With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement with reference to a sensational report in the Sunday paper Rapport under the heading: “Vorster: Ja vir Swapo.”

On 23 April 1976 I had an interview with Senator Charles Percy at his request. Senator Percy asked me whether I was prepared to invite Swapo to participate in the constitutional conference in South West Africa, to which I replied that South Africa was not arranging the conference and did not invite anybody to participate in nor excluded anybody from it. The conference was being arranged by the representatives of the various peoples without any interference by or directives from South Africa.

He thereupon asked me whether I would be opposed to Swapo being invited by the conference itself. My reply was that I would not like it, since I would not negotiate with Swapo, because Swapo, as far as I was concerned, had been conceived and born in communistic sin in Cape Town in the late fifties, because it had been founded by four White communists, because Swapo did not represent South West Africa, and because its leader, Sam Nujoma, was neither an elected nor a natural leader of South West Africa or of any of its peoples.

He thereupon asked me whether, in the event of the conference deciding of its own accord to invite Swapo, I would nevertheless forbid its participation. In reply I reiterated that the conference decided upon its own procedure, that whom it invited was its own business, and that I would not interfere even if it acted in a manner with which I did not agree, since I consistently adhered to the standpoint that the various peoples should work out their own future without any interference from South Africa, the United Nations or anybody else. I also pointed out to him that Swapo was but one of many political parties in South West Africa, and that it was for the conference itself to decide whether it wished to invite political parties to participate in the talks.

He thereupon asked me whether I would have any objections to his saying that that was my standpoint, and I told him that I would have no objection, provided he gave my standpoint on the matter in full, and not only the last part of it.

In addition I informed him that as long as it was our responsibility to ensure public peace in South West Africa, to maintain law and order and to protect property and people’s lives, we would do so.

In regard to Rhodesia I referred Senator Percy to a statement I had made in this House on the previous day—22 April 1976—and informed him that South Africa was not involved in the internal dispute between White and Black Rhodesians, that South Africa had, moreover, not been requested by Rhodesia to involve herself in it, and that it was of fundamental interest to southern Africa that no one should fan the fires that could lead to an escalation of violence in Southern Africa.

I find it a great pity that the report was not verified with me and that a misleading headline was used for it. This is a particularly delicate matter, a matter in regard to which, in the light of the pernicious actions of Swapo members, feelings can easily be aroused.

It is in the interests neither of South Africa nor of South West Africa to present these matters, for the sake of sensation or for whatever purpose, without mentioning all the relevant facts or in a manner which must result in sowing or stirring up unrest.

Mr. Chairman, bearing in mind the ruling you gave at the commencement of the Committee Stage—that we are not on certain clauses to repeat the arguments which were advanced during the Second Reading on the principles of this Bill—and bearing in mind that this clause 7 is one of those mentioned by you, I shall necessarily be very brief. This is the clause which embodies the long title of the Act and, as with long titles, it seeks to embody in a few sentences the contents of the Bill as a whole. I wish merely to say that in this long title there are embodied two of the aspects to which we are opposed; firstly, the widening of executive powers, improperly and imprecisely defined as they are; and, secondly, power of the Attorney-General to detain witnesses until the conclusion of a trial.

Both of which have been approved.

The hon. member says “Both of which have been approved”. I may say, Sir, that the hon. gentleman exhibits a remarkable perception of what has taken place over the last few days! Nevertheless, all I was intending to do was to summarize, in the terms of the long title, our objection to the Bill and to indicate that we would vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think it ought to be fairly clear from the attitude we in these benches have adopted what our view is on the principle which is contained in the long title of the Bill. Therefore I do not think I need to reiterate it, except to make it clear that in so far as this long title is concerned, it epitomizes our objection to the entire piece of legislation, namely that it ignores the fundamental principles of the rule of law for which we stand. Therefore we shall oppose this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—94: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S.P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. W.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. G; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, S. F. Kotzé, J. P. C. Le Roux and N. F. Treurnicht.

Noes— 42: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, this clause proposes a new short title for the Suppression of Communism Act. The short title traditionally embodies in one sentence the contents of the Bill as a whole. Because we are opposed to the majority of the clauses of the Bill, we shall also oppose clause 8.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we on these benches are also opposed to the clause and shall therefore vote against it.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—94: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Walt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. G.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the schedule to the principal Act. It details the offences in respect of which the Attorney-General may issue a notice that an accused person may not be released on bail. It also details the offences in respect of which the Attorney-General similarly may issue a warrant for the detention of witnesses until the conclusion of a trial. As you will appreciate, Sir, it is a matter which has already been discussed earlier, when we were discussing clause 6 of the Bill. I wish to add merely that it is also the clause where, in terms of the new section 12C, the State President will have the power to add any offences to that list which he may think proper. Because we are opposed to the detention of witnesses, as I have indicated, we are opposed to clause 9.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is inextricably tied to other provisions of this Bill which we oppose. In particular, in so far as the detention of witnesses is concerned, we have expressed our complete disagreement with that provision. In regard to the question of restricting bail, we accept that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to restrict bail, but not in the manner in which this piece of legislation seeks to do so. In those circumstances we will vote against this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—91: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit. H. H.; Snyman, W. 1; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—43: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. G.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, we are here dealing with an amendment to the Public Safety Act, 1953, the legislation in terms of which a state of emergency can be declared. The Public Safety Act, 1953, received, I believe, the support of both sides of the House when it was enacted. The effect of this amendment is to do away with the ceiling imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection (3) on the penalty which the State President can impose for offences committed in terms of that Act. When the State President declares a state of emergency at the present time there is, in certain respects, a limit to the fine or term of imprisonment that can be written into the regulations promulgated for the purpose of that state of emergency. This seeks to do away with the ceiling and to leave it as a matter of discretion to the State President and those advising him on the amount of the penalty to be imposed. We believe that this is a reasonable amendment in the circumstances, and clause 10 therefore has our support.

Mr. Chairman, the present provisions of the Public Safety Act, in particular section 3(2), provide that regulations may be made to apply to—

I now quote from section 3(3), which reads as follows—

Our view, as far as the Public Safety Act is concerned, is however that the creation of new regulations and new offences and the imposition of new penalties will not take away the existing law and that persons may still be charged in terms of the existing law for offences they may have committed. All that is happening in terms of this legislation is that new offences are being created and penalties imposed in respect of these. In these circumstances we do not believe that we can support clause 10 of this Bill. In our view, the imposition of a penalty which could mean up to five years’ imprisonment should be more than adequate. If a man has, in fact, committed another offence which warrants a higher penalty, he can be charged in terms of the law as it stands without any new regulations or provisions in terms of the Public Safety Act. Perhaps, under the circumstances, the fine of R1 000 may not be adequate, but that is not the issue we are faced with in this amendment. We are faced with an amendment in terms of which imprisonment of more than five years can be imposed; other penalties can also be imposed which go far beyond the scope of even a five-year term of imprisonment. In view of these circumstances, we oppose this clause and shall therefore vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, we are not dealing here with the creation of new offences—let us be quite clear about that. We are merely dealing with a limitation which exists at the present time in this form. Section 3(3)(b) of the Public Safety Act, 1953, reads—

Therefore, with respect to the hon. member for Yeoville and the speech he just made, the only relevance to the amendment with which we are dealing now is the limitation of a fine to five hundred pounds and the limitation of a period of imprisonment to five years. We are not dealing with legislation which relates to normal circumstances, to normal events; we are dealing specifically with legislation which relates to the declaration of a state of emergency. I think everybody, including the PRP, will accept that there are times when one requires the power to declare a state of emergency. I think everybody will accept that such a state is declared only when there are very exceptional circumstances, either very dangerous or potentially very dangerous circumstances pertaining. It is almost self-evident that that is the case. The regulations which would provide for penalties in these circumstances would be regulations directed towards particular offences taking place in a time of extreme danger to the country and its people. Consequently it is quite easy to envisage circumstances where somebody, probably in the bringing about of the state of emergency, the state of emergency having been declared, commits an offence for which a fine of R1 000—which these days is not a great deal of money—or a period of imprisonment for five years would not be considered adequate by the courts. One must remember that one is dealing with a penalty to be imposed by a court of law and it is quite easy to envisage circumstances where neither of those would be adequate penalties in the circumstances of a state of emergency. Consequently I cannot accept the argument put up by the hon. member for Yeoville to justify their voting against this clause. I say again that the official Opposition will support it.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has either not understood the legislation which is before us or has sought to create the wrong impression. Being charitable, I believe it must be the former. The provisions, with which we are dealing, pertain to the imposition of a penalty which is limited in the circumstances. That only applies when the State President, acting in terms of section 3, in particular in terms of subsection (1)(a), in fact promulgates regulations in terms of which new offences are created to which these penalties will be applicable. If a person is going to be charged with treason, it is not necessary to sentence him in terms of any regulation made hereunder. For treason the maximum penalty is death. He can be charged with sedition or with dozens of other offences, but if he is charged in terms of the new offences which will be created in terms of the regulations, this is the provision which limits the penalties at the present moment. Nobody argues that in a state of emergency certain action should not be taken. Nobody argues that in a state of emergency, when it has been duly declared, one does not need to have regard for all the rules that apply in ordinary circumstances. We have argued this for days now. It is quite clear that our attitude on this is that in a state of emergency extra powers have to be given. However, if a new offence is created—the regulations will create new offences because, were it not for the creation of new offences, it would not be necessary to provide for a new penalty—the question that has to be asked is whether a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment is not enough in the circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that to a limited extent the regulations can be made retrospective in terms of section 3(2)(b) of the Public Safety Act. In other words, a new offence can be created retrospectively in terms of the powers given to the State President in that Act. In these circumstances we regret we cannot accept that the powers should be increased to provide for a greater penalty when ample provision is made for penalties in respect of the serious offences the law already defines. I do not think it is necessary to refer back to the definitions of treason, sedition, public violence and the other statutory offences that have been created. We believe that, as regards these regulations, the penalty which is presently contained in the Act is adequate.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to say that we regard this clause as being consequential on what has already taken place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, clauses 12, 13 and 14 really hang together. What is intended here, is the repeal of the legislation in South West Africa relating to riotous assemblies and the substitution for it of the Republic’s Act of 1956. The Act of 1956 was passed after virtually no debate in this House and with the support of all parties.

The hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, has indicated the difficulties that arise under the present South West African legislation, where the authority of the Administrator is required before a magistrate can declare a state of emergency. As a result of legislation passed in 1969, that power has been translated to the Minister of Justice. The hon. the Minister, however, has pointed out the difficulties of applying the Riotous Assemblies Act when the authority has to be obtained from the Minister in Pretoria before any action can be taken.

There are also other difficulties which the hon. the Minister mentioned. One of these is the inability under the South West Africa legislation to apply the power of the relevant ordinances in areas other than a magisterial district. The Riotous Assemblies Act, like the Public Safety Act, is an Act which one has in any country. It is legislation of long-standing in South Africa and one can understand— indeed, one can accept—that circumstances do arise from time to time where powers of that kind are necessary, particularly in an area like South West Africa with a border situation which makes the administration of that territory even more difficult.

For these reasons, among others, it seems reasonable to the official Opposition that the hon. the Minister should seek to pass clauses 12, 13 and 14 of this Bill. Therefore they have our support.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that these three clauses cannot merely be read on their own. They must be seen against the background of the situation which already exists and which is still developing in South West Africa, a situation which, in the light of the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister earlier today, is one of extreme delicacy, one of some danger and of some concern. South West Africa is a territory with a quasi-international status moving towards independence. There are two problems in connection with the fulfilment of this goal. One is the problem which could be caused by terrorist activities of various kinds. The other one is the general international accusation against South Africa that we are interfering in the internal affairs of South West Africa, while the territory is moving towards its independence. These three clauses seek to repeal a South West African ordinance and to extend the Riotous Assemblies Act—a part of the Republic’s law which Parliament has deliberately not extended to South West Africa before now—on South West Africa and to eliminate the South West African law as passed by the South West Africa Legislative Assembly. Once one legislates in this way for South West Africa, one is moving into an extremely difficult and delicate area. I would therefore urge that we do not extend the provisions of the Republic’s Riotous Assemblies Act. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, it Is already on the Statute Book in South West Africa in the form of a South West African ordinance, and if there are defects in that ordinance there seems to be no reason why South West Africa, through its Legislative Assembly, should not amend its ordinance in order to make it more effective. It seems to me that that is the appropriate body, and not the Parliament of the Republic.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister indicated two practical problems in applying the Riotous Assemblies Act to the South West African ordinance of 1950. The one is that the magistrate has to consult the Administrator, but in terms of the South West Africa Affairs Act of 1969, for the “administration” one now reads “the Minister of Justice”. If there are difficulties, I believe we should be amending the South West Africa Affairs Act of 1969. But, really, it does not seem an insurmountable difficulty. And if the Minister believes that it is not working satisfactorily he should rather surrender his powers to the Administrator, rather than to ask for additional power to impose our Republic’s Act on South West Africa. The second is that he says that in terms of the Riotous Assemblies ordinance, you can only ban meetings or act under that ordinance on the basis of one district at a time. I think this is entirely appropriate. I believe that it will be in the interest of South West Africa, considering the delicate situation that there is in the light of the outside world being suspicious of South Africa, that it is applied only in a district at a time, so that in each case a particular district is considered without there being an omnibus application of a magisterial decision in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act. We believe that the Government has adequate power. There is, in any event, a South West African ordinance in operation and it is entirely appropriate for that ordinance to be amended if the Minister does not have sufficient power. We should bear in mind that this Parliament deliberately excluded the provisions of the Act when it passed the Riotous Assemblies Act; it deliberately excluded it. At this given stage of the constitutional development of South West Africa, it would be most ill-advised to extend the Riotous Assemblies Act of the Republic on a blanket basis over the whole of South West Africa rather than to amend the South West African ordinance if the Minister requires these additional powers. We are concerned not only with combating terrorism and violence in South West Africa, but also with combating those who would say of South Africa that we are applying Acts of the Republic to South West Africa and its people. Consequently we will vote against clauses 12, 13 and 14.

Mr. Chairman, I am not at all surprised to hear from the hon. member for Sea Point that the PRP opposes these clauses. Indeed, I expected it because it is in the tradition of that party to make it as difficult as possible for legitimate authority to maintain public order in legitimate circumstances. In other words, Sir, as I said on Friday, they are soft on security, and this is another example of it. I should like to mention that the Riotous Assemblies Act of the Republic, the legislation we are now seeking to make applicable to South West Africa, was passed by all parties in this House, virtually without debate, and thus also with the support of the hon. member for Houghton. That, Sir, was on 6 February 1956. You will find it in Hansard, col. 1088. It is therefore, one can assume, perfectly good and legitimate legislation we are dealing with when we deal with the Riotous Assemblies Act. The argument of the hon. member for Sea Point is that there is delicate situation in South West Africa and one should leave South West Africa to administer public order there. But the flaw in that argument is that the responsibility for public order in South West Africa is not the sole responsibility of the Administrator of South West Africa; it is the responsibility of the Republic of South Africa. It is the responsibility of the South African Government, and if that responsibility lies with the South African Government, surely it is not unreasonable that legitimate legislation—and no one can argue that this legislation is not legitimate—should not be used by the Government of the Republic to be dealt with in an area of administration where that type of power is considered by all of us to be legitimate. The hon. the Minister said clearly in his Second Reading speech that the South West African legislation is inadequate and out-dated. For those reasons, Sir, I believe it is proper that these clauses should be supported.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana resorted to his usual tactics of accusing this party of being soft on communism, terrorism and security. I can only remind the hon. member that he has tried that on several occasions, inter alia, in the general election and in the Durban North by-election. Sir, the hon. member underrates the intelligence of the electorate.

That was in respect of being soft on communism. This is a new one.

I see; it is a new one. Having failed to convince the electorate that we are soft on communism, he is now going to try to convince them that we are soft on security. Just as the hon. member was unsuccessful in his first attempt, so will he be unsuccessful in this attempt. The electorate are not the fools he thinks they are. They dismiss that sort of nonsense with the contempt it deserves. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana must bring his history up to date when he discusses this Bill. While it may well be true that in 1956 the Riotous Assemblies Act was passed with little opposition—I have not bothered to check up on that; I assume he knows what he is talking about when he says that; I shall give him the benefit of the doubt—he does not know what he is talking about if he applies that also to the amending Act of 1974. That amending Act extended the Riotous Assemblies Act very much indeed. When the Bill was before the House I moved that the Bill be read “this day six months”. That was in February 1974. I also want to tell the hon. member—he was not in the House due to reasons best known to himself—that his party also opposed the Second Reading of that amending Bill. I admit that they did not support me when I moved “this day six months”, but they did vote against the Second Reading of that Bill, which greatly extended the operation of the Riotous Assemblies Act. It allowed the hon. the Minister to forbid gatherings in a much wider context than was allowed under the Act of 1956. Indeed, I remember the hon. member’s former colleague from Durban North telling us in that debate that the hon. the Minister was going to forbid the ladies of Houghton from playing bridge because it was a gathering. If the hon. the Minister cared to do so, he could even make the peaceful ladies of the Houghton constituency forebear from gathering to play bridge. Of course, I dismissed that as being a lot of nonsense, because I do not believe in using exaggerated examples. However, there is no doubt that the amending Act of 1974 greatly extended the hon. the Minister’s power to forbid gatherings indoors and outdoors, and for those reasons I voted against it. The legislation, the clause we are debating, seeks to extend to South West Africa the Riotous Assemblies Act which encompasses the amending Act of 1974. Since we voted against that amending Act—I did it on behalf of my party—and moved “this day six months”, I am hardly about to vote for the extension of that law to South West Africa, nor are the members on these benches. It is the UP that is being inconsistent, because it opposed the extending law of 1974 at the time; it did not want it for the Republic of South Africa, and I would like someone to explain to me why they now want this offensive Act—as they then considered it to be—to be extended to South West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, firstly, I want to express the hope that the whole country will take cognizance of the standpoint of the Progressive Reform Party in regard to law and order in South West Africa. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that that party presents a façade of true South Africanism, but that in fact they are soft when it comes to security matters. We have members of Parliament from South West Africa here in the House and the eyes of the whole world were on us when we admitted representatives of South West Africa to this House. The whole world knows that for the past 56 years we have controlled the territory as an integral part of the Republic of South Africa and that it is our responsibility, not only towards the inhabitants of South West Africa but towards the international world, too, which gave us the mandate years ago, to administer South West Africa’s law and order. I repeat that we have a responsibility towards the international world to ensure law and order in the territory so that the people of South West Africa may work out their own salvation and future at the conference which is at present in progress.

The hon. member for Sea Point knows just as well as I do that there is unrest in South West Africa. The hon. member knows that the Cabinet of Owambo addressed a request to us. They want us to ensure law and order in the territory since unrest prevails in the territory and the existing legislation and ordinances are inadequate to bring about a climate of total law and order in South West Africa. This is a request to us from the South West Africans themselves, too. All the peoples of South West Africa have, through their conference, addressed a request to us to maintain law and order in South West Africa. However the PRP now states, in contradiction to these requests, that we have reached a stage at which we must leave the people of South West alone so that these people can proceed as they wish. They can therefore simply carry on, and what happens in South West Africa must happen.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that it is our duty and responsibility to ensure law and order in South West Africa as long as the conference is in progress and until the people of South West Africa themselves decide what they want to do in South West Africa. When they ask that we stand down, that we withdraw from South West Africa, there will be sufficient time for us to consider the matter. But until that time comes, we have a solemn and holy duty to the people of South West and the international community to ensure that order is maintained in South West Africa.

Order! Before calling on the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out to hon. members that the principle of the clause has already been accepted at the Second Reading of the Bill. Last Friday I ruled that I would allow one member of each party to put his party’s standpoint briefly in respect of the clauses, inter alia, clauses 12 to 14. I have already acted very leniently in this regard in that I have already permitted two members on my left to state their standpoints. I have also allowed the hon. the Minister to state his standpoint. However, I am not going to allow the principle of the clause to be discussed further.

Mr. Chairman, I very briefly want to put a point to the hon. the Minister. No reason has been advanced in terms of which it is not possible for the legislative body in South West Africa to amend the law in a manner in which they consider it to be necessary in the circumstances. With due respect, that is an aspect of this particular clause to which the hon. the Minister must direct his attention and give an answer on. This is not a question of principle, but a question of us either voting for or against the clause. The issue is whether it is necessary for us to legislate, or can South West Africa legislate itself? We have received no answer at all to this question. To my mind, that is the one answer the hon. the Minister owes the House.

