Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned last night I was talking about the essential aspects of this Bill. I think that one of the essential aspects of the Bill is found in the definition of the meaning of ownership. In other words, it boils down to determining-the real rights of an owner to immovable property as against the squatter on the other hand. Therefore the squatter is someone who may have some status, but who has no right at all as regards immovable property. It has been pointed out that ownership is a real right, and that it is the most comprehensive right which exists. It is exercised throughout world and is maintained for everyone concerned. It has also been pointed out that everyone has an obligation to respect that real right—in this case, ownership. Therefore the owner has the legal right and is the only person who can dispose of his property, own it, derive the benefit of it and control it. Furthermore it has also been pointed out that the registered owner of a property enjoys a very large measure of protection, and that the essence of the protection which he enjoys, is the fact that he can demand his property from anyone whom he finds to be in possession of it. An owner can demand his legal property provided that he can prove that he has the right and title to the property concerned and provided that he can prove that anyone who is occupying his property, does not have any such right or title.

The legal principles which are applicable here, were also applicable in Roman-Dutch Law, as has already been pointed out. The same applies in the present system of precedents, as well as in common law, and indeed, they also applied in the earliest forms of traditional law. These are principles which were upheld by our courts even before Union. That is why I believe that this Bill is essential in the interests of discipline and orderly occupation of South Africa. This becomes obvious from the fact that the important principles to which I referred, have been taken up in the Bill just as they are. That is why we can lay claim to the fact that this Bill links up with the established principles as we find them in Roman-Dutch Law and in common law. Improper and illegal occupation of properties—which can easily get out of control—should not be tolerated in South Africa. It is a phenomenon which is rife in many other parts of the world. For instance we can take a look at the conditions in the USA. There is such a backlog in the provision of accommodation that it can never be erased. In Nigeria people are even living on rubbish dumps. In Spain squatters are referred to as “sewer rats”. I could go on quoting examples until the cows come home. However, if we take note of conditions elsewhere in the world, it is clear that we cannot allow ourselves to be misled by agitators here, by people who see the squatter problem as an opportunity for creating chaos, which might enable them to bring about an overthrow of the orderly set-up in South Africa. Nor can agitators be allowed to stir up a feeling in favour of the so-called pitiful squatters, especially not by publishing photographs of and reports on the so-called desperate circumstances in which the squatters are allegedly living. The publication of photographs of and reports on squatters cannot be allowed without also referring to the evils which accompany this phenomenon, or without mentioning the organization and organized committees which are active behind the scenes.

We can hardly imagine how organized these squatters are. These people, who have no legal claim to the properties of others, are so well organized that they have, among other things, drawn up illegal squatters’ committees, committees which appropriate to themselves the right to act and to speak in the interests of people who are involved in illegal practices. Furthermore, these committees appropriate to themselves the right to decide who may become a squatter and who will be allowed in an illegal squatters’ camp. They also decide on who may have a car, who may act as a trader, etc. In all aspects they act as the mouthpiece of the illegal squatters and even speak on their behalf to the outside world. There is also co-operation between the various illegal squatter committees. There is co-ordination amongst them. For example I am referring to the co-ordinating squatters’ executive committee—as it calls itself—of Vrygrond, Lourdes Farm and Snake Park. In May last year the committee appropriated to itself the right to issue an official Press statement on behalf of its people. Just imagine! Can one believe that something like this can happen? Just imagine, they are extremely dissatisfied with the fact that the Government did not contact them in connection with the amendment of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act.

I believe that the Government will continue in future to clear up the terrible conditions in squatters’ areas. The Government will also continue to take action against people who squat. Whenever and wherever it is necessary, the Government will continue to institute criminal proceedings and to send the people concerned back to their homelands and even to pay their train fare there. After all, that is where they belong.

Order! The hon. member should deal more specifically with the Bill.

At the same time the Government will do its duty in providing Whites, Coloureds and Blacks with decent accommodation in this country. This Bill gives the Opposition parties the opportunity of proving their bona fides towards South Africa. No political party can afford to be soft in connection with a problem of this kind, no political party can afford to place the security of all people in South Africa—White, Black and Coloured—in the balance because of feeble settlement agreements.

There is still one other Opposition party which has to state its attitude in connection with this matter. If one responsible Opposition party remains in South Africa, one Opposition party which is concerned with the interests of South Africa in a patriotic way, I want to make an appeal to them, for the sake of truth, for the sake of the pursuit of law and justice, as well as in the interests of good order … [Interjections.] Yes, this group of Progs is just like the squatters. [Interjections.] They are just like squatters—on their way to nowhere. They are inconstant. They are capricious. They are looking for something. They move in, move around, move across, they are like corkscrews. [Interjections.] In any event, I want to address an appeal to the responsible Opposition—if anything like that still exists—to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durbanville has just said that one of the reasons why the Bill should be passed is to ensure that justice is done. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Durbanville speaks of justice while we are dealing here with a Bill from which the element of justice is completely absent? In spite of this, the hon. member has the temerity to tell us that we should pass the legislation to see that justice is done. It is shocking to hear this from the hon. member for Durbanville—absolutely shocking.

Before saying any more about the speech made by the hon. member for Durbanville, I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for False Bay. He said last night that there were only two ways in which the squatter problem could be solved. The one was sufficient housing and the other was effective prevention of squatting. Of course, I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, he is mistaken in saying that 60% of the newly completed houses are given to squatters. This only refers to the Coloured people. What about the thousands and thousands of Blacks? There is no housing for them. The hon. member also spoke of effective prevention. Are there no other means of preventing squatting? Is it not possible to have proper supervision? The hon. member said nothing about supervision. Surely proper supervision is the best means of preventing squatting. The hon. the Minister and the NP should go and see what they have been doing in recent years. There has been absolutely no supervision over Government property. The Government has allowed people to squat on Government land. Now, for the first time, the Government wants to take effective steps to prevent squatting. They could have done it years ago without any legislation. After all, they have control over their own land. Why, then, has there been no supervision? If there had been supervision, there would not have been any squatting on Government land. The hon. member also said (Hansard, 27 April 1977)—

Among whom are these steps unpopular? They are unpopular among people who are not represented in this House. They are the ones among whom it is unpopular. That hon. member could not care less whether he is taking unpopular measures, because the poor squatters against whom the steps are taken are not represented in Parliament. The hon. member can do whatever he likes.

They are squatting illegally!

No, I am speaking of the Coloured people and the Blacks; they are the people who are squatting there and they are not represented here. I am sure that if I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will make the legislation … The hon. the Minister is not listening, so I shall raise the matter again at a later stage. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for False Bay went on to say—

That is a very dangerous …

Order! There is no need for the hon. member to reply to the entire speech made by the hon. member for False Bay. The hon. member must reply only in so far as it is relevant.

You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I should like to reply to the statement that squatters are people who “prey parasitically on society”. The hon. member said that this legislation was necessary in order to prevent people from preying parasitically on society. However, I want to say that those people are squatting because they cannot find accommodation anywhere and the Government is to blame for that. That hon. member is one of those who are to blame for that. He also spoke of the core house which would be built as an experiment. How far have they got with the experiment? Why have the core houses not been completed and why have the squatters not been asked to move in? If this is done, there will not be any squatting.

I want to come back to the speech made by the hon. member for Durbanville. He spoke of the squatting at Crossroads, where 600 squatter families are supposed to have congregated within ten days. Where was the supervision? There was no supervision. Why does the hon. member not arrange for proper supervision so that no squatting can take place?

He went on to say that they had reason to suspect that there was an organization which was helping these people to settle there, thus trying to break down an orderly dispensation. However, there are measures that can be taken in this connection. Why has no action been taken against this organization? There is legislation under which action can be taken against this organization. The hon. member went on to say—

However, I ask how the hon. member can say such a thing. The hon. member has been a member of this House for a number of years and he knows what it means when it is moved that a Bill be read “this day six months”. It signifies the strongest disapproval of the proposed legislation on the part of the official Opposition. The hon. member ought to know that. Why, then, does he give this twist to the matter? It does not mean what he says. He went on to refer to “basic aspects” of the Bill and said that it was aimed, amongst other things, at “effectively controlling undisciplined, disorderly living and chaotic living”. Surely the hon. member knows that if he were to establish a plot and service scheme at those places, there would not be any chaos. Why, then, has he not done so? Why has the hon. the Minister not done so? The hon. the Minister as well as the hon. member have been fast asleep.

Then the hon. member advanced a ridiculous argument. He said that this Bill was necessary to enable the legal owner to enjoy the rights of his legal ownership. Surely this is the greatest nonsense in the word. The owner of the land on which people squat today has every right to his own property. Why, then, is this piece of legislation necessary? The hon. member knows that he was talking nonsense.

The hon. member also referred to Joostenbergvlakte and he illustrated the way people were squatting there. He said that squatters had been living there in October 1976. Then the squatters’ huts had been demolished. In November of the same year they were rebuilt, but subsequently they were demolished again. In December the same procedure repeated itself. Then the huts were rebuilt a fourth time and again demolished. He compared these squatters with murderers and robbers. He asked whether a murderer and a robber should also be given notice. How can the hon. member advance such an argument?

†He knows why those huts were rebuilt and rebuilt and rebuilt—because the people who were squatting there had no other means of shelter. That is the reason. There is no other reason than that they had no other shelter. I ask the hon. member not to make such tremendous argument about the sanctity of property rights. I want to ask him to think rather about the milk of human kindness that is supposed to flow in the veins of human beings. I should like him to tell me how he would feel if he did not have any shelter and therefore proceeded to build himself a little hut into which he, his wife and his children moved. Because they had so little money, he and his wife had to go and work and the children were left alone in the little hut. Then came the bulldozer of the hon. the Minister. It came while the little kids were still in the hut. The hon. member for Durbanville and his wife were away working to earn a little penny to feed their children. The hon. the Minister then comes with his bulldozer and bulldozes the hut.

Order! The hon. member must now discuss the Bill. [Interjections.]

Sir, that is exactly what I want to do. There is no need at all for the hon. member for Durbanville to go to this extent …

Leave Durbanville alone now!

No, I am not going to leave him alone at all, because he deserves everything that I am telling him and a lot more. I believe that, without the Bill, any owner can recover possession of his land. It is quite unnecessary to have the Bill, and I know that the hon. member for Durbanville also believes that Therefore I do not know why he made such a speech. Maybe it was for effect. Possession can be recovered by giving notice. Why does the hon. member not want to allow the principle of giving notice? The hon. member has not given us one reason at all why notice should not be given. Neither did the hon. the Minister nor the hon. member for False Bay give us any indication as to why notice should not be given.

You were not even here last night.

Of course I was here. I listened to them and they gave me no reason as to why notice should not be given. I suppose the hon. Chief Whip on that side of the House knows so much about squatting that he can actually advise the hon. the Minister. These measures against the squatters are nothing but strong-arm measures. They are being taken because I believe that the hon. the Minister of Community Development has allowed himself to be persuaded, probably by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, that he has to employ strong-arm measures. I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister himself would have thought this out, because it seems to be contrary to the nature of the hon. the Minister. I think he must have been influenced by the hon. Minister sitting just in front of him.

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he, before he introduced this legislation, went to the CRC and talked to them about his problem. Did he ask the CRC to help him solve the problem? I am sure that if the hon. the Minister had gone to the CRC and said to them that because a lot of Coloured people are involved in the squatting he wants them to help him to find a way in which they can control the squatting so that the Coloured people are not upset too much, the CRC would have supported him by offering their help, and I am pretty certain that it would not have been necessary to introduce a Bill of this nature. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister submitted the Bill to the CRC for comment. I am sure that if he did, the CRC would have said to him that he could not do it, and if he did, he would upset the people more than they are today. Surely the hon. the Minister must realize that he cannot go about upsetting people in this way year after year. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister discussed the matter with any of the homeland leaders, because there are quite a number of Black people involved. Did the hon. the Minister discuss it with them? I am sure he did not. I am sure that if he did, they would also have offered some suggestions and he would probably not have introduced this Bill. I believe the hon. the Minister has not done his job properly. I am very sorry to tell him this, but I mean it. He should not come to the House with a Bill like this unless he has consulted the people who are affected by it. The hon. the Minister knows that many of the squatters who are affected by the Bill are people who cannot afford to pay sub-economic rentals. The hon. the Minister knows there are very many of these people. The hon. the Minister will remember that I wrote him a letter in February of this year in which I asked him what he suggested could be done for those squatters who squatted roundabout my constituency and could not afford a sub-economic rental and were squatting there because they formerly lived in sub-economic housing, but could not pay the rental. Consequently, they were evicted and became squatters. What can the hon. the Minister do for them? I reminded the hon. the Minister on several occasions that I had written him and I asked him when I could expect a reply, but I did not receive a reply. Today is 28 April and I still have had no reply from the hon. the Minister. Even if the hon. the Minister did not know what it was all about when he received my letter, he could at least have investigated the position to find out how many of the squatters who surround my constituency are in fact people who have been evicted from sub-economic houses.

However, he has done nothing about that. I said in my letter also that winter was at hand and should these poor unfortunate people be moved out of their squatters’ homes, it would be mid-winter and therefore I should appreciate an early reply. Well, winter is at hand and we already have had rain, as the hon. the Minister knows. We are going to have more rain and what is going to happen when these huts are demolished? The people are going to sit in the veld without shelter. I should like the hon. the Minister to reply as fully as he can when he replies to the Second Reading debate.

This Bill solves nothing at all. It is merely a Bill of political chicanery. For the hon. the Minister to say that he is not really responsible for this Bill; it is the hon. the Prime Minister who is responsible, I think is really a bit far-fetched.

I never suggested that.

The hon. the Minister said that he spoke to the hon. the Prime Minister about this Bill and the hon. the Prime Minister then said: “No, I am sorry, Mr. Minister of Community Development, but I cannot countenance you putting this Bill through the House; it is too terrible, too drastic. Therefore, I am going to see whether we cannot ease the problem somewhat.” The hon. the Minister now says that this is the hon. the Prime Minister’s Bill. I think that is terrible. The hon. the Minister does not want to take responsibility for this shocking piece of legislation which he has brought before the House.

I believe that there are many other ways of dealing with this matter. What I do not like about the Bill is the fact that the Bill seeks to trifle with the courts. In the Bill the hon. the Minister says to the courts, “I do not mind what sort of judgment you have given in the past; we are going to legislate against you and we are going to say that it does not matter what you have done as a court of law; once this Bill has been passed, whatever decision you take, whatever judgment you give, it will be null and void.” That is what the hon. the Minister says. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister realizes that it is a very serious matter to trifle with the courts. People who have trifled with the decisions of the courts before, have been held in contempt of court. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister knows that he is trifling with the courts to such an extent that I believe he can expect a raspberry from the courts if this piece of legislation goes through this House.

The proceedings instituted in regard to the demolition of huts and the removal of squatters before the Bill becomes the law, are going to be null and void completely. Anybody who has gone to the expense of an action in court or anybody who has gone to the expense of briefing counsel or an attorney to appear on his behalf, is going to be in the position that it will be all for nought, because it will all have to be done over again. That is a terrible aspect. However, what I think is more terrible is that a man who has obtained judgment and costs in his favour, is now going to be denied not only his judgment, but also his costs.

