Mr. Speaker, the Second Reading debate on this Appropriation Bill is nearing its conclusion after nearly 20 hours. I believe this debate has clearly shown that there are very real socio-economic and political problems involved in endeavouring to project a State in Africa into a modern and highly complex and basically Western orientated democratic State. I believe the debate has also shown the dimensions of this task, a task which I believe the debate has also shown, is often misunderstood and underestimated by our critics, not only outside South Africa but also within South Africa. However, the purpose of this debate is to find practical answers to these problems. Therefore, I believe, it is regrettable that no hon. member on the Government side has been able to clearly identify the diseases of State, as the hon. the Minister of Finance named them, as well as their root causes. I am also distressed by the fact that no hon. member opposite has offered any suggestion for the correction of these factors.

I will therefore conclude the viewpoint of the NRP by endeavouring to do just this.

I identify the three major diseases of State in South Africa to be, firstly, an out of balance national economy, which is in recession and suffering from inflation. Secondly, there is the lack of a constitutional settlement in South Africa which can adequately accommodate the political aspirations of all our groups in South Africa, while at the same time safeguarding minority interests. Thirdly, there is a flaw in our human relations in South Africa which leads to inequalities, discrimination and affronts to human dignity and self-respect. Regarding the economy I do believe that those who prescribe the economic medicine of State should be ever mindful of what phase one of the hon. the Minister’s programme of treatment has cost the people of South Africa, and also of the resultant condition of the patient. We in these benches do not deny that the treatment has been successful in terms of correcting the deficit on the current account of our balance of payments, which, let us face it, was draining the economic lifeblood of South Africa. In the process of the cure, however, the patient at the present time is very lean and hungry. His condition can be measured by the number of insolvencies, the number of business closures, the drop or losses of profit, and most certainly by the number of unemployed at the present time—all resulting from the recessionary consequences of phase one of the hon. the Minister’s programme.

Therefore, I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that prevention is better than cure. While we in these benches are prepared to accept the wisdom of phase one, we are obliged to remind the hon. the Minister that all he has done is to correct the mistakes of his predecessor, mistakes against which this Government was warned in previous debates in this House. As the Government is now being warned in this particular debate, the cause of the economic disease which affects the state, not only of South Africa, but also of much of the Western World, lies, I believe, in the liberal and socialistic attitudes of much of our Western society. These attitudes propagate the concept that everyone is entitled to a high standard of living, that the State in fact owes the people such a standard of living. In order to achieve this the State becomes increasingly active in the economy. This attitude sometimes even goes further with the belief that this standard of living need not necessarily be earned, but can rather be achieved by taxing the hardworking and the frugal, by nationalizing industries, by borrowing or by pumping paper money into the economy. The end results of these attitudes are excessive Government spending, ever increasing taxation, ever increasing debt, the destruction of the motivating incentive, all of which result in inflation, in eventual recession, and then, when the disaster occurs, in a major depression.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister—and I say this in all sincerity—on his decision to start to reverse this trend in South Africa by applying a conservative fiscal and monetary policy in recent years. However, I have doubts in my own mind whether the hon. the Minister is going to achieve the objectives of phase two of the treatment, the reasons for which I will give later. We agree with him that the South African economy must grow, especially today when we are faced with such great social and political problems. However, we in these benches go further. We believe that the economy must grow without excessive inflation if we are to enjoy true prosperity. This is the economic challenge with which I believe South Africa is faced today. The question is whether the hon. the Minister will achieve this. We believe that the hon. the Minister can succeed, provided he uses the correct proportions of the basic ingredients for economic success. These, I believe, are not seen in this budget.

Time, unfortunately, prohibits me to enter into a deep discussion on this. However, in simplistic terms the ingredients, as I see them, are twofold. Firstly, we require a dynamic, motivated and competent entrepreneurial thrust to create real wealth from our resources and also from the opportunities which present themselves to us. This, Mr. Speaker, is achieved by providing adequate incentives to the producers of wealth who are the entrepreneurs. The second ingredient is a sound financial management of the acquired wealth. This is achieved by keeping the purse strings tight and by wisely re-investing the surplus wealth. The first ingredient creates wealth and the second ensures financial stability and growth. To be successful there must be a correct balance of the two. Too much of one and too little of the other results either in tremendous growth at the risk of financial instability, as we have seen in the case of some countries, and certainly in the case of companies such as Glen Anil, or in too little growth, with a large measure of financial stability. Up to about three or four years ago South Africa had too much of the former, and we are therefore now passing through a period of financial instability. The hon. the Minister, fortunately, has put the brake on and I believe he is to be commended for the measure of success which he has achieved. However, the question is: Will he achieve the objectives of phase 2 of his programme, i.e. growth? We have our doubts, as I have said. I say this because, in order to achieve growth over a broad front, there has to be more spending and investment money in the hands of the consumer and the private entrepreneur. I do not believe that this budget is going to cause this to happen to the degree which is required at the present time. In the past growth has been achieved by increasing the supply of money or near-money, and by providing easier credit facilities, while continuing an unrestricted Government expenditure programme. However, I believe that experience has taught us that this is inflationary. In addition, the conservative and disciplined financial policies which the hon. the Minister is now following disallow this.

Since this is the case, there is one other way to increase spending, and that is by reducing taxation. The hon. the Minister has attempted to do this in this budget. He has reduced income taxes and company taxes. This will certainly put more money into circulation, and it should boost consumer demand, but the general sales tax which is required to balance the account is most likely going to take back out of the economy as much as has been released into it. Only time will tell how effective this programme is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches believe that the root cause of our financial ills lies in excessive Government spending. In order to balance this expenditure, taxation and borrowings are too high. Thus the incorrect balance of the ingredients for success has resulted in an economy with inflation and recession as two of the consequences. I believe that this is borne out by the hon. the Minister himself. In his budget speech he said—

What administered prices was the hon. the Minister referring to? This is a question I would like to ask. The answer is the tariffs of the S.A. Railways and of Escom. This is the very thing which we over the years and certainly in this session have complained about.

I believe the hon. the Minister is correct in blaming his colleagues in this regard. He too, however, is guilty of this. In the speech of the hon. member for East London North the other day, he criticized the Minister, saying that he had expanded the number of employees employed by the Government by about 15 000 during 1977. The hon. the Minister did not seem to be particularly interested in this. In fact, he said: “15 000 on what?”, meaning “what percentage?”. Sir, we have worked this out, and it is an increase of 4,8%. The hon. the Minister was increasing his own employment rate by 4,8% while the gross domestic product had increased by only some 0,5%. This was at a time, too, when the country was experiencing tremendous business failures. This indicates to us that the only growth industry in the economy happened to be the government. The hon. the Minister has seen fit to discipline the private sector. As a result the private sector has suffered considerably, and in some cases disastrously, yet he and his colleagues have not applied the same rules, the same discipline and the same recipes to themselves. Government departments increased and expenditure continued to grow. This causes an imbalance in the economy. Too much money from the hard-earned wealth which has been created by the private sector is being siphoned off to support the Government bureaucracy. The remedy lies only, I believe, in reduced Government spending. This is the responsibility of the Cabinet and it is, we believe, their duty to grasp the nettle for the sake of South Africa.

Now I should like to turn to the second disease of State to which I have referred, and that is the lack of a suitable constitutional settlement in South Africa. I think that we must accept that peaceful and harmonious coexistence amongst the groups in South Africa can only be achieved when we achieve a degree of mutual respect amongst our groups, and mutual respect can only be achieved when each group has its own self-respect. Politically speaking, in a plural society, mutual respect requires that each group must have its own political power base. I think that we would all agree that as long as this White Parliament has the political power to determine the destinies of the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa, there will be no harmonious and peaceful coexistence amongst our people. Those of us who believe that the South African society is a plural society agree that power must be given to the other groups and that they should have their own political institutions. Those who believe in a plural society, for example the members in these benches and also those across the floor, will find no argument with this. So when the NP announced its intention, last year, of introducing a new constitution giving rise to three separate Parliaments, one for the Whites, one for the Coloureds and one for the Indians, with these three groups coming together in some central Cabinet Council, as they call it—we in these benches prefer to call it an embryo federal assembly— I personally welcomed the move. I believe that whilst we in the NRP might argue about the mechanics of these proposals, the broad principle we can accept. In fact, the acceptance of this principle by the NP does, I believe, remove the major areas of difference between the NP and the NRP. In the past the NP’s political principles propounded totally separate political institutions for Whites, Indians and Coloureds. This was the apartheid principle of Dr. Malan and Dr. Verwoerd. I believe I am correct in this. In that respect we disagreed entirely with the Government. Now I believe that it is clear that the NP has shifted its principles. [Interjections.] I want to put a question to hon. members on that side. I believe that the NP has deviated from the old principles involving political representation for Coloureds and Indians. Is that not correct? This is an extremely important question. Has the NP deviated from the old political principle of totally separated political destinies for Whites, Indians and Coloureds?

No!

If they say “No”—this is important—they are bluffing no one.

Did you not read our proposals?

