detention for 14 days and then no further detention except on the order of a Judge, is the only really new thing in this Bill. Sir; it is a very big change, and the amendments which the hon. the Minister has put on the Order Paper make this a very much better clause than it appears in its present form. Our Rules entitle us to discuss those amendments now, because the Minister is entitled to put them on the Order Paper and we must read the clause as if the amendments formed part of it. As I say, amendments make this clause a very much better clause than the clause as it appears in its present form, and in its present form, even without those amendments, it is a great improvement, but, as has been indicated, it is still not as good as we want it. We still believe that if you are going to provide that the court shall have anything to say in the matter at all, then the court should have an unfettered discretion to hear all the evidence the court feels it is necessary to hear and to see all the witnesses the court feels it is necessary to see. However, we will deal with that in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke about the rule of law. Sir, it is difficult to define the rule of law, but I think if one could sum it up in one expression, it could be summed up in the expression that the rule of law means the absence of arbitrary powers. Here we have a clause which provides for the absence of arbitrary power after 14 days. The position at the moment is that there is a presence of arbitrary power for any number of 180-day periods, in other words, forever. Here it is specifically provided that after 14 days, a Judge of the Supreme Court must make an order before any further detention can take place. Sir, you cannot just shrug this off; you cannot just toss this aside; we are not prepared just to toss it aside; we are not prepared to say that we will not have this. It is not all we want but what a great improvement it is on those other measures which we opposed so bitterly in the past. Now that we have come to this stage I think we have something to be pleased about. We can be pleased that we are moving in the right direction again so far as this is concerned. I find it a very welcome sign and I am quite sure that all right-minded persons and all lawyers would welcome the direction which this appears to take.

That is the exact opposite of what your first speaker said. He said that as far as lawyers were concerned, it would go against the grain.

Of course, it does. As I say, it is not all we want. But we had reached a stage in South Africa where the Government, and the police particularly, had powers which we thought were unwarranted, powers which we strongly opposed, and now we find ourselves with a Bill which provides that the police are no longer to have those powers, and that Judges are to intervene in the interests of the liberty of the individual. As the hon. member for Transkei has said, if a Judge were to do that in every case, we would not mind at all, because that in the end is what the rule of law means—the absence of arbitrary powers, the presence of a court, the presence of a Judge, the hearing of both sides and the giving of a decision by an impartial Judge. Sir, that is the choice one has to make. If the hon. member for Houghton is going to vote against this …

You bet I am.

… then I think she is going to have some difficulty explaining how it is that when the Government, whatever the reasons may be, decides to move away from the position that there was no intervention by the courts in considering the liberty of the individual, she is opposed to the Government when in fact they do come with such a provision. That is exactly what it means. The hon. the Minister has given us an indication as to how this clause is going to be used and he has indicated, if we did suspect that the 180-day provision was being used for this purpose—without committing himself as to whether it was used or not—that it will not be so used in the future. In other words, whenever the police wish to interrogate anyone in relation to these offences they will have to go to a Judge of the Supreme Court and ask him to determine whether in the circumstances he feels there is a case. Sir, this is a tremendous step forward from the 90-day provision, and the 180-day provision as it was administered in my personal belief according to the statistics I have seen. The hon. member for Houghton must not take this thing too far. She must not say there is always some devil behind everything. I do not think anyone in this House has any cause to believe that these invasions in Ovamboland, by terrorists, did not take place.

I did not say they did not take place.

Nor do I think that she can deduce from the small clipping from one of the local newspapers, which reported what the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said at the United Nations, that there is nothing to worry about and that it is not necessary to have any more powers to deal with that situation. Sir, if ever there was an event which proved that our attitude towards the application of the law to South West Africa in respect of one crime, was the correct attitude, it was proved by this very happening. The hon. member for Houghton may remember that she divided the House on one occasion, when we were discussing one of the Bills that she talked about, on the question of the offence contained in Section 11 (b)ter of the Suppression of Communism Act, and that offence was for someone who is or was resident in the Republic to go out of the Republic and to receive training for the purposes of one of the unlawful organizations or for sabotage or for the promotion of the aims of Communism and then to come back to this country. We felt this was a matter which should be treated on the same basis as treason. The hon. member did not agree.

And there were many good reasons.