Where do you get that from?

It is absolute nonsense.

It is the position. Why does the hon. member not read the Bill? Why does the hon. member who has said “nonsense” not talk to the hon. the Minister and ask the hon. the Minister to explain the Bill to him if he does not understand it? [Interjections.] For the benefit of that hon. member, I think I should read the clause to him. The proposed subsection (4)(c) which is to be introduced by clause 1(c), states—

In other words, given by a court before this Bill comes into force—

The operative words appear in the first line, i.e. “any order, judgment or other relief granted”. It is quite clear. I do not recall what hon. member said that that was nonsense but it must be quite clear to that hon. member too that if a person has gone to court and obtained an order or a judgment from the court stating that he is entitled to remain in possession of a hut or shelter, and has been awarded costs, all of that will come to naught and he will lose his costs because costs are part of the order and can be very considerable. As we know, there are many instances where a test case is made, with a number of people involved on exactly the same grounds. When test cases are made, costs can run into thousands of rands. Just imagine what is going to happen in cases like this, and I know that there have been cases like this.

Lionel said there were no costs.

Lionel said there were no costs? I am sorry, I did not hear that interjection.

Order! Hon. members must not call other hon. members by their first names.

The hon. the Minister must know that an order or judgment includes an order or judgment to costs. The successful party gets his costs. That is a fact, indeed a well-established fact, and I therefore do not think I need labour the point any further. What I want to labour, however, is the fact that the unfortunate person who has had his costs awarded to him, must now lose those costs. I believe that this is one of the instances where the hon. the Minister must do something. Even if he does not want to do anything else, that is still something he must, in fact, do.

The Minister has already done something.

What has he done?

Is he going to amend it?

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is going to amend this?

I have already done the necessary.

What? Where?

It seems to me I should continue speaking a little longer. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will decide to withdraw the whole Bill if I continue long enough. Clause 1 of the Bill involves quite a number of paragraphs and subsections, and the sum total of these paragraphs and subsections means that anyone who is squatting, and whose home must be demolished, will find it demolished without any notice. A short while ago I gave an illustration relating to the hon. member for Durbanville and his family. It is the aspect of small children being involved that worries me most. The mother and father are not at home because they have to work and no notice is given either.

So neither mother nor father knows that this is going to happen. Out of the blue a bulldozer or front-end loader appears and it demolishes the hut in which the children have been left for the day while their mother and father are away at work, earning money to feed the little tots. I am concerned about this. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me how in terms of this Bill he is going to secure shelter for the tiny tots while their mother and father are away at work. I know the hon. the Minister said last night: “Do not worry about the Bill: the Bill says no notice need be given, but I want to give a solemn assurance that there will be notice given.” What is all this nonsense about? Why do we legislate and then make solemn promises at odds with that legislation? Is it because we have guilty consciences? What is the reason behind it? I cannot understand it. I believe there is only one way in which this thing can be done properly, and that is that, if notice is to be given, the Bill must provide accordingly. However, if the Bill should provide for that, there would be no need for the Bill at all because everything the hon. the Minister wants to do, can be done by giving due notice.

I do not think the hon. the Minister must allow himself to be stampeded into this legislation because somebody’s corporate feelings are affected, because somebody has been embarrassed. A local authority may feel embarrassed because it had to rebuild a hut. I do not think a local authority is entitled to vengeance. Nor do I think that the hon. the Minister is entitled to vengeance. Yet it looks very much to me as if this is a petty and a vengeful Bill. It is to get vengeance after a hut, which had been demolished, had to be rebuilt because no notice was given. I think we are big enough to forget about petty things like that. I think we are big enough to decide that there is only one way of going about demolishing a hut, and that is by giving proper notice or “due notice”, as it is known. That is an established principle of our law and I do not see why we should move away from it.

But it concerns an illegal hut.

There we have the hon. Chief Whip interjecting again. Anything he wants to do, can be done; but anything he does not want me to do, is illegal.

The hon. member for Durbanville spoke about the sanctity of property rights. Who are the owners who are affected here? In most cases they are either local authorities or the Government itself.

That is nonsense.

In most cases they are the owners. In any case, I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Tygervallei, because I know that he does not know all the facts.

What about your own farm?

My own farm has nothing to do with it. However, if the hon. member wants to know about my farm, I shall tell him what has happened. Sir, do you know what that selfsame Minister’s department did to me? My labour, who were picking export plums, were taken away by them the day before Christmas. That is what they did. They packed them in a lorry and took them away.

That is because they lived in slums.

They were living in houses on my farm.

Order!

Sir, the hon. member must not ask me such questions. I am simply replying to him. I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to have a very good think about this. I do not believe he was properly briefed. I think he was stampeded into this. I believe he must think about it all over again. Sir, I support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg said this unauthorized squatting could be prevented by means of supervision. He blames the NP for the fact that there is no supervision. I wonder whether he expects the Minister to keep watch at night to see whether any illegal squatters are coming to Cape Town. We are not taking action against legal squatters by means of this legislation. This Bill is aimed exclusively at eliminating the illegal squatting that is taking place. Is the hon. member not in favour of our preventing the construction of shanties and the emergence of slum conditions? Is the hon. member in favour of this? That is what he suggested this afternoon. I feel very sorry for the hon. member because I am convinced that within three months he will no longer be a member of the UP; he will be a political squatter. In due course, we shall have to introduce legislation to prevent that type of squatting as well. It is not the intention behind this legislation to prosecute people who are squatting legally.

What does “squat legally” mean?

These are the lawbreakers who come to the cities and build their shanties anywhere, in contravention of the regulations. It is against those people that action is going to be taken.

In the past few years, the squatter problem has escalated into one of the most serious problems we have to contend with. It is not confined to the Cape Peninsula and surrounding areas either. This evil is rearing its head in Port Elizabeth as well. Despite legislation approved by Parliament last year to prevent the influx of squatters, they continued to stream into the Cape Peninsula in their thousands. The situation was so grave that a concentration of no fewer than 3 000 shanties sprang up near the University of the Western Cape. The intention of this legislation is to prevent a repetition of that type of thing and to vest the authorities with the powers to deal with these trespassers effectively. The thousands of people who have already been squatting in the Peninsula and surrounding areas for many years, and whose shanties have been registered, will not be prosecuted, nor will their shanties be demolished. Those people are being provided with houses—thousands of houses are being built for them in Mitchell’s Plain. Those people are not prosecuted. The hon. member for Rondebosch knows this is true. Every day the Department of Community Development and the municipality provide some of those people with houses. Those are the facts. It is only against the illegal squatters, those people who are streaming in daily, that action will be taken.

Last night the hon. member for Rondebosch objected to the new subsection (2) of section 3B which reads as follows—

What is wrong with that? The hon. member said that the person should be given prior notice.

The Minister himself says so.

Yes, the Minister did say that he would give the person notice, but this will be done in an orderly manner. If a notice is served on a person living in a shanty and he is subsequently taken to court, where he alleges that he did not build the shanty, or that his wife or the woman lodging with him built it, then the case is lost. If one then approaches the woman, she says she is not the man’s wife; she is merely a common law wife. Surely hon. members are acquainted with the circumstances? Either that or the man says on appearing in court: “No, it is not me; I am only a lodger. It is my uncle who built that shanty.” Technically, he will always be able to get off. The fact of the matter is, quite simply, that the Minister will give his officials instructions to tell the owners of the shanties, no matter who they are, that the shanty has to be demolished because it has been constructed on the property illegally. Then perhaps five or ten days will go by, but after that it will not be necessary for the Minister to go to court only to lose the case on technical grounds. That is what it amounts to. What is wrong with that? If someone erects a shanty against the law anywhere, wherever he likes within the Cape Town municipal area, then it is he who is breaking the law. May he not then be prosecuted? I stand here as a member of the House of Assembly. If I were to construct a building illegally at any place today—at any place within the Cape Town municipal area—I would have to suffer the consequences. Law and order must be maintained.

Now let us take a look at who those squatters are whose cause the hon. member for Rondebosch is championing. We do not want to demolish the houses of people who are living here in the Cape Peninsula in an orderly manner, people who have been here for years and whose houses are neatly numbered. Where necessary, these people are provided with alternative accommodation. Their dwellings are only demolished after they have been resettled elsewhere in an orderly manner. The Government wants to take action against people who are streaming in from the country districts. This is the action envisaged by the hon. the Minister. Do hon. members know who the people are that are streaming in to this area? They are not honest people. The majority of them are rogues. They are people who do not find it possible to go from one area to another in the country districts to rob and steal. There they are tracked down and prosecuted. Consequently, they flee to the cities. [Interjections.] It is not only the rogues that come here, however. There are shirkers amongst them as well. Does the hon. member for Rondebosch know what a work-shy Coloured is? On the farm we refer to them as “sonsitters” (sun worshippers). These are people who refuse to work. People like these are now coming to Cape Town and making a living here by making their home in the bushes and running around at night like jackals, seeing where they can steal and rob. [Interjections.] Where do all the criminals come from? Not a day goes by without one opening the newspaper …

[Inaudible.]

No, wait, the hon. member for Rondebosch had his turn last night. Just open any newspaper. What does one read there? One reads about the assaults, crimes and wicked deeds that are taking place. Who are the people that are committing all these atrocities? They are those shanty dwellers. It is they who are streaming in here from the country districts. Moreover, they cannot easily be brought to justice. They steal by day. They steal by night. What do they do with their stolen goods? They leave them in the bush, just a little way from their shanty, and there is no way the Police can prove who stole the goods. It is extremely difficult to catch them.

It is the illegal squatters who are responsible for today’s pressing need to provide decent accommodation for Cape Town’s established Coloured population. If all the millions of rands that currently have to be spent on providing illegal squatters in the Cape Peninsula with decent accommodation, could rather be employed in the provision of accommodation for the established local Coloured population, it would be possible to give the legal Coloured inhabitants of the Peninsula, taking their natural population increase into account, decent accommodation. If this can be done, we shall not be saddled with the slum conditions existing in Cape Town at present. Millions of rands are being spent on accommodating squatters. Today the established Coloured population of Cape Town and surrounding areas, is the victim of this.

But who is behind this squatter problem? Let us be honest now. Last night, the hon. the Minister pointed out that there were other forces in operation, other forces which make it difficult to take action against the phenomenon of illegal squatting. This is true. There are evil forces mobilizing those squatters.

Who are they?

Order!

I shall tell hon. members who they are.

Order! The first part of the hon. member’s speech was entirely to the point. Therefore I request the hon. member not to digress now.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. However, the problem is that whenever one is in the boxing ring, and one has to tackle one’s opponent, one also has to do a little footwork, otherwise one may never hit him. [Interjections.]

The hon. member wants to know who those evil forces are. Surely we know them? They are the communist elements. They are the ones who take delight in slum areas. These create a wonderful field of propaganda for them whenever it suits them, they act as agitators and inciters of the non-Whites. They incite the non-Whites to set fire to schools, churches and houses. Surely we all know who they are?

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

One expects a loyal Opposition to give the Government their co-operation and support, not only in accommodating the shanty dwellers, but also in ensuring that further construction of shanties is prevented. That is what we expect of a loyal and patriotic Opposition. It is quite sad, and I want to express my deepest sympathy with certain of the hon. members of the Opposition, because within a few months they, too, will be squatters, political squatters under the supervision of Mr. Gerdner. It could well be that they are opposing the Bill because they are afraid that the legislation will be applicable to them. [Interjections.]

I now want to turn to my part of the world, and that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central as well. I hope he will listen to this as well. It is possible that he, too, will make a contribution in this House today as regards seeing what we can do to help prevent illegal squatting in Port Elizabeth as well. Squatting does not occur only in the Cape Peninsula and surrounding areas. Chief Minister Mangope of Bophuthatswana once said that thousands of squatters were descending on Bophuthatswana. He asked for action to be taken against these people as well. The same situation is occurring in Port Elizabeth. For the benefit of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I should like to quote from a report in the Eastern Province Herald under the heading “Squatters’ homes spring up as E.P. families seek security.” According to the report, use is made of “walls made of wood, cardboard or tar-painted cloth material”. The reporter goes on to say—

It is the same thing as we had on the banks of the Korsten Lake in 1948 when the UP were in power. A large number of Bantu used to hire out land to the squatters. When one asked one of those people what he was doing and who the land belonged to, he replied: “I am the money collector.” He is merely a money collector. The report goes on to say—

So we had the same situation there. The report, which appeared in February 1977, goes on to say—

We see, then, that the same situation is arising in Port Elizabeth. One cannot say how many people are squatting on land belonging to the divisional council. We have similar conditions there. If we do not get legislation to stem this influx of Coloureds and Bantu into our big cities, if we do not stop the influx of squatters, I wonder what will become of us. The position is that money now has to go mainly towards Coloured and Bantu housing. But the Whites are also entitled to their rightful share of the money made available to the Department of Community Development. Most of the money must now be used to house the illegal squatters who are descending on the cities. And to crown it all, the hon. member for Wynberg asks the Minister what provision is being made for winter because it is cold. Surely he does not expect the hon. the Minister to provide them with blankets, overcoats and clothes? I believe that every one of us in this House who sincerely believes that we have to put a stop to these slum conditions, will support this Bill wholeheartedly, because only by supporting it will we be able to stem this tide of squatters.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North touched on a matter which concerns the Port Elizabeth area. However, I did not want to react to that aspect of the hon. member’s speech. I should like to concern myself with the general principle included in this Bill. There is probably no subject the discussion of which arouses more emotions in this House than a matter concerning people who have to be shifted for one reason or another. I definitely do not plan to try and provoke any emotion on this matter.

What I did do was to look back to the time when we discussed this matter in the House for the first time in 1951 in connection with legislation which was introduced. I looked at the attitude of the various members of the House when this was discussed for the first time. When the Act was amended last year, too, there was an amendment before the House, namely that the legislation be referred to a Select Committee. However, in 1951, when this legislation was discussed for the first time, all political parties voted for the Second Reading. Although the members who represented the Bantu in the House spoke against the legislation at the Second Reading, they did not demand a vote on it. All the political parties, the UP, the Bantu Representatives and even the Labour Party, represented by Mr. Lovell and others, supported the legislation. Even Mr. Sam Kahn, a communist representative, spoke against the legislation but according to the record, did not demand a vote on the Second Reading.

Looking at the history, I want to say that this type of legislation has a fairly long history.

†The hon. member for Houghton need not go and check up. She can have a look at Hansard, 22 May 1951, and read the speeches. I have given her the reference.

*She does not have to leave the House. When the Act was passed for the first time in 1951, it was the result of War Measure No. 31 of 1944. In the debate today we have also heard about the extraordinary powers which the Minister is taking upon himself. “Strong-arm tactics” will be used and a “strong-arm attitude” will be taken. I also took the trouble of looking up how Proclamation No. 76 of 1944 was worded, the proclamation which embodies War Measure No. 31 of 1944. I have read all the speeches which were made here in 1951, because it is important in this debate that we should look at this. I admit that the hon. the Minister is taking serious powers upon himself. However, what was the position previously? I quote—

1. (a) that any persons have entered upon such land or building without the permission of the said owner or occupier, are remaining thereon or therein against his will, and refuse, despite warning, to depart therefrom; and
2. (b) that the conditions and the circumstances under which such persons are living on or in the land or building are such that unless they are without delay removed therefrom, the health or safety of the public generally or of any class or classes of persons (including the said persons themselves) or the maintenance of peace and good order, may be endangered,

the magistrate may take all such steps as appear to him to be reasonably necessary to effect the immediate removal of such persons, if necessary, by force, from that land or building and may further order the immediate demolition and removal from such land, of all buildings or structures which may have been erected thereon by any such person.