I believe that these new proposals are a major shift from NP principles and policies, yet as we can see here today the party is having difficulty in selling these to themselves, and if they cannot sell them to themselves, how can they sell them to the Indians and Coloureds? Surely the situation in South Africa today is so serious that a degree of urgency should be given to these constitutional problems. This is a most urgent task of this Government, and I am sure my hon. colleagues will agree that we want to give whatever assistance we can in this connection, but if the Government is having difficulty in selling these proposals, I believe we must look for the reasons. One of the reasons, of course, could be the differences within that party’s ranks.

I believe, however, that a further reason for this lies in the third disease of State to which I have referred, namely a flaw in our human relations which leads to inequalities, discrimination and an affront to human dignity and self-respect. This Government has an awful lot to live down, but my experience with hon. members on that side has led me to believe that many of them are very sincere in their efforts at sorting out the problems of South Africa. But, surely, the first requirement is to acknowledge that there are problems. All through this debate the hon. members on this side have been putting forward the problems that are facing South Africa and yet every member who has spoken from the other side has steadfastly refused to accept that many of these problems are the result of their attitude and of flaws in their basic policy. Is this not a cause for much of the misunderstanding and mistrust which exists in South Africa today?

It has often been said that we should learn from history. Regrettably, very few people do. I want to ask how many Afrikaners on the Government benches will argue with me if I say that 80 years ago there was much discrimination against the Afrikaner on the part of the British. How many will argue that point? None! The truth of the situation in those days was in fact the flame that caused the rise of the Broederbond and of Afrikaner nationalism. This I, as an English-speaking South African, accept today. My reason allows me to understand the roles the Broederbond and the NP have played in furthering the advancement of the Afrikaner. As a pluralist, I must grant the Afrikaner his right to further his interests and his wellbeing, always provided, however, that in so doing his actions do not impinge on my self-respect and on the self-respect of other groups.

We have to accept that there are inequalities in South Africa today. There are many examples of prejudice and discrimination. We must accept this. If we do not, we will never truly remove the resentment which bums in the breast of Brown and Black South Africans. If anyone is able to understand this, surely it must be the Afrikaner. If he does not understand it, we must ask whether he has not become too self-satisfied, too complacent or too selfish as a result of his immense political power in South Africa.

In the few minutes left to me, I should like to try to illustrate by recent events the views I am attempting to convey. In March 1976 Chief Gatsha Buthelezi addressed a crowd of some 20 000 people at the Jabulani Amphitheatre in Soweto. I want to quote from his speech. He said—

That was January of 1975—

He went on to say—

Referring to Inkatha he said—

He also said—

That particular speech brought upon him the wrath of the Nationalist Press, so much so, that the good Afrikaners in my constituency saw fit to invite him to address them at Umbongintwini. The Suidkus-Kajuitraad invited him to address them and Chief Buthelezi gave a speech entitled “Dialogue or Confrontation?”. I want to quote from this speech because I believe it is relevant. He said—

That is what Chief Buthelezi said to the Suidkus-Kajuitraad.

In conclusion I want to appeal to other members on the other benches to take cognizance of these things. As Whites we do have flaws in our attitude towards Black and Brown. The discrimination, inequality and indignities shown to people of colour in South Africa are an evil in our South African relationships. If we are to live in harmony and peace these have to be removed. This is the urgent task of each one of us, especially as members of this Parliament.

Finally, I believe that Black South Africans are now beginning to emerge from their cocoon. They are forming their own organizations such as Inkatha. I believe that Inkatha as a cultural liberation movement is a good thing for the Zulu just as much as the Broederbond as a cultural liberation movement was a good thing for the Afrikaner. As such there must be no thought of banning Inkatha. If the Government had to do this I believe it would be a disaster measured in terms of Black-White relationships. The danger lies in the possibility of a confrontation between these two organizations as spearheads of White versus Black nationalism in a conflict for political power in South Africa. I believe every one of us should do everything in our power to ensure that this does not happen.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat sounded one reasonably optimistic note by pointing out that there is at least a degree of common ground among hon. members in those benches and hon. members on this side. He referred in particular to the creation of opportunities for the various population groups or peoples to decide on their own future and manage their own affairs. However, the hon. member refers to the new dispensation and asks whether the NP has deviated from its policy or not. I think I can sum that up for him by saying that the NP has deviated from the formulation of its policy which hon. members opposite have put forward over the years. It has been a disappointment to them from time to time to see that the policy which has been labelled and described as one of increasing suppression over the years, has opened new ways, new possibilities and new prospects for the non-Whites in South Africa.

I want to be quite honest by admitting to the hon. member that as far as the mutual relations of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians are concerned, we were saddled with the problem of three population groups occupying a common fatherland. We do not foresee homelands or separate States for these three population groups. That is why we had to consider the issue of sovereign State authority and of how we could reconcile this in one country and in one state among these three groups. This was one of the important reasons why the Erika Theron Commission recommended that they foresaw that it would be essential in South Africa to depart from the Westminster system because it was not flexible enough and lacked the adaptability necessary for the circumstances and needs of South Africa. However, the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated, and former Prime Ministers have stated, that we have not yet reached the end of the road and that the end of the road is not yet in sight for them. We were still battling with the problem, and this has never been concealed from hon. members on that side of the House. Nor have we ever intimated that we have a cut-and-dried solution. However, the hon. member need not be concerned that the NP has deviated from its policy. What is happening, is that the NP is developing its policy.

I welcome it!

If the hon. member will afford me the opportunity I will give him proof of the truth of what I say. The supporters of the former UP and the expected supporters of that party confirm what I am now saying. The whole matter is clear to them, and that is why they chose to vote for the NP and its candidates in the recent election whereas that hon. member’s party vanished like mist before the sun. We really cannot be blamed for that. The voters, not only Nationalists, but also that hon. member’s own supporters, bore testimony to that when they said that they were tired of the division in the Opposition and of the lack of clarity with regard to their policy which gave no clear indication of what they wanted. In my opinion the hon. member had better treat the policy proposals and the constitutional proposals of the Government and this party seriously. If he were to do so, he would arrive at valuable insights. I shall now leave the hon. member at that because the hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to his arguments relating to the budget himself. I do not have the time, nor am I able to do so.

I should like to make use of the time at my disposal to point out that there are a few cliches which are used from time to time by the Official Opposition, clichés which are in fact typical of their policy, their point of view and the attitude they adopt. I want to give the hon. member for Houghton credit for the fact that she usually displays the most courage in stating their policy clearly. The leaders usually conceal it a little, but she usually states it reasonably clearly and frankly. That is why the hon. member did not hesitate to raise those two hackneyed issues, Biko and Donald Woods, once again. As far as those two gentlemen are concerned I should like to say to the hon. member that there is not a single country in the Western World, the USA included, which does not have its Bikos and Donald Woods as well. However, I do not have the time at my disposal to go into detail and to pull skeletons out of the cupboard. These are matters which come up in the world Press too, from time to time, when certain people, sometimes even Americans, air these matters a little and say that it does not suit them always to have these things publicized. I shall leave it at that. To me this is an absolute indication of the negative attitude which the hon. member and her party always adopt towards South Africa, viz. that they always make a song and dance about this type of evidence. Is it to protect South Africa, or to impose their policy on South Africa with the aid of the outside world? They see in that opportunities and ways to whip up and muster world opinion against us, as it were, in order to get us to conform to so-called world opinion, as she said once again in her speech in the debate. There is another statement the hon. member made, a statement often made on that side of the House. The hon. member said—

I want to say to the hon. member that that is so.

That it exists or that it is disappearing?

I am inclined to agree with her statement. However, the question is whether this constitutes criticism of the budget or whether it constitutes true, responsible and valid criticism of South Africa and the State of development in which the non-Whites find themselves in South Africa today. Is this a reason to turn against one’s own country and point one’s finger at these matters? [Interjections.] After all, exactly the same situation still prevails in the USA. The USA has a mighty economy and a population comprising 200 million people of European origin, for the most part developed people, and 25 million Negroes—in point of fact they are no longer Negroes but people of Negro descent. What is the situation there? After all, the hon. member has seen this more often than I and other people have. We see that even that large White population with their mighty economy have to this day not been able to eliminate what the hon. member for Houghton calls “The vast gap between White and Black”.

Yes, but there are not legislative measures … [Interjections.]

The hon. member did not refer to legislation alone. She merely states a fact and then publicises that fact by means of the world Press as if that typifies South Africa and the unreasonableness and imprudence of the Government’s policy. [Interjections.] I do not have much time. Hon. members should therefore give me a chance.

