Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I think I am an incurable optimist when it comes to the Post Office. Even in this morning’s newspaper there appears a report of an interview given by me in which I stated that looking at the statistics and the finances of the Post Office, the hon. the Minister would not and should not increase tariffs. What has come this afternoon has been a shock to every one of us, including the hundreds of thousands of telephone-users throughout South Africa. I would have thought that a sensible Minister, having regard to the effect that this will have on inflation, would have done everything in his power to have prevented this increase. A sensible Minister, seeing that an increase in tariffs would not mean a proportionate increase in income, certainly would not have thought of coming with this drastic increase at this present moment. Sir, I am still holding the hon. the Minister to the promise made by him in 1971 that there would be no tariff increases for five years, despite his very feeble excuses here today. Mr. Speaker, there is one obvious source of finding this R20 million he needs. He need only end the telephone shortage of 100 000. Each telephone account brings in on an average, according to his own figures, R200 per annum. R200 multiplied by 100 000 gives R20 million. That will give him all the money he needs.

What about the cost?

This Budget undoubtedly comes as a cruel shock to the country; it will also be a cruel shock to commerce and industry who are amongst the greatest users of our trunk-line services. Trunk-line hand-operated phone calls are going up from 3c to 4c. Automatic telephone rentals are going up about 50%, while the ordinary telephone user is hit by this terrific increase of 50% annually in the rental, from R24 to R36 per annum. How can the hon. the Minister expect sufficient income from the telephones if he discourages his main customers, the telephone users, from installing telephones?

The hon. the Minister mentioned that there would be a change in some of the switching systems in the different exchanges. He referred to the Strowger system which has been in use for some time in South Africa. Do you know where that system we are using today originated, Sir? I take you back to America, to Kansas City, in the year 1889, and who was Mr. Strowger? Who was this man who originated our system? A funeral parlour director in Kansas City in the year 1889! There have been improvements since then in that system but basically it is still the same and 54% of the equipment of the Post Office today is more than 20 years out of date. Now the hon. the Minister is at last coming with an electronic system which he wants to introduce. I tell him that it will take him at least 30 years before that electronic system can replace the antiquated system we have today. Sir, I shall not continue at great length.

†I wish to conclude by saying that this debate will be continued tomorrow. These were only a few preliminary remarks. I can only say that this Budget is disappointing, it is sad, it is without vision, it is only patchwork, it will lead to greater inflation, it will cut the growth rate and it will be a tragic thing for South Africa during the year ahead.

I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill additional appropriations of R5 207 500 are requested for operating expenditure and R7 600 000 for capital expenditure. The items on which the additional appropriations are required are given in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure which have been tabled.

On the operating side, the largest appropriation is needed to raise the provision for depreciation from R26 750 000 to R35 700 000. This is in accordance with a recommendation by the Franzsen Committee on Post Office Financing, to the effect that adquate provision should be made for the possible premature replacement of assets owing to technological developments.

The additional appropriation for standard stock capital is needed to cover increased costs of stocks and also to provide for additional material that has to be kept in stock for the large telecommunications expansion programme.

No provision existed in the original Estimates for the cost of raising foreign loans as the department only acquired the legal power to raise such loans after the Estimates had been approved.

On the capital expenditure side, the largest item is an increase in the provision for telecommunication services. The reason for the increase is the effect of currency exchange rate fluctuations and a steep rise in the cost of imported and locally manufactured telecommunications equipment.

I can give the House the assurance that the additional expenditure cannot be postponed without detriment to the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the explanation of the hon. the Minister and there are one or two questions that I should like to ask him. First of all, there is this item of R4 600, namely a gift to the International Telecommunication Union. There are other questions, too, which I should like to ask him, but I do think that it will be better if I ask them in the Committee Stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Revenue Services, R5 207 500, and Schedule 2: Capital Services, R7 600 000:

Mr. Chairman, there is an interesting little amount here of R4 600 which is being requested, i.e. the gift to the International Telecommunications Union. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what that amount is for. Perhaps he could then just say, in passing, what our present relationship with that international organization is, and if it is possibly a small gift to them so that they will be more friendly disposed towards us than they are at present.

†I see there is an amount which is being made available for depreciation, an amount of R3 362 900. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the idea is to build up a large depreciation fund which can be a kind of nest-egg for the Post Office, because according to his Estimates of capital expenditure he is going to use—he can do that— R40 million of his depreciation funds for financing capital expenditure this year. He explained the cost of raising foreign loans to us. Is the R840 000 which he is asking simply the real cost or does it include raising costs to agents, etc.? I take it that it will include the agency fees and matters of that nature. After I have heard the hon. the Minister on this, I may have something more to ask.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the first amount of R4 600 is concerned, I want to point out that we discussed and despatched this matter in the House last year during the Additional Appropriation. However, because the amount could not be paid over then, it is now appearing again and must be included here. I shall nevertheless comply with the request to say why it is being included here, so that this may now also be on record. Certain additions and extensions are being done on the headquarters of the International Telecommunications Union building in Geneva. They subsequently made a request to members to contribute to the furnishing and decoration of the headquarters. South Africa, as a good, honourable member of that union, with which we co-operate and get on very well, regarded it as its duty to make a contribution consisting of a table and 16 chairs and a wooden wall panel, all from South African wood. It was donated with the intention that it would be used in one of the committee rooms. As I say, it was provided last year, but owing to circumstances it lapsed.

Yes, now I remember it quite well.

As far as the question of depreciation is concerned, this was, of course, done according to the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee. The previous amount, of course, did not include all the recommended items of the Franzsen Committee. This new amount is structured on the more complete Franzsen Committee’s item list.

Then the hon. member asked a question in connection with the amount of R840 000. This has to do with the negotiating of loans. Hon. members know that we have to pay bank costs. The moment they take up the loan, we must pay certain moneys to them, and that is included.

Mr. Chairman, there is a new item on the Estimates this year, namely “Increase of standard stock capital” and the increase amounts to R1 million. In last year’s Budget under Capital Account we had an increase of standard stock capital shown as non-recurrent of R10 400 000. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us why we have this item now in Revenue whereas we had it on the Capital Account in the original Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, it is of course necessary for supplementing our stock. We need the greater amount of stock, and this would also give us a bigger programme. The reason for the change here is because the Controller and Auditor-General desires it. We are not people who can afford to quarrel with him. It is perhaps necessary for book-keeping reasons, but the actual significance is to further consolidate our stock position in the bigger programme we are tackling here.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. the Minister’s reasoning, but I would like him to go a little bit further. In terms of the Controller and Auditor-General’s requirements, is the position now that the standard stock account will be treated as a Revenue Account, whereas previously it was treated as a Capital Account? Is that what is going to happen? In last year’s Estimates we had portion of the amount in the Capital Account and now as a result of the additional Estimates we have a portion of it in the Revenue Account.

Mr. Chairman, according to the Controller and Auditor-General’s request it boils down to that. Of course we have no choice in this respect if it is his wish that it be done this way. Here I have a note on this question. The Controller and Auditor-General wants it to be done this way, but it remains the same …

It is indicated against the Revenue item.

Yes, and he desires it that way.

Mr. Chairman, I am not quite satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Minister. The Controller and Auditor-General wants it to be done this way, and I accept that he has good and acceptable reasons for it. However, I want to know from the hon. the Minister why the Controller and Auditor-General wants it to be done this way. Why must it be transferred from the Capital Account to the Revenue Account? In that respect he owes this House an explanation.

The Controller and Auditor-General wants it to be done this way because he basically regards this as operating expenditure. He feels that this belongs here as operating expenditure.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I raised a query with the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate on the interpretation of the amendment which is here proposed. We are completely at one with the hon. the Minister in regard to the objective aimed at; we accept it. I wish to query whether the way in which it is worded does not in fact restrict the hon. the Minister in his intentions. We know that if possible the legal profession uses ten words to say what it could say in one. That makes it easier to argue a case and leads to more litigation. Our object here is to avoid litigation and argument by making this as clear as possible. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not consider that this amendment in the form it is worded means that each member of the Defence Force must be individually and specifically designated by the Minister to perform a particular task with regard to the combating of terrorism, and if it does mean that, does that not make it administratively difficult for the Minister to achieve the objects at which he is aiming?

Mr. Chairman, after the hon. member had taken this matter up with me yesterday, I went into it. I have been assured by the law advisers that it has in fact been taken into account that this provision as it now reads will not place an extra burden on the department as compared with the burden which it bears today because provision is in any case being made for groups, whether large or small, to be designated by means of orders. An order has to be issued to every individual in such a group. I am nevertheless prepared to consider it once again, if the hon. member would leave it at this. Then we can make provision for it in the Other Place if it should appear that the hon. member has a point which is in any way not covered by the provisions of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister confirms that I am correct in my interpretation by saying that, in fact, each member of the S.A.D.F. must be individually designated. He has implied that in his reply to me. He said that in any case orders are issued by which each individual person is instructed to perform a task. I tend to query that in practice; an order will be given to a commanding officer to take X men and to perform Y duty. What is then published in the orders, is an order to the unit. The unit then does not always publish an order specifically detailing by name the individuals who must carry out that order. I accept that all tasks are carried out by way of orders which are issued, but those orders can be issued to a unit, or to a detachment commander, or to the commander of an aircraft who would be instructed to take a certain number of people with him and to carry out a certain task. What I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider is the addition to this clause of words along lines I shall propose. As I say, I am not a lawyer; I look for simple explanations. As a simple soul I see this as a more effective clause if one were to add words stating, for instance, “a member of the South African Defence Force engaged in a category of duties or within a specified area expressly designated by the Minister”. That would enable the hon. the Minister to classify types of duties or areas of operation as being designated occupations for the purpose of this clause, instead of having to go through the rigmarole of a detailed designation of every individual member of the Defence Force concerned. If he were, for example, to classify the operation of supplying persons in the Caprivi Strip or in South-West Africa on the northern border with supplies as being a designated duty, then any person engaged in that duty would be covered, not only individual members of the personnel flying in an aircraft and so designated. Not each individual concerned who would be carrying out the task but the task as a whole should be defined. If he were to declare a specific military district as a designated area, then all the persons serving in that district would be covered. What I am concerned about is that individuals performing duties which are envisaged in this clause, could lose the benefit because their names were not specifically—the word is “expressly”— designated by the Minister or by a person acting on the “express” authority of the Minister. So it is not enough that an order be given. The order must be given by a person—if not the Minister, then someone acting on the express authority of the Minister. If the order which is published detailing a person to carry out a certain task is not issued by a person expressly authorized by the Minister, that order would be invalid for the purpose of this clause. This is the problem which I have and which I hope the hon. the Minister will have a look at before this measure goes to the Other Place and that he will consider introducing a category of operation and a specified area of operation rather than designate individual members of the Force.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, clause 2 deals with the fact that the Minister may delegate his powers as far as selection boards are concerned. We are not opposed to the idea of delegation in this case. However, it seems to me as if the words “a person” are not adequate. I do not think that that is the intention. It seems to me as if this delegation should be made to certain officers in the Defence Force. It seems to me, for example, as if an officer in charge of a command would be a suitable person to whom the Minister could delegate these powers. It also seems to me as if other senior officers in the Defence Force would be suitable persons to whom these powers could be delegated. The department of the hon. the Minister is in a better position than anyone else to know who these persons are, and I should imagine that they would have to be officers, to whom the Minister should delegate these powers. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister, as my colleague also suggested in respect of clause 1, should reconsider the matter and substitute for the words “a person” a specific reference to an officer occupying a position appropriate in the opinion of the department to exercising these powers.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we differ with one another. It will be an officer because the Defence Force is militarized. Therefore “iemand” in the Afrikaans version or “a person” in the English version, to which reference is being made here, will in normal circumstances be an officer.

Then why not say so?

Well, an officer is also a person.

But a “person” is not an “officer”.

But it could happen that in terms of section 10 an officer is kept on in the service after he has retired. As the hon. member knows, it happens in the Defence Force that a person ends his period of service and that such a person is brought back in a civilian capacity to occupy a position and that he still continues with the same responsibility and still does that work. I do not think we should restrict ourselves to such an extent that we are not able to use such a person. I do not at present have a specific case in mind, but I can in any event give hon. members the assurance that, since the Defence Force is militarized and there are virtually no civilian sections, I will in fact entrust this to officers. It will probably be a person such as the chief of Defence Force Administration or some other person acting on behalf of the chief of the Defence Force. I shall delegate the power to the chief of the Defence Force, and he will perhaps designate one of his chief staff officers to attend to the matter. I therefore do not think that there is any difference in principle in our views on this matter.

