Under the Public Works Vote there are certain items of nominal amounts included. I would like the hon. the Minister to give some indication, particularly under the Foreign Affairs Vote, as to what progress has been made in regard to the particular items which are now included.

Does the hon. member for Green Point want to know the progress made on all of them?

Yes.

We have bought the property in Buenos Aires. The property in Vienna has been bought. It is now being repaired and reconstructed, as requested by our ambassador in Vienna. We hope to have the work completed by the middle of this year. As far as the purchase of accommodation to serve as a chancery is concerned, that has been done. We hope that they will move in within the next few months. I think that that is all the information I can give the hon. member.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 39.—“Industries”, R50:

I put Vote No. 39 —“Industries”.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, we were discussing Loan Vote K yesterday but it has not been put and finally disposed of.

It has been finally disposed of.

We were discussing it at the time of the adjournment yesterday evening.

Loan Vote K was put last night and agreed to.

No, it was not agreed to at the time of the adjournment yesterday evening.

Loan Vote K was put last night and agreed to. Then Revenue Vote No. 37 was put, as I read out when we started today.

Revenue Vote No. 40. — “Police”, R683,000:

Mr. Chairman, under Item G—Medical Services, could the hon. the Minister indicate the reason for the increase of R400,000?

This amount is in respect of R240,000 for medicines, drugs, hospital charges, stores, etc.; R150,000 for medical practitioners and dentists; and R10,000 for maternity grants. That is a total of R400,000. As regards the first item I mentioned, namely that of hospital charges, apart from the fact that it is difficult to estimate this item realistically beforehand, private hospital charges have been increased during the current year from R7 to R8.50 per day, which has made a substantial difference. The part-time district surgeons and specialist fees have also been increased. In respect of the R10,000 for maternity grants I may mention that the maternity grants have been increased as from 14th January, 1970, from R42 to R55. The additional amount of R10,000 is required to meet this increase.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us some explanation in regard to subhead K—Detained Persons, for which an additional amount of R10,000 is to be voted? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us why this extra money was needed. Are there more detainees or are there people who have been detained longer than was anticipated or what is the reason?

Mr. Chairman, the original amount was merely under-estimated. There was an under-estimation in respect of the maintenance, i.e. including clothing and washing facilities, of persons under arrest and prior to lodgement in jail after conviction, of mental patients in police care, etc., and maintenance and transport of discharged indigents.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to subhead J—Investigation of Crime. Has this additional amount become necessary because of the employment of extra personnel?

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R119,000 represents, in the first instance, general investigation expenses for which R100,000 is to be provided and medico-legal expenses including mortuary requirements for which R19,000 is required. As hon. members can appreciate, this subhead is very unpredictable and in the circumstances, it is most difficult to estimate the correct amount beforehand.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote F.—‘Forestry”, R125,000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister just to explain the amount of R125,000.

Mr. Chairman, this amount is required to meet increased expenditure due to the revision of salaries from 1st January 1971.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 43.—“Information”, R94,000:

Mr. Chairman, under subhead F—Publicity—a very large amount of R94,000 is being requested by the hon. the Minister of Indoctrination … Pardon, the hon. the Minister of Information. Can the hon. the Minister tell us for what this amount is required and also give us details in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, this additional amount is required as a result of the success of the Department. Because there is such a demand for our brochures, our provision has been inadequate and we are now making provision to enable us to supply brochures to all who require them.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am not satisfied with that reply. The only thing the hon. the Minister has said is that his Department is printing more publications. But I think we are entitled to learn more details as regards these publications which are being printed. Does this include internal publicity as well?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants to have more details, I may tell him that R50,000 of this amount is for S.A. Panorama, internally and externally, as there is such a heavy demand for this exceptionally fine publication. Secondly, an amount of R11,000 is required for the Afrikaans edition of Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig. This periodical is now being published in both official languages and in this way justice is being done to Afrikaans, which is as it should be. R33,000 is for the “Progress Series”, i.e. for our various Bantu groups. There is a heavier demand for the seven periodicals published in Bantu languages. This is being done in this same programme.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us an indication of how much of this amount is required for the internal distribution of Panorama and how much is required for its external distribution?

Mr. Chairman, I do not have separate figures in respect of the internal and the external editions. I can only tell the hon. member that the total expenditure in respect of Panorama for the past year was R525,000. This is internally and externally. I may just add that at present Panorama is being distributed in six languages and that the latest additions are Spanish and Dutch. When my Vote is under discussion, I shall be able to furnish the hon. member with the facts relating to the internal and external editions.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it is possible for the hon. the Minister to tell us whether the increased cost for the internal distribution of Panorama has come about because of a wider circle of distribution internally. Are others to be included in that wider circle of distribution?

Mr. Chairman, during the discussion of my Vote I shall be pleased to furnish the hon. member with the details of what exactly is happening internally. The fact remains that we are now budgeting in the gross for internal as well as external distribution. I do not know whether Panorama has gained a wider reading public only internally. This mainly concerns the external distribution of Panorama. Two additional languages have been added and consequently increased expenditure is involved. In this case it is not applicable to the internal editions. The others do include internal editions as well.

Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the reply of the hon. the Minister in which he indicated that R11,000 was being voted for Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig and R33,000 for publicity to the Bantu, would it be a correct conclusion to say that more than half of this amount being requested will be used for internal information? I should also have liked to have had more information as to the type of additional information being supplied here to the Bantu.

If the hon. member would only accept that this is not intended for more additional information. It is intended for existing publications. Because of the popularity of the publications, they are gaining a wider reading public. For that reason we have to increase the number of copies printed and consequently the costs, too, are rising. In view of this, the additional money is being voted now. These are not new publications, but existing publications which have a wider circulation because of the success they have achieved.

Mr. Chairman, we now find ourselves in a very difficult position. The hon. the Minister comes along here and asks us for additional money for the past year. Then he tells us that if we want to have information, we have to wait until the discussion of his Vote. Surely we are entitled to the information now when we have to vote the additional money. For that reason I want to ask him once again kindly to analyse these figures for us. How much of the amount requested by the Department is to be spent on internal propaganda and how much is to be spent on external propaganda?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to state that not one cent of this money is intended for propaganda. The full amount is intended for information, and I please do not want to have any misunderstanding in this regard. In the second place, I said that R50,000 was intended for Panorama and it is exclusively for external distribution. R11,000 is being voted for Suid-Arfikaanse Oorsig which is the Afrikaans edition of South African Digest.

Is it exclusively for internal consumption?

It is mainly for internal consumption, but there is also an external consumption of South African Digest. Requests are received for editions of Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig from various countries. They come from countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium and even from behind the Iron Curtain. The full amount of R33,000 intended for the Bantu is with a view to internal information. It appears in the seven different Bantu languages in the seven different Bantu homelands. The full amount of R33,000 has been utilized.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just said that requests are received from behind the Iron Curtain. Can he give us more details in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, I may just tell the hon. member that one does not expect requests for an Afrikaans magazine to come from behind the Iron Curtain. It did happen and for that reason I have made special mention of it.

Have they been sent?

Yes, if we can penetrate to behind the Iron Curtain with the facts and the information, we do so.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 44.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”,—R1,278,000:

Mr. Chairman, I want to know from the hon. the Minister how this large amount is going to be used.

Mr. Chairman, there is only one answer, and that is a very simple answer. This is the State’s share of the contributions to the pension funds of the public servants which was increased as a result of the salary increases.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 46.—“Cultural Affairs”, R114,400:

Mr. Chairman, in connection with item J, Grants-in-aid to the National Cultural Council, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how many grants are involved and what were the specific projects for which they were granted.

Mr. Chairman, the additional amount comprises two items. In the first instance an amount of R97,000 was approved of in respect of salary adjustments for the last quarter of 1970-’71 for the performing arts. In the second instance provision was made for R25,000, but outstanding accounts from the previous year were paid during the current year. Treasury approved that an additional amount of R17,000 could be added to the original provision.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 48.—“Planning”, R325,000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister could give us more details in connection with this additional expenditure of R325,000 on the C.S.I.R.

Mr. Chairman, this additional amount is required because of the fact that salary adjustments were granted to the staff of the C.S.I.R. This was effected on the same basis as the one for public servants.

Does it include all the wage increases for the whole year?

Yes, the entire wage-sheet of the C.S.I.R.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 49.—“Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs”, R1,452,000:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us what is included in this additional amount of R1,452,000 for the Coloured Persons Representative Council?

Mr. Chairman, this amount is also for salary increases and other benefits for Coloured teachers and other Coloured civil servants. The adjustments were granted on the 1st April, 1970, and salary increases on the 1st January, 1971.

Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand the hon. the Minister’s reply that the increase in pay to civil servants involved in the running and functioning of the Coloured Persons Representative Council could be involved, but surely teachers’ salaries have nothing whatever to do with the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Mr. Chairman, that is correct, but the salaries of teachers are included in the original estimate of R67,515,000 which was voted by this Parliament.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 51—“Augmentation of Salaries, Wages and Allowances”, R2,380,000:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister of Finance explain to us what this account really embodies?

Mr. Chairman, when, after the Budget last year, the Government decided to increase the salaries of officials, there was not enough time to divide the increase in salaries for all the departments. At the time a new vote was created specially for this occasion in order to make provision for the augmentation of salaries, wages and allowances for the first quarter of this year. It became apparent later on that the original estimate of R9 million was too low and the amount was subsequently increased by R2,280,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, there is one question of principle which is involved in certain of the additional estimates which have been approved. That is one relating to the Community Development Vote, and I wish to discuss it briefly with the hon. the Minister. As regards these additional estimates, provision is made for acquiring existing buildings by the Government for housing State officials. We on this side of the House welcome all steps which are taken to provide adequate housing for civil servants and officials. But we do believe that there is an aspect of the policy which is wrong at the present time, namely to purchase buildings which are at present under rent control and which are fully occupied. One could understand this if there was a surplus of accommodation. But the acute shortage of accommodation is such that I believe that this is a policy which should not be followed.

Let us look at a present instance. Edendale Hospital in Pietermaritzburg is a hospital for Bantu persons. It was taken over from the Natal Provincial Administration some three years ago by the Department of Bantu Administration and was then passed on to the Department of Health. Up to that stage the personnel of that hospital were housed by the Provincial Administration at Grey’s Hospital in Pietermaritzburg. For three years nothing was done by the respective departments, namely the Departments of Bantu Administration, Health and Community Development, to ensure that there was accommodation provided for the staff of Edendale Hospital, which is in a Bantu area. Obviously the staff must be housed outside. For this reason now it has become necessary to take over properties presently occupied by tenants in Pietermaritzburg.

A matter which further aggravates this procedure is that according to the Town Treasurer in Pietermaritzburg at the present time, there is an estimated shortage of 1,000 dwelling units for Whites. In those circumstances, dealing with these Additional Estimates, I do wish to emphasize the fact that we on this side of the House, whilst we will support every effort which is made to provide for housing all sections of the population, regard purchase as a wrong principle. We trust that the hon. the Minister of Finance will not ask for approval of expenditure of this nature, either in the Budget or in additional estimates in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that to my mind he has really raised an important point. When individual houses are bought, it does not matter; for one buys such a house from the owner, and he is willing to move out. But I agree with the hon. member that we should build blocks of flats rather than buy them. But occasionally one is faced with urgent cases. Yesterday I mentioned to the hon. member for Green Point the case where the Administrator of the Transvaal was obliged to buy a block of flats because it was absolutely essential for the expansion of the Teachers’ College in Pretoria. Here we landed in exactly the same position, because we were urgently requested to provide accommodation.

That was three years ago.

No, it was not three years ago that it was decided. In any case, we gave those people in Pretoria nine months to find alternative accommodation, and all of them did. These people in Pietermaritzburg have been given up to the end of June to find alternative accommodation. I have no doubt that they will find it. If the Town Clerk of Pietermaritzburg says that there is a shortage of a thousand dwelling units, he is basing his statement on the lists on which people fill in their names and which are terribly unreliable. I have given the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg the assurance that we shall go out of our way to ensure that those people find accommodation. Ever since the hon. member for Green Point raised this aspect yesterday, I have been considering whether this procedure should not be eliminated in the future. I am discussing the matter with my department. I am not going to give the undertaking that something of this nature will not happen again. If an exceptional case arises, we shall perhaps have to do it again, although I shall do my best to prevent it. However, I wholeheartedly agree with the principle that in cases where the Department of Community Development has to purchase accommodation, there can be no objection to its purchasing individual houses, for in such cases the owners sell their properties voluntarily. However, when it comes to the purchase of a block of flats, it may be that 20 to 30 families are accommodated in that block, and they cannot be so sure that they will be better off. Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly with the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Green Point, and my department and I will pursue the matter to see whether it is not possible for us to avoid this sort of thing completely in the future.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is not in accordance with the normal way in which legislation is introduced here. Initially we wanted to introduce legislation in this connecon by amending either the Slums Act or the Community Development Act, but our legal advisers expressed the view that the method I am following here now is the best one. There are, of course, precedents for this method. For example, in 1964 this House passed a resolution to appoint a select committee to inquire into and report upon the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land. The select committee was empowered to take evidence and call for papers and to submit a Rill to provide for control over uneconomic subdivision and alienation of agricultural land. The select committee was subsequently appointed and submitted legislation to this Parliament, which was eventually placed on the Statute Rook. On 3rd February, 1930, this House adopted a resolution—

This was in fact subsequently done. Incidentally, the older members in this House will find it interesting to hear who served on that select committee. The members were Mr. Acutt of Natal, Mr. S. D. de Wet of the Free State, Mr. Patrick Duncan, the Rev. C. V. M. du Toit, Mr. Eaton. Sir Robert Kotzé, Mr. Pocock of Pretoria, Dr. Potgieter of Johannesburg, Major K. Roodt, now Colonel, and Dr. Stals. I mention the members of that Select Committee just for interest’s sake.

Who was the then Minister?

Was it not Mr. Stuttaford? Were we Fusionists already in power then? At any rate, I am not sure.

The object of the motion I have moved here is to combat a real problem in South Africa, i.e. the problem of too high a density in our urban areas, with the result that there are too few open spaces. Densely built-up flatland areas are to be seen everywhere in our large cities, and I am sure hon. members have noticed that these flat-lands are multiplying practically overnight; in any case, there is no noticeable decrease in the expansion in this connection. Although welcoming the provision of flat units, I am nevertheless perturbed at the above-mentioned development. There are very few signs that sufficient open spaces, recreation areas or playing grounds for children are being developed in order to meet the needs of the growing flat population. The lack of the necessary community facilities in such flatland areas for the welfare of the residents, particularly the population of growing children, undoubtedly contributes to there being smaller families and even childless couples. Apart from my own observations, I have already received a request from a church body “to take the necessary steps to ensure that in the future complexes of flats will be planned in such a way that there will be sufficient playgrounds for children”. Women’s organizations and members of the public have also drawn attention to the existing situation, a situation which is rapidly becoming worse.

These densely built-up areas unquestionably give rise to social evils—for example, drug addiction and other crimes which call for urgent action on the part of the authorities. I am convinced that the first step in the combating of these destructive conditions is to limit the high-density development in an area and to establish balanced communities. The problem of too high a population density arises as a result of the fact that urban areas develop according to an existing town planning scheme. It is, of course, a function of the provincial administrations to approve applications for town planning or its adaptation, while the local authority sees to it that the planning is adhered to. At the moment the Government cannot exercise any control over this.

In saying that the way to combat unhealthy high-density development is to limit that development, I am not at all of the opinion that the sphere of the provincial administrations should be encroached upon and that a planning function should be carried out. I shall explain why not.

In terms of the Slums Act, 1934, which is administered under the supervision of the Department of Community Development and for which I accept responsibility, deleterious conditions, such as when premises are in such a state as to be a hazard to health or to be unsafe or when land is so densely built up as to be injurious or hazardous to health, are checked. Accordingly there need be no hesitation in saying that properties and areas in our cities which have reached an advanced stage of deterioration, are at present systematically being renewed by means of the application of the Slums Act and the Community Development Act, 1966, in order to establish balanced communities. It is therefore my bounden duty to see to it that deleterious conditions which constitute a threat to the health or the welfare of the population are eliminated. As I see it, this is also my duty in respect of future developments which may take place in our cities, because I surely cannot shut my eyes to present urban development which may necessitate action in terms of the Slums Act in the future at a stage when renewal will be almost impossible and general demolition necessary, as was now the case in South End in Port Elizabeth, in District Six, in North End in East London, Cato Manor, Jeppe and elsewhere.