Say for the sake of argument the hon. the Minister was able to eliminate this difference in the budget by one mighty stroke of the pen. How far do hon. members think that would get us? In the first instance, our economy could not bear the burden. Say for the sake of argument that the hon. the Minister had the financial means at his disposal to equalize, for example, the social pensions of Brown people, Whites, Indians and Blacks. Would he thereby eliminate the difference between the standards of living of the White and the Black man? He would certainly not have done that, because it is not merely a question of the standard of living but also a question of a way of life. It also relates to the ability to spend, the ability to utilize money and also the issue of one’s perception of values. In the world I live in, one often finds that some of our farming people … or let me rather give an example which I encountered personally. On one occasion, an artisan in the building industry, a bricklayer, came to speak to me and told me that he earned too little money. I told him that I thought he earned enough money if what he produced was taken into account. He replied: “Yes, Sir, I admit that I earn enough, but when I stand in the bar I stand out among the other men because they drink brandy and I still have to drink wine.” This bricklayer is a first-class man and I mention it merely to give hon. members the idea that here is another kind of value. This is one of the problems that arise if one tries to equalise people’s living standards superficially by putting the same money in everyone’s pocket, because after it has all been done there remains a difference.

Let me go further. Is this major difference in the standards of living not related, not only to the ability to spend money but also to the ability to live creatively, and not only to earn money but also to display an entrepreneuring spirit and make a contribution? In this regard I am not referring to the employee alone, but also to the employer. Is it not the problem of Africa that so few people have the ability to act as entrepreneur and former of capital? Is it, then, correct of hon. members on that side to make out continually that the factual situation in South Africa, namely the standard of living of the Whites, which is considerably higher than that of the Black and the Brown man, is the fault of the Government? Does it not perhaps form part of the situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the level of development of people? It takes time—not years, but centuries—to guide a people to improved living conditions. Improved standards of living are not things which one can simply offload on people. They are things which come from within and which must be developed.

Hon. members on that side of the House sometimes remind me of what I once saw in the workshop of a farmers’ co-operative. The works manager there often had problems at ploughing time and harvest time, when the farmers were usually in a tremendous hurry. During those periods they put tremendous pressure on him when they want their tractor, truck or plough fixed. As a result he put up a notice which read: “Miracles we do at once, but the impossible takes a little longer.” I want to put it to hon. members for their consideration that with all the goodwill in the world it takes a little longer to guide the Black and other Coloured people in South Africa and allow them to develop a high standard of living. It is still going to take a little time.

I want to refer hon. members on the other side of the House to another example. I could compare Zambia and Rhodesia, but let me first refer to Zambia. Zambia was once described as potentially one of the wealthiest countries of Africa. There was a reasonable White population and Zambia was making good progress. White farmers there told me that it was a country with tremendous possibilities. However, what did we read recently? After 14 years of independence Dr. Kenneth Kaunda states that it grieved him that after 14 years of independence they were still unable even to manufacture a box of matches. These words of his are typical of Zambia’s case. Who blames us for the fact that the President of Zambia admits that after 14 years of independence they are not even able to manufacture a box of matches themselves? I do not refer to that in order to speak disparagingly of these people, but to stress that one is here dealing with an African country which blocked the future of its Whites and made the situation so insecure for them that most of them left and are still leaving today. Now Zambia is without these people. I think that the hon. member for Parktown was directly or indirectly involved in that because at one stage, when Dr. Kaunda nationalized the copper mining companies, he was asked the reasonable question of how he would pay the companies, to which he replied that he would pay them with the dividends they would receive. The eventual outcome was however that no further money was invested. The country no longer attracts capital. The standard of living in Zambia has gradually dropped with a result that today Zambia is in the situation of no longer having food for its people to eat. I do not want to use the word bankrupt. Sir, I think that these matters are relevant.

On the other hand, we have the example of Rhodesia where approximately a quarter of a million White people are still living. There is a tremendous difference between Rhodesia and Zambia due to the very fact that there are a quarter of a million people maintaining a high standard of living. Apart from a high standard of living they also possess the skills, the knowledge and the organizational ability to carry Rhodesia. In spite of sanctions and the tremendous world pressure being exerted against them, they are nevertheless developing and they are still strong. It is unreasonable to say that there is an unfair difference in Rhodesia between the standards of living of that group of Whites and the Blacks. Those Black people enjoy a higher standard of living than the Black people of South Africa, due to that very group of Whites. Hon. members on that side of the House are continually comparing South Africa with the rest of the world, with Western countries, as the hon. member for Houghton usually does. I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that the gap between the standards of living of Black people and White people, to mention only two, is not due to the White person enjoying a high standard of living. The fact that the Black people enjoy a standard of living higher than virtually everyone else in the rest of Africa is due to the White population which has created political stability here and initiated industrial development, mining development and agricultural development. In other words, there are fundamental pillars on which these structures are based. The superficial criticism of hon. members on the other side of the House cannot undo this fact nor can it change the situation overnight. With the best will in the world the hon. the Minister of Finance could not change it, even though he should very, very much like to do so.

I should like to stress a few of the other points made by Opposition speakers from time to time. I want to go on to point out that the hon. member for Houghton said (Hansard, 3 April)—

As far as I am concerned, I agree. However, I must unfortunately contradict her and say that there is a large part of the population in South Africa which unfortunately does not have the respect and the tremendous admiration for democracy which she has, or which I have or which hon. members of this House have. It remains to be seen whether they will appreciate it in time. There are signs in the Transkei, and there are today signs in Rhodesia, after a tremendous struggle, that there are Black people today who are beginning to realize that the system which Africa is rejecting is by no means as bad as they thought. However the fact is that there are a great many people in South Africa who do not get as enthusiastic about this democratic structure we have built up as we ourselves are. They do not yet understand it; they do not appreciate it, and they would also like to test other systems if the opportunity arises.

That is why I want to say to hon. members opposite that I deplore the fact that they take so little account of the hard realities of South Africa. The difference between the levels of development of the various population groups can be illustrated merely by referring to a relatively small group, the Indian population. In the sphere of business and industry they are far ahead of the Coloured and the Bantu, because they have it in them. They have the background. They have experience; they have, as it were, more insight. What we are to ascribe this to we do not know, but the fact is that they have a head start. Nor is it a simple matter to eliminate such a head start, or to make up the leeway. I deplore the fact that hon. members opposite have so little regard for these great realities of South Africa. It is only when we begin to take that into account that we are able to establish a form of government and a national economy which can develop peacefully, because it must develop. It is not only the Whites who want to make progress. It must develop, and we all feel that it is the lesser developed population groups in particular who must still develop a great deal. That is why I want to say to hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. members of the Official Opposition, that they constitute today one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the non-Whites in this regard. They are willing to give the non-Whites the franchise, even though it be on the basis of a qualified franchise. They are continually inculcating the idea among the non-Whites that the reason why they enjoy a lower standard of living is that the Whites suppress them, because the Whites do not give them what they are entitled to. One finds this continually. One sees it when one reads the speech by the hon. member for Houghton. That forms its whole theme. In addition she brings in world opinion to pressurize South Africa to effect the necessary changes. I do not want to know whether she wants to listen to her own speech, but I should like to quote a few of the things she said. She said (Hansard, 3 April)—

She puts it here that this is the force with which we must reckon. This is the force which is to pressurize us to effect the changes, not changes which are reasonable, but those the PFP prefers, which they prescribe and which the world Press prescribes. I say that South Africa has effected changes over the years. Indeed, in the year 1978, South Africa is still engaged in effecting major changes. However, in that process of change we cannot allow our self to be pre scribed to by the world Press or by world opinion or by the PFP. We must reckon with the realities, the needs and the possibilities of South Africa itself. What is reasonable within the confines of a stable economy? To what extent can we do certain things and still retain our military preparedness? How is the hon. the Minister of Education and Development to organize matters in his department so as to enable those people to progress as rapidly as possible and afford them the necessary education and training? How is he to do so within reasonable limits? In any event, the hon. the Minister of Finance must find the funds for this purpose. One cannot exceed those limits. Account must be taken of that. We must also take account of the fact that the White taxpayer—and I do not necessarily exclude the non-White taxpayer—is to a very great extent the one who has to bear the heaviest burden. Although in general he is willing to make his contribution, that contribution must be kept within reasonable limits. It is pointless to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is pointless to put pressure on the White taxpayer—and here we can include the small percentage of non-Whites who are taxed fairly heavily—so that eventually he is unable to bear the burden.

Having listened to and considered the budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and having also listened to the speeches by hon. members opposite, I am grateful to be able to state that I regard this budget as a very responsible and balanced one. It is a budget which is in the interests not only of the Whites of South Africa, but also of all the other people. It is, too, a budget which is in the interests of the development of South Africa, also bearing in mind the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Piketberg has indicated that he has a suspicion that I might have had something to do with Zambia. Yes, I did work there for a few years and I still often visit Zambia. While the hon. member makes such great play of his allegation that not even a box of matches is manufactured in Zambia—and that may well be true—I can put his mind at rest by giving him the assurance that highly sophisticated mining equipment—including diamond drills—is manufactured in Zambia. Furthermore, motor car tyres are manufactured there. Motor cars are also assembled there, and a hundred and one other industries are found in Zambia. The hon. member’s reference to the box of matches is, with all respect, proof of his ignorance in connection with the condition of the Zambian economy. [Interjections.]

I merely quoted what Pres. Kaunda himself had said.