The hon. the Minister said he would probably delegate the power to the Chief of Staff, who in turn may designate some other person, but the Bill makes no mention of further delegation. Mention is only made of “a person expressly designated by the Minister for the purpose”

I said “or to the chief of the Defence Force, or to one of his chief staff officers”.

No, the hon. the Minister said that he would in turn be able to delegate it to some other person.

Or I can delegate it to one of his chief staff officers.

That is not what the Minister said.

Mention is made here of the delegation by the Minister to another person.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit that this Bill is a hybrid Bill and should not be proceeded with as a public Bill. My contention is that clause 3 of the Bill adversely affects the rights of a particular group of individuals. This clause provides for the payment of a development contribution or betterment charge by the owners of land, the value of whose property is increased because of a town-planning scheme. I do not contend that this Bill is hybrid on the grounds that clause 3 would apply to all landowners because that would mean the community as a whole and it would therefore not be merely of local interest. The point I am making, is that it affects also a special group of landowners. Clause 3 is retrospective to the 1st April, 1925. The Minister in introducing the Bill yesterday, told us that in the Cape there was some doubt as to whether the existing law was regular, and that it therefore has become necessary for him to introduce this measure. He told the House that there are cases pending in the Supreme Court of the Cape by landowners who have taken the provincial authorities to court. In reply to a question in the Provincial Council, the responsible member of the Executive Council gave a list of 13 cases which are now before the Supreme Court. The hon. the Minister referred to them and said that one case which was to be heard first, was regarded as a test case. The amounts involved vary from R1 660 up to R100 000. The Minister also told the House that although there is a similar provision in the Transvaal and that it had been held to be legal in the Transvaal, the provisions of the ordinances of the Transvaal and the Cape are not the same, and that in the Cape it was considered doubtful as to whether the province was acting legally. He said this—

I submit that the rights of these 13 people, who are already in court, are being effected. If this Bill is now passed and made retrospective to legalize what the administration has done, these 13 people will probably lose their cases, and they will be responsible for the costs involved. I submit that this measure should not be continued with until the Supreme Court has decided the issue so that those people will not be prejudiced. I do not hold that it is a hybrid Bill because it affects landowners generally, Sir. I contend that it is a hybrid Bill because it affects these 13 persons who are already before the courts. I ask you, Sir, to hold that it is a hybrid Bill and that it should be proceeded with as such.

The hon. member for Green Point was kind enough to consult me on this point, but not on the issue raised by the hon. member for Transkei now.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a written copy of the point which was, I understand, brought to your attention.

Yes, but the case the hon. member has just put to me is different from the one which was submitted to me in writing.

It is the same, Sir. I have it here. It states—

He was then questioned about these cases and went on to deal with them.

The hon. member was good enough to give me prior notice that he intended raising this point of order.

As regards the question whether the Bill should be treated as a hybrid bill in view of the provisions contained in Clause 3, I must point out that in accordance with Standing Order No. 73 a Bill is only regarded as a hybrid bill if it adversely affects or may adversely affect the private interests of particular persons or bodies as distinct from the private interests of all persons or bodies in the particular category to which those persons or bodies belong.

As Clause 3 is of general application, I therefore have to rule that it does not fall within the scope of the definition of a hybrid bill. I may add that the fact that only certain persons or bodies will in fact be affected by the legislation cannot be taken into account in deciding whether it should be treated as a hybrid measure or not; the issue has to be decided on the basis of the legislation before the House.

I must furthermore point out that the sub judice rule as set out in Standing Order No. 108 is at all times subject to the right of the House to legislate on any matter and that objection therefore cannot be taken to Clause 3 of the Bill on that ground.

Mr. Speaker, may I raise a further point of order arising from your ruling? May I ask you, Sir, whether we will be permitted to discuss the merits of clause 3 in this debate without infringing the sub judice rule which concerns specific cases dealing with this issue?

The hon. member may discuss the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I indicated to you and to the House that I believed that this Bill was being dealt with in unseemly haste so far as this legislature is concerned. I say “unseemly haste” because one asks oneself what is the urgency of this legislation, other than the fact that there are certain cases pending before the Supreme Court. But what other urgency is there? If you look a clause 1, Sir, you will find that we are to regularize something that has been going on since 1967, i.e. the granting of bursaries by the Cape Provincial Administration. In these circumstances, is this a matter of such urgency that it must be dealt with within a matter of days after notice of the introduction of this Bill in this House? When we turn to clause 2, which is to permit a provincial council to purchase on Revenue Account wreaths on certain occasions, it will be noted that subclause 2 provides—

I presume that here we are going back to things that have been done since the innovation of public holidays in South Africa. Is there such urgency for this Bill that it has to be rushed through now if this has been going on happily for 60 years in this country?

Then, Sir, in clause 3 we are asked to regularize certain amendments made in 1969 to the Cape Townships Ordinance of 1934. In fact, the Bill provides that this legislation is to have retrospective effect, or that it is to be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st April, 1925. Sir, this has been going on for 48 years, and now suddenly there is this urgency to legislate in this manner. Surely none of these reasons justifies this urgency. Or is this legislation being rushed through because of the pending court cases? If we adopt this legislation, it is going to have the effect of destroying the causes of action on the law as it stood at the time of citizens who are now before the courts. We are going to destroy their causes of action before the courts have had time to adjudicate upon these cases.

The Minister wants to beat the judges to it.

A guilty conscience.

Obviously, Sir, I have to attempt this afternoon to deal with this Bill, but I want to say in fairness to my colleagues on this side of the House and in fairness to the persons that we represent that I am going to do so—and I think I am in good company; I am in the hon. the Minister’s company when I say this—without adequate consultation with the local authorities; that I am going to do so without any of the facts and figures as to what amount of money is involved and what this means to the local authorities. I shall also be doing so this afternoon without an opportunity of consultation with the South African Property Owners’ Association, an influential body that is assisting considerably in the regularization of matters affecting property and property rights in South Africa. I shall also be doing so, Sir, without a clear picture—because the hon. the Minister has not given us one and I doubt whether he has a clear picture—of the differences in the application of this principle as between the different provinces. I shall also be doing so this afternoon without an adequate opportunity of discussing this matter with my colleagues both in this House and in the Provincial Council. Sir, before I say anything further I want to move the following amendment—

1. (1) the need for the imposition of development contributions upon or the payment of depreciation contributions to owners of properties affected by town planning schemes and the method of assessment thereof; and
2. (2) the need for the application mutatis mutandis of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1965, to any such assessments”.

Having moved this amendment I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that this debate ought to be further adjourned for a reasonable period to enable this matter to be discussed. Sir, if I were to move the adjournment of this debate, without the hon. the Minister indicating to me that he would accept it, I would be precluded from addressing the House further on this Bill if that the motion was not accepted. So I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be kind enough to indicate whether he does not think on reflection that these are matters which need consultation, that it is in the interest of local authorities and in the interest of the provincial council and in the interest of private property owners that we do not rush legislation through the House in this way. If the Minister would be prepared to indicate to me that as far as he was concerned the debate could be further adjourned, I would welcome such an indication. But unfortunately he sits like the sphinx. The matter is in the hands of the hon. the Minister but obviously he is not prepared to give us the opportunity for further consideration. May I just say that I am not alone when I say that people are unprepared to deal with this matter because I find—it is just a small point—that the hon. the Minister, in dealing with the question of “feesdae” said this, and I quote from his Hansard—

Where is all this mentioned in the Bill?

There is an amendment on the Order Paper.

But that is not in the Bill as it came before us, the Bill which is on our desks. It is not in the Bill which was presented to the House yesterday. That Bill does not contain that item. The Minister came here unprepared and now finds it necessary to amend the Bill even before the Second Reading has been taken.

But let me then deal with the clauses of the Bill before us. In regard to clause 1, fortunately I happen to have some knowledge of the introduction of this matter in the Cape Provincial Council. It was in 1965, as a member of the Cape Provincial Council, that I had the privilege of introducing a motion suggesting to the Nationalist Administration that it should do something more to assist in making it possible for deserving and meritorious students to continue with their studies. That was in 1965. We were concerned because at that stage there was a considerable drop in the number of students who continued to undertake further studies beyond Std. 10. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Vasco were present at that debate, but the Nationalist Administration turned it down because it came from the United Party Opposition. It was most interesting to find that whereas we were trying to deal with this problem, which was a serious one, and were trying to make it possible for more students to be trained, the figures at that stage were that one out of five White children reached Std. 10. We also found that only 10% of the White population of South Africa had qualifications of any sort, technical or academic, above matriculation. The Nationalist-controlled Cape Provincial Council, just like the Nationalist Government in this House, when it gets a good idea, does not accept it straight away. It tries to adopt it in some other manner and at some later stage. This happened also in this matter. The motion was turned down and there was an amendment in which they said that the matter would be investigated. We now have this Bill after the Cape Provincial Administration introduced this bursary system in 1967. I must confess that I did not know about it, except that I noticed in the Press that some odd bursaries had been granted, until this Bill came before us on Friday. When the hon. the Minister explained yesterday what this was about, I realized that the seed which was sown had taken root and it had taken root in even the Nationalist ground as arid as it is and that it had borne fruit.

What I cannot understand is that it had to be done in this way by the Cape Provincial Administration—they even had to try to maintain secrecy—without the statutory authority to do so. They now stand revealed and we on this side of the House are quite happy to say that we welcome the step taken by the Cape Provincial Administration and we are quite happy to give statutory authority to something which we had appealed for on our side of the provincial council.

I regard this as an important matter. It is perhaps a little distressing to find that this action is only being taken in the Cape Province and not by the other provinces. One hopes that, now that this amendment is being introduced in the Financial Relations Act, other provinces, being aware of the fact that these merit bursaries can be given, will see their way clear to give similar bursaries so as to make it possible for as many children who merit it to go on to have university education and to further their studies in a way which is open to them. We all hope that this investment in talent—these rewards are after all given to those who have shown talent, because, as the hon. the Minister will know, they are only given for an 80% pass—will be a principle which will be adopted in other provinces.

In so far as clause 2 is concerned, the hon. the Minister has explained the necessity for this authority. However, I wonder whether this provision goes quite far enough. Here again, if there had been time for adequate consultation with the various authorities, we could, while we are legislating for this small item, have been able to legislate for fruther items. This power could then have been extended to statutory bodies within the provincial administrations. It will be realized that there are various statutory bodies like school boards, hospital boards and bodies of that nature, which administer funds and have certain responsibilities. There are occasions, for instance, when members of such boards are lost through death or other reasons, when it would be a token of respect and appreciation if floral tributes could be purchased and sent. This matter is not dealt with and I know it is a problem which exists with the provincial auditors as to how far these statutory bodies can use their own funds for matters of this sort which are now being regularized in this Bill.