In what year was that?

That was War Measure No. 31 of 1944. What was the background here? It was put very clearly in the House by Dr. Henry Gluckman at that time. He said that the situation in the Alexandra residential area, for example, was such that thousands of Black people came in and squatted on the small area of open land which was available. In the years 1946-’47 it was necessary to institute measures by means of such proclamations. There were no legal proceedings. A magistrate acted after sworn statements had been presented to him. This could take place in his office, it could be done by any owner or it could be done by a local authority and then the magistrate took action because it was a state of emergency. In 1951 we democratized the War Measure of 1944.

What is the situation today? Are we not entitled to maintain that we once again have a situation where there are hundreds of thousands of people who do not have decent accommodation—no matter how much one wants to help and how much one wants to support the democratic process and not disregard the courts. I think the hon. member for Rondebosch also referred to this. Once again it is a similar situation to the one which the UP Government had to deal with at the time. The situation was caused by the immense industrialization. This fantastic influx of people is taking place once again today. What must the State do now? Should it refuse to do anything? Should it look on while the problem becomes bigger and bigger? Should one look on while—as the hon. member for Durbanville rightly said—people are misusing a situation by squatting on land which belongs not to them, but to a private individual, the Government or a local authority?

Where must they go to?

I am going to tell the hon. member what must be done with them. Considering the circumstances, it is still necessary for extraordinary powers to be taken today, especially because we are dealing with a drastic problem. Just as hon. members on that side of the House have a responsibility, we on this side of the House have a responsibility too. We too receive letters from voters who write and tell us that a squatter problem is developing. This is the case in certain parts of the Eastern Cape, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North correctly pointed out. What should we, as representatives of those voters, do? We are all sympathetic towards the Coloured as well as towards the Black man. Who would not want to see to it that someone else has a roof over his head? However, no-one is going to tell me that a squatter who arrives here in Cape Town or Port Elizabeth has crawled out of the bush somewhere. He comes from somewhere where he had a roof over his head, no matter how poor it may have been. He has been lured to the city for one reason or another. He believes that he will find the most wonderful situation here.

He will find work here.

I am prepared to say that a great number of these people do find work. This is the case. However, we cannot allow a problem simply to snowball and create more and more problems for South Africa. That is why I say that if the hon. the Minister needs certain far-reaching powers in order to carry out his responsibility in this respect, we ought to give them to him. As was the case in 1944, these do not have to be permanent powers and I hope that the powers which we want to give him now do not have to be permanent either. I believe that the hon. gentleman will not try and evade his responsibility of providing alternative housing. In any event, we on this side of the House will not allow him to evade this responsibility, because if he evades it, it is not only the hon. gentleman but the Opposition, too, that will be failing in its duty.

Consequently we in these benches say that the hon. gentleman is receiving powers in terms of clause 2 which we would not like to see him receiving, but since he is dealing with a serious problem we are prepared to give him those powers. We shall nevertheless see to it that he fulfils his responsibility of providing alternative housing.

An hon. member asked me what could be done under these circumstances. The old Act of 1951 provides for emergency camps to be established in an attempt to control the situation properly. I want to insist that when the hon. the Minister finds it necessary to clear the squatter camps, he should make use of the idea of emergency camps, except of course when the squatters can be provided with alternative housing. We must use the idea of emergency camps just as they were used in the late forties when it became necessary to consider a place like Maroka as an emergency camp.

That was refused last year.

Then let them refuse it for good reasons.

More than 20 000 families are being accommodated in emergency camps.

I believe that there are still further reasons why emergency camps ought to be established. I really do not believe that the department of the hon. the Minister will demolish shacks while people are still living in them and that those people will then have to find another place to stay if housing is not available for them. I am not prepared to believe that our Government departments will do anything like this. I am as little able to believe this as I am able to believe that a magistrate in 1944 would have decided to evict someone by force without there being alternative accommodation for him. I believe it is just as unlikely for this to happen today as it was then. It is a pity that when this type of debate takes place, there are always people who are only too keen to paint the most sombre picture of South Africa possible for the outside world. The poorest impression must be created because after all, this is not a Government which has to see to it that every minor matter is carried out. However, there are thousands upon thousands of officials who have this type of task entrusted to them. The impression is always being created that we in South Africa are a lot of people who stand with the whip in one hand and keep a stranglehold on people with the other. However, I want to say that this is a mistaken impression. I think that this legislation is merely aimed at counteracting an emergency situation. If the hon. the Minister misuses his powers in this regard, we are entitled to tell him that he misused his power and that we are not prepared to grant him that power in future. However, we are also prepared to say that until such time as he has solved the housing problem for the Coloureds and the Blacks in our urban and peri-urban areas, we are prepared to give him this responsibility so that he will not create an even greater problem out of this problem in South Africa. This is our attitude, and that is why we shall support the Second Reading of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to react very briefly to the hon. member who has just spoken. There is a world of difference between a situation in which a judicial officer has to act and the situation we have before us in this Bill where people take the law into their own hands.

But you were against magistrates yesterday.

I am not even going to bother replying to the allegation that I am against magistrates. I stated very definitely that I was not against magistrates. Secondly, in the 1944 War Measures Proclamation the squatter was not denied the right to go to court. He could go to court for damages if he was improperly dispossessed. He could go to court for an interdict. He was not denied any rights. However, in terms of the Bill before the House now, the squatter is denied any rights at all.

That is not so.

That hon. member was obviously not here last night when the hon. the Minister suddenly grew silent when it was pointed out that a squatter is denied rights. The hon. the Minister agrees with that even if he does not. In essence this Bill takes away the right of squatters to be given notice before their houses are demolished. In order to debate this matter properly, however, there has to be some kind of language of understanding between this side of the House and that side of the House. There must be some logic in the debate. Fact must assert itself over fiction in some way or another. I want to refer to the hon. member for Durbanville’s speech last night in regard to giving notice. Again and again in his speech he repeated that squatters had no rights. In all sorts of different ways he stated that squatters had no rights. This is the argument of people on the other side of the House. Quite simply, however, that is not true. It is no use stating a false proposition and hoping that by repeating it endlessly it will become true. It will not, because it is not true. Squatters do have rights, and in the two cases which the hon. the Minister referred to, the Stellenbosch divisional council case and the Minister of Public Works case, the judges not only stated what the rights of the squatters were, but also enforced them.

The judges of the Supreme Court found that rights did exist, and it is therefore quite pointless, irrelevant and foolish to argue that no rights exist at all for squatters. Talking about the judges and this point of giving notice, I wish to deal with the scandalous attack by the hon. the Minister, when dealing with the notice clause in the Bill, on the exercising of those rights by squatters. He said that the court decisions “het die owerheid gedwarsboom”. It is in that context that he said that “dit ’n gevaar vir die samelewing inhou”. He also ascribed various sinister motives to these people. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is saying that the judges in those cases were not doing their duty. Is he saying, in his own words, that they were “besig om plakkery aan te moedig”? Those were his own words in his speech. Is he saying that they were “besig om opstokers in hofaansoeke te laat slaag”? Is he saying that? A deathly silence, Mr. Speaker. If the judges were doing their duty in upholding the rights of those squatters, those squatters were likewise perfectly entitled to exercise their rights in a court of law. No amount of smearing by the hon. the Minister will alter the fact that they have rights and that it is their legal right to protect such rights. Then the hon. the Minister has the gall to say that they succeeded—and I quote—

That is what he said. Quite the contrary is true. In his judgment the judge did not utter one word of criticism of the applicants, nor did he suggest that they had resorted to technical points. On the contrary; in his judgment he was very scathing about the authorities. Let me just refer to those judgments. On page 6 of his judgment, Mr. Justice Diemont, who is not a junior judge, said—

On page 7 he continued—

He went on to say—

Sir, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister not only what the judge said, but also what the Divisional Council itself conceded. It conceded that they had no right at all to do what they did. That appears on page 4 of the judgment where the judge says that—

The authorities in fact conceded that the rights was not on their side but on the side of the squatters. Therefore, Sir, the hon. the Minister’s statement, with respect, is quite clearly false. The truth is that through the years the Government has whittled away these rights, as the hon. member for Rondebosch pointed out last night, and that in this Bill it is taking away the last rights of these poor, unfortunate people. I should like to refer again in that regard to page 6 of the judgment of Mr. Justice Diemont. There he says—

That is the regional Divisional Council of Stellenbosch—

We are now being asked to support the taking away of this final limited protection. It is simply not an escape for the hon. members on that side of the House to pretend, as they do in their arguments, that they are not taking away rights and to pretend that in fact no rights exist at all. The rights that do exist are now being brought to an end by this Bill. It brings to an end a long and honourable tradition in Roman-Dutch Law.

Define their rights.

The very limited right they have at this moment, before this Bill becomes law, is that they must be given seven days’ proper notice.

That is a right to be found in law.

You are running away from the new point you were making when I put my question to you.

What new point? Sir, as I was saying, this Bill brings to an end a long and honourable tradition in Roman-Dutch Law. Do the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House not know that it is the quality of the law that distinguishes civilized societies from anarchy? The rights we have enjoyed in this country date back hundreds of years. They are enshrined in the mandament van spolie. The principle there, a principle we have always held, is that nobody may take the law into his own hands, but that the courts must operate.

I want to refer again to the hon. member for Durbanville. He said last night—and I quote: “Moet die moordenaar, die rower en die ander man wat die Wet oortree, ook kennis ontvang?” Even on that point he is totally wrong, because the Appellate Division has held precisely that, in that it has said that anyone is entitled to a spoliation order, even if he is a thief or a robber.

Under certain circumstances.

I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether these squatters are to have less rights than a thief or a robber. What does the hon. the Minister say? The hon. the Minister says they must come to court with clean hands. That is the trite little phrase of a sea-lawyer and it is in fact wrong. Mr. Justice Diemont said precisely that in his judgment, namely that they do not have to come to court with clean hands. I want to read from his judgment. He said—

He is quoting from the Appellate Division. He goes on—

That does not mean that you cannot evict people, as hon. members on the other side of the House try to pretend. Of course they can be evicted. All that has to be done is that the law has to be complied with. Right has to be put on one’s side. What has to be done, is to respect the law, not just change the rules, because in that case you failed to respect the law.

I now wish to deal with clause 1(c), the clause of which the hon. the Minister is so proud. This is the one in which he shelters under the light of the hon. the Prime Minister. It says quite simply in effect that a squatter will have rights if he proves he is not a squatter. But if he is a squatter, he has no rights. The matter cannot even be taken to court. The Bill places a squatter in a worse position in our law than a thief or a robber. It is a far worse position, unless of course the fantasies of the Minister are such that he claims that the Appellate Division is also wrong. As the law is stated in this Bill, a squatter when he is the victim of abuse, is placed entirely beyond the protection and the reach of the courts, notwithstanding that the action taken against him may be brutal, may be arbitrary and may be without due process of law. That is the position in terms of this subsection. It is a jackboot Bill. It is a Bill which tramples on the rights of the most unfortunate individuals in our society and in a callous way in respect of their most precious rights—their homes and their families.

The hon. the Minister makes much of the point that his department will warn the people before they are evicted, just as sympathetically as they did in the past. In dealing with that “sympathy” in the past, the court says it was done with ruthless disregard. “Never mind”, the hon. the Minister says. That assurance will be given. Does the hon. the Minister not understand the Bill? Does he not know that his assurance is entirely irrelevant? It is entirely irrelevant because it is not that department only that is affected. This Bill gives the right to anybody—to every citizen in South Africa who is an occupier—to demolish anything without notice. It does not refer only to the department; it refers to anybody. This is the power which is being given to all people; so his assurance is quite irrelevant. We will have the situation if the Bill is passed where owners or occupants right across the land can take the law into their own hands and can smash any property of squatters on their land, they can steal all his possessions, without notice, and not one cent will the squatter entitled to claim in a court of law. This is a disgraceful Bill for any democratic country to pass anywhere in the world, and I am ashamed of it.

Finally, I come to the clauses dealing with retrospectivity. In court actions previously started, or in actions completed and in which there have been judgments, those court orders are now null and void unless the applicant proved that he had lawful occupation. With respect, Mr. Speaker, what a ridiculous clause! If the defendant had tendered that proof in the court, it would not even have been admissible. He could not have tendered it. It was not relevant to the proceedings in that court. He would not have been able to put it in as evidence. He would not have been able to prove it. Nevertheless, a judgment in his favour is now null and void. In the very matter which was mentioned by the hon. the Minister—the case in which the hon. the Minister of Public Works was involved—the hon. the Minister of Public Works, on 19 April 1977, represented to the court that he would not proceed with the matter and he agreed to a court order—that was in the Cape Town Supreme Court—for an order of costs against him, including the costs of two counsel. In terms of that agreement the applicants withdrew their rule nisi. In pursuance of that agreement the court made an order by consent, an order of costs against the Minister. However, the hon. the Minister of Public Works failed to disclose to the court that on that very day, later in the day, this Bill was to be introduced, a Bill which would render such an order nugatory, and of no force and effect. I am not going to presume that he knew of that Bill, but the circumstances are very suspicious. I do not know whether he saw it or knew of it. However, if he did know, it is a very serious matter indeed. If he did know, it is not only a breach of contract, it is not only a contempt of the court, but it is a very serious criminal offence. It is fraud.

The provisions of this Bill are quite unacceptable to us. They are bad, and they are inflammatory, I believe, in the South African situation. No matter how much hon. members on the other side try to smear hon. members on this side, I want to warn them that they are creating, in this ruthless measure, dynamite for the future of this country, for the future of their children and for the future of our children, as well as for the children of all the races in this country.

Order! Before the hon. member sits down, I want to come back to his statement with regard to the hon. the Minister of Public Works I think it was?

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must unconditionally withdraw any inference of fraud on the part of the hon. the Minister of Public Works.

Mr. Speaker, I shall do so, but first I want to say that I …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that inference without qualification.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: I did not say that the hon. the Minister was guilty of fraud at all. I did not even infer it.

Order! The hon. member made a clear suggestion to that effect. From what the hon. member said an inference of fraud could be drawn. The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North appeared to be under a very grave misapprehension. He appeared to be under the impression that he was standing in a court of law defending squatters, instead of speaking in the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa, the House which has, as one of its functions, the making of laws for this country. In other words, the hon. member cannot quote to this House an enactment of this House and then infer that the House is not entitled to deviate in any way from its own enactment. The hon. member cannot deny this House the right of amending its own enactments when circumstances call for such amendment. That is the crux of the matter. That is what is basically wrong in the approach of the two Opposition parties to the Bill under consideration. They are approaching the Bill from the point of view that we have an Act, and whatever happens, we must stand or fall by that Act. That is the Act passed last year. We approach the matter from a completely different angle. We say that we have to take cognizance of realities, and if the realities require us to amend the existing law, we have to do so, because the people are not there to suit the law; one has to suit the law to the circumstances.

