Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I want to inform the House that, this morning, I sent my resignation to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, resigning from the Party and its caucus. I also offered my services unconditionally to the hon. the Prime Minister and the National Party, and I am glad to be able to inform this House that that offer has been accepted, because I am impressed by the hon. the Prime Minister’s frank approach to South Africa’s greatest problem—the colour problem—and I believe that in the policy of separate development lies the solution to this problem. I am also glad to have the opportunity of supporting the Prime Minister in his determination to fuse the two White groups into a great South African nation.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] … I can fully appreciate the manifestations of pleasure on the opposite side. The hon. member who has just crossed over to that side, the hon. member for Umlazi, is a hard working member and I must say that we are very sorry to lose him. However. I hope that he will be happy where he is now But I want to return to the Bill under discussion. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I should like to request the privilege of the hour. This does not mean that I shall speak for a full hour, but I shall in any case be busy for longer than half an hour.

As a member of the caucus of the Opposition I can testify to the fact that whenever consideration was given to a matter concerning South-West Africa the Opposition always went out of its way to ensure that it did not adopt an attitude which could have been harmful to South-West Africa. The reason is not far to seek: there is quite a good deal of sentiment involved. General Botha conquered the territory and brought it within the South African sphere of influence. General Smuts in turn linked South-West Africa politically to the Union after a hard struggle at the peace conference table. In 1938 General Hertzog and the United Party of that time saved the territory from a take-over from within its boundaries. During the Second World War and afterwards it was again the United Party who protected the territory from a take-over from outside, and saw it safely through. Amongst the Opposition therefore there exists a special feeling of attachment to South-West Africa, and a general feeling that nothing should be done to bring about an alienation between South-West Africa and the Republic. That is why the Opposition has on more than one occasion offered to co-operate with the Government if the Government ever wanted to establish a parliamentary committee in order to deal with South-West Africa Affairs on a non-party basis. The Government did not see its way clear to doing so, and I am not levelling any charge against it for not doing so. They did in fact have their reasons for not doing so. It would also have been a sacrifice for us as Opposition to have had a share in such a committee. It is a difficult thing, particularly for an Opposition, to have restrictions laid upon its freedom of criticism. However. I just want to indicate how far the Opposition was prepared to go in order to keep South-West Africa from being unnecessarily implicated in politics. That it did not happen, is not our responsibility. But nevertheless the Opposition, with every measure on South-West Africa which was dealt with in this Parliament, went out of its way to see whether it could not support it. The same thing happened when the present measure was introduced in Parliament. Let me say at once that this measure is not one in regard to which one need entrench oneself in a political foxhole, and I do not know where some newspapers got that impression from. The simple fact of the matter is that this Bill does not tally in any way with our own ideas on how the case of South-West Africa should be approached. It is for this simple reason that we cannot support it.

As I go along I shall try to reply to arguments raised here by hon. members representing constituencies in South-West Africa. However, there are a few of them which I want to deal with immediately. The first of these was, in my opinion, a quite unnecessary argument, an argument which was raised by various speakers. It concerned the question of the ccmpetency of this Parliament to deal with this Bill. As far as that is concerned, the provisions of the Mandate are quite clear. According to that this Parliament, subject to a few conditions, has full competence to make its Statutes applicable to that territory; it has the right to govern that area as a province, provided it does so in the interests of the inhabitants of that territory. Of course, it need not do so, and it is not being told to do so. But that it can do so if it wants to, is something which has never been questioned by an bod in this House. Just as we oppose any other Bill, not on the grounds that it goes beyond the competence of this Parliament, but simply because we think that it is not good legislation, we are opposing this legislation as well. The question of competence is therefore not at issue here; we are judging the Bill solely on its merits, and on its merits we have decided that to us this is not an acceptable Bill.

A second argument which was raised here was that in 1949, when the Constitution Act of South-West Africa was being dealt with here, the United Party opposed certain provisions in terms of which South-West Africa was to have received greater powers. The hon. member for Middelland in particular wants to deduce from that that there has been an about-face on our part as far as our standpoint is concerned. But does he not realize that his argument has two sides? If he were to ascertain what members of his own Party said in 1949 when South-West Africa was granted greater status, he would see that what they advocated so vociferously was home rule, i.e. more local government. Then they were in favour of these very things which are now, with this legislation, being done away with. So the pot cannot call the kettle black. Let me draw attention here to quotations which were made from what persons were alleged to have said in the past. As far as South-West Africa is concerned, I think I have what is perhaps a unique collection of quotations from speeches, from programmes, from manifestos, from statements, from promises, etc. Does the hon. member for Middelland remember his and other people’s statements to the effect that the finances of South-West Africa and its control of its own money were safe in the hands of the National Party? If we want to quote from speeches, the hon. member for Middelland will not be able to beat me.

You are aware that an agreement was reached between the parties as far as the 1949 legislation was concerned?

Yes, I know about that; that is correct—there was such an agreement, but you defended it vociferously. It does not behove that member, now that he is adopting another standpoint, to tell someone else that they have changed their standpoint. The hon. member read out quotations from speeches which went back as far as 1927 when there was only one South African party in South-West Africa, when the U.N.S.W.P. was also the National Party. I can go back to 1937, when a leader of the National Party said that they would not take up a rifle in defence of South-West Africa if Germany wanted it back. But what do we achieve by reading out such quotations here? It is after all very easy to read out such quotations here; in fact, I have heaps of them I can use. But the question is, what does it really achieve for us? The fact of the matter is that as the position of South-West Africa changed and fluctuated in world politics, so all the parties sought for new solutions in the interests of South-West Africa. With the fluctuation of circumstances in the world, in respect of South-West Africa as well, the approach of all the parties has also fluctuated. Let us face up to this fact. In fact, it may again be necessary in future for parties, who bear the responsibility, to seek new solutions to the difficult problems of South-West Africa. As I have said, I have many speeches here from which I could quote in order to make debating points but I shall put these to one side. Instead of that I shall confine myself to the merits of the Bill, and when I do have to make a quotation from any speech, I shall do so only in so far as it has a bearing on the merits of the Bill.

The Government issued a White Paper by way of explanation of this Bill. In that the Government made its decisions known, the decisions on which this Bill is based. Here I am referring to the Memorandum which contains the resolutions of the Government on the financial and administrative relations between the Republic and South-West Africa. First of all I want to say a few words about this White Paper before I come to the other reasons why we cannot support this Bill. There are a few things which struck me in regard to this White Paper. The first is that this White Paper is the first parliamentary document in which it is stated, to South Africa and to the world, that South-West Africa enjoys an “international status”. I want to say that I am sorry that it became necessary for that statement to be made here in a parliamentary document. We have heard a great deal to the effect that South-West Africa is now being brought closer to the Republic by this legislation we have before us, but with this statement in the White Paper, South-West Africa is in reality much further removed from the Republic now than it ever was before. It is certain that up to 1966 the Government consistently adopted the attitude that South-West Africa had an “international character”, but the term “international status” was never accepted. To tell the truth, the Government in 1958, through the Good Offices Committee, adopted the following attitude—and I should quickly like to read it here—

The hon. member for Middelland, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and the former Deputy Minister for South-West Africa Affairs, were denying as recently as last year that South-West Africa had an international status.

In respect of accountability to UNO.

It stands in the records of this House. It is true that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs used words similar to those at UNO in 1966. I say that I regret this, a great deal for the following good reason: I believe that if one begins to go into what South-West Africa’s position is, then the answer one arrives at is that it has what one can call “a peculiar status”. Its status is in reality uncertain, and legal experts such as Hahlo and Kahn, in their “The Union of South Africa: The development of its Laws and Constitution, 1960” put it as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the right attitude. If there is uncertainty, then it was not for us to have eliminated that uncertainty. That uncertainty amongst legal experts suited our purpose. They differed in regard to it, and I reassert that it was not for us to eliminate that uncertainty; and now we have the position that the Government is announcing to the world for the first time, in a parliamentary document, that South-West Africa has international status. But far from bringing us closer together, this measure has now indirectly resulted in our being further away from one another than ever before. One asks oneself why it was necessary to make this statement. I think I know the answer. The answer is that the Government was so uncertain about the interpretation which will be placed upon this Bill abroad and was so afraid that it would be interpreted as incorporation that it has now gone to the other extreme and has been obliged to give the assurance that it acknowledges the “international status” of South-West Africa. That is the first damaging effect this Bill will have and, as I shall indicate, this Bill contributes nothing towards finding a solution for any of our problems in regard to South-West Africa.

But the second point which struck me in the White Paper is how this White Paper repeatedly emphasises the special character of South-West Africa. This in fact the principal feature of this White Paper. Time after time it has to explain why exceptions are being made because special conditions obtain in South-West Africa; because the position of South-West Africa is so different from that of the other Provinces. Sir, my interest in South-West Africa goes back to the year 1938 when I convened a meeting in Paarl to insist upon the incorporation of South-West Africa as a fifth Province, because that was the line of thought people in the Union who were not acquainted with circumstances in South-West Africa had adopted. It was only after I went to South-West Africa in 1947 and experienced its problems at first hand that I soon learnt that one was dealing with a situation here which did not easily lend itself to government on a provincial basis. It was on the basis of that experience as far back as 1951, that I had announced that owing to its exceptional problems and circumstances the future of South-West Africa lay in a federative link-up with the Union. I want hon. members to note that more than a half century has now elapsed since we began to govern South-West Africa. In that time we have had a variety of governments in South Africa. There was the old S.A. Party; the old National Party governed for nine years, and there was a coalition government; there was a fusion government; there was the Smuts War Coalition and there was the new National Party which has now been governing for almost 21 years. And during those 50 years not one government, in spite of a host of commissions, deemed it desirable to place South-West Africa on the basis of a fifth Province. They always had the power; they could always do so, just as the power is there to-day, but they did not do so. It was only, as I said, after I had become personally acquainted with the practical circumstances of South-West Africa myself, that it was clear to me why one government after the other had refrained from placing South-West Africa on the basis of a fifth Province.

The interesting point is that the conditions obtaining in South-West Africa are so different that we believe that it cannot really be successfully governed on the basis of a fifth Province, and that it is necessary that it should have the greatest degree of internal autonomy—not external independence, but internal autonomy. That was the basis of the negotiations between the two parties in 1948 which led to the agreement in which the two parties formerly declared that we regarded ourselves as being linked for all time to the Union of South Africa, inseparably linked, but that in respect of internal matters South-West Africa wanted to maintain the greatest degree of autonomy. And that was the basis on which the 1949 Act was introduced here after those negotiations. I do not want to say that one cannot change the steps one has taken; I am not suggesting here that it should never have been changed, but I have not heard a single good reason in this debate as to why it should have been done. Sir, five members from South-West Africa have spoken. I realize they are a little excited about the by-election in Windhoek and they had to speak with half an eye on that. [Interjections.] What we heard in effect here yesterday was election speeches. I am saying that we can understand their having to speak somewhat hastily, but really, Sir, not one speaker put forward a single convincing reason or explanation as to why this Bill had become necessary, and least of all the hon. Minister who introduced it. His introduction was a mere formality. There was no real or thorough explanation as to why this Bill should be necessary. A great deal has been said here about our closer ties and that South-West Africa should be drawn closer to the Republic. But that work was completed 20 years ago. The South-West Africans are citizens of the Republic. The South-West African representatives have been sitting in this Parliament for all of 19 years. The men who talk about closer ties are sitting here as full-fledged members of this Parliament but let me say that they are no longer speaking the language of South-West Africa. They have become soft. In my time in South-West Africa we said: “We shall not yield,” and we took a tough line. [Interjections.] But they come along and speak here of safety and security and their voices are laden with emotion. No, that is not the language of South-West Africa. The old South-West Africans have disappeared. They are no longer represented here. Just imagine, Sir, this little Bill must now give them safety and security. Are they really in earnest now? To tell me that safety and security will now, according to the South-West African representatives, be brought to this country which experienced the difficulties that South-West Africa experienced, a country which had to endure all Hitler’s threats, which had to endure all the setbacks of the first half of the Second World Wars, which had to resist all the attacks of U.N. over a period of more than 20 years, a country which survived droughts and afflictions and Carpio and goodness knows what else, calmly and confidently, by means of this little administrative act, is ridiculous. I must say I cannot remember when I last heard such a pitiful display as the one yesterday.

This measure is a purely administrative Bill; all it is doing is to bring about administrative re-adjustments for its political effect is nil as far as the main problem is concerned. Here we read it in the White Paper. On page 5 we find the statement that: "… There could therefore be no question of incorporation or a change in the territory’s separate international status.” This does not affect the political future of South-West Africa, nor does it affect the main problem. One cannot form more intimate ties with a country than to grant your citizenship and representation in your Parliament to its people. That step was taken 20 years ago, it has been finalized. South-West Africa is linked as closely to the Republic as any country could possibly be, one cannot form closer links.

What are you arguing about then?

Well, the main problem is this. We must now obtain international recognition for what was done 20 years ago, so that the political link which has already been forged will be a permanent one. That is the problem which has to be solved, but this Bill does not deal with that problem. Here we are dealing simply and solely with the question of the best way of administering South-West Africa internally within the unity to which it has already been linked politically. That is what this Bill deals with. We are merely saying that what this Bill proposes is not the best way of doing this. Nothing furnishes better proof of this than the White Paper of the Government. If there was ever a political document which cried out against a Bill then it is this document, and I shall try to indicate how the White Paper demonstrates how difficult it is to integrate the services of South-West Africa with those of the Republic. We must remember that the Government has not even found a solution yet for the financial problems among the Central Government and the Provinces, and yet it is dragging in a further complication here.

Let us consider the White Paper. I have made a thorough study of it and on almost every page the Government itself states that the conditions obtaining in South-West Africa are such that it has to make an exception. Let me quote a few examples. In section 11 we find the following: “The Government is satisfied, however, that at this stage there is justification for a lower rate of taxation on individuals in South-West Africa.” An exception has to be made because the conditions are different. Paragraph 13 reads as follows: “In view of the special conditions obtaining in South-West Africa, the Government has decided that the existing system under which the Administration provided municipalities with funds at a low rate of interest for developmental purposes should continue.” This is another exception. In section 15 the following is said: “Estate duty formerly existed in South-West Africa, but has been abolished. It is not the intention to impose additional burdens on the taxpayers of the Territory as a result of the rearrangement.” Section 16 reads as follows: “The pay as you earn system is not in operation in South-West Africa.” Section 19 states: “The Government has decided that it should control the diamond export duty and diamond profits tax but under the existing legislation in force in South-West Africa.” This is another exception. Section 24, which deals with the Land Bank, reads as follows:

A whole list of exceptions is sketched, i.e. that rates of interest which apply in the Territory should remain unchanged, and the present staff of the Bank in South-West Africa should not be placed in a less favourable position than at present.

Section 35 reads—

This is once again an exception. In the territory long distances have to be travelled. An exception has to be made there in respect of subsidies in regard to the use of fuel. The Meat Trade Control Board and the Dairy Industries Control Board continue as they are at present. The Tender Board must be maintained in operation as it exists at present. One can work through this White Paper—I am only as far as section 44 now; there are 28 pages—and the tenor throughout is that the conditions obtaining in South-West Africa differ to such an extent that one cannot govern it on a provincial basis. One cannot incorporate it fully on an administrative basis. We are not dealing with political incorporation now; we are dealing with administrative incorporation. This White Paper supports the standpoint of this side of the House, and not the standpoint of that side.