When I come to clause 3 I must say I have considerable difficulty with it. A power is now to be given to the local authorities, and they will be acting under the umbrella surveillance of the provincial administrations, to levy this particular development charge in respect of properties. I cannot find any other way of describing this than by saying that it is the imposition of a capital gain tax on a property owner. This new type of taxation is on gain and not one levelled on all persons for the ownership of property. It is not an ordinary tax on ownership as a contribution towards the running of municipal affairs, but a tax because there is a gain made as a result of the development of a city, a gain of a capital nature in the hands of a particular property owner. I think that it is an important principle that cannot be lost sight of, that that is in effect what this empowering clause will do. There are various examples of this nature that one can think of. I think in haste of some where this gains tax could be argued as being justified and of others where it could be argued that it is not justified. If a property owner were to approach the authorities and say, “I have a piece of ground which is zoned for residential purposes, but will you please rezone it for business purposes?”, and his request is granted to him, there may be some moral reason for saying that he should make some contribution towards the municipality for that gain or that appreciation which he receives in the value of his property—that is if he applies for it himself. Against that point is the following. If rezoning is done, it is not done because of the application of Mr. A, or because a property belongs to Mr. A, but it is done because it is in the interests of ordinary town planning. It is not a favour which is done to a particular person, and if a person has acquired property that falls within that area [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister smiles. I hope that town planning or rezoning is not done as a favour to individuals. I hope that that is not the principle that is applied anywhere in South Africa, because if that was so it would be totally wrong. The rezoning is done because it is in the interests of that local authority area that there should be zoning for certain uses of ground. Just because such a person happens to fall within such a zoning area, is it right that he then becomes penalized? Is it right that this is done because he happens to be in the area that is rezoned? He cannot be penalized if there is a shift in population. In Cape Town one has an example where the city’s nerve centre, the business centre, is moving from this end of the city down to the foreshore. You cannot say to the foreshore people that their properties have become more valuable because there is more demand for property there and therefore they must pay tax, or an appreciation tax or a betterment charge, or whatever you want to call it, just because of the shifting population. It also happens with the shopkeeper or the fruiterer who has a shop near an area in which a school is suddenly built. When the school-children come there and his business trebles, quadruples or increases tenfold, must he be penalized, must he be subjected to a tax? I think that there are matters of that sort that need to be looked into. I want to go further and I want to talk about the person who is passively subjected to rezoning; in other words, the man who owns a house—and this has happened in various areas and the hon. member for Parow knows how it has hit large numbers of people in his constituency—and who has lived there for years and years, but now it is simply decided that this area should now be a business area. These people do not desire to sell their houses but want to stay there. They have been there for generations, but they suddenly now find that their houses …

Name examples.

There are many of them and I will list a few of them in a moment. There are many houses where people would like to stay, but what happens? The area is rezoned for business premises and then the man immediately has to pay an increased rate because his premises are now rated as business premises and not as dwelling premises. He pays additional rates.

No.

The hon. member for Parow shakes his head. He must go look at it. He must just look at some of the instances I will give to him afterwards —because I do not want to detail this House now—where the rates have gone up. Obviously the hon. member does not know what is going on on his own doorstep, because this is what is indeed happening. These people who do not want a rezoning suddenly find themselves involved in these betterment charges.

What is the position in regard to the different provinces? I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows. I did not have the time but we attempted to get the matter clarified. After all, it is basically a provincial matter as to how this law is applied. I believe that in the Transvaal there is a betterment charge or a development charge of 33⅓%. The Transvaal basis of valuation is totally different from that of the Cape. The municipal valuation, as the hon. the Minister knows, is based on site value. In the Cape we have a different basis of valuation for rating purposes. There is a 33⅓% basic charge in the Transvaal; the Cape Provincial Administration has determined a 50% charge, and I believe that in Natal the charge is 33⅓% as well. I am not certain what the position is in the Orange Free State. In none of these instances is there access to the courts, either through the Arbitration Act of 1965 or by the creation of a tribunal by the provincial authorities. It is ultra vires the provincial council to call upon a judge or the judiciary to serve on a tribunal of this sort. That authority for the provincial councils must come through this House before the full implications of the Arbitration Act of 1965 can be applied. We are asked to pass this clause as it reads but with what safeguards for the private owner, the individual? If the provincial councils wish to set up a tribunal, even with the best will in the world they cannot do it because it is ultra vires their powers. It is ultra vires their powers to call on the chief magistrate; it must be done with the authority of this House and only with the authority of this House.

We have this legislation before us and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has considered these matters. Many injustices and hardships have already arisen. I have here the file which was given to me this morning by one of my provincial colleagues. In it there are matters dealing with and problems arising from and representations concerning this very vexed matter, regarding which we must apparently now to decide to “pass it on; pass the buck”. We need apparently not worry about what powers and authority are needed by the provincial councils to safeguard the rights of individuals; we must merely pass it on. Let me give an indication of the problems that are arising. When a valuation is fixed, as would be done in terms of clause 3 in this Bill, it is of course an arbitrary valuation because it expresses an opinion with regard to what the property is worth before rezoning and what it is worth afterwards. What then is the attitude of the Administrations? I have here a letter addressed to a member of the provincial council from the Director of Local Government in the Cape in which his attention is drawn to the fact that certain properties which had been valued at a fairly high figure, had been offered for auction but there were no buyers. He writes back and says—

The fact that there are no buyers does not help the provincial administration in determining whether the values that were fixed were reasonable or not. Unless we put in this Bill the power to provide for arbitration and an access to the courts in terms of the Arbitration Act, there are no remedies for the owner whatsoever. Let me go further and deal with another matter concerning the same particular issue, which will indicate what is going on. There are four properties of identical size lying side by side along a particular main street. All four were residential and had been rezoned for business purposes. Rezoned, they are all valued at the same figure of R24 000. But what are the betterment charges that have been asked for from the four owners, as a result of some arbitrary valuation of what the properties were like before? These four residences have now become business premises. They are only 5 000 sq. ft. and are small shop sites. What are the figures asked for? In one case the development charge was assessed at R6 830, in the case of the plot next door at R1 800. the plot next door to that R8 200 and the fourth plot R5 023. On what basis has this been done and what rights and remedies do these people have …

The same size?

They are all the same size and were all dwelling plots rezoned for business purposes. As I have indicated, these four plots were contiguous and three of them were submitted for sale by public auction. In 1970 there was an offer of R19 000 each for the three of them, R5 000 less than the arbitrarily fixed value. In 1971 there was no bid when they were again put up for sale, but the owners, without the right to any kind of redress to any tribunal, must pay on the valuation that these plots are worth R24 000 whether the plots fetch that price on an auction sale or not and whether they can find a buyer or not. That is the amount they are taxed on.

It is a case for the provincial council …

The hon. member does not get the point. What I am trying to get at is that unless we put into this legislation the power for the provincial councils to apply the Arbitration Act, that is to have access to the Supreme Court, then the provincial councils cannot enact such a provision in their ordinances, because it will be ultra vires their powers. I make this point not because I want to say what the provincial councils must do, but because I think that if we give provincial councils the power, we should at the same time ensure that they have the machinery to protect the rights of the individual property owners concerned.

I want to give an indication of what has happened in this regard as far as we are concerned in the Cape. This section 35ter to which the hon. the Minister referred and which was introduced in the 1934 Ordinance makes provision for the payment of a “development contribution”, but it is in fact a tax which is imposed on the owner of property because his property has appreciated in value. I have mentioned one case, but I want to mention another one just to indicate what happens. The matter I want to mention went to the courts. A property owner in Philippi on the Cape Flats had some property which was valued for agricultural purposes at R6 050. It was then rezoned for industrial purposes and a valuation of R36 310 was fixed on it and the owner was called upon to pay a contribution of R15 130 to the local authority. But what happened when the property was put up for sale? It did not reach the figure of R36 000, but this individual was still taxed on the estimated value that somebody thought he should have got for this property because of the rezoning. One cannot go on with matters of this sort and I am sure the hon. the Minister is perhaps not aware of this …

You are the culprits in Natal.

The hon. member is talking about Natal, but I want to tell him that Natal is the one province that has been able to set up some form of appeal tribunal which can protect the interests of individual property owners. It does not exist anywhere else under Nationalist administrations. I would like to see this practice made compulsory in the Cape, Transvaal and in the Free State. I wonder if the hon. the Minister knows how the Cape Municipal Association has been handled by the authorities in this matter. The Cape Municipal Association is not a political body, but this is the type of letter it received from the provincial authorities. The Cape Municipal Association raised various questions and said: “Look, if you feel these betterment charges should be levied, why not leave it as a permissive matter also for the local authorities?” I quote from a letter written to the Secretary of the Cape Province Municipal Association by the Director of Local Government on the 5th April, 1971—

I think that this is important. We should know what the attitude is. The letter continues—

In other words “you just take it, there can be no local option as far as local authorities are concerned”. The letter concerned continues—

Sir, this raises a further point regarding the justice in the provisions which we are now being asked to enact. If a man owns or purchases a large tract of land in a developing new area and he is fortunate enough to have had the foresight to know that in due course there is going to be a development of some magnitude in this area, he will buy a vast area of land which is not zoned. When that property is zoned for the first time, and he has got in on the ground floor by purchasing within that area, he is not subject to a single cent of betterment charges. I have not been able to examine what is happening in certain areas which are set aside for industrial development. I do not know what has happened, for instance, in the new towns and cities which are springing up. I do not know what has happened in the Saldanha Bay area. I have not had time to investigate. One wonders how many of those people, because of a new zoning scheme that is being applied to what is at present unzoned property for town planning purposes, are going to find their properties ten times as valuable and will not have to pay one cent in betterment levies. But a person who has bought a property, with a house, and is living on 5 000 sq. ft. in the city, is hammered as soon as there is an increase in the value of his property because of rezoning and development. Now, what on earth is the difference between the extended development of a town and the first development?

Let me go on to some of the other matters mentioned in this letter. It reads further—

This was a query raised by the C.P.M.A. What was the reply?—

If a church has a hall in an area which is not rezoned for business purposes, that church hall must now be valued as business premises. When it comes to the selling of that hall at some stage or other, 50% of the increase in value will go to the local authority out of the coffers of that church organization. This is the attitude which is being adopted. The letter goes on—

This is the one fair part of the attitude being adopted, namely that betterment should be paid when the owner of the land gets to the stage of selling the property or utilizing it for a different purpose. I have had to deal with this matter in a somewhat disjointed manner, I am afraid, because of the time factor imposed in this debate. It is unfortunate, seeing that the recent negotiations with the C.P.M.A. are still going on, that we are now going to create a situation in which there is no uniformity between the provinces. It is most unfortunate that we should legislate to perpetuate that stage of affairs. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows—and the hon. the Minister of Community Development would surely know— how desirable it is that in matters dealing with property rights, dealing with home ownership and dealing particularly with urban development schemes, there should be the highest degree of uniformity that can be found by agreement between the various accounting bodies throughout the country. One realizes that there are certain aspects where uniformity cannot be found, but let us at least provide the machinery so that this uniformity can be achieved.

I come now to the final clause of this Bill, which deals with the regularization of certain expropriations. I am sorry the hon. member for Caledon is not in the House this afternoon, because I would like to ask him, as a member of the Executive Committee responsible at the time, how it came about that these expropriations were done in the way in which they were done. I see, however, that the hon. member for Caledon is unfortunately not here this afternoon to tell us what it is all about. I must say, Sir, that I have known the hon. member for a long time, especially during his period of office in the provincial council, and I want to say this afternoon that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are only too pleased that we can now put the stamp of approval on the fact that the Cape Provincial Administration made available, at half its value, this ground which is being used for the South African Medical Research Council in the proximity of the Tiervlei Hospital.

Those are the comments I wish to make on the Bill. As I have said, we have had only a short time to go into it. Having attempted to indicate what is involved, namely that there is no satisfaction in respect of a body as important as the Cape Provincial Municipal Association, that there are still matters which should be regularized and that the possibility should be sought of adopting a similar approach in the different provinces, I do hope that even at this stage the Minister will realize that it is necessary for this further investigation to take place.

Finally, I want to say just this to the hon. the Minister: The fact that betterment charges vary from province to province can have a considerable impact on the development of one province as against another. Let us take the position of a landowner wishing to purchase land for possible development eventually into a township. That land may be agricultural, but he may want to develop an industrial township. If he is going to come to the Cape, he is going to be milked to the extent of 50% when that rezoning goes through. If he can go to another province and get away with 25%, he will go to that other province, to the detriment of the province which is charging 50%. One hopes that the local authorities will realize that it is shortsighted to apply this type of capital tax at an excessive rate, to the detriment of the province or the local authority itself. Local authorities who may be looking for this development are, in the words of the letter which I read to the hon. the Minister this afternoon, precluded from opting out or from finding some other way of enticing, welcoming and encouraging a property developer to come to their particular municipal area. And so, Sir, we cannot support the Bill as it reads now, for the reasons I have indicated in the amendment I have moved.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point referred to clause 1 of the Bill which now legalizes a tradition which, so I have heard, has already existed in the Cape for 45 years, i.e. that bursaries are granted by the Province to scholars who have obtained a first-class pass in the matriculation examination and have obtained an overall average of 80%. I think it is a fine tradition that has been created in the Cape over the years, and I think the hon. member for Green Point should be glad that in this legislation we are now creating the opportunity for other provinces to adopt this good tradition that originated in the Cape. I do not think the hon. member disagrees with me at all about that. It appears that the only objection from the Opposition side involves the question of the appreciation levy for which provision is being made in the Bill.