Does that mean you take away all their rights?

Which rights?

I shall come back to that.

*I have it on good authority that the Hansard of the very first sitting of the House of Assembly after Union makes mention of legislation in regard to squatting, and during the consideration of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Amendment Bill last year, we had a comprehensive debate in this House on the whole question of squatting. Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of speaking about squatting in general this afternoon. Without doubt, you would not allow me to do so. I trust, however, that you will permit me to put a few background facts in this connection.

During the course of last year’s debate, and again yesterday, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and hon. members on this side of the House stressed that the solution to the squatting problem lay not only in preventive measures such as, for example, the demolition of squatter shanties and the clearance of squatter camps, but also, and particularly, in providing the necessary accommodation for squatters and potential squatters. The Department of Community Development has a proud and unequalled record, as the hon. the Minister and other hon. members have already shown, in regard to the provision of accommodation for all sections of the population. The provision of houses without preventive measures and measures to combat squatting, the demolition of squatter shanties and the clearance of squatter camps would have the desired result least of all, because as long as squatting remains an alternative, the provision of accommodation for the non-White section of the population in particular will remain a bottomless pit.

The far-fetched fears expressed by hon. members of the Opposition during the debate last year have been proved completely unfounded and unjustified. Nevertheless, last night and today they repeated them and raised the same old hackneyed objections.

I think it is necessary and beneficial that we should look at the Bill for once in a sober and unemotional fashion, and that we should grasp what the Bill in fact sets out to do and what is at issue. Firstly, I want to make the statement that the Bill is only aimed at and refers to the prevention of illegal squatting as defined in the principal Act. The hon. member for False Bay said last night that in many cases the squatters concerned were criminals. I presume that by that he means that many of them are guilty of other offences but I want to go even further and contend that all the squatters involved are law-breakers per se. They are all, in fact, offenders against the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, 1951. There is not one jot or tittle of the present Bill which does not apply to anybody who is not an offender against the existing Act, and thus law-breaker. Neither is there anything at all in the present Bill which extends in any way the definition of an illegal squatter. It only makes provision for certain action against and in respect of people who are already illegal squatters in terms of the existing Act.

The statement the hon. member for Rondebosch made last night, viz. that “a squatter as a squatter has no access to the court in terms of this Bill” is therefore simply not true. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill which denies a squatter, other than an illegal squatter, the right of access to the court in terms of the existing Act. Even as far as the allegedly illegal squatter is concerned, his access to the court is not obstructed. All the squatter has to do is to show on the balance of probabilities, that is to say, not even beyond reasonable doubt, that he does have a title or some other right in terms of which he may legally occupy the relevant land. Nothing in the Bill or in the Act obstructs his bringing such proof to any court.

In this respect, clause 1(c) of the Bill is in accordance with two well known and generally accepted legal principles. The first legal principle is that a litigant must have locus standi in judicio. In other words, he must have a really legal interest in the subject of the court proceedings. It is not enough for a litigant or a prospective litigant, simply to submit that some contravention of the law has taken place. He must also show that his legal interest has been prejudiced or will be prejudiced by the breaking of that law. I ask hon. members of the Opposition what legal right or rights of illegal squatters are prejudiced by the demolition of the structures they have erected and occupied on the land concerned without the consent of the owner? What legal interests of these illegal squatters are affected thereby?

How does the Act read at the moment?

I am not talking of how the Act reads at the moment. I am asking hon. members what legal interests of the squatters are affected. The hon. member is now sheltering behind a formal point of law to which I shall come just now.

We oppose this legislation.

I ask those hon. members what legal interest of illegal squatters is affected by the present Bill.

Go and look at the present Act.

I am not asking the hon. member what is contained in the present Act. I am asking what legal interests are affected by this legislation.

There is no compulsory notice.

I am coming to that now.

Do not ask us; get on with your speech.

I shall. The hon. member for Durban North referred to the legal concept “spoliation” in this connection. A mandament van spolie is a civil law procedure which offers a quick legal remedy to any person who has been a victim of spoliation. What is spoliation? According to The Civil Practice of the Magistrates Courts in South Africa, by Jones and Buckle, Sixth Edition, page 89, spoliation is the following—

“illicit”—

That is the crux of this whole matter and it was very neatly omitted from his whole argument by the hon. member for Durban North, viz. that spoliation is only at issue when someone illicitly prejudices someone else or deprives him of his right of possession. When he does it legally there is no question of spoliation. But the hon. member for Durban North did not tell the House that.

The purpose of a mandament van spolie is only to restore the status quo ante.

But that is what he said.

Yes, he said that. But it definitely does not determine rights. It only applies when somebody takes the law into his own hands and deprives someone else of possession illegally even if that possession is not founded in law. I am putting the matter comprehensively and am not omitting some of the elements. If a responsible authority, or anybody, deprives an illegal squatter of possession of his structure illicitly, the latter can ask for a mandament van spolie.

It cannot be done now.

When the deprivation takes place illicitly it can in fact be done. If the responsible authority acts legally, in terms of the existing Act or in terms of this Bill—if it is passed—there can however be no question of a mandament van spolie.

This brings us back to the basic idea, viz. that if there is a loophole in the legislation which makes it impossible for the responsible authority to act against the evil of squatting, we must remedy that shortcoming. We cannot just accept the legislation without question, including the loophole and say that it cannot be done. After all, Parliament is the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic and the necessary adjustments must be made. The tenor of the present Bill in this regard is only to enlarge realistically upon what the responsible authority may do legally. If the Bill is passed, the relevant authority will be able to act legally to that extent, and only to that extent, and will not lay itself open to a spoliation order.

That also answers immediately the allegation which the hon. member for Rondebosch made last night, viz. that the courts have found recently that irregular action has been taken.

The judges say so.

I have no fault to find with that because it is true that in the light of the Act as it reads at present the courts have found that wrongful action was taken. But if the Act is amended, as provided for in the Bill, the legal position will be changed completely.

The second legal principle with which clause 1(c) is in accord, is that the plaintiff should have clean hands. A litigant can hardly expect the protection of the law and the court if he himself is engaged in illicit activities. So a person engaged in illicit diamond buying can hardly expect the court to protect him if he is prejudiced in the process. The legal position of an illegal squatter is, in this regard, similar to that of the illegal diamond dealer, and for the same reason he should not enjoy the protection of the court. I do not say that he should not enjoy the protection of the court when the question of his guilt or innocence is at issue; that is another matter. But when his guilt is evident he has no right to the protection of the courts in respect of his unlawful activities. I want to stress that the clause does not deprive anyone of his legal rights and affects nobody’s legal interests. It is intended merely to prevent the legal provisions established for the protection of the owners of bona fide legal rights being abused by those persons who have no real legal interest in a specific matter.

The hon. member for Rondebosch asked last night why the proposed section 3B(4)(b) removes the requirement that notice be given, if, as the hon. the Minister has assured the House, it is still the intention to give the squatters notice of intention to demolish.

Why are you removing it from the Act?

I really cannot believe that the hon. member for Rondebosch—I have nothing to say about the hon. member for Bryanston—is so naïve that he cannot understand the difference. After all it is one thing to give the squatters notice of intention to demolish because that is one’s policy and it is considered desirable; but it is something else entirely to give that notice because the Act requires one to do so. If one looks at the matter closely, the question arises in one’s mind what moral claim there can in any event be for people who are squatting, blatantly and illegally, to be given notice that their illegal action must cease.

Why was it in the Act?

That is not my question. I ask the hon. members what moral justification there is.

Surely there were reasons for its having been included in the Act?

It ought to be removed where no moral justification exists for it and, in addition, it creates a problem. Must one just stare blindly at an Act once it has been passed?

Where did the Act come from?

The squatters know only to well that they are breaking the law. In practice, the required notice has served only one purpose, namely to make action by the responsible authorities unbearably difficult and to enable squatters to make unjustifiable applications to the courts. That was the only purpose the required notice served. It gave rise to a state of affairs which was simply too ridiculous to be tolerated.

In terms of the existing Act the owner of land may, without a court order, demolish a structure which has been erected on his land without his consent and remove the material from his property. But it can happen that the structure concerned was erected initially with the consent of the owner, but is being occupied without his consent and even in conflict with his wishes. The occupier can oppose the demolition of the structure which he is illegally occupying, and apparently obstruct it, merely because the structure was for instance initially erected by someone else for some other purpose with the consent of the owner of the land. This state of affairs cannot be tolerated either. It is necessary therefore that the owner be authorized by the proposed section 3B(4)(a) to demolish without a court order any structure which is being occupied without his consent.

I want to conclude by saying that the action of the two Opposition parties that have opposed this legislation in this debate must be unique. I cannot imagine that law-breakers anywhere in the world have ever been protected in the way hon. members of the Opposition have protected them in this debate.

It is with pleasure that I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am not really competent to reply to the speech by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. [Interjections.] I know he is a very great lawyer and we always appreciate his contributions in that regard, although he is not necessarily always correct. However, there is one thing that surprises me. He is a man with much legal knowledge, a man with a doctorate in law, and he does not even deal with a point raised by the hon. member for Green Point yesterday.

†Not once did he deal with that extremely interesting legal point. The hon. member for Green Point pointed out that in terms of the present Act, if a squatter is on a property, the court must deem the squatter to be there with the consent of the owner. In terms of this Bill, however, he cannot claim any rights unless he can prove that he has the right to be on that property.

He need not prove it.

In terms of the present Act, however, he is deemed to be there with the consent of the owner. He therefore has a right. We have not had any adequate answer on that point, and I am surprised at the fact.

*However, I believe we are now talking at cross purposes in this House about this matter of squatters. We all agree that squatters are undesirable phenomena in our society. We agree on that. Squatting is an unfortunate state of affairs in a civilized community. However, we differ on the way in which this problem should be combated. We all have a very guilty conscience as far as squatting is concerned. Squatting is a common phenomenon throughout the world. It is the extent of the squatting which really worries us.

†We are dealing with a Bill, which is a very dramatic and harsh Bill indeed, one year before the magic year of 1978 when the great Black tide will have been reversed and the people will be sweeping back to these magnificent homelands and Bantustans which Dr. Verwoerd used to dream about. The point, however, is that while we all agree that squatting is a bad problem, our problem in this country at the moment is that this Government, instead of working with the inevitable tide of history and sociology, is working against it. It therefore seems to me that we should consider this aspect in particular because we are not sure whether the Bill has been forced on the Minister of Community Development by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development or whether it is, in fact, his own Bill. If it is, it is basically aimed at squatters in the Western Cape, and if it is aimed at squatters in the Western Cape, let me say that it has been proved that most of these squatters, particularly in the places associated with the court orders—and the Minister regards this as the main motivation for this Bill—are Black squatters. At least 75% of the squatters at Modderdam Road and a higher percentage at Crossroads are Blacks and not Coloured people, and they are the people about whom we must be concerned.

We have heard the biggest lot of nonsense in regard to this Bill from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. We have had good speeches, I believe, from both sides of the House. We have had well motivated speeches with important statistics. But then that hon. member comes and talks absolute nonsense. He said that all the squatters are simply “leeglêers wat net kwaad doen”.

* Anyone who has taken any trouble to refer to the work done by various universities with regard to this matter, knows that this is not at all the case. To my mind, when such nonsense is spoken in this House, it lowers the standard of debating in the House.

†What interests me is that at least 75% of the Black people squatting in the Western Cape are here legally. They have “dompasse” with the required magic stamp on them. They are either here under section 10 or they are contract labourers. What are they doing in squatter camps? No Black man is allowed to come here under contract unless the authorities have proof that he has accommodation. Half of the 75% to whom I referred are contract labourers. Sir, I have been to the Transkei and I inspected labour contracts there. A Black man cannot get a labour contract to come here for 11 months in the year unless accommodation is provided. Why then are they here and why are they squatting? I shall tell you why, Sir. The Black man is squatting because, as a man of 40, 45 or 50, he does not want to live in single barracks but he wants to have a bit of family life. He most probably has accommodation in the barracks, but moves out nevertheless to live with his wife. Who can object to that? Only a crazy ideologue will be prepared to condemn a man to live as a bachelor in a labour hostel for 40 years of his life. Who wants to live like that? Yet that is where these people are. That is the problem with this Bill. We are not going to resolve the squatter problem with this Bill because we are dealing with a human factor. We will only be able to stop squatters by means of dogs, barbed wire and guns. People are like ants: they will always find the sugar; and the sugar is the cities where they can earn money. We have got to realize that this is the case and that we are not going to be able to stop them.

I want to quote from an article which deals with the position in Natal where we have a similar problem. There are a lot of contract labourers in Natal. The article states—

It is a new hostel which is much nicer than the hostels in Langa and Guguletu, but it is only partially occupied. One would imagine that people would much prefer that accommodation to a shack which, at a cost of R10 to R15 per month, is four times as expensive as hostel accommodation where there is also electricity and hot water. Why do they prefer to live in shacks? Because they have to share their quarters in the hostel with five other men and because their wives and families cannot visit them. They would rather live in a shack where they can have their children with them and receive their friends. Some of them may have little shops going in the shacks. It is a nice friendly environment to live in even though physically it is not very pleasant.

Sir, we seem to be mesmerized by the Western Cape. What happens in Natal? I want to quote with regard to the squatter problem there. In the Natal Mercury of 1 February one reads—

An official, overlooking a camp of 300 shacks, is reported as follows—

He continued—

I want to agree with these words of the official.

We know that squatting is an undesirable situation. Who wants squatters? It is awful! However, I do not see why we need a Bill like this. The hon. the Minister sitting opposite me is an ex-teacher and his department has had a great deal to do with the moving of squatters. Dr. Verwoerd cleaned up the Johannesburg area with the help of the MP for Jeppe at that time. Thousands and thousands of Black people were moved. I can remember when I was a young boy there was a huge squatters’ camp in the Pretoria district which was called Mooiplaas. White farmers used to make more money farming with Black squatters than they ever did out of their cattle and their crops. That was cleared up, and without a Bill like this.

There was a special law, but you do not know about it.

We have managed to do perfectly adequately without it. [Interjections.] As we were reminded by the hon. member for Newton Park the last Squatting Bill was in 1951 and that was introduced to change the War Measures Act. I would like to remind the House—I am sorry the hon. member for Newton Park is not here now—that the man who used to be our first State President, Mr. “Blackie” Swart, described the War Measures Act as a fascist measure. Yet the hon. member for Newton Park is now trying to defend it! At the time when the hon. the Minister of Justice introduced the original Squatters Act he pointed out that it was an attempt to introduce more legal rights for squatters in the place of the War Measures Act. So the hon. member for Newton Park’s argument is nonsense. I am sorry that he is not present to hear that.