Apparently the hon. member still does not agree, and she would probably vote against that again if the opportunity arose.

Quite right.

But I think one has to be realistic and practical at times. If there is a territory committed to our charge, which is the subject of invasions from outside, which is subjected to marauding bands of people committing sabotage, people who have gone from this country and been trained outside, I do not think anybody would say that those people should not be dealt with, whether it is in that territory or whether it is in South Africa. We cannot control the territories committed to our charge unless we are able to maintain law and order in them.

And the police did that very adequately without this provision.

The only new provision in this Bill in effect is contained in Clause 22. which provides for a step in a direction which I am delighted to see and which I am sure every right-minded person in South Africa will be delighted to see.

I thank hon. members who took part in this debate for the manner in which they received this Bill. At the very outset I said that I suspected that there would be at least one member who would not welcome the Bill. I do not blame the hon. member for Houghton. This is how I got to know her over the years; she has her own views in this regard and I shall leave it at that. I just want to ask her how she would have liked it if the 180-days or the 90-days provision had been made applicable to South West Africa.

I do not like either of them.

Will the hon. member concede that this provision is at least preferable to the other two provisions?

That still does not make it right.

The hon. member would rather see terrorists jeopardizing South West Africa and the Republic. But I am not going to waste my time on the hon. member for Houghton. This is how I got to know her in the past and I fully realize that she will always be a fly in the ointment, although I must say —and my wife is sitting in the gallery—that I would not mind applying a little ointment to this particular hon. member.

Order! The hon. the

Minister is not allowed to apply ointment to another hon. member.

I thank the hon. member for Durban (North) for the attitude he adopted here. I think he was very realistic as far as this legislation is concerned. The facts are very simple, as I said at the outset. We are saddled with this problem in South West Africa; certain developments are taking place there and if we want to use our eyes and our ears, we must realize that we must do something in that regard. I have already said that there is no cause for panic, but I also said that we cannot sit with folded hands. I also thank the hon. member for the fact that he said that this provision in regard to detention for 14 days and subsequent to that only by order of a Judge, was an accommodating gesture.

A step forward.

In the second place, it may soon become necessary to make use of these powers in South West Africa. If things develop there and if we cannot get the situation under control by other means, it may be necessary for us to restrict certain people. Should it prove necessary, I shall do it and that is why I must also have these powers in South West Africa, as I do in fact believe I have at the moment. I can really not take a retrogressive step of this nature.

The hon. member asked me to restrict indemnity to offences affecting the security of the country. I gave very serious attention to that matter. I want to assure the hon. member that during the whole of this morning as well as yesterday my Department gave attention to this matter to see whether we could not accommodate the hon. member, but it is simply absolutely impossible. Suppose that we were to stipulate that indemnity could be granted to a person in respect of an offence he may have committed in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. There are so many different offences such a person may possibly have committed, that one simply cannot phrase it in a general manner; one will have to stipulate specifically that one will indemnify him in respect of this offence and that one will indemnify him in respect of that offence. I simply cannot restrict it to offences committed in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act only. We tried to draft an acceptable amendment. My officials found it impossible, and no matter how much I should like to accommodate the hon. member in this regard, I simply cannot do so. The hon. member is correct in his statement regarding sabotage. This is the first time that we are applying this Act to South West Africa as well. I am grateful that the Opposition are accepting it in that spirit. They see what is happening there and they realize that it is in the best interests of South West Africa and the Republic that Section 21 of the 1962 Act should also be applied to South West Africa. I appreciate the spirit in which the Opposition accepted that.

Now we come to the crux of the legislation, namely Clause 22. Apparently Clause 22 is very acceptable to the Opposition, except in one respect. They say that it is all very well and that it is acceptable, particularly this amendment of which I have given notice. But what they would like to have and would like to see, is that the Judge should have the right to summon the detainee to appear before him so that he may hear his version. They want to know what is the good of a man’s being able to put his case to the Judge in writing, because he may perhaps not even be able to write. Now, this I readily grant: many of them will not be able to write. But I am prepared, and this afternoon I am giving this undertaking in this House, to instruct the Department of Justice to the effect that in cases where the Judge asks that he wants to receive the written representations of such a detainee, a magistrate should be placed at his disposal to serve as the channel of communication between what he has to say and the Judge. I think that is fair enough. That instruction I shall give. The magistrate will go to the prison and he will ask. “What do you want to tell the Judge?” The detainee will say that he wants to tell the Judge this and that: the magistrate will put it in writing and it will be forwarded to the Judge in that form. That is the best way I can accommodate hon. members in this regard.