Here, for example is another statement in the memorandum—

A wealth of statutes are excluded from application—

This is what one finds throughout the White Paper. Another section reads that the provisions of a specific statute cannot be applied in its entirety in South-West Africa and that other arrangements must be applied there, i.e. those already existing in South-West Africa. My point is this: The whole tenor of this White Paper emphasizes the fact that special conditions require special arrangement. There is a “but” everywhere. If ever an administrative snarl-up was going to take place, it will take after this Bill has been piloted through the House. It will cause unnecessary disruption in the Public Service. It makes matters unnecessarily complicated, and I think it would have been extremely irresponsible of the Opposition to have supported this step. The complications as far as the Public Service is concerned are legion. Even at this early stage I can predict that we can prepare ourselves in this House for amendments, adjustments and patchwork with this Bill as a basis for as far into the future as one can foresee. In fact, in the few months since the Bill was introduced for the first time towards the end of last session a few important changes have already been made, in this short period alone. Hon. members will see what is going to happen once the Act has been passed. I see that the new Administrator of South-West Africa recently made a statement in Windhoek in which he said one would have to proceed with the greatest circumspection in the application of this legislation, because there was so many difficulties involved. This is not the first time this matter is being discussed in the House. In 1951 there was a commission of experts under the leadership of Dr. Holloway. At that juncture already Dr. Holloway conveyed all the difficulties to us in written form. The National Party then appointed a commission to formulate its standpoint with reference to the Holloway Commission’s report. The hon. member for Omaruru served on that party commission. In addition the former Deputy Minister, Mr. Van der Wath, and Mr. A. H. du Plessis, who is now the leader of the party, made a careful study of the recommendations of the Holloway Commission, and this is what the National Party officially decided. I see here the signature of J. G. H. van der Wath, the hon. member for Omaruru and Mr. A. H. du Plessis. This is not a private document, otherwise I would not have used it. It was submitted to their congress and published on 26.10.1953. I want to read to you the recommendations of the party commission to its congress. They read as follows (translation)—

What is obtaining in South-West Africa therefore does not influence the Union appreciably, and that is why the attitude must be adopted that it must be approached from the point of view of South-West Africa. That is a very sound attitude. Secondly, they resolved (translation)—

In the interests of unity the existing arrangement should be maintained! Reference is then made to a very interesting section where it is stated what the consequences of an integration of services could be. It reads as follows—

That is an important point. The hon. the Minister must remember that at the moment the same party is governing in the two areas, i.e. the Republic and South-West Africa, and that for that reason there is a minimum of friction, which results in the fact that incorporation can be effected more easily. However, what the National Party’s commission is pointing out here is that if the position arises that there are two parties governing in the Republic and South-West Africa the entire matter lends itself to a clash if South-West Africa does not have this measure of autonomy. We are being told here that we have made an about face, but here in this House sit the men who resolved that (and I am reading once again from the report of the National Party Commission)—

Mr. Speaker, I can state that I approved this decision at the congress in Windhoek and I still adhere to it now. Does the hon. member for Middelland, who is always much too ready to accuse others of having changed their views, still adhere to that? That assessment by the National Party of South-West Africa was the correct one, and I have no doubt that it is still the feeling of most people in South-West Africa. Hon. members have alleged that the South-West Africans want this legislation. They fought an election and the people supposedly decided in favour of it. I question this statement and I will say why. Surely the hon. members, themselves being politicians, know that the vast majority of people vote for their party at an election. There are often aspects of a party’s standpoint which a supporter does not like, but if it is official party policy, he nevertheless supports his party. I do not deny that most people in South-West Africa support the National Party. When the leaders of the party decided to make this a party matter, they nevertheless supported the party. It is a question of opinion, but I am convinced that there is only one way of solving this problem and that is by means of a referendum. However, I am not advocating a referendum, because I concede that to subject such a Bill to a referendum would be extremely difficult. But unless we, as in the case of the republican referendum, can single out the problem so that the voters can vote on that problem alone, not one of us can prove whether the voters are for or against it. Unless this is done not one of us can prove that the voters are for or against it. We can merely express an opinion. I am telling you that it is my considered opinion that there are very few people in South-West Africa who like this measure. But the majority of the people there support the governing party, and those who adhere to it, will also support the party in an election if they want the party in power.

Do you know that United Party people have stated in public that they support it?

Yes, but it depends on how the matter is presented to the people. I said that I did not want to make many quotations here, but do you know how this matter was presented to the people in South-West Africa? They said to the people there: “You must choose between U.N. and this Bill. The same arguments were also used in this House. But surely that is not an honest approach. In the White Paper itself it is stated that this has nothing to do with the main problem. But there were numerous leading articles in Die Suidwester and speeches by members sitting there. They went from one platform to another saying: Look, if you do not accept the Odendaal Report and these adjustments, you will fall into the hands of the U.N.

They had to choose between the N.P. and the U.N. Party.

But I am admitting that people vote for one party or the other. The National Party have the majority. When this was made a party matter, the people still chose the National Party Government in South-West Africa. But they do not like it. I am convinced that there are members sitting in this House who do not like it either, but it is a party matter. I have here a report from Die Burger entitled “Mixed reaction to Report in South-West.” The report was written by the newspapers reporter in South-West. It states—

Of what use is our arguing about this now? It is a matter of opinion because a referendum was not held. But I am convinced that the voters of South-West Africa do not like this measure. It is so, Sir. The mere fact that the Government had to make so many exceptions, shows how many objections there were. It was as a result of the objections that the Government had to make all these concessions. There was even a member of the Executive Committee who objected openly to the measures. He is no longer there, but as I have said, it is no use arguing here about a matter of opinion. I am convinced that the majority of the people, also of those who support the Government, do not want it, because they know that it will merely create complications, which are not worth the bother. That is how I see the matter.

Let me sum up. We have two kinds of objections to this Bill. Some of them are practical objections, but there are political objections as well. I have more or less mentioned the practical objections. In the first place it solves nothing. This Bill does not affect the basic problem of South-West Africa, and a good government ought to devote the bulk of its attention to that problem before it begins with matters of this nature. I will concede that if this Bill were to solve the international question we would have been prepared to support it. We are prepared to support any Bill if it alleviates the main problem, and solves the international problem. But, as I have said, it does not affect the main problem. That is our first objection.

The second objection is this: The small measure of justification hon. members gave for this Bill was that it would lead to more effective administration. I do not accept that at all. On the contrary, we are convinced that it will lead to less effective administration, because the administration will become infinitely more complicated. Never in all my years in South-West Africa did I hear a single complaint about the degree of home government which South-West Africa had. It always worked well. The present arrangement is completely satisfactory. On the contrary too, what is more interesting, is that the great revival in South-West Africa did in fact take place after 1949. That was after South-West Africa had been granted a large measure of internal autonomy, what we called “enhanced status”. Then the paralysing position of a Legislative Assembly with few powers disappeared. The South-West Africans were given free rein in handling their own affairs. It was then that the great revival in South-West Africa took place.

No, the revival took place after the National Party came into power.

No. Sir, this is what happened. The Government in South-West Africa was subject to great strain. That was the position until the 1949 Act was passed That is why the parties then convened and pleaded for a new arrangement, what we called “enhanced status”. Do not forget, Sir, that the revival took place under the present dispensation. What I find very interesting is that all those hon. members, like the hon. member for Karas, mentioned the tremendous revival in South-West Africa. Of course, this is true.

The revival took place under the present Government.

It took place under the present dispensation. It took place because the dispensation is such a favourable one for South-West Africa. I have here a speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice on 15th November, 1968, in Windhoek, before the Afrikaanse Sakekamer. He said: “The growth and development of South-West Africa over the past decade or two (he is speaking now about the past 10 or 20 years under the present dispensation) as well as the continued prosperity and optimism of the past few years in spite of drought, credit restrictions and other restrictive circumstances, verge on the incredible”. This development took place under the present dispensation, before this Bill. Sir, do not forget that one of the reasons for the revival in South-West Africa is the fact that it has a lower tax structure. It has a very limited economy. Its economy is based on a few commodities such as diamonds, minerals, cattle, fish, karakul sheep, and very little else. It is precisely because there is a lower company tax that it was possible to attract that investment there. That is a fact. You can see how South-West shares on the share market have slumped since this Bill was announced. As a result of the proposals embodied in this Bill the attraction of investing in South-West Africa has become less.

In addition the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice made a very interesting statement. He said (translation)—

My point is that colossal amounts are being sent from South Africa to neighbouring territories. We are helping those territories with their development. The hon. the Deputy Minister stated that an amount of R333 million had been invested in the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. But does he say to those territories: Before I help you, I must have administrative incorporation of your services?” After all, one can help and develop a territory, as we are doing with all the territories around us, on a large scale, without administrative incorporation. Why is administrative incorporation suddenly so necessary in the case of South-West Africa?

Take the case of the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, whichever way one looks at the Bill, it remains an unnecessary Bill. But we have other practical objections. It is not going to contribute one iota to further the convenience of the inhabitants of South-West Africa. On the contrary, we all know that one has to cover tremendous distances there; the postal services are slow. The inhabitants have the custom of driving into Windhoek if they have a problem; they remain there a day or two, they see everybody they want to see, and their problems are solved for them in Windhoek. The farmer can drive back to Tsumeb, or wherever he lives, and his affairs have been settled. That is why the arrangement has been working so well since 1949. Now one has the position that the farmer will still come to Windhoek with his difficulty, but his difficulty has now been extended; it must now go to Pretoria. One need not be very clever to guess what this is going to mean, not that we want to level any accusations against the Public Service here, but they have far too little staff. There are major problems and now one is creating this extra problem; and it is interesting that the drafters of the White Paper themselves recognized that this was going to cause difficulty, and that is why they suggested that a special directive be issued to the effect that any South-West African matter should be dealt with rapidly. They want to create a kind of ombudsman, or whatever one wants to call him, to see to it that South-West Africa’s affairs are expedited. A directive is a directive, but getting it carried out is another matter. I notice that Mr. Van Bach, one of the members of the Executive Committee, has already said to his voters there—

Mr. Speaker, one is now going to have a greater degree of chasing around by officials over long distances—in other words, more bureaucracy, to get things done, things which South-West Africans have done themselves up to now and have done very well. Greater centralization always results in greater expenditure; more time is wasted; one has a general deterioration of services and this is all the more so when one has a shortage of officials as we have to-day.

I wonder what would have happened at the National Convention in 1910 if you had been there.

You can approach the matter in any way you like, and you will find that this Bill offers no added convenience to the inhabitants of South-West Africa, but it imposes heavy new burdens on the Republican administration and the inhabitants of South-West Africa do not derive any exceptional benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt briefly with what I call practical objections, but in addition there are political considerations which make it impossible for us to support this Bill. The Government has commenced a constitutional development here which is a reversal now of what we have had up to this stage. From enhanced status in 1949, with the emphasis on increased local government, its direction is now less local government and more uniformity between South-West Africa and the Provinces. As the White Paper indicates, further adjustments will have to be made in this direction of uniformity from time to time. The Legislative Assembly retains its name of “Legislative Assembly”; if does not become a “Provincial Council” and it continues to have ten representatives here in Parliament who were originally allocated to it on a different basis than the basis of provincial status. But now the whole direction of the Government is one of uniformity with the Provinces. Where there are exceptions, according to the White Paper, these are “for the present”; these are “under the present conditions”; adjustments will have to come. I want to say to hon. members on that side that this urge for uniformity will in due course affect everything and I believe to the detriment of the attractive distinctive character and the particular problems of South-West Africa. What the Government is doing here now could also, sooner or later, have the effect of reopening the question of the basis on which the white representatives have a seat here. It is those South-West African members who are asking for uniformity with the Provinces. They are the last members who should do so, but they pleaded for uniformity with the Provinces here. If the Government had very good reasons, as they do, for believing that the Whites should be governed on a basis uniform with the Provinces, then it will be inevitable that an issue will be made of the basis on which they are represented here. When the matter was raised in Windhoek in 1948, when the two parties met, they rejected the provincial basis as a basis of representation here, and they were prepared to accept six members with a limited right to vote. General Smuts did not like this, and at his proposal it was subsequently changed, but I am convinced that General Smuts thought that both sides would have more or less the same number of members and that it would not therefore make any difference. But I can foresee—this is merely an opinion—that as a result of this Bill the position will arise that attention will sooner or later be focused on this matter as well, and it will undoubtedly become a real problem if conditions arise where, as the National Party foresaw in its resolutions on the Holloway Commission’s report, the representatives of South-West Africa here, if they were to belong to another party, form a bloc opposed to the governing party of the day, and that a clash could arise. My personal view is that it would be a pity if the question of the representation of South-West Africa should be reopened here. But I am saying it is inevitable as a result of the direction which the Government has taken and the fact that those members themselves are now advocating a uniform provincial basis for South-West Africa affairs here. There can be no doubt that they came forward to put their case here on the basis of uniformity with the Province; that is the principle they stand for, and it is the principle on which we are going to vote in a moment, and they must not subsequently come along and complain, once it has been accepted, if demands are made from all directions for uniformity in everything. The Government itself will also find, if it discusses this matter with the farmers who support it, that it is going to have the greatest difficulty with its own supporters if it applies one criterion in South-West Africa and another one here. This will happen as far as its own supporters are concerned. Mr. Speaker, South-West Africa at present enjoys lower taxation scales, and there are very good reasons why this is the case and should continue to do so. I have already mentioned that the economic basis of South-West Africa is a very limited one. It can only make itself an attractive area for development by having lower taxation scales. What the Republic loses as a result is a mere drop in the bucket, but for South-West Africa it means a great deal if it is able to retain such an arrangement. For companies that advantage is now falling away and one will very soon be able to see the prejudicial effects of this on investment in South-West Africa. Lower taxation on individuals is being left intact, but I would still like to see how long it is going to remain that way, because there is a “but” to everything in the White Paper; for the present this and that will be done. Once one has decided on uniformity, then one creates conflict if it is not implemented to the full. It would be interesting to see how long the Government can maintain the separate arrangements which it is now maintaining.

Mr. Speaker, I have almost finished. In addition, there are political objections we have to the Bill. The direction which is being taken here is that all the laws of the Republic must gradually be made applicable to South-West Africa. Well, I do not want to make a long tale of it. I just want to confine myself to a few remarks, also because of the delicate nature of this subject. But, Mr. Speaker, our legislation is fraught with apartheid measures which arouse feelings, and some of these measures are already showing signs of wear here in the Republic. South-West Africa has always been in the fortunate position that there have been natural conventional boundaries, which have up to now worked extremely well in general. One ought, since one has a territory which is to such an extent in the international arena, and in regard to which the Government is itself stating now that it has an international status, to be all the more careful with the application of race legislation in South-West Africa. Take something like race classification. Mr. Speaker, I can think of nothing which would create so many problems as the application of that kind of Act in South-West Africa. I know South-West Africa very well, and I can tell you that it would be an impossible task in certain areas. Can you imagine what would happen if one had a case such as that of Sandra Laing in South-West Africa, and it dragged on for two years? What difficulties South Africa would then be bringing upon itself! I am only mentioning one thing, but, as I said, these are things about which people are extremely sensitive, and which can become powerful weapons against South Africa. Since the Government regards measures of this kind as fundamental to its policy, could the Minister perhaps tell me whether or not they are going to apply race classification there? I get the idea they are not going to apply it now, but for how long can they exclude it there? For they themselves state that it forms the foundation of their policy here, and surely it is obvious that if they can refrain from applying it in South-West Africa there is no necessity for it here in the Republic; and I know they are afraid of an argument like that. Then the pressure will increase until they apply it in South-West Africa, and then the difficulties are going to begin, and I am only mentioning one. It is one of our major objections to this Bill, that if one begins a process of equalization and if we are going to apply all our race legislation in South-West Africa, then one is going to create tremendous problems for South Africa.