As far as the steady decline of the Zambian economy is concerned, I can say that there ought to be at least 120 hon. members who know what the price of copper has been during the past three years and what the influence of that has been on the Zambian economy. [Interjections.] But be that as it may, I can only express the hope that the hon. member for Piketberg is more conversant with the facts of the other matters which he has discussed. [Interjections.]

Before I speak about the budget, I think it is only right that I should react briefly to the question which the hon. the Minister of Defence put to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday. The hon. Minister asked how many Black and Brown directors were serving on the boards of companies of the Anglo American group. I briefly want to say four things about this.

In the first place, my party and I are strongly in favour of the idea that Brown and Black people ought to be appointed to boards of directors where it is opposite. [Interjections.] My impression is that many of the leaders in commerce and industry also feel that way. In the third place, I believe that it would be totally wrong to make use of this debate and of this hon. House to make any announcement on behalf of any particular company or companies. [Interjections.] The answer is that there are no such persons, but I make no statement as far as the future is concerned. In the fourth place, Sir, it would be of great value if the Government would, before the end of this budget debate, avail itself of the opportunity of clearly expressing its viewpoint on this. I have already said that I think that commerce and industry are in favour of it. If the Government were to state clearly that it would welcome such steps and that it would facilitate matters and that any stumbling blocks which might be in the way of that would be removed, it would be something healthy for South Africa and its economy.

Sir, when I was still an inexperienced young doctor, with my recently acquired degree, my father, with a lifetime of experience in that profession behind him, offered me the following advice: “My son, you must know this. Out of every five patients whom you are going to treat in your lifetime, there will probably be three who will recover regardless of what you give them or even if you give them no assistance whatsoever. There will be one who will ultimately die of his illness, no matter what you do to try to help him. It is just possible that in the fifth case, your intervention may be constructive and may accomplish something.” I am telling this story because, with the greatest respect, the hon. the Minister of Finance and his department are in more or less the same position in regard to the economy of South Africa. The prosperity or otherwise of the country in the years that lie ahead will be determined in the first place by factors which no one in this House or in this country can control in any way. I am thinking for example of matters like mineral prices in the world, which I mentioned in the case of Zambia just now, technological developments which change matters altogether, and climatic conditions which affect agriculture. In the second place, our prosperity depends partly on factors which are in fact more or less within the control of members of the Government, but then not of the Minister of Finance and his department. Here one refers to matters like labour legislation, diplomatic relations—for example with a country like America and with our trading partners—the conditions in our Black urban areas, like those which have prevailed during the past 18 months, and, as the hon. member for Houghton has rightly mentioned, what goes on in our prisons. Only in the third place— and I do not mean this in a derogatory sense at all—does the prosperity and progress depend upon the acts or the omissions of the hon. the Minister and his department. For that reason it is necessary to cover a wider field in this debate than merely the economy and the budget. But let us start with that.

I think that in the circumstances, the hon. the Minister and his department have done certain things well. In the first place, I should like to pay tribute to them for having limited Government expenditure to such an extent. The virtue of thrift is a valuable one over and above the money which is saved. A thrifty organization is normally an effective organization and a happy organization and we are all grateful that this has been accomplished. The supply of money has only been allowed to increase slowly. That is a particularly valuable phenomenon in the present circumstances, and it deserves our thanks. To the delight of all of us, there has been a turnaround in the balance of trade—due largely, as the hon. the Minister has said himself, to the recessionary conditions. It was nevertheless a dramatic change. Therefore, because it has largely been accomplished as a result of the recessionary conditions, it had to be paid for in the form of a particularly low growth rate and a rising unemployment figure in the country. Against this background, the Minister had to make his attempt at stimulation. It is a very circumspect effort, and it had to be circumspect in view of the prevailing low level of the reserves and in view of the still rising inflation rate. Yet, as the hon. member for Florida said at an earlier stage of the debate, the Minister had few options. Within these limitations, if we regard the budget merely as an exercise in financial management in the comparatively short term, the Minister has not fared badly with it. Even as far as that is concerned, however, there are reservations.

In the first place, no matter what hon. members on the other side may say, this budget does shift a tax burden from the shoulders of the wealthy to those of the less privileged. Hon. members on the other side reacted indignantly to the statements by my hon. friend for Yeoville, but he was perfectly correct in what he said.

Since when has he been your friend?

For a long time, even before I had the privilege of getting to know the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I hope that he, too, is now becoming my friend.

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

No, Sir, my time is too limited. The man who earns R10 000—according to the tax schedule as published in Die Burger of 30 March—we do not even regard him as a poor man—will find that as a result of this budget, his income tax will decrease from R1 392 to R1 276. In other words, he will save R116 on his income tax. But if he spends only R5 000 of the remaining R8 724—and that is a very conservative estimate—on goods which are subject to general sales tax, he will lose R200 by that. I know of course that there are other, additional factors. There is the question of transfer duty, the reduced sales duty and other matters which will be added, but I quote this example to indicate that even a man with a reasonable income of R10 000 per annum— and two children, by the way—will have to pay more in a full year on the new general sales tax than he would save on his income tax. But if hon. members do not want to believe the hon. member for Yeoville, and if they do not want to believe me either, I should like to call another witness, and that is the paper which very faithfully supports hon. members on the other side. I am referring to the Financial Gazette. I shall now read from the leading article in the Financial Gazette which appeared just after the budget speech on 31 March—

And a list is supplied. I quote further—

That is what the Financial Gazette says. I quote further—

This is a similar example to the one which I have just used, but only at another level. Although I have expressed appreciation for other aspects of the budget, I want to point, secondly, to a further reservation in connection with our financial affairs. I do not think that the capital account has been stressed sufficiently in the course of the debate. The hon. the Minister did, quite fairly, supply the facts to us, but in the light of the decisive importance of this, I do not think that we have devoted sufficient attention to it. I should like to quote another authority here, and this is also an authority which has already been quoted with approval by the Government’s front benches during this debate. I am referring to the famous Prof. Hayek. I quote from The Cape Times of 29 March—

We need not like that. We may all feel that we have been done an injustice, but this is a fact and we run the risk of not facing up to that fact.

We do not dispute that.

What is the point?

The point is we are not getting it!

The point is—as if the hon. member for Turffontein would ever understand it—that hon. members get up in this debate time and again and say: “Oh, do not worry, we can generate our own capital! We can generate our own capital just to continue existing, or, to use the word that is in vogue today, to “survive”, but what type of existence is that? As everybody in the House knows, because it has been said repeatedly during this debate, we have a population increase of almost 3% in South Africa. That means that we need a real growth rate of almost 3% just to maintain our average standard of living. In reality, we have a growth rate of 0,5%. Our real standard of living is therefore declining by approximately 2% per year. I repeat: The Department of Finance has done its best in the present circumstances, but as long as the apartheid policy continues to exist, the conditions under which the Department of Finance must work will remain rather difficult. For that reason the Government as a whole—not the Minister of Finance as such—has a duty towards the nation to change the policy in such a manner that there can in fact be a hope of growth in the future. I believe that the achievement of 1977 as far as our balance of payment is concerned, to which I have already referred, can indeed contribute towards a better financial reputation for our country in the world— our reputation in this respect is already good—thereby also contributing towards a future influx of capital. But more than that is necessary. Sound financial management alone will not achieve that.

†I think that, among other members, the hon. member for Constantia did us a service earlier in this debate by drawing our attention to the question of productivity and to the question of the growing shortage of human resources in the form of skilled human resources in South Africa. These are problems which at the moment are tending to be disguised by the fact that we are in a recession, but they are problems which will become extremely serious if and when we get out of the recession. A good deal has been said about productivity in this debate. It is not an easy concept. We all know that productivity in South Africa is low and that it is extremely difficult to measure, let alone improve. One thing we should all understand is that one cannot talk meaningfully about the productivity of an individual worker or, as the hon. member for Paarl tried to do, of a certain race group among the workers, because the productivity of an enterprise depends upon the joint effort of the managers, the supervisors, the labourers and a number of other factors which make up the success or failure of that enterprise. As my hon. friend for Constantia has said, two things at least are necessary: education and training on a vast scale and incentives to make people want to work and want to perform well.