And in Pretoria.

Yes, in Pretoria as well. I am making good progress there as far as urban development is concerned, although not yet as far as other matters are concerned. In these other matters I have not made such good progress so far, but I shall be making good progress in that respect as well.

I am aware of the comprehensive powers which Administrators have for amending town planning schemes. However, I want to repeat that it is not my object to take this function out of their hands. But it is my duty to see to it that slum conditions are combated, and consequently I deem it essential that I should be enabled to prevent such conditions in our urban areas. Initially I thought of freezing, by proclamation in the Gazette, areas where action is necessary, and then to inspect all building plans in the frozen area myself. Such a provision already exists in the Community Development Act. However, this freezing by the Community Development Board only takes place in backward areas in order to enable the board and the local authority to renew the areas concerned. But I have abandoned this idea, because a similar freezing of an area in a rapidly developing urban part will not only cause delay, but also have a restrictive effect on owners and developers.

As this problem concerns me so directly, it is essential that I should get powers in terms of which to act in urban development in this regard when necessary. I am therefore convinced that measures have to be established to enable me to keep a watchful eye on modern development so that appropriate steps may be taken when it becomes clear that structural development is injurious to community development and the spiritual, social and physical welfare of the population in the area concerned.

For the information of the House I may add that I have already notified the relevant Government departments, provincial administrations, universities, city councils of our larger cities, church bodies, etc., of my intention to request permission to appoint a Select Committee to investigate this matter thoroughly and to prepare legislation in connection with it. I have taken this step in order to enable interested parties to give evidence before the Select Committee if they wish to do so.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I just want to point out that the provincial administrations and the local authorities already have these powers today and that these powers have existed for quite some time. But despite this, we have seen how Hillbrow has developed in a very unhealthy way. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow will be the first to admit that you do not want the kind of development where you have these concrete jungles without any space for children to play and without recreational facilities. The same applies to a certain extent here in Sea Point. I have here a letter by a Mr. J. S. Rabinowitz in the Cape Times—I do not want to quote the entire letter—which points out that the City Council of Cape Town has exceeded the limits in each case of high density in the past few years by granting builders of flats exemption to use a larger portion of the land than the regulations virtually prescribe to them. Consequently you have these conditions in Sea Point, which are not so bad on the seaward side, where there is some space to play, but as far as the area at the back is concerned, the state of affairs is absolutely unhealthy. You have the same state of affairs in certain parts of Sunnyside in Pretoria.

I want to give hon. members the assurance that I have no desire to take any powers out of the hands of the provincial authorities or the local authorities. What I am proposing here, is that the Select Committee should seek to find a method of co-operation and co-ordination so that we may see to it that no new Hillbrows develop in South Africa, and so that we will not get new over-populated areas such as certain parts of Sea Point, certain parts of Sunnyside and even certain parts of Port Elizabeth in the future. This is the object here. I am quite sure that the select committee will be able to find a formula for this, and therefore I have no hesitation in moving that this select committee be appointed.

Sir, the Minister of Community Development places one in some difficulty in moving this motion, because he has been so co-operative during this Session so far, first of all in dealing with amendments to the Rents Act as requested by us and this afternoon again in conceding a question of principle in regard to the provision of housing. But, Sir, I think he is testing us a little too far in requesting us to accept this motion. Sir, the Minister has been very frank. He has told us that this is not normal procedure, and he has been able to find in the archives two previous occasions when a motion of this sort was placed before this House. But both those instances which the hon. the Minister quoted, the one dealing with Indian occupation and property in 1930 and the other dealing with the subdivision of agricultural ground, covered clearly defined and limited fields for investigation by a select committee.

We on this side of the House have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister telling us what he has in mind and we have no complaints whatsoever when the hon. the Minister gives us his observations in regard to high population density and development in our cities and also when he advocates the need for open spaces in our residential areas. That is a matter on which we can agree with him. We agree that this is a matter which needs attention, but this motion before us is not the way to deal, I suggest, with these problems he has outlined. First of all, the motion contains the instructions to the select committee, and those instructions are certainly not restricted to what the hon. the Minister has referred to in his speech this afternoon. His speech is not the instruction to the select committee. His speech is not the field which must be covered by the select committee. If the committee has to deal with what it is asked to deal with under this motion, then it covers an area which the Minister himself, I do not think, contemplates from what he has said this afternoon, and for that reason it is a motion which we in this House should not accept.

It is an extraordinary proposal that the hon. the Minister has made. He mentioned this afternoon that these problems are matters which the provincial administrations might have dealt with and which the municipalities might have handled, but then surely it is a matter of co-ordination among the hon. the Minister, the provincial administrations and the United Municipal Executive. That is where the matter must be dealt with. That is where he must find his modus vivendi of the three levels of government, where he must be able to find where the municipal powers can be exercised to achieve these desirable ends more efficiently under the surveillance, as they are, of the provincial administrations. I know the frustration that arises from time to time when a local authority does not approve of a certain development scheme and in our processes an appeal goes to the Administration and the Administration may override the local authority, as happens in town development. But the development of our cities is now provided for in a plethora of legislation and a plethora of experts right from the town planning basis, from your municipal requirements upwards.

But what does this motion ask us to do? I can only feel that the hon. the Minister is throwing up his hands and saying that he does not know what to do about this issue. He is now abdicating. A select committee of this House must come and tell him as the Minister what must be done. Sir, that is not the function of a select committee. The Minister is the responsible person. He is the one who holds the portfolio of Community Development and he is the one who must come to this House and say: This is what I and my Government and my colleagues feel is desirable legislation to deal with this particular problem. He can then give us his ideas in the form of draft legislation which can be considered before Second Reading. But we cannot have a select committee as now proposed.

I shall attempt to indicate the breadth of this motion and what it can and will involve if the select committee acts on the ipsissima verba of the motion which is before us this afternoon. What is the motion? The motion is that the select committee must inquire into the prevention of the erection of buildings and other structural development in urban areas which may be injurious to the community development and the spiritual, social and physical welfare of the population of such areas. Where are the guide-lines? This directive, according to this motion, is a directive which is wide open and the select committee will have the responsibility to scan the whole spectrum of urban building and urban development. It will have to investigate matters which now rest primarily in the hands of urban local authorities and which are carried out under the supervision of the provincial administration.

That will give the co-ordination.

I know that the hon. the Minister is seeking a solution to a problem, but this is not the way to do it. An investigation of this nature will call for decisions on and scrutiny and investigation of matters of a highly technical nature and of the very basic elements of town planning. According to the motion, it will require considerations of physical welfare which in turn, involve a studying of standard building regulations, which exist in every major municipality throughout the country. Those regulations have been devised over the years by local authorities and have been approved by provincial administrations, so as to ensure the safety, the health, the sightliness and the necessary ventilation of buildings which are erected in urban areas. Does the Minister wish the committee to investigate all this? These are all regulations directed towards physical welfare. The elimination of slum conditions is covered by various Acts. The Minister himself has indicated to us the steps he has been able to take.

Would you prefer me to act on my own?

We believe that what is needed—and I come back to it—is co-ordination from the Minister’s Department through the provincial administrations down to the local authorities, recognizing the responsibilities and the powers of each of those three levels of government, in order to deal with the problem. It is done in other departments. I do not believe that there are further laws required to enable the Minister to deal with it. As I have said, it is a matter of co-ordination.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. member agree with me that I can deal with this under the Slums Act, but then I must take everything away from the local authorities, as in the case of District Six, etc.? I think this is a more co-operative way of doing it.

The hon. the Minister has taken unto himself powers. These powers are there under the Slums Act and certain amendments. But a reasonable Minister—and I include this hon. Minister in this definition of reasonable Ministers—can find a way of obtaining the co-operation of the authorities at the lower levels of Government. He has had difficulties in certain municipal areas, like Stellenbosch and Pretoria. I do not think that the hon. the Minister should be frustrated by this. In the main he has received the co-operation of the municipalities. I am sure that the hon. the Minister can continue in that way without having to take these overriding powers against local authorities.

The congestion which causes these high population density areas, can be adequately controlled by bulk and site coverage regulation. Bulk and site coverage regulations exist and can adequately deal with this problem. The interesting matter, which I must mention in passing, is that, while the hon. the Minister is wishing to give teeth, if I may put it that way, to the existing regulations, his own department is the one which by-passes all municipal regulations and carries on in its own sweet way when it wishes to build. It does not submit plans to the local authorities. It does not feel obliged to comply with building regulations. It builds where it likes. When it comes to housing, the hon. the Minister will know that the Cape Town Municipality is having a running fight with his department because of the nature of the sub-economic houses. When they want to build them with certain refinements, the hon. the Minister himself is the one who objects that it is too expensive. He suggests that the expenses must be cut down and that certain tenders cannot be accepted. Ceilings or something else must be removed from the inside so as to make the houses cheaper. That, as the hon. the Minister knows, has happened with the Cape Town Municipality. Some of his schemes which have been put up and which I have already referred to, would indicate that the trouble is that the regulations are not being observed by his own department, although I agree they are not binding to the Minister.

The select committee, if this motion is adopted, must also look into the effects of buildings on the spiritual and social welfare of the population. Where is the limit? Does this mean that this committee must go into the whole question of environmental control? The hon. member for South Coast has raised this question. This matter is the responsibility of a full Ministry. Does the hon. the Minister expect the select committee to do this? Because this is what is in his motion before the House this afternoon. If one follows the directives of this motion, one must go further, and say that this committee must now investigate the whole question of the siting of industrial areas in relation to residential areas of cities. This is a problem which is being tackled at the level of expert committees in other parts of the world at the present time and is to a certain extent being tackled by local authorities in this country. This is not a motion that the hon. the Minister should ask us to accept in this House. We are prepared to sit down and discuss with him specific proposals which he wishes to put forward and wishes this House, through a select committee, to consider in order to decide whether or not there can be suggestions with regard to that direct line of action that he may wish to follow. The hon. the Minister, as the member of the Cabinet responsible for community development, must produce something more specific than this motion in order to deal with the problems which he has very cursorily outlined to us this afternoon. It is a duty which rests on him as the Minister of Community Development. If the hon. Minister wants powers to deal with particular racalcitrant municipalities, he must tell us what these powers are and what he in fact wants. This motion, with the greatest of charitable viewing that I can bring myself to give it, is a groping around by this hon. Minister to try to have some select committee appointed to give him an answer to a problem in respect of which he cannot give a lead in finding a solution. I must say that this is a groping around. I do not know whether he is like Micawber hoping that if he appoints a select committee, something good might turn up and help him out of the predicament in which he finds himself in dealing with this department.

When I am unreasonable you are fed up, and when I am reasonable you are also fed up.

No, I accept the hon. the Minister’s co-operation. I welcome his acceptance of the advice that has been given to him. However, if the hon. the Minister wishes to abdicate entirely to us on this side of the House, he can ask his colleagues to do so simultaneously and we can take over the Government. We would be very happy to do so.

That goes a little beyond the terms of the motion.

Yes, Sir. I am hoping that the good example of the hon. the Minister of abdicating in favour of this side of the House, will be followed by his colleagues.

But I want to come back to the motion. It is not the function of a select committee of this House to deal with a matter of this sort. The hon. the Minister realizes that this is a problem. He has a duty. Let him come to us with his proposals in a Bill. That Bill can then be considered by a select committee.

For these reasons we cannot support this motion and we will vote against the motion which the hon. the Minister has introduced this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the conduct of the hon. member for Green Point and at the attitude the hon. Opposition is adopting in this connection.

On countless occasions, when hon. Ministers came to this House with legislation and motions, hon. members on that side of the House have asked why they are not referred to a Select Committee where they can be ironed out beyond the realms of party politics, so that legislation can be brought to this House that is acceptable to both sides? When such Select Committees were appointed it was one of the most important functions of hon. members opposite to praise the Minister and tell him what a good decision it had been to appoint a Select Committee, that such discussion had yielded such excellent results and that everyone was movingly agreed about the matter. But now that this very indulgent hon. Minister, as the hon. member for Green Point also admitted, has come along with this gesture of his to ask for the co-operation of the other side of the House, they suddenly have a change of heart. What is the reason for that? The hon. member for Green Point very definitely did not convince me with the reasons he advanced. What were his reasons? The first one was “This is not the way to do it”. This is not the way in which it should be done. Secondly he alleged that local regulations exist that afford the local authorities the opportunity of dealing with these questions. I shall come back to that. The third reason was that the Minister should seek to gain the co-operation of the local authorities. Then he comes along with the ridiculous argument that the Minister realizes that there is something afoot, that there is a problem, but he himself does not know what to do and is therefore flinging his hands into the air. That is farfetched. Here in the motion the Minister specifically stipulates the problems that exist. There are various ways in which he can take action. As the hon. member for Green Point said, he could consider coming to the House with legislation in this connection and refer it to a Select Committee, and this he has also done. Here the hon. the Minister is now giving us a completely blank cheque to discuss the matter from scratch, and to come forward with the best possible advice for such legislation. He said here why he was following this path and why he was not coming to the House with draft legislation. He said that there were precedents that have been created in this connection. In this House things had already been done in this way. He said that he was doing it as a result of representations he had received from various quarters. He also said that he did, in fact, have powers to take action in terms of the legislation in connection with slums and other legislation, but that he did not want to run “roughshod” over the interests of the local authorities, as hon. members have said so frequently on that side. He wanted co-operation, and he wants it in collaboration with the Opposition. He emphasized here that it was not his intention to take upon himself the existing powers that were in the hands of local authorities and provincial administrations. What he seeks is simply an opportunity to keep a watchful eye on this development in the interests of the nation. There was also talk here of co-operation which the Minister must seek with local authorities. It is always this Government’s point of departure firstly to express appreciation to local authorities for what they are doing in their management sphere. The Government always tries in the first place to obtain the co-operation of the local authorities. Even where the Government does not need to consult the local authorities, it does so, as in the case the hon. member for Green Point mentioned here a moment ago. The Department of Community Development does not need to submit planning to the local authorities for approval, but it does so without exception in every case. In every case they submit the plans to the local authorities.

No.

Then hon. members must prove to me that the opposite is true. However, I am informed that all plans are submitted to local authorities without exception. There is the highest degree of respect for the objections and recommendations of the local authorities. Of course, the plans are not subject to the approval of local authorities, but even so the local authorities are first consulted. The Government obtains their co-operation in almost every case, with very few exceptions. In the last instance, however, the Government still remains the authority that must accept responsibility in the interests of the nation. If local authorities neglect the functions entrusted to them, or carry them out in such a way that doubt exists about whether it is in the interests of the nation, the State must concern itself in the matter. Then the State must take an interest in it, and must not withhold its fatherly hand and watchful eye. The hon. member for Green Point said here that the local authorities have the powers to interfere with these matters that we want to investigate. They have their existing town council regulations. I readily concede this, but I must say that they have already had them for the past 60 years. Even so, these places with the undesirably high population density, such as Hillbrow, Sea Point and Sunnyside, have developed. This is surely proof of the fact that shortcomings manifestly exist. We cannot so easily say that this matter is only one of local importance, that local authorities must ensure that the flats are not built in too close to one another and that they must ensure that there are parks. One cannot say that if they do not look after this it nevertheless continues to remain their affair. The matter is much wider in scope. This is a matter of national importance. Let us compare the United Party’s attitude in this connection with their attitude in connection with the traffic congestion in our cities, which is a parallel case. Here the hon. members for Hillbrow and Durban Point said that it is a matter for local authorities, but that the situation had got so out of hand that the Government should intervene. The congestion in these concrete jungles is a parallel case. It has assumed such vast proportions and there are so many representations requesting the Government to keep a weather eye open, that we simply cannot evade our responsibility any longer. We also heard from that letter by a Mr. Rabinowitz, living in Sea Point, which the hon. member read out to us here, that in numerous cases—virtually in all cases, but I do not want to generalize—local authorities can so frequently not even exercise proper control over their own town planning regulations. That is surely very clear from that letter. It is clear from that letter that local authorities cannot control their own town planning regulations, and that in many cases they even exceed the stipulated density. In fact, there has already been a judicial commission to that effect. I refer the hon. member for Green Point, who is not a stranger in Jerusalem, to the Diemont Commission, which specifically sat in connection with this matter in Cape Town. They gathered evidence and as a result certain people were prosecuted. Does that not prove that there is something wrong? Now one asks oneself the question: Why is the hon. member for Green Point acting in this way, while in his heart of hearts he agrees with us that this is a question that must be viewed and tackled on a broad national basis? Why are the hon. member for Green Point and his party opposed to this measure? Does the United Party perhaps want to hide certain things? What have they got to hide? What do the hon. member for Green Point and his party have to hide? If they do not have anything to hide let us then discuss this matter on a non-political basis. The attitude of the hon. member for Jeppes, who was mayor of Johannesburg, and also other hon. members opposite, leads me to think that they have something to hide, things they want to cover up, things they do not want to have revealed, things causing the present conditions in Sea Point and other areas. We must take into account the fact that the urbanization of the South African people is still increasing. The obvious accommodation for an ever-increasing portion of our urban population is flats. This is not an unnatural trend. It simply has to come, because not all of us can live in houses. The question now is whether these things must continue at random, or whether there must be orderly planning. Just as under-development has its disadvantages, so over-development has too. In America and Europe we already have examples of this. Cities like New York are becoming congested, and this entails tremendous problems. Since this problem has already cropped up, and since people are already pointing out to us the relevant dangers in every sphere of society, must we in South Africa simply shut our eyes and allow this problem to completely engulf us at a later stage? I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point, who by my knowledge of him is a reasonable man, if in this case we must let only economic considerations prevail. Must we, merely for the sake of the material exploitation of every inch of land, allow more and more concrete jungles to rise in our large urban complexes?