The hon. member for Green Point has done nothing this afternoon but build up a long drawn-out list of complaints, one after the other, against the Administration of the Cape, as far as the control of local affairs by the provincial administration is concerned. The hon. member must remember that he is no longer a member of the provincial council. We are dealing here with other matters. The particulars with which the hon. member concerned himself, are not relevant to the level of what we are discussing here; they relate to the provincial level. Hon. members opposite have continued to present themselves in this House as the spokesmen and champions of the rights of the provinces. Every time legislation is introduced that creates the mere impression that the rights of the Provinces are in any way being encroached upon, taken away from them, diluted or decreased, hon. members opposite kick up a tremendous racket. They say then that we may not thus curtail the powers of the provinces. They say we should do more to give the provinces autonomous powers. Today, contrary to the entire tradition and course of action of that side, the hon. member for Green Point vehemently objects to this House now giving certain powers to the provinces. It is not even a case of powers being given to the provinces; powers which the provinces thought they have had all these years, and which they actually exercised, are now being sanctioned by this House. This House is now sanctioning the fact that the provinces may in future exercise those powers which they have exercised and which they thought they had. That is as far as this legislation goes, and now hon. members on the opposite side of the House object to our giving the powers to the provinces. The hon. member for Green Point says we can give them certain powers, but we must be careful of the provinces, because they are not competent to implement these powers properly. He says we must keep them in check; we must ensure that securities are included which will protect the rights of the individual. The hon. member says that is so. Since when has the hon. the member for Green Point been singing that ditty? Since when does he no longer trust the provinces in the elementary implementation of matters concerning local authorities? Sir, if we cannot trust the provinces as far as this matter is concerned, then what matters can we entrust to them. If we cannot do this, we must do away with the provincial councils. If they can no longer supervise the functions of the local authorities, what functions would they then have, and what rights do the provincial councils then have to remain in existence? The principle involved here is purely and simply that the provinces must have the right to make laws that will allow local authorities to impose a levy on landowners whose property has increased in value as a result of an amendment of a township development scheme. That is the one side of the matter, and on the other hand they must be able to make laws to authorize local authorities to pay compensation to owners whose land is adversely affected by the amendment of a township development scheme. That is the whole question that is involved in this legislation. Must the provinces have that power, or must they not have it? I am asking the hon. member for Green Point and I am asking the hon. member for Musgrave.

I shall reply to that.

I really think that hon. members opposite also think that the provinces should have that power. If they do not think so, it would surprise me. I think it is a foregone conclusion, and that is all that we want to do in this legislation; we want to give the provinces that power, which they thought they had, to make ordinances that give local authorities these powers; but once we have done this, the matter is in the hands of the provinces; then the extent of the appreciation or depreciation, and the amount of the contribution or the compensation, whatever the circumstances may be, devolve upon the discretion of the Administrator and the provincial council or the executive committee. It has merely been said, for the information of this House, that the levy in Cape Town is no more than 50%. I understand that in Natal it is much more. I think it is about 75%.

Yes, but on what?

I shall tell the hon. member on what. In the Cape and the Transvaal it is not on the valuation of the existing property; it is on the difference between the value of the property before the alteration of the township development scheme and the subsequent valuation, i.e. the levy is only on the appreciation. The same applies in Natal as well, but the only difference is that in Natal it is much more than in the Cape Province.

Tell us what the position in Natal is.

I have just said what the position is there. Sir, the point is that the executive committee has a discretion in this connection. They need not impose a levy of 50%; they may do so up to the maximum of 50%. But I do not want to go into details here now. I am prepared to give the Executive Committee of the Cape, the Executive Committee of Natal and the Executive Committee of any province the discretionary power to implement, in their particulars, the ordinances they may make in terms of these powers. Sir, if the United Party supports the principle that the provinces must have these powers, as they have always done up to the present day, and if they have objections and problems about the implementation of these powers by the provinces, they must not come and fight about that here; the hon. member for Green Point must then tell his provincial councillor that it is a matter that must be settled in Wale Street, not in this House. Sir, the point is that up to now the United Party has always endorsed this principle. This is a principle which, in truth, is as old as the hills. It has been in existence for several years in all the provinces. It is a principle that is applied in all modern countries of the world in respect of urban development. This principle applies in England. In the Cape Province, to which I confine myself because I have more knowledge of the Cape Province than of any other province, the position is such that if a person has a house, and his house is so effected by rezoning that it now has flat rights, that person can continue living in that house without paying the levy. He can live in that house for the rest of his life and his children can also live there without paying the levy. But the day he sells the house, he must pay the levy because it is obvious that he will then no longer sell it at the price of an ordinary residential dwelling. And if he wants to develop that house into a block of flats, he must pay the levy. But otherwise he does not have to pay it. In England the position is such that when a property is benefited by rezoning, the owner must immediately pay the levy when this comes into force. That is the position in England. In South Africa this is not implemented in that way. But I am saying that is a very old principle in both the Cape and South Africa. It is a principle that was introduced into the Cape Provincial Council by none other than the United Party. In 1934 they made an ordinance in the Cape, and in section 50 of that ordinance, No. 33 of 1934, it is written that an appreciation contribution can be claimed, and that under certain circumstances a payment can also be made where there is a loss in value. But the difference was this, that that appreciation contribution could only come into effect if that township was proclaimed. Now the hon. member for Green Point knows that in the Cape, in 1969, when this section 35ter was introduced into the ordinance, there had not yet been, for several good reasons, one proclaimed township in the Cape. Then already, in fact since 1934, the United Party had provided that an appreciation contribution could be claimed under an ordinance. The only reason why it was not implemented, was because no townships were proclaimed in the Cape.

I now come to the principle which came into force in 1969 in the Cape, a principle the hon. member is now opposed to, but which his party were not opposed to in 1969. Was the hon. member, at the time, not still a member of the provincial council?

No.

But there are, in fact, hon. members seated on the other side who were members at the time. But I can tell the hon. member that the person who supported the legislation in the provincial council was the hon. member’s friend there, Mr. Sonnenberg.

He was a member of the city council.

Yes, but he was also the member for Green Point in the provincial council. Does the hon. member want to deny that? Do not be ridiculous then. Mr. Speaker, this is what the hon. member for Green Point said in the provincial council when this matter came up and the United Party supported it in principle and did not move amendments at any stage of the ordinance. This is the attitude which the hon. member for Green Point specifically adopted in the provincial council. He said—

He supports it fully—

If the owner himself applies for it.

Sir, this is concerned with rezoning; it has nothing to do with these private applications that come along from time to time. This is specifically a matter of this particular ordinance.

Read it again. The hon. member says you are wrong.

Must I read it again for the hon. member? I shall read it in English so that he can understand it. This is what the then hon. member for Green Point said in the provincial council—

He seeks to have it rezoned.

The hon. member is using an example here, as the hon. member for Green Point used various examples this afternoon to back up his argument. But what hon. members must not lose sight of is that this member for Green Point was speaking in the provincial council about the principle of an ordinance incorporating this relative principle, i.e. section 35ter. He says he has no objection to that. He says it is right in the case of a person who is benefited. After all, the underlying principle is quite right. We are surely not ashamed of sticking to this principle. The United Party is ashamed, however. The United Party puts me in mind of a person who is quite satisfied to be a party to bring-in a baby into the world. However, when the baby is born and has wind or earaches, and there is a racket, the father is no longer prepared to accept responsibility for the child. The United Party is denying paternity in respect of the principle which the Party introduced in the provincial council and which they wholeheartedly supported, in the person of the hon. member’s provincial councillor, up to as late as 1969. This is typically opportunistic of the United Party. They realize that it is essential that the provinces should have the power, because what would the situation be if the provinces did not have this power and could not implement this legislation?

In many more cases people’s property is beneficially or adversely affected by rezoning. With the present development in our large urban complexes, it is today a daily occurrence that a private owner’s land has to be taken for the widening of a street. His land must be taken for the building of an additional school. His land has to be taken so that open spaces can be created. Each time there is rezoning, and the urban planning is changed, there are, of course, people who are affected. Do hon. members opposite, and the hon. member for Musgrave in person, not want people, who are adversely affected in this connection, to receive proper compensation from the local authority? Is it not only fair and good that a person, whose property is adversely affected by the fact that a street, school or whatever has to be built on his land, should receive proper compensation? I think it is fair, and it is a right the provinces must have so that they can determine that the owner should be properly compensated in such a case. That is what this clause entails, because it is now creating for the provinces the right to be able to make provision for the fact that an owner will not sustain losses because his property is being used for a public purpose to the detriment of the owner himself.

However, this matter does not only have one side. After all, it costs a great deal of money to buy up those properties or to compensate those people. Where must the local authority get the money for the compensation from? On the other hand money surely has to come in. I therefore think it is fair that a person, whose property is beneficially affected through no action on his part, without his having done anything to improve the property or to increase the value of the property so that he would be able to obtain a higher price for it, but whose property appreciates, purely as a result of the fact that that property is situated in an area where flat rights or business rights are being allocated as a result of rezoning, should pay a levy on the additional benefit that results from the rezoning.

I think it is a sound principle. It is a principle which has thus far always been supported by the United Party and that side of the House. I think the United Party ought to be ashamed of itself for running away from this principle now for no other simple reason than that they have found that at a few places there are people who are dissatisfied because they now have to pay the levy. That is the only reason.

In Parow, for example.

I am not running away from that. I am not afraid of a few people who are adversely affected by a just cause. The hon. member for Green Point, who is far away from Parow, is so afraid, however, that he runs away from a sound principle. That is typical of what the United Party is like. They sell themselves to every idea. Whenever they can benefit from a matter, they are there. However, when the public protests about certain things, they are not prepared to accept the criticism. I think it is a sound principle and I think that the hon. the Minister would be foolish if he were to concede to the requests from the opposite side of the House. There is nothing wrong with this; we are really only saying what is right. We are only confirming today what the provincial administrations regarded as a sphere in which they can make ordinances. The hon. member for Green Point has said that we could prejudice the case of the 13 owners, or whatever the number may be, which is at present before the courts. The fact is, however, that similar legislation was taken to the courts in the Transvaal and the Transvaal Supreme Court decided that the Transvaal has the right and that it is within the powers of the province to make such ordinances.

Their ordinances are not the same. The Minister himself said so.

What the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, is that the wording is not exactly the same, but that the principle is. This debate is not, at the moment, concerned with splitting hairs; it is concerned with the principle of the Bill, and the United Party cannot escape from the principle without somewhat tarnishing their honour. They must stick to it if they are men. They are the ones who inscribed it in the Cape Ordinance, they are the ones who supported it in 1969 and they are the ones, now that there is criticism from outside about its implementation —which has absolutely nothing to do with the business of this House—who now do not have the courage of their convictions to stick to that principle any longer.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point addressed himself to the hon. the Minister and he urged the hon. the Minister to agree that the discussion of this matter should be postponed. The hon. the Minister has not given a final indication and I want to ask him again now to agree that this debate be not proceeded with now but that it be proceeded with in due time. In order to advance reasons for that, I would like to move—

In moving the adjournment, I want to give amongst others my reasons as follows. Out of respect for this Parliament, out of respect for its members and out of respect for its workings, I suggest that it is entirely unjustified firstly that the Second Reading of a difficult and controversial Bill like this should be taken on the first working day after it has reached hon. members and, secondly, that it be proceeded with on the second working day after the Bill has reached members. That is my first reason. My second reason is to allow time to get the reaction to this measure of the great public outside. Obviously local authorities are very greatly affected by this measure now that it has emerged into the light of day. It has been shown by the fact that there are 13 court cases pending which are directly affected by this matter, as your ruling has shown, Mr. Speaker. As these persons are directly affected, they too should have an opportunity to make representations. After all, the whole history of Parliament has evolved a procedure which gives time for due deliberation of matters, which gives time so that the subjects of the State can come with their difficulties regarding legislation to Parliament. This is the very reason for having three readings. In this case we are proceeding apace with the Second Reading, doubtless to proceed the day after to the Committee Stage and doubtless to take the Third Reading the day afterwards. Then there is a third reason I would like to advance, and that is that further opportunity for study, discussion and preparation of speeches should be given to all the members in this House who maybe going to participate or who may wish to participate in this matter. There may be many members of this House who are quite unfamiliar with this topic and who represent an area which has a local authority which may be directly affected by this matter. Therefore it is quite likely that persons to whom this matter is completely fresh, may be wishing to speak or may have an obligation to speak in order to do justice to their constituencies. The hon. the Minister showed no urgency in introducing this matter. These are not trifling matters, but matters of considerable importance. So much so, that although we must necessarily, as the Opposition, bow to the superior numbers of the Government with regard to the course of Parliament and were therefore obliged to prepare ourselves to carry on with this debate, you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of Parliament, its procedures and dignity, can intervene and, I submit, should intervene to see that no precedent of this kind is established by means of this proceeding now.