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Minister is going to deal with the issue which I have raised in general and in respect of which specific questions have been put to him by the hon. member for Yeoville. This clause refers to the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance of 1930 of South West Africa, and there seems to us to be no good reason why, if South West Africa wants this, they should not be amending their own ordinance. We want to know from the hon. the Minister whether there is anything which precludes South West Africa from dealing with this matter itself. After all, there is an ordinance, and I presume that they are competent to amend it. I believe the hon. the Minister should satisfy us that South West Africa is bound and cannot alter this, and that this cannot be achieved by means of legislation coming from South West Africa. We cannot agree to this clause until we have heard the Minister giving us an explanation as to why South West Africa itself cannot amend or repeal this ordinance, and why it should have to be done by this House. I believe he owes it to this House and to the hon. member for Yeoville to give us an explanation in this regard.

The very simple reason for this is that the people asked us to pass legislation which was effective. To the hon. members for Sea Point and Yeoville I want to say that I am not prepared to go into detail in this matter. The existing laws are inadequate and it is for that reason that this legislation is being applied to South West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, this is almost an intolerable situation. Parliament is being asked to pass legislation, but the hon. the Minister refuses to go into detail. This is the occasion for us to ask for detail and for the hon. the Minister to give us a reply. He mentioned two areas in which it was inadequate, viz. one with magistrates having to go to the Administrator and the other because it has to be dealt with district by district. Both of these problems can be overcome. For this hon. Minister to stand up and say “Pass this legislation, but I refuse to give you the information which will justify this legislation”, is I think almost arrogance towards us in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness, as he had indicated to us that this legislation has been asked for, who in fact has asked for it.

I have already told you.

No, you have not. Has it been asked for by the Turnhalle Conference? Has it been asked for by the legislative body of South West Africa? The request, as I understand it, is a request with which we agree, viz. that law and order should be maintained. Nobody, however, has said who has asked that this South African piece of legislation should also be applied, to South West Africa. That is the question and that is what I asked the hon. the Minister to reply to. Has there been a request that the Republic’s Act should apply and, if so, who has made that request? The second question I have put to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and he also has not answered. Why is it inappropriate to apply a piece of legislation to the Republic and appropriate to apply it to South West Africa, as is the 1974 amendment to this piece of legislation? I think that he, too, owes this House an answer.

Mr. Chairman, it must surely be clear to the hon. member for Yeoville that the Ovambo and the conference would not have asked us for protection if the existing laws had been adequate for their purposes. Then it would surely not have been necessary. The fact that those people are in fact asking us, indicates to us that those laws are insufficient to afford the people the necessary protection. The hon. member, who is a lawyer, will know that those Acts which are now applicable there and which are being withdrawn here were the same as the old Riotous Assemblies Act and have the same effect as that Act had. I regret that the hon. members were not members of this House at that time. When that legislation was debated here, we had a long debate on that aspect. The differences, and what they meant to us, between the Riotous Assemblies Act as it was then and the Riotous Assemblies Act as it was subsequently amended, were debated here in full. The problems which the old Act caused us were debated here in full. That is the reason. Now the Republic is being requested to afford them the necessary protection, and of course we are affording them that protection as we have it here in the Republic, too. Surely that is very clear and logical.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. the Minister, this still does not answer the question. I should like to put this matter to him very simply. If what he is doing here is to apply to South West Africa what was applied to South Africa in 1974, then the attitude of the Official Opposition today is completely beyond comprehension. What is significant is that the hon. the Minister does not tell us why the South West African legislature could not pass the amendment which he now seeks. This is really the test. That is the question to which we seek an answer.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven (’t Hooft), S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, this being the last clause of the Bill it embodies the short title of this piece of legislation, the Promotion of State Security Bill. The principles of the Bill having been dealt with at Second Reading, and in detail in the Committee Stage, it will be apparent that we are opposed to the majority of the provisions of this Bill. Consequently we shall also vote against clause 16.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Malan, G. R; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. G.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Églin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. E; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In accordance with the announcement relating to civil pensions made in the course of the budget speech, and the announced increase in the salaries of those remunerated by the State, provision is, in the first place, being made in this Bill, in clauses 1 and 3, for an increase of 10% in the pensions of the widows of judges and of retired judges, with effect from 1 October 1976. Secondly, provision is being made in clause 2 for an increase of 10% in the salaries of judges with effect from 1 July 1976. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to assure our judges and those who have stood by them so faithfully now and in the past, of our deepest appreciation for the great task they are performing.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has said, this is simply an amending measure dealing with judges’ pensions and remuneration. As he has indicated, it foreshadows increases commensurate, one might say, with what has been foreshadowed by the Government for employees of the State. I refer to civil servants and such like. It is right and proper that the judiciary and the widows of judges should be properly paid. In these times of inflation it is quite reasonable that the increases foreshadowed in the Bill should be awarded. Consequently, we support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is traditional that the salaries and pensions payable to judges and, particularly, the pensions payable to their widows are not matters of political controversy. As far as we are concerned, that is a tradition we should like to uphold. In any event, in the present circumstances these increases are, we feel, certainly warranted. The problem that exists is, of course, that inflation has affected the income and purchasing power of all those who receive a fixed income. This particular instance is only an example of how people are affected by the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. As I have said, this is not a matter that is at all controversial; it is a piece of legislation we gladly support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, if any Bill deserves to be welcomed by this House, it is this very Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill. This Amendment Bill envisages nothing less than the upliftment of population groups in South Africa. When we analyse the Bill, and peruse the various clauses, we realize that the aim of this legislation is the combating of illegal squatting and the resultant upliftment of people. I am grateful that the Government and the Department of Community Development continue to have the interests of our people at heart. I am pleased that they realize that proper accommodation is not merely a matter of flesh and blood, but also one that concerns the spirit of man. Where squatting is found, a morbid condition prevails, a condition which, in its turn, creates a morbid spirit.

The hon. Opposition has once again requested that this envisaged legislation be referred to a Select Committee. One realizes their dilemma, of course. They remind me of the three monkeys who neither see, hear nor speak. It is because they have nothing to say about the Bill that they want it referred to a Select Committee. The PRP remind me equally of the three monkeys. They neither see nor hear, but they do speak. They either speak nonsense or with certain ulterior motives, motives which differ from those envisaged in the Bill. On the other hand, there are the members on the Government side. These are hon. members who see, hear and speak with regard to the Bill. Furthermore they do something about it, too. What they do is to ensure that proper accommodation is provided for all the various population groups.

Hon. members on the Government side do not need a Select Committee to determine whether the problem of a housing shortage really exists, among the Coloureds for example. Nor do they need a Select Committee to determine the extent of the problem. Nor do they need a Select Committee to determine the causes or the consequences of the problem. Nor do they have to have a Select Committee to determine what has already been done and what is still being done at the moment with regard to the accommodation of people. The problem has to be solved, but hon. members on the Government side do not need a Select Committee to prescribe to them how and why the problem ought to be solved.

Looking at the PRP, and listening to the hon. member for Pinelands, for example, we come to the conclusion that ostensibly the PRP also wants to see something being done. In any event they want to see that there is a problem, but they are not in earnest about wanting the problem to be solved. There must be reasons for this. There must be reasons for the fact that they do not want the problem to be solved, or that they want the problem to be solved in the way in which they want it to be done. Through the hon. member for Pinelands they decided that there were certain squatter areas, squatter concentrations, which we should now upgrade, and that we should then provide services to those upgraded squatter concentrations. Surely, Sir, we should then be promoting an evil, because I agree with the hon. the Minister and the department that we do not intend to have people living in inadequate houses. At first glance it is not very expensive to promote that evil in that way, but what do the services cost? We often only look at the buildings we can see above the surface, but we do not see what lies below the surface, on which a great deal of money is spent. To build an economic house costs R2 000 or more per plot; it can even cost more. To build a sub-economic house costs on average a mere 10% less than this per plot, namely R1 800. Therefore there is higher expenditure on areas we want to upgrade and want to allow to continue to exist with all the evils they involve. Sir, one must take care not to be mistakenly sorry for people, not to be mistaken in one’s sympathy towards people. That is why it is sometimes essential to intervene, sometimes drastically. The PRP would prefer squatting to continue rather than have these preventive measures implemented. They propose an alternative with far-reaching consequences, and it is to be doubted whether they have ever considered the consequences. Thinking about it, one sometimes wonders— and I do not want to offend them—whether they do not want to use these conditions in which chaos could possibly develop, for political purposes. Then the question occurs to one whether they are not a security risk for South Africa, because the fact remains that where one has squatting, with everything that that breeds, with the potential for all manner of evil, this could very easily lead to unrest. Sir, man is by nature an imitator—any man, even hon. members here. There is not a single person who can say that he has never imitated or tried to imitate anyone or anything. Man is an imitator by nature and from the cradle, and the easiest thing in the world is to imitate bad habits, although I want to assure You, Sir, that good habits, too, can be imitated. This squatter problem we are saddled with has already—to use the hon. the Minister’s word—developed into a kind of subculture. It is an infectious habit which has developed.

The question which now occurs is why this measure is before the House. Squatting is and remains an evil and tends eventually to become a way of life among people. It has been proved over and over again that the problem will not be solved by simply trying to provide adequate housing. If we consider what has been done in respect of housing for Coloureds, we see that from 1962 to the end of 1975, more than 106 000 houses were built for them alone. If we consider that the average percentage of Coloured families owning a home in 5,2%, this represents more than a quarter of the Coloured population. I regard this as an achievement. Of the total budget of the National Housing Fund for 1974’75, 41,5% went towards approved housing projects for the Coloureds. People should not maintain now that this Government does not have the problems and interests of other people at heart. The Government has proved over and over again that it is in earnest as regards the establishment of proper housing for all population groups. Account is taken of the fact that proper housing concerns not only the flesh and blood, but also the spirit of man. If we do not make squatting illegal, we are legalizing it, and with it, all the evils which squatting involves. How does squatting develop, and what circumstances give rise to it? Urbanization is one of the major causes of squatting. As a result of the depopulation of the platteland we find that urbanization is steadily increasing and that almost 75% of the Coloured population are today urban dwellers. There are various reasons for this. Among other things, there are the bright lights of the city which attract people, because people imagine that where the city’s bright lights are life offers them everything their hearts desire. They imagine that they will be able to find a far better livelihood there, will be able to live more happily and have a much better social life.

Secondly, there are employers in the metropolitan areas who employ such people and also go and recruit people on the platteland to work for them and to supplement those people who do not work so regularly. This is essential, because squatting results in irregular work performance. These employers lose sight of the fact that untrained and cheap labour is in fact very expensive labour.

In the third place, there are the squatter farmers, ruthless squatter farmers, landowners who, for their own profit, exploit people by attracting them to the urban areas where they have to squat. In the fourth place there are those who encourage and even organize squatting. At present there is an opportunity for agitators who welcome chaos, are not fond of law and order and do not recognize authority, to make squatters their prey for political purposes and exploit them for their own unholy purposes.

In the fifth place there is intimidation. The agitators rely on intimidation. They ensure that a reign of terror prevails among people who live on the boundaries of squatter towns.

The sixth cause of squatting is the irresponsibility of people who have or can get proper housing. Among others, there are those who do not pay their rent. As a result of intimidation and irresponsibility, 60% of existing squatters are people who previously lived in scheme houses. Today they are in squatter communities.

The seventh cause of squatting is the unchecked population increase. The improvement of socio-economic conditions is largely influenced by responsible parenthood. Responsible parenthood is something which people must accept, not because it is something forced on them, but as a result of the realization that the parents of a child must accept the responsibility of being able to give the child the best. The eighth cause of squatting is work-shyness. People who do not want to work and people who work irregularly must, of course, find an alternative. Usually they fall back on squatting. Many young work-shy Coloureds even prey on the income of pensioners. The squatter evil results in a vicious circle. It results in loafing and, as I have already stated, it even causes people to prey on the income of the elderly.

Where do they get their houses?

Where do they get their houses? They squat.

They fall like manna from heaven.

Undermining of the sense of responsibility and self-respect of people occurs in the squatter communities. Lax morals and habits and an unchecked population increase are promoted when people live in these circumstances. I repeat: It is a vicious circle. Squatting gives rise to poor health, not only among the people in the squatter communities, but among the people in the surrounding areas as well.

Squatting results in a growing crime rate. If I am not mistaken we find the highest imprisonment rate among the Coloureds. One of the causes of this must be sought in the evil of squatting. Sir, it also causes squatter farmers to enter the picture, and these people often fall prey to those who want to bring about chaos. Idealism is nipped in the bud in these squatter concentrations. Then, too, there is the insecurity of the inhabitants of these dilapidated shanties. Sir, we were recently taken on a tour by the Department of Community Development to go and view these squatter concentrations, and I want to tell you that I would not spend a night in one of those structures if they paid me. But, Sir, these concentrations also cause insecurity for all the people in the vicinity, precisely because where one has squatter areas, one has a growing crime rate. In brief, what it amounts to is that rotten communities develop. That is why I want to express my thanks for this legislation at present before the House.

Sir, it is necessary to make squatting illegal, because after the maximum amount that can be afforded has been spent—because we must bear in mind that one can only cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth—it is not only necessary, but absolutely essential to have such measures. If we do not combat this, we are establishing a rotten community life. The aim of this legislation, therefore, is to uplift and to develop self-respect among people. The aim of this legislation is upliftment in these peoples’ own interests, in the interest of those people who squat, and also to bring about orderliness and security. As I have said, such measures are necessary to assist in solving the problem.

I just want to indicate briefly how expenditure in this connection has risen with regard to the Coloureds. In 1972, 9 777 houses were completed, and the amount spent on them was R20 672 000. In 1975, 13 172 houses were completed at a cost of R70 405 000. In other words, the expenditure on housing for Brown people rose by more than 300% between 1972 and 1975. I want to express the hope that the Brown people, the Black people and the White people will see this legislation as a measure to help people to help themselves, a measure to uplift people, a measure to allow people to live better and a measure to uplift the spirit of people so that the one will be of real benefit to the other.

Mr. Speaker, I followed the speech of the hon. member for Hercules attentively. I think that in many respects it was a very responsible speech. I could not find fault with many of the things which he said. He sketched some of the important factors responsible for the squatter problem and indicated to us some of the results which emanate from those squatting conditions.

I do not want to differ with him on this. I hope to raise arguments during the course of my speech, in order to emphasize in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Hercules said that we do not need a Select Committee to consider this matter, that the reference to a Select Committee is nevertheless important. It is very clear that we are facing a grave and important problem here, and the hon. member for Hercules, the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Pinetown, as well as other speakers, have in fact sketched the magnitude of the problem for us here. All of us here certainly have very great appreciation for the work which the department has done and is still doing in connection with the provision of housing and the handling of this problem. I also want to express my personal thanks and appreciation for the assistance which I myself received from the department when I had to ask for their assistance in clearing up bad housing conditions in various parts of our country. We know that the department really is fully aware of the magnitude of the problem and is definitely also prepared—and here I must add the name of the hon. the Minister— to give the necessary attention and dedication to this problem. I agree with the hon. member for Hercules that the basic problem in connection with squatting is of course the population explosion and the general movement of people towards the cities and the inability to keep up with the housing requirements, an inability which arose as a result of financial limitations and other factors such as rising costs, and so on.

As far as the movement to the cities is concerned, the hon. member pointed out the attraction of city life for people who grew up in the rural areas. The city does in fact provide these people with better opportunities for employment, a higher cash income, as well as a greater variety of work than that which is available in the rural areas. In the city there are also more facilities and services in the sphere of education, and in many other spheres. Added to this there is sometimes great poverty amongst Coloureds and Bantu in the rural areas due to a lack of opportunities for employment in those areas. Here I am referring to the limited opportunities for employment in the homelands. If one reads the speech which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made the other day on the number of opportunities for employment which are being created annually in the homelands, and compares them with the real requirements in terms of the number of people entering the labour market annually, it is very clear that those people are being forced by economic factors to leave those areas and seek a livelihood elsewhere. I shall return to this later. This is the seriousness of the problem and I want to tell the hon. member for Hercules that in a delicate matter like this we may apply coercion, we may make laws, but nowhere in the history of man has a law been able to curb uncontrollable socio-economic powers. It is no use being obsessed with exercising coercion to solve the problem. The cause of the problem lies in the socioeconomic forces which drive the people concerned to our urban areas. Let us now be honest with ourselves, for we are dealing with a really grave problem here. The problem is aggravated by the application of the Group Areas Act. We cannot get away from this. Somerset West is a very good example. Why should we remove people who are well provided with housing from their houses and establish them elsewhere?

How many people who had good houses, were removed from Somerset West? I just want to find out whether you know what you are talking about.

I know it was a minority. However, let us consider a place like Stellenbosch, which I know well. There was in fact an overcrowding of the houses which the Coloureds themselves occupied, and many of those houses did need improvements, but I would rather remain in my house, bad as it is, than to be moved to a place of which I can never become the owner.

Even if it is a rented house?

Yes, even if it is a rented house. If we have money for building houses which can only be rented houses, why do we not have the money to help those people to improve their properties? Why are we doing what was done at Stellenbosch? After the Coloureds moved out, many of those houses were converted and rented to Whites. The hon. the Minister can go and see for himself. The problem was aggravated in that people were moved in terms of the Group Areas Act, and after all this is not a matter about which there can be any difference of opinion whatsoever. At the most there may be a difference of opinion about the percentages involved.

Another undeniable factor is that due to other priorities the amount of money that is being made available for the provision of housing is not always sufficient. In addition it is also very clear that sometimes there is not enough land available where Coloureds may obtain plots and build their houses themselves.

Let us compare the position with that in the White community. Among the Whites large companies are geared to the development of townships and the provision of services, but those resources are not being sufficiently utilized to solve the problem of Coloured housing. In addition one gets the impression that there is a lack of co-ordination between the bodies concerned, and that there is also a lack of co-ordination on a regional basis. In other words, one has the impression that various local authorities and the organizations within a particular area are each carrying on in their own way and that there is a lack of co-ordination between the interested bodies that are all active in this sphere. It also seems to me as if there is too much of a parochial approach. If the problem is really one of people from outside the Peninsula where there are perhaps not sufficient houses or opportunities for employment, who are moving to the Peninsula for example, I think it is essential that we start thinking of a regional approach here. Obviously it is in fact the hon. the Minister and the department that have to take the initiative in bringing about coordination between the various authorities in a particular area, and on a regional basis as well.

If one looks at the steps which are being contemplated with this Bill to give attention to the problem, I want to say at once that we have the greatest appreciation for the degree in which the department is providing housing as well as for the department’s intention of continuing to build houses at a certain rate. We also appreciate the fact that the possibility exists, as has been indicated, that cheaper houses may be provided at a much faster rate.

If one looks at the Bill, it seems to me that there are basically four ways in which we want to tackle these problems. Basically it amounts to pegging down a particular situation and then making attempts to prevent further squatting, in which the possibility of emergency camps can be included. Furthermore, there is clause 3 which deals with the question of control, control over the influx of labourers. I shall perhaps return to the question of what is intended in the Bill at a later stage, but it is very clear that quite a number of new offences are being created by means of the Bill. It is also clear that penalties have been increased considerably by means of the Bill. Provision is also being made for the elimination of the court and for additional powers for local authorities. If time allows, I shall also return to this at a later stage.

At this stage I want to say that, in terms of the obligation which is imposed upon an owner, there is a slight problem. The impression I gained was that the department is of the opinion that this measure will not be applied with retrospective effect. Therefore it does not concern structures which already exist, not even if those structures have been erected illegally. Basically the Bill is aimed at new structures and as a result legal proceedings will not really be instituted in respect of illegal structures which already exist. However, I must point out that according to the provisions of the proposed section 3A(2) there is no indication that the measure will not be applied with retrospective effect. Therefore it seems to me as if new problems are arising.

I think that the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that a great deal of emotional reaction or inflammability is unfortunately attached to this Bill. Whether this is always done with the necessary sense of responsibility, I shall not presume to say. But as the Bill reads at present, it contains elements of inflammability. I want to link this statement to three points in particular. The first is the serious penalties which await owners of land who do not remove certain structures themselves. Now, we all know that an impossible burden is sometimes places on landowners in that they have to take upon themselves the responsibility of removing the illegal structures. In this connection the hon. member for Hercules referred to the squatter-mongers. As far as this is concerned, I feel that the proposed new section 3A(1)(c) contains an irrefutable presumption. Paragraph (c) reads as follows—

To me this seems to be an irrefutable presumption. As hon. members will know, the law does not like to work with irrefutable presumptions. It seems to me as if this type of presumption may lead to unfairness. Even if the person concerned maintains that the occupation did not take place with his permission, it is still deemed to have taken place with his consent. It seems to me as if an injustice is being committed here.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are three reasons why an element of inflammability has arisen around this measure. The first is the new obligations which are being imposed on a landowner and the new penalties to which he is being exposed—I do not have to furnish the particulars in this connection. The second is the provisions contained in the proposed new section 3C, which, so it seems, apply a form of influx control in respect of the Coloureds. The third is that this measure is regarded as being placed on the Statute Book with a view to the situation at Crossroads, i.e. with a view to the squatting of Bantu.