You were not listening.

Sir, if these are not the arguments and motives behind the attitude of the hon. member for Green Point, why do they not support this motion? This motion does not want to push anything down anyone’s throat. All that is being proposed here is consultation and the gathering of information in order to obtain the best available evidence from bodies such as developers, local authorities, provincial administrations, architects, churches and social and welfare organizations, and to obtain the support of the United Party, i.e. if they want to make a positive contribution in order to make the best of this matter. I see no reason for and sense in the arguments that the hon. member for Green Point advanced in order to convince his party to vote against this motion.

Mr. Speaker, if we were in any doubt as to the breadth of this motion after hearing the speech of the hon. the Minister, we are certainly in no doubt after hearing the speech of the hon. member for Parow. It confirms the point made by the hon. member for Green Point. I hope that the hon. the Minister will seriously reconsider this motion. The hon. member for Green Point has pointed out that the motion as it is framed, is so wide that, quite frankly, if the Select Committee, which is to be appointed in terms of this motion, is to do its job properly, it will be sitting for years. The hon. member for Parow gave an example of some of the evidence which he, if he were on the Select Committee, would wish to call. He referred to the way in which some of the municipalities do not carry out their regulations. He proposes, if he were on the Select Committee, to call before the Select Committee local authority representatives to explain how they carry out their regulations, so that he can investigate to see whether they have anything to hide. He referred to calling the evidence of churchmen, architects, social welfare people, and all sorts of people. He gave a long list to this House of persons who would be called to give evidence. This emphasizes the ground for our objection to this motion. It is impossibly wide for a Select Committee to investigate. The motion is about “the prevention of the erection of buildings and other structural developments in urban areas”. Before I go on to the rest of the motion, I would just like to discuss that aspect of it with the hon. the Minister. He said it was not his intention to transgress the sphere of provincial administrations and local authorities. All he wants to do, is to find some method of co-operation or co-ordination. But this is not what his motion says. It reads clearly:

The motion, therefore, asks specifically to report upon the question of the prevention of the erection of buildings. That is a very different thing from investigating and reporting upon methods of co-operation and co-ordination. If that is what the hon. the Minister wants, surely that is the way he should frame his motion. The motion asks further:

This, quite frankly—I am not exaggerating —is a matter which a Select Committee, if it is to do its job properly, will spend years over. It is a field which has been exercising planners, sociologists and experts over years in all the Western countries. There is still debate about what is the best method of development. May I point out to the Minister that every year more and more people throughout the world have to live in flats, some through preference and others through necessity on account of the fact that they cannot afford anything else. This then is a world-wide trend. And, what is more, the Minister himself has admitted that that is so and that it must also be the trend in South Africa.

I have just said so.

Yes, the hon. member for Parow says so too. Indeed, it is inevitable. With the increasing cost of land, of building material and of services, e.g. roads, water, sewerage, etc., it becomes increasingly difficult and costly to spread residential development. Instead it is inevitable that it has to become more and more dense. It is a fact of modern life, a fact which the hon. the Minister himself has admitted in several speeches. It is a problem throughout the world and hence a problem which has been exercising the minds of planners and sociologists over the years. It is not a matter which a Select Committee of Parliament, consisting of people who are not experts in this field …

But they can call expert evidence.

I trust the hon. the Minister is not serious about that.

Of course I am serious about it.

The Select Committee can, of course, call expert evidence. However, does the hon. the Minister realize that the most advanced investigations into this problem are taking place not in South Africa but in other more densely populated Western countries? Therefore, if the Select Committee is to do its job properly, it would have to call expert evidence from overseas. Is that what the Minister wants? What is more, in order to do its job properly, the Select Committee would have to visit some of these denser areas and discuss the matter with the persons involved. In that way the Committee can familiarize itself with what is going on in other parts of the world where this is a more serious problem. I am not decrying the Hillbrows of South Africa; I am not decrying the problem which it creates. What I am suggesting, however, is that the way in which the Minister is trying to get at grips with this problem is quite wrong. I hope he will reconsider it.

What do you suggest in view of the fact that you agree that now is the time that attention should be paid to this type of thing?

Now is the time, in fact, that we should pay attention to this matter. But my point is that a Parliamentary Select Committee is not the proper body to do this because the matter is far too involved; it requires experts. I believe that within the framework of the present machinery lies the solution to the hon. the Minister’s problem. I want to put a suggestion to him but may I first of all crystallize the problem as he himself put it. He has said that the actual problem is too high density in certain areas without enough open space, without enough playing areas for children and without enough community areas. The best planning of community centres, new towns and high density areas throughout the world does take all this into account. [Interjections.] May I just finish, Mr. Speaker, and then I will gladly answer any questions which the hon. the Minister wants to put to me. I wish to put to him a serious suggestion which I think will enable the problem to be resolved. As I was saying the best planning that is taking place in the world today does take these things into account. What is the present position in South Africa? Town planning is in the hands of the provinces, and through the provinces in the hands of the municipalities. In practice it is the larger municipalities that are faced with the problem of high density. It does not occur in respect of any of the smaller towns in South Africa; it occurs in towns like Johannesburg, Durban, Pretoria and Cape Town which are fast growing and which have to grow upwards if they are not going to spread out impossibly wide. Most of these towns have appointed planners to consider the best type of high density development. Many of the provinces also have planning departments; in fact I believe they all have. Natal certainly has a very good one.

I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that if in certain areas the problem of high density is not being resolved satisfactorily by any particular municipality, then this is a matter which should be resolved firstly by the province itself, by the Executive Committee and the provincial council of the province, because they have power over the municipalities. I accept, Sir, that that may not be sufficient, because as I said a moment ago, this problem has been investigated throughout the world. It may not be possible for a municipality to send a team of experts throughout the world to see how the problem is being resolved in all the important countries. What may be needed is a co-ordinating committee consisting of representatives of the provinces and possibly of the Department of Community Development. I accept what the hon. member for Parow said that in the last analysis it is the Parliament of South Africa or the Government of South Africa that must take the final responsibility for seeing that the future development is along lines which are for the best benefit of the population.

If the present position is not working properly, it is not through any ill-will; it may be due to some human failure; for example, some building regulations may be relaxed a little bit in the interest of a particular individual, and there may be a little bribery sometimes—I do not know— but it is not due to ill-will. Above all, I think the major municipalities and the Provincial Executive Committees are well aware of this problem and are anxious to deal with it in the best interests of the future of the country. I believe that the solution is to be found amongst them, not by appointing a select committee of Parliament to go into the tremendously wide ramifications of this problem. If it is failing, I think the hon. the Minister could get the executive committees of the provinces together with him and discuss with them what he believes are the spheres in which the planning within their provinces are falling down and discuss with them possible ways of improving it. But I think ultimately the best solution will be some form of co-ordinating committee in that field, which would then have the ability to make these investigations which are taking place overseas and which are tremendously expensive. It is very expensive to send a team of experts overseas.

We send them over continuously. There is one now investigating in Australia and another one going to London. But may I just give you this information. I have consulted all the experts and none of them objected to this procedure of having a Bill of this kind. I asked them whether I could send a Bill to the Select Committee and they all agreed to it. It is on legal advice that I do it this way. None of the executive committee members objected to it.

If the hon. the Minister presented a Bill which was then referred to a Select Committee, that is another matter because at least then the field is narrowed and one is considering what the Minister proposes in the Bill or the amending Bill, whatever it might be. But our objection to this procedure is that it is so wide that it will include the whole ramification of town planning in relation to the social life, the physical life and the spiritual life of the citizens. I would point out also to the hon. the Minister that as this is worded, the Select Committee would have to inquire into the position as well in relation to each race group. It is not confined to the White group; it relates to the erection of buildings and other structural developments in urban areas. It is as broad as that. Different considerations may apply in respect of the different race groups, and in fact they do, at least to some extent, in respect of town planning. Must the Select Committee then go into those fields and investigate those fully? There is no doubt that as the motion is framed, it is so wide that it will require the Select Committee to transgress or, at any rate, to inquire into matters which are at present being handled by the provinces and by the municipalities.

I do not believe that the Minister is justified in requiring a Select Committee to delve into the workings of provinces and municipalities in the sphere of planning without putting some specific legislation before the Select Committee which will narrow the field. He has, after all, said that the only problem he wishes to guard against is too high density development without enough open space. Even if you put that before a Select Committee, that in itself would narrow the field and that in itself is quite different from the motion which is before the House today. The hon. the Minister has said that he does not wish to infringe upon the functions of the provinces and the municipalities. On the other hand, however, he says he must have control; he must have power to control where necessary. I would suggest to the Minister quite seriously that he would be well advised to consider not the Central Government taking these powers, but to consider if in fact the provinces and municipalities do not have sufficient power to control what he has in mind, I would suggest to him that he ought seriously to consider giving them more powers.

I actually have the powers today but they are too laborious. That is what I want a Select Committee to investigate.

If the hon. the Minister’s case is that he has the powers but that they are too laborious, then surely the best people to tell him how these powers can be streamlined so that they are not too laborious are the very people who deal with them every day. In other words, they are the planning bodies of the provinces and the municipalities. Surely they are the people who can tell the hon. the Minister how to streamline powers which are too laborious.

The more one goes into this aspect and debates it with the hon. the Minister, the more obvious it is becoming that this procedure which the Minister suggests is not the way to tackle the problem which he has put before the House. I do urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider the position. I should like to emphasize that by opposing this motion we on this side of the House are not trying to be difficult towards the hon. the Minister, we are not insensitive to the problem of high-density development. This is not the position at all. We are endeavouring to impress upon the hon. the Minister that the way in which he has chosen to go about the solution of the problem cannot be the answer. It will in itself be laborious. This procedure of a Select Committee with these wide terms of reference will result in such a laborious procedure that, as I suggested earlier on, if the Select Committee is to do its job properly it will not report to this House for four or five years or possibly more.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity that the hon. member for Musgrave adopted this attitude in respect of this motion. I think that if we interpret the hon. member for Musgrave’s views correctly he really has nothing against this motion as such. The hon. member supports the principle that an investigation should be instituted in respect of this matter. Is that so? That is what the hon. member said. The hon. member for Musgrave’s objections to it are, in the first place, that when a Select Committee is appointed to investigate this matter it will be a long drawn-out procedure, and that it will take years to complete the investigation. A further objection is that a Select Committee of this House does not comprise people who have the knowledge to institute a proper investigation of this nature. I think that it is a reflection upon the good judgment of members of this House, who are up against such problems every day, when it is said that they cannot give advice or draw up a knowledgeable report in connection with an important matter such as this. If a Select Committee of this House is appointed and cannot complete its functions during the remaining portion of this session, it can be converted into a Commission of Inquiry.

Yes, we know that.

Oh, the hon. member for Maitland knows as little about this matter as my boot, and then he presents himself as being so knowledgeable about it. There was, for example, a very complex investigation by a Select Committee of this House, i.e. that concerning the functions of the Stock Exchange. If hon. members wanted to oppose that measure they could have advanced precisely the same arguments at the time and asked who there actually was in this House who knew anything about the inner workings of the Stock Exchange. But what happened? We appointed a Select Committee, consisting of members of this House, to investigate a very important matter such as that, and they published a very good report. That is why I say that the point the hon. member for Musgrave made about members of this House not being competent to investigate this matter, does not hold good. Bills are not the only matters to be investigated by Select Committees. We had two cases here this morning in respect of which the hon. the Minister mentioned precedents of Select Committees having sat. Select Committees are not only appointed to examine a Bill. Such a committee can also investigate certain other matters. About the point the hon. member made, to the effect that there was not sufficient time to institute this investigation, I want to say that if we do not complete it during this session it can be converted into a commission that can continue with its work during the recess. The hon. member said that a report must be submitted about it. Not only must a report be submitted, but a proper investigation must be instituted. When a Select Committee is constituted it must have that insight. I am convinced that we can get together sufficient members from this side of the House and from that side who are knowledgeable enough to carry out a proper investigation. I should like to hear what the hon. member for Jeppes has to say about this matter. For years the hon. member for Jeppes was a city councillor in Johannesburg. I think he was also in the provincial council.

Yes.

He knows how these things work. In this motion it is stated very clearly what specifically this matter is about. I quote:

The hon. member for Jeppes, and other hon. members who know, will agree with me that in the past a great deal of rezoning was done in urban areas without always taking into consideration this question of the spiritual, social and physical welfare of the population. Those are the mistakes that were made in the past. They have already been illustrated in areas such as Hillbrow, Sunnyside and Sea Point. It has become clear in the past that rezoning has not made provision for these specific cases. In Johannesburg there are still many areas of this kind. The rezoning that took place in areas such as Troyville, Yeoville and Berea, which have been developed, point to this. Will the hon. member for Jeppes, or any hon. member on that side who has knowledge of such matters, say that provision was made for that in the reclassification of those areas? Those are the mistakes that were made in the past. I speak under correction, but I am convinced that the Transvaal Provincial Council does not have the powers at present to say that those areas must be rezoned again, and that the planning must take into account the adverse conditions that can develop as far as the community development and the welfare of those areas are concerned. They do not have those powers. I now ask whether it is not our responsibility, and the responsibility of that side of the House, to request here that this matter be examined, and that a Select Committee should supply the hon. the Minister and the Government with advice in connection with this matter? That is all that is involved. How can the hon. member now say that a Select Committee cannot do this? Irrespective of what the hon. member for Musgrave said, I still need to be convinced about the fact that a Select Committee is not competent to do it. I do not know whether the hon. member wants to move —the motion came from his side—that a Commission of Inquiry be appointed in connection with this matter. But I do not know whether this would be a wise step. I think that hon. members of this House, who are, after all, ultimately the representatives of the people, ought to be quite sufficiently informed to be able to examine this matter properly.