I want to conclude by saying that regardless of how one views the future of South-West Africa, the Whites have a special task to perform there. Nobody has any objection to the Government taking the variety of people there into account, to the grouping of people together for administrative purposes, but the opening must be left for co-operation in future, and I think we must gradually create that cooperation where it is practicable. Here in The South-West Africa Survey I see for example that it has been officially announced here that the end result envisaged by the Government in South-West Africa is one of “constructive co-operation” between all sectors of the population. Well, that we can all support, and we do so. But how can there subsequently be “constructive co-operation” if the Whites are in reality being taken away there and if we say to the Whites there and to the world: “You do not belong there; you belong here in the Republic.” If anything, this Bill undermines the historical position of the Whites in South-West Africa. And the non-Whites cannot progress there if they do not do so in close cooperation with the Whites. Constitutionally South-West Africa already has such close and firm ties with the Republic as one could possibly have; to go further would not be in the interests of anybody.

Sir, nobody knows what lies ahead for us, and what the end result of the international question will be. We do not know whether the end result will be in our favour or not. But there is one mistake we must not make now, and that is to give even a hint of a withdrawal of the Whites from South-West Africa. No great country whose people went out as pioneers ever recalled its citizens to so-called safety and security. The Government is talking about moving outwards, but this is an operation recall. Viewed from every angle, practical and political, it is a mistaken process. I do not want to blame the hon. the Prime Minister. He inherited the problem. As a result the party became committed, and not one of its members gave the Prime Minister an opening which could allow him to refrain from pressing on with the Bill. I am convinced that if only two of them had stood up and said that this was not the best thing for South-West Africa, which some of them believe, it would perhaps have given the Prime Minister an opening which would have allowed him to refrain from going ahead with it. Sir, we like unity, but uniformity is something else. We think it is unnecessary; it creates problems: it eliminates flexibility. We prefer the unity which now exists, and we reject the uniformity which the Government wants to create here.

The hon. member for Pinelands said here yesterday that I had made a particularly short introductory speech. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to this. Personally I was of the opinion that I had made a very sensible introductory speech. I want to point out that it would have been the easiest thing in the world for me, with all the information at my disposal, which is also at the disposal of hon. members opposite, to have addressed this House for two or three hours and to have given it a rendering of information which hon. members already have. I thought that hon. members opposite would have done their homework and would have taken the trouble of reading the various reports, and that they were acquainted with the attitude adopted by the Government in regard to South-West Africa throughout the years, and that there was no need for me to go as far back as 1919 or 1920 and to give yet another survey of this entire history.

The motivation behind this Bill was fully dealt with and settled long ago. A very clear explanation of that is given in this white Paper, and under the circumstances I thought that there was no need for me to cover the entire history. But at the same time—and this is typical of the Opposition—I was attacked by the hon. member for Durban (North) in that he said that this side of the House did not discuss the Bill. The hon. member for Durban (North) asked why hon. members on this side did not discuss the Bill. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, on the other hand, wanted something else from us. He wanted us to rehash and dwell on the entire background of this Bill, as outlined by him here, whereas this is something which, like the position regarding the international status, has been dealt with in this House on numerous previous occasions, as recorded in Hansard. But the hon. member knows that he is only making a speech here so that people must listen to him. But all these things had already been said and consequently I did not deem it fit to cover the entire history once again.

But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made certain statements here and at times hit out at random without his being able to give explanations of or advance any reasons for those statements. He said, inter alia, that the economic revival in South-West Africa had come about since the new set-up which was introduced by the Act of 1949. I should like to remind him, however, that most of the economic revival in South-West Africa has been taking place since the publication of the report of the Odendaal Commission. Literally hundreds of houses were unoccupied in South-West Africa prior to the publication of that report, but at present one cannot find as much as a room to let in Windhoek. Do you know, Sir, that last week one of the biggest financial transactions was concluded in Windhoek. An empty plot in the central area was sold for R550,000. This illustrates what economic revival has been taking place since the publication of the report of the Odendaal Commission and since it has become known that the steps we are taking at present were in the offing. These are the circumstances under which this economic revival has been taking place.

The hon. member referred to the report which was published 20 years ago by the commission of which Mr. van der Wath, the present Administrator of South-West Africa, was chairman. The hon. member read extracts from that report, but omitted “under present circumstances”. I would have liked the hon. member to have emphasized that, if he had read it. In the course of those 20 years the circumstances of South-West Africa towards the rest of the world, and in fact, of South Africa towards the rest of the world, and especially Africa, have undergone such a tremendous change that the position then and the position now cannot really be compared. This is the answer to the things read out by the hon. member. The hon. member, unlike other members who spoke on this measure, said quite rightly that this was an administrative arrangement. He is right: this is an administrative arrangement. I would not say that this arrangement has no constitutional implications whatsoever, because as a result of the administrative arrangements there are changes to the administration undertaken by the Republic in South-West Africa as well as to that part of the administration in South-West Africa undertaken by South-West Africa itself. Only to the extent to which there will be administrative readjustment will there, by implication, be any constitutional change. The hon. member for South Coast also referred to this yesterday. The hon. member said quite rightly that this in fact was not a constitutional change. This is all the more reason why I did not think it advisable to cover the whole constitutional development yet again, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would have liked me to do here. The hon. member contradicted himself on various matters. He said in one and the same breath that South-West Africa was now taking on the form of a province and that South-West Africa was being drawn closer to South Africa in this way. The next moment, however, he said, “If this measure is doing anything, it is driving South-West Africa away from South Africa”. One cannot attach any value to such wild statements which contradict each other to such an extent. The hon. member referred to the international status of South-West Africa. At the end of paragraph 3, page 5, of the White Paper reference is made to the international status of South-West Africa. I quote—

I assume that this is where the hon. member got this from and to what he was referring. For the information of the hon. member I should now like to read the explanation which was addressed to him by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because he once again came along with the same story to waste the time of this House.

Next year the hon. member will come along with the same story again.

And then the hon. member still took it amiss of me for not having occupied the time of this House unnecessarily as he did. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said—

One at least has a definition of the whole situation, and it is in the same spirit that reference is made here to international status. If this is an administrative re-adjustment in any event, as the hon. member himself said, what does it matter? Why does the hon. member want to play with words when reference is made to international status, even though different meanings are attached to it, particularly in view of the fact that this is an administrative re-adjustment? Personally I believe that South-West Africa can be administered much more efficiently under this new readjustment. The hon. member mentioned a whole series of practical problems here. He spoke of distances and said that people could go to Windhoek where they could see the officials and get a ruling. I assume, as will the hon. member, that all these matters probably were discussed in 1909 at the time of Union. Do we now have to go to Pretoria when Parliament is not in session? It is a much longer way to travel from the Cape, or Beaufort West or Graaff-Reinet. In spite of that, a wise decision was taken at that time to form the Union. In any event, circumstances to-day are considerably easier than they were at that time. I think hon. members will agree with me when we look back on our history in South Africa that it was a wise decision to administer all important matters from one central point in South Africa and not to shape each province separately into a whole in the form of a federation. A short while ago I said that I would rather discuss the merits of this matter as well as the particular clauses to which hon. members referred, and then possibly make a few general remarks at the end of my speech. I think clause 20 probably was the clause in this Bill which elicited most discussion. Clause 20 is the one to which virtually all the members referred, inter alia, the hon. member for South Coast, the hon. member for Durban (North) as well as the hon. member for Pine-lands. I should like to deal with this clause in detail. If we go a short way back into history, we find that initially the Governor-General could administer South-West Africa virtually by proclamation. Legislation concerning South-West Africa could be promulgated by proclamation. At that time the Governor-General had the right to delegate his powers to the Administrator of South-West Africa. In fact, the Administrator of South-West Africa was the one who really conducted the administration by proclamation. At that time, under the constitution of 1925, the Governor-General retained these powers. This remained the position up to 1949. This provision was omitted from the 1949 legislation, but shortly afterwards it was ascertained that it was still necessary to have such a provision in the Act. Because of this Act No. 55 of 1951 made provision for the insertion of such a section empowering the Governor-General of that time, now the State President, to make laws for South-West Africa by proclamation. This provision, as contained in section 38 of the South-West Africa Constitution Act of 1968, is subject to certain restrictions, as were mentioned by hon. members. I should like to point out to hon. members that this measure was found to be necessary at that time because it was realized that certain legislation in respect of South-West Africa had to be passed from time to time at short notice. I think I am correct in saying that this applied particularly to things such as devaluation, the control of foreign exchange or financial matters of that nature. Consequently it was necessary to re-enact section 38 in its present form. I am aware of the fact that that section contains certain restrictions and that this new clause, namely clause 20, does not contain such restrictions. Now, I want to emphasize once again that in essence clause 20 actually is very restricted and, as I said yesterday, the object of that clause is merely to effect the practical implementation of this re-adjustment. When one examines this clause itself, one sees that it does not confer general powers to the State President to legislate in respect of South-West Africa, an impression which was created by various members on that side of this House. When one studies clause 20 one sees that subsection (1) reads—

do certain things. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the words “… for the proper administration of the affairs of the territory in terms of this Act …" in particular. In other words, he cannot act outside this measure; he does not have general powers; he can only act within the confines of this legislation. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) empowers the State President to make an Act of the Republic, with amendments, applicable to the territory, and paragraph (b) empowers him to repeal, amend or modify according to new circumstances an ordinance of the territory. As I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection, the spirit of this clause is really to be found in subsection (2), which reads as follows, “Any proclamation issued under subsection (1) may contain such transitory clauses as the State President may deem fit”. In other words, we see that this is a measure which is to be applicable only during the period of transition, that period during which the re-adjustments are going to be made.

When are you going to repeal it?

I shall come to that in a short while; I shall make a concession and deal with this point seeing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition feels so strongly about it. I should also like to refer to another indication of how innocent this measure is to an extent. This indication is to be found in subsection (3) of clause 20. A great fuss was made over the fact that these proclamations may be of retrospective effect, but the extent to which they may be of retrospective effect is restricted very severely. The subsection reads as follows—

In other words, it is not the entire proclamation, or the entire Act, or the entire ordinance which is being made of retrospective effect by him in respect of the territory; it is only the amendment which the State President may make of retrospective effect.

That is strong enough. What is the difference really?

It does have a meaning; surely it cannot be without meaning. Why else would we be inserting it here?

The hon. member for Durban (North) asked why we could not have followed the restrictive provisions contained in section 38 of the principal Act and have made something similar applicable in this case. As a matter of fact, he demanded even more, and wanted such amendments to be confirmed here before they would have any legality. I want to tell the hon. member in all honesty that I do not like the restrictive provisions contained in section 38 of the principal Act, and I do not like them for the following reason. If, in any democratic institution, one puts legislation into operation, as we can do in this case by proclamation, one must be in a position to implement such legislation. You yourself will realize, Sir, what confusion could arise if the State President made certain legislation applicable to South-West Africa, say, in July of this year, legislation in terms of which certain steps would be taken, and Parliament decided the following year that such legislation would no longer be applicable. This, from the very nature of the case, would create total confusion in the administration. But over and above this, the hon. member knows as well as I do that such a provision would not really be of any value to him, because whatever the Cabinet advises the State President to do by proclamation, will in any event be confirmed here when it comes back to Parliament. I admit, of course, that the hon. member would in that case have had the right to discuss the matter, but the hon. member has the right in any event to discuss any proclamation which is issued.

It has to come back to this House so that we may take a decision on the matter and not merely discuss it.

That is what I am saying The hon. member wants to assist in deciding on the matter, but he knows, after all, that the original decision came from the Cabinet, and that such a restriction would in point of fact be valueless to him in view of the fact that he has no hope or chance of having that decision rejected here. I nevertheless want to admit that I do not like the provisions of section 38, and if hon. members opposite have strong feelings about clause 20 containing too many powers, I want to tell them that I agree with them to a large extent, because I myself do not like legislation by proclamation; not one of us does. Hon. members will realize, however, that in this case, in view of the fact that there is going to be a change-over and that re-adjustments will be made, it is essential for us to have such powers. Let me give the hon. member an example. We now have a proclamation dealing with mining. We do not want to make our mining laws applicable to South-West Africa, but with the take-over it is necessary to make certain adjustments to the mining laws existing in South-West Africa. Let me mention a simple example. In that territory a person may be referred to as an “inspector”, whereas we in the Republic refer to the same person as a “foreman”. The two designations have to be made to conform so as to eliminate possible confusion. Then we shall at least be able to bring about conformity in the designations of officials referred to in legislation and who work in the same kind of Department. Consequently we anticipate that in bringing about this re-adjustment we shall have to make certain adjustments. Whether the administration in South-West Africa is run in terms of an ordinance of that territory or an Act of this Parliament, adjustments will have to be made. Hon. members will realize that because a change-over is now going to take place, this Parliament may be overrun with all kinds of minor matters. In practice it is simply not necessary to have all those minor matters attended to by Parliament. Consequently it is absolutely essential for us to have a measure such as this so as to enable us to bring about a smooth changeover and re-adjustment.

The hon. member for Omaruru and other hon. members, especially hon. members for South-West Africa, also discussed this matter with me and asked whether it was not possible to have some restriction as far as this clause was concerned, and I should now like to give notice that I shall move in the Committee Stage for an addition to be made to this clause. The amendment which I shall move, reads as follows—

1. (4) Any proclamation issued under this section shall be laid on the Tables of the Senate and the House of Assembly within 14 days after promulgation thereof if Parliament is in ordinary session or if Parliament is not in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

I know that this addition will not be of much value, but the proclamations will at least be tabled. I read on—

This refers to the entire clause 20—

I have been saying throughout that this was a temporary measure only for ensuring the smooth running of the change-over and readjustment. By making this addition I want to prove my bona fides to the Opposition in so far as they may have objections to this clause, and I think you will agree with me, Sir, that the Opposition will probably be satisfied to a large extent with this addition.

For how long will the proclamation remain in force?

They will remain in force for ever. Hon. members will perhaps ask me what is going to happen now, and in dealing with that I want to come back at once to the point raised here by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast asked why it would be necessary for the South-West Africa members to retain their seats in this House once this re-adjustment had taken place. I told the hon. member by way of interjection that there would then be even more reason than before for them to be here in view of the fact this House would henceforth deal with much more legislation affecting South-West Africa than before. We realize, of course, that in the past, as the position used to be up to now, we had to make specific provision in all legislation we wanted to make applicable to South-West Africa for such legislation to be applicable to South-West Africa as well. This remains the position. We have to remember, however, that whereas we used to have a very short list of matters on which South-West Africa was not allowed to make ordinances, we are now extending that list enormously in clause 14 of this Bill. In other words, that enormously long list of matters on which South-West Africa may not legislate, now falls within the legislative power of this Parliament. Consequently it stands to reason that henceforth this Parliament is going to deal with much more legislation in respect of matters in South-West Africa than was the case before. I cannot understand how the hon. member for South Coast can think that the hon. members for South-West Africa will then not have as much right to be here as now. Surely it is obvious that if one transfers more administrative powers to the Government of the Republic of South Africa, one will naturally have to deal with much more legislation in Parliament. Consequently there is more justification for South-West Africa members to sit in this Parliament. I admit that as far as many of these matters are concerned, we shall continue to administer them in terms of the ordinances of South-West Africa. We shall probably have to make adjustments. Henceforth, if we should want to amend an ordinance of South-West Africa dealing with a matter no longer falling under the jurisdiction of South-West Africa but under that of this Parliament, it will mean that this Parliament will enact: “Ordinance No. … of South-West Africa is hereby amended as follows.” Consequently, in so far as those matters are administered by ordinance and in so far as we do not want to make the laws of the Republic applicable for the administration of such matters, we shall proceed to amend those ordinances, if they are to be amended, in this House. Consequently it is obvious that hon. members representing South-West Africa will actually have more work than before. But the adjustments and amendments, amendments in terms of clause 20, which we are now making here to ensure that as far as practical administration is concerned the re-adjustment will take place smoothly, will, of course, continue to exist. It is necessary to do so. As a result of objections which have been raised, a protective provision will be inserted to the effect that this clause will only remain in force up to 30th June, 1971. In so far as adjustments will have to be made, I trust that the Departments will succeed in making all their adjustments prior to the expiry of this period.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to the Land Bank. The hon. members need only read page 11 of the White Paper. Paragraph 25 contains a short definition, really a reply to the question the hon. member asked here in respect of the Land Bank. It reads as follows—

This is so. Up to the present time South-West Africa actually pooled all its money, paid it into the same account. From that they also financed their loans in respect of the Land Bank, or whatever institution.