I have already said that this is not the case.

That is correct. I am coming to it. We know that that interpretation is incorrect, and that this measure is aimed primarily at the prevention of squatting amongst the Coloureds. However, it is of no avail our closing our eyes to this, because around this measure a condemnation, or tension—call it what we will—has arisen because it is held that it is actually intended to be used in respect of the Bantu in the Peninsula. I want to say at once that I am convinced that, as far as the Bantu are concerned, sufficient measures exist to control squatting. In other words, we do not need this Bill in respect of the Bantu. I find it a pity that the impression is being created that this measure, by way of extension and application, may also be used, and will be used, to deal with Bantu squatting in the Peninsula. Let me add that the hon. the Minister is not responsible for that impression.

I now want to return to the proposed new section 3C. We know the hon. the Minister to be a responsible as well as a reasonable person. I am convinced that he would not like to do anything which would stir up feelings between groups further, drive people apart and cause unnecessary hostility. Whatever the hon. the Minister’s reaction may be to our amendment to the effect that this legislation be referred to a Select Committee, I want to ask him at least to remove this provision from the Bill.

I have already indicated that, with regard to the Bantu, an abundance of measures exist in terms of which influx control can be applied. As the case of Crossroads clearly demonstrates, it is obvious that the influx of Bantu into the Western Cape is not being controlled successfully. The measure which is contained in clause 3 of the Bill, is only a drop in the ocean, seen in the light of the wide powers which exist and by means of which the influx of Bantu in our urban areas may be checked. If all the existing measures cannot stop the influx of Bantu into our urban areas, this little measure—if I may call it that, which it in fact is, if it is compared with the many existing powers with regard to influx control of Bantu—will not stop it either. What are the consequences? We create an impression which might be wrong—and we know this to be the case—but which cannot work effectively in any case. In this way we are merely creating a position in which the feelings between the various groups may in fact be seriously aggravated. If we look at the practical implications of this Bill, we realize that it may cause problem situations to arise. If my view is correct, i.e. that this measure is actually aimed at controlling Coloured squatting, a problem such as the following may arise. It could happen that a Coloured is employed by an employer in Cape Town. Must the employer concerned first ask the Coloured when he came into the Peninsula? I am now assuming that the intention is to apply this proposed legislation in the Peninsula. This is how I understand clause 3. Must the employer determine beforehand when the Coloured entered the Peninsula? Is it the duty of the employer to determine whether that Coloured who has applied for work, arrived in the Peninsula recently or whether he is still living in Stellenbosch, Worcester, Paarl or Wellington …

Calvinia!

… or Calvinia. Must the employer determine when the particular applicant entered the Peninsula? If the Coloured who is applying for work, informs the employer that he is still living in Stellenbosch, that he cannot or does not wish to work there, that for some reason or other he wants to work in the Peninsula, what is the position of the prospective employer? What position does he find himself in in those circumstances? What it amounts to, in terms of this proposed legislation, is that a burden is placed on the employer, the burden of determining whether the applicant really lives in the Peninsula and for how long he has been there. Should the applicant therefore state that he has been living in the Peninsula for a long time, that he does not live in Stellenbosch or elsewhere, the onus still rests upon the prospective employer to try to establish whether this is indeed the case.

It is a very interesting point, but do you not think it would be better to deal with it in the Committee Stage? Merely from an administrative point of view, I think that this will be the best.

I am still coming to that. I just want to say that it is an impossible burden which is being placed on the employer. As far as the practical implementation is concerned, it is quite impossible. Suppose the Coloured who applies for work, does not tell the truth. Suppose he states that he has been living in the Peninsula for a long time, and after that it becomes apparent that he has recently arrived here. It may even happen that he comes to live in the Peninsula simply because he is employed by the employer concerned. What is the legal position of that employer in that case? Has he committed a criminal offence because it can be reasoned that the applicant would not have entered the Peninsula if he had not been employed by the employer concerned?

Suppose the applicant maintains to the said employer that he does have a house in Stellenbosch or in Paarl or elsewhere, that he does live there and that he travels to work daily by train. The applicant, in other words, implies that the employer does not have to tire himself with this specific provision in the legislation. Now, is it the duty of the employer to see that that Coloured employee does come to work daily by train? What is the position of the employer should that Coloured one day decide that he is tired of travelling by train and would rather become a squatter somewhere in the Peninsula? Sir, can you imagine the extent of the red tape and work which is here being placed upon the shoulders of the local authorities, if we take into consideration what happened in the case of the Bantu? And what is proper accommodation? This does not involve ordinary workers only. What is the position if a teacher wants to come here and does not have accommodation? The only thing he can do is to board with a relative, where, in terms of the health requirements, there may already be overcrowding. May he not enter now? I should like to make a very earnest plea to the hon. the Minister once again to abandon this measure. It cannot work; it is not going to work. It is only going to make the feeling amongst the Coloured population much more serious than what they already are. I mention this because I want to emphasize once again that I believe that the hon. the Minister is not a person who is anxious to cause further alienation between Whites and Coloureds.

In reply to a question of the hon. member for Hercules, arising out of what the hon. member for Green Point said, I want to state why we want this matter referred to a Select Committee.

Let me just indicate a few ideas in this connection. I think that a moratorium should provisionally be placed on the removal of people in terms of the Group Areas Act. I mention this as a reason why I should like to have the matter transferred to a Select Committee. Let us first continue with other things and find out what their implications are. Let us find out precisely what the possibility is for the rapid provision of inexpensive alternative housing. Let us go into the question of what part it can play if land is made available for Coloureds to build their houses themselves, more than there is already, and what help can be provided to those Coloureds via the Government in the form of building materials, as the case may be. Is it not perhaps possible to involve larger companies, like Sanlam or the Old Mutual, as is being done elsewhere with regard to large housing schemes? Is the employer effectively included in this process? I have already said that I think the problem should be tackled on a regional basis and that there should be proper co-ordination among the various local authorities in every specific region. I think it is essential for us to think of an amended form of site and service scheme. Now, I know that the department is very strongly opposed to this, but there are other points of view in this connection. For instance I am not referring to the conventional site and service scheme, but to a settled one and that it may be possible to shift people from a squatters camp to such a plot and service scheme. I ask the hon. the Minister once again to refer the matter to a Select Committee because of the large number of people who are involved in this problem. The Select Committee should consider the question of whether there are not other more effective steps which we can take. The problems of the emergency camps must be argued out there, as well as the implications of the onus on the owner, which was referred to a moment ago.

Then there are the possible clashes under section 5 of the Act, which provides that the owner of land may say by means of an affidavit before the magistrate or the Bantu commissioner that there are people who are illegally occupying his land. That magistrate or Bantu commissioner then has the right to issue orders for their removal. What is the position going to be if that owner, when action is taken against him in terms of this Bill, says: “But I did my duty under the Act; I made a sworn statement before the magistrate to say that those people were illegally occupying my land”? It seems to me as if there is a clash between section 5 of the Act and the particular clauses of the Bill. It must be ironed out. I therefore want to repeat my request to the Minister and ask that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, as we request in our amendment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have now been listening for a half hour to the problems raised by the hon. member for Edenbvale, but during that half hour I should have liked to have heard one solution from the hon. member for dealing with this tremendous problem.

I did not have enough time.

I shall give up some of my time for the hon. member if he wants it. This is typical for the Opposition. There is a squatter problem and we on this side of the House are assiduously seeking a solution to it. It is very easy for the Opposition to criticize, but if they had to deal with this matter themselves, they would not have levelled criticism so easily. If there is one person who really ought to have a thorough knowledge of this problem, it is the hon. member for Edenvale. Why is the hon. member backing away from it then? It is simply to be able to criticize the Government.

Firstly, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation. I also want to thank the officials who assisted the hon. the Minister in drafting this legislation. The time has arrived for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book. There is an English saying which goes: “Sometimes you must be cruel to be kind.” This is the case here, and I am going to try, in my speech this afternoon, to prove that we have to make this applicable in this case. We cannot allow the problem, as it exists at present, to continue. The task of finding a solution for this has to be tackled in all earnest. I shall return to this later.

I first want to return to the allegation made by the hon. member for Rondebosch in his speech, i.e. that the Afrikaans-speaking Whites in particular were also guilty of squatting. I deny the statement which the hon. member made. I know there was poverty among our people, and I know there was a time when we were the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in this country. Our people were poor, but always retained their pride, and when better accommodation was offered to them, they accepted it. The hon. member for Pinelands is not in this House now, but I should like to refer to his calm and collected speech on this matter. The hon. member has the knack of presenting his speech as calmly and collectively as a priest here. Upon reading through his speech, however, one sees the serpent lurking in it. I have been hunting many times in my life, and there are many things I am not afraid of. But if there is one thing I am afraid of, it is the mamba. It seems quiet and timorous, but before one realizes what has happened, one has been bitten. I do not want to compare the hon. member to a mamba, but I espy the same craftiness in his speech. He incites the Brown man so that he has to become frustrated, so that a hatred arises in him, and he has to say to himself that the White man has everything and that he is forced to become a squatter. Such a person is never told that he is squatting illegally. These people say that they are squatting because the White man has everything, and that they, as Brown people, have nothing. What could frustrate a person more than that? This is precisely where the danger lies. If the Brown people are frustrated in the circumstances in which they are living, it will become a social problem which will require tremendous efforts on the part of this country in order to uplift these people again. I shall leave both the hon. members at that.

I know a great deal about squatting. In my life I have visited many squatters’ camps. As a young man I became acquainted with these matters as long ago as the early fifties. After the Second World War I saw how the Bantu established squatter towns on the Witwaters-rand. Many problems had to be overcome to provide the people with accommodation, but today there is almost no such thing as squatting on the Witwatersrand any more. Today I want to tell the hon. members from the Cape, and the hon. the Minister, that there is a difference between the circumstances under which Black people for squatter settlements and the circumstances under which Brown people do so. Last Friday night I spent a long time visiting a squatter community. No one can live under those conditions.

Did you have a permit?

I was accompanied by people with permits and I also had a permit. The conditions under which the Brown people are forming squatter settlements in the Western Cape are deplorable and drastic steps have to be taken. In this respect I might differ from hon. members on this side as well as on that side of the House. The only way to accommodate these people is the way in which we plan to do so. However, it will take many years. It costs a great deal of money to do so. Can South Africa afford it at this stage? Can the White population afford it in the years which lie ahead? Can we carry these people, these people who live for today and do not make provision for the day after, and in the meantime continue to multiply unrestrictedly? It has become not only a problem but a curse. It will take a great deal of work and study to enlighten them. If they carry on in this way either the Brown man or the White man will go under in the Western Cape.

According to my experience there is only one solution for the present. We must raze large parts of the squatter camps to the ground and in their place provide alternative accommodation. If it is possible, the hon. the Minister and the department will have to investigate this matter. Land has to be purchased, and temporary services will have to be provided there. Roads will have to be provided so that these people can have transport. The people will have to be allowed to squat in an orderly manner in the area until such time as the department is able to provide them with accommodation. Once again I want to draw attention to the deplorable conditions in which these people are living. The rate at which accommodation is being provided for these people is far too slow to keep up with their population growth. Legislation will have to be passed in terms of which certain groups of these people will be prohibited from moving from the rural areas to the Western Cape. If this can be done in respect of the Black man, it can also be done in respect of the Brown man if it is in his best interests. Has the time arrived when we are hesitant to take certain steps? Sir, we in this country will have to do what is right according to us. We shall, for our own sakes, and that of the Brown people, have to take certain drastic steps.

Illegal squatting is something which happens throughout the entire world. For example, I have here a publication which made a survey of the situation in Paris, France. It is the White people who are squatting there. I also had the privilege of seeing how the Black people in Lourenço Marques and other parts of Mozambique are living. This is a world-wide phenomenon; we admit that. However, we are not saying that because it is a world-wide phenomenon, we should allow it to happen here. Sir, I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. As a result of this legislation it will in fact be possible to take drastic steps, which will perhaps alleviate the position, and I know that this legislation has been drawn up with sincere intentions, but I want to say that this legislation will still not solve the problem. More legislation will have to be introduced, in terms of which it will be possible to take the further steps which I have mentioned. I am expressing this idea now, because the population explosion among the Brown people is of such a tremendous magnitude that, even if 30 000 houses per annum are built, we will still only be in a position to meet the needs of the people who are living here. What is being done in respect of the thousands of people who are coming in here from the rural areas? And then, Sir, the hon. member for Pinelands says that they are coming to the cities because they cannot find work in the rural areas, and are looking elsewhere for work.

They do not want to work there.

That is true; they do not want to work there. In the best interests of those people I shall at any time vote for legislation prohibiting them from coming to the cities. I shall do so without blinking an eyelid.

Your Whip is looking very uncomfortable about what you are saying.

Sir, the hon. member irritates me so much that I almost said something which I would only have had to withdraw again. I wish he would keep quiet now. As I have said, Sir, this is a problem which has to be tackled in a drastic way. However, we need the confidence of those who are involved in this, and these are the Brown people of the Western Cape. We also need confidence in the deeds of the White man. Perhaps it is also time serious talks were held with responsible people in the Brown community, so that the dangers which lie ahead in future, if the position continues in this way, may be pointed out. In my opinion the solution is that we will have to put a stop to this illegal squatting and, let it cost what it may, allow the people who are waiting to go to Atlantis, Mitchell’s Plain and other places, to form squatter settlements in an orderly manner. In view of the conditions which I saw the other day, I do not know what is going to happen when the rainy season arrived.

Do not worry.

I hear someone telling me not to worry. Because I have a soul and a conscience I am worried. Because I am worried I shall take drastic steps to prevent other people doing the thinking for those people who cannot think for themselves, even if it has to be done by legislation. As far as the Witwatersrand complex is concerned, this problem is to a large extent under control today. But there, too, it was a serious problem. Who were the people who encouraged those conditions? It was the people who allowed the Bantu to come and live there as squatters and who then exploited them. And they were exploited, by the thousands, and many people made a great deal of money out of it. I hear—I am not stating this as a fact because I do not have the particulars—that the same thing is happening here in the Western Cape. That is why I am thanking the hon. the Minister, and if I have said something here today with which he does not agree, he must feel free to tell me. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation. I want to say thank you to the officials who helped him with it. I raised certain ideas which I think will be able to help solve this major national problem. That is how I see the matter. As we are carrying on at present, we will not make the grade. Instead of 20 000 houses per annum we shall eventually have to build 100 000 houses per annum. I do not see our way clear to doing that at this stage. Nor do I believe that our finances are capable of this. This is a major problem, and I do not know what to say about it this afternoon. I can only say that I was shocked when I saw the conditions, and I trust that in the near future a solution will be found for these people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stilfontein discussed this matter with great earnestness and with a knowledge of the matter. I appreciate that, because what we are dealing with here is an extremely important matter. I should like to agree with one of his statements, and that is, that the legislation which is before us today is not going to solve this problem. However, the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Stilfontein are the wrong ones.

I am hoping, of course, that you are going to offer solutions.

I hope the hon. the Minister will accept that we want to make a contribution towards solving this problem and that we do not want to start a cheap debating session. If he accepts this, we shall get somewhere. Listening to hon. members on the opposite side, one has no option but to think that the members of this party do not want to assist in solving this squatter problem. The fact that we realize how serious this matter is, how explosive it is, is the very reason why we feel so strongly about the matter and why we shall oppose this legislation, because we feel it is not going to come anywhere near solving this problem.

Before proceeding, I should just like to pause for a moment—I am sorry that the hon. member for Hercules is not here—to say that I deeply regret the insinuation made by that hon. member that we do not really care for this problem as we may, in certain circumstances, make political capital out of the chaos which may arise from it. It is an insinuation which we reject with contempt. Moreover, it is an insinuation which is not worthy of the hon. member.

†Mr. Speaker, there is so much mischief in this Bill that one is apt to lose sight of the central and worst feature of it, namely, that it will give the authorities—who happen to be White—powers to move people from where they are living, i.e. from their homes— however primitive and unworthy of the name they might be—without their consent, without consultation and without providing alternative accommodation for them.

This is the central mischief of this Bill. The fact that many of these desperate people are where they are illegally and are squatting illegally does not detract, I submit, from the inhumanity of a system which helps to create these conditions. A great South African once described apartheid as something which people with power do to people without power, and they do so without consultation. Here we have almost a classic example of that definition. Most of these people, about whom we have been talking, have acted outside the law not because they want to taunt the authorities or simply for the hell of it, or because they prefer it to be that way, as one would be inclined to infer if one is to listen to some hon. members on the other side. In the vast majority of cases these people acted in the way they did because they had absolutely no option. There was nothing else available for them and that is why they did it. In the vast majority of cases they were in search of a better life, and that is why they found themselves in such a situation. I am glad the hon. member for Stilfontein has these tens of thousands of luckless people on his conscience, because I believe they should be on our consciences day and night. There is far too little thought given to that aspect of the matter. Their plight is similar to that of the family portrayed in the newspapers last week. I am referring to the family of five which spent nights in some kind of a toilet. What kind of people are we that we can tolerate things of this kind? However, to listen to some hon. members opposite, one would think that most of these squatters actually preferred to live in squalor and filth, that they preferred to live in the bushes and on the sands. The hon. member for Tygervallei spoke of such existence as “deel van ’n lewensfilosofie”.

Surely that is so.

The hon. member for Boksburg—he is a friend of mine and I am therefore sorry to have to say this about him—boasted of the fact that he was not as irresponsible as to come and squat when he came to Cape Town as a Parliamentarian years ago. How cynical and insensitive can we become about an issue of this nature? However, I submit that this kind of attitude of unconcern—and now I am not speaking of those two hon. members in particular—seems to me to be evidence of how our senses as Whites have become blunted by the system in which we live, how all our standards have become warped and twisted to such an extent that we can tolerate people living in conditions which may be fit for animals but, God knows, they are not fit for human beings. The best we can do is to provide for their upheaval rather than providing for their upliftment. I accept, as has been submitted throughout this debate, that squatting is a universal phenomenon and a problem in all the developing countries. I came across some statistics the other day that indicate that—

An international agency, the World Bank, says—

This simply goes to show that there is nothing novel in the South African situation. I do not think that we must bluff ourselves that there is. All developing countries are saddled with it and everybody is looking for a solution. I should like to suggest that it is simply the degree and the extent of the permanence of the squatting problem which determines a community’s determination and success in dealing with the problem. By that standard, I submit, we do not have a great deal to be proud of. The fact that squatting in other countries produces equally bad conditions to those in South Africa gives me no comfort whatsoever.

In a very real sense squatting is a measure of a community’s failure to regulate its economic life properly. That is what it comes down to. If the Government wants to stop Coloured people coming into the Cape Peninsula, I think one of the many things it might do or try to do more effectively and more purposefully than it is doing at the moment, is to create economic and social conditions in their places of origin which would help to keep them there, which would be an inducement to them to stay where they are. Influx control, however thinly disguised, is in the final resort not the answer. The world over people trek to towns. They trek to towns in search of a better life, but if they were given the opportunity of living better lives where they are, I submit the temptation to come to town would be reduced even if it is not eliminated.

However, we are saddled with this very great problem and we must do something about it. I say that there should be far more flexibility in the Government’s approach to the solution of this problem. Until houses of some sort, however elementary, are available to squatters it is surely our responsibility to make life as safe and as tolerable as possible for these people. How are we going to do it? We keep on being asked how we are going to do it. I should like to give the House some information about what is being done in other parts of the world to cope with the problem because I believe it is relevant to our situation.

I have some extracts from a very recent report on housing done by the World Bank. The report shows how the problem can be approached from a variety of angles—not simply this one angle from which we seem to be approaching it—and with a minimum of dislocation to those involved as well as in an effort—this is the point I wish to stress—to tide people over interim periods while more permanent and satisfactory arrangements for their living can be made, The Bank says that in view of the seriousness of this problem, it has identified four priority areas for concentration and urgent action. The first is to encourage and assist countries to base their plans for physical development on social as well as economic considerations. The second—this is important—is to encourage and assist countries in adopting the necessary legislative framework to provide land tenure that will permit the urban poor to build improvised shelters on their own land with their own effort. The third is to encourage Governments to provide the essential urban infrastructure in terms of public utilities in parts of cities occupied by migrants and other low-income families. The fourth is to help Governments develop their own indigenous institutions and local skills.