I want to tell hon. members why I do not want and why I cannot allow the man …

May I ask a question, please? You have just said that you will see to it that a magistrate will go to the detainee:

does that mean that he will permit that in all cases or only in certain cases?

As the amendment reads at present, it amounts to the fact that the Judge may also ask the detainee, “What is your version? What I have before me, is a version, the version which comes from the police. What is you account of what happened? I want you to tell me”. It is only in those cases, when the Judge asks for it, when he deems it necessary, that the detainee will have a magistrate at his disposal if he cannot write. That instruction I shall give so that the magistrate may then serve as a channel of communication between the detainee and the Judge.

I shall tell hon. members why I do not want to allow such a person to appear before the Judge. The moment we allow him to appear before the Judge, he is entitled to legal aid. Unless we specifically exclude that in legislation, he is entitled to legal aid, and it will be a foolish business for us to make a law which provides that a man may appear before a Judge but that he will not be entitled to legal aid. That is where our major difference comes into play. I am sorry, but I simply cannot give up that principle. We shall discuss this again in the Committee Stage, but I cannot give it up. Hon. members must remember that a Judge in chambers constitutes a court, and if a man appears in court, we cannot withhold legal aid from him. That is what happens. That is the point and that is my difficulty.

The best way I can accommodate hon. members—and especially the hon. member for Transkei, because I have given a great deal of thought to the few amendments he discussed with me—is to say: Well then, if the detainee wants to put his case to the Judge, I shall place a magistrate at his disposal, and then the magistrate can transmit his account to the Judge. Then, on the strength of the documents submitted to him, the Judge can decide. And what is strange about this? The police go to a Judge and ask a warrant to arrest a man. The Judge does not tell the police to bring the man before him before he issues the warrant. That only happens at the request of the police. I am afraid that in this measure, and especially in regard to Clause 22, I have gone as far as I possibly could. I very much wanted to accommodate the Opposition, but they are asking me a few things I really cannot give up. Further than that I cannot go, and I am very sorry that I cannot accommodate them.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill gives effect to resolutions taken by this House on a previous occasion. I therefore move—

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Ocean Freight Agreement between the Government, the Perishable Products Export Control Board and the South African Conference, which was signed at Cape Town on 22nd August, 1966, will replace the existing Ocean Freight Agreement between them which expires on 31st December, 1966. The new Agreement continues arrangements which have been in existence between the parties by means of ten-year agreements since 1912.

Under the new Agreement the Government retains to the same extent as before control over the freight rates, charged by the 19 Lines which are members of the Conference and which regularly serve the two-way seaborne trade between South Africa and Europe (including the United Kingdom).

However, provision is made for a review of these freight rates once every two years as compared with the presently existing triennial reviews of freight rates; and, as before, it provides for an adjustment of the rates, if necessary, to ensure that the Lines will earn sufficient revenue to cover the costs of their services and to give them a fair return on the capital employed by them in the trade.

The Government, for its part, undertakes to make full use of the services of the Lines for the conveyance of goods to be shipped from Europe for use by State Departments (including the Railway Administration and the Provincial Administrations); but the Government retains the freedom to ship in each calendar year up to 12½ per cent of such cargo calculated on the basis of the total tonnage thereof that was shipped in the preceding calendar year, in vessels belonging to, or chartered by it. This was also the case under previous Ocean Freight Agreements.

The Lines undertake to place at the disposal of the Perishable Products Export Control Board an agreed tonnage of suitably refrigerated vessels, and the Board undertakes to use these vessels for the shipment of perishable products from South African ports and Lourenço Marques to Europe.

Important new provisions of the Agreement to which I should like to invite attention, are those which are contained in articles 2, 3 and 4 of Section F of the Agreement. These articles provide for increased participation for South African Shipping lines in the seaborne trade between South Africa and Europe; for a measure of flexibility in the sailing arrangements of the Lines and for consultation between the Government and the Lines if the Republic’s foreign trade and trade relations with any individual country served by the Lines should be adversely affected by these sailing arrangements; and for mutual co-operation between the Government and the Lines to deal with occurrences which undermine, or threaten to undermine the efficient and economic operation of the shipping services provided by the Lines.