We are grateful that there is a substantial increase in the amount to be voted for education and training in the budget, but we have to go a lot further than that. Remember that, as was indicated by my hon. friend, by the year 2000 we shall need 2,5 million Black people in managerial, technical and professional jobs in this country. This is going to call for an enormous effort, but it is the minimum price of a satisfactory living standard for us all. My hon. friend then referred to the fact that this challenge is heightened by the fact that the flow of immigrants into South Africa, on which we have been able to rely on the past and for which the economic development programme made provision, has dried up. It has dried up much as the inflow of capital has dried up. I say again: the drying up of the flow of immigrants, like the drying up of the flow of capital, is the price we are paying for the luxury of apartheid. The hon. the Minister of Finance as such cannot help it: the Government as a whole has to do something.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have growth, if we are going to have “weerbaarheid”, if we are going to have a future in the economic sense, we need the effort of all our people. Most hon. members in the House can look back on quite a part of the lives they have lived. In many cases they have been hard lives; in most cases successful lives. They have been lives of struggle and lives of achievement, achievement for themselves and for their families, and also achievement for their compatriots, their fellow South Africans. Every hon. member in this House grew up knowing that, though his circumstances might be difficult, there was no ceiling over his head, no limit would be put on his progress, but that his country would welcome him, thank him and honour him for what he earned by the sweat of his brow. He knew not least that he would have an opportunity also to participate in the governing process in his country. He knew that he would have the vote. He knew that he would have the opportunity to come to this place. If we really want to get our productivity rising, if we really want to ensure our “weerbaarheid”, if we want to restore our capital inflow, if we want to take the heat off our borders, we must give every South African worker the chance we had, we must give everyone in our economic system the assurance that for him the sky is the limit, that he can go to the top.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave the House very telling figures to show the House to what an enormous extent our economic life depends upon our Black fellow citizens. So what do we do? We tell our Black fellow citizen that we are going to deprive him of that citizenship. We do not merely offer him an option—that might be justifiable—we do not merely say “You can choose if you want to be a citizen of a homeland that is becoming independent”, but we force him to accept it whether he wants it or not, we force him to accept citizenship in one of a group of small states putatively to be created, states which together enjoy 3% of the gross national product of what has been South Africa as a whole—and this while these same people must provide us with 70% of our labour force and all the other things the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to. My hon. friend from Yeoville said the name of the game is “confidence”, not merely externally, but internally as well, because the failure of the flow in gross domestic investment is internal as well as external. If we want to create that sort of confidence, inside or outside, we must have the combined efforts of all our people. We must, Mr. Speaker, create a common patriotism.

It is appropriate to speak of patriotism at the conclusion of this debate. It has been a subject frequently raised during the debate and it is a theme which has run through it. I think every hon. member in the House knows where the word comes from. It comes from the Latin word patria which means country. Patriotism is a spatial concept and not an ethnic one. Patriotism has to do with the people who are within one’s borders and not with the people who happen to speak a certain language or whose faces happen to be a certain colour. That is why we call it vaderlandsliefde in Afrikaans. It is spatial and not ethnic. Those who live and work with me in my country, contributing towards our common welfare or our common disappointments, those are my compatriots and therefore they must be my fellow-citizens. Attempts are made on that side to base the concept of patriotism on cultural or linguistic considerations. Mr. Speaker, I cannot refrain from pointing out in passing that the hon. gentlemen opposite, as I understand them, say that the Zulus and the Xhosas belong to separate nations. My Zulu and Xhosa friends tell me that, with a little difficulty, they can understand each other when they speak to each other. [Interjections.] Yet, hon. members have become lyrical during this debate about how wonderfully the Afrikaners and the English work together in the National Party.

Are the Hollanders and we one nation?

What is the difference, Mr. Speaker? The best description I have heard of the doctrine of ethnicity to which hon. members have nailed their colours is that the doctrine of ethnicity is that which teaches that an Afrikaner and a Greek are part of the same nation but a Zulu and an Xhosa are not. If the word “patriotism” has any meaning, it is a spatial and not an ethnic concept and it has to do with everybody here in South Africa.

*In economic matters, as in any other field, we can overcome the obstacles ahead only if we can unite as South Africans, in a common loyalty, a joint effort and a joint citizenship. It is not yet too late to begin, but to begin, we shall have to get rid of apartheid.

Mr. Speaker, we have conducted a long debate in which a variety of different standpoints have been aired, relating not only to financial policy, but also to many other aspects of our policy. It would perhaps be as well if we were afforded the time to give further thought and consideration to these matters.

I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move, for the hon. the Minister of Prisons—

Mr. Speaker, it is very embarrassing to have to discuss a Bill without the hon. the Minister being present, and in the circumstances I move—

I am informed that the hon. the Minister is still busy in the Other Place. Nevertheless, I put the motion that the debate be now adjourned.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—24: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Noes—102: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. H. Hoon, J. P. A. Reyneke, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and V. A. Volker.

Question negatived.

Mr. Speaker, the debate has now reached the ridiculous situation where the Third Reading has been moved by the hon. the Minister of the Interior in the absence of the hon. the Minister of Prisons. We in this House are, therefore, expected to debate this Bill at Third Reading without the presence of the hon. the Minister of Prisons. There are various matters which we would like to raise with the hon. the Minister …

You have already raised all the points at the other stages. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if I may continue. Surely a very important principle is being established in the House today. In the 20 years that I have been in the House I have never been expected to debate a Bill at any stage without the hon. the Minister in charge of and responsible for the Bill before the House being present in the House. [Interjections.] Surely, out of respect for the institution of Parliament the responsible Minister should be present in the House at all stages while a Bill is discussed.

He is in the Other Place.

The hon. the Minister of National Education says that the hon. the Minister of Prisons is busy in the Other Place. In that case I would suggest that this debate should be adjourned until such time as the hon. the Minister can be present in this House in order to enable us to proceed with the Bill. I therefore move—

I am sorry, but the House has just given its judgment on a similar motion. That question has therefore already been decided upon. Consequently I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, may I then request the hon. the Leader of the House to move that this matter stands over until such time as the hon. the Minister of Prisons is available? I withdraw the motion to adjourn the debate and appeal to the hon. the Leader of the House to do that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: I just want to make it clear that we have apparently progressed more rapidly with the Order Paper than was expected. The Minister concerned is in the Other Place discussing a motion which was introduced by an hon. member of the Opposition. Apparently this unfortunate situation arose due to the time factor only. As soon as the hon. the Minister is available, we shall call him in.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Houghton would stop cackling, we would all be able to make a contribution. [Interjections.] She must watch out, because she might do herself an injury. I am quite prepared, if it is permissible in terms of the rules of the House, to move that this Order be postponed until the following one has been dealt with, but then it must be unopposed. I now move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, it has been a custom in the House in the past that on clause 1 a party should be entitled to make a short statement of its attitude towards the Bill under discussion. I now wish to avail myself of that opportunity.

At Second Reading the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South presented our case by saying that we felt that the legislation the hon. the Minister had introduced dealt only with a part of the problem of housing in South Africa. We have been consistent and have urged on many occasions that there should be a Ministry of Housing which would allow a co-ordination of all aspects of housing, from the sub-economic right through to that of the upper class, to the rich in the more affluent areas. The point which I wish to make to the hon. the Minister is that we have tried to bring home to him during the course of the Second Reading debate that an overall, umbrella Department of Housing was something which was infinitely desirable. I am glad that the hon. the Prime Minister is here too, because I do think it is something to which he could give his attention. There would be many economies of scale, and many efficiencies could be brought about as a result of a step of this nature. Housing, as has been pointed out, is probably the key area, the absolute crux area, of all relationships between Black and White. It is one of the things which brings the utmost pressure to bear on the Black community in the developing stage in which they are.

I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that we have difficulty with the long title of this Bill. We shall discuss the matter with him when the long title is put, after all the clauses have been put. The long title states—

We would suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is a misleading title, because it does not promote housing in general for the inhabitants of the Republic, but for a specific section of the population. We shall be moving an amendment to the long title, an amendment which we should like the hon. the Minister to consider.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals basically with two aspects of the intention of the Bill in creating a Housing Matters Advisory Committee and refers to what I think can be interpreted as two separate functions of the committee. The first function is suggested in subsection (1)(a), namely—

I pause there for a moment, because we are now talking about national housing. We are not concerned for the moment with provincial administrations; that comes at a second stage. In dealing with national housing and land we have to have co-ordination, so that housing can be made available to every single group in the country, be they Black, White, Coloured or Indian, who are above the economic limits prescribed in the Community Development Act and the National Housing Act itself. This is a national matter, and although I am basically motivating amendments which will be moved at a later stage, I am taking this opportunity, since this subject is before the Committee at the moment, to stress the importance of what is intended in this clause, i.e. to import a national character to a national matter concerning national land. When it comes to the question of land, I think we are going to have to have co-ordination on the part of those who are going to supply land for the various groups in this country, for whom land and housing can be developed only on land which is earmarked in terms of the Group Areas Act. The hon. the Minister knows well, and I think other hon. members know, for example, the difficulties that Johannesburg experienced during past years with regard to housing for the Coloureds. That stemmed from the simple fact that there was not sufficient land on which to provide housing for the Coloured people, because no proclamation had been made for many years to provide them with the necessary land. The same has been happening with the Indian community as well.

I now turn to the second aspect, mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), namely—

Sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) are then set out. The first one referred to is the question of the promotion of township establishment procedures in general. In this connection I want to stress the necessity for a revolution in the approach to town planning matters. Once it has been provided, as indicated, through regional and metropolitan planning, and through physical planning, that areas can be demarcated where township development can take place, and once the guide-lines have been established, it should be a matter of simple procedure for a township application to be considered by a local authority. That local authority must then see if they can supply the essential services of sewerage, electricity, water, roads, transportation and other necessities to provide a viable township, and not send the application to the various departments, which will result in the long delays that have taken place over many years.