I can readily understand that the hon. Government found themselves in a difficult situation: They have a very thin Order Paper. However, that is their fault. Ample warning has been received by the Government that the Order Paper is too thin. On one of our Wednesday evening sittings, the House did not sit at all because of lack of business. At the time the Opposition cooperated with the Government to secure the early adjournment. On the second occasion when this matter came up, the Opposition said: “No! This House should be sitting on Wednesday nights so that there is not then a mass of business thrown upon us in the later stages of the session.” If that happens, it will mean that the House, the staff, the Press and all associated with the House may have to sit morning, afternoon and evening. Even if the House sits the normal hours, it may well be that a large number of controversial matters are brought forward in that period; that would not be justified either. So, on the second Wednesday evening ample warning was given to the Government that the Order Paper was too thin. We are here referring to something which happened weeks ago; it did not happen yesterday. Then, again, this side of the House was prepared to show its reasonableness to the Government with regard to the question of an early adjournment. On Thursday of last week this side of the House readily fell in with the suggestion of the Leader of the House that we should take the half-hour debate at an earlier stage in the day. We agreed and did not in any way embarrass the Government. What do we get for our kindness now? “Stank vir dank” is, I think, what is said! On Friday morning of last week, two working days ago, we got this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you know only too well that members must be at their places in the House all day on Fridays. We are then expected to take the Second Reading of this debate on the first working day thereafter, namely yesterday. The hon. Minister opposite and yourself, Mr. Speaker, and also the Leader of the House and everyone on that side well know the workings of Parliament. They know that the Opposition and, I believe, the Government too are divided into groups. When a Bill is received the secretary of the group notifies its members in writing to meet to discuss a certain Bill. These notices go to members of the Senate and to members of the House and a day is fixed for commencing the consideration of the Bill. Those are very important considerations and can shorten the time required by the House. After a full discussion is held by the groups, the decision is reported to the entire caucus or management meeting. This is certainly the case on the Opposition side. Very often new thoughts are added at this stage. This deliberation is not only essential in order to get at the true position in regard to a Bill and the proper attitude to be adopted towards it, but indeed it can shorten the time of the House. It may be that if one is thrown upon a Bill early, one may be compelled to take up an attitude of opposition which one might otherwise not have taken if one had had the opportunity of maturer reflection. I therefore say that the most charitable explanation of this situation with which we have been faced is that there has been inefficiency on the Government side in bringing forward legislation.

What consultations have they had with their municipalities?

This is the most charitable explanation, because the fact that their Order Paper is so thin provides the motivation for their wanting to bring something forward which the machine of Parliament, as it were, can grind away at perhaps for a time in order that the fact of our early adjournment shall not be shown, as also the fact that Bills are not being brought forward. I may remind you, Sir, and it is well known, that at the beginning of each session the Leader of the House, in order to ensure co-operation and the smooth working of the House, brings forward a list of most of the Bills that are going to be introduced during the session. This was at the very beginning of the session, one and a half months ago. One would therefore have expected that hon. Ministers on the other side and the Government would have brought their business forward in a proper and smooth way. But this has not happened. That is why I say that that is the most charitable explanation which one can attach to the situation. Then again—and I hesitate to impute this—if it was not that, was it disrespect to the House that this House should in fact, on the second day after an important matter is introduced, go to work on that matter, a matter of considerable interest to many local authorities around the country and to the country? I cannot believe that that was the case. Are we to believe that we are just to rubber-stamp this Bill of the Minister’s? One asks oneself: How long have the Minister and his department been chewing the cud on this Bill? This is what one wants to know. How long have they had it and how long are we given in order to consider our attitude to measures in contrast with what they have?

And to consult with the people.

Exactly. Let us remember—and I say this again—that the whole object of Parliament and these readings is that it gives an opportunity to the people “daarbuite” to show their reaction to measures. Must we think that the hon. the Minister is trying to steamroller this through before he can get the legitimate reaction of the country? I would be loth to conclude that. I cannot speak for members on the other side—I am sure they are extremely hard-working—but it is also clear that an Opposition only one-third the size of the Government has a much vaster task in its work in Parliament. The Government has a whole Cabinet which can deliberate on these matters months and months beforehand. An Opposition must inevitably deal with a matter only from the moment it gets to them. I regret very much that the hon. the Minister has not so far seen fit to agree to a postponement, but I ask him, after he has heard the additional arguments that we have advanced, to give his consent to the postponement and so relieve you. Sir, of you yourself having to uphold the position. I do ask you, however, Mr. Speaker, in case he is not agreeable, to uphold the dignity of the workings of Parliament and of the members of Parliament and of its procedures. I accordingly move—

Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member for Pinelands in moving that this debate be now adjourned. The hon. member for Green Point talked about the unseemly haste with which the hon. the Minister has come forward with this legislation. I think that was an understatement. I suggest that what we have seen is this hon. Minister coming forward with legislation in a highly cavalier fashion, a fashion that strkes at the very core of the reason for the existence of this Parliament. Sir, we have heard from the hon. member for Green Point of his personal difficulties when he introduced the Opposition’s case when the Second Reading was moved. But the hon. member for Green Point is in an extremely fortunate position.

Order! The hon. member must confine his remarks …

I am, Sir. I am confining myself …

Order! The hon. member must obey the ruling from the Chair and confine his remarks to the matter under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I am confining myself to supporting the hon. member for Pinelands, and I am explaining why. The hon. member for Green Point, as I said, was extremely fortunate in being able to say what he was able to say. But what was significant was what he was not able to say. As he pointed out in his Second Reading speech, we as an Opposition had not been able to consult with local authorities as we should have. We have not been able to consult with our colleagues in the provincial council, not only of the Cape, but of all the provinces right throughout the country. We have not been able to consult with bodies such as the South African Property Owners’ Association.

Those points have all been made.

No, Sir, I want to come to this point.

Order ! Those points have all been made!

I want to come to this point, Mr. Speaker, that we received this Bill on Friday morning.

That point has also been made.

Yes. We have had an opportunity even to discuss this in the relevant caucus committee. Sir, it was discussed cursorily in a caucus of ours, but again without this entire background that was needed. This sort of legislation cannot be handled in a matter of two or three days. This is the sort of legislation that takes weeks,—certainly at least a week—to prepare. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister is sitting there, as he does, without even indicating to us whether he is prepared to accede to an adjournment of the debate. I now come to a point that has already been made, but I want to build on it. We realize that the Government have problems about the Order Paper. This has been trasparent for several days.

Order! Yes, but those points have also been made repeatedly.

Yes, Sir, but the point I want to make is that I cannot see why the interests of all these people involved—local authorities, property owners, including private property owners, people who have bought or are buying property— should be prejudiced just because of a technicality in this House, because the Leader of the House has been unable to arrange business satisfactorily. That is the point I wanted to make. The hon. member for Parow gave us the best part of a half-hour speech. I would like to know from him when he received the Bill. His speech, a few moments ago sounded a pretty empty one, but I would like to know whether he himself has had an opportunity to consult the very people who are going to be affected by this Bill. Of course he has not —unless he received the Bill earlier than we.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Sir, I am dealing with the motion. I am trying to point out to you, Sir, the very difficulties that we on this side of the House are experiencing. The motion of the hon. member for Pinelands introduces a very cogent principle into this House: Whether we sit here and in our wisdom, and without reference to the people outside, make our own little decisions in our ignorance, or whether we test the feelings of the people and find out from the people who are involved what their views are in order to bring those views to this House when the principle of the Bill is discussed in the Second Reading debate—that is the crux of the matter. For this reason I wish to support the hon. member for Pinelands. I suggest that we now adjourn this debate and allow members of this House, including members on the other side of the House, to find out exactly what the Bill is about and test public opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you on the motion for the adjournment, i.e. not on the Bill. I want to say at once that we have to do here with a situation which I find amazing as far as the Opposition is concerned. Sir, what is the position as far as this Bill is concerned? The Bill was presented to the House on Friday; it was available to hon. members then. In the meantime a weekend has gone by, a weekend during which they could have done the necessary research. [Interjections.]

I would like to ask the Minister what local authorities he thinks we could have consulted over the weekend?

I am talking specifically about research at the local authorities over the weekend. [Interjections.]

What are you talking about then?

Sir, hon. members opposite have rotten manners to boot.

Order!

The fact of the matter is simply that this matter cropped up on Friday. Yesterday I made my Second Reading speech, and having done so, I had the decency to accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate in order that hon. members might have a chance to prepare themselves further. In terms of the rules of the House we could have insisted yesterday on a continuation of the Second Reading debate; the rules of the House permit that. But there is no question of appreciation being shown on the part of the Opposition for the adjournment of the debate yesterday; on the contrary, today they are launching the same attack here all over again. The trouble with hon. members opposite is that they want to discuss the details of the Bill, which are not relevant here. The details of this measure are discussed in the provincial councils. All we are granting here, is authorization for a certain thing to be done; the details are ironed out in the provincial councils. The granting of this authorization is not a contentious matter at all. All that is being done is to grant the necessary authorization to the provincial councils. I want to say at once that in the light of the circumstances I cannot accept the motion for the adjournment of the debate; I must oppose it, because it is essential for us to proceed with this measure. Secondly, as regards the details which hon. members want to discuss, there is ample time, weeks and months, for them to be ironed out in the provincial councils; they are not subject to any restriction. All that is involved here, is the authorization which we are granting to the provincial councils, and that is a matter of principle which need not be argued in detail.

Question put and the House divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister in dealing with the motion for the adjournment of the debate, and the hon. member for Parow, in dealing with the merits of the Bill, missed completely the point of objection by this side of the House. I should like to make it clear to the hon. the Minister because I believe it is an important one. The hon. the Minister said that this was merely an empowering Bill. It merely gives certain powers to the provincial councils which they may or may not exercise and if they do exercise them, it is up to them to determine the details or the procedure under which the powers may be exercised. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is partly correct, but it is also partly incorrect. It is because it is partly incorrect that we do object to clause 3 as it is.

The hon. member for Parow asked me whether contrary to our attitude in the past we now object to powers being given to provincial councils. Of course, we have not changed our attitude in regard to that. We are still very jealous of preserving the position of the provincial councils and the powers which they enjoy. Furthermore, our opposition to clause 3 in no way implies that we consider that the provinces are not capable of exercising the powers which are given to them. The hon. member for Parow went so far as to suggest that when the hon. member for Green Point referred to a number of cases relating to the Cape Provincial Administration, he was criticizing the Cape Provincial Administration on a way which implied no confidence in that administration. Of course that was not the case at all. The hon. member for Green Point referred to these cases as examples of the difficulties which the provincial councils have in properly exercising the power of a betterment contribution or a depreciation allowance unless Parliament gives it the adequate power which they require and which clause 3 does not give them.

What is this adequate power? The adequate power is very simply the power to invoke the provisions of the Arbitration Act to enable aggrieved persons to go to arbitration to determine the proper compensation to which they should be entitled. The position, as explained by the hon. member for Green Point, is that unless Parliament gives to provincial councils the power to bring into operation the Arbitration Act in these cases, the provincial councils are powerless to bring it into operation. The result is therefore that the individual persons within the province who are affected by a decision to claim a betterment contribution or by a decision to depreciate the value of their property do not enjoy proper recourse to the one Act which will enable them to get a fair award of compensation or a fair amount by way of a betterment contribution.