The basic objective of the New Agreement, like other previous similar agreements, is the provision of regular, efficient and dependable shipping services between the Republic and Europe at reasonable freight rates. The Agreement is intended to serve the interests of all South African importers and exporters, and provides a firm basis for the continuation and expansion of our reciprocal trade exchanges with our European trading partners. As such, I commend it to this House for formal approval.

Mr. Speaker, this Agreement is to a very large extent simply a continuation of our Agreement which has been in existence ever since Union, since 1912; apart from the alteration, it provides for a two-year revision of freight rates, compared with the previous three-yearly revision. The important change is the making of provision for the entrance of South African shipping into the Agreement, and, of course, that is very important from our point of view. To that extent this Agreement marks an important new departure in our arrangements for our seaborne trade.

The Agreement has been drawn up, as usual, in consultation with the Conference Lines and the South African shipping lines as well, and to that extent it is an agreed measure. As far as we on this side are concerned, we support this measure.

I think there are one or two points we should like to raise from this side of the House, which will be raised by other hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia has said that we on this side of the House support this Agreement, but there are one or two points which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The first concerns the export of fresh fruit in relatively small quantities. Each particular type of fruit has to be refrigerated at a certain temperature, and I should like to refer particularly to the case of fresh pineapples exported to the overseas market, although my remarks also apply to other fruit, such as litchies. Pineapples can only be sent overseas at the same temperature as lemons and the off-season for pineapples coincides, to a large extent, with the off-season for lemons. On some occasion in the past growers have been unable to get shipments placed for fresh pineapples unless the consignments of pineapples and lemons together was 100 shipping tons per consignment. I know recently there has been some relaxation in this regard down to 50 tons and on occasion even to less, so that shippers have tried to meet growers in so far as filling a complete chamber is concerned. But such difficulties may still arise, particularly at the ports of Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban. When it does occur, it is a matter of great concern to the growers because the off-season for pineapples coincides with the time of low supply on the overseas market and it is during these times of low supply that prices are high and lucrative on these overseas markets. I hope the hon. the Minister will keep this in mind.

My second point relates to a report which appeared in the Burger on the 7th of this month, reading as follows—

I do not know whether this report is a correct reflection of the true position. I know, however, that hitherto priority has been given at the A, B, C and D berths in the Cape Town harbour to refrigerated ships. I hope, however, that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that there will be no undue delays during the fruit season in so far as the availability of quays for refrigerated ships exporting fresh fruit is concerned.

My last point relates to the question of freight rates. The hon. the Minister referred to the possibility of changes taking place in freight rates from time to time in terms of the agreement. Section C of the agreement makes provision that freight rates shall be reviewed bi-annually and that the next review will take place in 1967. The point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is that when these freight rates are reviewed the position of East London should be kept in mind. According to the chairman of east London’s Industrial Development Committee freight rates under the Conference Lines Agreement are the same for East London and Durban, this rate being basic plus 35 cent a ton in each case. This is operating to the disadvantage of East London. In this connection the chairman of the East London Industrial Development Committee says—

I realize that this is a matter not only for the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs but that it is perhaps more a matter for his colleague the hon. the Minister of Transport. Nevertheless, I hope that this point will be borne in mind when these freight rates are in time reviewed.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one question I should like to ask. The hon. the Minister has referred to the advantages this will bring to South African shipping lines. Could the Minister tell us what other shinning lines he had in mind other than Saf-marine? Are there other shipping lines as well?

I want to reply very briefly to the point’s raised by the hon. members. As regards the shipment of fresh fruit in small quantities, a point raised by the hon. member for Albany, I want to say that it is actually a matter that comes under the Perishable Products Export Control Board. I am making a note of the hon. member’s plea, however, and I shall convey it to the Board in order that it may conduct further negotiations in this regard. The other matter raised by him is the availability of quays in Table Bay Harbour. We are of course aware of the existing shortage of space. The Department of Transport is also thoroughly aware of that. That is why we are in such a hurry to build a harbour elsewhere which will take trawlers away from the Table Bay harbour. That, however, will take sometime. This matter is mainly one which concerns the Department of Transport because that Department exercises control over the harbour.