When it comes to the next subparagraph, which deals with the sizes of residential stands, I merely want to make the point—and I again have to cite Johannesburg as an example—that of the more than 90 000 residential stands, only about 3 000 are in excess of three-quarters of an acre. Therefore, it cannot be prescribed here. It must be a matter for local authorities to deal with. Therefore, the question which arises is one in connection with the co-ordination of housing matters in general. This is where the committee comes in.

I now want to refer to clause 3(2) of the Bill, which states that a copy of every recommendation which is made must be submitted to the Minister, and that such copies shall be sent forthwith by the committee to every Administrator for his information and comment. Because I have suggested and tried to motivate that it is the local authority who is affected most directly, I must further point out that it is the town-planning schemes of local authorities that are affected. Those at the seat of local authority have devised town-planning schemes in terms of which developments will take place. Therefore, whatever development then takes place, and whatever houses are built, they must fit into the town-planning schemes of the particular local authority. Therefore I now move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

What we are asking here is that a recommendation which is made should be passed on to the local authority itself, because the Administrator is not obliged to do so in every case.

With reference to clause 3(3) I just want to point out that, as was accepted in principle, the powers in terms of the Community Development Act and the Housing Act of 1966, are now excluded from this. Nevertheless, although the powers are excluded, I do not believe that the question of advice should be excluded, because if we are going to coordinate housing, the Administrators and those who are going to give advice, I believe, could give advice that could be beneficial to Community Development, especially as far as the provision of housing is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, the amendments of the hon. member for Hillbrow are amongst the most nonsensical ever moved in this House. And to crown it all, it had to concern this very legislation. Now, quite by chance, we know that the hon. member for Hillbrow was a member of the city council of Johannesburg. He waved the sceptre there and I see now that they are once again looking for another leader because they do not have anyone who opposes everything which the NP tackles, in co-operation with Mr. Oberholzer.

His present behaviour is typical of the man as we know him. He must oppose everything—or so he thinks—which is done by the NP, or proposed by the NP, merely because he is in the Opposition benches. I say that the hon. member’s amendments are nonsensical, firstly because all this has been said repeatedly. There has always been the best cooperation between the Department of Community Development and the local authorities, by means of the Housing Commission and the Community Development Act. Therefore, since the hon. member is quoting the example of Johannesburg here and saying that there was a shortage of land for providing housing for Indians and Coloureds, the Johannesburg City Council—of which the hon. member was mayor and on which he held an executive position—should definitely search their own hearts in order to determine whether they really did their duty. The hon. member moves an amendment in terms of which all local authorities in the country must be given notice of all the recommendations made by the advisory committee. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that there are approximately 700 local authorities in the Republic?

No, 600.

There are more than 600.

The number of local authorities is nearer to 700 than 600, but let us say it is 600, to satisfy him. Copies of the recommendations will have to be sent to every local authority. If the hon. member had read the legislation, he would have been aware of the fact that the advisory committee has to meet at least four times a year. Of course, they can meet much more often. After every meeting held by the advisory committee, copies of the all the recommendations they have made, must be sent to local authorities throughout the country. Can the hon. member imagine what expense and work this will entail? What is more, all the local authorities are already represented on the association of local authorities which in turn is represented on the advisory committee. Copies of the recommendations are sent to the Administrator for his information and commentary. I do not, however, believe that anyone of the four Administrators—after all,—we know what kind of men they are— would keep those recommendations and information which he will have obtained, to himself in his office. He will surely not comment on it personally; he will at least discuss it with his MPCs and the Administrator will also consult the Director of Local Authorities. We know that there is very good liaison between the Director of Local Authorities and all the local authorities.

In addition, the recommendations of the advisory committee will be general recommendations and will not deal with the problems of every local authority, whether big or small. If recommendations are made by the advisory committee which affect certain local authorities, they will surely be notified. Let me refer to an example. Let us presume that one of the recommendations concerns the PWV road connection. Does the hon. member want to allege that the local authorities in Natal, the Orange Free State or the Cape will have any interest in it at all? But now every local authority in the three abovementioned provinces must be told what the relevant recommendation of the advisory committee is concerning the problems which this particular road is creating. What interests do the local authorities of the other provinces have in the problems concerning Pretoria, the Witwatersrand and Vereeniging.

I think the hon. member’s amendment will mean nothing more than a waste of time and money. If a recommendation is made in the interest of all local authorities, they will definitely all be notified by means of a circular. We therefore reject the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, three amendments to this clause are printed in my name on the Order Paper and I should like to discuss them. Before proceeding to that, however, I should like to discuss the amendment which the hon. member for Hillbrow had moved. [Interjections.] Although his amendment is a good one, I do not think I can go along with him since I have found, in the experience which I have had in this field, that time is of the essence. Time is critical and I do not think the Minister ought to report back to every authority.

I believe the hon. member for Boksburg has read the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow incorrectly …

Let me demolish him. [Interjections.]

It is obvious that the hon. member for Boksburg has not read the amendment. It reads—

and it is therefore quite obvious that the hon. member does not want every local authority notified.

Exactly.

I therefore suggest that the argument which the hon. member for Boksburg has raised is not valid. I submit, however, that if the Minister would have to go back to the Administrator and to the local authority concerned, it might cause a time delay. I feel it is an extra measure of red tape in this process, and I believe we have to cut out as much red tape as possible. I am sorry, but for that reason I do not feel I can support this amendment. When the Administrator receives the information from the Minister he will, in any case, take it to the local authority concerned, and he will obviously deal with the matter at that level if it affects that local authority.

Mr. Chairman, I consequently move the first two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 27, after “promotion” to insert “, streamlining and speeding up”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 30, after “standards” to insert “and costs”;

Some might consider these two aspects as being cosmetic, but as far as I am concerned they go to the root motivation for this Bill being brought before the House in the first place. As a township developer in the past, I found that the two most crucial problems a township developer had to deal with were time and costs. I am sorry the hon. member for Langlaagte is not here because he would have voiced those exact sentiments. Time and costs are aspects that the authorities do not understand. The authorities do not understand how time and costs affect township developers. The costs are killing. They are something a person cannot absorb. In fact, it is the person at the end of the line who has to pay for this. I realize that this can be discussed within the scope of this Bill, but in my original motivation I pointed out why I wanted these two aspects taken into account. I accept the fact that they are cosmetic, but what I am suggesting would bring to this Committee’s attention the fact that speed and time are of the essence.

Mr. Chairman, I now move the third amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment is the one in regard to which I believe we are going to have serious problems with the hon. the Minister. I dealt with this in detail in my original dialogue—or monologue rather—on this matter in the Second Reading debate. I should like to go over a few of the points again, and possibly the hon. the Minister may like to comment on them. I motivated in depth the proposed deletion, and I shall repeat a few of the main points I then listened.

Firstly it makes a mockery of the long title because it does not tie up, as the hon. member for Mooi River pointed out, excluding as it does 80% of the Republic. Why must there be two major bodies? There is the Community Development Board and the Housing Commission which we might, for the sake of argument, regard as one unit dealing with community development projects. There is, however, now to be a new housing advisory committee and its council to deal mainly with the affluent section of our society. I see no reason, however, why there should be two entirely different bodies, both capable, most probably, but performing the same function. Each would be performing the identical function. It is my belief that only one body is necessary. We all know, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, that the one body is already functioning well. Why not join the two together and institute one body to deal with housing in general? There is absolutely no reason why we should have two bodies doing exactly the same thing and costing our taxpayers money.

What makes you think they will be doing the same thing?

They could. That is what I am trying to point out. These two bodies would be duplicating everything. They are not co-ordinating housing, as scheduled in the title of this Bill. They are not coordinating housing amongst the various income groups.

You do not understand this legislation.

With respect, that gentleman, the hon. member for Boksburg, possibly does not understand it.

You do not understand it. The one is there merely in an advisory capacity.

He is referring to subsection (3).

I am talking about two different bodies performing almost identical functions.

You are talking nonsense.

Order!

Thank you. The hon. the Minister says that the present machinery is good. Well, if it is so good, why not enlarge the present machinery, the machinery which is already there. Why not enlarge the machinery and form one body? Why establish a brand new body? The hon. the Minister is very happy with the existing body. Let us then enlarge it and bring the administrators and local authorities in as envisaged in the Bill. I believe the hon. the Minister could do with advice. He certainly could do with advice in his Board; he could do with advice from the level of the Administrators right down to the level of the local authorities and the municipal executive council in addition to the specialists who will be brought in.

There is a need for the correlation of services of the various townships, some of which lie cheek by jowl. It is absolutely essential that these services should be interrelated. If one has two different autocratic bodies dealing with them, they cannot interrelate with each other.

I should like pertinently to ask the hon. the Minister again—he did not reply to me on this aspect at Second Reading—whether the Administrators are happy about this. I do not believe they are. I do not believe that they realize that they are being excluded from the advisory committee.

To whom are you referring?