The recommendation is here, and so it will be evident that the rates of interest will remain as they are until such time as sufficient funds are not available from South-West Africa. From the nature of the case the position in respect of loans in South-West Africa will probably have to change at such time.

Who will pay the higher interest? Only fresh borrowers?

Of course. That is how I see it. I cannot see how it can be applied differently.

Yes, but it is not specified here.

Yes, I know. But we cannot embody all the administrative arrangements in this Bill.

Hon. members also referred to the executive committee. They said representation on the executive committee was now being changed. They asked whether it was a good thing that we were now bringing the election of members of the executive committee into line with the procedure in South Africa, in our provinces. I do not want to elaborate on this matter. This matter has been thoroughly discussed in this House. I have consulted Hansard and have read the discussions which took place at that time. One part I find rather interesting, namely a statement by the then Minister of the Interior, Senator De Klerk, namely—

This is only one of the arguments. There are numerous other arguments why the administration is carried out more efficiently when all the members of the executive committee are from the governing party. Personally I think that this is a sound principle. I am convinced that hon. members opposite do not anticipate getting a member on the executive committee in South-West Africa. This most definitely will not happen. Why are they concerned then?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to clause 14 and asked, “Why are the matters referred to in clause 14 not included in the Schedule?” I have gone into the matter and the position is the following. In the first place I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should understand that the schedule has been included in order to stipulate which are scheduled matters. These matters are listed in the schedule. These scheduled matters relate simply and solely to financial arrangements. Clause 14 amends section 22 of the principal Act. This clause also amends provisions relating to other matters in regard to which other financial arrangements already exist.

The hon. members for Durban (North) asked me for what reason we were no longer going to have the minutes of the executive committee published in two languages. I think the hon. member should ask his colleague, the hon. member for South Coast, whether the minutes appeared in both languages when he used to be the Administrator of Natal.

What about the cooperation we heard about not so long ago? [Interjections.]

What does our present Administrator in Natal do?

The hon. member may just as well ask me whether there is a provision that the minutes of the Cabinet should be kept in two languages. Any meeting of the Cabinet is completely confidential. The minutes are confidential and are only intended for members of the executive committee.

But it says it should not be in either of the official languages, never mind in both?

No, Sir, I do not think the hon. member will make that deduction. Surely it is obvious that we shall keep the minutes in that language which is understood by all the members of the executive committee. To insert a provision that the minutes are to be kept in two languages, would be as ridiculous as it would have been for the hon. member for South Coast to have said when he was Administrator that the minutes of his executive committee in Natal were to be kept in Afrikaans as well. Because of this we are simply removing that provision.

I attach special value to this re-adjustment for administrative purposes, and I believe that this will be better for the administration of South-West Africa. Doubt was expressed here about the administration in South-West Africa and there was doubt whether there were more efficient officials here in the Republic who could exercise control over the activities of South-West Africa. To me a Government Department is like a pyramid. The base, the portion on which it rests, is made up of the masses of the department, i.e. the workers. They are essential, because the entire department upwards is built on them. The apex indicates the direction in which that pyramid is thrusting. That apex, i.e. the leader or the head of the department who has to give direction in such a department, obviously is of the utmost importance. Therefore I think that it is essential, in view of the fact that at present we already have limited resources, manpower, and are very conscious of the overlapping of services as we have already experienced in Government Departments and provincial administrations, that a department, like a pyramid, should run from the top with one particularly competent person at the apex to give direction and to lay down the policy according to which that department is to be administered. I believe and I am convinced that by placing these matters under the various Ministers and the Government Departments, with the competent heads of departments we have, and with the assistance of the Department of Planning, which has been established to assist our various departments, as well as with the various technical services we can place at the disposal of South-West Africa, it will assist the Administration to develop and to manage South-West Africa more efficiently.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—107: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

I should like to move—

1. (1) promoting economic housing by the timeous acquisition of land required for the establishment of townships;
2. (2) investigating new methods of construction in order to curb rising building costs.

Truly, Mr. Speaker, we are living in the age of the sputnik. This is probably the first time in the history of this House that an hon. member of the Opposition who was to have moved an amendment to this motion, finds himself sitting on this side of the House before he has had a chance to move that amendment of his. I want to extend a very cordial welcome to the hon. member for Umlazi and trust that he will be very happy on this side.

Mr. Speaker, the fantastic industrial development of the Republic of South Africa, its fundamentally sound administration and the Republic’s strong financial position have been commanding esteem and respect all over the world. Friend and foe alike are agreed that in every sphere of society South Africa is developing into a giant on the Continent of Africa, and that it can in all spheres pull its weight along with the major countries of the world. The fantastic progress has also brought problems and responsibilities with it. The finest and best natural resource man has at his disposal, is the soil. We must make out living from the soil; from the soil we must produce our food for the human race and we must live on it; we must build our houses and our factories on it. Sir, South Africa is indeed a country of wide expanses, South Africa is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world, but in South Africa the same pattern is being followed as is the case in virtually all other countries of the world, i.e. that all economic activities are concentrated mainly in a specific region or around certain growth points. In looking at the map of South Africa, we find in the first place Johannesburg, the East and West Rand, the Pretoria area, Vereeniging and Sasolburg. We find that there is a tremendous concentration in that small portion of the Transvaal. The other growth points of South Africa are places such as Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Pietermaritzburg and East London, where there is also a tremendous concentration of activities. Sir, since its creation the soil has remained constant in all countries, but the human race is increasing by large numbers every day, and at present a considerable fortune is made by speculators in land who are exploiting in an atrocious manner the love and the urge every human being has to own his own piece of land and to build his own dwelling. With the rapid development of our industries in certain densely populated regions, housing has become a veritable nightmare to young married couples, to those in the middle-income group and to the pensioners.

This is not the first time this House has had to contend with housing problems. I want to quote to you, Sir, what Professor P. H. Connell of the Natal University said, according to the Sunday Times dated 24th February, 1952—

Little did Professor Connell know that the National Party would be in power for such a long time. It has definitely not taken 75 years to solve in part the housing problem that existed in 1952. In Die Burger dated 3rd November, 1954, we read the following (translation)—

This inter-departmental committee recommended that R8 million be spent annually in order to make up the backlog. I want to state in this House to-day that the Government has really performed miracles in solving the housing problem, not only for the Whites, but also for the non-Whites. Consequently I want to express my thanks to the Government and the local authorities for what they have done in regard to the housing problem up to now. But anybody who suggests that we do not have major problems ahead, is groping in the dark. There is not a single matter which is as much talked about at the moment as is the housing problem, be it in the Press, on the radio or by the man in the street. Every person who has the interests of South Africa at heart, is concerned about the extent of the housing problem in the future. They are concerned about the question of whether we shall be able to create the necessary facilities or whether everybody who would like to own a house, will be able to obtain that house in the near future.

In the past it was the mining companies and the local authorities that devoted themselves exclusively to township development. They regarded township development as a service to the community. In the past the local authorities was always in the privileged position of being able to purchase from these township developers a number of erven in the new townships at cost price. They also purchased these erven on behalf of the National Housing Commission. At the beginning of this year we witnessed for the first time a race on the part of large companies which had merged for the exclusive purpose of undertaking township development. These large companies are confining themselves to buying up certain lands in the immediate vicinity of growth points, for the exclusive purpose of establishing townships there. The fantastic growth of these companies has warmed the hearts of the rich, but what is the position of the underprivileged, the middle-income group, the salaried man, the white-collar worker, the artisan, the pensioner, those who fall into the income group of R2,500 to R6,000 per year? They are heavy-hearted and are feeling extremely worried. The land baron is getting richer and richer. Our major cities are getting bigger and bigger; our white nation is getting smaller and smaller, and one can only build a nation if one provides that nation with inexpensive housing.

Mr. Speaker, a very big responsibility rests on this House. This Parliament must not make a political football out of this question of housing. We must try to find methods here for solving this problem. We must discuss this question calmly in this House and we must come forward with constructive proposals for finding a solution to this major problem with which we are faced. Mr. Speaker, what are the factors which put housing beyond the reach of the middle-income group? To my mind the main factor is the high prices that have to be paid for erven at present. A further factor is the delay experienced in regard to the proclamation of townships. In many cases it takes from two to nine years before a township can be proclaimed. I want to hope and trust that this delay will be eliminated as soon as possible. The third factor is the tremendously high building costs. What is happening in our cities at the moment? Recently Die Vaderlandconducted a survey, and in Die Vaderlanddated 1st February, 1968, we read the following heading (translation)—

Then they go on and refer to all the existing plans, but in spite of them only one quarter of these people will eventually get houses. Sir, what is happening here in the Cape Peninsula? In Die Burger of Monday, 20th January, 1969, we read the following heading (translation)—

They go on to say—

Then we find this heading in Die Hoofstadof Saturday, 18th January, 1969 (translation)—

If we look at further newspaper reports, we find the following (translation)—

In other words, these properties were sold for R20 million above their municipal valuation. Then we find the following heading in Die Burger of 16th January, 1969 (translation)—

I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will make an announcement to-day in order to put a stop to this exploitation.

That is why you introduced this motion.

Is that hon. member concerned about the housing problem or not? When we want to discuss a serious matter here, that hon. member wants to do a lot of mischief. The Cape Times is also very worried and says—

If we look at the Star of Saturday, 8th February, it is very interesting to learn that the first stand in Johannesburg was sold for £10 17s. 6d. in 1886, and then they say—

Then they go on to say—

That is our charge to-day, namely that these young married couples in the middle-income groups are definitely not in a position to afford these high land prices. The report goes on to say—

If we look at the Witwatersrand, we find that the prices of land vary from R3,000 to R4,000 per erf, and working on the ratio that if one’s erf costs R3,000, one’s dwelling must cost at least five times as much, then a house costs at least R15,000 to-day. What can one really build for R12,000 in any area to-day? And on an average our people in the Republic fall into the income group of R3,000 to R4,600 per annum. That person must, in the first place, find R4,000 to put down as a deposit, and then he has to repay a loan of R10,000 over a period of 20 years. That means that he has to pay 25 per cent of his income on that loan. This, together with his municipal rates and taxes, comes to round about R104 per month, and I want to suggest that if one has an income of R300 per month and has to pay out a third of it merely for having a roof over one’s head, it is impossible and it will be very difficult for anybody to be able to own such a house.

I also want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister a few of the outrageous practices that are going on here in Cape Town and in Johannesburg at the moment. People who are renting flats to-day, are finding all of a sudden that there are new leases and that they are now responsible for repairs in those premises. We find that it is said that only two persons may live in a flat, and the moment a baby is born those people have to leave that flat, which is a disgrace. I know of a case of people who were on holiday on the South Coast recently. While they were there the weather deteriorated. Their parents were in a flat, but when they wanted to take their baby into the flat for the night, they were refused permission to do so.

But these persons are not the only culprits; our building societies do not play the game either. Over the past year we have witnessed the tremendous boom on the Stock Exchange. It is in fact when those people approach the building society for reinstatement of their loans, that they take that money not to improve their houses, but to play with it on the Stock Exchange, and in that way they are drawing the money out of the building societies. What I am pleading for, is that the Minister should introduce legislation here which should provide that, if a building society reinstates a loan, that money may only and exclusively be used for the improvement of that house so that the building societies may then be in a position to make money available to other people who are so badly in need of it.

Sir, now I want to ask what we can do to solve this problem. I want to plead with the Minister for a body to be established immediately for the purpose of zoning land in the Republic of South Africa. We must determine at once what land is agricultural land and what other land we may use for housing and for other purposes. My plea is that the land for agricultural purposes should then come under the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and that any other land must come under the control of the Department of Community Development and the Department of Planning, and that those two Departments must immediately cause a survey to be made of the number of houses that will be required for the next 50 years for the various income groups. We must determine now how many houses are required, and this must be planned.

It should have been done years ago.

My plea to the Minister is that he should look beyond these major complexes—such as Johannesburg and Pretoria—which we have to-day, and that we should see whether the time has not arrived for us to establish new towns from scratch. We have a vast, extensive country. We must establish new towns, but we must provide those towns with growth points, and we must give new impetus to existing towns. I feel very strongly about this. Why must all Government Departments be situated in Pretoria? Why can they not be decentralized so as to create new growth points? If anybody tells me that all of them must be in Pretoria, my reply is that for six months of the year we are here in Cape Town and administer all those departments over a distance of 1,000 miles.

I also want to plead that only local authorities or non-profit utility institutions be responsible for the development of townships for the income groups under R7,000 per annum, and that private companies be held responsible for everybody who earns more than R7,000 per annum. I am not concerned about the rich man. He can buy his own house where he pleases. I also want to advocate the new thing here to-day, and that is the sale of furnished houses to the middle-income groups. I feel that so much unnecessary money is being spent on furniture that the time has arrived for us to inquire into what it would cost to build a house and to furnish it and then to sell it to these people in order to help them.

In addition I want to plead for a tax rebate of the full amount paid annually in interest and capital on a mortgage loan, provided that there are more than three children in such a family, as well as for the rate of interest in excess of 6½ per cent to be subsidized, depending on the size of the family. I also want to plead for another matter which to-day is like a millstone around the neck to the man in the street, the salaried man and the pensioner, i.e. these municipal rates and taxes which they have to pay year after year. The city councils are building empires for themselves and the poor inhabitants in their cities cannot afford those rates and taxes. They cannot afford the high building costs or the expensive erven. I want to make this earnest plea to the Minister, namely that we have now reached the stage where we can no longer permit this atrocious exploitation to continue any longer. The average South African finds himself in an unhealthy, speculation-ridden urban environment, an environment where property prices and municipal valuation lists vie with each other to see which is ahead. I hope and trust that this debate will clear the way for us, that we shall be able to tell the public outside that we shall master this problem of housing and that the Minister will give us the assurance that the necessary precautionary measures will in fact be taken to ensure that housing is available to everybody. We cannot build a nation if we do not provide its people with the necessary housing.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brakpan has very eloquently painted the picture in regard to housing in this country at present, and particularly in regard to the middle and lower income groups. I say he painted it eloquently, because I venture to suggest that if we on this side of the House had made some of the allegations that he has made they would have been regarded as exaggerations. But they come from the hon. member and we can only endorse what he has said, namely that this is an urgent problem.