In so far as my Department is concerned in the matter, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall use our influence and authority to see to it that time is not wasted unnecessarily by ships that remain berthed for too long, thus making the quays unproductive and preventing other ships, particularly fruit ships, from doing their loading. This is therefore a matter to which we shall give attention. As regards the matter of freight rates to East London, I want to inform the hon. member that I am conversant with the problem of the differential prices and the extent to which they affect East London. This, too, will receive my attention when negotiations are conducted again. In reply to the question of the hon. member for Kensington, I want to inform him that we have Safmarine in mind at the moment, but that it is not impossible that in the next ten years there may be new lines that may also be brought in.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker. I move—

copies of which were laid upon the Tables of the Senate and the House of Assembly on 27th September, 1966.

Under the Ottawa Trade Agreement of 20th August, 1932, between South Africa and the United Kingdom, the latter and the then existing British Colonies enjoyed a margin of preference of 831 cents per 100 lbs. on raw coffee beans.

The current general import duty on raw coffee beans is 834 cents per 100 lbs., while imports from the United Kingdom, its dependent territories and certain independent Commonwealth countries enter the Republic duty free.

During the negotiations for the closing of the Ottawa Trade Agreement in 1932 it was generally assumed that South Africa would get its supplies of coffee beans to an increasing extent from territories under British control, but since then there has been a radical change in the position because other countries are now supplying our coffee beans to us and because the importation of coffee beans from British territories has decreased until it is virtually non-existent. The time has therefore come to reconsider this preferential right and the margin of preference with a view to abolishing it, because it has no practical value any more. As hon. members know, there has been correspondence between the British Government and us in which we asked for consent for the abolishment of this margin of preference. The British Government consented, and there is therefore nothing in the way of the abolishment of this margin of preference, and I consequently move that the House accept it as such and approve this exchange of notes.

This side of the House has no objection to the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

This clause introduces what is known as a limitation of actions—that is to say, if a person has a right of action at law as a result of any deed or omission of various persons named in the clause then they would lose that right of action if they do not bring the case forward within one year. In other words, if any one of us here has suffered some injury as a result of the action of the people specified in the clause, we would have to bring Our action within one year if we do not want to lose that right. The point I should like to emphasize is that we may lose this right even though we may have had no knowledge that we have such a right and even though we could not reasonably have been expected to know that a right of ours has been infringed and that as a result we are entitled to damages or other relief. The amendment standing in my name is intended to cover this position. This amendment goes no further than does the Public Service Act of 1957. Section 29 of that Act (Act No. 54 of 1957) has a provision limiting actions. As a matter of fact, the terms of this section are virtually identical with the amendment which I seek to introduce into this clause. The hon. the Minister has said that there are other Acts in which there is a more severe limitation of actions clause. That is so; but my argument is that these are not of like substance to the Bill we are considering now. I consider, however, that this Bill is far more like the Public Service Act and, therefore, the proper thing to do would be to bring the Bill we are discussing now into line with the Public Service Act.

I should like to stress this. The Bantu Administration Act which we are seeking to amend and into which we seek to introduce this limitation clause has been on the Statute Book for 39 years, that is since 1927. For all these years there cannot have occurred any substantial inconvenience as a result of the absence of such a severe limitation of actions clause. The hon. the Minister did cite one or two cases when he introduced the second reading, but the hon. the Minister cited some cases which would also have been limited under the amendment as I seek to have it. He spoke of cases where the persons that could possibly be injured could reasonably have been expected to have had knowledge even if they did not in fact have knowledge. Where we are agreeing to an appreciable limitation upon the rights of people who have suffered injury as a result of actions or omissions under this Act, we seek by this amendment to preserve a certain balance and a certain respect for the rights of those who are losing as a result. And therefore, Mr. Chairman, I still hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister may have had time to consider this amendment. It goes a long way towards meeting him. It even introduces a further sub-section which is completely in line with the Public Service Act of 1957. We have therefore made it more acceptable to him. The point about the further sub-section which we seek to introduce is that it will require that written notice of the intention to bring an action must have been served on the defendant concerned. This is a common provision. It has been found useful in many Acts to nut the defendant upon the guard. This will indicate that we ourselves are maintaining a balance as between the person who may have been wronged and the defendant concerned. I hope therefore he may find it possible to accept this amendment, which I move.