The Administrators, the provinces. They are being excluded from 80% of housing matters in this country now and they are being brought into only 20% of such matters. That is the basis of our argument.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the hon. member’s third amendment as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity of responding to the hon. member for Boksburg. As one who is new in this House, I must express my surprise that a member with the experience of the hon. member for Boksburg can get up and display such gross ignorance of the facts. In the first place, he does not even understand the amendment he spoke about. He said there are over 600 local authorities and that the recommendations would have to be sent to every one of them. He said that that would be a waste of time and a waste of money. However, if the hon. member would take the trouble to read the amendment properly, he would see that it states very clearly: “the local authority concerned”. In other words, if some recommendation relating to Boksburg is made by the advisory committee, they are not going to tell Port Shepstone, Johannesburg, Durban or any other of the 597 local authorities. It is very important, however, that the local authority concerned should be aware of the relevant recommendations because the local authority concerned is the one which will have to supply the services and which will have to see that the recommendations are implemented. What is more, the local authority has a tremendous amount of information at its disposal and with that information it can help in respect of the entire matter of the co-ordination of housing.

Let me give an example. The City Council of Johannesburg is in possession of very many reports which contain information which was obtained from studying housing, the co-ordination of housing and all aspects of planning. I personally was involved in a five-month study tour to European countries and the USA, and we brought back information from every one of those countries with regard to housing and the co-ordination of housing. This information is at the disposal of the local authorities concerned. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Boksburg has got some bee in his bonnet about the management committee of Johannesburg. He thinks that, by taking a crack at me, he can make false claims with regard to it and blame, me for instance, that Johannesburg has not fulfilled its duties with regard to housing. As a matter of fact, it has. It has, and I take full responsibility. I was in charge of housing for 10 years and I introduced two five-year programmes which brought about a situation in Johannesburg which enabled the council to fulfil all its obligations in regard to housing with the amount of money that was given by the department, which was never enough. When the hon. member comes with information as he did the other day, for example, about an amount that was transferred, it would appear that the hon. member’s information is completely incorrect. The hon. member brought up a matter in regard to an amount that was transferred. It was investigated by the Press and the Town Clerk and nothing wrong was found in regard to the transfer of that money. Nothing wrong at all was found about the whole matter. The hon. member is now coming here to throw stones when he does not know what he is talking about. I am surprised that hon. members can get up, particularly at the stage of debate where someone has the opportunity to respond, and use that opportunity to make allegations which they cannot substantiate and which are totally untrue. The hon. member made allegations about the Management Committee of Johannesburg in the same way although he obviously knew nothing whatsoever about the affairs of the Management Committee of the City of Johannesburg or how it carries out its housing and other functions.

You tell Mr. Oberholzer he is a liar.

I do not have to tell Mr. Oberholzer that he is a liar. However, I will tell that hon. member that as far as he is concerned there is absolutely nothing wrong with that transaction at all. He can ask anybody who served on the Management Committee. In fact, he said that I served on the Management Committee at the time while in fact I did not, I was the Mayor at the time. If he knows anything about the affairs of a local authority he would know that the Mayor of Johannesburg has nothing to do with executive and the administration functions of a local authority during his period of office. The hon. member is accordingly wrong on that score again. If he comes with these allegations, how much credence, how much weight can we attach to the arguments that he has presented here today, particularly his efforts to dismiss an amendment which is in the interest of the Bill, in the interest of the local authority and in the interest of the principle of the co-ordination of housing and for bringing about the benefits, generally speaking, for the whole country?

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed that the hon. member for Hillbrow who, in his own words, hás had ten years experience of housing, was in control of housing for ten years, really cannot see the main objective of this Bill. The words “the local authority concerned” are not used anywhere in this Bill. They are not used anywhere at all because what we are actually concerned with here, is the creation of a super-expert advisory body, a policy-forming body to establish a policy for the country on a national level. We are not concerned here with determining policy for a single local authority. I concede that there may in fact be such a case, but I shall return to this later.

The business of the committee as stated in the Bill, is in fact to establish a national policy with regard to housing matters. The main objective, as is clearly stated here, is to effect co-ordination between the department of Community Development and the provincial administrations for the various provinces at a national level and to establish a general code of conduct, rather than to concentrate on the individual problems of local authorities. We are looking here for a solution at a national level.

One can indeed ask the question when a local authority “concerned” is in fact concerned. For argument’s sake, let us say that the advisory committee has to investigate an aspect such as building methods or construction methods in a region subjected to a very high rainfall. Are they then only to look at Mitchell’s Plain and the local authorities of Cape Town and the northern suburbs? What about East London, Durban, Port Elizabeth and the other territories, which are also subject to high rainfall? Which authorities “concerned” must be consulted in a case like this? On the other hand, if one is concerned with a matter of general national interest, that does indeed affect the interests of all the local authorities in South Africa. Now, the authority “concerned”, where it concerns a matter of general national interest, means that every local authority in South Africa is in fact involved. Where is one to call a halt, if the advisory body has to make a recommendation and it refers the matter for commentary to the Administrator as head of its expert department, and it then has to wait for commentary from more than 600 local authorities in South Africa, and then process that commentary? Surely it is totally ridiculous to expect one to operate on that basis.

In general, the interests of the local authorities are fully represented on the advisory body as well as the policy-forming body. If one takes note of the composition of these bodies, one finds that they are in fact represented by the Administrator, by the MPCs who serve on the policy-forming body and by the members of the United Municipal Executive nominated to serve on this council. In fact they are also represented by the various directors of local government of the various provinces. These directors are the central figures who receive all the complaints from all the local authorities under their protection. They are the people who are really up to date with all the problems about housing, not merely in a single local authority, but in all the local authorities under their control. Should it happen that exceptional problems arise which are specifically relevant to one sphere or to two local authorities, then surely there is specific provision in this Bill, in clause 3(4), for any person or any body, including the local authority, to be consulted or requested to submit a memorandum or to give evidence.

I am of the opinion that the hon. member is confusing the main objective of the legislation completely. I believe that the interests of all local authorities are being covered fully and amply in the existing bodies.

I just want to say in passing that in spite of the fact that the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South had been ruled out of order, those hon. members must not come up with insignificant matters. The words “promotion of township establishment procedures” and “co-ordination of housing matters” do in fact include aspects like “streamlining” and “expediting”. If one wants to add more words, where is it all going to end? One could also add “modernization”, “refinement”, “sophistication”, etc. “Promotion” is a comprehensive concept here and it includes all these aspects. To add the word “costs” is unnecessary in this case since the duty and functions of the advisory committee are clearly stated, i.e. that they concentrate on and investigate standards and essential services. If one investigates these aspects, then costs are an essential factor which is and remains involved in this regard.

As far as the provision of clause 3(3) is concerned, I want to repeat for the record that low-cost housing in South Africa is fully under control and that it does not create any problems. In this regard we are looking for a real solution for problems which may be experienced in practice in connection with housing for those people whose income exceeds the limit set by the means test. That is why I want to express my strongest opposition to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Chairman, I have had ample time to consider the amendments moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow and I want to assure him that I have given them careful consideration. To relieve him of any suspense that he might be suffering under, I think I should tell him immediately that I cannot accept this particular amendment. What the hon. member is suggesting here is that any recommendation made by the advisory committee should be circulated to the four Administrators and to the local authority concerned. That, on the face of it, may seem quite reasonable, but in actual fact this body will not deal with individual cases. That is not the object of this body. This body will be an advisory body on matters of general import, matters of policy and of concern to all the local authorities. There may be individual cases, e.g. a major municipality or a divisional council, where this body will have to act, but I am convinced that in 99% of cases each recommendation of the committee will be of general import and will concern all the municipalities, and even more than only the municipalities. It is an unbegotten task to communicate with each of the 600 municipalities individually in each matter of policy affecting all.

However, we do want to recognize local authorities, and that is why we give special representation to the United Municipal Executive on this advisory committee itself. With his long experience, I am sure my hon. friend will vouch for the fact that the people who will be representing that body will be people of distinction and knowledge, experts who are really concerned with this matter. For that reason I do suggest that the hon. member is asking for the impossible in this particular amendment.

In support of what the hon. member for Durbanville, who has just sat down said, I would like to add that the hon. member for Hillbrow should look at clause 3(4). The committee has the power to consult anybody if it wishes to do so on any matter which comes to its attention. If there is a case such as I have mentioned where a particular municipality is peculiarly concerned with the discussion on matters of policy by this committee, then obviously it is a matter of wise administration that that should be done. It requires no legislation that that municipality or a few municipalities can be specially discussed. I cannot commit my department to the laborious work of having to consult more than 600 municipalities on matters of general import when they are represented by their own executive on the body concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the hon. the Minister’s argument if the amendment says that the committee must consult 600 local authorities. In that case I would not have put the amendment in the first place. I can give the hon. the Minister my assurance on this. The amendment says very clearly “to the local authority concerned”.

And if all 600 are concerned?

In that case all 600 must be notified. [Interjections.] They have the right to be notified. I want to give the hon. the Minister a very simple example. Clause 3(1)(b)(ii) provides that one of the recommendations to be made to the hon. the Minister should concern “the provision and sizes of residential premises”. Isn’t this a matter which affects every local authority specifically? If the hon. the Minister is going to prescribe to local authorities what size their stands should be and that in the cases where they have large stands they must agree to subdivide those stands in compliance with this provision, is the hon. the Minister then not directly affecting each local authority individually? Should the committee then not get the reaction of the local authority concerned to help guide the committee in regard to the co-ordination of housing matters. This is a very simple example. How can the committee in these circumstances make a recommendation which the Housing Policy Council will later discuss with the Administrators? A new policy is going to be imposed on local authorities, prescribing to them what the size of the stands in the area should be. I am sure the hon. the Minister does not intend doing such a thing to local authorities. It would upset the whole balance of town planning within a local authority.