What is really relevant to our situation is that the Bank emphasizes that projects for squatter upgrading and site servicing should continue to be the prime instruments for improving the housing conditions of the urban poor. Those two, squatter upgrading and site servicing, are of prime importance because the Bank says—

The World Bank talks about serviced sites as part of the solution of this problem, serviced sites on which the occupants could contribute to the construction of their own homes. Are we doing anything of this nature? The Bank also refers to “increasing lending for the upgrading of squatter settlements”. What are we doing in this kind of context? In regard to sites and services, the World Bank has found that plots should be levelled and furnished with access roads, drainage should be provided as well as water, sewage, electricity and a variety of other individual as well as community services. Is this not something that we ought to be doing? Particular attention is apparently being paid to locating projects within reach of major markets and employment opportunities and to bringing activities and jobs to the project area.

This, I would suggest, gives an indication of the lines along which we should be thinking. The report goes on to say that the essence of squatter-housing upgrading is to conserve the existing low-income housing stock, particularly in serviceable, relatively central locations, and to improve this housing by including additions and improvements to services and facilities within the entire neighbourhood. This approach, which the World Bank regards as being a complementary site-and-service programme, is today seen throughout the world as an increasingly important means of providing benefits to low-income people and of maintaining their access in relatively central locations. So one can go on about the World Bank’s findings on this universal problem. For instance, they say that all site-and-service and squatter-housing upgrading projects supported by the World Bank group have aimed at the maximum use of self-help. Are we doing enough in this context? These experiments to which the World Bank refers are being made in various countries in Africa. They also point out that a temporary shelter or a small core unit may in some instances be required to convince families that developments will in fact take place throughout the project area, enabling them eventually to benefit through neighbourhood development from one another’s efforts. Should we not perhaps look a little more closely at this aspect of the problem? I want to refer to one final comment made in this report:

I submit that these are positive suggestions. The hon. the Minister and his department may well have looked at them already, but I do not see any of this reflected in the legislation before us. I believe that, as I have said, a good deal of the experience of the World Bank and its officials in this regard is applicable to our problem in South Africa.

What is the date of that report?

It is dated May 1975. I can let the hon. the Minister have these documents if he is interested.

I am not suggesting for one moment that, apart from uplifting people and moving them around, a good deal is not being done. One knows of the very good work that is being done by the Cape Flats Committee for Interim Accommodation and other bodies in the Peninsula. One is grateful also for the work the Department of Community Development is doing for these luckless people. It is also true, as the hon. the Minister remarked in his Second Reading speech, that a great deal is being done in the field of housing. For all this we are thankful, but an appalling problem remains. What I think we have to accept is that this problem is going to be with us for years and years. There simply is no instant solution. To suggest that it is all going to be over in five years’ time and that by then we will have cleaned everything up, is unrealistic.

Who said it will be over in five years’ time?

I am not suggesting the hon. the Minister said it, but it has been suggested that, if only we are “kragdadig genoeg”, we can solve this problem. That is just nonsense.

It is because we in these benches believe that this Bill in fact comes nowhere near tackling the problem in the right way that we are opposing it. It is for that reason that I wish to move as a further amendment—

We have heard a good deal about security in this House recently. I should like to suggest very seriously that we can contribute immeasurably to the security of South Africa and all its people if we tackle this squatter problem in the right way. What we really need is a national commission to deal with the whole problem as a matter of the greatest urgency. We need a body on which national, provincial, local and squatter interests—if I may suggest this—are all represented. I would argue that because there are so many … Now the hon. the Minister and his cohorts laugh at the idea of consulting these people. To me it seems to be eminently sensible to do so. I would have thought that it fitted into the establishment’s idea of consultation, but perhaps it does not. Perhaps we do not have to consult those people. We simply do unto them, because we always know what is best for them. [Interjections.] What we really need is …

[Inaudible.]

Because we have so many agencies and interests concerned with housing, an integrated approach to this whole problem of the squatter situation, and this particular aspect of it, seems absolutely essential if we are to produce any sort of order out of chaos. What is the situation at the moment? We have the Department of Community Development working in one way, the Department of Bantu Administration working in another. If one listens to some hon. members, one would think that these problems have nothing in common as far as Coloured and African people are concerned. The divisional council is working in a third way. The city council is working in a fourth way, and the employers are probably working in a variety of ways. We know that there are also private agencies which are giving advice and which are operating from the sideline. All these agencies are doing what they can according to their interpretation of matters. However, a body such as I suggest, a body armed with the necessary power and approaching the whole problem as something of a national emergency—for that is what it is— should make a worthwhile contribution to the solution of an intractable problem by avoiding overlapping and duplication, by directing and channelling research, and by generally indicating guide-lines for the benefit of all involved. A multitude of individuals and agencies are involved in trying to make life more tolerable for countless individuals. I hope the hon. the Minister will give this suggestion his earnest consideration because, I believe, we have to approach this problem on a far broader front than that contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, looking at this envisaged legislation, one realizes that this is a matter about which one may not talk politics. It is in the interests of everyone in this House, of everyone in South Africa, for the squatter problem to be solved. However, in my opinion we ought to begin by finding a definition of squatting. As far as I am concerned, one of the people who put it best was a writer in The Cape Times in 1926. As is still the case today, The Cape Times at that time often referred to Britain.

Talking of slums, Britain had some of the worst slum conditions in the world. A slum like Smokeover even had its own poet. That poet described the slums as follows: “The slums are the cemeteries of the living. ” If ever a true word was spoken, it was that in fact, the slums not only cause the death of a developing person, but also destroy his actions. It is for that reason that one cannot but agree with the poet of Smokeover when he says—

Sir, may we ask that this should continue? Must we ask that we should withdraw? Possibly the UP has a case in asking for a Select Committee. Let us then, take it to a Select Committee. I feel that there is a willingness to help, but must we convert a temporary camp into a permanent camp for squatters? Is this the first time that legislation of this nature has been adopted in this country? The hon. member for Parktown said that it was disgraceful to take a man out of his house and that this was the first time that this had been done in South Africa. Is that the truth? It is not. [Interjections.] Is he, then, unaware that it has been done before?

I did not say that this was the first time.

But was the hon. member aware that this has happened before? Let us take a brief look at what Durban has done—and the people of Durban do a thing properly when they do it—about Indian penetration into the European residential areas. The people there were dissatisfied because Indians were moving in where Whites lived, and they tried one measure after another. I do not want to smear anyone. I want to state the facts. In 1920 they adopted certain legislation—

Remember this was in 1920, but they lacked the courage to give effect to them before 1936. Between 1933 and 1936 the following Act was passed by the central Parliament—

†You know what the “added areas” means. It had a colour implication.

What does that have to do with squatters?

I have listened to the hon. member for Jeppe for a long time and I want to tell him that he has been off the beam for so long that he should not have entered this debate. During the subsequent two years a further 784 dwellings were removed, but no new accommodation was made available to the displaced families.

*Now look at these “arch-deacons” who come along every day and accuse us as Nationalists, as the Government, and want to make a political matter out of this. It is disgraceful. It is something that has been going on for years in South Africa. When we take someone out of a house, at least we spend something in this regard. Let us go back to 1927, when a Select Committee was appointed, and this Select Committee sat and they had Ministers without portfolio serving on it. Referring to the problems, they stated—

What did the City Council of Cape Town ask for in 1927? They asked for an Act to put an end to squatting. In 1927 the Cape Town City Council was prepared to build houses for their squatters. It was not even in 1927 that slums developed; it was even before that. In this way squatting continued, and because no action was taken against it in these areas, it developed and really became an evil. It is very clearly stated in the Handboek vir Maatskap-like Werkers that when one is appointed as a social worker, one immediately has to ascertain whether there are slums, and if there are slums, one must immediately request the implementation of the Act so that they may be removed, because it is an evil and because people’s actions are affected thereby. Last week judgment was passed by a judge in a case against a young Coloured who shot and killed a 56-year old man, Mr. Simeon, in his café. I wondered to myself what kind of background that Coloured had and in what circumstances he had to live. The Coloured was found guilty of murder, but there were mitigating circumstances which I should perhaps quote to the House. It was found that he grew up in a slum area and that his mother was a weak character. Here the actions of people are affected as if by a disease. It is just like the disease which occurred in Chicago where 5 100 people died of cholera in 1949, it is not like the great fires of Chicago in which large numbers of people were burnt to death. It destroys the soul of people and everything that this involves. The actions of people are affected by this and year after year it is passed on to people with whom it comes into contact. Mrs. Simeon lost her husband and her children were deprived of a father and yet I cannot hold a grudge against this Coloured boy, now a man of 21 years, who grew up in those shocking circumstances. It was the actions of people around him, and the fact that there was no stated norm for him to base his behaviour on, which resulted in his today having to serve a gaol sentence of eight to 14 years. The day that Coloured leaves the gaol, his surroundings, the history of those people and the frustration of the soul of the people will still be with him, because squatting is a frustration of values. It will remain in his memory; he will be unable to escape it. He may be sent to a rehabilitation centre, but just as that which he has inherited is a part of him, similarly his environment will remain with him for ever. Is there not a blot on our conscience when we remember that 13 children were burnt to death in slums over the Easter weekend? Have hon. members ever seen the expression of pain on a child’s face when he burns his hand? Have hon. members ever thought about how one must feel when one arrives on the scene where these people have been burnt to death in circumstances we have given our approval to over the years? We simply can and may not condone this any longer. Things cannot go on like this. Perhaps the legislation does not go far enough. I am not asking that these people be removed, but that they be moved out of this situation. A short time ago the hon. member for Green Point said that the squatter houses should get water and other facilities; then the people would be able to stay there. But what I am opposed to is the spirit of squatting.

It is a necessity because they do not have houses.

The hon. member for Green Point must please be quiet for a moment. The fact of the matter is that one must distinguish between squatting and the squatter. All squatting is illegal, but not all squatters are. Many children are born into such circumstances and they are never able to escape them. In such circumstances he is placed by the actions of other people, and in so doing becomes a product of those circumstances. Let us take 20 Bantu huts in a Zulu kraal and compare the conditions. The health conditions are more or less the same. The Zulu gets his water from a well, with the problems that involves. What is different? The norms of the Zulu children and their father are different. There is a chief in the area. However, what is the state of affairs in a squatter complex? Who is the leader in such a complex. The destroyer of norms and the transgressor against the law is the man who provides the leadership. This is something entirely different to the case of the Zulu kraal with its 20 huts.

The Select Committee to which I referred tackled the problem half-heartedly in 1927. One of the members, one Bowie, said: “We must foot out these landlords.” He maintained that the landlords were the problem. He said that the landlords of these people took money and that the amounts they demanded steadily increased. He saw that people came from all areas.

One can analyse the situation of the squatters. I had the privilege of meeting a Mr. Domingo. He was a Coloured who, in all sincerity, wanted to do something for his people. In common with Dr. Ross and many other Coloureds—even though the wrong direction is being taken in the political sphere—he wanted to do something positive for his people. He and others therefore instituted an investigation into the matter. Domingo carried out a survey, and on the basis of this survey I want to know what training the parents in squatter camps have who come from places like Kakamas, Calvinia, etc. Domingo informed me that the educational qualifications of these people varied between Std. 2 and Std. 4. In order to stress what I said, I want to quote what he told me—

What did the new generation achieve? Did they get as far as Std. VI? No. The new generation reached exactly the same level. There was no increase in the standard of education. In the squatter camps no one had achieved a higher standard. The same standard was maintained. For the children there are insufficient schools in these circumstances because their parents flee, since they know that they are breaking the law.

I want to dwell for a moment on further problems in this connection. We see that they have residential areas at Potsdam, Luciana and Bishop Lavis. Bishop Lavis exists today. Is it a squatter area today?

It is a pleasant area.

Today it is no longer a squatter area; it is a pleasant area. Why do The Argus and The Cape Times no longer listen to the appeals from those areas? Why do they no longer maintain that we are acting incorrectly. We must again get to the point where we are able to discuss these matters openly and sincerely with each other. People like Mrs. Jansen and Sonny Leon also have a duty towards those squatters, not only this Government. We must eliminate squatting. Taking a further look at this report to which I referred, we find the following: “Roughly the same proportion were able to get beyond primary school as in the previous generation.” That is tragic, Sir. For our fathers Std. VI was a high standard. Where is the child of our generation? Is it right, then, that our position should have improved so much, while that of others has worsened, or at least has shown no improvement.

That problem must be analysed very carefully.

The point is that we have to find answers to these problems, and we must ensure that it is not only the Government that is involved, because you must not make this a political matter. There must be continual investigation of the problem and we must find answers. It must also be borne in mind that we want to prevent the new squatter from further exacerbating the problem. Take, for example, the position that developed in Johannesburg over the years. Over the years Johannesburg has probably had one of the biggest problems with its shanty towns in Soweto and elsewhere. At that time the City Council of Johannesburg did not see its way clear to tackling that problem, and we do not blame them for that. The Minister of Bantu administration and others know what problems occurred at the time. Do hon. members know how many murders, rapes and other evils occurred in those years? In contrast to that one only has to look at places like Meadowlands today to see what progress is taking place. One is then glad to have been able to have had a part in that process of upliftment. At that time there were people who said, for religious and other reasons: “Look, here is a church. Why must the people be removed?” Sir, I have never yet seen a person with an empty stomach who was prepared to listen. I have never yet seen a person who listened to music when he was hungry. He first satisfies his stomach. The church which stood there could perhaps have accommodated those people once a week, and they were paid for that, but subsequently the squatters, too, were provided with accommodation. New ideas were encouraged and new communities built. There has been great progress there among the Bantu, and this is something we must bear in mind. It is a fact that the Coloureds are so close to us, and over the years have been looked after so often, that in the present situation we cannot leave them behind. We must help them to help themselves.

But why this legislation, then?

I shall tell the hon. member why this legislation is essential. In 1933 there was an Act in Durban in terms of which houses were simply demolished. 1 500 people were without any shelter; they could not even find a place to go and squat, because as soon as they constructed a shanty, it was flattened. That, now, is prevention. Do you know, Sir, that there are countries where it is illegal to be without employment? There they say that such a person can still create work for himself in a rural area. We must therefore take care that we do not ask such questions. I do not think there can be a Minister or a department that would be so stupid as to place an Act on the Statute Book if they did not really need that Act in order to carry out their task. This applies particularly to this problem of housing. The hon. member asks: “Why this legislation?” The legislation is to prevent new people from streaming in. At the moment there is insufficient housing for all the people. We are taking these people out and placing them in better housing and no one must creep back into the old shanty; it must be removed immediately. The spirit of a squatter is clearly evident from this report by Domingo. They made a survey of this and asked the people how they liked their work and whether they did not want better work. Do hon. members know what 70% of them replied to that question? They said that they were quite happy and wanted to keep their work. Is this really something one would find under ordinary circumstances? Surely there is a squatting spirit, a spirit of frustration. Hon. members must bear in mind that it is not only the Coloureds. They must not think that the Coloured is weaker than other people. Hon. members must go and look at Tigerbaum Gardens in Hong Kong, at the World Bank projects, the United Nations projects and the projects of other nations. There one finds the spirit that, where one wants to put him in a house—the Chinese who comes over to Hong Kong—then he moves out of those high buildings and goes and squats in the passage—every sixth floor has a door for the lift—he brings along a few pieces of corrugated iron, and then he squats there. Then he crawls under it. He does not want to reach a higher level; he is satisfied with what he is. This is the spirit we must break down. The biggest problem we have in South Africa today, is that the Coloured does not have a big enough head to bring his body along with him. We are all guilty of this—the NP, the UP and the PRP—because we have permitted squatting over the years. In many respects, when we have had to act we have failed, over the years, particularly when municipalities have asked Parliament for legislation and we did not listen to them. We did not give those people the legal authority. In the end this Select Committee came to nothing. They were not really prepared to take that legislation further. They were asked urgently: “Give us the legislation so that we may act.” For example, they also asked that the other councils in the district between Stellenbosch and these places should be informed. The City Council of Cape Town wanted to do something, and that is why we ask earnestly that this legislation should not be opposed. It must not be opposed on the grounds that it is legislation which will oppress people. Let us admit that in our lifetime in South Africa the Coloureds and the Bantu have not perhaps had everything which the Whites have had on an equal basis.

But let us admit, too, that they have had the opportunities which very few other people have had in this context, and undoubtedly many of us as Whites did not have these opportunities in years past. It is for that reason that the hon. the Minister said that a Coloured who received too high a salary to qualify for the house he lived in, would not be evicted. In my constituency I have a place by the name of Crown Gardens. People there received notice that they would have to seek other houses. Do hon. members now want to maintain that we are discriminating against those Whites? Do they want to maintain that the Government is out to turn those people, who are from a National Party constituency, into the street? Can one really say this or is it an adjustment of the laws? In the time at my disposal I also want to ask that there, too, a spirit of fairness will prevail and that those people will not move before they have alternative accommodation.

If we consider this legislation seriously this evening, we can say that the UP probably has a case for asking for further investigation. Perhaps the PRP, as a result of their first visit to these places, or perhaps owing to the newspaper reports, are in agreement with some of those reports. However, they now have a duty, when this Bill is accepted, to come and assist us because they say that they have many opportunities to talk to these people. Let us now put our shoulders to the wheel. For example, the department has set aside R400 million to be spent on places like Mitchell’s Plain and other places. R160 million has been spent in four years, and I can prove to hon. members that this is so. This is not a small amount. However, if we do not use this money in the best interests of the people whom we should like to accommodate, it will have the same effect on those people as squatting has at present.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to make suggestions to the hon. the Minister or the department. That is why we are members of Parliament. We must investigate those matters, and we have the right to refer the hon. the Minister and his department to our own experience in various spheres. For example, the hon. member for Jeppe will know what is done in Johannesburg. Perhaps from his years of experience as a member of the City Council he can raise matters which could be of assistance to us.

I just want to refer to the spirit, attitude and hard work of the department. One can get there six o’clock in the morning, and late in the evening, too, and those people are hard at work. All we ask of the Opposition is to come and help us. Come and support the department and those people who would like to help the Coloureds.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down virtually concluded by supporting the amendment of the official Opposition, i.e. that this Bill should receive the attention of a Select Committee.

You have always had a wonderful sense of humour.

I beg your pardon?

You have always had a wonderful sense of fun.

In his opening remarks, and perhaps for the greater part of his speech, the hon. member dealt with the difficulties which assail a community when the inhabitants live under slum conditions. That is a social problem of which we are all aware. It is a social problem that has been with emergent society for a considerable number of years. It is nothing new. Our Statute Book is studded with Acts dealing with slum conditions. There is, for example, the Slums Act, which has been in existence for many years and which has been amended considerably from time to time in an endeavour to deal with this particular problem and overcome it.

We are, however, dealing with another extraordinary problem which is also not new to our social structure as we know it because we have had squatter problems for the last 50 or 60 years. If one were to go back even as far as 1920, after the first World War, one would find problems in regard to squatting. In 1951, when the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act was passed, an Act to which this Bill is the amendment, we faced a situation outside Johannesburg which was very much worse than the situation we are facing now. However, in that particular Act we did not enshrine the stringent and harsh measures which it is now the intention to place upon the Statute Book.

We are now dealing with the Bantu and influx control.

There is no greater urgency today than there was then. The problem at that time was the lack of houses and the fact that we were caught up in a post-war industrial revolution that demanded labour where our industrial economy was developing almost explosively. Neither the community, the country nor the economy could face this tremendous demand for housing and we unfortunately found ourselves saddled with a squatter problem. We cleared the problem, however, because there was a sensible approach on the part of the Government of the day. The Government was able to take sound advice from the local authorities, from the city council of Johannesburg and from the Opposition of the time which was well aware of some of these problems and was able to advise the Government. The problem was overcome in about three to five years, and there we were faced with a problem involving 200 000 to 250 000 people who were housed, at the time, in squatter conditions. It is all very well to talk about the essential evils of slum conditions, but with this legislation we are trying to seek a remedy and certainly not to eradicate causes. We are seeking to deal with the symptoms of lack of housing by primitive measures. The Government, however, has been somewhat slack in this sphere over the past five or six years.

Over the past five or six years I can recall at least two conferences attended by members of this House and the entire building industry of this country. The questions of cluster housing and new structural systems were discussed. There was also discussion on saving ground by increasing the density of housing. The cost of services were also dealt with; in fact a number of factors in the housing field were dealt with in order to ensure that houses could be built more speedily, more cheaply and with higher densities to accommodate as many people as possible in the area of land available in both cities and rural areas. What has happened, however, to all the recommendations of those conferences? What has been the result of the knowledge we have gained from those conferences? We have had commissions sitting on this question of the division of land, on the question of services for townships and there have been numbers of inquiries. In fact, I think there is still an inquiry into housing on the go. I think it began last year. Comments from the public were called for, by the department, to reach it before November 1975. All sorts of inquiries are constantly on the go with regard to housing, but I say that we have failed to provide that one important commodity which would have met this particular problem. However, we on this side of the House recognize the problem and we appreciate the difficulty which is facing the country. We are also aware of what the Government is doing. As we are agreed on the principle of combating the squatter problems, we ask for a Select Committee because there are certain issues which have arisen as a result of this Bill, issues which we feel require not only discussion amongst members of a Select Committee, but also evidence from the various authorities which are concerned in this matter so as to enable us to deal with the subject adequately and not only to apply punitive measures, which are the worst method which can be used if we want to eradicate a condition which is not the fault of the squatter, but probably the fault of the authorities.