I do not want to say much more about this matter. I think it was dealt with quite thoroughly on this side of the House by the hon. member for Parow. All that I can still say might probably just be a repetition of what he said. But I do just want to say that I am aware of the fact that where present replanning of slum areas is taking place, proper provision is, in fact being made to ensure that that development will not take place in such a way that it will adversely affect the social and spiritual development of the people there. This is in fact being done. But this is not a matter of what is going to take place in the future. I think that in the future provision could most probably be made to have this planning take place on a proper basis. Where planning is taking place in areas that have already been zoned in the past, we must obtain the enabling legislation so that the Minister can take action when it is necessary to ensure that the matters requested in this motion can be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there are problems in this regard. We all agree that Hillbrows are not the best environments for our society. However, I believe that this motion of the hon. the Minister will simply add to our problems and not diminish them. It will be an extension of powers to the department. Whether the hon. the Minister likes it or not, that is in fact what will happen. There will be more work created for his department at a time when the department can least afford it. At the moment the function of the department is to provide housing. Instead of doing that, the hon. the Minister comes along with a new idea which will in fact create more problems for his department and the staff of his department which is already overworked. The department cannot handle its present job, but this motion will result in the department taking upon itself a field which requires a great many experts, a field which requires, in the hon. the Minister’s own words, psychiatrists, architects, and all sorts of people which he does not have in his department, and in fact, of which there is a shortage in the whole of South Africa. The local authorities to some extent have this expert staff. One of the problems of the local authorities is that the Department of Community Development does not comply with their present building restrictions. We would have far less problems in the future if the hon. the Minister’s own department complied with the local authorities’ by-laws as they are today. But what happens is that the hon. the Minister’s department is allowed to ignore these by-laws. He himself is creating the problems of the future. The slums of the future will not be created through history, but will be created by the hon. the Minister’s own actions. All we have to do is look around and we will see this. This motion deals with the planning and structural development of areas and the spiritual, social and physical welfare of the population in such areas. As the hon. member for Durban Musgrave said, if this motion is to be gone into property, every group area will have to be investigated as well. Every township that has been built under the department will have to be investigated. Because, if the hon. the Minister’s record of planning is anything to go by, heaven help us if this power is put into the hands of his department.

With regard to certain local authorities, the hon. the Minister is able to ignore many years of experience of local engineers and local town planners. He is able to build houses which do not comply with local conditions. What is good in Cape Town would not necessarily be good on the Natal Coast. Yet the Minister can ignore the experience of the local experts. He comes along with his own experts, as few as they are, and then he puts up structures which in no way comply with the best methods of town planning. Mr. Speaker, this motion is only going to add to the confusion which we already have in South Africa. At present there are areas all over South Africa which are waiting for the Minister’s department to approve of the plans which his department is working on. We have classic examples of this in my own home city, Durban. Block AK has been waiting for months, if not years, for the Minister’s department to approve of the plans for that area. This is a major growth point in one of the major cities of South Africa. Imagine thé difficulties we are going to have if this Minister has further powers to interfere with planning of this nature. He is going to have the powers, but he is not going to have the people who will be able to plan. He is not going to be able to find these experts and this is going to heap confusion on confusion. He says that under this motion he will have the power to stop the construction of buildings in certain areas which are injurious to the community. However, what could be more injurious to a community than the department ignoring local authorities’ zoning as it is? During the recent years, in how many areas do we not find that the Department of Community Development has erected buildings which are totally at variance with the local authorities’ zoning? He has done this just recently in Durban, because he has all the powers to do it. However, this is injurious to the local communities’ interests. This depresses land values. The hon. the Minister knows that one of the areas I am talking about is the area where the flats for the Police are being erected. This area was not zoned for the four-storey block of flats which is going to be built there. This is injurious to the local interests of the people who have bought their property there, not knowing that the department was going to build in front of them.

That area was zoned for flats. They are building flats for Police there, and what is wrong with that?

There is very much wrong with it.

What? Is the hon. member going to live next to it, or what is wrong with it?

The hon. the Minister knows that on the local town planning that was not shown. When people bought properties there it was not shown that the department was going to build a four-storey block of flats for policemen. Nobody is objecting to the block of flats for the Police, but what they do object to is that they are misled intentionally, or unintentionally, into buying in an area which changes because the department comes along and puts up a building which does not comply with the local zoning. This is injurious to the local community and this is the sort of thing which the department is already doing. If it is going to have further powers to over-rule, as it is already doing, and to ignore town councils, and if it is going to do the planning, all I can say is heaven forbid! All the cities in South Africa will probably look the same. Every city in South Africa will then be planned with as little imagination as some of the blocks of flats which are being planned by the hon. the Minister’s department in townships. If every city in South Africa is going to be regimented in the same way, as one person has said, we will be living as battery chickens. This inquiry is all very well and I would quite happily support such an inquiry if it were not for one thing only. It says that it is going to prevent the erection of buildings. I would like to see this inquiry extended to investigate the whole question. The hon. member for Parow mentioned the Niemand Commission. The findings of the Niemand Commission was very interesting because it investigated …

The Diemont Commission …

Well, I am referring to the Niemand Commission, which the hon. the Minister appointed about a year ago. In any case, this commission investigated the price of land. It was a very thorough investigation, but it made one big mistake. It never investigated the land held by the department. If we are going to have a motion like this, I would be very interested to know whether this Select Committee will investigate the planning of the Department of Community Development itself, because they are the biggest culprits in bad town planning.

If you want to give evidence, you are free to do so.

I will happily do so against the department before any commission. This motion will mean that the Department of Community Development takes for itself powers to override and to dictate to every local authority. There is not a person in South Africa who knows anything about the department who does not agree that the department has far too many powers and that it is about time it started shedding them instead of taking more.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the hon. member for Port Natal has a vendetta against the Department and the hon. the Minister, and that in his speech he hardly touched upon the principle contained in this motion of the hon. the Minister. He merely continued his vendetta with the hon. the Minister. The most interesting aspect, however, is that other hon. members opposite complained that what the hon. the Minister was proposing here was far too wide in its scope, but that hon. member, however, says that he will support such an investigation if we can extend it even further. He then also said what had to be added. Some hon. members opposite complain that the field of investigation, in the light of certain words in the hon. the Ministers motion, is too wide in scope and that one would need several years to complete such an investigation. According to them one would need the most learned of people and also experts in order to settle such a matter. But the hon. member for Port Natal, on the other hand, says that we can hold such an investigation, but that we should extend its scope a little and give that committee still more work. I mention this as an example to prove that the hon. member did not argue about the principle of the hon. Minister’s motion at all. The hon. member for Port Natal says that the department has too much work and that even though there is a problem, the Department cannot take care of that because it would give them more work. If there are problems, these must be investigated and tackled; it does not matter how much extra work it gives the Department. One cannot let conditions such as those that have developed over the years, as in this case, continue merely as a result of the volume of work.

The hon. member also complained about the relationship between the Department of Community Development and local authorities. Such relationships can specifically be investigated by such a Select Committee. This is surely a golden opportunity for the hon. member specifically to bring all the difficulties to light, present them to the Committee and ask them to find a solution.

The hon. member for Green Point said that the terms of reference were too wide in scope, and then specifically referred to the words “spiritual, social and physical welfare” of the people that can be adversely affected. Without paying heed to those words I want to ask what it is that is involved here. This is simply a matter concerning human lives that are adversely affected. In specific urban areas the development was such that the people who settled there are being adversely affected in everything they do that makes them human beings. We do not have to pay such close attention to those words. There are large numbers of our population in the large urban areas who are adversely affected as a result of certain developments. We must investigate the problems that crop up, and we must suggest remedies to arrest this kind of development. The hon. member said that if the hon. the Minister had come forward with more sharply defined proposals, there could still have been a basis for discussion, but the hon. member for Green Point himself did not try to give any definition to the hon. the Minister’s motion in order to restrict it a little. The hon. the Minister himself asked the hon. member for Musgrave what his proposal was. I have tried to indicate what the hon. member for Musgrave recommended, but he did not come along with any positive proposal about how this matter should be limited before the committee to any extent, if the terms of reference are then too wide in scope at present. The hon. the Minister pointed out very clearly that we are also seeking improved channels for better communication and co-ordination. The hon. gentlemen say that these do exist. But if they do, and local authorities and our provincial authorities are serious about the fact that such developments are not taking place, then they must surely be in closer contact with the Department, so that in co-operation with the Department they can actually prevent certain conditions from developing. But that co-ordination does not exist. It may exist in theory, but in practice this is really not carried out. What happens when things go wrong? Just think of what happened in Hillbrow at the end of last year over the Christmas season. To whom was a finger immediately pointed? The Government! The Government should have taken care of it, and not the local authority. When things are going well the local authorities get the credit, but when things go wrong in an area where local authorities are in control of the nature of the development, the Government receives the blame. The Hillbrow incident was very clear proof to us of this.

But in added pursuance of this, if the Minister uses the powers he has at his disposal what complaints are then laid at his door? It is very quickly said that the Minister and the Department are not giving their co-operation. They are merely assuming dictatorial powers and following their own dictates. It does not help to go and speak to them. In order to eliminate all these difficulties for the benefit of the Department, local authorities and provincial administrations, the Minister is coming forward with this motion; to see if there are not ways of obtaining greater co-operation, specifically in order to eliminate these problems. Sir, we cannot deny that in certain urban areas people are being adversely affected. From what areas do the most maladjusted people come? Must we now simply let their breeding ground develop and not have the courage to say that we are not going to allow the continued existence of those places that are developing along such unsound lines. Here are three bodies involved in the matter—local authorities, provincial administrations and the State. We must appoint this Select Committee so that those three bodies will be brought together to investigate the best ways and means of combating undesirable developments that are damaging to many of the inhabitants of our cities.

I can really not see the reason why the Opposition does not want to support this motion of the Minister. If one listened closely to what the hon. member for Musgrave said, the matter does hinge on economic reasons. He emphasized in particular the availability of land, the cost of services, available space and increasingly more people who have to go and live in flats. We acknowledge this. But must we now simply let the problem continue? We acknowledge that more people are going to live there, that a greater urbanization process is going to take place; but we specifically do not want to pave the way for those who are going to live in the city to land up in such conditions. Sir, it would really be a pity if we are to get further resistance from the Opposition in respect of this motion of the Minister. We believe that they will abandon this resistance and, in fact, give their support to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, outside the actual address of the Minister to justify the reasons why he brought this motion before us, I do not think those who supported him, quite understand the problem. In fact, if anything, they have debated it very hotly and tried to give reasons as to why the Select Committee should be appointed. But they did not deal with the problem itself. I maintain that the hon. the Minister does not need a Select Committee of this nature at all. He has all the information that one would require to deal with the problems which seem to be besetting him. But there is one difficulty, from which he suffers—unfortunately, problems of this nature, of which his Department has well aware for many years, do not seem to accelerate it into action. I shall try to make that clear to the hon. the Minister in the kindest manner. I am not being over-critical but will support the things I say in order to satisfy the Minister. The Minister well knows that the first town planning scheme in the country came in the year 1942 in Johannesburg. Until then there was no such thing as a town planning scheme anywhere in the country. A lot of the ills of congestion came about before town-planning schemes became prevalent in cities and towns of South Africa. If the Minister would care to date the problems after the introduction of town planning schemes, he would find that since that date there have been no difficulties at all…

That was 30 years ago. Why did Hillbrow develop?

Hillbrow is not a residential suburb, like Sea Point is of Cape Town. Hillbrow is part of the centre of Johannesburg. Although it is called Hillbrow, the township itself is the township of Johannesburg. Hillbrow is a colloquial term only and does not appear on any plan in the Surveyor-General’s office.

Why then did the City Council of Johannesburg not prevent the development of Hillbrow?

I am going to answer that. Let me give the hon. the Minister a comparison. The centre of the city of Sydney in Australia, a city with 2½ million people, is entirely commercial. In recent days the trend of the township development has been for dwellings to be erected in the centre of the city with the object of giving the centre of the city some sense of life. It is being stated that the centre of a city which is completely commercial goes entirely dead from 5 or 6 o’clock when the business people leave for their homes. Johannesburg has developed somewhat differently. It developed as a commercial centre but also provided dwellings within the centre of the city. That is why we have large blocks of flats in Johannesburg today; that is why we have Hillbrow today where large blocks of flats-cum business properties are developing.

The Minister is a little bit confused. He seems to think that the density of the population in Hillbrow is the cause of delinquency and drug addiction. If I may use one of his special terms, he is talking nonsense. If you go to well-developed cities like Stockholm or Oslo—the Minister ought to know became he is a well-travelled man—or Copenhagen or to some of the big cities in Germany or France, you will find hippies, drug addiction and delinquency despite the fact that those cities are amongst the most modern in the world and that provision is made for every possible facility—open spaces, facilities for recreation, etc. One cannot condemn Hillbrow; yet the Minister seems to have a fixation about it. If one looks beyond the actual confines of Hillbrow, what would one find? One would find that Johannesburg is one of the best laid-out cities in the country. You will find open spaces and recreational facilities. The same goes for those suburbs to which the hon. member for Langlaagte referred, suburbs like Berea, Yeoville and even Troyeville. Coming to the Cape and looking at Sea Point, I do know that somebody unfortunately erred, which is only human, and that a commission was appointed to try to rectify the matter. But that is not the reason why a Select Committee should now be appointed.

The hon. the Minister has all the information he wants. Let me tell him this, Sir. I think it was towards the end of the 50’s or early 60’s that the question of urban renewal was first mooted in this country, and it was mooted by the City Council of Johannesburg. I am only dealing with Johannesburg because it is one of the leading cities and because they have had this experience. As a result of that, the Minister’s department was advised of a certain plan which was designed to freeze an area of Johannesburg, close to the city, the Jeppes area, so that there could be no development without the consent of his department and so that a complete survey could take place with a view to bringing about an urban renewal scheme. It took three or four years before that materialized. I do not blame him; it is possible that it was necessary first to examine the scheme. Then, Sir, we know that in 1967 a very important study tour was undertaken by Johannesburg city councillors and officials and, if I am not mistaken, I think one or two members of the Minister’s department as well. They went abroad to countries like France, Sweden, the United States of America and even to Canada and collected a tremendous amount of information on the development of cities and townships and on the facilities that are required in the populous areas. Let me say further that the town councils and provincial administrations are armed with some of the most modern legislation to deal with the layout of townships and to cope with these various problems which worry the Minister. When townships are laid out provision has to be made for open spaces. When townships are laid out, sites are set aside for churches, parks and schools. Bulk and cover are carefully measured and the township area is satisfactorily zoned. In addition to that. Sir, any scheme that is put up by a town council has to be vetted by the provincial administration. There is a very highly skilled administrative body and a very well-oiled machinery in the leading municipalities and provinces throughout South Africa, and they are all well aware of these problems of which the Minister speaks. And if the hon. member for Green Point asks the Department of Community Development to co-operate and to co-ordinate with lower tiers of government, that is not asking too much. Why spend all this time investigating things that we know?

What are we doing in Jeppe and in Vrededorp? Are we co-operating or not?

Sir, nobody is criticizing the hon. the Minister. I have only one criticism of the Minister. It is all very well for his department to limit local authorities to a maximum cost of R6,000 per dwelling unit when his own department builds dwelling units at a cost of R12,000, R13,000, R15,000 or any figure they like. Nobody is criticizing the hon. the Minister. We are dealing here with a motion which is a completely redundant motion, and nothing has been said to justify it. The Minister wants a Select Committee. It is all very well to appoint a Select Committee if it can achieve anything, but why delay? I have a report here, of which the hon. the Minister should get a copy and which is probably in the possession of his department; it is a report from the City Council of Johannesburg. I think it was an item on one of their agendas. This report sets out what they found in regard to modern development overseas. The hon. the Minister merely has to read this report to know what to do. Sir, what does the hon. the Minister wish to achieve? All he has told us is that he wants to avoid another Hillbrow, another Sunnyside and another Sea Point. He has no other example to offer because everything else is well covered by the various ordinances throughout the country, and if there are deficiencies it is very simple to remedy them. I would like to tell the Minister that in a place like Berea, to which the hon. member for Langlaagte referred, the City Council recently expropriated 25 acres for an open space. It was not a very difficult job to do; it gave plenty of time to people to move; they all received satisfactory compensation and an open space was provided. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister this, that in the United States they provide in their budget for what they call a federal aid programme, and they provide the cities with almost 80 per cent of the moneys that are required for urban renewal and the improvement of areas, for doing the very things which are contained here, for the religious, the recreational and the social uplift of the community. This requires merely an inspiration on the part of the hon. the Minister, well backed up by the necessary finances, and I can give him every assurance that there will not be a municipality in this country which will not respond and co-operate with him, because that would be a positive step in the right direction. We do not require to be advised what to do. We all know what to do. We can look at any country to get a simple example, but what we need is the goodwill and the financial co-operation and the desire to do something worth while. I think I know the motive behind this motion—I do not blame the Minister; I suppose he has to do something about it, because he has had lots of appeals made to him; people have got into touch with him and said: Look at the sin of Hillbrow and Sea Point; what are you going to do about it? Well, we know the easiest way out for any Government. Appoint a Select Committee to investigate and everybody is happy because the matter is receiving attention.