This is a problem which has been known for a long time. It has been discussed over and over again in this House, but it is a new problem as far as the present Minister of Community Development is concerned.

I wonder whether he will stake his political reputation on this too.

Definitely.

The hon. member for Brakpan ranged far and wide seeking contributory causes for the housing shortage. I think one can understand that he approached this problem with blinkers on in so far as he could not see the extent that the cause of the problem was the Government of the day. I want to suggest some of the reasons why this situation has arisen, because I believe they are due to a degree of neglect in so far as this Government is concerned over the years. The motion highlights, first of all, the important role of housing in the promotion of family life. None of us can disagree with the hon. member when he stresses the importance of housing. I believe it is one of the tragedies in South Africa that so many young couples are unable to go into adequate homes of their own in the early years of their marriage.

The second point which the motion draws attention to is the question of the timeous acquisition of land for housing, but the hon. member was so busy painting his picture that he did not elaborate on the new methods of construction, although his motion mentions it. But these requests directed to the Government should be superfluous. Surely it is the function of the Department of Community Development to see to and to deal with the housing problem for all the people of the country. It is a strange condemnation of the Government that from their own benches there should be a request that they should look into a problem which is obvious to everybody in this country. I know it is perhaps a little unjust to blame the hon. the Minister for what has happened in the past, during the period when he did not hold the portfolio he holds now, but we find to-day, in February 1969, that we are debating the problem of housing, and the latest report available from the Department of Community Development is a report for the period ended 31st December, 1966, numbered No. 48 of 1968. That shows that it was issued towards the end of last year. I mention it not because I want to deal with the Department of Community Development at this stage, but merely because there are certain facts and figures contained in this latest report which are most material to the matter under discussion to-day. I want to say in passing that I agree also with the hon. member for Brakpan that we are concerned here with the middle and lower income groups. He has arbitrarily suggested those below an income level of R7,000 per annum. We are certainly not concerned—that is not our function—with the wealthy who wish to have their estates and their large homes. They can look after themselves. But when I say that the Government has shirked its responsibility—and I hope it will be rectified now—I want to refer to some of the figures which have been given. In 1967, when an attempt was made to find out what the shortage of housing actually was, the responsible Minister was asked certain questions and these are the figures he gave. I refer to Hansard of 31st January, 1967 (column 376). These are the figures the hon. the Minister gave in respect of the position at that time. The shortage of housing was then given as 5,700 houses for Whites; 26,700 houses for Coloureds; 13.400 houses for Indians and 31,900 for Bantu—a total shortage of 77,700 houses. The hon. the Minister also made the following interesting statement:

What then is the position? If he was reported correctly, the hon. Minister of Community Development recently made the astounding announcement in Johannesburg that there was no housing shortage in South Africa.

I did not say that.

Then I am glad to hear that the hon. the Minister was incorrectly reported. After we had had long debates on the question of housing we heard a year later that there were still, according to the hon. the Minister, 4,250 houses required by Whites, 22,000 by Coloureds, 11,500 by Indians and 27,000 by Bantu. That was the extent of the improvement after a lengthy appeal to this Government to take steps to see that this housing shortage was alleviated. While this is going on and we are finding more and more members of the White, Coloured, Indian and Bantu population without adequate housing, we are also attempting to absorb—and I hope in growing numbers—approximately 40.0 immigrants per annum. The problem becomes more and more serious. The local authorities, admittedly with Government finance, are doing what they can but the task is enormous. The estimate of the Cape Divisional Council for the Coloureds alone is that 20,000 houses are needed now and this number will go on and on increasing. I believe that one of the causes of the excessive problem of planning housing is the number of families for which alternative housing must be provided. During this session the hon. member for Berea asked a question in this regard and the reply he was given was very interesting. The implementation of the Group Areas Act alone has required the removal of 497 white families, 23,587 Coloured families and 17,723 Indian families. It is an enormous burden to provide that alternative housing without also the necessity for slum clearance which I would suggest is one of the priority tasks facing this Government. In replying to this question the hon. the Minister of Community Development also said that he could not give the figures in respect of the Bantu. I shall not deal with this matter now as it falls under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

These people are not moved before they can be properly housed.

These are people who have been affected by the Group Areas Act. I can assure the hon. the Minister that, and I am sure that he is aware of this, 20 per cent of the houses which are for instance built for Coloureds in Cape Town by the municipality are required for the rehousing of persons affected by the Group Areas Act.

No, it is 50 per cent in the areas which fall under the Cape Town City Council.

Mr. Speaker, that makes the matter even worse. Twenty per cent is a sufficiently heavy burden with which to cope. But I cannot over-emphasize what the hon. member for Brakpan has said in regard to something else which is also happening at the moment. We have a growing number of white persons in our cities who are homeless home-seekers. They are looking around for homes in which they can settle. The fact that this has been allowed to continue for so long is the reason why I intend to move an amendment to this motion at a later stage.

Before I do that I want to refer to some aspects of the report of the Department of Community Development. I want in particular to refer to some aspects of a prognosis of what may be required in the future. The department has rightly stated its position in paragraph (109) on page 12 of its report:

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that sufficient funds are being made available through the Treasury to cope with the housing problem in a reasonable manner. If finance is the reason for the shortage then I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us that he has not had sufficient money made available to him to tackle this problem effectively. If that is the case he must tell us that it is not a question of for instance the methods used not being correct, but a question of finance. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us this afternoon whether the Vote which is made available to deal with the problem of housing is sufficient. If it is not, he must tell us what the prospects are of there being some improvement in the position. He must also tell us what his views are in regard to solving the problem as it exists.

In 1964 two of the department’s statutory bodies, namely the National Housing Commission and the Community Development Board, made a joint effort in this regard. I quote from page 9 of the report:

Then the report goes on to say what this satisfactory progress over a period of two years is. The satisfactory progress is that “a total of 2,150 sites on which altogether 3,173 dwelling units will ultimately be erected, were purchased at a cost of approximately R1,800,000”. The report then states where these houses are being constructed but when this report was being compiled it was still a question of their “ultimately” being erected. That is the crash programme and it appears that about 50 per cent of the housing that was required about four years ago was to be covered by this programme which has not yet been completed.

There is another interesting problem to which I should like to refer. In this regard too I shall welcome the hon. the Minister’s views. I refer to the difficulties of the building contractors. According to this report, and according to what one has read and seen elsewhere it is apparently correct that there is such a backlog of building that it seems doubtful whether the building industry as it is constituted at present can cope with that backlog adequately.

I now wish to read paragraph 136 of this report, and it reads as follows—

Notwithstanding all the planning in the world, if the industry cannot do the building then the problem remains unsolved. I believe one of the contributory factors to this unsatisfactory situation are the restrictions placed on certain types of labour which can be employed in the building industry. Let me quote the example of a certain contractor here in the Cape. A certain large contractor, busy with a public building in Cape Town under the directions of the Government was instructed to use Coloured labour. I went to see him and asked him how the work was getting on, and he replied it was getting on all right. I then asked him how he found the Coloured workers and his reply was as follows: “I have been in the building industry all my life and Coloured labourers are not building industry labourers. But I am doing what I can, and I am taking on double the number I really require to work each day. They provide me with a 50 per cent overall attendance and I can get on with the work.” I mention this because it is a problem with which the hon. the Minister and the department will have to grapple. It is no use planning houses if the building industry cannot erect them. It is a manpower problem and I am sure the Minister is only too aware of the problem and of its seriousness.

Then there is the question of the building of flats. We know they are undesirable for the bringing up of young families. The last census undertaken in Johannesburg indicates there is no surplus of flat accommodation, and that bears out what the hon. member for Brakpan referred to when he spoke about the high rentals, because there is no surplus. My latest figures for Johannesburg are dated 31.7.1966 and they show there were 20,074 living units available in Johannesburg whilst the total number vacant was 106, which is but .5 per cent. So it is clear there is no surplus of flats. This is the pattern in Johannesburg and I should imagine it is repeated throughout the country.

No, it is not repeated everywhere.

Well, it may vary. For instance, I do not think there is a surplus of flats here in Cape Town, there is definitely not a surplus here.

Pretoria and Port Elizabeth have a surplus of flats.

I know of the unfortunate flat project which the department undertook in Port Elizabeth which was not let-table. I do not know whether the design of the building was the cause, but I leave that to the Minister. I think private lessors have been able to let their flats in Port Elizabeth and I do not know why these were not taken. I have not seen them so I cannot tell the Minister why the Government has not been able to let its flats.

I want to use the opportunity to-day of again drawing the Minister’s attention to suggestions that have been made before in this House. I have asked him the question of the amount of funds available, and I also asked him whether he believed the building industry can cope with the higher tempo of building and, if not, what is going to be done to increase the tempo of building so that contractors are available to put brick upon brick and windows and doors into buildings.

There is another aspect of the matter which I wish to discuss now. Looking at the other side of the picture, there is the question of which people should be entitled to occupy houses when they do become available. I believe the Government levels for economic housing loans—the 90 per cent loans—are unrealistic. The income is fixed at R250 per month but the figure of R10,000 as the maximum purchase price is quite unrealistic in any city. One cannot buy a three-roomed house for R10,000. I think the figure was increased last year, but by then the cost of housing had by far exceeded the new limit. I want to suggest to the Minister that this limit be raised higher to assist in overcoming the housing problem.

Do you mean the limit of income or the limit of the loan?

No, the limit fixed on the purchase price. I am talking of a 90 per cent bond on a figure higher than R10,000. As I mentioned, these loans are available to persons earning up to R250 per month.

R300 per month.

R300 per month, with two children. They can get those loans provided the cost of the house which is being purchased or built does not exceed R10,000. In our view that ceiling is an unrealistic one, having regard to the condition of the market at the present time.

The hon. member for Brakpan referred to delays encountered in the proclaiming of townships. It is a very serious matter. I believe there are three factors which contribute to the high price of ground to which the hon. member has referred. The one is if a person acquires a piece of ground at a not inconsiderable outlay of funds for the purpose of establishing a township every month of delay means that that person must get back interest on his money during the period of delay, and thus the selling price of the ground rises all the time. The hon. member has referred to delays of up to two and three years, but I know of delays of up to five years and longer. There seems to be much crossing of lines, if I may put it that way, between the provincial authorities, the Department of Community Development, and the National Roads department who cannot make up their minds where national roads are going to be built. These are causes of the delays referred to.

Another reason I believe to be the development costs. The cost of roads and other facilities to be provided by a township developer is enormous. The endowment costs which the township owner has to pay to the local authority and the provincial administration on the sale of any (property adds further to ground cost.

I do believe these factors are known to the department and I can only hope the motion moved by the hon. member for Brakpan will stimulate the department and the new Minister to establish a proper Division of Housing and get on with solving a problem which is crying out for solution in South Africa. We believe this is something which has been neglected for a considerable period and for that reason I move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point succeeded in quickly concocting an amendment, but in his entire argument he missed the crux of this matter. He used the word “condemnation” with reference to the Government because of a shortage of housing. The hon. the Minister was most definitely right: there are houses for the people, but where are they? A few months ago large headlines appeared in the Sunday Times about Bedford, which has now become completely depopulated. There are many houses. Surely the people can go and live there. But the same problem we experienced during the years of depression from 1931 to 1933, has arisen again. Then there was a sudden influx from the rural areas as a result of poverty.

It is happening again now.

There was an influx as a result of unemployment and drought. [Interjections.] We are aware of the influx from that side. Then a housing emergency arose. To-day we have a similar problem, but with this difference: Our housing emergency and the conditions that prevail, are not the result of poverty; they are the result of sound development in this country, for which we are grateful to this Government. I do not see people sleeping on the streets and on the sidewalks here. They all have a roof to sleep under. But the crux of this motion lies in the phrase “promotion of family life”. This sets us an ideal. We want to create conditions that are favourable to the building up of an ideal family. This is what the hon. member for Brakpan referred to. The Government has done all it can for the poor man by means of its housing schemes, whether sub-economic or economic. But as a result of certain circumstances the problem has now arisen that the middleman is adversely affected. There are no longer so many poor people in this country, but the conditions for the middleman are becoming difficult, with the result that he cannot promote his family life in an ideal way. According to the Bureau of Census and Statistics 14,172 building plans were submitted during the first nine months of last year as against 13,553 during the previous year in respect of dwellings. This is a normal increase of approximately 4 per cent. But our problem lies in the fact that the value of these building plans increased from R123 million in 1967 to R137 million in 1968. This represents an increase of more than 11 per cent in the building costs. This is our great problem, because now the middleman is being affected, and no longer the poor man.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that land prices are one of the main reasons why the middleman can no longer afford a house. He did elaborate on that, but yet it is a striking phenomenon. We all read the newspapers, and there are many of us here who read share market columns as well. It is one of the main features of the share market. If one looks at the share prices of six months ago under the heading “Property”, and one looks at the same column in this evening’s newspaper, what a surprise one will get! How many companies dealing with property and town development have not been created! A town development mania has broken out, and this affects the prices. It is calculated that the price of land should stand in a ratio of approximately 1:5 to the price of a house. Ten years ago a plot was worth R2,000; to-day it stands at R10,000. No one can build a house of R50,000 on a plot of R10,000. Therefore we can deduce that this state of affairs has degenerated to such an extent that it is now affecting the middleman.

I should like to quote from what Milikowski, a prominent Dutch economist, wrote. He established the ratio between the price of land and one’s income. His opinion is that if one spends more than one-seventh of one’s income on housing it will affect one detrimentally. He wrote, inter alia (translation)—

As long ago as 1946 a survey was made here by a certain S. Pauw. At that time already he found that the percentage of his income a person had to spend on housing in South Africa was 24.3 as against 19.9 per cent in Canada, 14.7 per cent in Sweden, and 13.1 per cent in Germany. Even the National Housing Commission accepts a ratio of approximately 20 per cent. Now, if we talk about land prices in the light of the developments over the past few months, how will that ratio not increase! But if we look at the problem in detail, we must set ourselves an ideal. Surely that ideal must be to bring about the greatest possible prosperity for the largest possible number of people. This is the most important aspect of the motion, namely the phrase “promotion of family life”. That is why I am anxious to take part in this debate. The promotion of family life comprises two aspects. We want to provide an ideal place. We are not now concerned with the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg; what is concerned here is the nest. As long ago as 1961 the Piek Commission, which has to investigate the question of family allowances, found the following—

If we look at our families, and I am referring to the middle income group, where is family planning applied the most? The very first recommendation the commission made was—

I am sorry the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here. He would have said: “Hear, hear!”—

Here lies our task, especially in regard to those with a lower income, because a young couple does not have a higher income yet. They are still in the initial stage. They cannot afford to buy their own house, owing to the financial burdens it would bring with it, namely the high rate of interest, the higher monthly instalments, rates, insurance, furnishing and maintenance costs. That is what this motion is about, namely the promotion of sound family life.

It is not only important to encourage people to build up families, but the social aspects are just as important. Because wherever there is a shortage of money, there will certainly be sociological aberrations. Even on the socioeconomic advantages of a home with a sound basis, E. J. Jammine, a housing expert and socio-economist of Pretoria, said the following:

Of primary importance is the fact that by providing housing accommodation conforming to the socio-economic needs of families requiring healthy housing accommodation an important contribution is made towards the establishment of family stability. This helps greatly in reducing the social disorganization which is normally associated with the disrupting influences of bad environmental and health conditions.