And the fault of the landlord.

I want to be sympathetic and therefore I say that the fault may not even be that of the authorities. I am not interested in landlords at the moment; I am interested in the question of dealing with the squatter problem itself. The local authorities raise all sorts of problems. The UME discussed a number of problems which I believe they put up to the department. I am informed that local authorities have discussed this matter very thoroughly; the question, for instance, of regulations that the Minister will be able to promulgate with regard to emergency camps. They are also very concerned about the question of a presumption of guilt on the part of the owner of land when squatting conditions prevail. The onus is then on the owner of the land, and the local authority will then have to prove that it is not at fault and has not contravened the law as it stands. Those are two very important factors which have to be taken into account.

There is also the question of influx control which has been quite rightly raised about a dozen times. What about the numerous White people who flock into cities from many of the country towns which are becoming denuded of White people? These White people come to the cities in search of employment and here in the cities they cannot find homes. They also live under difficult conditions.

Many of them live in garages.

Yes, some of them live in garages and others live as lodgers in homes. They live under all sorts of difficult conditions almost as bad as squatters.

Some of them live in caravan camps.

Yes, in caravan camps too. Some of them even live in old motor-cars. Should those people also be subject to this form of influx control? Will it also be necessary in their case that a certificate must be obtained by an employer? Will a manager of a garage, for instance, be required to obtain a certificate that the man is properly housed before he engages him as a mechanic? Why should it only apply to the Coloured people who are, after all, the main objective of this particular Bill? Here we are in the midst of a whole issue with regard to the Coloured community of this country, more particularly the Coloured people in the Cape and even more particularly the Coloured people of the Western Cape, and all of a sudden we find that they are being subjected to a form of influx control. Why? I say there is no consistency. On one hand efforts are being made by a commission and by hon. members of Parliament in statements made to the Press, at symposiums and during other discussions to alleviate and improve the conditions of the Coloured people and to bring them closer to the White communities which exist, but suddenly this rather arbitrary form of influx control is being imposed on them when they are the victims of circumstances and are looking for labour which is required in this particular part of the world. This is all involved with the other question of labour where preference is being given to one colour instead of another colour; if there is work available in this particular part of the world. The hon. the Minister knows very well that if there is employment available and it is a question of whether a Black man or a Coloured man should be employed, the Coloured man must get preference. Where does the story end when certificates as to housing must be obtained by the industrialists whenever they require labour?

Where do you find such a clause in the Bill?

The Bill provides that no employer can employ any person who comes in from an area outside that of the local authority unless he produces a certificate from the local authority.

Where in the Bill do you find any reference to race?

In the Bill no reference is made to race, but the hon. the Minister in the whole of his Second Reading speech … [Interjections.] No, the hon. the Minister must not turn his back on me; the hon. the Minister must allow me to reply to him and he should not engage in dialogue across the floor. I want him to read his Second Reading speech again. The hon. the Minister is so happily amused. He is also prone to this form of amusement. I think he must have a ticklish feeling round his back somewhere. [Interjections.] He snuggles into his seat and he is delighted. I want to say that in his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister almost page by page dealt with the question of the Coloured people. There is no question about it. One cannot say that this Bill was intended to cover Black squatting at this stage. This Bill is to tighten up the Act in order to deal with the Coloured squatting situation which the hon. the Minister has found is existing. That is why I say that they are the people who are involved and a further slur is being cast on the Coloured people for no reason at all by providing punitive measures which the hon. the Minister hopes will help him to deal with the squatter problem.

What I do not understand is this: There is no provision in the Bill in terms of which it will not come into operation with retrospective effect, but I believe the hon. the Minister has said that it will not be retrospective. This means that existing squatter homes will not be destroyed at this stage. Do I have it correct?

Not those erected before 15 November last year.

15 November 1974 or 1975?

1975.

Therefore the Bill will not be retrospective prior to 15 November 1975. If that is the case, why is it necessary to have such severe measures, punitive measures, to deal with the question of employment on that basis? I say that the hon. the Minister’s approach is entirely wrong.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I was endeavouring to convince the hon. the Minister why I felt it would be in the interest of the problem with which he was dealing that the matter should be dealt with by a Select Committee. At the same time, as the hon. the Minister is aware from the resolution, the principle is accepted that the squatter problem is a question needing some attention and, possibly, some updating, since the original Act was passed in 1951.

However, there is another question to which I should like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention. For the second time we are hearing in a debate the interesting question of the employer providing housing for the employee. With regard to this Bill, this question cuts right across the issue of housing in that it will incorporate housing which is required for people in the sub-economic group as well as for people in the economic group. The Bill provides that no person can come into a particular area to seek employment, nor be engaged in employment there, unless the local authority has issued a certificate that housing is being provided, irrespective, apparently, of what the basis of salary of the employee will be.

Is the hon. member suggesting that people should be paid too little for them to be able to afford a house?

No, the point is that one does not know at what standard the man starts. Fortunately the minimum today is R14 per week. It used to be R6 per week, as the hon. the Minister knows only too well because, after all, he was associated with the important campaign that was undertaken to ensure that better wages were paid. Nevertheless, R14 per week is still a very low wage, and in some cases people cannot meet the requirements to be considered for economic housing. In the course of the discussion the fact that Iscor was making provision for Bantu employees at Sebokem was referred to by way of illustration. If the principle is to be accepted by members on that side that industry and commerce is now to be called upon to assist in this difficult problem of housing and to play their part by investing their capital in the field of housing, why does the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Community Development not begin to lay down some guidelines with regard to what he would like to see done and get the co-operation of industry and commerce in this particular field? For instance, in the case of the Iscor undertaking, the land concerned still remains the property of the Bantu Administration Board, whereas the buildings are erected by Iscor. The rentals go to the Bantu Administration Board. In my opinion it is vital that proper guide-lines should be laid down. If one wants to get the assistance of commerce and industry in providing housing for employees, surely some scheme must be laid before the country which would command the attention and interest of the country and by means of which some proper conclusions could be arrived at. This would serve to prevent our getting involved in the peculiar examples that are given from time to time to support legislation which in my opinion is not very good or very helpful.

I now wish to indicate why I feel that the hon. the Minister should refer this matter to a Select Committee. As I have said, the principle concerned with dealing with squatters has been accepted. The hon. the Minister is aware of certain problems that will arise. For instance, practically over a whole century it has been the custom with local authorities in this country to commence work, particularly in respect of large undertakings, before the plans have been finally approved. Particularly in respect of large and complex undertakings, the approval of plans by municipalities is a very involved process. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance—I am sure the hon. the Minister must know it himself from his experience and contact with local authorities—that such projects are indeed commenced long before the plans are finally approved. As a result of this particular provision, namely that plans must be approved before anything can be commenced, there will possibly be a slowing down. Local authorities are concerned with that problem, the problem of the slowing down of activity. It is also going to mean a delay in the availability of money, a delay of development. It may unleash completely unheard-of reactions. It may even open a Pandora’s box in relation to the whole question of building undertakings in this country. That is one illustration with which I want to assure the hon. the Minister of the necessity of referring this matter to a Select Committee.

I further want to deal with the question of the demolition of buildings. There is no provision made here that a tenant, lawful or otherwise, would, in terms of this Bill, should it become law, receive notice of the impending demolition because all that has to be done by the proper authority is to eject him forcibly with his assets. That is not a very desirable procedure. What it also does, is to grant a power to people, a power which, in terms of the proposed legislation, partially still remains in the hands of the court only in certain respects. This is another very undesirable procedure. However, discussion, and possibly evidence on this particular aspect, evidence on general aspects concerning the ejectment of people from squatter camps, would be of great value to a Select Committee who could then decide on how the Bill should be framed in order to provide a far better measure than that contained in it at the moment.

There is still another factor which is referred to by the local authorities in some of their reports. That is that they believe that, through the practice by which the employer provides a certificate of the availability of housing, free movement of people in the labour market is going to be inhibited. Local authorities often have to look for all sorts of employees. They need an enormous number of workers in a wide range of activity, such as bus drivers, motor mechanics, electricians, building artisans and so forth, from various parts of the country. Workers are also needed for the carrying out of all sorts of essential services.

Recently there were problems, for instance in the West Rand Administration Board, in connection with cleaners and people removing refuse. Employees for that particular service could not be obtained. It may be necessary for them to be imported. What is that particular local authority going to do? They cannot get workers. Are they going to get them from the reserves, are they going to have to provide houses for the employees who have to come there? These are the factors that have to be taken into account.

However, I am not raising these points just in order to raise issues to provide just so many more words for the hon. the Minister to listen to. I rather do it to draw his attention to the fact that there are a number of problems which arise. When one takes any Act that has been in operation for 25 years and one begins to insert into that Act extraneous matters, matters with tentacles that reach far into the business and industrial life of a community, into the movement of people, one must strike a number of snags. For that reason we believe that we cannot support a Bill of this nature unless it goes to a Select Committee where, with the acceptance of the principle, the detail can be discussed, evidence can be tendered and certain conclusions can be arrived at, conclusions which can make the position more satisfactory than it is at the moment.

I just want to make one or two further comments with regard to the issue that the hon. the Minister raised in connection with loans from overseas. I would like to know from him whether he referred, in the course of his Second Reading speech, to the fact that he was looking for R10 million from overseas as a foreign loan to be utilized for the building of houses? I ask this because I could not quite follow one of his sentences at the time. Did he mean that he did not want more than 10% of the amount provided by the State, and that that would be an average of between R10 million and R11 million a year?

I was looking for a loan that I could pay back at a rate of R10 million a year.

The hon. the Minister was looking for loans that he could pay back … I am glad to hear that. That would mean that it would be a loan of somewhere in the vicinity of R100 million or something of that nature.

[Inaudible.]

Well, then I want to ask the hon. the Minister why it has taken so long for his department over the last five years—the hon. the Minister had predecessors in office— to suddenly stumble on the fact that if one only had sufficient money one could do anything. He could have borrowed the money from abroad previously. Let me remind him of one other factor. A year ago the then Minister of Community Development boasted of the fact that there was as much money as could be desired, in the National Housing Fund. The problem is to get the houses erected. If that is the case, why are we looking for R100 million abroad? [Interjections.] The final point I want to make is this, and I have heard this comment from the public. It is a very interesting comment. Why did it take a picture for the public, for the information of the public, of a family living in a lavatory, for someone to find him a home? It may have been done on humanitarian grounds but it is indeed a terribly depressing and graphic picture.

I am very glad you raised that. I was hoping somebody would raise it.

I would just like to suggest in a lighter vein that possibly even a lavatory would be a very much better form of accommodation than a squatter’s home. That is very possible. But I say that it is a great pity that we have to wait for peculiar revelations to stir anyone into action. My suggestion is this. We have a lot of sins to account for. None of us are free of it, unfortunately, particularly in the housing field, of which we have been critical for quite a number of years. We are aware of some of the problems which face the Government and the department, but I say that in a case like this, where we are obviously trying to be of assistance in that we appreciate the problem which the hon. the Minister is facing—not a new problem, but a problem which has occurred with various forms of significance from time to time—this Bill should go to a Select Committee so that we can be satisfied that it will be effective, that it will be practicable and that it will cause no harm to anybody; that it will not be a harsh Bill, a Bill which will upset people and will create a sense of injustice with anyone, but would help the housing problem to resolve itself. I sincerely trust that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to meet us in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned various objections raised by his side of the House to this legislation. I want to exchange a few ideas about what he maintains, viz. that the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech supposedly only applied to the Coloured population. Sir, in all fairness to the hon. the Minister who introduced this legislation, the hon. member and those on his side of the House who described this legislation as only applying to the Coloured population, must realize that they are making a major blunder, because nowhere in the existing Act, Act No. 52 of 1951, is a section of the population mentioned to which this Act applies, and nowhere in the amendment Bill at present before the House is there a single clause stating that this legislation applies to a specific section of the population. It applies, Sir, to all sections of the population—to White, Brown, Black and Indian. Anyone who wishes this country of ours and its people well, can only support this legislation. Sir, hon. members on the other side of the House raised various aspects which really jolt one and cause one to ask oneself whether the hon. members opposite are really concerned about the people of the Republic. Are these people really sincere in their approach to this legislation? Let us take note of a few facts furnished in his speech by the hon. member for Rondebosch. He states, inter alia, the following (Hansard, 10 May 1976)—

It sounds as if the hon. member is referring to a lot of animals who are chased to and fro, as if this is the way the Government deals with the inhabitants of this country. He goes on—

viz. to chase people like rabbits and chase them to and fro like dogs. This Government does not consist of political opportunists, nor does it want to exploit people politically. The intentions of the Government in regard to the Coloureds are also sincere. In the same speech the hon. member for Rondebosch goes on to say—

Here again we have the old colour sense—

In other words, it is the officials of the Department of Community Development who are concerned with the implementation of this policy. They are Whites, and by implication the hon. member for Rondebosch is stating that through the implementation of this legislation they are arousing a sense of race and are inciting race unrest. Let us consider the matter if it is applied consistently. When the hon. member moves among the non-Whites in Somerset West or in Nyanga, is he inciting race hatred? Nevertheless the hon. member states that when the White person implements this legislation he is engaged in inciting race unrest.

It can happen.

In other words, it can also happen as a result of the hon. member’s visiting Nyanga and Somerset West? We see, therefore, that these people are not always consistent and I doubt whether they are always politically honest in their approach to this legislation. Let us consider what the hon. member for Edenvale said earlier this afternoon. The hon. member referred to Somerset West and created the impression that a major injustice to the Coloured population there was being perpetrated. I wonder whether the hon. member is aware that only one-eighth of the number of families in Somerset West who have to be moved, were the owners of plots. Twenty-two of the 40 families had to be moved as a result of a road-building programme through that residential area. A striking aspect of the hon. member’s argument that a major injustice to the Coloureds is here being perpetrated, is the fact that they do not also refer to the White families at Firgrove who had to be moved so that the Coloureds could be accommodated there. I personally know of such moves.

That, too, is wrong.

But the hon. member does not mention it. He is only concerned about the situation of the non-Whites and mentions nothing about the Whites who also have to make sacrifices for the sake of better relations. The hon. member keeps quiet about that. It is striking that hon. members adopt such tactics.

The hon. member wanted to know what the position was in respect of the Coloureds living in Somerset West or Stellenbosch who came to seek work in Cape Town and whose employer had to submit a certificate under the Amendment Bill before the House as proof that that Coloured could in fact be accommodated somewhere. The person cannot squat in Cape Town. After all, he has a dwelling in Stellenbosch. The teacher, too, who comes to work temporarily in Cape Town has a dwelling at Stellenbosch. After all, he is not coming to squat in the Cape Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether it is expected of the employer, when the employee informs him that he has accommodation at Stellenbosch to determine whether the man does in fact have accommodation at Stellenbosch, to determine whether the man does in fact stay at Stellenbosch and whether he has a place to stay there?

If the hon. member reads the Amendment Bill and studies it properly he will find that it provides for the case of a person resident in one residential area going to work in another. In such a case the employer has to furnish a certificate stating that the employee has accommodation in his new area of employment. That is what the legislation provides. Hon. members are really splitting hairs.

The hon. member for Parktown proposed an amendment this afternoon which implies that the Amendment Bill makes provision for punitive measures. Does the Bill really contain a punitive element. Who, then, is to be punished under the legislation? I shall come back to this shortly. Another section of the amendment relates to the generation of so-called race friction. The amendment contains a third element too, viz. that the restraining role of the courts is impeded. Do the hon. members of the PRP want to intimate that the courts must be used to commit injustice, viz. to oppose the implementation of an Act? These are questions which occur to me with regard to the amendment.

The official Opposition asks that a Select Committee be appointed to carry out an investigation into this legislation. I want to state, in all humility, that we are dealing with an amendment Bill which seeks to promote the welfare of the Coloured population. In this case we refer to the Coloureds, for the sake of argument because it is specifically the Coloureds whose interests we have very much at heart, even though hon. members do not always want to admit this. The Government, too, has the well-being and the welfare of the Coloureds at heart. Can you imagine a greater exploitation of people than that which occurs among the Coloured families, almost 22 000 of them, around Cape Town? These people are exploited in every way. These people need advice and guidance in many respects, by way of legislation, too. In many respects we must still act as guardians towards these people, and this is also true in respect of squatting. Can we close our eyes to the way in which these people are being used for political gain? Listening to arguments from the other side, I wonder what the attitude of those people really is in respect of the squatters on the Cape Flats, for example. I have in mind, for example, the case which the hon. member for Jeppe has just mentioned, of squatters who had to seek refuge in a toilet. Surely these are people with a certain attitude to life, people who, formerly, had had good housing, but who now have to seek refuge in a toilet room. Surely this is something which must be rectified by way of legislation, legislation which enables the officials to carry out a policy calculated to improve the living conditions of—in this case—the Coloureds.

When I consider what we see with regard to these people, I want to ask this question: According to police reports, where do we have a higher crime rate than among these people? We must bear in mind, too, that many of these instances of crime are not even brought to light, and that many of these crimes are committed against other Coloured inhabitants of these areas. There is a reign of terror in these squatter camps. Where do more assaults, and even rapes, take place? There are also many instances of smuggling. Sir, the squatter camps we see are breeding grounds and places of evil.

Sir, let us take the issue of malnutrition. How many cases of malnutrition are there in these squatter camps as a result of unemployment, the low wages these people negotiate and the unlimited population increase which causes this problem to increase steadily? Let us also consider the unhygienic conditions there. Have these squatter camps not become the breeding grounds of unhygienic conditions?These are unhygienic conditions which also affect other sections of the Coloured population.

Then, too, there is the matter of unsightliness of squatter camps. Sir, show me any country in the world which has done more for the lesser privileged section of its population than the Government of the Republic of South Africa has done in respect of housing for Coloureds. Nowhere in the world do we find a greater effort being made by the more well-off for the sake of the lesser privileged section of the population than we have had with regard to housing for the Coloureds. And yet, in spite of the millions of rands which are being pumped into housing for Coloureds, nevertheless we have the unsightliness of squatter camps. As the hon. member for Pinetown mentioned earlier, it has become a way of life among these people. It has become part of their personalities. Should we not guide those people towards a better way of life, also by way of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry; I am not prepared to answer questions now. Sir, must we remain silent with regard to the exploitation that occurs among these people? Surely we are not blind. We now have cases where employers go to those squatter camps and get Coloureds there to work for them at an unlivable wage because they know that they are able to exploit those people who come to squat around the cities and are at a disadvantage. This is outrageous exploitation, Sir, and I as a White person can say without fear of contradiction that if we have the interests of those people at heart, we must take cognizance of this exploitation which is occurring among those Coloureds, Coloureds who are often good people, but who deteriorate there owing to the conditions they live in. Surely we will agree that to uplift a person in a real sense is to uplift him spiritually. I have never once heard a single member opposite— and this includes the hon. member for Pinelands—referring to the spiritual upliftment which must be carried out among these people. I have never yet heard the hon. member for Pinetown—a clergyman on the English-speaking side—referring to the necessity for the spiritual upliftment of these people. The hon. member is silent because he has become so twisted politically that he no longer has an eye or a heart for the spiritual aspect. It seems to me that that is the case. It seems to me that those sitting opposite are lost souls, as the hon. member for Brakpan put it. How can work of spiritual upliftment ever be done among those people, among the squatters, in that situation? Surely it is humanly impossible, I am tempted to say it is even so for our Father in Heaven, to work there. Must we not provide better houses for those people? The hon. member for Rondebosch may as well shake his head. He will have to shake his head a lot more in his life time. However, the fact must be acknowledged that pastoral work must be done. It cannot be done without better housing. Has a single member opposite referred to the squatter camps as breeding grounds for communism? I have not yet heard one of them referred to this danger.