At this stage of the Session in particular, one would like to be very accommodating. I have considered this amendment very well and I should have liked to be accommodating. But let me tell the hon. member that if we accepted this amendment we would go against the entire object of the legislation, particularly of Clause 2. The hon. member did point out that the amendment is in line with the provisions of the Public Service Act. I should like to point out to him that the persons who are covered by the Public Service Act differ completely from those covered by the Bantu Administration Act of 1927. It is understandable that a public servant may be unaware of pension dues, etc., which may accrue to him. It must therefore be allowed to him that it has to be proved that he knew, or in any event that he knew for a period of 12 months, about certain provisions. The hon. member should not make a mistake in this regard. All we are concerned with here is the amendment of the Bantu Administration Act of 1927. Because we are concerned with the administration of that specific Act, it would make the position even more difficult if the amendment were accepted. I want to put this to the hon. member for his consideration. If under the administration of the Act a case were to arise and it had to be proved that that person was in fact aware of this matter which affected him, the onus would rest on the administration itself to prove that he did know that. As regards the proposed sub-section (3), I have also considered it thoroughly, whether one cannot accept it. It could be quite useful. I also want to tell the hon. member that we do not actually need sub-section (3). If one accepted the rest of the amendment, sub-section (3) would have fitted in with it, but sub-section (3) would merely make it even more difficult for the claimant. I want to say once again that we are not dealing with public servants. We are dealing with Bantu, people who are not always literate. We could then take refuge in this sub-section which could provide that his claim had not been submitted in the required form, and that he should draw up a new claim. This will make his position more difficult, instead of making matters easier for him. We do not want to keep claims away. If a person considers that he has a justified claim, we want to make it easy for him to proceed with that claim. I am very sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I imagine that it will be difficult to move the hon. the Deputy Minister now as he had some time to consider this amendment. I am disappointed that he has not found it possible to accept it. I cannot but just mention one or two points in his reply to me which seemed to me to be perhaps unsound. In the first place he says that it would make the position more difficult for his Department. I fail to see that. As the Act stands it is only after a period of 30 years, perhaps 33 years, that the person injured can no longer bring the action for whatever claim it may be. That is as the Bantu Administration Act of 1927 stands at the moment. In terms of the amendment which I seek to introduce the claim would become prescribed after a year. That is 29 years less, save in the exceptional case where the man actually did not know and could not reasonably have known. Only in that case is the period extended beyond a year. That is fair enough and I hope that the hon. the Minister will perhaps again think that point over. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the fact that in this case one had to do with Bantu and he pointed out that they were not as literate and experienced in these matters. But this is again an argument why he should be a little more lenient in not letting the guillotine of prescription fall upon their claims. They are far less versed than we are in the need to get moving about a legal claim. They are often hampered by a shortage of funds. They are more often hampered as the hon. the Minister said, by sheer ignorance. We would therefore in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own words be taking a more lenient attitude towards them by introducing this amendment. I stress again that the amendment for which I am asking is one which is in the Public Service Act and has been thought fair and right in respect of that Act. There we are mainly dealing of course with Europeans and their actions under that Act. But of course, there can be acts and actions under that Act affecting others too. So there is an Act and a provision which governs all sections of people. And I submit that here where we are dealing with the least advanced section of our people that we should not put upon the Statute Book a more severe clause. I can only commend that to the hon. the Deputy Minister and hope that perhaps even in the Other Place he may think better of it.

I want to deal with the argument that because we are dealing with Bantu we should be more lenient. But Bantu law, as you know yourself, does not know the concept of prescription that we have in our law. Now I want to give you some examples of that. In 1958 a chief imposed a fine on a member of a tribe. That tribesman made no appeal against the fine. In 1960 the chief confiscated a beast in execution of the sentence, and in 1961 the tribesman applied for a court order for the return of the beast. As a result the case has to be reopened. As you know yourself, the re-opening of the case arose because it had become prescribed. I want to give you another example which I consider most important. You will remember the cases of Zeerust when there was unrest some years ago. That was in 1958. Now 590 members of that tribe have instituted actions for damages after all these years. Surely that is an impossible state of affairs. These actions were instituted against the chief who fined them in 1958 in connection with their actions there. I just want to mention one other Act of which the hon. member does not seem to be aware. It is the Bantu Education Act under which one also has to do with the Bantu a great deal. In terms of the provisions of that Act the period is even shorter. That Act provides for a prescription period of only six months and not 12 months.