This Bill is intertwined with the whole career of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. His whole ministerial career has been associated with squatting in various forms. I often feel that this hon. Minister, when he is dealing with these two Bills is a tragic figure. As he sits there, I shall not say he squats. I think he realizes that himself. Mr. Speaker, have you ever known this hon. Minister as restrained and as quiet and as capable of withholding himself from making interjections as we have seen him yesterday and today? When I first came into politics, I came full of ideals, full of good intentions about politics and then found that pressures and temptations can lead even a man with the great political background of the hon. Minister astray. Then once, as a young member, a mean with ideals, finds that one is almost tempted to become disillusioned about politicians. If I were an Elizabethan writing about squatting Bills, I believe I could write a magnificent tragedy about the life of this Minister. Sometimes he reminds me of Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, who is tragically tempted and misled by the political Mephistopheles, so that Dr. Faustus allows himself to be changed from a man with a deep commitment to civil liberties, to a compassionate society and to the rule of law to one who can bring to the House a Bill like this. How can the hon. the Minister do such a thing? I believe it is the price one has to pay for joining the party opposite. That is where people are crushed by political expediency. I believe that this Bill is an act of vengeance, an act of political expediency!

A friend of mine recently wanted to become involved in politics. He was interested in what had happened to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. In any event, he was advised by a prominent Nationalist editor not to join the party opposite, because he would be emasculated. Or, as he put it in Afrikaans: “Jy sal ontman word.” This is precisely what has happened to this man’s principles in relation to this Bill.

May I ask the hon. member a question!

For the hon. member for Fauresmith a special favour.

With reference to his argument, is the hon. member prepared to guarantee that he shall stay in the party to which he belongs?

I shall guarantee one thing, i.e. that if I ever have to change my standpoint in politics, I will not do it overnight after belonging to the same party for 35 years.

Where is the principle? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point. I believe that, through this Bill—and that is the tragedy of this hon. Minister—his political principles have been emasculated. He has lost his former virility of principle. It is indeed a quirk of history that the emasculation on the hon. the Minister’s principles should happen over a squatting Bill … [Interjections.] … because it is in such a position that this can so easily take place. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has had a hiding. He has had a hiding at the hands of the courts of our country in his pathetic attempts to resist the inexorable momentum of people to our cities. He has had a hiding at the hands of history. Now he introduces this Bill with its retrospective clauses. All of us dislike a bad loser. However, when a man has the power to use Parliament to get his own back, I believe it is especially distasteful. He must take us into his confidence and tell us what he is going to do with all these people when, through this Bill, he will have all the power that he wants. What is he going to do with all the people at Modderdam Road—people whom he can get rid of now—and with all the people in the Stellenbosch Divisional Council area? I believe that the hon. the Minister must tell us what he and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development are going to do with these people.

Is he going to break up their families and send the people home? If he is going to do that I can warn him that they will come straight back like ants to the sugar. Is he going to build houses? After all, the Western Cape is a White area, and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told us this very week that money for Black housing in White areas came under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. What is he going to do for these people? [Interjections.] Is he going to extend the moratorium on squatters from November 1974—as he indicated in the case of the last Bill—until the present time? He must tell us that. We want to know.

What is it you want to know?

I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to extend the moratorium until the date of this present Bill. We want to know whether he is going to extend it for the people who are living at present in Modderdam Road and elsewhere in the Western Cape and for the thousands of squatters in a place like Clermont.

This very afternoon I had a telephone call from Durban, a call from eight Black women living at Clermont. Each of them has a husband. Each husband is legally employed in Pinetown. They are living in squatter conditions, and the manager of that township is endeavouring to get them out of the accommodation to which they are legally entitled. I want to know what the hon. the Minister’s plans are. Has he spoken with his colleague? What is going to happen to those people? This is where we disagree with the Government. We agree that squatters are bad. We do not want squatters in our environment. However, the way to deal with them is not with this kind of legislation. We must have definite plans, because these retrospective clauses conflict with every idea of fair play that any decent human being has. If the hon. the Minister is going to apply these retrospective clauses, what is he going to do about these people? They still remain people; they cannot be wished away; they will still be there.

The Government will never stop squatting. It must rather try to control it and to work with it, not against it. There is going to be an inevitable movement into our urban areas, and I want to warn the hon. the Minister that whatever credibility he has left, will suffer shipwreck on the rocks of the squatter problem if he tries to deal with it in the manner intended by this Bill. This Bill will not resolve the squatter problem. He himself will not only break up his own credibility. As surely as the Government’s policies are breaking up on the rocks of economic change and development, his will break up too. I feel sorry for the hon. the Minister because he looks depressed, and he should feel depressed because he works for a Government which has lost its way and as it gropes for solutions it becomes irrational and it seeks to pass legislation which does no credit to a civilized Government on the continent of Africa. I support the motion that the Bill be read this day six months.

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the NP has thrown in the towel in the defence of this indefensible measure. I would like to start off by addressing myself, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. It is ironic that for some 30 years this man has dedicated the best years of his life to the protection of individual rights and to fighting injustice and oppression. When he was a colleague of ours, many of us listened for many years with interest and admiration to the strident and effective way in which he fought injustice and oppression, Therefore it is ironic that today we are dealing with a measure where this Minister has become the tool of the perpetrators of injustice and oppression in South Africa. I think it is most unfortunate that in the twilight years of his career the hon. the Minister should come to such an ignominous end. We listened to him on many occasions in the past when he commented on attitudes, legislation and actions of the NP of this nature. I would like to quote some of the expressions he used when he described the actions of the Government. For instance, he told us that the NP was quite wicked …

Order! The hon. member is going too far. We are dealing here with an amending Bill and not with the problem of squatting as such. There are only a very few principles embodied in the Bill, and I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I am, in fact, specifically speaking to the provisions in the Bill. I want to use the words of the hon. the Minister himself when previously, as a member of the UP, he spoke about provisions and attitudes of this nature, when he described these attitudes as being quite wicked, vicious and brutal. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can remember the days when he referred to the NP and its actions in these terms? Well, today he himself has become the perpetrator of actions of that nature.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister walked a very long path before coming to the provisions of the Bill. However he found it necessary when introducing the Bill, amongst other things to cast suspicion on the practitioners of the law, on the people who provide funds for those who resisted the application of the law in the past. In fact, one of the sinister inferences he made was when he asked where the money came from to pay for legal representation against the legislation. I would like to ask him whether he did or did not, receive a communication from the Belhar Ratepayers’ Association dated 14 February in which they set out their attitudes and endeavours which they would make in this connection. The Minister can either say “yes” or “no”. I would like to know from him whether he received that communication, because I would like to deal with it as it is very appropriate to what we are discussing now. Apparently the hon. the Minister is not prepared to say whether he has received it or not. I am under the impression that he did receive it. In fact, I am informed that he or his department did receive it. The hon. the Minister said in this House that he did not know where the money came from and cast suspicion as to possible sources. He tried to create the impression that very sinister forces, very sinister institutions, were providing money to assist the squatters in their legal representation for very sinister purposes.

Must you repeat the speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch?

If the hon. the Minister is embarrassed, I can understand why. Why does he not listen to what I have to say and when he replies to the Second Reading debate reply to some of the questions that have been put to him? In this circular—of which the hon. the Minister received a copy before he made his Second Reading speech—it says clearly to the people to whom it is issued, the members of the community of Belhar—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the Belhar Ratepayers’ Association actually had a meeting and that they took a decision to assist the squatters? It says further—

They enclosed a copy of the resolution. This resolution is very appropriate to what we are discussing. I quote from it—

The question I want to put to the hon. the Minister … He is apparently not listening to what I am saying.

I am listening to every word although I find it terribly boring!

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he, in fact, received this communication and whether he responded to the representations made in this communication to him. Has he, in fact, replied to them? May I have an answer from the hon. the Minister as to whether, in fact, he has replied? It does not look as if he has. I think it is important that the hon. the Minister should reply to questions we put to him. We have the situation here where a man who previously was the protector of personal liberties and rights, has now become a merchant of misery in the department which he controls. The hon. member for Newton Park said that the Government has undertaken to provide alternative accommodation to any squatter who is faced by the provisions of this Bill. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether every squatter who is faced by the provisions of this Bill and his home—because that is what a shanty is to the squatter—is to be demolished without notification, will be offered alternative accommodation before his home is demolished? This is an important question and I think the hon. the Minister should attempt to answer it. The hon. the Minister should also tell us whether in addition to the emergency camps which already exist, provision has been made for emergency camps which are capable of accommodating the many tens of thousands of squatters who could now be summarily ejected from their places of residence, their homes demolished and sent back into the bush, because that is the only place they can go. Has the hon. the Minister made provision for additional camps of this nature? I fear the hon. the Minister finds it difficult to realize the misery, the trauma, that is experienced by a person whose house is bulldozed.

And that in the Cape winter!

Yes, in the Cape winter! Because the hon. the Minister, like all other Ministers, lives in a palatial home provided by taxpayers’ money, travels in a luxurious Jaguar and cannot possibly conceive the trauma, misery and the unhappiness that are caused to a man, his wife and his children when their home and all their possessions are destroyed, sometimes before their eyes and sometimes when they are not even present to see it. Possibly the hon. the Minister cannot conceive it and is accordingly prepared to introduce wicked and vicious legislation like this.

One of the most unhappy aspects of the debate has been the attitude which has emanated from the side of the Government, through their speakers, in debating the Bill. For instance, the hon. member for False Bay referred to the squatters as “parasites” and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North referred to them as “petty thieves.” When one sees these people as vermin—because that is how the NP sees them—one can understand why they want to deal with them by way of legislation which is as vicious as the legislation which is before the House. The objection which the hon. member for False Bay has against the existing legislation is that he found with surprise, disappointment and annoyance that it—to use his words—actually protects squatters and he is totally opposed to legislation which could possibly protect squatters in any way whatsoever. The hon. member found that annoying and regards it necessary that we have legislation to prevent that. Nobody on that side of the House seems to understand that the objection which is brought by this side of the House to the provisions of the Bill is that these provisions mean that anybody who owns property on which a squatter appears, can take the law into their own hands and do not have to act through the courts to remove squatters from their property.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have the time to reply to questions.

†Last year when we debated the Bill which was then before the House, the hon. the Minister said the following—

One tends to smile when he says that.—

The question which applies, in terms of the present legislation where property owners are not required to give notice, is: Can the hon. the Minister tell us, on behalf of his department, that his own department will give notice in terms of the undertaking that he has given in Parliament, but which he is not prepared to include in the Bill before us, i.e. that his department will not demolish the shacks of squatters without proper notification? It is only an undertaking in terms of this hon. Minister’s so-called compassion and it is something which will only happen in terms of deserving cases. In addition can the hon. the Minister say that other property owners, local authorities and private property owners, will abide by his requirement that proper notice should be given, if they are not required, in terms of legislation, to give proper notice? I should like to suggest that that will never happen and that in the vast majority of cases the squatters will not be given any sort of notice, because there is nothing in the Bill which requires them to do it and the squatter has no recourse to a court of law in respect of the damage he may suffer as a result of the actions of a property owner. When the hon. the Minister says that in terms of his concept of compassion in respect of deserving cases, exceptions can be made and when he gives an undertaking in the House that notice will be given, it means nothing because of the experience—in the first place—which South Africa has had with the Government and, secondly, because it is not compulsory on individual property owners to abide by the requirements which the hon. the Minister has given. The hon. member for False Bay has said that the Government has courage to act, even if the action is unpopular. I can only hope that on the day of grim retribution which will follow on the actions of this Government, the day on which the Government is called to account for its actions, the hon. member’s courage will not be lacking. It is all very well to have courage when one has everything on one’s side. But the day will come when the White man will be called to account for the actions of this Government, and I can only hope that the hon. member’s courage will not fail him on that day.

The hon. member for Durbanville wanted to know why people who do not have title, would want to go to the courts. That is a revelation of the mental attitude of members of the NP. It irks them, it irritates them, it annoys them that an individual should have any rights. In particular, if an individual cannot prove that he has title, he has, of course, no rights at all.

I wonder why the Government bothers to come before the House with this Bill. Why do they bother to have a Bill with a number of clauses? They could simply have said that they are introducing a Bill which defines a squatter as a person who has no rights whatsoever. Then there would have been no problem as far as that is concerned.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have already said that I shall not answer that hon. member’s questions.

It seems to me that the hon. member is somewhat afraid.

If he has a point of view to state, he is free to do so. It seems to me the NP has no more speakers in this debate. However, if the hon. member has something on his mind, I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, will give him the opportunity to state his case.

†It is obvious to me—and this is what worries me more than anything else—that this Bill reveals an attitude of mind, it reveals something of the way of thinking of the NP which is frightening. It was revealed today that the NP and all its speakers who took part in the debate do not understand what is meant by the protection of the courts. They do not understand what is meant by the protection of the individual. If they did, they would never have brought this legislation before the House. This legislation, in fact, destroys the protection that the courts can render to the individual when his rights are threatened. Of course, they say a squatter has no rights. In terms of this legislation the squatter will no longer have any rights. The Minister is legislating the very minimal, the very marginal rights these unfortunate people have out of existence. I hope the hon. the Minister will listen carefully when I am speaking to him. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is legislating the peripheral rights that these unfortunate people have out of existence.

I do not think the Government understands the misery, and the shock experienced by these defenceless people. The government does not understand what it feels like to be faced by officials of the State, the bureaucrats when they come to squatters backed up by provisions of a law such as this. I would like to read one affidavit that was presented during the recent court case when the homes of squatters were demolished by the Divisional Council of Stellenbosch. The question was raised whether these homes were demolished by bulldozers or by front-end loaders.

*The person to whom the affidavit refers, is a Coloured who is 32 years old and who is a worker in the building industry. He is married and has two minor children: one son aged 16 years and one aged four years. His wife works during the day. He applied for a house years ago, but because there is a shortage of housing, it was not possible to provide him with a house. He has a permanent job, a wife and two children and he appears to be a responsible person. He said the following—

[Interjections.] The hon. member opposite refers disparagingly to the squatter’s house. That is the basis of their approach and the reason why they come along with legislation of this nature. That hon. member cannot understand that that little house is everything that person owns on earth. All his worldly possessions are in that little house and he and his family live happily there. They can be happy there and they can make a living as a family. They prefer to live in a shanty of this nature, to live in such a small shelter, rather than be exposed to the social disruption and problems that arise when they have to live in the same house with other families. He said—

Can hon. members understand what a traumatic effect it has on one when one returns to one’s house and the house is not there? That is something which the hon. the Minister will never experience himself. I also hope it is something that none of us will ever experience. However, can he accept that this can be the experience of thousands of people in South Africa according to his legislation? I quote further—

Then he said—

Has that hon. Minister ever had such an experience? Can he imagine the psychological effect of such an experience on a person? The person concerned continued—

Then he said that they were at home every night. He said—

The roof over their heads and the protection against the elements was all destroyed. Everything, their house and their possessions, was destroyed and their whole life was disrupted. That happened in accordance with the existing legislation. Now, however, the hon. the Minister comes along with legislation that gives him further powers to take more drastic action against such people. This legislation is unacceptable in a civilized, respectable country that tries to maintain civilized and respectable norms.

†It destroys recourse to the courts and it destroys a sacred legal principle which was explained by the hon. member for Durban North. Worst of all, however, is the fact that it destroys civilized norms and standards which are characteristic of our Western Christian civilization and replaces them with uncivilized norms, attitudes and procedures.

Utter nonsense!

The hon. the Minister may think that is funny and worth laughing about.

I think you are funny. You are a clown!