Is that your attitude?

I would never dream of adopting such an attitude. I would rather have suggested to the hon. the Minister of Finance to include R25 million to R30 million as the first step towards encouraging local authorities to improve their areas. There is one important factor that must be realized. Not very many cities and towns in our country require intensive urban renewal. It is only the older cities that require it, and those older cities would be only too delighted to co-operate if they were given the necessary finance and encouragement. It is not a very difficult problem. It is merely a question of a survey by his own department of where this urban renewal is required, because in the other towns and cities modern town planning has taken over. The Minister only has to have a look around the whole country to realize that not only are towns being laid out on an extremely fine scale, but there are hundreds of new townships which are still awaiting approval and which will continue to beautify the surroundings of any city. This is not a question for a Select Committee. Nobody can learn anything; nobody can tell us anything, and if anyone can tell the hon. the Minister and his department anything new on this subject, I can only say that they have not done their homework, because they should know what is happening in the country as we know what is happening in the country, and we do not want a Select Committee to do a job like this. Any matter concerning the housing question would be something in regard to which the hon. member for Green Point and his colleagues would be only too delighted to assist the Minister and to co-operate with the Minister; we would be delighted to assist him if he were to move along a positive road. Here he comes along with what, to use their own favourite term, is really a little smokescreen to satisfy a lot of persons who are unhappy about what is taking place but who have no idea why it is taking place; we cannot cure the thing because though this may be some symptomatic solution, it is not a solution for the cause of the problem, namely drug addiction and delinquency. This is merely a little sop and I predict that if this goes through nothing new will be learnt by the department or by Parliament or by the country concerning this problem of better cities and better towns to meet all the factors which the hon. the Minister has in mind.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppes became very agitated and said that we need learn nothing more about this matter. He said that everything would be fine in future. Nothing would go wrong. Does he approve of the development in Blouberg Strand? Does he approve of the erection of the three monstrosities against Table Mountain? Does the hon. member agree with that? Of course they have made a mistake there. It is to prevent this sort of thing that I am coming forward with this motion. I want to ask the member for Jeppes—and he must listen to me now—whether he approves of the development taking place against Table Mountain. [Interjections.] No, but surely the hon. member has seen it there. Does he agree that it should have taken place? Nobody agrees with that. But let us look at Johannesburg.

You approved it.

I did not approve it. That hon. member is talking nonsense. Let us look at Johannesburg. The hon. member said the Johannesburg City Council had asked for the co-operation of the Department of Community Development in regard to Newclaire, Vrededorp and Jeppe. But surely he knows that is not true. Surely the hon. member knows that it was my predecessor, Minister P. W. Botha, the then Minister of Community Development who told Johannesburg to co-operate in regard to the urban renewal in Jeppe, Vrededorp and Newclaire. The Johannesburg City Council did not take the initiative. The initiative was taken by the then Minister of Community Development. But let us look further than Johannesburg, the wonderful Johannesburg which got a city planning scheme in 1942. But what happened in 1956-’57 about the mess in Sophiatown?

1951.

Yes, 1951. Why did they not clear up that mess then? They actually went so far as to refuse to clear up that mess. This resulted in the late Dr. Verwoerd. the then Minister of Native Affairs, having to take powers to establish the Resettlement Board in order to clear up their mess for them. Triomf was then developed on that basis. And Triomf was not developed by them. Triomf was developed by the Resettlement Board and the Development Board. The hon. member for Jeppes must not talk that sort of nonsense.

It was done without a select committee.

I have all those powers today. This is what I find so unreasonable of the Opposition. I have the powers today to freeze the whole of Johannesburg if I want to. I have the power to freeze the whole of Cape Town if I want to and to appoint State committees which will result in all plans having to be approved by me. I have those powers. This is precisely my whole point. My point is by means of this proposal to obtain the co-ordination and co-operation of all the local authorities, all interested bodies, provincial authorities, etc. The hon. member for Jeppes admitted that city planning schemes were introduced only in 1942. I honestly want to say that in repard to urban renewal and urban development we are still in our infancy. Consequently we must continually pay attention to this matter.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Port Natal. He complained about Block A-K. Why does he complain about that? Why does his city council not complain about it? This hon. member says that we do not want to develop Block A-K. Why does the hon. member complain? Why does his city council not complain? Sir, I shall tell you why his city council does not complain. It is because it was the city council that asked us to intervene there. His city council not only asked us to appoint a State committee there and to freeze the area. The Durban City Council asked us to freeze Block G as well. And today we have the full co-operation of the Durban City Council. It was at their request that we intervened there. We did not intervene there against their will. In spite of that, the hon. member continually complains in this House about Block A-K. I shall listen to the hon. member’s complaints about Block A-K if he brings me a motion from the Durban City Council in which they also complain about Block A-K. In spite of this, the hon. member goes along and writes a thick book on community development on the strength of which he will not even pass Sub A.

Would the hon. the Minister not consider amending his motion to meet the precise point which he wishes to achieve and which he has repeated, namely to find a method of co-ordination and co-operation amongst the various bodies? Would he not amend his motion along those lines?

I find it rather difficult to understand why the hon. member asks me that question at this stage. This motion has been on the Order Paper for the past fortnight. I do not want to repeat confidential discussions now. We should rather leave that to one side. I received no indication whatsoever that this motion was going to be opposed by the Opposition. To tell the truth, the indication I received was the very opposite. I heard only yesterday morning that it had been decided to oppose this motion. If the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Green Point had a reasonable amendment to move to this, I would have said that I was perfectly willing to listen to reasonable amendments, as I have proved in the past. If I had found the amendment acceptable, I would have accepted it. I have often done this in the past. In this very session I came forward with legislation which I introduced solely at the request of that side of the House. After all, I know we have a difficult problem to deal with here, and that our people do not have a monopoly of all knowledge.

I want to suggest to the hon. member for Musgrave that we appoint this select committee. They can serve on it. If the select committee then thinks that these instructions are too laborious or too wide or something of that nature, the select committee can come back to this House. They can then suggest instructions to this House and then we can amend our instructions to the select committee. If the select committee is in favour of that, I shall be quite willing to pay attention to it. These are the people who can then decide whether this matter is too wide and whether they cannot do their work properly in terms of the motion as it stands at present. I think it will be a select committee consisting of 11 persons. Let them discuss the matter. If they want a different instruction. I am quite prepared to give the assurance now that I will propose to the Cabinet, as far as it is in my power to do so, that the select committee be given a different instruction. But we cannot get away from this problem. As I have said, I have all the powers today to be able to freeze the position, but if I were to make use of these powers on a larger scale than I am doing at present, it would confuse the local authorities and the provincial government system completely. In certain limited places I have used these powers, such as in District Six, in co-operation with the Cape Town City Council; in the South End of Port Elizabeth, in co-operation with the Port Elizabeth City Council; in the South End of East London, in Cato Manor and Riverside in Durban and in Jeppe and similar places in Johannesburg.

Why do you mention Cato Manor? Cato Manor was never developed as a White area.

It is now going to be developed as a White area at the request of the City Council of Durban. We are giving all possible assistance. At the request of the City Council of Durban, a State Committee has been appointed. I will give as a present to those two hon. members that, as far as local authorities, town planning and provincial planning are concerned, the province of Natal is far ahead of any of the other provinces.

*The hon. member should not get annoyed about that. I shall go further and say that the sound machinery was instituted there as a result of the lead given by the present member for South Coast when he was Administrator. He paid careful attention to this. Today we are trying to introduce many measures in other cities as was done with the planning committees of Natal in Pietermaritzburg and Durban.

The hon. the Minister has done enough praising now. He must not carry it too far.

I am not going to carry it any further. I want to give the hon. member for Carletonville that assurance. I had to protect my political career a little. They have praised me so much that it has become dangerous. Now I must praise them a little in order to repay my debt.

What is the position here? I want to conclude with this. We simply cannot get away from the fact that we are heading for the flat era. All I ask here is that in future, when we have to build flats where we have such a population density, we should make provision for open spaces, playing grounds for the children, places of recreation, halls and the necessary facilities, so that we may establish a balanced community there. With the powers I have at present and with the powers the city councils and provincial councils have at present, matters are simply not functioning properly. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that they are not functioning properly because the necessary co-ordination is lacking. The purpose of this proposal is that the select committee must work out something which will result in better co-ordination so that in future we will not have such unhealthy development as we have had in the past and are still having today. I think it is an extremely reasonable motion. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Green Point, as the leader of his party in these matters, to serve on the select committee in spite of the fact that they are going to vote against this motion. I do not want to be dogmatic and say that this instruction will be the final word to such a select committee. If the select committee were to come to me and say that this instruction was a bit clumsy and suggested that the House of Assembly give it another instruction, I would be perfectly willing to do so. This is honestly no attempt to make political capital out of this matter, although I must honestly admit that I am fond of politics and fond of being wilful in politics.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I am. In this respect, as far as my work is concerned, I am, however, trying to be as impartial as I possibly can. I think hon. members must admit that in the implementation of the Community Development Act, the Slums Act and in regard to the Community Development Board and the Housing Commission, I have always been willing to listen to suggestions from that side of the House, suggestions from this side of the House and suggestions from city Councils and provincial councils. Therefore I ask that side of the House in all seriousness, although they have apparently decided to vote against this motion, nevertheless to serve on the Select Committee and to help work out an instruction there.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned I was dealing with the feeble argument of the hon. member for Turffontein. To conclude this part of my speech I should like to say something to the hon. member for Turffontein. He quoted long sections from the Sunday Times here, from articles written by Langa Skosana. Now I should just like to inform the hon. member that what Langa Skosana and Stanley Uys say in the Sunday Times, is not our norm. Nor is it what that hon. member for … what is his name again?

Oliver Twist.

Nor is it what Oliver Twist or Stanley Uys says. Our criterion is that which is correct and efficacious for the administration of the Republic of South Africa. I am convinced that neither the United Party nor the Progressive Party really want to make any constructive contribution to the enormous problems facing us in this country. I am becoming more and more convinced that they are engaged in political opportunism, in political dishonesty. The recurring theme in this House since I have been here, last year and this year, has consistently in every debate—whether the topic under discussion was Robben Island or the price of bags— specifically been the better utilization of Bantu labour. This has from time to time been advocated and championed by the United Party. They have talked about “less rigidity”, “more flexibility” and have asked for a “more compassionate society”. Now that the hon. the Deputy Minister has come forward with legislation which he has put to this House logically, objectively, systematically and rationally, what is in fact the attitude of the Opposition in this regard?

The hon. member for Houghton, apparently under the impression that she has the patented right, whether called-for or uncalled-for to act on behalf of the Bantu and who must be the champion of everybody and everything is clearly incensed and vexed at the achievements and the initiative the National Party has taken in this connection. In a petty way she is trying to live off scraps. In a petty way she also talks about “forced labour” “conditions in hospitals” of a “sugar-coated clause” and so on. But what is the real attitude of the United Party in this regard? Typically that usual and worn-out “yes-no politics” and the wait-until-the-policeman-comes attitude of the United Party. In this Bill the idea of “greater mobility” is quite by the way. In fact it is not receiving any priority. Mention is in fact made in passing of a “certain degree of merit” “one positive aspect is mobility” and “this will lead to greater mobility” but over and above that this entire general idea of flexibility of a better flow and of mobility has disappeared completely and all we have had from the Opposition in its place was this negative attack on their part. In this way the hon. member for Durban Central spoke of a “Bill for ‘yes-men’ ”. What grounds and what right did he have to level a charge of that nature? We shall soon see who is guilty of this “ja-broer” idea and philosophy.

Mention was made here of “a shocking distrust of city councils” but I still want to know on behalf of which city council the United Party has instructions to speak. I see it as mere suspicion-mongering and as their having no instructions in this regard. Not one speaker on the opposite side has yet stated on behalf of which city council they have the right here and have received instructions from to act. Their fine-sounding words “we must protest on behalf of the Bantu” I regard as pure incitement. The United Party does not have the least right or claim to speak here of or on behalf of the Bantu. Where do they get that right? They have no instructions to do so.

Then there is still the ridiculous proposal of the hon. member for Johannesburg North that a referendum be held. We must ask ourselves this question why this egg dance? Why is the United Party trying to sit on two stools? The reason is obvious. They are trying to do so because they are obliged on the one hand to go along with the Industries because they are aware of the fact that the industries fully support this legislation and welcome it in every respect. Because they know that they wax eloquent here and come along with great display and say that it is actually their policy, as the hon. member for Durban Central said, “a modified version of United Party policy”. This is just so much parrot-talk and boasting, on the one hand to curry favour with the industries, but on the other hand this Opposition also has in mind winning the favour of the Johannesburg City Council. It is their task and they regard it as their duty to bid for Little Brother’s favour there in the Johannesburg City Council. This is a city council for whom it must be difficult even for the United Party to intercede. Why? Because the Johannesburg City Council is a city council which, under the control and guidance of the United Party, cannot even maintain law and order in its White areas, to say nothing of its non-White area. The proof of that is that it is in the White area of that city council where we from time to time have to deal with demonstrations. It was to put a stop to that kind of incident that legislation had to be passed in this hon. House. This Government had to intervene.

Then this Opposition came forward with an amendment, in which the following reason was advanced:

Let us take another look at Johannesburg. There is an influx of 800,000 Bantu there, almost one million. Some time ago I had occasion to investigate certain matters there in the Johannesburg municipal area on instructions from a Government commission. As far as the utilization of Bantu labour is concerned, we found that there were Bantu sitting on the street corners giving haircuts. Two yards away another old Bantu was sitting selling meat and offal on the street. The peppercorns mingled with the offal and the offal with the peppercorns. This is the record of the Johannesburg City Council, on whose behalf these hon. members want to speak. Then they Say that they are the authority to whom this matter, of utmost importance in our Government policy, Bantu administration, should be entrusted. One need only go to Pretoria to see that what is happening in Johannesburg does not happen there.

Now these few members are boasting, on behalf of the Johannesburg City Council, of that which they previously opposed, and which would not have existed if it had not been forced upon them by the National Party. Mr. Speaker, I regard this amendment of theirs in the form of a dirge. Its burden is “it removes Bantu administration from the local authorities where it properly belongs”. Sir, this is parrot-talk; this is the language of yes-men. [Laughter.] That hon. member is laughing.

Sir, there is often a very noticeable, a very visible connection between the actions of the United Party and that of leftist organizations. In this connection I want to refer to an example which has already been mentioned in this debate. If you refer to this yellow circular of the South African Institute of Race Relations, one finds here a series of arguments which are echoed almost verbatim by the United Party. This pamphlet talks about “the harshness evident in areas controlled by Government administration”.

That is true.

The hon. member for Transkei says it is true. He says the same thing; he says “it cushions the harshness of Government administration”.

Hear, hear!

Hon members on that side are saying “hear, hear”! Now you can see the visible connection between the arguments of a body such as the Institute of Race Relations, and the United Party. This body says—

The hon. member for Transkei endorses this by talking about “the humane implementation of the regulations by local authorities”. Then there is also this striking similarity; these people say the following—

The hon. member for Transkei endorses this fully, and I think every hon. member on that side as well. But then they add this significant tailpiece—

Sir, this is the body, the third level of government, to which we must entrust Bantu administration, the matter of utmost importance which is at this moment a real and pertinent issue in this country. The Opposition is advocating that it should be entrusted not to the State which is the responsible and the highest authority, but to the third level of government, namely the City Council of Johannesburg. Sir, we want to take our hats off to what has been done by some local authorities in the implementation of Government policy. But there have been local authorities, beyond all others the City Council of Johannesburg, that have tried to formulate their own policy, in contradistinction to Government policy, who have acted as obstructionists from time to time, who have actually thwarted State authority and who have in point of fact made such a farce of the implementation of Government and State policy that the Government has had to intervene. That alone, I think, is adequate and sufficient reason why the Government should pass this legislation in this House.