This is not in respect of family development alone, but we can easily tabulate these sociological aberrations and discuss them for hours on end; however, I only want to mention a few. Does one find child neglect more often among people who live under poor conditions than among people who have good accommodation? Do we find more divorces among people who own their own houses, or do we find it more often among people who rent houses or who board somewhere? Then we have a great number of other problems, such as the abuse of liquor, and we must take into account all of these. Our ideal must not only be to have a healthy, good and ideal home, but should extend further. We should strive to give these people something which is their own. We find the modern trend to-day, and we all accept it, that people no longer have as strong a desire to own property as they used to have. If a person does not own something, his sense of responsibility is weakened, because it does not belong to him. Here I want to refer to the question of rent. The man who rents property does not care so much about it and his feeling of responsibility towards that property is weakened. His sense of owning something is weakened and eventually it also affects the little he has. Eventually he no longer cares for his car, his furniture, and in the end for his own family. Therefore we must stimulate these persons so that they can also obtain something of their own.

However, how can we obtain anything for ourselves if we have to pay interest at the present rate? Twenty years ago the rate of interest was 4 per cent, but to-day it is 8½ per cent. Twenty years ago the redemption period of a bond was nine years. To-day the redemption period of a bond on property is up to 30 years. Does this state of affairs contribute to stimulating a person to own that house himself? He becomes satisfied to rent it. How then can he develop a love for something that belongs to someone else? It also leads to that person’s being insufficiently tied to his place. During the past election we found in the Witwatersrand complex that approximately 10 per cent of the population there moved every year. A person who moves every year creates further housing problems. Give him a house which is his own and we will experience stability in regard to this question. This question creates not only socio-economic problems, but also health problems. Health problems arise because persons do not remain in one place and because they do not live in their own houses. The hon. member for Durban (Central) made a speech in this House last year on the health conditions in flats. He said, inter alia that he found that the higher up persons lived in flat complexes, the higher the incidence of lung diseases was. He also found that the more people there were in flats, the higher was the incidence of neurosis, especially among the women because they had much less work to do. There are also many other consequential problems. There is the question of addiction. One does not often find addiction among persons who own their dwellings.

I want to conclude with a few last ideas. In the first place I want to ask the hon. the Minister that, in the allocation of these economic houses, not only the income of the person concerned should be considered. There are many young people who do not qualify for economic houses, but who may qualify later as a result of their social stability factor. Many of them are living in rented places and at some time or other we will, as a result of our population density, have to reconsider the possibility of persons being able to own flats. This matter has been under discussion previously, but I do not know what has happened in that regard. I should like to support this motion wholeheartedly, and I hope the hon. the Minister will shed some light on this subject, in order to give South Africa a healthier family life, a more stable family life, to the benefit of the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, it is most gratifying to us on this side of the House to find that the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Brentwood, and no doubt many other hon. members on the other side of the House, have suddenly discovered that there is a problem regarding housing in this country. Last year we raised the question of housing in depth on three occasions. We devoted a great deal of the Part Appropriation Debate to the question of housing and we devoted a great deal of the Vote to the same question. What were we told by the Government? In Hansard, 1968 (Vol. 22, Col. 917) the then hon. Minister of Housing said—

He had given figures of the backlog and the programme and his conclusion was that more houses were being built than there was backlog. The Minister went on and said—

He then went on to say that the C.S.I.R. had made a projection on housing and that their projection disclosed—

The hon. Minister then went on—

Then he goes on to tell us about a builder in Pretoria who had told him that he had completed houses at a cost of between R5,000 and R10,000 and that he could not sell them. He then goes on to tell us that in Port Elizabeth it is impossible to sell houses and that they are standing vacant. He goes on to say—

This was the attitude of the hon. the Minister Then we came to the question of ground and the hon. the Minister told us that it was the intention of the Government, in consultation with the municipalities, to purchase ground timeously. His words were—

This is the matter which the hon. member for Brakpan raised this afternoon. Sir, this was on the 21st February last year. We have now reached the 11th February, 1969, and I hope we will hear from the hon. the Minister what has been done by his Department. I suppose this is an opportune moment to congratulate him on his appointment and to tell him that we realize that he has problems in the portfolio he is now handling and that we hope that in so far as the country is concerned he will be successful in his new undertakings. Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us this afternoon what progress has been made with regard to this question of timeously acquiring ground for the building of houses. The hon. member for Brakpan dealt fairly fully with the problem of land but he missed one vital factor. Forty per cent of the land in new townships which are established to-day is bought by speculators. It is not bought by people who want to build their own homes. Stands are bought in order to make profit. Mr. Speaker, one does not want to deviate. In any case you will not allow me to do so, but the problem is that to-day people want to put their money into equities as a protection against the diminution in the value of their money. They are buying land and they are buying shares, and when new townships are established or before they are established, 40 per cent of the total number of plots, I am told by estate agents, are bought for re-sale in order to make a profit and not for home ownership. The hon. member also discussed the question of new methods of construction. He did not really discuss it but he does refer to it in his motion. We raised this question last year and the hon. the Minister again dealt with the matter. He made some very important observations and I hope the Minister will take the matter a step further this afternoon. What he told us last year was that it had been found that it was impossible for the private entrepreneur, the private investor, to handle adequately and profitably what is now known as industrialized building. He said that the Government did not want to participate in industrialized building, and that they had decided against it, but that what they were proposing to do, because industrialized building could only be profitable on a long-term basis, was to give long-term guarantees to any person who was prepared to build industrialized houses. In other words, they were prepared to say to somebody who was prepared to build X number of industrialized houses per year: “We will guarantee to take your output for the next 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 years.” Sir, this made sense, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us this afternoon that that matter has been taken further.

They are building plenty today.

I come now to the question of labour. Through bitter experience I have come to the conclusion that one of the vital factors in the increased cost of housing is labour. The Minister told us last year that the average age of artisans was 47 and that the position was fairly serious. He also told us that each year the number of artisans available was diminishing, and to-day, in reply to a question, we were told by the Minister that in 1966, 798 artisans were registered, 678 in 1967 and only 534 in 1968. Sir, these figures are getting frightening when you see what effect the shortage of labour is having on the cost of housing. Because what is happening? Building firms cannot get the requisite amount of labour and therefore they are unable to undertake work. This results in lack of competition amongst builders. There is lack of competition in the building trade and therefore prices are skyrocketing because there is nothing to control them. Sir, I am going to quote a personal case. I do not like dealing with personal matters in the House but my experience is pertinent to this issue. I have just had a building programme, not a very large one, of some R12,000. I asked eight builders to tender. Two tendered. I was advised by the architect to accept the higher tender because he said the lower tender was pretty useless. Sir, these are some of the things that happened during the building of this little property and which will indicate what happens to the cost. We had some cupboards in one of the bedrooms. They were painted six times because each time they were painted the job was worse than the previous one. Nobody seemed to be concerned. We had eight different painters on the job of painting the cupboards. That went into the cost of the job. We had a little fireplace around which they had to put some marble. They measured the marble; the marble was sent out and it turned out to be the wrong size. They took it back again. About two weeks later the man who had to fit the marble arrived. He sat and sat and sat and I said to him, “What are you doing here?” His answer was: “They told me to come to-day and I am waiting for them to send the marble back”; an hour’s work, but he sat for six hours waiting for the marble to come. He was probably getting R1.75 per hour; so one can work out what it cost. That went into the cost of the building.

He was polishing his marble.

But I paid for it. We had some touching-up to do; so another painter arrived very early one morning, at 7 o’clock. At half past eleven I said to him, “What are you going to do here?” He answered: “I am waiting for the boss to bring my boy.” “Do you have to have your boy?” I asked him. “Yes.” he answered, “I have to have my boy.” Eventually, at half past two or three o’clock, the sub-contractor arrived with his boy and he started work. What is the effect of this? The builders cannot sack their employees because they cannot replace them. When they tender for a job or quote for it or eventually complete the job and have to charge a price, they include wasted costs in their price. A builder said to me, “When I start a job I cannot tell whether I am going to make a profit of R1,000 or a profit of R3,000; it depends on what happens during the job.” But when he quotes for the job he quotes on the basis of a profit of R3,000. That is what everybody in the country is paying for to-day. What is the cause of this? The hon. the Minister knows it as well as I do. He also knows as well as I do that in practically every small contract in Johannesburg the builders are not obeying the law; they are all employing Bantu. One builder said to me, “I am one of the unlucky ones; they have caught me about five times last year, but what can I do? They are the only people I can get; I have to use them.” Bantu are painting all over the place. I guarantee that there are more Bantu painters in Johannesburg …

What did they do to you when they caught you?

They did not catch me; I had nothing to do with it.

Not yet!

Sir, I must ask for your protection in this matter.

I withdraw it.

Until the hon. the Minister can get his Government to appreciate what is really going on, he will never get out of his troubles. He will never solve his building problem unless he solves this question of labour.

The Minister must not white-wash himself.

Sir, there are one or two other matters which have been raised here and with which I should like to deal briefly. One of them is the question of townships. I raised this matter some three years ago, and I sent the then Minister the details of a number of cases. The hon. member for Brakpan is no longer here, but I gave the hon. the Minister cases in which after nine years the townships had not yet been proclaimed. The hon. the Minister then told us that he had set up a departmental committee and that he was consulting with the Administrators and that in the Transvaal things were already getting better. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us this afternoon what he has been able to do to get these townships proclaimed quickly. Sir, you can work out the financial implications by simply taking the cost of land now and then working out what it costs you at 8 per cent compound interest alone, if you have to wait eight years for the proclamation of the township. You will realize immediately what difference it makes to the cost of building houses.

We have very little power in that respect.

Look what the Government has done to South-West. Why not turn the screw a little bit on the provinces to get these things done? I know the hon. member for South Coast will not like it, but the provinces have had to listen to the Government in regard to other matters, so Natal can be made to toe the line!

Sir, the other question is the question of subdivision. I have said before in this House and I repeat that we in South Africa must get used to living on smaller areas of land. I have also said that we do not want to force this on the public. I do not like regulations and I do not like rule by regulation; we have to educate the public. But one way in which we can help is by making the subdivision of land easier. Whether you have two acres of land to-day, three acres or one and a half acre, the provisions of the township are that you can only have one home on that land. Even if you want subdivision, when it is permitted—in Johannesburg, for example, many five-acre stands have been broken up into acre stands—it takes an inordinate amount of time. I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter. I know that this is a matter for the municipalities and the provinces, and I know that he has no authority there either but I hope he will use the benign influence which I am sure he has to see whether we cannot get these subdivisions made more expeditiously.

Sir, I think there are four, five or six vital factors in this issue to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention. The one is smaller plots; the other is quicker proclamation of townships; the third is better use of labour; the fourth is this question of industrialized building; the fifth is re-zoning and the sixth, of course, is my hobby-horse, which the hon. the Minister re-introduced here this afternoon, i.e. the question of sectional title, which I hope we will have by the end of this Session, when we will again be able to help the Minister. Sir, all these matters are urgent. I think it is gratifying that two members on the government benches have had the courage, in the face of what the Minister said last year, to bring this motion before the House.

When I listened to the speech of the mover of the motion, I thought we were going to hear something of great importance and that we might get some new ideas as to what should be done with a view to making up the backlog in the provision of housing. Well, I was disappointed, because the hon. member did not speak to the second half of his motion at all. I want to devote my remarks more to the amendment than to the motion for the reason that I think that this motion is merely a pious one. We have had three Ministers now over a succession of years telling us that everything was in hand, that everything was in order, that everything was going to be done, and taking unto themselves all the necessary administrative power to dragoon municipalities and provincial administrations to get on with the job. I recall that the present Minister of Defence, when he was Minister of Community Development, went to Europe and came back more or less convinced that he had all the answers to this very vexed question. Subsequent to that the previous Minister undertook a long trip overseas. He made visits all over the place looking at new townships, new towns in England, Europe and also in America. I wonder, Sir, if this motion is not the prelude to a trip by the present Minister of Community Development, because I want to say to him that we are going to keep an eye on his expense account before he starts.

I want to look at this problem from quite a different angle. None of the speakers on that side faced up to the one cardinal fact, which was highlighted by the hon. member for Parktown, namely the question of labour costs. It is history to-day, that the building industry, the C.S.I.R., the Government itself and engineers of all kinds have gone into the whole problem and looked at it from every possible angle. One has only to observe the attitudes of men on the jobs, and here, Sir, I can tell you a little story to illustrate the point.

I met an immigrant from Holland, who came here as a bricklayer. He was laying 1,700 bricks a day, but he said, he only got the same rate of pay as his colleague laying 1,000 bricks a day. This is the essence of the whole thing, while we have the situation, where by job reservation and by closed shop trade unionism, the employer is compelled to employ certain classes and types of labour. He is prohibited from employing others. We have reached the situation, where the trade union or the craftsmen’s guild only looks after the interests of their own people.

Another aspect of this motion in this particular field, is this one of using other methods. I can assure the House and the Minister, if he does not know it already, that all sorts and kinds of construction have been tried at various times in this country and in other parts of the world. The information is available. What the Minister has to do is to face up to the fact, the same as was done before the introduction of the Bantu Wages Act when local authorities were faced with the same problem in building Bantu housing. It was found that one could not let a house to a man earning a sub-economic wage by employing persons to build the house who were earning more than economic rates of pay. So the Bantu Wages Act was passed by this House and municipalities were able to train and employ Bantu to do building in the Bantu townships. It occurs to me that if one examines the report of the Department of Community Development, one will find that the wage which entitles a home owner to occupy a house of a sub-economic type is now getting very high, and the fact is now coming to light that a large number of our white-collar workers are really occupiers of sub-economic houses in terms of the scale of wages set by the Department to enable them to enjoy the accommodation being built by them. Sub-economic housing seems to be well in hand and I say to the hon. the Minister that whatever else he does, he must face the labour problem. We have had the myth of apartheid exploded here last Friday. I am not going to make any political speech on that issue at the moment, but the practical facts are, that even Die Burger says that we are economically integrated. This is an expression which is anathema to hon. members opposite. If you want to see those hon. members getting up on their hind-legs you must talk about integration.

Coming back, however, to the main and basic problem, after this problem of labour and cost of production is decided, one finds the position that the acquisition of land rises before us as an almost insoluble problem because of the high price of such land. I would like to direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a Minister of Planning. The Planning Act is another of those Acts of Parliament introduced by Ministers with a great fanfare of trumpets about what they were going to do, the great, big, broad scheme, the plan, the ideal. Planning is where the problem lies in the first place, because the Department of Planning is not getting on with the job. I do not think it is necessary for a private member to introduce a motion here just to give us the opportunity to tell those people to get cracking. When plans are produced, whether they be the plans produced by the Department of Planning or whether they be plans produced by municipalities, it takes a long time for them to be confirmed and authorized, and they are kept very strictly secret and confidential. It is rather astonishing to see the number of people who purchase land and find themselves wealthy overnight because they have inside information about the direction in which development is going to take place. I believe that the whole business of the acquisition and the alienation of land for township purposes should be done in the open. I can think at the moment of a proposition not far from where we are at the present moment, where a farm was sold for quite a fair price and the purchaser within weeks got something like ten times that value. This is all right, but that price of land lies right in the path of the development of that area and nobody else can get a piece of land around it.

These are things which are very real and I think the hon. the Minister should apply his mind to them. I do not think the Minister’s Department should be in every type of building activity that there is at the present moment. We know that suggestions are being made that building societies should be permitted to develop townships. I do not think it really matters who does the development of townships, provided they are planned reasonably quickly and that the plots are made readily available. The hon. member for Parktown pointed out, quite correctly, that the purchasers of plots in townships, subdivided land, are not the individuals for whom we have had such eloquent pleas made here, to enable them to own their own homes. These plots are bought, mainly by speculators so much so, that many local authorities restrict speculators to a limited number of stands and also impose a condition that building must take place on those stands within a fixed period or the land reverts to the local authority. This is the position in which we find ourselves at present. The building industry in its present state is quite incapable of bringing down costs.