He takes upon himself powers to destroy people’s lives and to make them miserable and he thinks it is funny. This Government is destroying the last vestige of trust and confidence that Black and Coloured people have in the Whites of this country. That is what will happen when these people see the lengths to which the Whites are prepared to go to disrupt and destroy their lives. By legislation of this nature, this Government will further destroy the credibility of the White man and the credibility of this Government and will do untold harm to South Africa. I say this particularly in the light of the fact that the hon. the Minister, who is the perpetrator of this measure, finds that it is funny.

I believe that the Government can if it so wishes act responsibly in this matter. It can, in fact, maintain civilized procedures. I want to ask that the Government must listen to the representations that have been made by many authorities in respect of the squatters and that they must accept that squatting is a reality and that the squatter problem cannot be removed by demolishing their abodes. They must accept that, if their shacks are demolished in one area, they will reappear in another area. If one looks at the report of the University of the Western Cape, one sees that the point is made there that the Government will not be able to remove the squatter problem by removing the squatters’ huts and that that action will only result in that problem reappearing in another place. I believe the Government must accept the reality of the squatter problem. They must allow the squatting areas to exist temporarily, they must apply the necessary controls and provide the necessary services in those areas to see to it that the health of the people is maintained. If necessary, they must provide alternative camps where the people can be put up on a temporary basis until proper housing is provided.

The most important thing the Minister must do—to date the Government has not done it—is to communicate with these squatters. It may seem amazing, but the squatters have community committees and leaders who are fully informed about the circumstances that exist there and have the confidence of the people they represent. If the Government were to communicate with these people, I believe they would become better informed about squatting than they are now. I believe, too, that the squatters are in a position to assist the Government in bring about real solutions to the squatter problem and in that way to assist in an attempt to avoid Draconian measures such as the Bill at present before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the PRP, have once again played on our emotions as the hon. member for Bryanston has just done. They remind me of the young man who, after he had murdered his parents, pleaded for leniency because he was an orphan. Luxury development is being undertaken by Anglo-American at Marina Da Gama. There used to be squatters right next door, however. Who asked that the squatters be removed? That is not to mention the political squatting in the PRP. The emotion-mongering did not help them anyway. If we look at the recent city council election—they were rejected in Randburg—it seems to me that the emotion-mongering is not proving at all successful.

Reference is being made to the fact that the hon. the Minister lives in an expensive house, drives a Jaguar motor-car, etc. Once again, this is a case of emotion-mongering. Sir, do you know that there are two hon. members on that side, viz. the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Sandton, who have bought properties in Cape Town for use during Parliamentary sessions only and that those properties cost more than R200 000 each?

I admit that this amendment Bill is of a radical nature. If one is honest and takes a good look at it, one has to admit that. But then I want to know: If squatters were to go and squat on the lawns of the large stands or premises of people in Houghton, what would they do? Would they say: “I do not want to take drastic steps; I do not want to go to court, because that is drastic action?”

They would let the dog loose!

That side of the House and this side of the House will never see eye to eye because those people attach more importance to the freedom of the individual than to the freedom of the community, society or the people of the country. The hon. member for Bryanston spoke continuously about “the freedom and the rights of the poor individuals” and a host of other things. Surely John Citizen also has a right? Surely society also has a right? Just as the squatter has a right, society, too, has a right. Society has the right to guaranteed health of body as well as of spirit, but John Citizen also has a right to demand of this Government that law and order be maintained. Moreover, John Citizen also has a right to ask what is being done with his money, the money collected from him by means of taxation.

If a layman—not a lawyer—were to look at this legislation he would ask himself: What is the aim behind legislation? What is the purpose of a specific piece of legislation? Now, when we come back to the existing Act, we find that that Act did envisage something. What the Act envisaged, was in fact the prevention of illegal squatting. Then again, if there had been loopholes in the existing Act, my question would have been: Should the Government which carries the responsibility, which has been vested with responsibility, and which is held to account, be content with the original Act in which loopholes do in fact exist? The answer to that is that plans must be made to close those loopholes.

People go to court, but meanwhile the squatters may remain on the land in question for an extended period and the court finds itself in a dilemma. Courts find themselves in a dilemma because they can only take action and make decisions in accordance with the law. The existing legislation gives the person who administers justice the right to do certain things, but there are certain things he cannot do if they are not incorporated in the Act. It is not for the courts to interpret the intention of the legislator, and even if the courts were aware of the legislator’s intention, it would still embarass them to pronounce a judgment they were not entitled to pronounce in terms of the Act. That is why it was necessary to submit this amendment Bill to the House. It was not only to protect other people, society, or the community, but also to protect the squatter against himself.

Last year we thrashed out the following aspects: Everything that is meant by squatting as well as everything it entails, and the vicious circle of evils stemming from squatting and how these are transmitted to a healthy community. I need not go through all that again. That is my reason for saying that this legislation is also for the protection of the squatter himself. It goes deeper than that, however. It also concerns the interests of South Africa as a whole. That is why these amendments to the Act had to be considered by the House. South Africa is experiencing onslaughts, both from outside and within. This is something no-one can dispute.

The fact remains, therefore, that those squatters’ settlements are being misused by enemies of South Africa with a view to inciting revolution, sowing the seeds of unrest, cultivating frustration, encouraging people to move away from the country districts. These people are allowing themselves to be misused. They are enticed away from the country districts by the promise that the department will provide them with accommodation in Cape Town if they have just a little patience and simply squat somewhere in the meantime. In this way, people are enticed away from their established dwellings, from places where they could make a living and where they could live conveniently and in comfort. They are enticed to the cities, merely to assist in the realization of other people’s shady motives.

The Government cannot allow, may not allow, chaos to prevail in this country. It is a responsible Government, one which is held to account by John Citizen. The population of South Africa demands of the Government that there be order. Hence the proposed amendments to the Act, amendments I am pleased to support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hercules has, in liaison with his colleagues and with the hon. the Minister, sought to defend this Bill which is now before the House. The Official Opposition and members of the PRP have made their stand equally clear. We also have the hon. member for Newton Park who, together with hon. members on the Government side, supports this Bill.

The hon. member for Hercules believes that the hon. member for Bryanston and hon. members who sit in these benches are so concerned about the freedom of the individual that we care nothing for the freedom of the State; for the freedom of the group. I believe this is a basic fundamental difference, and he is right to point to it. He only makes one mistake. There is of course, the freedom of the community, as well as the freedom of the individual. However, the NP, in its policy, has decided that it must go for the freedom of the State and of the group at the expense of the individual. Even though there may be casualties along the way, it is expedient that there should be casualties in order that the group should survive. The alarming feature of so much of the legislation that comes before this hon. House is that time and again it demonstrates that the individual is dispensable, that he can be pushed aside and moved aside for the sake of—and this, of course, is always under the cloak of—law and order.

What section are you referring to, by the way?

I am responding to the debate and I shall be glad if I am allowed to do that.

Speaking on behalf of his party, the hon. member for Newton Park supported the Government. Once again, in two ways, he showed remarkable naïvity and also showed his irresponsibility. I want to demonstrate how he has done this. Firstly, he believes that it is all right to give the hon. the Minister the benefit of the doubt, to accept his assurances that, although the Bill does not allow for it—the legislation before us does not allow for it—the hon. the Minister can be trusted as far as that is concerned. But, of course, as the hon. member for Durban North has pointed out, the personal sentiments of that hon. Minister or, with respect, any hon. Minister are quite irrelevant. The hon. the Minister himself will concede that. It is quite impossible for any hon. Minister, any hon. member or any person to make quite sure that his personal good intentions are carried out. The hon. member for Newton Park went further and sought to defend the original Act as it came before the House in 1951, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, and quite rightly pointed out that, although a number of members spoke against some aspects of the Act, no one called for a division and no one voted against it. But the hon. member’s argument is quite irrelevant because certain safeguards existed in the 1951 measure which this Bill now removes. This is why the official Opposition and the members on these benches are voting against it. It has nothing to do with the Act of 1951. The 1951 Act, which replaced the War Measure of 1944, laid down that a magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of illegal occupation or of a complaint that a condition had developed which interfered with the safety or the health of the public, could issue orders such as an order for the removal of people from a place or a removal to some other place and order the destruction of the structures that they were occupying. But he could only do this after giving notice to the people concerned and only after giving them an opportunity of appearing before him. That is a very, very real difference in the 1951 Act. I want to say to the hon. member for Newton Park that not only were his remarks naïve and irresponsible for the two reasons that I outlined, but the refrain that we hear from him and the members of his party is becoming tiresome, repetitive and presumptious. Their sympathy lies, very much indeed, with that side of the House and I would suggest, through you, Sir, that he moves from his temporary situation and takes his place on the other side of the House.

You are talking rubbish!

I want to say that the honeymoon is over, and that we must make up our minds as to where we are going to take our stand when we have legislation such as is before the House today.

I want to speak specifically about a section of the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. Throughout this debate the major emphasis has been upon the Coloureds and those who are squatting in the western Cape There is a very important other aspect involved in squattings. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to “Bantoeplakkers”. He said, inter alia—

The following is important—

I want to address myself to the clauses in this Bill in direct relation to Black squatters. I think it is very important and germane to what this Bill is seeking to do. In an attempt to answer the hon. the Minister and to refute his statement in his Second Reading speech, I want to suggest some reasons why African people, as distinct from Coloured people, are squatting, because if one is aware of that, I think it gives one some clue as to how one can go about remedying the situation. If one opposes a Bill, one should at least show some alternatives to the measure. In the first instance I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he tells me in his reply later on, if he would care to, whether I am right or wrong in these facts. The first reason why Africans rather than Coloured people are squatting right now—and there are a great number of them in the western Cape—is the shortage of housing.

The hon. the Minister says that housing is available for those Africans who are here legally. At the end of 1975 there was a shortage of 1 400 houses for those Africans who were legally living and working in Cape Town. Overcrowding is a norm and not an exception. Accommodation is simply not designed by policy to house families. Official provision is made for only one in every 4,7 workers to live with their families. So the major reason for the growing demand for housing is, quite naturally, the natural population growth, which has to be allowed for. This is again a separate problem, but it is a fact which has to be accepted. Although it is the Government’s policy to try and limit the number of Africans coming into the western Cape—and, indeed, I believe that part of its policy is to try to make sure that the numbers are reduced every year—one has to take account of the natural population growth. Only to a lesser extent is demand generated by immigration, in the same way as Coloureds are coming from the platteland. They are coming from the homelands, not because of a tremendous revolutionary plot of people telling them that if they come to Cape Town, they will be able to take over the Government and settle in the House of Parliament or take over the houses, whether they be in Houghton or in Pinelands, but because of a lack of opportunity in rural areas and because of the obvious prospects of higher wages in a larger industrial area. The African people who come to Cape Town, mainly come from the now independent Transkei, originally the homeland of the Transkei, as well as the Ciskei. These are the two major areas from which they come. A further factor which influences the whole housing problem, thereby creating a squatter problem, is that Africans living in Cape Town are not allowed to own houses. It is a further complicating factor because if one is able to, obviously one is going to improve one’s house, build on to it and one is going to allow for the extension of one’s family. No programme has been implemented in order to improve the position of African families who need housing. On the contrary, Government policy remains to repatriate African families who have no legal right to live in the city of Cape Town. Influx control is hardening. The western Cape is a Coloured and a White area except, of course, where it suits the convenience of the Government to use the African brawn which is required.

Only two days ago I asked the hon. the Minister of Labour a question concerning the work at Koeberg. The hon. member for False Bay must have nearly died when he heard the hon. the Minister’s reply, because he was the one who pleaded only a few days ago that the Africans must be moved out, that we must only have Coloured workers and that we must protect the Coloured people. What did the hon. the Minister say? He said that permits had been given for 3 000 African workers, not 300, but 3 000. I must say that it shook me. I do not know how the hon. member for False Bay felt about it. He was probably very upset in his caucus.

We cannot appreciate the significance of this piece of legislation without realizing and referring, however briefly, to the particular plight, not of the Coloured squatter, but of the African squatter. In this connection—this is one of the major motivations why we cannot support the Bill and why we have taken such strong exception to it—I want to say that however hard the State seeks to demolish the houses of the squatters, no matter how inadequate those houses may be, and no matter how zealous their policies might be in pursuing and prosecuting pass offenders and however many squatters are endorsed out, squatting will continue. That is one of the things we are trying to convey to the hon. the Minister and to the House. The major reason why squatting will continue is that economic forces at work in South Africa will drive Africans back into Cape Town.

Why?

In the second place the human needs in terms of normal family life will cause families to come together no matter how hard the State, in the implementing of its own policy, seeks to separate a husband from his wife and children. The hon. member on my left wanted to know why economic conditions drive Africans here and cause a squatting problem.

Order! The hon. member must now confine himself to the Bill.

Instead of developing this argument, I shall rather say that the three reasons are poverty, unemployment and malnutrition, reasons which exist in the homeland areas and which have driven the Africans to the cities.

When one comes to the actual clauses of the Bill itself, one firstly has to look at clause 1(a), which substitutes a new paragraph in section 3B(1) of the Act, as follows—

This does not only mean that no court order is involved, but it also means that the owner of land can do this to any person who occupies, and not necessarily one who erects a structure. This means that if a new person has moved into a structure, perhaps under false pretences, he too will be affected by this. Let us not play games about this; the kind of person who comes in the main to squat is the African squatter who comes from another part of the country and is told by someone: “Here you are, here is a place for you; I do not need this one; you can take this one over.” The person who moves into that structure can also be thrown out by any person. Therefore not only the old tenant, but also the new one is affected by the provisions of this subsection. The point I want to make is that the hardship is compounded. Not only the originator of that shack but any person who comes to live there and any new tenant who occupies it, is directly affected and there is no protection at all. [Interjections.]

Order!

The new section 3B(2), as substituted by clause 1(b), refers to the actual removal, not only of the structure itself, but of the material and contents thereof without any prior notice. I almost want to go so far as to say that one is in danger of legalizing theft because there is absolutely no protection given to that squatter whatsoever as far as his personal possessions are concerned. He can be out of his home, working and legally employed in Cape Town as so many of them are. He can come back and find not only his house destroyed or gone, but in terms of this clause he can find all his possessions gone also. There is no protection here whatsoever and I hope the hon. the Minister is aware of what he is doing. [Interjections.] When one sees the extent of this legislation, I find that it is the first time in my life that I really would have liked to have been in a NP caucus, in the group or in any particular situation where this legislation was being argued out. Unlike many of the hon. members on my right, I do not know that hon. Minister very well. I have never worked with him and I have never been with him, and it is very unlikely that I will work with him either. I want to say quite honestly that I listened very carefully to his Second Reading speech, and as I watched him through this debate, my impression—which he will probably tell me is quite wrong—is that I think he argued for something else other than the clauses as they stand here and that he lost the battle. I cannot believe that he would be party to the way we are going about this, one year after we had the original amending Bill. There we did have the notice given and there we had the court order. What was the underlying purpose? I believe that that hon. Minister may well have been responsible, together with his officials, for ensuring that notice was given and that a court order was possible. However, now both of these are being removed, and that within a single year. The only argument that has been advanced from that side—and it has been advanced consistently—is that the court itself makes it terribly difficult for squatters to be removed. Therefore, arising out of one’s irritation at being prevented from doing this, we have this particular legislation before us. This kind of demolition without any notice and without the ability to go back to the court, can actually take place in the absence of both husband and wife and indeed of the children. I want to say that we cannot support this Bill. We believe that it is counter-productive in the extreme.