Sir, I should like to mention some of the benefits attaching to this legislation. It will very definitely make Bantu labour more fluid over a larger area and cause it to flow more freely. I want to use the position in my own area, Ermelo, as an example, where we have the Ermelo Town Council with the closely adjoining Camden suburban area. The present position is that the people in Ermelo are without domestic servants while there is excessive labour in the second urban area of Camden, which cannot be utilized. It is sometimes difficult to defend before one’s voters the question of why there is in fact excessive labour here, while there is no labour in an area five miles away. This is now being remedied in this legislation; this solves the problem, and that is why I support this legislation. We had another problem, for example, that adjoining farms, belonging to the same owner, fell within the area in the one case and outside the area in the other, and this created problems for us.

Sir, there are other benefits. Surpluses can be better utilized. I am thinking for example of excessive agricultural labour in some agricultural regions. In my constituency there is one area where we have a large surplus of Bantu labour which can now be diverted to places where there is a shortage such as the Camden power station; that excessive labour can be incorporated into the Provincial Administration; it can be incorporated on a temporary basis into the coal mines. There are black spots—I am thinking in particular of the Kromkrans black spot of which the hon. the Minister is aware—where we can channelize the surplus labour to other sectors and to other areas. We are thinking of the resettlement of squatters, who can in this way be dealt with in an orderly and systematic manner. Sir, the other benefits are that opportunities can in this way be created for the rural Bantu, which do not at present exist for them, and it will have this noticeable effect: It will put a stop to the tendency of the Bantu to end up in the cities, for this will now create opportunities for them where they are, in their own area, on a wider basis. I think that this will put a stop to the influx to the cities, and that it will definitely create far greater and better opportunities for the Bantu in the rural areas than is at present the case. In addition to that it will definitely eliminate the mass congregation on the outskirts of towns. It will be possible to apply influx control to better effect; it will be possible to handle the registration of service contracts to better effect, and it will be possible to apply the White-by-night legislation to better effect. In addition to that the position is that the smaller local authorities are not always financially able to acquire the necessary trained staff in their Bantu sections. The result is that the application of legislation and the practical transfer of Bantu policy particularly to the non-Whites is sometimes defective and not all it should be. This creates frustration; this creates a measure of antagonism; it creates dissatisfaction among the Bantu and it also creates dissatisfaction among the Whites as a result of the maladministration of Bantu policy. This will also result in the elimination of divided control. It is proposed that section 40 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act can be utilized in this respect, but it is very clear that the provisions of that section are entirely inadequate for this purpose. This will further eliminate the entire ambiguous policy here. We must bear in mind that the officials who are entrusted with that work on an agency basis have up to now been placed in the difficult position that they have had to serve two masters; they have had two bosses. These people were in fact dependent for their promotion and remuneration on the local authorities.

Sir, summing up, this legislation is really a classical piece of legislation which deserves praise in every respect, and it is a pity that the Opposition, instead of considering it on its merits, tried in their traditional way to sow suspicion here; they came along here and tried to incite; they came along and suggested here that we were dealing with a secret organization; that we were dealing with coercion and suppression; that heavy-handed methods would be used; they came along here and alleged that this would give rise to poorer conditions. It is in fact the State, it is in fact the Government that virtually forced local authorities to resettle their Bantu populations, and this is what some of these local authorities are now boasting of. Sir, I say it is a pity that this type of agitation has occurred and that it is being alleged that the urban Bantu will be forced to go and work on farms. I do not think that kind of thing should be said here.

As regards, in conclusion, the charge that this legislation will be conducive to “the speedier implementation of the policy of separate development”, if that should be the case, then I say, “So what?” If that is the object of this legislation, or is one of its objects, then I support it fully. There was overwhelming evidence, from all the speakers who spoke on this side, including that of the City Council of Johannesburg in the person of the hon. member for Langlaagte, that this legislation is welcomed by all, by the United Municipal Executive and the Institute of non-White Administrators. I now, in conclusion, want to ask the Opposition to bring us just one example of one body, with the exception of the Institute of Race Relations, which has ever intimated that it does not welcome this legislation.

The silken glove with which the Deputy Minister presented this Bill to the House was very speedily disintegrated by the fiery addresses which we heard from the hon. members for Langlaagte and Brakpan. I think the latter hon. member made it perfectly clear that the purpose of this Bill, far from being what the hon. the Deputy Minister stated, namely to establish the administration in Bantu areas on a healthier and more effective basis, in effect is to take the urban African or urban Bantu and make him a faceless migrant labourer, unidentified, of no consequence, merely allowed to come in and bring his labour and to go out when his time expires, having satisfied the terms of his contract; and I say that the country must be aware of this. The country must not be deluded by these words which the Deputy Minister used when he said that this is a well-meaning and honest desire to bring about legislation which will establish Bantu administration on a healthier and more effective basis. Quite frankly, I was somewhat intrigued when I read in his Hansard—and I checked it very carefully —of the necessity of presenting this Bill, prefaced by the fact that it was an honest and well-meaning attempt. Sir, why the apology for something which became so evident when the hon. member for Brakpan spoke, I do not really know. It is only members like the one who has just spoken, the hon. member for Ermelo, who can be anaesthetized by that type of approach to the legislation before us. I say that this is not the attitude, nor is it the action, which one can call statesmanlike, nor is it an effort to bring about any peace and contentment in the field in which the Minister alleged he wanted to bring such atmosphere. This, I say, has a cold-blooded objective. It is impersonal in its approach. It has no warmth of interest. It has no humane, outlook at all. It merely wants to deal with the situation which will enable the Deputy Minister to reach the year 1978 satisfied that his hundreds of thousands of houses throughout the country will house the migrants who come in for their term of labour and go out. The houses then receive the following migrants. I say this as a preface to what I intend to say now about this Bill and the manner and purpose of its introduction.

You are talking coldblooded nonsense.

I am prepared to accept it is coldblooded; that is the only way in which you can deal with a Bill if this nature, because the hon. the Deputy Minister knows well that this request for the mobility of labour, this request for instance for a regional administrative area on the Witwatersrand, has been mooted and talked about for years already. Labour for industrialists, commercial business houses and even domestic labour fell into the same category where it became desirable in the interest of labour to have a regional area where the prescribed areas did not limit the movement of the workers. That was the important thing because this is virtually a cohesive area, and what the hon. the Minister is doing now, what he calls bringing about the mobility of labour he could easily do under section 40 of the Act and he knows it well enough. He has established management boards under section 40ter of the Act. He can do it with the greatest of ease. In fact, one of the leading city councils of this country—I need not even apologize; the City Council of Johannesburg—presented the hon. the Minister with a satisfactory amendment which would have enabled him to establish the management boards that he wants to establish for the purpose of dealing with the mobility of labour.

Why has Johannesburg under section 40 not taken the lead then?

The Johannesburg City Council has discussed it with the department on numerous occasions. I want to say something more. The Deputy Minister knows better than I, because he exercises it, that in terms of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act he has all the power he needs. There is not a thing that can be done without his approval and without his consent, and he knows it full well. He knows that he can issue directives to the City Council of Johannesburg. [Interjection.] Did he not once appoint two investigators called Frank and Stein, who eventually became known as the “Frankenstein Inspectorate”. I am afraid that is the danger which faces us, the building of a Frankenstein which will eventually destroy the very peace and contentment which the Minister says he wants to bring about. And the reason why I am opposing it is this. For years Bantu Affairs have been administered by the local authority. It is something that is intimate in the sense that it is close by. It affects the cities where these people work. It affects the intimate homes of people, apart from their businesses and industries. It affects the bringing up of children, it affects the serving of food, and it affects services right throughout the city. This happens in every city and town and village management board throughout the country. But the Minister wants to take all this detailed work and bring it solely under his control. Why one does not know. He has the power. He has these satellite authorities handling it for him and building it up satisfactorily. They have established reputations unequalled in the country for administration, and the Deputy Minister knows that very well indeed.

Let me now just proceed perhaps with another thought. What the Minister has in mind is not the principle of which he talks, the principle of his administering this particular Act. What he wants to do is to establish a board which will have nothing but an objective interest. People will merely be figures.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

What does “objective” mean?

The hon. member may enjoy the opinion he has given vent to. I do not begrudge him that opinion if he wants to enjoy it. The Minister wishes to establish a board which will deal with labour as well as the administration of the entire Bantu peoples, who fall within its area of administration. It will be extremely objective because it will virtually be appointed at the dictate, at the wish and at the desire of the Minister, because the Minister will choose that representative of local authorities that he wishes to choose. He will have one Or two, or maybe three or four, people from industry and commerce in order to give the thing some facade. The scheme must have a body, and to complete that body you must have others as well. But it will be useful to him. But to ask people whom he decides have a deep knowledge of Bantu affairs to do the administration and then use all these satellite towns whose servants and employees he wishes to take over, as his various segments, is something which is absolutely incomprehensible. His whole approach is one where he will have a body to whom orders will be given. Theirs will not be to reason why, theirs will merely be to do or die. The hon. the Minister can even dismiss them at will. That is the purpose of this particular Bill which goes far beyond anything that the hon. the Minister suggested would take place.

Now, Sir, may I deal just with one other little matter before I go on to what I wish to say generally about this Bill. I should like to refer to two suggestions. I wish to refer to the very brilliant thought that emanated from the hon. member for Brakpan concerning the mass transportation of labour to the various towns. One would have thought that that was a very original idea. But if you read some of the extracts of the discussions which took place at a SABRA conference at Port Elizabeth, I think in August, you will find that it was suggested there that it would be a very good thing if you could denude all the towns of the Bantu and bring them to work in the form of mass transportation. They thought that to transport 100,000 workers —which it says is the number Soweto provides daily, which is wrong because it is much more—would require a subsidy from the Government of R1 million per month. That is the first assessment. That it may finish up as is usually the case at R4 million or R5 million per month is a different story. Can you imagine, Sir, if it is going to cost R1 million per month to subsidize the mass transport of workers in Johannesburg how much it will cost right throughout the country? That is the position apart from the fact that you will need, I think, about 45, 50 or 250 jumbo jets per day to transport the 1,00,000 worker. [Interjections.] It is very clearly written here. It says—

You get these silly ideas thrown across the House which are completely impracticable and which have no relationship to truth. It indicates the dilemma in which the Government finds itself. How does the Government relate a dream, a fair story, to reality?

Now, Sir, let us deal with the question of the over-organization of the Johannesburg non-European Affairs Department to which the hon. member referred. It is important, from a practical point of view, to look at the larger urban local authorities. That is why Johannesburg is mentioned. It is not mentioned because, with the exception of a few of us, however much we would like them to be, and think they should be every one is in love only with the city of Johannesburg. We must look at the practical side. What do we find? Johannesburg has an official Bantu population under the control of the Johannesburg City Council according to the 1960 figures—I have not the latest census figures—of 651,000. Then there is another 130,000 outside their jurisdiction bringing it to 780,000. The 1970 census figures ought to be well over a million. In 1960 Germiston had 122,000, Benoni 91,000 and Springs 101,000. On the complex of the Witwatersrand we probably nearly have 1½ million Bantu residents. These are all figures from the 1960 census We have in Pretoria 199,000; Port Elizabeth. 123,000; Durban, 222,000; Cape Town 75,000; and Bloemfontein 80,000. Therefore one realizes how relevant it is, in dealing with the subject, to deal with the towns. In the towns the local authorities have, over 50 years of experience in administration, built up an administration starting from days prior to the Anglo-Boer War. They extend through the whole history of mining development of Johannesburg. They go through the whole history of world wars. There was a tremendous influx and flow of labour as a result of the demand of industry and the demand of the country during the post-war period of the First World War and particularly of the Second World War.

We must look at what happened to this particular population. In Johannesburg today one finds that this population of nearly 800,000 people, which is probably well over 1 million now, are administered by local authorities and virtually form a settled urban community. They are people who have become completely detribalized and virtually do not know whence they came. These people have been absorbed into the way of life of a city. They have learnt skills in the various fields in which they have been able to occupy themselves, and they have become needed for those particular skills. They have psychologically adapted themselves to living near the White towns, to working in White industries and they have advanced to the stage where they form a settled, orderly community which understands the necessity of law and order in a city. Such a community even has loyalties to the very city to which it belongs. They have become stake-holders, which is the very thing we must achieve in order to protect our country from the infiltration of Communism. We hear about that all the time from the Government. It is their favourite theme. We are as well aware of it as they are. We realize that, if anybody has a stake in anything and earns his daily bread knowing that he has security, he is not going to fall for the wiles of Communism. That is the history of Africa, as the Government knows well enough. We certainly find here the most advanced Black people in the whole of Africa. I maintain that if one looks at an establishment such as Soweto, one sees the most advanced Bantu settlement, or settlement of Black people, in the whole of Africa. These people have now become responsible members of this Republic. These people have now become part of the Republic. They have become part of the general pattern of labour. They have become an example of how to live in peace and harmony in this multi-racial country in which we live. They live in their own residential areas. They have their own cultural achievements and have a domestic environment entirely of their own. They have learnt the value of industry and hard work and the value of being productive in the common weal. They pay taxes. They even have chambers of commerce and have been trained how to run businesses with the assistance of the Government by means of loans, etc.

Is this now in regard to Johannesburg only?

The hon. member for Koedoespoort, who is also a former Mayor of Pretoria, knows well enough that he too has played a part in bringing about this position. They have chambers of commerce and domestic family gatherings of common interest. They have developed their cultural interests and have become a sound middle class. That is what we want to achieve. All this has occurred, as I have said, with the knowledge and co-operation of all Governments in this country, including the present Government. In their own field of labour they have become a skilled, sound labour unit and they play a part in the development of various phases of our industrial life, such as mining, commerce, industry, domestic life and in health and hygiene services. This combination has enabled the White community with their White know-how, with their skill and their enterprise and leadership to bring South Africa to one of the most economically advanced communities in the world, with a growth rate which certainly, over the last ten years, has been amongst the best in the world. This is the part that has been played by these numerous Bantu people spread around the country, who have lived near the cities, whose affairs have been looked after by the local authorities and who have worked together with governments, not only with this Government, but with other governments as well, and provincial authorities. Local authorities may not at all times have seen eye to eye with the Government on certain aspects. But the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that that is merely an expression of opinion and it cannot mean more. There is no reason why there should not perhaps be different thinking in an approach to a subject. We cannot all be regimented into a sense of uniformity. But there is a law and that law has to be carried out.

Let us now look at what the local authorities have done. These local authorities have done a fantastic job of work. Firstly, let me pay this tribute to local authorities. They have carried this country through one of the most remarkable transitions in history of a highly tribalized community to an industrialized community. That I think, is one of the most remarkable achievements that this country has done. I have said before and I say it again that we could be the greatest example in human affairs today throughout the world of how different races can live together, how races of completely different cultures, including races which we call backward compared to our standard of civilization, can nevertheless remain living in harmony in a country which is as multi-racial as South Africa is. All this has been brought about through the orderly manner by which something cohesive has emerged out of what was originally complete chaos, a pattern which, I say, is a very fine tribute to the administrators in this country. What have these administrators done? They have not only maintained good relations, they have not only maintained the very peace and order of which the Government only boasts, but they have prevented unrest and have faced many problems and difficulties. They have faced problems like squatter movements. They have faced all sorts of insurgences which one would expect from this enormous influx that happened at the end of World War II. They have overcome them. Now this country has industrial peace, harmony and advancement. That is the great achievement. But in addition, they have provided, in a remarkable manner, housing at 61 cents per square foot. That is how far they brought the cost down. They have provided schools. In Soweto for instance, they provided up to 1969 88 schools, 3 hostels, 9 communal halls, a public library. 9 T.B. centres and 8 clinics, costing over R25 million. They have trained nearly 3,000 building workers in terms of the Act. They have spent over R25 million on services such as bridges, lighting, railway sidings, stormwater drains, sewerage, water reticulation, etc.

Although it has been boasted by the hon. member for Langlaagte that the Native Resettlement Board established Diepkloof and Meadowlands, I want to mention that they established them with the advice and the assistance of the technical departments of the City Council of Johannesburg. They could never have achieved it alone. It was achieved with the help of knowledge and experience gained over years.

But you are trying to run down the Resettlement Board.

Nobody is running it down.

What do Meadowlands and Diepkloof do? They do nothing more than they should, namely providing housing and roads, because the objective at that time was to show the council that they could do better than the council could. But there is no other personal touch at all. There are no clinics. Not a single social worker works in Meadowlands. They have no health visitors. There are no mother or baby clinics. They are nevertheless a population and regarded as a family community. But Meadowlands has nothing of the sort at all. The policy of the Resettlement Board is that the services be limited to those for which the Bantu can afford to pay only. The contrary opinion of a local authority like the Johannesburg City Council is that until Bantu wages for the majority are truly economic, a measure of subsidization is essential. Furthermore, it is a principle of modern government that the poorer section of the population should be assisted by the community as a whole in order to bring about that very peace and orderliness that is required.