We had some figures given to us this afternoon in regard to apprentices. I will not repeat them, except to say that the figures which I also got—it had nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper—for my own information indicate that there are only 1,648 Coloured apprentices. We have heard, of course, that the White apprentices in the building industry number 2,010. When I tell you, Sir, that the building industry is divided, and that job reservation applies in favour of Whites in the Transvaal and in the Free State and in favour of the Coloureds in the Cape and in Natal, you will realize that this number of apprentices is totally inadequate, and it is not a question of offering more money. There are other more attractive occupations. A most interesting report has been tabled, namely the latest report of the Department of Labour. Anybody interested in the training of apprentices will be well advised to examine the number of aprentices in the various trades. The Government persists in closing its eyes to the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Coloured persons. The hon. member for Parktown drew attention to the fact that Bantu are being employed in large numbers. Many municipalities train Bantu as bricklayers and for other building jobs, plasterers and carpenters. Many of these men are employed on the platteland by farmers to do building for them. If they are good enough to do that, surely they should be brought into the orbit of taking a useful part in the building industry to get this backlog of housing reduced. I am one of those who say that there are ways and means, which can be found, and quite simple ones too, to protect any White artisan from unfair competition by a man who is perhaps not quite so skilled or who is semi-skilled.

Speaking of semi-skilled labour, we know that the Master Builders’ Association reduced the term of apprenticeship for building artisans from five to four years. I think that could even be broken down further, because of modern methods on which the C.S.I.R. gave some very interesting talks to certain members of Parliament in Pretoria a few months ago. Certain people in the building industry explained that new methods could be used in the manufacture of prefabricated houses before they get to the building site. That work does not require skilled men, and I would say that the Minister could devote his attention to examining that aspect on the lines of the suggestions I am making. The master builders themselves are already doing that, and also the manufacturers. All the roof timbering and the harness, to borrow an expression from the motor industry, for the electrical wiring, can all be prefabricated off the building site at considerably less cost than when an artisan has to do the particular work himself on the job. These processes are specialized ones. You know, of course, Sir, that door-frames and window-frames, which the trade is doing its best to get into standard sizes, are manufactured a long way away from the job, particularly the wooden items. In addition to that, there are standard sizes for flooring. All sorts of things of that kind are available for use by contractors. I think the Minister should realize that new methods of construction already exist. Nobody is impressed by new methods of building when it is suggested that they build in concrete or in pisé de terre or that they build in “dagga” or lath and plaster, or anything else. The Minister himself knows that he had to cut across municipal regulations in many cases to permit himself to build houses which were substandard according to the municipal regulations, where walls are specified by the municipality at nine inches and the Department built houses with single brick walls, especially on the inside, of four and a half inches and even thinner.

This, then, I think, is the line of thinking which I would like to see the Minister pursue. I do hope that he is not going to create, as was suggested by the mover of this motion, that we should have another body, which will be parcelling out the whole of the land in the Republic and then busy itself for about 25 years deciding that there is really nothing that it can do about it.

In conclusion, before I resume my seat, I want to say that years ago, when I was in an executive position in another place, the defence of agricultural land and the subdivision of farmland was, shall I say, one of the most discussed items in that particular body. Therefore, I think that for the Minister of Planning it is inopportune and a little bit ridiculous to suggest that we should now bring into being another body which will override the Minister of Planning and all the other Ministers of everything else, who deals with housing and community development to see whether they can now decide what the future use of all land should be. One final point is this. In the United States they have a very good system, which I had the opportunity of investigating when I went there on behalf of the Cape Provincial Administration some 12 years ago. They have a local board of zoning appeals. Half of the problems in regard to land in this country lie in the fact that in town planning schemes arbitrary lines are drawn by gentlemen sitting in offices, town planners, architects and engineers. Those on one side of the line find themselves in receipt of a fortune, because their usage is zoned high for multiple use while the other side is zoned for single storey residential. People in the United States can go to this board of zoning appeals where there is a court, which is open. There they can argue their case against the zoning or against the usage which has been decided by the local authority in the town concerned, and obtain redress.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank my friend the hon. member for Parktown very warmly for his congratulations upon my appointment as Minister of Community Development and Public Works. He expressed the hope that I would do my work well and I promise him that that will be the case. I was a very good Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and I promise to be a better Minister of Community Development.

When are you going for your trip overseas, Blaar?

I promise not to undertake one. I welcome the motion by the hon. member for Brakpan and I want to congratulate him on the way in which he introduced it. I also want to express my warm appreciation to the member who moved the amendment and also to the other members for the extremely responsible way in which they dealt with this motion. I must now honestly say that, except for a small exception here and there, no attempt was made to drag any politics into this debate. I cannot see the reason for the hon. member for Pinetown’s objection. The fact that there was a comprehensive discussion on the question of housing last year, is sufficient reason for him why the member for Brakpan should not once more discuss the question of housing this year. As far as housing is concerned the position is continually changing and the problem is increasing tremendously, not the problem of a housing shortage, but that of meeting the ever-increasing demand, and of meeting it in such a way that the people, especially the lower and middle income groups, can be properly accommodated at reasonable prices. This problem is becoming so much more difficult every year that I can hardly envisage that a session will pass in which housing will not be discussed. Proper housing for the entire population at prices which they can afford, is the ideal of any Government and most definitely the ideal of this Government as well. I want to say to this House that in this task which has been entrusted to me, I regard the provision of housing for the poor groups, for the lower income groups and for the middle income groups as my most important task. They must be houses which are near enough to their places of employment, but also houses which they can afford. I regard this as my most important task. This Government has a record over the past 20 years, as far as housing is concerned, of which it can be very proud. We do have problems to-day in connection with certain bottlenecks, but we do not have an insurmountable housing problem in South Africa. Here I have no hesitation in paying tribute to my two predecessors, Messrs. Willie Maree and P. W. Botha, for what they did to solve the housing problem in this country. I do not want to make any recriminations now, because it was as a result of circumstances beyond the control of our Government and, in fact, the control of any Government, but we must remember that when this Government took over the reins 20 years ago there was a fantastic housing shortage in South Africa. It was as a result of the war; it was as a result of the fact that for so many years building work could not be proceeded with. The fact remains that the Government took over the reins in the face of a fantastic housing shortage. However, they have managed to solve that problem to a large extent. It is generally accepted that nothing contributes so much to orderliness, law-abidingness and general satisfaction in the national economy as proper housing. Although this Government has a record of which it can be proud, housing is the one task which can never be completed, but which year after year makes ever greater demands on the Government, and in this case, on the Department of Community Development. Every year more home units must be built by the State and by the private sector than were built in the previous year. My hon. friend the Minister of Planning said this to me. After I had thought about it, I came to the conclusion that, although it is now being presented very dramatically, the actual position which is facing us is that in the next 20 to 30 years we will have to build more houses than have been built since the day Jan van Riebeeck set foot on these shores.

Do you have the manpower for that?

I am still coming to the question of manpower. This problem of building houses is not becoming easier. Every year more and more limiting factors arise, one of which is manpower. Therefore I want to thank the hon. member for Brakpan for having singled out this afternoon two of the limiting factors which will prove to be our most difficult problem in the years ahead. The first great limiting factor is that the land around our urban areas is becoming scarcer and more expensive. It is a simple fact which we must accept and which we will have to face. The second problem is that of rising building costs, and there is no sign that these will not increase further in the future. Therefore, when one is faced with this problem of providing housing to the people at reasonable prices, one is dealing with a tremendous problem. I now want to tell this House what I regard the task of the Department of Community Development to be. In the first place housing will have to be provided for the poor man, the man who can only afford sub-economic housing. In the second place housing must be provided for the lower income groups. In the third place housing must be provided for the middle income group. I want to make it very clear here that I pay no attention to housing for people above a certain income level. The people in the higher income group will simply have to look after themselves. We make sub-economic housing available to local authorities at ¾ per cent. This is done on a large and very satisfactory scale. For the lower income group there are quite a number of schemes. There are the schemes of the National Housing Fund by means of which people, depending upon their incomes, which may not exceed R300 per month, are assisted in the renting of houses at subsidized rents and also in the buying of houses at subsidized prices. Then there is another scheme for the provision of economic housing for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in which the maximum cost per house may not exceed R6,500. There is no loan limit for these houses. The buyer only has to pay a deposit of R200 or 5 per cent of the total cost, whichever is the smaller amount. The amount can be paid off to the local authority over a period of 30 years at an interest rate which is six per cent at present.

Then we come to the middle income groups.

For them there are two schemes. The one is the scheme carried out jointly between the National Housing Commission and the building societies. These people can obtain 90 per cent loans from the building society, but the Housing Commission gives the building society 30 per cent in cash at 6¾ per cent, in other words, the borrower can obtain a 90 per cent loan from the building society at an interest rate which is at present 7.53 per cent, which is considerably lower than the usual rate of interest. Then there is an individual loan scheme in terms of which loans can be obtained from the Housing Commission and where the maximum building costs must be R6,500 and the maximum total costs R8,500, with a maximum loan of R7,650; this is also a 90 per cent scheme.

Surely this is too low.

I may just say that these figures are revised from year to year in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and they were revised last year. But I do not agree at all with hon. members that people must necessarily have houses of R10,000. I can mention examples where we provide much better much cheaper houses, very neat and very respectable houses. The most important principle which we maintain is this. In no case may the buyer or tenant spend more than 25 per cent of the breadwinner’s income on either the rent or the payment of interest and the redemption of the purchase price. This is in agreement with general world standards. This scheme covers persons with an income of up to R5,000 per year. There are a few cases where the salaries of purchasers exceed this amount, but these are by way of very great exception. The rest of the people must seek the solution to their housing problems through the normal channels, i.e. through building societies and other financial institutions.

I want to make a very urgent and a very earnest appeal here to-night to the building societies to apply themselves more and more to the provision of housing loans to the lower and middle income groups, and I want to make an appeal to building societies to stop reinstating bonds for purposes other than improvements to houses. I have here a letter from a friend of mine and among other things he writes as follows: " … probably told you that I reinstated my bond on my house to the extent of R8,000 so that I could try for new issues on the Stock Exchange.” This is simply not the function of building societies.

Didn’t he pay it back the following week?

Yes, possibly he did pay it back. I do not think that it is the function of building societies to put money into circulation in that way. Their function is to provide loans to people in the lower, middle and also higher income groups. All the building societies do not do so and I am not accusing all of them now, but there are building societies that lend money in this way and I hope that they will no longer do so.

Now I want to come to the problems mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan, and especially the problem of rising land prices, round our urban areas in particular. It is true. Private developers buy up land at fantastic prices and there is tremendous competition among them to-day to obtain land. As a result the price of a plot is so high that the lower income groups as well as the middle income groups simply cannot afford to build a reasonably respectable house on such a plot. This is, however, not a problem which is new to the Government. This problem was already recognized by the Government three years ago, and three years ago, when land prices began to increase so fantastically, an inter-departmental committee was appointed to investigate the availability of building sites for Whites. The committee was appointed in 1966. One of the recommendations of the committee was that land should be purchased to provide for future needs. In 1968 the Government accordingly gave its approval for closer co-operation between the Department and local authorities, whose responsibility it is in the first place to provide housing to the people within their area of jurisdiction, for the purpose of buying sufficient land as a continual process. They must obtain that land to meet the future needs of the people who fall within the framework of the Housing Act, and these are the people who belong to the three groups I have mentioned, namely the sub-economic, lower income and middle income groups. My Department then sent out a questionnaire to determine the needs. The hon. member for Brakpan proposed that such a survey be made. Well, such a survey has already been made. Questionnaires were sent to all the large municipalities and they were asked what their needs in respect of land were for the ensuing years. Then the Government agreed to money being advanced to local authorities from the Housing Fund so that they could purchase that land and keep it in reserve for the future building of houses. I want to make use of this opportunity to appeal once more to local authorities, especially the larger local authorities, to purchase as much land as possible in their areas to-day for future housing, by means of money provided to them by the Housing Fund, so that that land can be obtained at reasonable prices.

The hon. member for Green Point asked whether there was a shortage of funds. Up to now we have provided all the funds asked for by the local authorities, from the Housing Fund. To deal with this problem of rising land prices, the Department itself has purchased large pieces of land around the urban areas. For example, here in Cape Town we purchased the land at Bosmansdam near Milnerton. That area has now been renamed Bothasig. The Department is at present erecting between 3,000 and 4,000 dwellings there. This belief that there is no longer any land available to the middle income groups at reasonable prices is not quite correct. Let me quote a few examples. At Bothasig plots of 6,400 sq. ft. can be purchased at R720. We have purchased land at Wondersvlei, near Kimberley. We have now purchased land at Macassar. At Melkbos we have now purchased a few hundred morgen, also at Goodwood and Paarl. At Cato Manor, near Durban, Riverside, Prospect Hall, at Fairview in Port Elizabeth, at all these places we have purchased land.

At what prices?

At reasonably cheap prices. Prices differ. At Melkbos we paid R300 per morgen.

But some of those places are Coloured areas.

No, there are of course places where the Coloureds must leave because those places have been declared group areas, but it is not the task of my Department to declare group areas. I say that we are purchasing this land at reasonably cheap prices. We have also purchased land in Handleyville in Johannesburg and at Parkmoor in Pretoria; at Empangeni we have purchased a piece with a view to the development of the Richard’s Bay complex, and we are at present negotiating to obtain the farm Rietfontein at Johannesburg, which is one of the last pieces in that neighbourhood. We are therefore keeping a watchful eye on this question of rising land prices, and the only way in which we can combat the problem, is to purchase as much now as the money will allow so that we can keep it in reserve for subsequent development. We are therefore following this long-term policy. My Department is also working out a scheme which we hope to submit to the Government this year, to make more and more land available for the future housing of the less well-to-do people, the people I have already mentioned.

We must simply face the fact that the amount of land does not increase. It is all very well to say that there are tens of thousands of morgen of land around Johannesburg, the Witwatersrand, Pretoria, Vereeniging and all those places, but it is no use building an economic house for a man which is so far from his place of work that his transport costs will swallow up too great a portion of his income. That is simply no use.

What about the poor Bantu?

I do not want to concern myself with another Minister’s Department, but what the hon. member apparently does not know is that the Bantu on the Witwatersrand have their transport costs subsidized to the tune of R12 million a year, but let us leave it at that. As I have said, it is also a problem to house the ordinary people as closely as possible to their places of employment. That is absolutely essential. We are trying to do this with our new programme of urban renewal, and I should like to mention a few examples to this hon. House of how we are thereby supplying people with cheap and decent housing within a reasonable distance from their work. In the first place there is Vrededorp in Johannesburg. Those people do not want expensive houses on large plots; they are perfectly satisfied if their houses are just decent, if their streets are in good order, and we are now replanning that entire area and renewing it altogether. Those people will then be housed quite respectably in houses which they can afford and at a short distance from their places of employment. The same applies in Jeppes, in Doornfontein, in South-End, Port Elizabeth, in North-End. East London, in Georgetown, Germiston. We are also applying urban renewal in Epping Gardens. We have already delayed quite a while as far as Epping is concerned, and I want to give hon. members the assurance that I shall give my very earnest attention to the matter in the near future.