The whole point of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point is to enable this House to give sufficient powers to the provincial councils for the exercise of the power to raise betterment contributions or to permit local authorities to do this. The second aspect of this is equally important. The hon. member for Green Point pointed out that there were very good arguments that could be advanced to prove that it was not every case where betterment had occurred that part of that amount should be handed over. He suggested as an example the case where a town-planning scheme of a local authority was amend not at the request of the owner himself but as a result perhaps of the general planning of an area. In such cases it is felt by many persons that to pay over part of that benefit is unfair as it would be unfair to expect an owner who happens to have property which at one time was on the outskirts of a city and which, because of the growth of the city towards his property, now enjoys an enhanced value and has to pay more. Just as it is unfair to expect that owner to pay over part of the enhanced value, so it is argued, and I believe with considerable merit, that where a town-planning scheme is amended by a local authority and that has the result of benefiting certain owners there should not be a call for a betterment contribution in such cases. The first part of the amendment deals with this and suggests that before the power to permit betterment contributions is exercised, there should be a proper investigation to determine the circumstances under which a betterment contribution should be paid and, conversely, a depreciation contribution should be paid by the local authority. If this is not done, individuals can be prejudiced as a result of perhaps over-hasty action by a local authority. It is not sufficient to say that these are all matters of detail that should properly be discussed by the provincial council when they choose to exercise these powers. It is our submission that it is the duty of the Legislature which in terms of clause 3 of the Bill is granting certain powers to the provincial administrations, to state precisely under what circumstances these powers should be exercised or, conversely, it is their duty to call for a proper investigation before they are exercised. Above all, if these powers are to be handed over, surely they should be handed over in a way which gives proper protection to individuals. That proper protection can only be given if the provincial councils are given the opportunity to bring into effect the Expropriation Act. This will enable the individual who has complaints, who is dissatisfied to go on appeal to an expropriation appeal board. This cannot be done under present circumstances, with the result that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in many of these cases. The figure which is suggested as to the amount to be contributed, is often in dispute and there is no proper means for those persons who are dissatisfied, to put forward their point of view and to establish the fair value if the Expropriation Act is not made applicable. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, that this Bill should stand over until there has been a proper investigation, I hope that he will at least give proper consideration to making it possible for provincial councils to enable local authorities to bring into effect the Expropriation Act by means of an appropriate amendment to clause 3 during the Committee Stage.

I want to refer to another important aspect of this clause, an aspect which has not been dealt with at any great length, namely subsection (2) of clause 3 in terms of which subsection (1)(a) shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st April, 1925. Can the hon. the Minister, or any member on that side of the House, tell this House what the effect will be of this provision? I would suggest that it is unheard of to make a provision of this sort, with such far-reaching implications, applicable from as far back as 1st April, 1925. It is, I submit, the height of folly for this House to pass a provision of this sort! For the hon. Minister and hon. members on that side of the House to suggest that this is a simple matter which does not need to be referred to local authorities or to other persons who may be affected because there is nothing in it, is making a farce of Parliament. This could adversely affect persons who for years have regarded their affairs with regard to a particular rezoning as being at an end, as being concluded. They may have reinvested the money which they have had from their property or they may have dealt with the money in some other way. They will now be in a position where the local authority concerned could reopen their case and call for a betterment contribution from them.

You are being silly now. This Bill deals with the Financial Relations Act.

I hope the hon. member for Klip River, who has just interrupted, will come into the debate to give us the opportunity of questioning him on the statement he has just made. If he were to read this amending Bill correctly, he would see that subsection (1)(a) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1st April, 1925.

It amends the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act.

Of course! This is precisely the section that is being amended by clause 3. How can the hon. member for Klip River then suggest that I am being silly? What it means is that once clause 3(1)(a) is passed by this House, it is automatically deemed to have come into operation on the 1st April, 1925.

Provided the provinces have had ordinances which are now being covered by enabling legislation.

This enables the provinces to pass an ordinacne to enable a local authority to demand a betterment contribution from as far back as the 1st April, 1925. Does the hon. member for Klip River or the hon. member for Parow dispute that?

Of course; it is farfetched.

Right, I now challenge the hon. member for Klip River—the hon. member for Parow has already spoken and cannot speak again— to stand up after me in this debate and to make the point, and I ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to this debate, if I am wrong, to explain this extraordinary provision making the amendment which is now being proposed in clause 3(1)(a) retrospective to the 1st April, 1925. I say again that the effect of that provision is to make it possible for a provincial council to enable local authorities to claim a betterment contribution in respect of a betterment which may have taken place at any time between now and as far back as the 1st April, 1925.

That is sheer nonsense.

Why do you think that date was chosen? There must have been a reason for it.

I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us this. I am interpreting what he has put in his Bill, and if he means something else by it, then this is a further reason why this half-baked measure which is being rushed through the House should be postponed to enable persons who are affected …

That matter has been disposed of.

I abide by your ruling and will not pursue this, but I do say that this provision, namely clause 3(2), makes it imperative that not only local authorities but also persons who could be seriously affected by these provisions should be given adequate opportunity to make representations either to this House through their Members of Parliament or, at any rate, to the hon. the Minister. They have certainly not had the time to do this at this stage. In the short time that has been available in which to prepare ourselves for this debate, this is I am afraid the best that I am able to do. As I see the position, this is a dangerous provision to put through in this hurried form and therefore I too oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to retrace the steps of this hon. member all the way back to 1925. I only want to go back a little way. This is the new fashion now, which we observe among the Opposition members these days, that they come here without having done their homework and then plead for an afternoon to go and do something else. Now it is being voiced abroad that there was allegedly no time for consultation. I now want to ask what the hon. members really wanted to consult about and whom they really wanted to consult?

Harry Schwarz.

It is possible that they wanted to consult Harry, but after all, one could have done that simply by means of a telephone call. After all, one could have done the same with Joel Mervis. Surely any member who is at all worth his salt, knows by this time what is meant by clause 3 of this Bill. Any member who does his work in his constituency, would already have had practical experience of this matter. But the problem with these hon. members is that they come to this House in order to judge any legislation on a theoretical basis instead of also doing some work sometimes in their constituencies and concerning themselves with this matter in practice. Throughout all the years I have been here, the official Opposition have professed themselves to be the guardian angels of the provinces, people who sit here and jealously guard over the powers of the provinces. The other day this was carried even further. The hon. member for South Coast—I do not take it amiss of him—sat and jealously guarded the powers of the Natal Parks Board. He must not look angry at me when I say this now. In the course of time it has been our experience that hon. members opposite are allergic to Pretoria. When certain powers are taken by the Government, the fact that powers are once again being transferred to Pretoria is referred to with derision.

Today we have here a Bill with four clauses, which grants certain powers to the provinces if they do not already have them, or which where there is ambiguity, confirms those powers beyond all doubt, and does so, whether it involves the question of education bursaries or betterment levies, whether it is concerned with the control of pollution, the donation of certain land to the Medical Research Council or the purchase of wreaths. I think that we should consider another amendment during the Committee Stage. There is another body which qualifies for the purchase of wreaths, particularly after today’s performance.

Let us confine ourselves for a moment to clause 3 of this Bill. In 1969 the United Party accepted this principle in the Cape Provincial Council without a division. They did not even force a vote, so unanimous were they with the members of the National Party concerning this matter. You can ask the hon. member for Maitland whether there was a division or a difference of opinion. He was a member of the Cape Provincial Council at that time. In 1970 they were still accepting the principle, when this legislation was already being applied in practice. I remember well that in 1970 this legislation had already been applied in practice by a local authority like Parow. The United Party supporters were still completely satisfied about that. But then an election was held. In this 1970 election a Hertzogite candidate, for the lack of anything better to say, picked up this story with the object of stirring people up. The next thing that happened, was that the United Party realized that there might be some profit in this matter for them.

You are all afraid of the Hertzogites!

Actually, the facts prove the opposite. It was as a result of incitement by the Hertzogites that the U.P. supporters tagged along. In effect the Hertzogites took them in tow concerning this matter. In the process they even picked up a stray Nationalist whose own interests weighed heaviest with him. In fact, they took these in tow completely.

Let us see how this betterment levy is constituted. Fundamentally it should not be necessary for us to argue about the details here today, but since hon. members opposite have seen fit to argue about the details, let us discuss the betterment contribution. The argument is being used here that this is determined in a completely arbitrary way. Sir, let us see how this betterment contribution is levied. When an urban area is replanned and this leads to rezoning, the local authority sets a valuation on the site and the dwelling concerned, which was probably zoned as a single residential area; it sets a valuation on that, taking into account the value of residential plots and houses in that neighbourhood, and in this connection I must say that local authorities go out of their way to place a reasonably high valuation on those sites in order to reduce the betterment contribution in this way. If a site is rezoned from a residential to a business site, then the next step is to set a valuation on it, taking into account the value of business sites in the neighbourhood, and the betterment contribution is then applicable to 50% of the difference between those two amounts. But, Sir, as has already been stated repeatedly, that betterment contribution is only payable when the owner begins to develop or when he alienates that property. In other words, this does not put the screws on helpless pensioners, as the hon. member for Green Point attempted to indicate here with much gesticulation. The position is of course that one has similar legislation in Britain, with this difference that as soon as a rezoning takes place and a betterment levy is determined, that betterment levy is payable immediately, which is quite different to the position here, possibly for good reasons, but in any event our legislation in this connection is far more lenient than that in Britain.

Sir, where does this money go which local authorities receive in the form of these betterment contributions? It is paid into the Consolidated Loan Fund, but it is not used over the entire spectrum of the expenditure of a local authority; it is utilized specifically for the execution of the town-planning scheme, which may entail certain properties being detrimentally affected in the process and the local authority having to pay a depreciation contribution. Naturally, the creation of new business areas also places a tremendous burden on the shoulders of local authorities. Sir, when one creates a business centre, the local authorities must necessarily make provision for parking facilities; in other words, it must purchase land at the highest prices in order to establish parking space; in many instances it must construct new roads. Services are far more intensive for a business complex of this kind than for a residential area only. In other words, rezoning involves tremendous expense for the local authorities. As against this, the owner of the premises concerned has the benefit of the more advantageous zoning. If we have to accept the argument of the official Opposition, the owner of these premises has a tremendous increase in the market value of his property overnight without having raised a finger in this connection. If we follow the logic of the official Opposition, it would mean that we are in favour of a few people enjoying a total benefit from this rezoning but that the costs of the provision of these services in terms of the town-planning scheme, must be spread over all the voters in the area of the local authority which have not had the benefit of rezoning and which have quite possibly also suffered the disadvantage of a disadvantageous zoning. In other words, Sir, our view is that where there is—I shall not call it an excessive profit—an excessive increase in the market value, without any effort on the part of the owner, the local authority would be quite justified in levying that betterment contribution. Now the hon. member for Green Point says that a few helpless old pensioners are sitting in their little house which they have just paid off and without having anything to do with it, the local authority catches them unawares with an advantageous rezoning; that owner only wanted the zoning to be single residential, but now he receives business rights and he is now so hard hit by rates that he is no longer able to live there. I do not know where the hon. member came by that argument. At this stage no rates have yet been levied on such premises according to the new valuation after rezoning. Naturally it is the intention that an adjustment of the rates should be made—I concede that— but that will apply for the most part to the site and not to the buildings; and the buildings usually carry a fairly heavy assessment. Because if the building, as a single residential building, is not suitable for business purposes, it will not be rated for business purposes.

Then the hon. member told us about four little plots at a certain place on which the local authorities placed a value and that the four plots were offered for sale at an auction and there were no offers. Sir, I know that case particularly well. I know about this particular auctioneering firm which offered these four adjoining properties for sale, but that was an exceptional bit of timing, because those particular people had to handle that Mr. Harmse’s case, and had to build up a case for him by indicating that there was no market at the price of the valuation which had been drawn up by the municipality of Parow. I do not want to use an ugly word for what happened here, but if this system is so extremely unfair, why should it be that people are still coming to the local authorities all the time, notwithstanding this appreciation contribution and this levy, to ask for rezoning of their properties? Now, the hon. member for Green Point also said that this 50% levy which is now different in the Cape Province to those of other provinces will smother all enterprise in our province. Sir, the ordinance provides that a maximum of 50% may be levied. In other words, from place to place, from one local authority area to another, the percentage of value appreciation contributions will, of course, vary. In 1969 the congress of the municipal associations unanimously decided at their congress in Port Elizabeth to recommend that this particular section of the ordinance be applied in order to enable local authorities to execute their town-planning schemes.