I could go on for quite a time to tell hon. members about the work which has been done by these special services of the local authority. I want the House to realize something. According to hon. members on that side of the House, the hon. the Minister’s intention is to turn this into a completely labour matter, to hold back the flow which can be controlled in any case and, in fact, to take them away if they can. The other day I read in the papers about a number of municipalities which, in trying to help the Government, subscribed an amount of R1 million in order to build houses in the Reserves. By coincidence, the Reserves are not very far from the municipalities. This was done so that houses could be built and so that the families could be moved to the Reserves. If that is the hon. the Minister’s intention, and the intention of the hon. members on his side of the House, I say they must be careful and that they must watch the situation, because it can bode no good. This does not mean that one is afraid, but you do not treat any community in a manner which is so arbitrary, which can cause such tremendous upheaval and which can destroy something which has been established over a large number of years. How are we ever going to take 4½ million people back to the Reserves to restore a complete tribal life, when most of them most probably do not know anything of its existence? I say this is one of the most unhealthy forms of thinking one could find in any governmental thinking at all.

With regard to the Bill itself, there are quite a number of features of this Bill which we do not like. The one feature that I have mentioned was the question of the statutory board. This, I say, could well have been done under section 40 of the Act. The second point is the appointment of the board itself. Just talking purely about the Bill itself in vacuo and forgetting all the other factors which surround the purposes of the Bill, I think that local authorities should certainly have better representation in the interests of the Minister himself. This is also in the interests of the country. Who else but those who have the experience and the knowledge can guide one? It also should be known that this Bill which is before this House is the result of certain assistance which the hon. the Minister has received. The Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs, realizing that this Bill may become law and realizing to what it could lead, went to great pains to ensure that the terms of the Bill were workable. In fact, a large number of the clauses of the Bill were changed and amended before it finally appeared before this House, so that it could be workable. That is the sense of responsibility which the Institute of Administrators have in this country. I have spoken to a few administrators, not from Johannesburg but from other parts. They say that they are non-political people and if they see a Bill which is put before them, whether they like the intention or not, and they find that it could create difficulties and problems, with the experience and knowledge that they have of those particular aspects, it is their duty to try and put it right. At least that is one thing that I must concede to the Minister. He listened. I wish he would only listen to us as easily as he listens to these people. Let me say this. The United Municipal Executive did not fully support this Bill and all the boasting that everyone supported the Bill must be dismissed. The United Municipal Executive did not do so. As I have said, the Institute of Administrators is non-political. The members of that institute just tried to help the Minister to formulate a workable Bill.

Let me go further. I shall pay my hon. friend, the hon. member for Vereeniging, a compliment by referring to him. He gives a horse laugh, but maybe that is all he understands of the subject. Industry has always tried to keep itself non-political in the sense that industry has a job to do in building up the country. Industry was interested and pleased with the fact that the Government has made a move at last to create the greater mobility of labour. With this we all agree. We want it and have always wanted it in the past. They were satisfied. They have not themselves given public voice on the rest of the Bill. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister now, and I am sure that my words will mean something to him in time, he is making a very great mistake with this Bill by assuming the administration himself. He is doing it at the insistence of many who are peeved because city councils differ with them at times and even they are eventually obliged to carry out the will of the hon. the Minister. That is why I say it is not a statesman-like approach. Much as I oppose this Government tooth and nail, I must say this to the credit of a former Prime Minister, namely Dr. Verwoerd, that he would never have dreamed as the Minister of Native Affairs, as he was then, of taking a step of this nature. I worked very closely with him …

That is nonsense.

I worked closely with him as the chairman of the non-European Affairs Committee of the City Council of Johannesburg, on the site and service and many other schemes and I know that he would not in his wildest dreams have thought of doing what this hon. Deputy Minister is doing today. I say it will be to the discredit of non-European affairs in this country to take this step.

Mr. Speaker, when one has to speak after a speech such as the one made by the hon. member for Jeppes, one can do nothing else but to say that we were subjected here to a bombardment of words and that it has probably been a long time since we last heard so much “cold-blooded nonsense” being spoken. We on this side have come to know the hon. member for Jeppes well. It is typical of him to cast suspicion on all the good intentions of this Government and the administration of the country. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself for having availed himself of this opportunity today of trying to cast suspicion on, to distort and to attack all kinds of ulterior motives to such a measure as this which is being submitted to us today in all honesty. In addition this Bill makes provision in fact for those things for which the hon. member pleaded today. All the hon. member tried to do was to twist it around so that he could make a little political propaganda out of it and use it to give his party a breathing space. One stands amazed that the public outside should be subjected to the attitude displayed by these people. I can sing the praises of just as many local authorities and municipalities as the hon. member has done here today. Every one of us sitting in this House who is in contact with these local authorities can say precisely the same thing. What happened there, and those things the hon. member was talking about, happened in each of the other municipalities. However, there is one difference to which I shall return later. We do have a very good example of what happened in Johannesburg. We also have a very good example if we see what happened in Sophiatown. We have a very good example of the conditions which prevailed in that township. I shall refer to this again later in my speech. They do not have a very fine and clean record.

But I want to go on to say that this hon. member who has now resumed his seat, merely proved once again the vast difference which exists between the policy of the National Party and that of the United Party. On the National Party side we always have positiveness, the purposefulness and honesty, as opposed to the negativeness, the derogatoriness, the suspicion-mongering and the distortion of the United Party policy.

Order! The hon. member may not say it is “distortion”. He must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I shall say that it is a policy in respect of which we cannot but see therein the deliberate circumvention of what we shall call the truth. But it is a good thing that we have an opportunity such as this to show the voters outside what the difference is between the United Party policy and our policy. They are fighting this Bill tooth and nail today, and are trying to make political capital out of it. But we know that they are subsequently going to claim this Bill for themselves. They will accept it, and in a few years’ time they will say that it is they who passed it. Now they are opposing it for the sake of these few scraps of political gain. I think it is time that the voters were prevailed upon to weigh up the policies of the National Party and the United Party consistently. Before this term has expired, this National Party will have been in power for 25 years. Unless the United Party wants to continue its wanderings in the political wilderness for another 25 years, they will at some time or other have to give some sober thought to the laws which are being made in this Parliament. In this House the United Party cannot come along with bluffing stories. They must state their policy here. For almost 25 years the voters have consistently rejected the United Party, and over against that sent the National Party to this House with a mandate time after time because it states its policy honestly, clearly and consistently.

But it is not only the voters or the Whites who know this; the Bantu also know what they have in the National Party. One can request the United Party now to do a little accounting and tell us which responsible Bantu people support the policy of their party. This Bill has become necessary, because it is in the best interests of the Bantu as well as the Whites. This Bill is intended to replace the deficiencies which exist in the existing system of administration. This Government is the only one to whom the future of the Republic of South Africa can be entrusted, after having listened to the kind of arguments dished up here today. That is why the voters support the National Party, and that is why the Bantu also accept the policy of the National Party and reject the policy of the United Party.

Let us, by way of summary, glance briefly at this Bill. Let us in the first instance see what the real intention of this legislation is. What does it envisage? Secondly, how is it going to be introduced? And thirdly, what is its benefits? The objective is very clear. It in fact wants to eliminate that confusion, those irritations and cumbersome procedure which we have heard so much about and which arise out of the old system. The entire object is to place the administration of Bantu affairs in the White areas on a sound and efficient basis. We know that there is a tremendous amount of duplication. This will consequently eliminate that duplication. Not only will it be more efficient, but it will also result in a large measure of uniformity in the administration. We know that in the modern times in which we are living, one of the most important factors which we must bear in mind is to obtain that essential uniformity. There appears to be a general consensus of opinion that this Bill will also give us the necessary mobility of Bantu labour, which has so often been requested. If one looks at the matter carefully, one will see that the United Party actually supports the Bill. However, they are making use of it to make a little party propaganda. That is why they are throwing up all kinds of smokescreens.

The Bill has another object as well, and that is to use the best talents we have at our disposal on these statutory bodies. After all, we have that talent in commerce, industry, agriculture, local authorities and the public service, that can advise us and serve on these bodies. And in the second place, how is it going to be established? These Bantu Affairs administration areas will be established in consultation with the interested local authorities. They will have their share in this. They will be established in consultation with those people who are members of the Institute of Administrators of Non-White Affairs, the Department of Bantu Administration, the Institute of Town Clerks, municipal treasuries and accountants. Everybody will co-operate.

If we look at this legislation consistently, it is very clear that tremendously far-reaching benefits will result from it, which I want to dwell on for a moment. As I said at the beginning, duplication, confusion and the cumbersomeness of the existing system will be replaced and eliminated by it. I have already said that it will give us the necessary mobility, which is so important in our urban complexes in particular. The best brains our country has produced will be used. The best people we have, we will be able to utilize for this purpose. More important perhaps than this is the fact that it will save us labour and manpower. In the times in which we are living, this is a very important consideration. Manpower saving must take place. It will not only be manpower which will be saved. This will also mean that we will be able to save financially. We will be able to render better services cheaper.

This Bill will benefit both the Bantu and the employer. This measure eliminates so many problems, and there are so many benefits attached to it that it already at this stage enjoys the support of various organizations. It has already been mentioned that the Federated Chambers of Industry, Seifsa and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut support the Bill. But most local authorities, the people who are really concerned in this matter and who know what is going on, support this Bill. I am convinced that there are many United Party members who also support this legislation. It is only for the sake of caucus loyalties that they are opposing it here today. Apart from the United Party members in this House who support the legislation, there are thousands of men outside the House who also support it.

This Bill is so popular that even now there is competition to see who is first to introduce the administrative boards. Last week we had an example of this when the hon. member for Welkom pleaded here for his area to be one of the first to establish administrative boards. There have been various pleas, which I know about, which have already been made on behalf of other regions, but tonight I would also like to bring my particular area to the specific attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The local authorities of Kempton Park, Edenvale, Germiston, Bedfordview, Modderfontein and the peri urban areas from Kempton Park to just this side of Pretoria have been co-operating for more than a decade and have succeeded, on this basis of co-operation, to develop a regional Bantu township, by the name of Thembisa. Here we have a very fine example of the co-operation which can exist among different municipalities and local authorities. This region with which I am concerned, has already gone through the mill; to a large extent it already forms a demarcated region. I do not want to say that there is nothing more to be done, but it is definitely a very good foundation on which to begin. But, what is more, the constituency of the hon. the Deputy Minister falls within this area, and I think this is a very good reason why this should be a place where we can begin with the implementation of this Bill. I think that these local authorities I am talking about, which already have this experience and knowledge, comprise one of the most suitable areas on the Witwatersrand where we can begin to implement this legislation. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister to go into this aspect and see whether a start cannot be made in that area with the implementation of this legislation.

One of the things which causes me the most concern is that the implementation of this legislation, which opens up the prospect of so many benefits for us, is going to be a slow process, and that is why I would think that the fact that in this area co-operation exists on such a large scale among the local authorities, will influence the hon. the Deputy Minister to implement this legislation there.

Sir, this Bill which we are dealing with here today, is simply another building block in the edifice being erected by this Government and its policy. It is a positive law, in contrast to the suspicion-mongering and the scare-mongering of the United Party. But this Bill is of cardinal importance to the Bantu as well. It is in their Interests as well because they are also going to benefit by it. Sir, the National Party is proceeding apace with the development and expansion of its policy, to the benefit of us all. But contrast with the achievements of the National Party the heritage we received from the United Party when we took over this Government in 1948. We still remember only too well the integration, the mixed residential areas, the terrible living conditions, the shanty towns, the sacking shacks, the slum areas, the squatters camps, the black spots which existed when we took over the Government. It is still fresh in our minds how in the western areas of Johannesburg, in White areas, Whites were forced to live virtually next door to non-Whites. In Sophiatown probably some of the poorest living conditions imaginable prevailed. When those clearing operations took place, what was the attitude of the United Party City Council of Johannesburg? What was the attitude of the United Party in this House? Sir, they made use of those poor conditions under which our people were living to set an agitation in motion. Their newspapers incited the people. I still remember very well the agitation earned by the Huddlestons of those days. That clearance was opposed, and what do we have today? Today we have beautiful residential areas, beautiful townships in which these non-Whites are living, which are the result of the policy of this National Party Government, in spite of the opposition which we are even now getting from the United Party. These achievements of the National Party, these residential areas which exist throughout the length and breadth of our country today, where our non-Whites are living in peace, are the best guarantee for peace, prosperity and progress in our country.

Sir, we are proud of the conditions which the National Party has created. Our Bantu today are living far better than many Whites in many of the European countries. In addition, the Bantu know where they stand with the National Party. The Bantu also know that they have a future and that they have been placed on the road to self-realization and self-respect. The Bantu also know what their position in the White areas is. Sir, the Bantu also know what their position will be under United Party Government. The Bantu know that under United Party Government they will have a permanently subordinate position. Under the United Party policy there is no prospect whatsoever for them to achieve self-realization. I want to ask the United Party how they are going to keep the Bantu permanently in that subservient position with the so-called eight White representatives which they envisage for the Bantu here, just because they have a black skin, just because they are inferior people, just because they deem them to be economically weak, or because they have acquired less learning. No, Sir, this side of the House waits in vain for replies to those questions which we have already asked them.

The speaker before me had a lot to say here about the Bantu in the White areas. It is necessary that the National Party and the people outside know what the United Party intends doing with the Bantu in the White areas. What rights do they intend granting the Bantu in the White areas? No, the United Party’s policy will satisfy nobody; the United Party’s policy will not satisfy the United Nations either. They have held out to us the prospect of their holding a referendum or a so-called special election in respect of the political position, when the time comes. Sir, there is one question which has been causing me concern for a long time, and I should like the United Party to furnish me with a reply to it: How is the United Party going to vote when such a referendum or special election is held? Where are they going to make their crosses? No, Sir, we cannot gamble with the future of the Republic of South Africa. The youth of South Africa must take cognisance of the perricious consequences which the United Party’s policy constitutes for them. We may not gamble with our country’s future, or with its security. We must stabilize and expand this climate of peace and prosperity which exists. The future of the Republic of South Africa rests in fact on that political stability. The United Party wants to keep the Bantu in eternal bondage for the sake of the economy. The Blacks must be kept permanently subservient, with very limited political say. Sir, South Africa cannot afford the luxury of a United Party Government.

The hon. member for Kempton Park has treated us to a long discourse and there is only one conclusion I can draw from that, namely that he has been attempting during the last 25 minutes to talk into himself some courage and to talk a little more courage into his colleagues amongst the Nationalists. He has seen the writing on the wall, the same as that hon. Deputy Minister who today brings this legislation. He himself at Kempton Park will be one of the first who will go, as many members on that side will go in the next election, after which this side of the House will be sitting on that side and we will be controlling the country. This is the whole object of his exercise this afternoon. He was just encouraging himself and his colleagues a little.

You are talking nonsense.

No, there is no question of my talking nonsense. But what sort of nonsense did he talk? He alleged that we, the Opposition, would later adopt this Bill and claim it as our own. This is typical of the Nationalist Party. So often they refute the ownership of their own thoughts, as we had with section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, which that side of the House tries to pin at the door of the United Party, an amendment of the Urban Areas Act which was brought in by the late Dr. Verwoerd and which we supported, but today they are ashamed of it and they want to say it is ours. They say it is an Act we brought in.

I want to come back to section 10 a little later.

Order! Will the hon. member come back to the Bill?

I will abide by your ruling, Sir, but I am attempting to reply to the comments of the hon. member for Kempton Park. I must admit that the hon. member for Kempton Park mentioned one point which did refer to the Bill. He alleged that it would now save manpower. I question that, but I am afraid that with the meagre particulars from the Deputy Minister it is impossible at this stage to assess that position.