One notices in clauses 1(b) and 1(c) that these measures are actually retrospective and therefore make orders null and void and merely sweep previous actions away. There is no way that even those people who have gone before are going to get the assistance which they once thought they had. If one takes a look at the new section 3B(5) one notices that the definition of the structure erected by the squatter concerned includes “any shack, hut, tent or similar structure”. One can only assume that where people have found a small clump of bush or a natural shelter and have covered it with a blanket or a piece of old material, even that can be taken away because of the description contained in this section.

Those of us who have actually visited these squatter camps, have interviewed some of the people living there and have read the affidavits, realize that the nice, polite talk and assurances we are given here do not count for a row of beans.

I want to conclude by saying that the constant refrain from that side of the House, suggesting the Opposition wants chaos and that it wants to continue enlarging the squatter problem, is absolutely false and wrongheaded. [Interjections.] We recognize that there is a squatter problem. To answer the constant heckling immediately in front of me, we believe that the owner also must have and does have rights within the law. [Interjections.] Oh, yes, we do!

What law?

That is why we agree that there must be seven days’ notice. An owner of a piece of land is quite within his rights to defend that piece of land.

Why not 14 days?

Because a period of seven days was originally part of the law.

Which law?

Last year’s law! Why do you not wake up? The law we are amending now.

Why not ten days?

They are given no days whatsoever. That is the point I make, and those people may have been there for up to two years.

Why seven days? Why not one day?

The Government is seeking to tackle the squatter problem by dealing with the symptoms rather than the causes, very often the causes for which the Government itself is responsible. This whole approach of the ends justifying the means is diabolical and can lead to the worst kind of fascism, as we have seen in other parts of the world in other periods of history. However, this Government persists with legislation which seeks to defend the means because they justify the ends. I believe that if the Government were serious about trying to meet the squatter problem, it would not only have a programme of housing—and that we do commend most strongly—but would also not resort to the kind of measures envisaged in this legislation. It should do three things rather than what it is doing now. I am being very serious and I hope the hon. the Minister will take the suggestion quite seriously.

I am listening!

African men who are in Cape Town legally should be allowed to live here legally with their families in the same way as anyone else, who is here legally with their families in the same way as anyone else, who is here legally and working here legally, has the right to be here with his family. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will not disagree with that. However, that means a distinct change in approach and policy, and not the kind of legislation we have here.

Order! I am not going to allow the hon. member to discuss that point in detail.

No, Sir, I shall certainly not do that. I shall make the three points as briefly as I can. I have already made the one. Let me add that if one is going to oppose a Bill it is one’s responsibility to suggest alternatives. The second aspect is that contract workers, who have shown evidence of their intention to spend the major part of their working lives in Cape Town, which means that they come here in a recurring cycle, should also be allowed to have accommodation which will permit them to have their families with them while they are working. This must be done if one is to stop the chaos, squalor, overcrowding and crime which could otherwise result. The third point is that those contract workers whose stay in Cape Town is to be a short-term one, for example the possibility of having 3 000 Black workers at Koeberg, should not be housed as if they were living in some boarding school for the rest of their lives. They should be given decent housing in the same way. [Interjections.] This is what should happen, instead of the kind of provisions set out in this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those aspects should be allowed for by this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands who has just resumed his seat played a completely foreign role this afternoon. Usually he is a man who believes in what he says and has confidence in it. This afternoon, however, he cut a grotesque figure. He stopped just short of crying. If the hon. member accepts that the hon. the Minister will give those people houses, why, then, does he not also accept the hon. the Minister’s promise that he will act responsibly with regard to the removal of squatters? Why does he apply such double standards?

Why does he not put it in the Bill?

Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that the Peninsula Bantu Administration Board is at present engaged in drawing up plans to provide those people with family housing? Since he pretends to know everything he ought to know that, too.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Bryanston. That hon. member made a big fuss about the decision by the tax-payers of Belhar to make a financial contribution to the legal costs of the squatters. However, did he ever take the trouble to determine why they contributed towards those legal costs? He most definitely did not take the trouble to determine in any way why they did so.

On humanitarian grounds.

Humanitarian grounds my foot! I shall tell the hon. member why. The reason is that those people are afraid. They live in fear of sabotage and intimidation, a fear inflicted on them by the squatters. What happens if they refuse the squatters water? Their taps are smashed at night, man! Their windows are smashed; their fences are broken down. That is the only reason why they did so. That is how humanitarian the taxpayers are.

So that is why the ratepayers are assisting them.

The hon. member goes on to say that the squatters may not take the law into their own hands by squatting where they want to. What would the hon. member do if, on returning from two or three weeks’ holiday, he found a squatter in his backyard? Would he give them seven days notice? [Interjections.] I fear that that hon. member would go so far as to invite the squatters into his house and accommodate them there. That is how humanitarian he is.

Never!

Probably the most ridiculous statement ever made in this House was made by the hon. member for Wynberg. He maintains that it is not illegal for the squatters to squat because they have no representation in this House. Surely that means that these people can take the law into their own hands. If that is the case, they can do just as they like. They can stir up trouble. They can …

Commit murder.

Yes, they can murder and steal. They can do just as they like because they have no representation in this House. I am sure that if that hon. member could have his way he would go even further and give the squatters direct representation in this House.

I want to ask a question. If the State must accept responsibility for creating job opportunities, providing accommodation, providing schools, hospitals and all other welfare services to all the people and, in brief, for keeping these people alive, how and when is a State to step in and act so as to get to the heart of this specific problem, namely the uncontrolled population increase among people of this kind? This legislation is as necessary as food and water are necessary for me. The squatter problem is as old as the hills. I should just like to refer to an example in my own constituency where a squatter problem occurred on a proclaimed diggings, a diggings which has existed for more than 100 years. A bus service was even introduced and a shop erected on that farmer’s land. That farmer—I have his appeal here—came to me and said that he was prepared to remove the squatters from his land. He stated that he was prepared to demolish and remove the houses there. All he asked was that he be protected by law. This is exactly what we now envisage doing with this legislation. This legislation gives that owner that very protection he requires to enable him to keep those illegal squatters off his property. I hope and trust that this legislation will not only solve the problem in the Cape Peninsula but will also contribute towards solving the problems in my constituency, since I do have a squatter problem there.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kimberley South expresses the hope that this legislation will solve the problem of squatters, not only in his constituency but throughout the Republic. I want to assure that hon. member that the Government will have to come with very much more positive steps if they want to solve the problem, because this piece of legislation is going to solve nothing.

I merely want to raise one aspect at this late stage of the debate. It is of concern to me and I believe that it should be of concern to all hon. members in this House, and of special concern to the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. I am glad that he is in the House because this is a matter which should receive his attention. Before I address my remarks to the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations I want to refer to something else. My friend the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North addressed one or two remarks to me and wanted to know whether I was aware of the squatter problem that was arising in Port Elizabeth. I want to assure him that in every positive step that he and his Government are prepared to take, he will find me assisting them all-out. However, he will not find me assisting when they present legislation which has no hope of solving the problem. The matter that I want to raise is that a considerable percentage of the squatters in this area and other areas belong to the Coloured population group. For that reason, I think it is particularly important that the Coloured leaders who are responsible and who are anxious to do something about this problem, should be consulted.

What I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister who has introduced this legislation, is whether he has, in terms of his own Government’s policy, felt that the Coloured people should be vested with the powers to look after those things that are of particular concern to that particular population group. I want to know from the hon. the Minister—before he introduced this legislation—whether he had consultations with the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations. Did he refer this matter to the CRC, which is part of the Government’s own machinery allowing the Coloured people to deal with their own problems? Was it referred to them? Was the CRC given the opportunity to refer this problem to their own Executive who serve as a permanent part of that machinery? And, furthermore, was an opportunity given for the matter to be discussed at the Cabinet Council? I sincerely believe that there is no more important matter affecting these Coloured people who are in the unfortunate position of being squatters. The Government has created machinery which, they tell us, is going to work, has a future and has a prospect. I want to know whether these people were given the opportunity to discuss this Bill with the hon. the Minister before he introduced it in this House. My information is that there has been no consultation whatsoever. I may be wrong. I want to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that it was done; that an attempt was made. In terms of the hon. the Minister’s policy, in future when we have matters such as this, can we have the assurance that the Coloured leaders will be consulted on matters of this kind? I believe that this problem of the squatters needs the wholehearted co-operation of all communities. The hon. the Minister will have the co-operation of this side of the House for all the positive steps he takes. I know the Coloured leaders want to take a positive step to try to eliminate this very serious problem. I believe they can make a very big contribution. However, if they are ignored, how can they make a contribution? Once before they made representations, I think to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations, to discuss this very problem. What happened? By the time they came to have a discussion, the hon. the Minister had already made a statement to the Press as to what was going to happen. This is the surest way of incurring the animosity, instead of the cooperation, of a very important sector of the community with a view to solving this problem.

Mr. Speaker, inevitably in this debate we have had a wide-ranging and general discussion of various aspects of the squatter problem. However, I do not believe that it will be expected of me to go into all the aspects once again as if it were the principle of squatting that was being dealt with here today. There is no time for that. There is other business awaiting the attention of the House this afternoon. I should like to deal with all the arguments advanced by hon. members on both sides of the House with special reference to the merits and the content of the Bill. I believe it would be best if I were to begin by replying in detail to the speech made by the chief spokesmen of the various parties on both the Government and the Opposition sides and then dealt with the rest of the debate in general.

To begin with, I should like to confine myself to the speech by the hon. member for Green Point. I am sure he will be here at any moment.

He is coming in a moment.

The hon. member for Green Point really deserves to be congratulated. More than any other hon. frontbencher he really confined himself exclusively to the Bill. That is why his standpoint is a very interesting one. Initially he made the statement that this Bill would have been unnecessary if the Government had responded to the request last year that the previous amendment Bill, the one of 1976, had been referred to a Select Committee. However, I do not believe that this is a valid argument. The amendments to the Act that are now being proposed were caused by circumstances which were absent when we dealt with the previous amendment Bill here last year. It is the result of things that have developed since that time. I want to give hon. members a practical example. If we had referred the Bill to a Select Committee last year, would the hon. member for Green Point or his party have moved there that provision relating to a notice of seven days should be repealed due to the misuse that could be made of this by those who are given it as a concession? We did not know that, nor did we expect it. That is why a Select Committee would have been no solution.

I can understand the hon. member wanting to justify himself retrospectively. These, however, are the facts of the matter. I therefore put it briefly to the hon. member that a Select Committee last year could not have prevented the introduction of this Bill because the amendments to the Act contained in the Bill under discussion are the result of circumstances which have developed since the discussion of the 1976 amendment Bill.

As regards the provision relating to seven days’ notice—a provision which is now to be repealed—the hon. member for Green Point referred to the undertaking I gave that we would in fact give notice. I want to put it very clearly that this will be the policy of the Department of Community Development and that everyone concerned with these matters will accordingly be informed in terms of the legislation to be administered by the Department of Community Development, that notice must still be given where possible. Later in my speech I shall explain why it is necessary to repeal the provision relating to the seven days. At that stage it will also be clear to hon. members that it is impossible to give a categorical undertaking that there will never be any exceptions. There will in fact be cases where it will be impossible to give notice to the people to whom notice has to be given because they are not always available to receive it. I shall come back to this matter.

The hon. member also emphasized strongly that the legal profession in Cape Town had created machinery to take cases of this nature to the courts and to defend these people’s rights without asking for payment. I accept this, and also, in particular, that this can be done through his office, too, in view of his honourable record. When he said this, I knew that there were in fact cases involving legal costs and that legal fees were at least paid out on behalf of these people by attorneys even though they themselves did not profit from it. However it was not my intention to argue with the hon. member; in any event there was no time for that. Almost immediately afterwards the hon. member for Rondebosch confirmed that an amount of about R1 600 … [Interjections.] The hon. member said it was more than R1 000. The hon. member would do well to make sure, but if I remember correctly it was R1 600, in any event more than R1 000. The hon. member said that this amount had been collected for legal costs. The Catholic Archbishop of Cape Town alone donated R450, Belhar donated money and R600 was collected from the people themselves. Therefore the total amount cannot be only R500.

I said R1 500.

Then I heard wrongly and I apologize. R1 500 was collected for these people. I expect that the hon. member will acknowledge that while the legal profession is prepared to do this, in this case legal costs will in fact be incurred and money collected for the purposes I have mentioned.

There is nothing sinister about it.

There is nothing sinister about people being willing to do this free of charge, nor is there anything sinister about people being prepared to donate money for this. But the world is full of what our English-speaking people call “do-gooders”, people who give money with very fine motives, and very sincerely, for all kinds of purposes. However I want to repeat that the money is being utilized … and there will be other debates this very session in which the matter will be taken further and very clear evidence will be given that there is a movement and there are organizations throughout the country today which collect money to encourage and organize people who would otherwise never have thought of doing so, to institute legal proceedings while knowing in advance that they do not really have a case and cannot therefore succeed. They do so with the aim of frustrating the administration of the State and baulking and delaying the aims and the endeavour of the authorities. That is my complaint. [Interjections.] No self-respecting State can allow this. [Interjections.] Later I shall come back to this issue.

The hon. member for Rondebosch went on to refer to the futility of legislation as regards a true solution to the squatter problem. He raised innumerable problems, for example that the people could not go directly from the squatter camps to Mitchell’s Plain where thousands upon thousands of houses are being built, that there are delays in the proclamation of areas, etc. In the first place, I want to say that at present, people cannot go direct to Mitchell’s Plain from the squatter camps. Up to now, the idea has been that occupants of sub-economic houses who have the income to afford economic houses should be given the first opportunity and encouraged to move from their sub-economic houses to Mitchell’s Plain. The sub-economic houses are then made available to the people in squatter camps who cannot afford to pay high rentals. In the second place, I want to say that there has been no delay in the real development of Mitchell’s Plain. It is true that five years went by before we could begin to develop the area, but that was because it involved an immense amount of planning. It was an entirely new set-up. Housing for a quarter of a million people had to be planned on an area comprising 40 000 to 50 000 plots and this took a long time. However it has now been done and there are sufficient plots for up to the year 2 000, or perhaps even later than that.

What is the use of houses without a railway?

I do not know why the hon. member is dragging this in now. She has so often been a prophet of doom, but has never yet been correct. I can tell her again that there will in fact be transport according to demand for the people of Mitchell’s Plain. She need not be concerned about that.

I am.

There is not only one kind of transport in the world. I want to say to the hon. member for Rondebosch that we must maintain our perspective. He comes up with these broad, set-up arguments that will not succeed in solving the squatter problem with the legislation at our disposal. But even in the light of the deficient legislation we had before, surely he cannot deny that despite the fact that we did not even have the kind of contracts for the delivery of houses which we have now signed and which will only become effective from October, up to 31 March this year we resettled no fewer than 5 400 squatters and by doing so put an end to their misery. If we were able to do so in the restricted circumstances in which we have had to work thus far, and we can now obtain better opportunities and more money and a big contractor who can finance it himself temporarily, and since we have Mitchell’s Plain at our disposal, we should at least be able to continue with this and by so doing eliminate the backlog. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Rondebosch. I am also very sorry for him because I know what he is going through in a party where he does not belong. He is a man with a scientific background. Why, then, does he make such an unscientific statement for effect, without taking into account the true facts? I believe that this has been typical of the whole debate.