I want to come to clause 4, the last clause of this Bill, and I want to tell you that this clause is of great personal importance to me because it has to do with one of the prestige institutions in my constituency, namely the Medical Research Council. As we indicated at the start, this legislation is necessary to establish beyond all doubt the ability of the provinces to donate land which they have expropriated, and land belonging to them, to the Medical Research Council. Sir, as you will note from Schedule 2 of the Bill, it is a portion of Tygerberg Hospital grounds, which are approximately 2,4 hectares in extent, which is concerned in this donation. Then you will see that in Schedule 1 mention is made of a large number of residential properties which are also being expropriated by the province in order to be able to extend this property. The Medical Research Council’s basic problem at this stage is that, because uncertainty exists concerning the situation, they are not in a position to consolidate that property and to develop it as they would like at this stage to develop it and are able to develop it. That is one of the reasons why this legislation is of an urgent nature: In order that the Medical Research Council may also proceed with its work. The development of the Medical Research Council includes, inter alia, the establishment of the research institute for nutritional diseases. It is an institute which will of course have to perform its work nationally over the whole country but which will be centred in the Western Cape in particular. Its research and its lead in the medical sphere in so far as it concerns nutritional diseases, whether malnutrition or undernourishment, will, in other words, be of great importance to us with our very large Coloured population here and particularly on the Cape Flats. For that reason we are particularly grateful that this legislation has been introduced at this early stage to enable the Medical Research Council to consolidate its ground and to continue with the establishment of all its research institutes in order that progress may be made as rapidly as possible with the research projects which are so closely associated with this whole matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Tygervallei spent an awful long time dealing with the details of the powers which it is now intended to give to a province in the Republic, but it was not so long ago that his Minister and his colleague, the hon. member for Parow, were taking us to task for dealing with the details. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the motion for the adjournment, said that he was not interested in the details of this Bill, but here the hon. member has fallen into exactly the same trap.

The hon. member for Tygervallei makes the point that if overnight a man finds that because of a rezoning of his property he suddenly has a property with a greatly enhanced value, surely some of that enhanced value should go to the local authority. I want to put this question pertinently to hon. members on the other side and I am very glad that the hon. the Leader of the House is here as well: Are they in favour of a capital gains tax? Is this now to be an accepted principle on that side of the House? Are they working towards the implementation of such a capital gains tax on all other things as well, because that is, in effect, what the hon. member for Tygervallei is pleading for.

That is nonsense.

What he is pleading for is that when there is a capital appreciation of your property, whether you have worked for it, whether you have taken overt steps to achieve that increase or whether it has happened fortuitously, some of that capital gain should go to the local authority or to the provincial authority concerned.

That has nothing to do with it.

No, the hon. member cannot get past it this way. In the hon. the Minister’s reply we should like to learn whether they are in favour of the introduction of such capital gains taxation, because that is what, in effect, is happening here today.

That is not what is happening.

It is no good the hon. member for Tygervallei saying that it is not what is happening, because, if he had done his homework, he should know that the courts have held that it is, in fact, such a capital gains tax. That is a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of South Africa. He should have known that if he had done his homework. While I am dealing with the question of homework, what did the hon. the Minister say in reply to the motion that we should adjourn so that we can do our homework?

Order! That matter has been disposed of.

No, I am not dealing with that matter, Sir; I am not dealing with that motion at all. I am merely dealing …

Order! The hon. member may not even deal with the hon. the Minister’s reply to that motion.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on that point?

No, there is no necessity for that. That matter has been disposed of. The House has come to a decision in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, may I put it this way?

May I put the hon. member a question?

No, I have no time to deal with that hon. member. I was not able to do any homework. I cannot answer the questions of that hon. member.

Quote us the case.

May I put it this way? The hon. the Minister has said that this is merely enabling legislation. He said that in his introductory speech as well. How can he say such a thing before this House? How can he endeavour to mislead us here and the people outside by saying that this is merely enabling legislation? As was so ably pointed out by my hon. friend from Green Point, this is not enabling legislation; it is ratifying legislation as far as the Cape and the Transvaal are concerned. The hon. member for Tygervallei says that we will give powers to the provinces if they do not already have them. How can he say that? Surely he knows the provinces have usurped these powers ultra vires. The hon. the Minister admitted it in his introductory speech. He admitted it in terms of the Bill itself; clause 3(2) states: “Subsection (1)(a) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1st April, 1925.” By inserting that subsection he admits that something has been done which is ultra vires. This is the crux of the matter when it comes to the 13 cases which are now before the Supreme Court in the Cape Province. The hon. member for Tygervallei and the hon. member for Parow suggested that these were “kleinigheidjies”, that they were trivialities. What is the position with the 13 cases which are now before the Supreme Court? The amount of the contribution which is in dispute in those 13 cases alone totals nearly R250 000 or, to be more exact, R249 690. But it is a “kleinigheidjie” according to the hon. member for Parow. These are trivialitites ! This is why we consider that this legislation should not be pushed through with such unseemly haste. Do hon. members know that by the time we have finished with this legislation it will be exactly five days; it will mean that a matter of this importance has been pushed through five days from the time that we first saw it to the time that we finish the Third Reading of this debate on Thursday. The hon. the Minister says it is merely enabling legislation, but it is ratifying legislation as far as the Cape and the Transvaal are concerned. Clause 2(2) itself reads—

We find the same thing in respect of clause 1. Yes the hon. member for Tygervallei tries to be clever and suggests that there should be another wreath for the official Opposition. I want to agree with him by saying that there should be provision for another wreath, but it will be another wreath for the dignity of Parliament which has been abrogated over the last few days. In dealing with the measure I want to come back to clause 1.

You have not done your homework.

The hon. ex-member for Umhlatuzana says I have not done my homework. I am prepared to admit that I have not done my homework. I want to challenge him as an hon. representative from Natal, and his colleague who sits next to him, the hon. member for Newcastle who unfortunately has left the Chamber now and who had so much to say by way of interjection about what is taken in Natal—he alleged that what was taken in Natal from a landowner was more than what was taken in the Cape—to tell us what is taken from a landowner in Natal. Do they know? Do they know the basis of any contribution that is taken from a land-owner in Natal when the value of his property is enhanced? I do not believe the hon. the Minister knows, let alone anybody on that side of the House.

It is more than it is in the Cape.

The hon. member for Parow repeats it and he says it is more than in the Cape, but when he was challenged to outline the basis on which any contribution, if any, is collected in Natal he was unable to do so.

You tell us, then.

Order!

The hon. member for Tygervallei was also unable to do so.

You are just padding.

Order!

I have issued a challenge to that hon. member, the hon. member for Klip River who continues to interject …

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am proceeding. I have issued a challenge to him to follow me in this debate and to outline to the House what contribution, if any—and I stress “if any”—is made by a landowner in Natal when the value of his property is increased. There is no hard and fast rule laid down in Natal because Natal has never used any such legislation. It has never used any such legislation.

I want to say here and now that, as far as Natal is concerned, I believe they will welcome this power. I believe that the Natal Provincial Council will accept that this power should be given to them, but with one proviso: I believe that it should truly be only enabling legislation; I believe they should be enabled to pass legislation dealing with this matter if they so wish and that there should be no compulsion on any province to pass such legislation. I accept that that is in effect what is here, but I would like from the hon. the Minister an assurance this afternoon, when he replies to this debate, that in no way will any of the provinces be coerced into carrying out any of these provisions. I say this advisedly because what is the position in Natal at the moment? At the moment Natal is considering legislation which it will introduce once this enabling legislation has passed through this House and has become law. However, it is hidebound by what has already taken place in the other provinces. In its consideration of such legislation, such draft legislation—that is all it is at this stage—it is bound by what has already happened ultra vires—and I want to stress that point —in the Cape and in the Transvaal.

In the Transvaal as well?

Yes, in the Transvaal as well. Why then are we enabling the Transvaal to do this? Why are we now saying for the first time that the Transvaal shall be enabled to pass this sort of legislation? The hon. member for Parow must also do some homework. I do not know when he got the Bill. I do not know how long ago he got it, that he was able to do the homework that he did, but I know that mine arrived on my desk on Friday morning. As I say, Natal is being bound by what has happened in the other provinces in the drawing up of whatever legislation it itends to introduce because it has been accepted as a principle that there should be uniformity. In terms of the amendment moved by my friend, the hon. member for Green Point, we want to see uniformity. That is why I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point that we should have more time to consider this matter for that very reason.

I want to come back …

That is enough!

Yes, I shall accept that that is enough for clause 3, but I want to come back to clause 1 which deals with the question of bursaries for school children. I want to say that, as far as the enabling legislation is concerned, this is only in respect of the Cape Province. However, I welcome this provision for Natal and the other provinces. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether this is limited only to children from provincial or Government schools. Do children from private schools qualify? Will he allow the provinces to apply this to children in private schools or is it going to be limited only to children in Government schools?

I must also deal with a provision which has not received very much attention from those who have debated the matter so far —and I do not say that in a spirit of criticism—namely, the new paragraph 25 which is to be added to the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act. I am very glad, incidentally, that the hon. member for Klip River was able to discover that that is the Act which we are in fact amending. I do not know which Act he thought we were amending. In terms of paragraph 25 we are now returning to the provinces the power to legislate regarding the control of environmental pollution. Over the years the Nationalist Government has taken away a number of powers from the provinces. In regard to this particular matter I think of the powers they had in terms of the Water Act, the powers they had in terms of the Atmospheric Pollution Act and of course in terms of the Public Health Act. All these powers were taken away by this Nationalist Government from the provinces at one time or another during the last 25 years. I want to agree with the hon. member for Tygervallei when he says that we have been jealous of the powers of the provinces and that we have guarded the powers of the provinces. But having taken them away we find that today we are being asked to give those powers back to the provinces and I want to say that we welcome that and that we are very glad of that, particularly in so far as Natal is concerned. This enables them to legislate and to take action on pollution and I believe the provinces will take action, which is of course in contradistinction to what has happened as long as the question of pollution control has been in the hands of this Government. Up to now this Government has failed to take any action regarding environmental control. It is planning and talking an awful lot, but it is not doing very much. However, I must make one proviso. This side of the House, particularly through my friend the hon. member for South Coast, has made it quite clear that our approach to this whole question of the control of environmental pollution is quite different from that of the Government. The Government is fragmenting this control and is putting the responsibility here, there and everywhere and nobody is co-ordinating it. Every time we have a disaster and something happens nobody knows to whom to refer; nobody knows who is the responsible body. We believe the province has its part to play, but we do believe that there should be one central co-ordinating ministry which will coordinate and direct all the interested bodies and persons in this matter. Unfortunately, like my colleague the hon. member for Musgrave, I also was not allowed much time to consult. I have not consulted with any of the local authorities in my area. I do not know what their attitude in regard to this measure is. I have briefly on the telephone consulted with a member of the provincial executive in Natal.

What about the Hammarsdale Ratepayers’ Association?

The hon. member raises the question of the Hammarsdale Ratepayers’ Association, but unfortunately that body does not yet exist. I believe that from the 1st April we will have a local authority in Hammarsdale thanks to the Natal Provincial Administration and I suppose that such a body will come into being. But the hon. member should know one thing …

Yes, but is that in connection with the Bill?

Yes, it is very pertinent, Sir. He should know, coming from Natal, that the provincial administration in Natal in its wisdom in the period from 1958 to 1963 set aside vast tracts of land in Natal for industrial development. They zoned it for industrial development. Now what is going to happen to those people? What is going to happen to the owners of that agricultural land?

It depends on the local authority. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Parow has put him in his place!

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now; he has been led astray.

I will not allow myself to be led astray any more and I will follow the example of the hon. member for Green Point and support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we have just had a short, heated debate here on a matter which I honestly think is not contentious. I expressed this opinion at the outset of my Second Reading speech because I was convinced and am still convinced of this, although a lot of unnecessary dust was raised here about a matter which is really not contentious. I shall refer to this fully when I come to it. In the first place let me say that we are dealing here with a position where, as a result of the administrative problems and the administrative handling of certain matters in the provinces, problems arise from time to time as a result of which certain conditions develop in regard to which the provinces then want security and the necessary authority to be able to handle them. That certain problems should crop up from time to time is something which will probably always happen. To be able to rectify them, we come to this House with a Bill such as this to rectify this various assortment, this potpourri I would almost say, of problems which the provinces have. Some of these matters have been requiring attention for several years, but we cannot come to Parliament immediately with every little problem they have and straighten it out, for one does not play the fool with this House. The result is that we save up these things and when we have a number of them we come forward with a Bill such as this in which all the little matters are rectified. Here we have for the most part four matters, with a fifth one added, which we want to rectify with this Bill and which I am honestly convinced are not contentious, although there is a history attached to one matter, as a result of which the United Party feels tremendously emotional.