But the hon. member for Kempton Park went further and said that it was now going to save money; there would be a financial saving. Well, it may be that there will be a financial saving, but I want to ask him at whose expense. Because at the moment the expense of the administration of all or most of these laws, in respect of which the powers are now being given to the boards, is borne by the White voters of this country. But when this Bill goes through, if you look at clause 6 of this Bill you will find that the whole lot will be a drain on the Bantu Revenue Fund, a fund which was established by that side of the House, by the late Dr. Verwoerd, for the benefit of the urban Bantu. Today they are going to be robbed by the provisions of this Bill of the amenities which could have been provided, merely to satisfy some ideological nonsense on the part of the Minister.

Are they all urban Bantu in those areas?

Does it matter whether they are all urban Bantu or not? It is directly because of their presence in the urban areas, because of the labour they provide for the White men in thore areas, that this fund has been established. Those funds are now not going to be used for the purpose for which they were originally designed.

Who said so?

Read your own Bill. The hon. member spoke about co-operation between local authorities and he referred to the township which has been established at Thembisa. He praised the fact that the local authorities had been able to co-operate, but is that not what this side of the House has been saying: The action which was taken was taken under section 40 of the Urban Areas Act, and this Minister does not require the power which he is asking for today when a simple amendment to section 40 would have achieved the whole object which he is trying to achieve today, except for one thing. It would not have given him in his sticky hands the sole control over all the affairs of the Bantu in the urban areas. That is the reason why he does not accept an amendment to section 40, and that is why he comes with this Bill, because he wants to be the big spider sitting there clutching and controlling all the affairs of all the Bantu, both inside and outside the homelands.

I want to say now that when this Government forces this legislation through, as it will be forced through, there will be perpetual clashes between the White elected councils and this nominated or appointed board of the Minister. In other words, there will be a clash between the White elected council and a Black appointed board, especially where on a metropolitan basis you find that there will be a single board which can disagree with a number of local authorities, or where a single board has to deal with a number of local authorities. There will be disagreement on questions of planning or on the provision of services or on priorities and various other things we can think of. I want to say now that this must in the end lead to administrative chaos.

Sir, you have heard during the discussion which has now taken place over three weeks that we feel that this is taking away the mellowing or softening effect of the criticism and negotiations of local authorities, and I want to ask which is better. Is it better that we should have one controlling authority, or 50 or more with the powers that devolve upon them, 50 or more bodies which are fully conversant with the conditions which pertain in their own areas?

I mentioned earlier that there is going to be a siphoning off of funds for the running of these administration boards, but we are also going to have a siphoning off of these funds for the development of the Bantu homelands. Sir, we feel that this is entirely against the spirit of those Acts whose powers are now being given to these boards under the control of this Minister, and it is entirely against the spirit of certain undertakings which were given by the late Dr. Verwoerd in regard to these fees at the time when they were imposed. I want to say further that this Bill is taking away the right of the electorate to elect a controlling body to look after the affairs of their own area and is putting in the place of that elected body one appointed by that Minister, and appointed under certain conditions with which I will deal a little later.

As I said earlier, this softening effects of the local authorities will now be taken away. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has mentioned quite a few of these, and the hon. member for Brakpan certainly closed up quickly when my hon. friend was speaking, after he had challenged him to produce certain examples.

But I want to produce another example of exactly what we mean when we say that this is doing away with the cushioning effect of the local authorities. We have the situation where on 15th July, 1969, the Secretary for Bantu Administration issued a circular to all local authorities, and this read as follows in part—

It then sets out briefly the policy of the Nationalist Party, and then it goes on—

I consider this to be an iniquitous instruction to issue to any local authority. What in effect the department has said to these people is that they are not to allow the Bantu people in the townships any access to professional assistance or advice at all. Can hon. members imagine what would have happened if this had been carried out? Do they think we would have had the peace and quiet which the hon. member for Kempton Park referred to today, if this instruction had been carried out to the letter? The local authorities, in their wisdom, questioned the department and questioned the wisdom of such a move. We had the position that the local authorities disregarded that instruction and continued as they had in the past and allowed the accommodation for professional men in the areas. But the Minister still was not satisfied. It has now got to the point that, in February of this year, he advised a delegation from the United Municipal Executive that, although he accepted that there could not be a blanket ban, he was now going to fix a quota of how many doctors or professional men can be allowed in these various townships. Is this not so? I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. It is no good him shaking his head, because he knows what I say is correct. This is what has been decided by the hon. the Minister, but the Minister does not know the conditions. What have been the comments of certain doctors? An African private practitioner in Port Elizabeth asked—

Another doctor said—

Who told the hon. member this was going to be done on a quota basis? Where did he get that information from?

I quote from a report in the Argus of 13th February, 1971, which has never been denied. This report covers an interview held by the delegation from the United Municipal Executive with the hon. the Minister. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister is not here, so that he can deny it himself.

No, they discussed it with me; that is why I know what nonsense you are talking now.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister deny that it is his intention to establish a quota?

Do you think that everything you read is true?

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister deny that it was his intention to establish a quota?

What I am saying is that no decision has been taken yet.

No, the hon. the Deputy Minister must answer my question; he must not try to get away from it. If he says that I am incorrect, then he denies that he is going to establish a quota. If that is so, then I accept his word and I will be very glad to hear it.

I say you are talking nonsense.

It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister saying I am talking nonsense, because I am very glad to have received this assurance from him here this afternoon that there will be no quota for the professional services given to the Bantu urban areas and that he is going to allow them to continue. Is he going to allow them to continue unrestricted?

I say that you are talking nonsense.

No, it is no good saying that. All we want is his answer. If he will do so, it will be fine and it will at least establish his bona fides, because, when this Bill goes through, he will not have a series of responsible local authorities questioning his decisions and pointing out the wrong apparent in his decisions. He will have a board of “yes-men” who will say “Yes, sir, three bags full”, and carry out his instructions to the detriment of the Bantu people and to the detriment of the Republic of South Africa and every person who lives in it. This is the whole point. I am very glad to have this assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon that he is not going ahead with this. This, once again, is another example of the cushioning effect of such bodies as the local authorities and of the United Municipal Executive. Once again they have been able to soften the harshness of the policies of the Nationalist Government.

There is another aspect of this Bill, while discussing the boards that are going to be established. There will no longer be this criticism and negotiation, because these boards are going to be appointed by the Minister. In terms of clause 3 (1) a number of members are going to be appointed for their knowledge of Bantu local matters. I wonder if this really means anything as it is written in the Bill today. I want to submit that this can be completely meaningless, especially if it follows the same course of conduct as that which has been applied by this Nationalist Party in the nomination of Senators under section 29 (2) (b) of the Constitution Act. This section lays down that at least one of the two Senators nominated from each province shall be elected because of their particular knowledge of the affairs of the Coloured people and their problems in the provinces. But history will tell us how many such Senators have been appointed in the past.

Have you ever heard of Senator A. P. J. Fourie?

The hon. the Minister can mention only one. But it is no good the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation making a noise. It is common knowledge that this provision is observed more in the breach than in the observance. The same will happen here. Persons will be appointed solely to carry out Nationalist Party policy. They will not be appointed because of any specialized knowledge of Bantu labour matters.

There is another aspect of this Bill which comes to the fore when one looks particularly at clause 26. I want to say here and now how glad I am that this clause has been amended from what was originally mooted in this legislation. The first draft Bill that was submitted for comment contained extremely severe provisions regarding the Bantu and their rights under section 10. There was no particular protection for those who had the rights …

The clause that has been withdrawn is not under discussion now.

Mr. Speaker, with submission. I am referring to clause 26 which deals with the rights of Bantu to remain in certain prescribed areas under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I was just briefly sketching the history of the clause as it is now. I want to come back to it, if I may. The history is that when it was first put to the local authorities, it held provisions which did not protect the Bantu and went so far as to provide that no further qualification shall be acquired under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 10 of the Act. Through negotiation, through the softening influence, this was amended. When the Bill was published for general information on 15th December in the Government Gazette, we found that those harsh provisions had been done away with, and that provision then was made that no prosecution shall be instituted under that section in regard to any Bantu who moves out of the prescribed area in which he qualifies to remain. This was further softened as a result of further representations. Now we have the provisions as laid down in clause 26.

Are you annoyed about it now?

No, it is no good the hon. member trying to be clever. I am not cross about it, but there is an aspect which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister, an aspect on which I should like a categoric assurance and perhaps even an acknowledgment from him that he will introduce an amendment at the Committee Stage. I am not wholly satisfied that this does protect all the urban Bantu. I am satisfied that those who qualify under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are protected. There is no argument about that. That is those Bantu who were born in the urban areas, those who have qualified through working for one employer for ten years or for more than one employer for fifteen years and the wives and children of those who qualified under subsection (1) (b).

But there is another category of Bantu in the urban areas who make up a large percentage of those who are there. Unfortunately we cannot get figures to find out exactly how many they are. But they are those who are referred to by the Bantu Departments as the section 10 (1) (d) Bantu. That is those who are in the process of qualifying. That is why I particularly wanted to mention the first step in this Bill where there was provision made that no further qualifications shall be acquired under this section. I think this is the effect of clause 26. I am suspicious about anything dealing with the section 10 rights under the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. I have reason to be suspicious. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself told us in 1969 that this was an embarrassment to them. They have tried to repudiate section 10 and say that it was not one of their laws that they have introduced themselves. We have repeatedly had attempts to abrogate the rights of the Bantu which they had under this section. As I see this section as it stands today, those under sections (a), (b) and (c) are covered. They can move within the area of jurisdiction of the board, even if it is outside the area of the local authority, the prescribed area where they are qualified to remain. They can do so without losing any rights, but what about those who are qualifying under section 10 (1) (d)? In practice, what happens is that the pass-book of that particular Bantu is stamped by the labour bureau of the area concerned, and that allows the Bantu to remain in the prescribed area for a period of more than 72 hours subject to certain conditions. It is usually on condition that he remains in the employ of a certain person or in the employ of a certain group of employers. Now, if that Bantu’s employer moves from one prescribed area within the area of control of a Bantu administration board to another prescribed area within the jurisdiction of that board, will he lose his rights to remain under section 10 (1) (d) of the existing Act? The point which arises is whether that will be construed as a break in the continuous period which is required for that person to qualify under section 10 (1) (b) of the Act, to remain in the urban area?

This is a serious matter. The rights which have been conferred on the Bantu under section 10 of the Act are rights which are very jealously guarded by the Bantu people. It is something they strive for and it is something which is a status symbol to them, apart from the security it gives them within the urban area. I have warned this hon. Deputy Minister and the Minister before that they touched the rights of the Bantu as determined by section 10 of the Act, at their peril. If there is anything which will spark off an explosion in this country, it is an attack on the rights which have been given under section 10 to the Bantu. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will see my point of view and that he will assist us in the Committee Stage by introducing an amendment which will protect these people who I feel are going to lose their rights, namely those people who fall under section 10 (1) (d) of the Act. This would mean that this Bill, when passed—I have no doubt that this will be the case—would at least serve some good purpose.

Then, there is another point which makes me suspicious about clause 26. That is a comment which was made by the hon. member for Brakpan when he spoke in this House about a week ago. He suggested that houses in the Bantu townships should no longer be allocated to individual Bantu but to the employers who can then …

A good idea.

Now he repeats it. He has just confirmed that I heard him correctly. This will mean that these houses will not be allocated to the Bantu. This is another way of circumventing the rights which the Bantu have under Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act because that lays down quite clearly that they must be provided with accommodation and that they must have permission to stay in a township. This is another way of climbing through the backdoor and this is what makes me suspicious of this measure.

There is another aspect of this Bill which I admittedly had not considered until the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan last week. Let me say now that the speech of that hon. member gave the lie completely to the sweet reasonableness of the hon. the Deputy Minister when he introduced this Bill. When the hon. member for Brakpan spoke we saw the jackboot, the mailed fist. Here was the “kragdadige” man who was now telling us the truth of the intention of the Government behind this Bill, namely that it is their intention to give effect to Government policy of returning the Bantu to the homelands. Once again they are getting at the rights of the Bantu under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act.

The hon. member went further and made a big song and dance because at certain labour bureaux there are certain Bantu who are not keen to work for the Railways, for Escom and for the building industry. Those were the three he mentioned. I want to ask the hon. member if, when these Bantu boards are established, they will compel those Bantu to take employment in those categories.

If they won’t work they must get out.

If they will not, they must get out! Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member says that if they won’t they must get out.

I said that if they do not want to work.

The hon. member did not say that. He said “If they won’t they will get out.” In other words, he is now …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is that hon. member allowed to twist my words deliberately?

Order!

It is quite clear what the hon. member said. This goes further. These Bantu administration boards are going to take under their jurisdiction certain rural areas including farmers. I want to ask the hon. member whether it is their intention to compel Bantu to work on farms as well? Only yesterday I received a reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development about the number of Bantu who are registered in certain categories of employment. We had hints from the last Deputy Minister of Bantu Development that once a Bantu was registered as a particular type of labourer he will not be able to change. This provision has not been implemented because local authorities have failed to implement it. In their humanity and desire to assist the Bantu people as much as possible, they have not implemented such an inhumane provision. But now we have the hon. member for Brakpan giving us the intention behind this legislation—of what these boards are going to do. Is this provision going to be applied? Are these hundreds of thousands of Bantu who have registered in certain categories of employment now going to be tied to those categories of employment and not going to be allowed to change? These are points that have to be answered by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is imperative that we have answers to these questions when we come to vote on the Second Reading of this Bill. In the meantime in the absence of answers to these questions I want to say that I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Transkei. We will oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear when one listen to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District that he does not know very much about the contents of this Bill. He is typical of other United Party members who see all kinds of spectres (spoke) in this measure. Hon. members on the opposite side do not see this measure in the right letter and in the right spirit of the law.

All the “spooks” sit on that side.

I hear an hon. member talking about “spooks”. If it is perhaps the “spook” of Turffontein, I just want to say that we will definitely not have him in this House for long. I do not want to call hon. members on the opposite side my friends, because they are definitely my enemies. When I refer to friends I refer to my friends on this side of the House. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District will pardon me if I do not dwell for long on what he has said, because, after what he said, it is not necessary to dwell on it for long. I nevertheless do want to refer to something he said. He said that if the Minister had amended the Urban Areas Act he would not have been able to exercise the same powers as he will be able to do with this Bill. The hon. member alleges that with this measure many more powers will be granted to the hon. the Minister. If amendments to the Urban Areas Act will not give him the necessary powers which the hon. the Minister must exercise to carry out Government policy, it is necessary that this should in fact be done by a measure such as this. Now he is trying to imply that the municipalities were able to do what they wanted to. The municipalities did not determine the policy in this country. They were merely the licence holders of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Now the hon. member wants to imply here that the municipalities will clash with these Bantu Administration Boards. Apparently the hon. member does not know that more or less similar boards to those we have in mind exist. I can tell him that in the five years those boards have existed there have been no clashes between municipalities and the Bantu administration boards. I am referring specifically to the Sebokeng administration board, but apparently the hon. member does not know about this. I think he must take a look at section 23 of the Act. He has only read sections 10 and 26. But this just shows how ignorant these people are However. I also want to refer to the hon. member for Jeppes.

The handsome member for Jeppes.

The hon. member said that these new boards would not be in the interests of the Bantu in the White urban areas. I want to tell him that we will not only be able to render better service, but we may even be able, through these new Bantu administration boards, to render a better service to municipalities in future, which were unable to render the necessary service.

The hon. member spoke as if Soweto was the most highly-developed Bantu township in the world. I do not know whether the hon. member for Jeppes was the chairman of the Department of Non-White Affairs in 1959-’60, but I think he probably drove over to Pretoria when our friend, the hon. member for Koedoespoort, was mayor, to see how one should carry out Bantu administration properly. Now he is speaking as if it were they who created a model township in this country. But we know—we shall come back to this— of the mess they made when he was a member of that city council.

What mess?

I am telling you we will return to that.

However, I want to return to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I find it a great pity that he is not present in this House this evening. I want to return to the challenge which he addressed to the hon. the Deputy Minister in the House in regard to the referendum which should be held among the Soweto Bantu to test their reaction. I think the hon. member for Turffontein also referred to this. To refresh hon. members’ memories, I just want to quote what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said here. He said—

Now, in the first place, I want to ask: Who are the Bantu of Soweto to decide on behalf of the Bantu of South Africa? He states that very clearly here. Are they supposedly different Bantu to the Bantu living in the rest of South Africa or in other urban areas?

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