I also want to refer to the hon. members on this side of the House who spoke. I should like to mention the hon. members for False Bay and Durbanville by name. They set the tone, a tone which was maintained by speakers on this side throughout the debate. What a pleasure it is for a Minister to wage a struggle against such bitter, venomous, unfounded and capricious attacks as those which have come from the other side of the House, when he has the solid support of men of insight who have solid ground under their feet. I want to suggest that every hon. member opposite who made such “tear-jerker” speeches about the squatters should read the speech by the hon. member for Durbanville in order to regain their perspective and then think again about what the laws of a civilized country are for and whose rights are protected. They would have to realize that there was not only one community in South Africa deserving of sympathy as regards this problem, the squatter problem. There are other people, too, whose rights are affected, not only directly but also indirectly. There are other people whose lives, safety and health are endangered. If the hon. members want to retain a reasonable perspective they should please read and study the speech.

My personal thanks, and I think South Africa’s thanks, too, go to the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. members of his party for the responsible standpoint they adopted. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Newton Park did a very interesting thing today, something that was in the public interest. He indicated—and no one can dispute it—that the greatest leader of those hon. members in the history of their party would certain turn in his grave today if he knew that the only contribution that his successor, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, could make in South African politics was the dissolution of Gen. Smut’s political party. The hon. member for Newton Park pointed out that when Gen. Smuts was in charge and was followed by those hon. members he had to adopt a similar measure. And the hon. member for Houghton became the propaganda officer of the White Women’s Council of the Witwatersrand, what is more, on my recommendation … May the Lord forgive me. [Interjections.] The hon. member never complained then. I happened to hear the hon. member for Parktown say: “But they are people, after all.” Were they not people in 1944 as well? Did they not deserve sympathy in 1944 as well? I challenge any member on the other side of the House—anyone who is old enough; I leave the young ones out of this and I address the challenge to people of my age group or the age group of the hon. member for Houghton—to show me a single word of protest that was uttered when Gen. Smuts did virtually the same as we are doing now.

That was a war emergency measure.

It was indeed a war emergency measure. I ought to know, because I had a great deal to do with the measure in practice. It is true that it was a war emergency measure, but it was not a direct war emergency measure because it concerned a local housing problem caused by circumstances. In this case the war constituted those circumstances. Here we have the same problem which is also caused by circumstances. In this case the circumstances are urbanization.

That was a war emergency measure.

Of course, but this is also a social emergency measure. The fact is that at the time there were no tears, mourning and lamentation by the Jeremiahs. At that time there was nothing wrong with it, but if the present Government wants to implement similar measures because they experience the same problem, all of a sudden it is all bad and evil. The longer I remain in this party, the more it seems to me that the only member who belonged to the UP who has been really consistent is the hon. member for Turffontein, in other words myself. [Interjections.] I now want to discuss briefly a few of the general aspects raised. The seven days’ notice for which provision was made in the legislation passed last year, was meant in all sincerity—hon. members appreciated it as such. It was intended as a measure wherewith to assist them, a concession to the squatters in the hope that it would then be easier for them to make alternative arrangements and that it would also enable the departments concerned to discuss the squatters’ problems with them and to assist them in finding a solution. That was the aim in this regard. What happened then? That concession was rejected by the majority of squatters. I have before me a document I received from a very senior officer in the Department of Public Works in which he relates what happened to them when they tried to serve this notice. The squatters refused to give their names or co-operate in any way. The majority of Bantu occupants gave out that they were unable to understand either Afrikaans or English. They did not wish to communicate. Some occupants refused to accept the notice or simply crumpled it up and threw it away. In most cases it was difficult, and in many other cases impossible, to determine who was living in a shanty, who the owners were or who had constructed it, because we were simply unable to obtain this information. Many Bantu intimated that they were Coloureds. For departmental purposes every shanty was given a number which its occupants were informed about. So that the officials could know that the occupants of a shanty had already received notice, their shanty was marked in a certain way. The people then built illegal shanties and gave them the same colours and marks in an attempt to mislead us and to by-pass and frustrate the law. Some of the people who had to serve the notice were threatened with violence and often they barely came away unscathed. Apart from the fact that the problem threatened to give rise to innumerable court cases, I want to know how one can administer an Act if one makes certain concessions to people and is shown such ingratitude. In order to implement this essential legislation, legislation adopted by Parliament, we would not continue serving notice. This is not due to the measures we adopted, because we did our best, but due to the actions of those people—the innocent and saintly squatter communities. Most of them made it impossible for us to continue with what we were doing.

I now turn to the requirements with which squatters must comply before they can go to court.

†I want to say at once that we face a situation where there are mounting signs that certain influences are at work in South Africa which are willing to abuse the process of the law in order to thwart the administration of government in the country.

Surely, they can use their lawful rights in their own country.

Yes, but one can abuse lawful rights. One can even abuse one’s marital power when one is married in community of property. One can do all sorts of things that are not right and which may have to be stopped in the public interest. We cannot allow that the Government of the country, or that the local authorities should be frustrated in the execution and application of laws passed by Parliament just because people are prepared to abuse the processes of law. The other point, a point which was made with quite good effect especially by the hon. member for Durban North, is the question of the retrospective aspect of the Bill and the fact that past court orders will no longer be valid. The spoliation law is a fine and beautiful part of our Roman Dutch legal tradition and I have tremendous respect for it. However, it is the duty of Parliament, while respecting the courts and accepting their decisions, also to be willing and astute to amend the law if changing circumstances make the application of the law open to abuse and open to consequences which are contrary to the public interest. [Interjections.] Why are we the legislators and why are there the three functions of government?

I want to ask hon. members to take note of the consequences of Mr. Justice Diemont’s judgment, and I do not argue for one moment that it was not correct in law. The Divisional Council of Stellenbosch had to make restitution on the principle of spoliatus ante omnia restituendus est. The point was that it was to be done even if the man’s title was corrupt in the sense that he might have stolen the property or might have acquired it by fraudulent means. What happened in this case? In this case restitution meant that the public body, the Divisional Council of Stellenbosch, in order to comply with an order of the court, had to break the law of the land and had to permit a crime. Have hon. members thought of that? If not, they have not yet realized what is at stake.

They should have thought of that before …

That is no argument! The point is the court could have given the man other redress, but it ordered the Divisional Council of Stellenbosch to re-erect the structure in contravention of the public health laws, the building laws, town-planning laws and contrary to the public interest. Now where does one stop? If that is what a spoliation order can do as it is presently interpreted, where does one draw the line? At what stage do the courts say: “We cannot give you restitution because the consequences will be too evil and too far-reaching. The crime we are asking you to commit is intolerable and cannot in all conscience be entertained even as a possibility.” When the application of the law reaches consequences like that, it becomes the duty of Parliament—and that is what we are here for as the legislature—to amend the law to prevent such an unfortunate, impossible and, I am afraid, ridiculous situation. I am not one of those who believe that the law is an ass. However, it is the duty of Parliament to see that the law does not deteriorate into things that are indefensible. That is the point I want to make about this. [Interjections.]

Order!

We now come to the retrospective effect of this measure and the question of costs, which was raised in the first instance by the hon. member for Wynberg. Only two cases were involved in this. The one was settled, as the hon. member for Pinelands reminded us, and in the other a spoliation order was given although it was not a final order, but merely an interim order until such time as the merits of the case were decided. However, I did not put this retrospective clause in this Bill to deal only with those two things or to deal with those two things at all. I did so because I had information that the possibility existed that while this Bill was being discussed in Parliament, from the time it was tabled to its promulgation, people would consider going to court with a multiplicity of applications, applications of all sorts, in order to embarrass the Government. I could not allow that, and that is why this provision has been included in this Bill. As far as costs are concerned this is the only way this thing can be handled effectively. I can give hon. members the assurance that the local authority concerned in the one case will not avail itself of any right it has or believes it has to change the order in regard to costs.

Do you refer to the case of the Divisional Council of Stellenbosch?

Yes. I am authorized to give that assurance.

In which case?

In the case of the spoliation order.

Against the hon. the Minister of Public Works?

No, I am sorry, the other one. I can give the assurance that the question of costs will be left undisturbed and that the State will accept responsibility in so far as the courts imposed that responsibility. No injustice will therefore be done. [Interjections.] There is nothing bad about it. It is absolutely necessary that the abuses of legal processes should be stopped, and this measure will stop such abuses.

What you are saying goes against the very law you are asking us to acknowledge.

It seems as if the hon. members to whom I wish to speak are all missing. It is a pity that the hon. members from the Cape Peninsula are not here in full force, because, after all, this is a measure which, first and foremost, affects the Cape Peninsula. Many of them were here, but have now disappeared. [Interjections.] I want to speak about the rights of the squatters, the wonderful rights of the squatters! [Interjections.] This measure has not become law yet, and according to my hon. friend they have rights; so I want to talk about those rights. I have listened to all the speeches, to the tear-jerkers about the rights of the squatters that I referred to a little while ago. Not once, until virtually the last speech on that side of the House, a speech by a member of the PRP, did I hear anything about the rights of the landowners. Neither did I hear anything about the rights of the public in whose interest some of this land has to be developed by the State, which happens to own the land. Not once did I hear anything about the right of the public to have its health protected and not once did I hear a word about the right of the public to have its security protected, except that one passing reference by the hon. member for Pinelands.

It was not a passing reference.

Oh, certainly it was a passing reference. It did not last more than 30 seconds. Let us retain our perspective. These squatters are law-breakers. They are trespassers and are encroaching upon the rights of others, persons whose rights are as sacred, if not more sacred, than theirs, because they are, after all, not breaking the law. Their occupation and enjoyment of that land is lawful. Why, oh why, do hon. members of the Opposition, one after the other, stand up in this House and make these oh so solemn and pious speeches in defence of law-breakers and against the interests of people who are entitled to the enjoyment of their rights and entitlement which cannot be questioned?

You made them very well for 30 years, did you not?

No, wait a minute. I challenge the hon. member for Bryanston—soon to be the ex-member for Bryanston—to quote one instance where I stood up in this House and pleaded for the special protection, by the State, of people who were breaking the law. I challenge him! Now he is silent. I am really sorry that certain hon. members are not here. But let me put a question to the hon. member for Randburg, who is a property owner and a property developer. If he were to go back to Johannesburg and a property which he has sold but not transferred yet, to a township development company, to which he has obligations, is suddenly occupied by a swarm of squatters, by people who have no right there whatsoever, would he provide services for them? Would he tell them they are welcome and invite them to stay? Would he refuse to pass transfer to the purchaser of the property? Or would he go to the authorities and tell them that his rights are being encroached upon and that he demands justice for himself, the owner?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the hon. the Minister would be prepared to give me a quarter of an hour to answer that question?

The hon. member had half an hour in which to contribute to this debate and to define the rights of the property owner. Of course I shall not give him a quarter of an hour. Let me then put the question to any Cape Peninsula member of the UP, a member who is not a flat-dweller.

What about Rondebosch Common?

What would they say if, on their property, they were to find 1 000 or 2 000 squatters one morning? Would they give them services? [Interjections.] Would they give them services and condone their actions? Would they say that those poor people are, after all, human and that they, the property owners, have no rights and must sit back and just allow that to continue? Let me ask the hon. member for Green Point specifically. What would he do if he were suddenly to find that Green Point Common had become a Mecca for squatters? Would he tell his constituents that they should abide by that and request the Cape Town municipality to give them services?

If they have to squat it is because of the failure of the Government to provide housing for them. [Interjections.]

Order!

The argument all along has been that they have to squat, and I want it on record—I hope I understand the hon. member correctly—that if they were to squat on Green Point Common, that hon. member would condone that and ask the municipality to make their position a semi-permanent one. [Interjections.] Now he is squirming. In fact, he should squirm, because my accusation against the Opposition is that they are not defending what is one of the cornerstones of a free enterprise democratic society, i.e. the real rights of the people who have rights in land. [Interjections.] I think it is scandalous! I think they are undermining the very structure of our society when they do that, and they know that I am speaking the truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to give the assurance that the Government will, to the limit of the resources available to it, fight the squatter problem and will end it.

Try to solve it.

We shall rehouse these people.

You have already had 29 years within which to do it.

I want to tell my hon. friend over there something. The party he supports, and which I supported, was in power for many years. If one takes a look at the Hansard of 1910, the first Hansard in the history of our Parliament, one would see, in the first 20 pages or so, that one of the first measures adopted by the Botha Government was an anti-squatter measure. It is therefore a problem that is with us all the time. However, we shall never relent or relax our vigilance. It is an evil, a blemish on the fair face of South Africa, and we shall combat it with positive measures, e.g. by building homes at the rate at which we are building them, faster if possible. We shall end this problem. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is more, we shall also not hesitate to do what the United Nations Commission which investigated the squatter problem all over the world recommended. I do not have their recommendations before me now, but I quoted them last year. They said it was not enough to build homes. They said one would never solve the problem merely by constructing homes, but that one would also have to take drastic measures to retard the tempo of urbanization, especially in the younger countries of the world. We shall take special measures to retard the tempo of urbanization in South Africa and we shall do it with the full support of all the authorities which have made a true study of this and do not have political motives. More important: We shall even ask South Africa to make sacrifices in order constructively to end the problem by building homes within the means of the people concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said that African squatters had no reason to squat because they were not here legally. Will he allow the Black workers who are in the Peninsula legally to live here together with their wives and families?

I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because I have a note here, which escaped my attention, to deal with the accusation that was levelled from time to time by certain hon. members that the Bill was imposed upon the Department of Community Development by my colleague of the Department of Bantu Administration and that his absence during the debate was significant.

I made a statement, by which I still stand, in my Second Reading speech. Let me enlarge upon it slightly. First of all, I want to say that the western Cape is a priority area as far as employment is concerned for our Coloured community. We are not prepared to negotiate that. That is not negotiable; that is final as far as the Government is concerned. Therefore, more perhaps than anywhere else in South Africa, the Black workers who come here, come here only to sell their labour for a specific purpose and not in competition with the Coloured people. They cannot get employment here which will deprive Coloured people of work opportunities. Therefore they are in a different category. Once we allow them to have homes here, the prior claim of the Coloured people will become eroded and will not be sustained. I want to make that very clear. Secondly, I want to give the assurance—I have conferred on this with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—that those Black workers who are legally in the Cape Peninsula area can be lawfully housed by the Bantu Administration Board. There is no need for them to squat. Housing for them may not be perfect, but it cannot be worse than what they are enduring at the moment. That is the position.

The point is whether they can have their wives with them.

Please! I want to help the hon. member. I do not think it would be proper for me to go into a full debate on that aspect. I have been given an undertaking by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who deals with this matter, that he will be in attendance throughout the Committee Stage. Although this Bill does not enable us to deal with the general principle of squatting, anything which is detailed in the Bill and concerns his department can be queried with him. He will be here to answer questions and solve the problems of hon. members in that respect.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; 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 Toit, J. P.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and A. C. van Wyk.

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.