What is happening in connection with this urban renewal? We are eliminating the slum conditions. Let us take Jeppes as an example. We are eliminating the slum conditions, we are replanning the entire area, we are selling the business stands and that type of land at reasonably good prices, we are erecting a tremendous block of flats for the workers and in collaboration with the City Council we are erecting another block of flats. This is the position wherever we are applying this urban renewal. This means, for example, that in Jeppes we shall not only double the residential accommodation, but are even hoping to increase it threefold. This is for people who will live in economic dwelling units; they will be near their places of employment, and one is not pushing them out. Now we are being blamed by the local authorities and private developers, but, Sir, I now want to put this question to you. Let us now leave Vrededorp, Jeppes, South-End in Port Elizabeth, and so on, to the local authorities and private developers alone, and what will happen? They will sell everything to businessmen, they will sell it all as business premises, and as a result the workers who are there will simply be pushed out further and further. We will then have to make provision for them on other expensive land. In this process the private developer or the local authority makes a great deal of money. The local authority wants to increase its revenue from rates and the private developer makes a profit of millions and millions of rands. We are then faced with a serious housing problem, and the one who suffers is the worker who can least afford to live far from his place of employment. There-fore we are continuing with this work. We are taking over from local authorities, but let me say at once that in most cases we receive the largest measure of co-operation from the local authorities.

What about the provincial administrations?

We do not have much difficulty wtih them, especially now that I have become Minister, because they know how formidable I am! No, we do not really have any difficulty with the local authorities. Only this morning I had an interview with the Durban City Council and they are falling in with our plans completely. They have certain demands, but they are falling in with our proposals completely.

I have said that our land is not increasing in extent and as a result we shall have to face up to the fact that we shall not always be able to expand further. We must expand vertically, as is happening in South Africa at the moment. But with this vertical expansion, i.e. with this building of blocks of flats, we have created serious social and sociological problems for this country. The hon. member for Brentwood referred to these problems. I want to say very definitely this evening that in South Africa we simply cannot allow any more Hillbrows to develop. We simply cannot allow any more such densely populated areas as are to be found in certain parts of Sunnyside and other parts of our large cities. We are creating social problems for ourselves there. There is no place for the children to play. There are no recreational facilities either. The Dutch Reformed Church Presbytery of Pretoria came to discuss this matter with me. They more than convinced me that if we do not pay attention to the question of population density it is going to have a tremendously detrimental effect on our population growth. One of the ministers who came to see me was a minister at Witbank. There he had a congregation of 1,400 members and a Sunday school of 500. He is now in Sunnyside and has a congregation of 1,500 member and a Sunday school of 200 children. This proves that with a too large population density there is simply not the necessary population growth. The question that occurs with me is whether we have not reached the stage where we should compel the developers of blocks of flats to comply with certain requirements so that they must make certain pieces of land available for recreation. Some developers want to build on every inch of ground so that they can let it, and one can understand this. The city councils welcome this, because it means increased rates for them. But I do think that the time has come for me perhaps even to have discussions with the provincial authorities and the authorities of the largest cities to see whether we cannot work out a scheme whereby we can control the population density in the future, because I regard this as of the utmost importance.

I now come to the next problem mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan, and that is the question of rising building costs. I just want to tell him what has already been done in this connection. In 1963 the then Minister of Housing, the hon. P. W. Botha, appointed the Louw Committee to investigate pre-construction building methods. Since the committee reported in 1964, the Department has tried to promote pre-construction where possible. The Department has even erected, inter alia, 812 pre-constructed dwellings at Bothasig. I want the hon. member for Karoo to listen to this, because he spoke about this aspect of the matter. Pre-construction is a tremendously large industry to-day. It is a lucrative and growing industry. We have built 812 preconstructed dwellings in Bothasig and 300 are under construction at present. We have built 804 such dwellings in Algoa Park, Port Elizabeth. In addition we have built 50 such dwellings in Leeuhof in Vereeniging. We are also investigating other building methods. For example, in Springs there is an altogether successful housing scheme in which the houses are constructed of wood. I was there recently. Although there are certain complaints about the houses, they are reasonably cheap houses. But at the same time they are decent houses and I can see no objection to such houses. But we must not bluff ourselves either. Preconstruction is not cheaper than conventional building methods. It is simply not cheaper. But pre-construction does have certain advantages. In the first place, it greatly relieves the shortage of skilled labour. Everything which is necessary is made in the factories and skilled labour is not necessary. Consequently there is tremendous labour-saving. The second great advantage of pre-construction is that the actual construction takes far less time than with conventional building methods. I want to say to the hon. member for Brakpan that we are constantly investigating cheaper building methods. The Department of Public Works has specially established a Bulding and Construction Advisory Council to investigate new building methods. The Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. is constantly investigating cheaper building methods. I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that, especially as a result of the work of the Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R., South Africa is perhaps the most advanced country in the world as far as cheap building methods are concerned.

In conclusion I just want to give the House a brief survey of the over-all housing situation in the Republic of South Africa. I want to say to hon. members that the over-all housing situation in South Africa is sound. There is no general housing shortage. What does exist is a very sound and keen demand for housing. As far as housing is concerned, we have in fact only three bottlenecks in the Republic. The one is Cape Town, where it is mainly as a result of a shortage of land. In Johannesburg it is mainly as a result of the city’s rapid expansion. In the case of Durban it is also as a result of a shortage of land. These are the only three cities where we in fact have a demand for houses which is considerably in excess—I do not want to put it more strongly—of what the local authorities and the Department of Community Development can supply at the moment. I want to assure the local authorities of all three of these cities and the persons concerned that in the ensuing months my Department will give its serious attention to the matter, in order to see if we can eliminate these bottlenecks. In Port Elizabeth we have no difficulties; in Kimberley we have no difficulties; in Bloemfontein we have no difficulties; and even in Pretoria, where one would expect difficulties, there are none. What is the projection for the future? The hon. member for Parktown referred to it and the Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. has applied their demographers to this. They have calculated what the needs for the future are. Their projections are that for the five years 1965 to 1970, we shall need 27,000 housing units a year. From 1970 to 1975 we shall need 28,000 houses a year and from 1975 to 1980 we shall need 30,750 a year. During the four years up to the end of 1967, the Department of Community Development, local authorities and the private sector built 107,500 houses. This gives one an average of nearly 27,000 houses a year. Therefore, up to the end of 1967 we actually built more houses than the projection indicated would be necessary up to 1970. In 1967 we reached the position where we met the full demand for houses and actually built more, thereby making up any backlog which might have existed. But there are danger signs, among others that the private sector is no longer devoting itself to such an extent to the building of blocks of flats and houses, because there are apparently certain other building undertakings, such as the building of business centres, which are more lucrative. I want to appeal to the private sector by telling them that it is in their own interests to ensure that there is not a housing shortage among the abovementioned groups. They are continually urging me to do away with rent control. I would be guilty of a most serious crime if I were to do away with rent control before there was sufficient housing for the poor, for the lower income group and for the middle income group. The quickest way in which to do away with rent control, is to ensure that those housing needs are met. It is in everyone’s interest. As far as building control is concerned, the Department grants major benefits. For example, no building control is applied when a large business block is erected of which 60 per cent is comprised of flats. The Department is therefore giving every possible encouragement. I just want to make it clear that at this stage we can give no thought whatsoever to abolishing rent control. I am not an enemy of private entrepreneurs. I am enough of a realist to appreciate that the Department of Community Development cannot solve the housing problem without the assistance of the private entrepreneurs. We are not enemies, but partners in a very great task which must be carried out. In the case of a new scheme the Department negotiates with all the private entrepreneurs who are willing to come and discuss matters with us so that we may see where we can assist them. But rent control will under no circumstances be abolished. I still say that the honest builder and the honest investor need have no fear at present of rent control. But I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan that there are a number of property owners, especially of blocks of flats, who scandalously abuse their position by exploiting people outrageously. Just look at the advertisements in the evening newspapers of Johannesburg and Cape Town. Flats are offered on condition that the people have no children. Neither must they have furniture. All this is in conflict wtih the Rent Act and the Housing Act. I have now gone as far as writing to the Press Union and have asked them to give instructions to all their newspapers no longer to accept those advertisements which circumvent the Rents Act. I am very grateful to be able to say that the Press Union agreed and has given instructions to all its newspapers to refuse such advertisements in future. I just want to issue a warning to those persons who try to circumvent the Rents Act; those persons who know that they are acting unlawfully. If I discover that they are doing so, I shall place that building under rent control without more ado. I see no reason why poor people should be exploited by a small group of people who only want to make money and to be difficult.

That then is how I see this whole problem. I think our housing position is fairly sound, but I have not the slightest doubt that it requires very careful and constant attention on the part of the Department of Community Development, the provincial authorities, the local authorities and the private sector. I just want to say to the hon. member for Parktown who drew my attention to the long period of time it takes to have a town proclaimed, that this is actually a matter which rests with the provincial authorities. However, we have appointed an inter-departmental committee to investigate how that process can be expedited.

I want to conclude by saying that I will tackle this task of mine with a very great deal of enthusiasm. I do not consider it an unmanageable task, but it is definitely a great challenge which the Government has every hope of being able to meet. I once again want to thank the hon. member for Brakpan for introducing this motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is something of an anti-climax to come into the debate at this hour of the evening. However, let me start by saying that I accept the good intentions of the hon. Minister at the start of his job as Minister of Community Development. I should like to know whether he is prepared to stake his political reputation on what he said here to-day. The fact remains that in spite of all the things the Minister said here this afternoon—you can ask the local authorities and they will confirm it—this question of housing in South Africa has now become something of a national crisis. It is due to a failure on the part of the Government to plan ahead and to anticipate what might have to be done in the future and over a long period of years. It is very interesting that the the hon. the Minister, in the course of a very long prepared statement this afternoon, gave no figures to prove his case in regard to the actual shortage itself. All he did was to deal with projections by a certain scientific body, which may or may not prove to be any more correct than the Tomlinson Commission’s figures with regard to the Bantu. The interesting thing is that his predecessor told this House in February, 1966, that the total shortage of housing in the Republic for all races was just short of 100,000 units. By the end of 1966 there were said to be 78,000 families waiting for houses. Then of course, as the hon. member for Green Point pointed out, we now have about 40,000 immigrants coming into the country each year, quite apart from the annual increase in the population. But, Sir, one year later, on 31st December, 1967, the previous Minister of Community Development again stated in this House that no scientifically calculated housing estimates existed for all income categories. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to-day, as hon members on this side have already asked, why scientifically calculated estimates were not dealt with years and years ago. Why on earth not? It seems to me to have been a dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister and his Department that such an assessment has not been made. This problem is not static. We are going to live with this housing problem for years, as in fact many countries are living with it overseas. All that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor could produce in reply to questions in this House were figures available in terms of waiting lists, furnished by local authorities for instance as at 31st December, 1967, which showed a need for 65.650 dwelling units. I submit that that is a totally misleading figure, since there are many thousands of people, as the hon. the Minister knows, in the lowest income bracket of all, the so-called “unhouseables”, who certainly never have their names on any waiting list at all. Most of them would not know how to set about it anyway. The Minister’s predecessor told the Nationalist Party Congress in Natal in August, 1967, that the housing position of the poorer section of the community gave no rise for concern. Now the hon. the Minister says that there is no general housing shortage, and that everything is fine. Sir, who is one to believe? The hon. the Minister’s predecessor accepted that the State would have to assist in solving the housing problem for the lower income groups, and in the same speech to the congress in Natal, in flat contradiction of what he had previously said about there being no shortage, he said in regard to the lower income groups that, unless success is achieved in this direction, emergency conditions will inevitably arise. I submit that these emergency conditions have arisen already. Now the Minister says here blandly that they have a proud record and that there is no general housing shortage. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor in the same speech said that as far as housing needs for non-Whites were concerned, it could be stated authoritatively that the shortage was between 60,000 and 72,000 units.

A great deal has been said to-day, and especially by the hon. member for Brakpan, about the timeous acquisition of land for housing purposes. I am very sorry for this Minister. I think he is in a very difficult position. The whole question of zoning and the proclamation of areas does not lie in his hands. That is precisely where the whole thing is gumming up. The hon. the Minister said that there was a particular problem in the Cape Peninsula area in regard to this matter. He is perfectly right. I want to say something that I can only say in this House where what I say is privileged. That is that I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the reason why there have not been sufficient proclamations in terms of group areas for White and non-White in areas like the Cape Flats for instance, which means that the local authorities are prevented from getting on with their housing schemes, is that there are too many vested interests which the Minister is afraid to disturb in these areas at this particular time. This is something the public ought to know about. I am perfectly willing to give the hon. the Minister information if he wants to have it in regard to this subject. Take the Cape Flats, for instance, Sir. The hon. member for False Bay in this House is the Minister of Agriculture. In his own area there has been a most extraordinary delay in zoning land and proclaiming it for housing development purposes, and this land is desperately needed both for Whites and for non-Whites. If the hon. the Minister goes to the local authorities in this area, he will find that they are without a single acre of land on which they can house people in a condition of emergency, for the very simple reason that none of it has been zoned and none of it has been proclaimed by his colleague, the Minister of Planning.

I feel very sorry for this Minister. I believe that his bona fides are perfectly good ones and that he would like to get on with this job. But he is not going to get on with it, Sir, as long as the vested interests, no doubt represented by good supporters of the Nationalist Party, object to certain areas being zoned because of the possibility of their having to move or sell their land at a lower price than they would otherwise like to get for it. This is one of the main reasons why this whole question of housing is being held up in the Republic at the present time. I think that it is time that the public should be told about this, because certain vested interests lie behind the whole question. The interesting thing is that the Minister tells us to-day in the House that there is no general housing shortage. What an astonishing statement, Sir. The Minister’s statement agrees with the speech of the hon. the State President in the Senate only a few weeks ago. In his speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament he said: “There is no general housing shortage worth mentioning, but there is a growing demand for accommodation, a normal phenomenon in a rapidly developing country such as South Africa”. Then he said: “The Government is prepared for the situation, as is apparent from the fact that during the current financial year a sum of R12,600,000 more than in the previous year was allocated for housing for the lower income groups who cannot provide their own housing needs”. Sir, the money is available. This is the gravamen of my particular charge against the Government. The money is available, and the local authorities will tell you that the money is available. What is not available, Sir, is the land. In certain areas there may be a shortage of land. This argument does not, however, apply in the immediate vicinity of Cane Town. There are areas within the jurisdiction of the Cape Divisional Council and the Cape Town City Council which could be acquired far more quickly than they are being acquired. I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny the fact that there is not adequate co-operation between his Department and the Department of Planing in this matter. I do think that there is adequate cooperation between the Department of Community Development and the local authorities. That I think is correct. I say, however, that there is not adequate planning between this Minister’s Department and the Department of Planning and I am prepared to substantiate that statement. There are all sorts of not entirely pleasant reasons for that lack of cooperation.

When the hon. the Minister says here to-day that he has all the good intentions in the world, we accept that, but he has to accept the mantle which has fallen upon him. His predecessor told us last year in this House: “One of the matters which is at present receiving serious consideration from my department and myself is the possibility of planning on a long-term basis”. He spoke merely of a “possibility of planning on a long-term basis”, yet the hon. the Minister told us this afternoon that we shall have to produce enough housing in the next few years or before the end of the century to house the whole of the South African population from Van Riebeeck’s day all over again. Then the Government talks about the “possibility” of long-term planning. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor said in the same debate, from which the hon. member for Parktown also quoted: “In addition we are also doing everything within our power to expedite the declaration of townships”.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.