I want to state in all humility that these squatter camps are breeding grounds for communism. This must have repercussions in the worker’s trade union or his workers’ groups. In order to rectify that situation, too, it is essential that this legislation be placed on the Statute Book and that it be done as soon as possible. With this better housing we shall find that the advantages of family planning can really be brought home to these people. I believe that this is possible. I believe that with better housing it will really be possible to have decent and sound family welfare among these people. I believe, too, that together with better housing, better education—which is surely the key to development for every population group—is really a necessity, and that in this regard education must also be included. Squatting is a factor which restricts the process of development. When we refer to upliftment, we must also mention the factor of development, the development which these people really need, because I believe that with development we shall make a vast contribution to the development and upliftment of that squatter who, at present, is really a problem for us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Somerset East mentioned many points in his speech. I shall try to reply to some of them in my speech. One of the things which amazed me was his reference to the spiritual upliftment of squatters and he wondered why hon. members on this side of the House had not spoken about spiritual upliftment. If he looks at the Bill, he will find no reference to spiritual upliftment there. Perhaps he should direct that query to the hon. the Minister. This is the first time that I have heard that one has to have decent housing before one can be spiritually uplifted, that housing is an absolute prerequisite for spiritual upliftment. I believe that people can be spiritually uplifted and helped whatever their housing conditions are, and perhaps the more humble their conditions are, the more essential that uplifting is. One of the other aspects that the hon. member mentioned was that he believed that squatter camps were dens from where communism could be spread. I think that we all accept that wherever you have misery, it is food for communistic agitators. Obviously, everybody realizes that one must do as much as possible to destroy the root cause of misery. The hon. member also talked about race relations and referred in this connection to the speech of the hon. member for Rondebosch. I would like to deal with that aspect first because I think it is most important.

One of the pitfalls the Government must guard against is legislation of a nature which will result in Blacks equating their hardships and their misery with the White political system that governs them. I think this is something which we all accept is important. We all know that misery is a human condition which is very prevalent in the world today, and it is also true that much of that misery results from social and economic conditions which are really beyond the control of most of us.

We must accept however that legislation which is insensitive to the needs of people, especially when it is imposed by an unsympathetic and soulless bureaucracy, adds greatly to the load of misery that people have to bear. Apart from the humanistic considerations, however, there is a very valid political consideration which, in my opinion, the Government underestimates to a great extent. When people have come to equate their own personal misery with Government action, they do not properly apportion a part of their over-all misery to Government action and a part to their own socio-economic conditions. They put all the blame for their misery on the Government. It is a natural reaction that happens throughout the world.

They then fall an easy prey to people who agitate, claiming that all that is necessary to get rid of all their misery is to topple the political system which governs them. This syndrome of blaming all misery on the Government becomes very emotionally charged when the racial aspect is also introduced, a situation we have here in South Africa, because here the governing class is White while the proletariat, where the majority of the economic and social misery happens to exist, is Black. Where cause for equating misery with government is allowed to escalate, one finds a Black/White polarization which is the very situation all of us in this House want to avoid. Punitive legislation such as this—in terms of which people’s houses are pulled down and they are removed from shelters they want for themselves and their children, without being able to replace these shelters with anything else, and in terms of which people are denied the opportunity to earn income because they cannot meet certain prerequisites which the Government puts forward—is very dangerous indeed in the context of what I have just said. Perhaps that answers the question put forward by the hon. member for Somerset East.

I now want to deal with a further point. This Government is very accustomed to bringing to this House enabling Bills which give them vast powers. At a later stage, however, we then find that the powers they have taken are being utilized totally different from those asked for in this House. The fact of the matter is that the Government is taking some very extensive powers in terms of this Bill. I think we should look into this matter.

One of the things the Government is presently doing is to use powers it has had from previous Acts to bludgeon unwilling Blacks into adhering to certain ideological prerequisites of the Government. I am now referring to the recent move on the part of the Government to force unwilling Blacks to take out homeland citizenship papers, and doing this by threatening to remove them from their source of income if they do not comply. In terms of the Government Gazette of 7 May, traders and professional people in Soweto first have to produce their homeland citizenship papers if they want to get a site on which to carry on their trade. If they do not, a site is denied to them and they are consequently deprived of their source of income.

What we have in the proposed new section 3C are powers which the hon. the Minister is requesting and which he can exercise over a particular area in respect of any specific population group. One cannot help feeling that the time is going to come when there will be a proclamation of this nature specifying Blacks in an urban area which will have the effect that when they want to change jobs, and move from one local authority to another, they will have to produce this particular certificate of “proper housing”. I have a horrible suspicion …

Yes, horrible.

… that when the time comes for them to go and get their certificate of “proper housing”, the prerequisites the Government is going to lay down will be that they also have to be in a position of a citizenship certificate. The evidence is there because the principle is already in force, i.e. if one cannot get people to do something by good will and if one cannot convince them of the fact that one’s policy is right and that it is their own interests to take out homeland citizenship papers, one “blackmails” them into a situation, as the Blacks themselves refer to it. I have a feeling that if we pass this legislation as it stands, this particular clause, which is being requested for a particular function, is eventually going to be utilized for some very different function. This something which will have to be looked at. The facts are all there and there is no safeguard at all that this will not be used for purposes totally unrelated to squatters.

One of the other aspects of this Bill on which I should like to talk is the impact which a proclamation in terms of the proposed section 3C will have on the Black community if such a proclamation is promulgated in respect of that particular population group. We are all aware that there is a very critical housing shortage for the urban Blacks. Everybody is aware of it. Because of this critical housing shortage many Blacks live in circumstances which simply do not meet the requirements of proper housing. This is a fact. It will mean that many people will be unable to change their jobs because changing their jobs may mean moving from one local authority to another local authority. They will not be able to move from one local authority to another because they are not lucky enough to have housing conditions which will satisfy the arbitrary requirements of the department. The impact of this restriction on people whom we all know are in addition not able to join any recognized trade union will be to put them completely at the mercy of their employer. We were also told by the hon. member for Somerset East of exploitation of people who live in squatter camps, but here we have a situation where a man cannot change his job because if he wants to change his job, he needs a particular certificate but he cannot get that certificate since he cannot meet the housing prerequisite. What does it mean to him? He is stuck with the job in which he is and because he has no trade union to fend for his rights, he is completely at the mercy of his employer. I think that once this sort of thing becomes predominant, we will leave ourselves open to the enemies of South Africa criticizing us, by pointing to this legislation and saying that it is part of institutionalized Black exploitation— slave labour, and all the other things which are said about us. This is a side effect of the Bill to which the hon. the Minister has not given his attention, but it is a very important one.

Whilst dealing with this particular issue, I wonder whether the Government has given due consideration to the distortion which proclamations in terms of the proposed section 3C will bring about in the normal relationship between a person’s working career and his housing. When a person starts off his working career, he normally starts off from the protection of his parents’ home. It so happens, because of the critical housing shortage and the working conditions of many of the Black people of this country, that many people will find themselves, trying to get their first job, without proper housing facilities because the housing facilities with which they have always lived in under their parents’ roof does not meet the requirements of the department. This means that these people will initially actually be unable to get themselves a job because they will be tied up in all the red tape unable to get that one very, very vital certificate which entitles them to seek a job. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has given this consideration any thought at all. We are dealing with a blanket regulation which affects millions of people. It lies in the hands of the bureaucracy which has certain laid down standards that it has to apply. The bureaucracy does not have the time to assess the merits of each individual case.

We are still waiting for the Government to tell us what actually is going to happen physically with all the people who will have their shanties broken down or who will not be allowed to build such shanties. What is physically going to happen to these people whom the Government does not want to have in those areas? Are these people going to be allowed to move in with other people who perhaps have housing which is reasonable? Well, if that is going to be permitted, then where before you had a house which houses say six people, you now are going to have 12 people in it. Are these people going to be shifted and, if so, where are they going to be shifted to? These people are living in their shacks and shanties and, once those shacks and shanties are destroyed, what is going to be done, physically, with those people? This is a question we are still waiting for the Government to answer.

The hon. member for Jeppe, I think, mentioned the impact this kind of Bill can have on the economy of the country. I think it is a very dangerous thing, particularly at this point in time when one of the tremendous challenges of the economy is faced with, is to create job opportunities to allow people to earn the wherewithal in order to be able to—inter alia—afford their houses, in order to satisfy the hon. the Minister, etc. Once one makes it impossible for the labour market to be mobile, one does the economy a great disservice. This will hang yet another millstone around the neck of the economy in its endeavours to create these job opportunities. Apart from that, it serves to reduce the productivity of the economy and to increase inflation. These are all unfortunate side-effects of this Bill. I hope that, when the hon. the Minister replies, he will give consideration to all these side-effects of the Bill that I have mentioned. As we have said, we do not believe that this Bill is a positive Bill in any way at all. We believe it is punitive and negative. We believe it does not even begin to touch on the problem of squatters and that it has a whole series of very adverse spin-off effects which, I think, are going to create many more problems than the hon. the Minister realizes.

Mr. Speaker, for many years we struggled to get rid of the people who were always talking of “home”. It seems to me we shall have to keep on struggling for many more years before we are rid of the colonialists in our country. The hon. member for Randburg covered rather a wide field in his discussion of this legislation. While one was listening to his speech, one wondered what the theme of his speech really was. There is one thing I just want to tell him, and that is that shanty towns are the result of squatting, and not the cause of it. If one could put a stop to squatting, one would no longer have shanty towns and it would not be necessary to move people.

The Opposition parties referred to this legislation as being a covert form of influx control. I do not want to deny it. In essence it is precisely the same. Therefore I should just like to refer hon. members to what the Opposition’s view on influx control is. The hon. member for Hillbrow said in this House on 30 August 1974 (Hansard, 1974, col. 1901)—

I wonder what else but this is being said through this legislation. The hon. member for Houghton said on 7 August of the same year (Hansard, 1974, col. 215)—

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. This is also the case, for it is stated there. But what about the people who have been moved voluntarily? The hon. member says that there may be no removal. She simply wants to be able to place the blame on the shoulders of the Government. That is typical. If the people themselves wish to move, then they may simply go to another place without schools, clinics, accommodation, etc. But if the hon. member is able to hold the Government responsible for it, then it is … [Interjections.]

Let us see what one of the Black leaders has to say about this. What did Mangope say? I am quoting from the Rand Daily Mail of 15 March 1975—

Mangope was quoted further, as follows—

Is that Mangope now?

That is what he says. These are his words. They continue—

They continue—

This is how these people see the position. Squatting and slum conditions are unfortunately a world-wide phenomenon. One may approach it from different points of view. In the first place one may try to prevent it. This is precisely what this Bill is aiming at. Seldom has a more positive Bill been presented to this House than this one, a positive Bill with regard to those who are, in essence, affected by it. It does not affect the Whites, except when they create these conditions themselves. That is why it is being said that the owner will not be prosecuted when he provides accommodation, provided it complies with the health requirements. Surely that is logical. In addition the Bill provides that no person may be brought into the area if the person who is doing so does not have consent to do that or is not in possession of a permit to provide those persons with accommodation. It is that simple.

What is at issue is not the employer; it is not the Whites; it is not the person in the area. What is at issue is those who are squatting in the area. If there is anyone who does not consider this to be positive legislation, I do not know what positive legislation is.

One is able to consider this matter from another point of view, i.e. an economic point of view. Unfortunately it is true—the hon. member for Pinelands, who, according to my information, was a preacher, also referred to this—that 25% of the squatters earn less than R50 a month. However, the hon. member did not once refer to the employer who exploits this head of a family for R50 a month. A great deal has been said about farm labour and the remuneration of farm labourers.

And the Union Hotel?

Apart from the Union Hotel there is no non-White farm labourer who earns a net income of less than R50 per month. Here a person has to come and work, obtain his own accommodation, provide his own transport, and do all that on an income of R50 a month. Why is it possible to pay him only R50 a month? This simple reason for it is that this person is illegally present in the area concerned. No one is prepared to pay more for an article than the seller charges for it. In this case the seller is the labourer and the purchaser the employer. If the employer is able to obtain the services of the employee at R50 a month, he will accept them. The employer will obtain those services because the employee knows that he is illegally present in the area concerned. Therefore he cannot insist on better remuneration. That is why these things happen. But now it is true that many of those who are here in our White area are people who are in fact homeland citizens. We see in Die Transvaler of the 11th that the Transkeian Minister of the Interior said—

One fact which we should not lose sight of, is that the only source of capital formation of our homelands, is the people who are at present going out to work in the White area. They earn money there, and also acquire the necessary knowledge and skill which they can eventually employ in their homeland for the economic development of that homeland. For that reason I think that we in this House ought to advocate far more often that our industrialists should develop the border industries and the homeland industries rather than attract Black persons to our White cities since they will in any case, according to this statement, only be there temporarily. But now there is another angle from which one can consider this matter, and that is the political angle. The hon. member for Somerset East also referred to this. I am referring to a report in The Star of 24 November 1946.

1946?

Yes, 1946; this was prior to 1948. In that report is stated—it is strange that this comes from The Star, which has changed completely since then—

It is still precisely the same today.

This was in 1946 and today, if I were able to say, in common with the hon. member, that this is still their approach to the matter, one could in fact be very happy. I no longer expect to read such a report in The Star, but now we have here in the book by Peter Marris, Family and Social Change in an African City, a report on the situation in Lagos, a report which appeared in the Daily Times many years ago, in 1956. It read—

This happened in Lagos, but can you imagine, Sir, anything like this happening in South Africa? One house had to be demolished there, and this is the number of police officers who had to be called in and the number of arrests that had to be made. If anything of this nature had to happen in South Africa—well, there are quite a few members even in this House who would not wait to send such a report overseas. This is the purpose for which these squatter camps and slum conditions may also be used. It is unfortunately the one purpose for which they are used a great deal, and the reason why there are many people in this country who would like to see this situation continue to exist. I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department require the powers which they are requesting from this House by means of this legislation, not only in the interests of the people who are at present the unfortunate inhabitants of those shanties, but also in the interests of our entire country, in the interests of sound race relations and in the interests of better housing for the people who really need it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the case put forward by the hon. member for Green Point when he suggested that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for further consideration. I do so not because of ignorance or a lack of awareness of the urgency or the magnitude of the problem with which we have to deal, but there is one thing I know and that is that if we want to solve the problem, it is going to involve the dedicated co-operation not only of the State, but of all race groups, the private sector and the organizations that are created in the Coloured and Bantu communities. We need all their co-operation. The hon. member for Losberg referred to the problem of influx control. We on this side of the House do not like this legislation because it is going to impose—whether we like it or not—a certain amount of influx control in respect of the Coloured population group. At the present time they have freedom of movement, they have the right to sell their labour in the best market, and I believe it will not be in the interests of the situation if we take any steps that may now curtail that situation. If this is going to be curtailed, in the way suggested in this Bill, I can only say I think it is a very unreasonable way of trying to do it. The one thing that puzzles me is that in a matter like this, which influences or affects so many sectors of our economy and our social life, the hon. the Minister who introduced this legislation has not told us about the amount of consultation which has been carried out with other organizations that will have an interest in this particular matter. The hon. the Minister said that the matter had been referred to the municipalities concerned, but I should like him to tell us which municipalities he consulted.

It was with the United Municipal Executive.

I want to know if there has been direct consultation with the Divisional Council here in the Cape, with the Cape Town City Council, with the East London City Council and the Port Elizabeth City Council. I want to know if there has been liaison with the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries who will be radically affected by the implementation of this legislation. I also want to know whether the hon. the Minister has spoken to the Sakekamer and, above all, I want to know if there has been consultation with the administrators or the elected leaders of the Coloured populations group, and also whether the CRC has been consulted about this matter. Have the elected representatives of the different areas here in the Cape been consulted? In addition I want to know whether the management committees of the various municipalities in the Cape were consulted. Surely, these are the people who are affected, the people who have been elected to look after the interests of the Coloured people. If we want to attempt meaningful control of the situation, what is absolutely imperative is that we have the full co-operation of the elected leaders of those people. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this has been done and what the reaction of these different duly elected representatives has been. I have evidence here—I need not quote it—to indicate that certain of the Coloured leaders have taken very strong exception to certain facets of this legislation, I think quite justifiably so.

Name one or two of them?

I am not going to name anyone here, but I have the facts here and I shall give them to the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister tells me that there has been consultation, that the duly elected representatives in the CRC and the members of the different management committees are satisfied that the way in which the Minister is tackling this problem is in the best interests of everybody, I would also accept that. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Having seen the problem throughout the length and breadth of the country, I am quite convinced that if it is humanly possible we should try to solve the problem without introducing additional legislation. We already have legislation which serves to control illegal squatting, for example the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, 1951, the Slums Act and the Housing Act, and we also have building regulations which are applied by local authorities. If these Acts are applied, surely there is sufficient control to deal with the matter on an effective basis.

Are you satisfied with the position in the Cape Flats?

No, I am very dissatisfied about that. However, if we get the co-operation of everybody concerned, I think we can solve the problem without additional legislation. That is my opinion. [Interjections.]

Has anybody given his cooperation so that the problem can be solved?

I am positive that co-operation will be achieved if we go about the whole matter in the right way.

I mentioned the fact that we already have various laws in this regard. I have here the building regulations of one of the local authorities of the divisional council. They amended their ordinances just recently. Their building regulations now read as follows—

That is the regulation. There is a tremendous amount of control.

I also have a copy of a circular that is sent out to every person who must apply for such a permit before being permitted to erect any such structure as is described in the particular clause I quoted. It states—

So it goes on to give details of what they may not do without the prior permission of this particular local authority.

What about this legislation?

I am telling hon. members about legislation that already exists. Why worry about more legislation? We must get on with the job. The hon. member knows that the only way to solve the problem is to build houses. The more houses we build, the sooner the problem will be solved. I have taken the trouble to go and see the way in which local authorities are operating. They are dealing with the problem in a very humane way.

I have personally seen the extent to which the local authorities are trying to apply their minds to controlling the problem. They are as much aware of the problems as we are on this side of the House. I am glad to say that members on the other side of the House are also aware of the magnitude of the problem. They are making extensive surveys. They are not only investigating the size of the huts, but also what they are made of, how many people live there and what these people are earning. They have a very good record of these things.

Who is doing that?

Local authorities. The hon. the Minister is smiling. Does he find any snag in this? The work is being done well, so I do not see why the hon. the Minister wants more legislation to control the situation.

If the hon. the Minister consults with other organizations, e.g. charitable organizations, the Chamber of Commerce the Chamber of Industries and local authorities, I am quite sure he will find a tremendous amount of cooperation from their side in trying to solve a problem which we realize has to be tackled urgently and solved quickly. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this question: When a shack is demolished because someone is living there illegally or because the shack has been built there illegally, where does that shack-dweller go? Where must he go once his presence or his shack has been declared illegal? Where must he find another home? If he is evicted, all he does is to attempt to build another shack somewhere, or he goes to live with someone else in an already overcrowded situation. We cannot solve that problem through legislation alone.

I want to say, however that I go a long way with the hon. the Minister when he says that the real solution to this problem lies in building more houses. I know that this is the department’s view, and I accept it as the correct stance in this matter, but I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has explored all the channels that are open to him to expedite the provision of houses which are so urgently necessary. Only recently the regulations have been tremendously eased, and I want to compliment the department for taking what I accept is a realistic stance. The utility companies are now allowed to operate on a new basis. They were stopped by this Government in 1964 from building houses for the Coloured people, but the hon. the Minister, together with his department, has now realized that it was a wrong move. He is now permitting chambers of commerce and industry and employers to embark on very sensible housing schemes within Coloured areas. This is going to expedite the building of houses tremendously. I do not think, Sir, that we must assume that because the utility companies and the chambers of industry and commerce are building houses for the richer people, it is not going to help relieve the situation for the squatting public. If you create upward mobility for the occupiers of these houses, it means that many of these sub-economic schemes will become available to relieve the squatting situation. I believe, therefore that the hon. the Minister must co-operate with these people and make it easier in the future for them to participate in building houses for these people at as fast a rate as possible. That is the solution, Sir, and not legislation.

That is a good suggestion, but it is of course not new.

It may not be new, but what is new is that the Government recently changed its mind in respect of the building of houses in Coloured areas.

We have already investigated it.

Yes, but it took a long time.

*The hon. member for Tygervallei has said that this legislation is merely a deterrent, and that we should have a deterrent. I want to say to him that a deterrent is only temporary. I presume he knows what happens to a deterrent on a farm. If the birds eat all your wheat, you put a scarecrow there, but what happens then? After a week or two those birds make their nests inside that scarecrow. We shall find the same thing happening with regard to this legislation. It might help us temporarily, but in the end we shall find that it does not help at all.

†We have to have a realistic approach to this matter, and we must take steps that will not only have a short-term effect, but which will solve this problem on a permanent basis.

Sir, one wonders where the squatters come from. One wonders why there is such an influx of people into the big metropolitan areas. One of the reasons is that about 25% of that influx originates from the country. We are faced with an irresistible urge on the part of people who cannot find employment in the country districts to seek work where work apparently is available. Unless the hon. the Minister is going to accept this as an irresistible situation, something which he cannot stop, it will go on in spite of any legislation which he puts on the Statute Book. This is where I feel he is missing the point entirely. Speaking as a farmer, I want to say that there is never going to be an opportunity for all the young Coloured people who are growing up on my farm to be employed there. I am not any different from any other farmer. These young Coloured boys get educated, they pass Std. 5 and Std. 6, but there is no more work for them in the country districts. Where will they go to? I want the hon. the Minister to tell me how he is going to solve that problem. Has he thought about it? Has he investigated the matter? If they come here and are not given a place to stay and are not given a job, they are going to squat in some other place. One other hon. member mentioned Calvinia and said: “Die mense trek in van die plattelandse distrikte soos Calvinia en soortgelyke plekke.” If he cannot get a job here, he is going to squat in Calvinia. He is going to squat in Graaff-Reinet. He is going to squat in Cradock.