Those instances mentioned by the hon. member for Heilbron are of no help to this committee. We are not suggesting that prescription should be abolished. Actually there is no prescription period at the moment. We are supporting the Minister in that there should be a prescription period. The only difference we have is from what date prescription should operate. I should like to remind the hon. member for Heilbron that the average normal person who has a claim would be the most ignorant of our community. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Minister to deal with them less harshly than we would expect him to deal with a normal citizen. The hon. member for Heilbron mentions the Bantu Education Act. But there is a case where you are dealing with teachers who should be the most intelligent of them all. And it is only right that there should be a lesser period applicable in their case because one would expect them to know what their rights are. The hon. the Minister in referring to the Public Service Act said this extended privilege was given to civil servants who may not know what rights they have against the State. But, Sir, surely we must assume that civil servants are on the whole more intelligent and better informed. [Interjection.] Yes, but if that facility is given to them, if they are given an extra period in which to make application then surely, Sir, he must be more reasonable when applying the law to the ordinary ignorant Bantu. We are not asking the hon. the Minister to do away with prescription altogether. We are asking merely to apply this prescriptive law now for the first time to meet the ignorant man who may not know that he has a claim. And therefore we say that it should be a period of a year unless he can prove that he did not know of his action until a later date. I ask the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to this matter, not necessarily to agree to the amendment at this stage, but to do it in the Other Place. But I submit that the reason advanced by the hon. the Minister for distinguishing between the Public Service Act and this Bill is not a valid one. In fact, Sir, it goes against his reasoning.

I just want to make one thing clear. I have moved an amendment seeking to introduce a new sub-section (3). The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that that would constitute an extra hardship for a litigant. If he feels that way, and if he would be prepared to accept the main amendment if that part were not there. I would gladly withdraw that particular portion of my amendment, namely sub-section (3). I would gladly withdraw it if he does not require that notice be given. But I think there is some misconception, because the hon. member for Heilbron, in supporting the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister, has instanced the case of a chief or headman who fined each member of the tribe one beast and now subsequently these individual members of the tribe are apparently bringing an action to recover that beast or its value, against the chief. But such a case, under the provisions for which we are contending, would also be prescribed. Such a litigant would have no right of action under the clause for which we are contending. Because anyone who was fined a beast and who handed over a beast would clearly know of the position and would therefore be taken to have had knowledge of the position, and therefore would not be entitled to bring the action after a year had expired. Therefore, in view of that further aspect, I wonder whether the Deputy Minister cannot meet us.

Seeing that the hon. member has already withdrawn the sub-section (3) proposed by him, we need not argue about it any further.

I have not withdrawn it. I made it subject to a condition.

Yes. The hon. member for Transkei drew a comparison once again between public servants and the people we have to do with here. I do not I think it is a very good comparison. The public servant may discover it when he comes to draw his pension, which is years after the cause of the claim arose. He may find out only then that he has a claim. In that case the clause, as laid down in the Public Service Act, is useful to him. But I want to repeat what I said a moment ago, namely that we are now dealing with different people altogether. The hon. member for Pinelands has mentioned the example once again of a person whose beast may be expropriated by the chief. I want to tell him that I also know the Bantu. Their news spread rapidly. If that Bantu is not at home and his beast is expropriated by the captain, he will get to hear of that expropriated beast very quickly. There are cases, such as those referred to by the hon. member for Heilbron, of people who knew that cause for a claim had arisen and who want to institute their action three years later. But now the hon. member wants to place the onus on us to prove that he did in fact know.

But his beast was taken away from him.

Yes. but now the onus must be placed on the court, and he has to prove that he knew about it for at least 12 months. That is going to make the administration of this clause extremely difficult, and for that reason I cannot accept this amendment. But I promise the hon. member to consider it to the best of my ability, and if it is possible I shall accept an amendment, but he should not take that as a very strong promise.