In the first place we are dealing here with an innocent clause in terms of which we want to legalize bursaries awarded to deserving pupils, on a retrospective basis with effect from the date on which they originally came into force, because there is uncertainty as to whether the provinces may do this. There is in reality only one problem. There is no doubt that a province may award a bursary to a student, deserving or otherwise, if that student is going to study with the object of eventually entering the service of the province. That happens in all the provinces. In this way future teachers in the provincial service, as well as male nurses and nurses, are provided with bursaries. There are various ways of helping them in this connection. The Cape, however, went further and awarded bursaries to all deserving scholars who achieved a certain standard in the school-leaving examination, provided they furthered their studies but regardless of where they did so or where they were going to work. It is that aspect, that the person need not enter the service of the province, which is suspect, i.e. whether the province may award bursaries to students who do not enter the service of the provinces after qualifying. This matter is now being rectified here. I thank the Opposition for supporting this clause. That, at least, sounds like the sensible thing to do. This Bill now makes it possible for the other provinces to emulate this fine gesture. The decision will rest with every province whether it wants to adopt this method or not. After the passing of this Bill there will in fact be statutory authorization.

The second clause deals with quite a simple little matter, which does give rise to legal problems however, viz. the normal gesture of purchasing a wreath for a wreath-laying ceremony. If a request were to be made to the Administrator or other representative of a province to lay a wreath on behalf of the province at the statue of Jan van Riebeeck, or on the occasion of a Delville Wood Day celebration—he is perhaps the speaker there—he may, according to the present circumstances, not do so. The expenditure incurred in this connection is unlawful. Anyone who regards the matter objectively would in any case consider that a province ought to be empowered to do this. The entire object of the clause is simply to rectify this matter now and to make the provision with retrospective effect. For the sake of decency the provinces have for a long time been incurring such expenditure, but it was unlawful, according to the present circumstances. I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage to include Van Riebeeck Day.

We come now, in the third place, to the question which was the cause of this entire outcry here today. Let us now regard the matter, which all the fighting was about, in its true perspective. These powers in regard to town-planning schemes, etc., the provinces have already had since 1st April, 1925.

Lawfully?

Yes. I shall furnish the precise reference in a moment. Recently uncertainty arose in regard to the specific method of application, and by means of clause 3 we simply want to establish this power beyond all doubt. I want to repeat what I mentioned briefly a moment ago. All the arguments which hon. members raised in regard to the details of particular cases, were honestly out of place in this House. These are matters which ought to be settled in the provincial councils concerned when the authorization which we are now establishing beyond all doubt here is applied in the provinces, when the provinces decide precisely how they are going to apply these powers. The colleagues of the hon. members opposite in the provincial council should argue and settle the matter there. All the arguments raised here today really belong in that council chamber, and not here in our House. That is where the measures and details are being applied. We are simply ensuring that the position is clarified in regard to the powers which are already regarded as belonging to the provinces, and in regard to which a uncertainty has now arisen in one province. In the other provinces no uncertainty exists in regard to this matter. The Transvaal won a court case on this matter and was proved to be right. In the Cape court cases are pending. But why should this uncertainty on the part of the provinces now have arisen? We must decide in principle whether we want to empower the provinces, where appreciation occurs as a result of the rezoning of land, to charge a levy on that, on the one hand. One the other hand, if the value of such property depreciates through rezoning, there has to be authorization to pay compensation or offer compensatory property. We want to empower the provinces to take action in regard to both these aspects. That is the principle we are discussing here, and that was what all the shouting was about. The method applied by the provinces in doing this should be argued in the provincial councils, not here.

What about the pending court cases?

In the Transvaal a court case has already been decided in favour of the province. Sir, you can imagine what the position is going to be. Suppose the court case in the Cape is decided against the province; in the Transvaal it is decided in favour of the province. The Minister of the Interior then has the impossible situation on his hands that legislation on the Statute Book has been accepted in one province, that the court gave judgement in favour of the province, and that the judgement given by the court in another province was not in favour of that province. The result will then be that I will have to return next year with legislation which will be with retrospective effect in order to set aside the latter judgement. What else can I do?

Who is going to pay the costs of these cases?

In this Bill we are putting the powers which we think the provinces do in fact have beyond all doubt. The judgement given by the court in the Transvaal is now being put beyond all doubt, and in this way the matter is being rectified. After all, it is an untenable position that a certain provision in one province is acceptable and is rejected in another province. I want to add at once that the hon. members on that side are all arguing as if the court in the Cape has already given judgement against the province, but the judgement has not yet been given; we must be very clear about that.

What will the courts be able to do now if the Bill is placed on the Statute Book?

This Bill will now rectify the matter so that there will not be an untenable position between two provinces. That is what is being envisaged with this Bill. It is the duty of the Government to put the position beyond all doubt. Sir, that is the end of the story and I could stop here, but for the sake of clarity I want to furnish hon. members with a few more particulars. Paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, Act No. 38 of 1945, which was passed here when the Opposition was in power, has since 1945 already conferred the following powers upon the provinces in regard to the lay-out and rezoning of land, etc. I am quoting, and I am deliberately going to quote in full—

In other words, powers in regard to the entire question of the zoning of land were conferred upon the provinces as long ago as 1945.

Only as far as compensation is concerned.

The entire principle was accepted there. Sir, I quote further. There are eight provisions; I am quoting paragraph (f)—

Sir, so you have the one provision after the other. In terms of section 35ter which was inserted in the Cape in 1969, they have the right to pay compensation for betterment, and uncertainty now existed in regard to that provision. I want to remind hon. members of what I said in my Second Reading speech. I in no way misled them. For the information of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who said that I tried to mislead hon. members, I am quoting what I said in my Second Reading speech—

I did not mislead anyone; I indicated where the authorization came from—

This is not stated in the Act—

That was where the authorization came from. The Transvaal has a similar provision. This power is now being questioned; the Cape is not certain what the position is. We cannot tolerate the untenable position that a matter is accepted in one province and not in another. That is why I have now come to this House with this legislation. I want to ask the Opposition specifically now whether they are opposed to the principle contained in this clause. When a person, as a result of the replanning of a certain area, suddenly finds himself, overnight, in the position where his land is far more valuable then than it was a week ago, as a result of that replanning, is the United Party in favour of it being possible to force such a person, in such a case, to pay a certain levy as a result of that appreciation of his land, or are they not? Now there is not a sound from the opposite side. But the same applies for the reverse position. If a person should suddenly, as a result of rezoning, find that he is suffering a loss and being prejudiced on a large scale, are they in favour of such a person being compensated? Once again I have asked the question and once again there is no reply. That is all hon. members have to approve. That is all I am asking them to approve, to establish beyond all doubt that this may be the case.

May I put a question? Would the Minister agree that if an individual is dissatisfied either with the betterment contribution he has to pay or with his depreciation allowance he is offered, there should be proper opportunity for him to appeal against the award? And if the Minister agrees with that, would he not concede that the provincial councils, in terms of the powers which they now have, do not have the power to make it possible for individuals to appeal in terms of, for example, the Expropriation Act?

But they have that power.

In the first place I agree with the hon. member that the person ought to have that right and that the powers ought to be there, so that it is possible to do so. I shall still go into details in this regard, but at the moment I am convinced that there are such powers. I think the powers are there for him to be able to do so in the normal manner, but as I have told the hon. member, I shall go into this in detail. I shall have it investigated in full, and during the Committee Stage I shall look at this again, and I shall try to satisfy the hon. member. I shall then furnish him with a complete reply. That is the only principle which is at issue here. Now, I have been asked whether we know what is happening in Natal, what the position in Natal is. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has said that no one on this side of the House knows what is happening in Natal. He said no one, the Minister included, knew, but I have here a letter from the Provincial Administration of Natal. I can immediately give all the hon. members the assurance that this legislation was requested by the Cape Provincial Administration and that it was referred to all three of the other provincial administrations, and all three concurred in it. I intentionally want to quote what the position in Natal is. Because hon. members mentioned Natal specifically, I want to quote the following (translation)—

This is in the Cape Province—

Now the hon. member may go and examine these—

That is the point.

Yes—

In other words, Natal is completely aware of the situation. They are using the same power. They are applying it, in their discretion, in another way, something which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District reproached me with, but they would also like to have the full cover, just as all the other provinces do, so that they may apply it in their own way at their own discretion, and they welcome this legislation just as the other provinces do. That is the position in Natal. I want to be honest now and inform the hon. members that I cannot accept their amendment. I cannot argue about this matter any further because I think it is as clear as daylight. It is crystal-clear. In regard to consultation, I have addressed a request to all the provinces and I have the consent of them all to this Bill. This is a matter which has been standing over for a considerable length of time, and which I have been dealing with for a long time. I have compiled this Bill taking into consideration all the different aspects, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment. In conclusion I want to say a few words about the last two provisions of the Bill.

What about the 1925 provision?

I apologise. I almost forgot the hon. member and his argument in regard to the 1925 provision. The year 1925 is apparently the year in which the hon. member was born; that is why he is so concerned about it. The position is that section 14 of the principal Act, which I quoted a moment ago, has been contained in the Act since 1945. These provisions were also in previous legislation, a consolidation and synopsis of legislation which became law on 1st April, 1925. For that reason we have to make the Bill applicable with retrospective effect to 1st April, 1925. The hon. member should be assured at once that although the provisions are with retrospective effect, any action which has already been taken cannot be changed. No action can therefore be taken in respect of areas which were rezoned years ago, as the hon. member held out in prospect here. All that this provision means is that legal proceedings cannot be instituted against the provinces on the basis of what has already been done by the provinces between 1st April, 1925 and the present, as a result of the fact that there was perhaps uncertainty in regard to the powers which they had. The powers which they have are being clearly stated in the Bill now, so that the provinces know precisely what powers they have and proceedings cannot now be instituted against them on the basis of any action taken by them since 1st April, 1925. That is the crux of the matter. There is no question of cases suddenly being reopened again now, of it being possible to say now that an area was rezoned in 1928 and because there was resultant appreciation an additional payment should now be made. Anything along those lines would be farfetched; that is not at all what is being provided in the Bill. What is at issue here is establishing the validity in law beyond all doubt, and the law advisers have informed me that this provision should be made with retrospective effect as from 1st April, 1925, so that is has been established beyond all doubt that it will not be possible to institute any claims against the provinces in regard to any events in the past.

I have said that I wanted to say a few words about the last two provisions of the Bill. The provinces are now being empowered to pass legislation in regard to the matter of pollution. Actually I expected this entire debate to deal with the question of pollution. When I made my introductory speech I was convinced that this entire debate would deal with pollution, a matter which is receiving attention throughout the world. This is a matter which is causing concern throughout the world; everyone is concerned about pollution and the Uttering of the countryside and atmospheric and water pollution. This was a wonderful opportunity to conduct a debate on a high level on what may be done in this regard, but oh well, politics being what it is, I accept like this. I also accept that the Opposition welcomes the authorization which is being granted as such.

The last provision deals with the Medical Research Council. I want to make it very clear that the Cabinet has decided that the Medical Research Council should be moved from Pretoria to the Cape and should be established in the vicinity of the Tygerberg Hospital. Certain problems resulted from this, which are now being rectified by means of this legislation.

I should like to conclude with one last idea. I still find it strange that the Opposition has in the past implied that this Government is constantly whittling away the power of the provinces. We were allegedly stripping the provinces of their powers, we were allegedly turning them into a group of people with no authority because we were depriving them day by day of their powers. Here four distinct powers are being transferred to the provinces, powers which they already have, but which we want to reconfirm, and ensure that no further problems arise. We want to help them, at their own request, to administer and implement the powers which they have. As surely as I am standing here, the Opposition has come along and opposed this for opportunistic reasons. I want to say in all sincerity that we will in future doubt the sincerity of the Opposition when they again advocate the autonomy of the provinces.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G.P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.