That is not so.

That is so. Of course it is true! I have seen it happening. I would like to ask the hon. member for Tygervallei what is going to happen to these people. It is alleged that 25% of those who are squatting or coming here and not having houses, come from the country districts.

That is right.

If they are not able to come in, what are they going to do? Where are they going to find employment. Where can they find a house? I want to tell the hon. member that the housing problems in the country towns are just as bad as they are here in the large metropolitan areas.

†When the hon. the Minister says that he wants more legislation and wants to try and control the situation, I say to him that he should rather give our proposal an opportunity. Let us have a good look at it. Let us get all the people who know about this problem and who have had experience with it to come and talk to us and see if we cannot get a better solution before putting legislation on the Statute Book. If people come here and are looking for work and for a house and you suddenly pass legislation which makes it illegal, you are actually making criminals out of people who want to do an honest job of work. I think that this is something which we have to avoid at all costs. The hon. the Minister said that within seven or eight years he is going to solve, he thinks, the housing problem in the Republic. But he says he is not with that statement placing his political reputation at stake. I do not want to hold him to it. However, what I do want to say is that every time a Minister or a senior official of the department makes a statement to the effect that they are going to solve the housing problem in South Africa within seven or eight years, there is always added “provided the funds are available”. The hon. the Minister said that too. When this very session started there were announcements that there were going to be cuts in respect of expenditure on housing and I immediately began to wonder what was going to happen to the housing problem in the seven to eight years. Fortunately the hon. the Minister has told us now that funds are being made available to him by overseas investors. He has said that this may increase very substantially the number of houses that he can provide, and I hope that when he replies to this debate he will indicate more fully how that scheme will operate. In considering ways and means of trying to solve the housing shortage, not only must he apply the full financial capacity of the country—I believe this is a top priority problem—but he must go further than that. In many cities, like the city which I happen to represent in this House, we tend to spend a lot of our money, time, energy and building capacity on breaking down buildings which could serve the town or city still for many years to come. A lot of our building capacity is taken up in renovating old buildings or in breaking down buildings that are still perfectly all right, simply for the urgency of urban renewal. This is capacity that is being lost to the provision of housing for the poorer sections of our population.

The hon. the Minister has raised one or two points that I believe are positive steps in the programme to curtail the housing shortage and as such the squatting problem. One thing he has done is to increase the salary ceiling for sub-economic housing. That has been a positive step, but that alone is not going to enable every person who is at present in possession of a shack or who is living in a squatters’ camp to afford a house because many of them are at present earning salaries of less than R100 per month. Sometimes they are earning only R80 or R60 a month. The hon. the Minister will have to solve that problem in a different way. The piece of legislation at present before us does, however, have one positive aspect in that it makes reference to emergency camps. In spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister says that his policy, and that of his department, is to avoid making use of emergency camps, I believe that he will have to re-investigate that matter. It does not matter how he implements this legislation, there is going to be an interim period when thousands upon thousands of people are going to be left without proper housing. The one way he can obviate this is by the site-and-service scheme suggested by the hon. member for Green Point.

What if they become permanent camps?

I do not think we must repeat the mistake that was made at Elsies River, where we allowed a site-and-service scheme to eventually become a permanent slum. I believe, however, that with the lessons we have learnt we can have properly controlled emergency camps. I do not really like calling them emergency camps. I think we could rather call them site-and-service schemes. The hon. the Minister may be interested to go and visit Malawi, like the hon. member for Green Point. There they have solved that problem to a very large extent on that basis. The hon. member for Green Point spoke about that. I believe that scheme has been tremendously successful. There will be an interim period, and that is the way I think the hon. the Minister should try to solve this problem.

The hon. the Minister is very concerned about what he calls “plakkerboerdery”. He is trying to use this legislation to eliminate this.

I am trying to limit it.

Well, if he wants to “limit it”, or let us be more optimistic and say that if he wants to eliminate it entirely—and we on this side of the House feel as strongly about this matter as he does—people who are prepared to exploit the poorer sector for their own personal gain, should be outlawed as ruthlessly as possible. That can find no acceptance from any quarter. The reason why that “plakkerboerdery” can take place is simply because there is a shortage of land for building houses, a shortage of land where these people can establish themselves, and the hon. the Minister will have to think very seriously of making more land available for the Coloured population, and I am at present referring more specifically to the Coloured population group. I think that the amount of land available for the Coloured people in South Africa is far too little, and this is one of the basic causes of the serious problems we are facing with group areas today.

Finally, I want to raise the question of group areas. The hon. the Minister referred to this. He said that the group areas measure was one of the most successful measures in solving, to a large extent, the housing problem in South Africa. I think this is what he said.

I never voted against it; did you?

We did not vote against group areas in principle, but time and again in this House we have very severely criticized the Government for the way group areas have been applied in South Africa. I believe, too, that in respect of this matter it has been the indecision of the Government in timeously proclaiming residential areas for the Coloured people that has caused and contributed to the housing shortage in this country. Very often they have been waiting because there has been a hesitancy. There has been, as the Afrikaner says, “omslagtigheid” and inter-departmental delays because of one department waiting for another. In the meantime no houses were built. To a very large extent I do not agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that the group areas measure has effectively helped to build more houses in South Africa.

In this regard I should also like to raise the question of Somerset West. The hon. the Minister of Community Development will be interested in the situation at Somerset West. In order to implement group areas in Somerset West, people are now required to move from places where they have been living for 100 years. I hope the hon. the Minister as well as the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, will take the opportunity of telling us what their reactions are going to be to the problem in Somerset West where Coloured people have been living for a very long time but have now, in terms of group areas legislation, been asked to move to other areas.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is another step towards trying to solve the housing problem and indirectly the squatting problem. It is not enough to say that 25% of the houses which become available should be used for resettlement in terms of group areas legislation, but he must also impose a complete moratorium. He must say that resettlement will stop until we have solved the housing problem and the squatting problem. That is what we must do.

Now you are spoiling what has been a good speech up to this point. [Interjections.]

I am being perfectly frank and this is the realistic approach. If tomorrow he said to the people in Somerset West that the Government is reconsidering the whole question and until the housing problem is solved, not a single Coloured person will be asked to relinquish the property which he now owns in that township, that to me would be a realistic approach.

But you do not know what you are talking about.

Of course I do. I have been there and I have made a thorough investigation of the situation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the greatest hurt that one can cause those people is to move them out of an area where they have lived for more than a century. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations is having a private debate across the floor of the House, but I want him to deny that the position in Somerset West is such that the people who are living there want to stay there because that has been their home for a long time.

Are you referring to the owners or to the squatters there?

I am not referring to the squatters, but to the owners. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a very long debate on this important issue and I do not propose delaying the House very much this evening. I know the hon. the Minister is anxious to reply at some length to this debate. I feel that most of the cogent points have been covered, more particularly, by hon. members on these benches. To my mind anyway the hon. members for Rondebosch and Pinelands made two excellent in-depth speeches on the whole subject of squatting, a subject about which they have made a particular study—the one more particularly on Coloured squatting and the other on African squatting in the Western Cape.

I rise to support the amendment moved by my friend, the hon. member for Parktown, and in so doing I must say that it is unfortunate that the Bill we are considering has so many negative qualities. It is for that reason that I think it necessary that the amendment of the hon. member should be supported. As we know, there are severe penalties for owners of land on which squatters are found. Demolition can be carried out by the owner or by the local authority without a court order. Furthermore, the necessity has been introduced for would-be employers to produce a certificate to the effect that housing will be available for would-be employees. I believe that all this will have three consequences. Firstly, there is an assault on the common law in South Africa. The very fact that demolition can now be carried out without a court order means that our common law situation, which jealously guards the right of possession, has in fact been undermined. Secondly, the courts of law themselves have been circumvented. The fact that demolition can now take place without a court order is just another example of the lack of respect with which we in this House are beginning more and more to treat the courts of law. While I am on this subject, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends to apply the Bantu (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act.

I do not deal with the Blacks. I do not deal with Bantu Administration.

Yes, I realize that. On the other hand, I think it is the hon. the Minister’s department that is ultimately responsible for the provision of housing funds. Is that not so?

The money is channelled through the Housing Commission.

Yes, but that falls under the hon. the Minister and also there are African squatter camps, which presumably are going to be affected by this Bill because this Bill is not only to effect the removal of Coloured squatters, but will also effect the removal of African squatters. I think that this is correct. I ask this question and perhaps the hon. the Minister will go into it, because a mysterious Government Gazette emerged in connection with which I believe there was some mistake …

I cannot hear you clearly. Perhaps I am growing old.

No, perhaps it is I who is getting old; or perhaps we are both getting old together. I find that a very touching thought. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate a proclamation which appeared in the Government Gazette, No. 5081, on 9 April 1976. In terms of this proclamation by the State President the Bantu (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act is applied to the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. This is, of course, very important because it means that not only can demolition be ordered without a court order, but also that there can be no interdict brought to prevent any such action. This is another very serious assault on the legal system of this country.

Thirdly, the fact that the would-be employer must produce a certificate to the effect that housing is available is, I believe, an extension of the undesirable principle of tied housing. The hon. member for Bryanston touched on that in his speech and I fully agree with what he said. It is not desirable that the employee be tied to his employer of the fact that housing is provided. The hon. the Minister and I sat together for many years on a committee on labour matters and I think we were in agreement that this is a bad principle. This Bill, I am sorry to say, extends that. I do not believe that it is in fact the employer’s obligation or duty in an industrial society to provide housing for employees. I believe the employer pays the State by means of taxes and that it is therefore up to the State to provide sub-economic housing for those who cannot afford it and to provide a measure of economic housing for other people. For the rest, it must be left to private enterprise.

What has been the position on the mines all along?

Well, I do not agree with the system of migrant labour, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, and hostels.

I am talking of the position on the mines.

I do not agree with that system. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that. I think it is a bad system. I do not like migrant labour in the first instance …

Talk to Oppenheimer.

No, I do not have to talk to Oppenheimer. I have to talk to the Government. I am really not going to get side-tracked by that silly remark.

Come and speak to me.

I will. I shall deal with the hon. the Minister because I happen to believe that he is genuinely concerned about this problem. I think, too, that the fact that it is not necessary for him to provide alternative housing before the demolition of shacks can be ordered is a very depressing aspect of this Bill. In case the hon. the Minister is contemplating taking any immediate steps, I must remind him that winter is rapidly approaching. It is something he must bear in mind because the temper of the people is high. Nothing, I think, could be more calculated to exacerbate bad race relations than the pictures that are bound to appear—and you cannot hide these things from anybody—of thousands of people being rendered homeless because their shacks have been demolished, of people standing in the rain with small children and nowhere to go. It is a pathetic sight and infuriates people as well as upsetting them in the ordinary way.

I am aware that additional moneys have now been voted for the provision of housing, alas too little and too late, and I think this is something with which the hon. the Minister, who has assumed this portfolio only recently, will agree. It is too little and too late to cope with this enormous problem, which has developed as a result of years and years of neglect, of not providing adequate housing for Black people. There has been about seven years of neglect in Johannesburg, but the last three or four years have been the worst. Johannesburg needs something like 2 500houses a year to keep up with the natural increase only. The number of houses built last year in Soweto was something like 761. This year, I believe, the department has the funds for something like 4 000 to 5 000 houses, money which will be spent over the next few years. Of course, it is a drop in the ocean, because there is a shortage of over 20 000 housing units in Johannesburg.

I raise this because I believe, together with the hon. member for Rondebosch, that there is a problem in Soweto of a different sort of squatter camp. I shall come to that in a moment.

In the Cape, where the problem is particularly bad, no houses were built at all last year, and I gather that none are on the drawing board for this year either. That was the case anyway, according to the reply of the hon. the Minister to a question I put to him not so long ago. They have been building hostels, and only hostels, in the Cape since there was a deliberate freeze on the provision of family housing for Africans in the Western Cape as from, I think, 1966 onwards, i.e. over the last ten years. As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has just stated—and I fully agree with him—we have been suffering from years of pirating by the Group Areas Board of houses built by the local authorities for their own populations, houses which have been grabbed by the board in order to provide housing for people who have been moved under group area proclamations. Very many of these people have been moved from houses which were adequate. I do not say they were luxury houses, but they were certainly adequate and provided some form of shelter for these people. Most of all, I think, they are suffering from the result—and I say this to the hon. the Minister in particular, since it is his responsibility—of years of failure by the Government to grasp the real problem, to understand that the situation is not just caused by people who wilfully come into the urban areas in order to defy the law and in order to break the influx control regulations. That is not the position. People do not come in from country districts like Ilinge, Sada, Lady Frere and Cofimvaba and other places in the homelands because they want the city lights. They come in because of the pull factor of the needs of the economy for labour and the job opportunities that are provided in the cities, and they come in because of the push factor of poverty. We have had this over the years. It happened to White people many years ago, and the way in which that problem was solved, was not by pushing them back out of sight, into the country districts, not by driving them back to the land which was the original solution suggested, but by industrialization, by the provision of education and training for their children. That, of course, is what we should be facing up to now. Instead of a poor White problem in South Africa we now have a poor Black problem. I believe that the way to solve that problem is exactly the way in which the poor White problem was solved many years ago in this country.

Now, Sir, I briefly want to return to this problem as it exists in the Cape. Even in terms of the Government’s own policy, there are thousands of people in Cape Town whose presence could be legalized. I am talking now of many of the women who are presently squatting at Crossroads. Many of those women, if not in employment themselves, have husbands who are in legal employment in the Cape, and under section 10(1)(c) there is no reason why those people should not be allowed to stay legally in the area and to have proper housing provided for them. People who are in permanent employment I believe, should be allowed to have their families living with them. As you know, Sir, I am against the migrant system and against influx control, but I know this enormous problem cannot be solved overnight, and I am suggesting a way in which one can begin, and that is by singling out a class of people with whom a start can be made by the Government. I can assure the Government that this will bring rich rewards in the form of better race relations, a better relationship between the people concerned and the Government, more particularly the officials. I hope that people in this House realize that while they pass the laws, they seldom come into physical contact with the people for whom these laws are being implemented. It is the officials who come into physical contact with those people. It also is the officials who have to bear the brunt of all the unpopular legislation introduced by this Government.

What I have said about the Africans also applies to the Coloured people. They too come into the urban areas because of poverty and because the conditions in the rural areas, as far as wages, hours of work, etc., are concerned, do not compare favourably with the conditions—to their mind anyway—attaching to jobs offered in the urban areas. They come to the urban areas to improve their life-style, if I may use that popular modern phrase.

The hon. member for Stilfontein spoke this afternoon, and it was clear to me—also to other hon. members I believe—that he got a fright the other night when he went to visit the squatter camps in the Western Cape. He rightly got a fright. I hope the hon. member does not think that I am saying this in any denigrating fashion. I am not. I believe it was absolutely right that he reacted in the way he did. He was horrified by what he saw. If I had my way, I would make a visit to the squatter camps of the Western Cape compulsory for every hon. member in this House, because I believe that unless one has actually seen those places, one honestly cannot imagine how awful they are.

I took the groups there, and I asked you to come along.

Yes, but I had been already. Have all the groups been to see it? Not only members …

I asked your group, but nobody turned up. I received nothing but apologies.

Well, they probably have all been there, but I believe that there are many hon. members of this House who have not been there. I believe it should be compulsory. As regards the members of our group, we will certainly see to it that everybody goes because it is very difficult to make people realize just how bad those areas are.

The hon. member for Stilfontein seemed to think that influx control was going to be the solution. He did suggest, I think, the establishment of temporary areas in which squatters should be accommodated in the meantime. However, it was evident that he also believed that influx control was going to do the trick. That does not do the trick. We have seen it in the case of Africans. If he is thinking of imposing some sort of influx control on Coloured people, he should forget about it immediately. It is bad enough that the certificate of available housing is going to be some form of influx control. Any other form of influx control will be a disaster, an absolute disaster. The Coloured people will resist it to the last person. They do not want their mobility interfered with, just as White people do not want their mobility interfered with. They are looking for a better life for themselves and for their children and the country districts can no longer supply it.

Do you want an employer to bring in somebody without being able to provide proper housing for him?

The hon. member was not here when I spoke earlier. I do not believe it is the employer’s responsibility to provide housing in industrial areas.

Yes, blame the Government for it!

It is the responsibility of the State. It is also the responsibility of building societies and private enterprise, but not of die employer.

Is it not his responsibility to pay his employees so that they can afford housing?

Yes, it is his responsibility to do that. It is also the responsibility of the Government to see to it that these workers have decent, collective bargaining rights. Then, Sir, there will be no difficulty about wage rates. That is the point. Also, it is up to the Government, if it is fixing minimum wages, to fix them at such a rate that they are at least a living wage. Of course, these are all obvious things.

In conclusion, I want to come back to Soweto for a few moments. The hon. member for Stilfontein said this afternoon that the situation in Pretoria and on the Witwatersrand was under control. It is not. He is absolutely wrong.

What do you know about Pretoria?

I know a good deal about Pretoria. I have visited Winterveld, which is another squatter area although it is in a homeland. It has exactly the same origin as the squatter camps here, because there are people living there who work on the Witwatersrand and in the Witwatersrand-Pretoria-Vereeniging triangle. It is an area that people go to and they squat there. The hon. member for Stilfontein should go and have a look at it. I can assure him that he will quail when he sees it. There are now some 300 000 people living at Winterveld under the most appalling conditions.

Why?

Why? Because Pretoria and Johannesburg have failed to provide housing for the people who work there. That is why. Now, in Johannesburg, as I have said, there are over 20 000 houses short, and the hidden squatting that goes on in Soweto is almost unbelievable. What is the position in respect of those houses which the hon. member for Jeppe was boasting about when he said, “We solved the problem”? I presume he was referring to the United Party city council. In fact, they did not solve the problem at all. It was the Nationalist Government that came in and started to solve the squatter problem in Johannesburg and it was completed after Oppenheimer, that evil man, advanced a large loan. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir Ernest advanced a large loan at very low rates of interest. But then it all started over again. [Interjections.] Yes, the loan was negotiated by Boris Wilson. As I have said, it all started again and it is a now vast overcrowded slum with 14 people to a house and it is run-down and shabby. There is no maintenance. There is no proper refuse removal. Conditions have worsened considerably since the West Rand Administration Board took over. People who know Soweto well warn that it is a tinder box. It is another form of hidden squatting. Although there are not squatter camps, because the Police move in very quickly on the Witwatersrand, Soweto is a squatters’ camp in its own particular way, and Pretoria, as well as the Witwatersrand, are served by Winterveld, which is another huge squatter area.

So, Sir, it is all part of the same problem and you cannot look at one area in isolation from another. It is an economic problem. It has to do with urbanization and industrialization and with poverty. That is what the Minister has to deal with and, believe me Sir, I do not envy him his task because I believe he has an enormous task to perform. But I do plead with him that before he starts setting any demolition orders in action, he should bear in mind that he is laying up the most dreadful trouble in South Africa if he starts demolishing shelters over the heads of people who have nowhere else to go. I back the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central when he says a moratorium should be called. He is right. I have said it before and other hon. members have said it before. Cut out all further group area removals until you have caught up with the housing backlog, and then, I might say, cut it out whilst you are in the middle of a housing crisis. It is nothing short of crazy to tear down houses at the present stage when you have a huge housing backlog for all sections of the Black population in South Africa. I support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when we began this debate a week ago I made an appeal to hon. members and said that we should conduct the debate in a constructive spirit, for we were dealing with a very difficult problem and a problem which ought to stir the conscience of each one of us. I am very grateful that I am able to testify this evening that this debate has certainly come up to my expectations. It was not a dramatic debate, not a debate filled with reproaches and vehement language. There were occasions when hon. members took a stab or two at one another, and a few harsh words were spoken here and there. But this has to be the case in politics; it is not a game of chess between friends. I think that, apart from minor errors and blunders, every hon. member who participated in this debate really made a contribution to the consensus of thought in this House and therefore, too, of the people of South Africa with regard to this problem. I want to express my sincere gratitude for the constructive approach and for the standard of the debate. If I may raise one point of criticism, I would say that one should be careful when one is discussing such an important matter, in a manner which is not fraught with emotional responses and political reproaches, that it does not continue for too great a length of time. Hon. members become exhausted and subsequently begin to make statements which do not uphold the standard of the debate. I am thinking for example of the exceptionally thorough and welcome speech made by my hon. friend, the member for Port Elizabeth Central. He was following up on an idea expressed by another good friend of mine, the hon. member for Jeppe, when he asked why the Government and my department had waited so long before we took special steps to obtain money, as we have succeeded in obtaining money by means of the new scheme in terms of which tenderers for building schemes will be able to tender not only for the planning and construction but also for the financing of the building schemes.