Does the hon. member for Pinelands withdraw his amendment?

No, it was a conditional offer.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

When this matter was discussed in the second reading, we pointed out to the Minister that this was an act of mala fide to the Transkei Government in that that Government had been given authority in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act to legislate for and to control the issue of licences. Clause 3 now restores to the Trust the powers which he had under the Land Act of 1936 to control the entry of non-Natives to the Reserves and to issue licences. With regard to the control of the entry of non-Natives to the Reserves he agreed that there should be control by the Government of the Republic. In fact, we attacked this Government for not having been aware of the fact that they were handing over control and were unable to stop undesirables from entering the Reserves. But of course we have come to expect this type of inefficiency from the Government. But in regard to subsection (3) of Section 24 of Act 18 of 1936, that deals with the issue of licences, the Deputy Minister told us that they would not apply the provision of this law until they had consulted with the Transkei Government. In fact, that was why they inserted sub-section (2), which laid down that the section shall not come into operation until promulgated by the State President. Now I should like to know from him whether he has consulted the Transkei Government yet. A few weeks have passed now. Has he told them what he is doing? Has he let the Chief Minister of the Transkei know that he is now interfering with matters which have been handed over to the Transkei and that he is now going to control the issue of licences, although he gave that power to the Transkei Government. He said he would consult, and I want to know whether he has done so.

The hon. member for Transkei is asking whether there have been negotiations with the Transkeian Government, because powers which were supposedly transferred to them are now being taken back. In my second-reading speech I made the matter quite clear, and I do not know whether there is any need to repeat it. I said that the Transkeian Government did not have those powers. It is merely that when Trust land was transferred to the Transkeian Government, the matter was left in the air and there was no control. I made that quite clear, and now the hon. member is asking whether I have negotiated with the Transkeian Government. Dear Lord, give a man a chance! Let the Act be passed first. It is a funny question to ask, whether there have been negotiations in the few days that have passed since we introduced the legislation. I do not know whether the hon. member is very serious about his argument.

I would have thought that after the second reading the Deputy Minister would have known what the position was, but he seems to be just as confused as ever. He says that with the issue of the proclamation on 1st April, I think it was, transferring the Trust land to the Transkei Government, control was then left in the air and nobody could stop the entry of undesirables into the Transkei because the Trust had lost the power which he held in terms of the 1936 Act. We pointed out to him that there was no control now, and he will remember that I gave him a dressing down over it. We said that the Government had put us in the position where there was no control now, but there was still control over the issue of licences. This proclamation had nothing to do with the issue of licences. The Trust was handing over nothing. The Trust had power to issue licences in terms of the 1936 Act. But the Transkei Government were given power to control the issue of licences by the constitution granted to them, and that is still so, but the Deputy Minister says that there is no control and that everything is up in the air. [Interjection.] I want to tell the Minister that he was not here when the second-reading debate took place, and it is a pity he was not here because then he could have helped us. What happened then was that we pointed out that in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act control over the issue of licences was handed over to the Transkei Government and I said that by passing this law now we are taking out of the control of the Transkei Government and handing to the Trust the power to issue licences to non-Natives. Sub-section (3) says that no licence to carry on any profession, business, trade or calling in any scheduled Native area or on land in a released area of which the Trust or a Native is the registered owner shall be issued or renewed, save with the permission of the Minister first obtained, who may grant or refuse permission for the issue of a licence. Now we are giving to the Minister, in terms of this Bill, this power which he held under the 1936 Act and which in fact he has handed over to the Transkei in terms of their Constitution Act. The Minister can now issue licences, once this Bill is passed, to a non-White, or he can refuse a licence. [Interjection.] We have no complaint about sub-section (1), but sub-section (3) is the one which I say is an act of mala fide towards the Transkei Government because there the Minister is now taking the right to interfere with the issue of licences, and that is a power he gave to the Transkei Government. I should be glad if the Minister would answer this question for us and tell us that he is not going to interfere with the issuing of licences and that he is not taking that power away from the Transkei Government.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Transkei that the Minister has always retained the right, because it was Trust land.

Nonsense.

The Minister retained the right in respect of all non-citizens of the Transkeian Government. The Transkeian Government retains the right to issue licences in respect of its own citizens. It is only in respect of non-citizens that the Minister retains this right.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.