I am astonished that informed people who are really interested in the problem are able to ask such questions. I can only put it down to the fact that they had exhausted all new ideas because the debate had continued too long. After all, the reply is very simple and irrefutable, i.e. that until last year money was not the problem. We were able to obtain the necessary money to tackle and complete building schemes. Our problem, however, was—as the hon. member himself said—that the physical capacity of the building industry and of the organization at our disposal, public as well as private, was insufficient. If we had received more money, we would not have been able to spend it because we did not have the labour, the material or the capacity to utilize it. That capacity did not arrive there by accident, but was built up over the years, particularly on the initiative of the Department of Community Development and my predecessors as the responsible Ministers. The building up process took years, and we were heartsore—I have said this before in the Other Place—when we heard that owing to financial circumstances, over which we have no control, it might perhaps be necessary to dismantle, to reduce, that physical capacity, the machine, and see people in the building industry leave the industry to find another livelihood, people who would perhaps not return to the building industry if money were once again to become available. It is for this reason that we were faced with this unexpected challenge. Last year the Department immediately took steps to establish what other sources of income we were able to obtain, apart from those directly from the Treasury. I do not think anyone can criticize us for doing so, for our actions were correct. Special circumstances called for special means, and I am very grateful that we have succeeded in being able to obtain these special means.

The hon. member for Jeppe put questions to me in regard to this matter. I want to tell him that the principle is very simple, i.e. that building contractors who tender for building schemes or financiers who wish to finance such schemes, may find money from any source. In addition, we helped these people to find money. We were then able to call for tenders for major schemes, but they were not, as in the past, to tender only for the planning and construction of the schemes, but also for the financing of such schemes. Some of these tenders will soon be awarded here in Cape Town, and then we shall be able to see how it works. It is not a case of people being able to extort anything from us, for they will have to compete with other tenderers, and will have to make fair conditions in order to have their tender accepted. I have already explained—the hon. member for Jeppe did not understand it very well, but I shall try again—that the Treasury is allowing us to employ capital originating primarily from abroad for this purpose. The capital which is utilized in this manner then becomes a loan for which the Department of Community Development is responsible. We guarantee it to the municipalities, although it comes from the private sector. It is consequently our obligation. The condition is, however, that we should only borrow amounts which we will be able to repay with no more than 10% of the amount appropriated every year for accommodation. In other words, if we are able to obtain the loan for a period of seven to eight years, then we could, if we add the interest, immediately employ seven or eight times R10 million in this way. This is a great advantage, and we are very grateful that it is possible to do it in this manner, for it means that there will be no need for us—in so far as we are able to foresee at the moment—to dismantle this machine, the physical capacity which has been built up with so much effort and care. This is, therefore, my major point of criticism. It was not a good argument from the Opposition side, but I understand it, for those hon. members were among the last speakers in a long debate, and everything which could have been said, had already been said by that time. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton, for although she was the very last speaker, she nevertheless came forward with quite a number of new aspects. Of course, the hon. member as always—this stands to reason— devoted most of her attention to the Bantu, who are not directly the responsibility of the Department of Community Development. However, we shall discuss this matter again.

I now want us to examine the standpoints of the three parties more closely. I do not want to criticize now, but only to analyse. Hon. members of the National Party who participated in this debate made a great contribution towards maintaining the high standard of the debate. What struck me was that, one after the other, they spoke with the true conscience of the White people of South Africa. They felt, deeply and sincerely, that something had to be done, for the social conscience of South Africa cannot allow these conditions to continue. They promised their enthusiastic support for the Bill, because they did not see it on its own—and I emphasize this—but as a part of a well-designed scheme to cope with this problem of shortages of accommodation and squatter camps in South Africa. My main criticism of some speakers on the opposite side of the House is that they did not see the Bill as part of a larger dispensation. They were oblivious to everything but the four walls of the Bill, which only seeks to achieve a limited and specific objective. The official Opposition moved that this legislation be referred to a Select Committee. Apparently this has become a formula among them for solving their problems. I take it that in this case they want to take the matter to a Select Committee so that they can obtain more information in regard to it and so that they can investigate other possibilities.

No.

Then I misunderstood the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, for he said expressly that we should investigate other possibilities.

Yes, of course.

Then why is the hon. member disputing it? Surely he is looking for more facts and information. [Interjections.]

Do you have all the answers?

On those particular aspects I am still going to speak for a long time tomorrow.

Tomorrow?

Yes. This is a strange Opposition. They keep the debate going for days and then begrudge the Minister an opportunity to furnish a proper reply. The difficulty with the United Party is that it does not have confidence in its own conscience. It is so divided and confused that its own conscience is no longer able to lay down the correct guide-lines for that it requires. It now has to go to a Select Committee so that it can be satisfied on what has to be done. I am going to have more to say about this, for I am going to deal with the motion for a Select Committee on its merits.

The approach of my hon. friends of the Progressive Reform Party was extremely interesting. They have a very acute conscience and are constantly parading that conscience in South Africa. They perceive the problem, and they are aware that it is a tremendous problem, a problem which concerns them, and their conscience is plaguing them. However, they are just a little afraid that they will alienate people whom they do not want to alienate by taking action which is too drastic. But their conscience is plaguing them. What do they do then? They take a remedy to appease their conscience—a “ conscience tranquilizer”. That is what they live on. And that tranquilizer amounts to one having to accept the scourge, to accept the evil, and doctoring it a little so that people can live in misery in greater comfort. That is the standpoint of that party. It should not be so difficult for people to be miserable and suffer hardships. One should set things straight a little, here and there, but the evil should continue to exist, one should accept it for an indefinite period. One should spend millions of rands on perpetuating the evil in a more convenient way, while the money could be spent immediately to deal with the evil itself. In this regard I want to refer to our experience in Elsies River. To build the corrugated iron huts, the rubbish in Elsies River, together with the necessary services, cost R700 per hut. Surely this was a waste of money. This was no solution but a temporary arrangement. Those huts now have to be replaced by houses each costing R2 300 to R2 500 each. If we had originally built the houses as we are building them now, they would not only have been cheaper, but a quarter of the money would then have been available to build houses immediately, money which was wasted on temporary houses. We must learn from our experience. We do not need Select Committees to indicate to us what our experience has been. I want to say more in this regard. I want to say more about the idea that we should accept squatters’ camps as an inevitable evil and that somehow or other we should live with them.

I want to make an observation here, but I am doing so with regret. In my opinion the House of Assembly, the Government as well as both the Opposition parties, are better informed as a result of the discussions that have been conducted in this House. We have facts, opinions and judgments at our disposal, which we would not have had if the debate had not been conducted. Unfortunately I am concerned, for the people outside, the public of South Africa, who should ultimately pass judgment and pay the taxes to solve the problem, do not have a real picture such as the one which we built up in this debate. Hon. members will recollect that in the Second Reading debate I furnished certain facts, which were newsworthy and remarkable, on what South Africa had done in respect of housing. Some of the newspapers published the facts. However, the newspapers which support the Opposition, those which I have seen, omitted them. The general public does not realize that we are spending half of the funds available for housing in South Africa on Coloured houses, in spite of the fact that the Coloureds comprise only one-fifth of the population. They do not realize that since the Housing Commission was established we have built a house for one out of every 14 Coloureds in South Africa. They do not realize that last year alone we built almost as many houses as were built between the years 1920, when the Housing Commission was established, in 1960. They do not realize that in one year we built almost as many houses as had been built in 40 years, that in one year we built 30 times as many houses as the average number built in one of the years between 1920 and 1960. What I should like to know is whether the Press is not the fourth political level in a State. While they have every right to criticize and to be injurious if they wish, do they not at the same time have a duty to convey the facts to the public, so that the public can judge whether their criticism is justified or not? It is not that the Press is unaware of the facts.

I received a letter from a reporter on the Press Gallery in which he asked me to furnish him with the figures which I had mentioned. I told him that my Hansard would be available to him within an hour or so and that he would be able to find the figures there. However, the figures did not appear in his newspaper.

He was too lazy!

I would not say that he was too lazy. What I am concerned about is that it could perhaps have been wilfulness, and that the reporter did perhaps furnish the figures, but that they were not published. In this way we as representatives of the people cannot do our work properly. If we have confidence in our case, then we desire our case to be judged on the full facts. Parliament owes it to the people to ensure that they receive the full facts. The Press, as part of the recognized structure of a State, has a duty to keep the public properly informed. I do not know what is wrong with the Press in this regard. Surely these are serious matters, matters which one is concerned about and which makes one eager to do something to solve the problem.

But now I open a newspaper—and I shall mention the name of the newspaper, i.e. The Cape Times—and on its front page I see a large photograph of a toilet, a privy. At first I thought that it was a new emblem which the newspaper had acquired to symbolize its contents. I then saw, however, that it was also a photograph of a Coloured family—a father, a mother and three small children—who have to live in the toilet, very sad circumstances, of course. I then read what the newspaper had to say about it, and I could not believe it, for I know, after all, that such things do not happen in the Department of Community Development. I then asked the department to institute an investigation, but found that the department had already begun to do so. I now want to inform the hon. members of the outcome of the investigation, and then they can judge for themselves whether the newspaper was fair in giving so much publicity to these unfortunate people, and without presenting a single fact correctly. Here are the allegations—

†Now, this Act is administered by the Department of Community Development. The newspaper further states that this family lived in a cupboard in De Waal Drive and that they moved into the toilet two weeks ago. It also stated—

Hon. members should take notice of this—

Mrs. Holman told the newspaper that they had not received any offer of a home, but that it was probable that it did not reach them because they had not fixed address. Here the impression is created that they live in a toilet. Yet they have no fixed address.

*What did the Department of Community Development find when it investigated the matter? I want to say, Sir, that I am really sorry to have to say things about this unfortunate family which one would rather have kept silent about, because when people have already sunk so low, one would prefer not to trample upon them even further, but in the interests of the public life and the public morals of South Africa, these things have to be exposed.

†Senior officials of the department’s regional office interviewed Mr. Holman the day after this report appeared and his replies during the interview were a complete contradiction of what he was reported by the newspaper to have said. Now, Mr. Holman may be a man who contradicts himself, but then there are ways in which The Cape Times could have checked the facts, and the easiest way is through the open door of the Department of Community Development to the Press. I have never refused an interview with a newspaper, even a newspaper which has harmed me in my life, and my department has a policy, which I support, that the Press are entitled to full information whenever we can give it to them. My officials tell me there is absolutely no truth in the allegation that this family was evicted under the Group Areas Act. Since 1971 when his mother, who had been living in Woodstock, a controlled area, died, he had flitted from one place of abode to another.

I do not want to read all the information I have here, but they applied to the city council of Cape Town for a house. The city council of Cape Town gave them a house, but in the meantime they had left for Franschhoek and they had not bothered to let the city council of Cape Town know what their new address was. As a result, they missed their opportunity. Yet The Cape Times tells us they had no offer of a house. This man, Sir, was gaoled for vagrancy, and on his release he was accommodated temporarily, for approximately four months, by an organization called Nicro, the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of Offenders. This unfortunate man has to have not only his picture, but also the pictures of his wife and his innocent children, taken in a lavatory and paraded on the front page of The Cape Times in order that they can have a dig at South Africa at a time when this particular Bill is being discussed. This is what it means. During the interview Mr. Holman repeatedly denied that the Group Areas Act was in any way responsible for his predicament, and he was equally emphatic that he had not stated to The Cape Times reporter that the Act was to blame. He spontaneously admitted that he was aware that Woodstock, the area from which he was supposed to have been evicted, was not a proclaimed group area and that the Group Areas Act did not apply there. So I could go on, Sir. There are pages of information on this matter, and we find one lie upon another, or, if not a lie, then one irresponsible untruth after the other.

Who is the reporter?

I am not interested. This is the responsibility of the newspaper and not of an individual. Sir, I want to emphasize again that these are facts which could have been ascertained by a visit to a Community Development office, either to the regional office or to my office or to the Secretary’s office. We would have investigated the matter and given them the truth. If they still wanted to play with lavatories on their front page, they could have done so, but then it would have been truthful toilets. I just want to register my protest, and I think the protest of all decent members of this House, against such an abuse of the freedom and the privileges of the Press. I can only hope that the new Press code, which has, I believe, been under consideration for some time now, will soon be accepted by the National Press Union. I do not know what that code entails, but I am convinced that if they will adopt it and voluntarily discipline their own papers, such things will no longer appear in South Africa.

Sir, in order that I may regain my composure, I want to talk for a few minutes to the individual members who raised interesting points. I want to start with my very good friend, the hon. member for Green Point. He made one statement which I cannot let pass. He made the statement, as though he had inside information, that the city council of Cape Town virtually had to force the Department of Community Development into the development of Mitchell’s Plain. I do not want an argument with the city council of Cape Town. We have had arguments in the past and my hon. friend, the present Minister of Defence, had great problems with the city council of Cape Town years ago, but those days are forgotten. I want to put it on record today that we have the most wonderful and the most enthusiastic and the most successful co-operation from the city council of Cape Town in dealing with these problems, and we are achieving things because the co-operation is so wholehearted. My friend, the hon. member for Green Point, is a responsible man and he would not have made that statement if he did not believe it.

It had been on the stocks for a long time.

No. The hon. member said that we had to be compelled to do something like this. All I want to say to the hon. member is that he must go back to his informant and suggest to him that I would be pleased if he would come and have a talk with me or with the Secretary for Community Development, who conducted most of these negotiations. But I predict now that that person, male or female, will not put in an appearance. The hon. member for Green Point also said that the divisional council of Cape Town was constructing controlled squatter camps. That is true; they are doing that, but they are doing that as a very temporary measure, because they are using the sites from which people are removed in order to build decent permanent housing. As soon as that decent permanent housing is completed, the people are taken out of that temporary abode and put into a permanent building, which is also our policy. It is therefore not a permanent controlled squatter camp; it is an ad hoc camp for a special purpose in order to get rid of some of the filthiest slums remaining in South Africa, especially the one at Elsies River.

The hon. member raised another important matter. He asked me whether we had consulted the chairman of the Erika Theron Commission. I want to say at once that the subject of this Bill does not fall within the terms of reference of the Erika Theron Commission. It so happens, however, that Prof. Erika Theron is the vice-chairman of the National Housing Commission. This Bill was fully discussed with that commission and I am glad to say that she raised no objection. Their decision was unanimous. So, although we did not discuss the matter with her as chairman of the Commission, we did discuss it with her as a member of the National Housing Commission. I hope that satisfies my hon. friend.

The Theron Commission, has therefore, not dealt with this at all?

No, it was not within its purview. It may have dealt with it, but then it went beyond its terms, as you and I did on the Schlebusch Commission. [Interjections.] The final point with which I want to deal in my hon. friend’s speech, a good speech, was his suggestion for shell houses. The answer is that we are not interested in building shell houses. We are not interested in building more Elsies Rivers. We would build on the extensive experience we have gained with the shanty towns of Johannesburg and Cato Manor and cure the evil permanently and not substitute a slightly lesser evil for a greater evil and then be stuck with having to take a second expensive and almost unmanageable bite at the same cherry. I think my hon. friend must accept that.

On looking through the points made by several speakers—and I would like to give personal attention to these excellent speeches—I notice that most of these points can be covered by me in a more general discussion of the Bill. If, after that general discussion, there are still points outstanding, I am sure that we shall have opportunities to look at them.

The first point I want to make in this connection—I think this is the crucial point— is that it must be comparatively young hon. members who suggest that we should refer this matter to a Select Committee or who urge us to “dress up” the shanty towns or squatter camps. The hon. member for Houghton, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I are comparatively …

Be careful!

We are veterans in South African politics.

That is all right

We have perhaps had experiences which others have not yet had. Those hon. members and I know what happened in Johannesburg during and after the war, for example in Moroka and in that town of upturned tanks sawn in half, Pimville. That was the time when a man like Father Huddlestone could write a book, Nought for your Comfort, and damn South Africa in page upon page and chapter upon chapter because of the situation prevailing there. He was certainly not pleading for the area to be “dressed-up”. He wanted revolutionary change. It was said by church investigators that the situation was so bad that the infant mortality rate rose as high as 600 out of every 1 000.

This meant that 600 babies out of every 1 000 died in the first year of their lives. We were also told by the same people that prostitution was so rife that half the numbers of girls sold their bodies for gain before they were 11 years of age. We tend to forget those days, but we in the National Party inherited that problem. During a Second Reading speech, in reply to a teasing interjection, I said it was the fault of the previous Government. I now want say that I do not think that was fair. It was actually due to circumstances that arose during the a war, e.g. the tremendous influx of Blacks into Johannesburg, the shortage of manpower, the shortage of building materials because we were sending the major portion of our cement production to Burma, etc.

An industrial revolution!

Yes, it was an industrial revolution. That situation caused me, as Secretary of the United Party on the Witwatersrand, to suggest to Gen. Smuts’ Government that it introduce influx control. This was done with the support of the executive of the party on the Witwatersrand. That situation, however, was cleared up. The hon. member for Houghton warned that there might possibly be new problems arising in that area. There was nevertheless a time when the original problem was virtually solved. Admittedly the solution was not an ideal solution, but it was a practical and a real solution that ended the misery of those shanty town dwellers. This Government is consequently not without experience in clearing up an evil which was bigger than the evil in the Western Cape at the moment.

Who solved the problem?

It was Dr. Verwoerd who solved the problem.

Plus the Johannesburg city council.

Admittedly so. In the same way that I paid tribute this evening to the Cape Town city council, which differs politically from the Government, I would likewise agree that the Johannesburg city council, which then differed from the Government of the time, also played its part. It was the social conscience of South Africa which was awakened, and we did the job. Fair enough! The United Party city council, the National Party Government did it together, but hon. members will remember that Dr. Verwoerd had to compel the old United Party Government to accept certain of his suggestions.

Hymie, you voted against it.

There was however another slum much bigger than the slums around Cape Town. I am referring here to Cato Manor. What happened in Cato Manor? I have brought along what I think will be accepted as an impartial narrative of the recent history of Cato Manor. This appeared in The Daily News in Natal on 31 March 1976. This report starts very interestingly indeed. It reflects the view of the paper itself—

Are you going to build some White houses there?

Yes, I am going to build some White houses there. I am certainly not going to allow useful residential land in the vicinity of Durban to remain unused.

What about the Indian group?

Indians are being housed as fast as the Coloureds and their problem is smaller.

What are you going to do about …

Sir, that hon. member has been interjecting for the last few minutes and now I want to talk to him. He made an interesting contribution to the debate, but must he shout at us? Must he doubt everybody’s motives? Must he look upon every member of the House, except those in his immediate surroundings, as an evil person?

And he cannot even trust those in his immediate surroundings any more.

Above all, must he make so much noise?

He is a windbag, man! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Most of us find that we want to like that hon. member. He has talent and ability. However, he should ask the senior members on his side to give him a few suggestions as to how one should conduct oneself in this House. There is one thing the hon. member should remember. What is true in nature is also true in this House—it is the lightning that strikes and not the thunder. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to Cato Manor. Cato Manor was one of the most horrible slums we ever had in South Africa. Cato Manor was the worst slum Durban has known; yet how much did the people of Durban know of this vast and now disused area? The hon. members should listen to the facts. Cato Manor, with its squatter population of 160 000 and its masses of match-box shacks, was sandwiched between the university and White-owned luxury homes for 20 years, yet many people did not even know it existed.

Tell us what the Durban city council did towards cleaning it up.

I am not fighting the Durban city council; I am fighting the ignorance of the hon. members of the Opposition in this Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can recall my asking him during my speech to tell us why this Bill is necessary in view of the fact that we have successfully cleared up places like Cato Manor during the past 25 years?

In the course of my speech I shall come to the hon. member’s question. At the moment I am dealing with the suggestion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I am also dealing with the suggestion of the PRP that we should make something semi-permanent of squatter camps. Dealing with those two suggestions I pointed out that we have the experience of clearing up such areas. I do not want to go into unnecessary detail, but I shall tell the House what happened. In 1948 riots broke out in Cato Manor. Those riots lasted for weeks and large numbers of Indians were killed. The Police had great difficulty in restoring law and order. Those riots stirred our consciences and both the Durban City Council and the Government took action.

The riots did not start in Cato Manor. You do not know your facts.

The riots ran over into Cato Manor. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I really think the hon. members are being a bit stupid now in trying to score little points like those. Cato Manor was the seat of these riots and there is no doubt about that. Nobody can deny that.