Town planning must meet, not the fancy needs of an individual who thinks that a stand should be a ½ acre or an acre, but the needs of the local authority itself. Town planning brings in the aspect of what transport should be provided, what traffic a road can bear, how many people can live in an area and what the density of an area is to be. All this is part and parcel of the development of a local authority area. Quite frankly, the hon. the Minister is ignoring local authorities. The mere fact that the Bill refers to the United Municipal Executive is not sufficient cover for a local authority which is concerned with a specific item, as opposed to a general matter. I can understand the hon. the Minister’s reasoning when it comes to general matters. If, for example, there is a recommendation that the ordinance should be changed so that township development should be considered by the local authority and not by the township board and that the local authority is now to be the seat of the final decision, then it is a matter where local authorities will have to decide, as they are the final arbiters in such applications. That is a matter for the provincial municipal association and the United Municipal Executive to discuss to find out whether all local authorities will go along with things. That I can understand. But with the greatest respect, I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s first argument.

Mr. Chairman, I immediately want to react to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think the example he has used, concerning the size of stands, is really an example in my favour. He may not appreciate it, but this body is not going to sit down and advise on sizes of stands in residential areas for each separate municipality in South Africa. It will lay down a general policy which will be applicable to all, and therefore in this case too. The hon. member is asking me to consult each of the 600 authorities. But I cannot do it. First of all the municipalities will be represented on the advisory committee through the UME. In addition, the four directors of the provinces responsible for local authorities will serve on this advisory committee. They are experts on the general requirements and problems of local authorities, and we shall be consulting them all the time. I am as jealous as the hon. member of the rights and dignity of local authorities. However, there is machinery which has been created as a result of long experience. I am recognizing that machinery; the local executive and the provincial authorities. There will be the four Directors of Local Government on this body, and I do not think I can do more than that. I trust the hon. member will not persist with this impractical amendment. If he does persist I am afraid I do not see why I should react any further to what he wants to say about it.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South moved three amendments. Mr. Speaker, the last one you have ruled out of order. Obviously I cannot respond to it. However, I am glad that at Second Reading we had quite a discussion on this particular amendment. So, I do not think the hon. member missed the opportunity of stating his case and hearing the Government’s point of view on that. All I can say further is that I would not have been able to accept it had it not been ruled out of order. However, I have good news for my hon. friend concerning his other two amendments.

I prefer the third one! You can have the other two.

I think I shall accept the first one. I do not think it makes any difference to the actual effect of the Bill. I like to see my friends happy, and if my acceptance will assist in that, he can have his amendments.

With his second amendment he wants “and costs” to be inserted after “standards”. I should like to point out to him that when a committee like this has to consider the standards of building, it cannot consider standards and their applicability without also looking at costs. But for the sake of clarity and with respect for the interest the hon. member has in this Bill, I shall also accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman …

Do not thank him.

Mr. Chairman, my hon. Whip says that I should not thank the hon. the Minister, but I should like to thank him anyway.

For that I thank you!

Earlier on I mentioned that these were cosmetic items. However, they are important for the committee to consider. I am, of course, disappointed that my third amendment has been ruled out of order. May I talk about it, Sir?

No. The hon. member can discuss it at the Third Reading.

I shall then deal with it at the Third Reading.

Amendments (1) and (2) moved by Mr. G. de Jong agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I wish to move differs from the amendment which I placed on the Order Paper some weeks ago. I now move an amendment as follows—

1. (h) a representative of—
2. (i) the Institute of South African Architects;
3. (ii) the South African Institute of Town and Regional Planners;
4. (iii) the South African Property Owners’ Association;
5. (iv) the National Building Research Institute;
6. (v) the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa;
7. (vi) the South African National Council for the Aged;
8. (vii) the Association of Building Societies of South Africa.

The committee, as contemplated in clause 4, will consist of about 16 members. With regard to paragraph (g), “three shall have special knowledge of housing matters”. It is clear that the Minister is going to have the discretion to appoint those three members to this committee. But considering the list in my possession, I do not believe that three is going to be sufficient. Therefore the purpose of the amendment of the Official Opposition is to give the hon. the Minister more scope. As regards, for example, the S.A. Institute of Architects, I think no one is more concerned with the development and progress in the field of housing than the architects themselves. Their institute, which is provided with information from the chapters of the provinces, could be most helpful to us in this coordination. The same argument applies to the Institute of Town and Regional Planners, but there we move into a different field, dealing not only with the question of architecture, design and the method of building, but also with the question of town planning and regional planning and how the various types of provision of housing can be integrated into one consolidated unit for the benefit of the city itself in terms of clause 17, which, as hon. members will remember, I read, and for the benefit and health of the people.

The S.A. Property Owners Association is a body of individuals who also have experience in this field. They represent the private sector, the commercial sector most concerned with property development. From the knowledge I have gained of this association, I find it a very responsible body and one whose information can be of great assistance to us.

The Association of Chambers of Commerce spreads the field further in so far as commerce and industry is concerned, because they are the employers of labour. They are the employers whose duty it is to see that the vast number of people who work for them are properly housed. There is the question of Black, Coloured and Asian housing and this body is concerned with seeing that proper provision is made for housing which will enhance the entire economy and the development of the country. Hence its importance.

When it comes to the question of the aged, I did indicate, and I repeat, that as far as the aged are concerned, there are a number of them who are above the economic limits prescribed by the Department of Community Development and who do need accommodation. They are lonely people and they are people who should be housed. I believe they should be represented on this committee and there is no one more able to do so than this association which has 160 affiliated bodies attached to it.

Lastly, there is the Association of Building Societies of South Africa which I have included at their own request. This is probably one of the most important bodies of those I have incorporated here. In view of the need for the provision of money in order to meet the requirements of housing and for the working out of schemes by building societies to provide the money for people to build homes, I am grateful and I think this Committee should be grateful that this association is in fact prepared to come forward and offer its assistance in this regard. I therefore ask that the amendment be accepted so that this body can be included.

I do not want the hon. the Minister to reply that, while I have produced a list of seven bodies, he can produce a list of a further seven bodies and that therefore the list can go on indefinitely. I believe these are bodies that can assist and help us, and if there are any other bodies which can be included without making the committee too unwieldy, I believe we might consider them too.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member thought fit to move that the advisory committee should be considerably larger. The committee already consists of 16 members, and as I read his amendment, he wants to add approximately six more members. This means that there will be 22 members. I think that the committee as proposed here affords very good and broad based representation. In addition, as is prescribed in clause 4(1)(g), legislation also provides—as the hon. member indicated, that the Minister can appoint an additional four members to that committee, of whom three must have special knowledge of housing matters. Now, the hon. member may know that one of those three people does not have to be representative of the bodies which he suggested here. I think he has rather anticipated the matter. If we look at clause 3(4), we will see that—and this is what I think—the whole matter is put clearly and plainly. It also offers a solution to the problem of the hon. member for Hillbrow. Clause 3(4) reads as follows—

To me, this is where the solution to the whole matter is to be found. Everything the hon. member is asking for, is summarized for him in clause 3(4). The advisory committee, with the 16 members which comprise it, is not forbidden to approach any one of the organizations or bodies to which the hon. member referred, in order to obtain advice. They may be requested by the advisory committee at any time to give advice about a certain aspect or to give evidence. In addition, the advisory committee has also has the right to address representations to those bodies.

The hon. member did not refer to universities. I just want to remind him that a considerable amount of research has been done at universities in this sphere. As far as housing matters are concerned, we can also make lavish use of the brainpower of our universities. The hon. member for Hillbrow suggests that the Institute of South African Architects be represented on the advisory committee. Furthermore he also wants representation to be granted to the S.A. Institute of Town and Regional Planners, the South African Property Owners’ Association, the National Building Research Institute, the Association Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, the S.A. National Council for the Aged and, last but not least, the Association of Building Societies. Why did the hon. member not also request representation on the advisory committee for the Association of South African Quantity Surveyors or for the Estate Agents Institute? Furthermore there is still the Institute of South African Engineers, the Federation of Building Industries and the Institute of Land Surveyors. These are all people and bodies closely involved with township establishment and housing matters. I could go on in this vein. Once I start referring to departments, I could mention a whole list. Among the departments closely connected with township establishment and housing matters are, for example, the Department of Transport and its Roads division, the S.A. Railways, the Post Office, Water Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, which is concerned with the land which is taken up, the Department of Mines, which creates a great many problems, and many more. These are all departments which are closely concerned with the whole matter and which should be consulted when the establishment of township takes place and when housing is ultimately provided.

It is therefore clear that we will ultimately be dealing here with an extremely unwieldy advisory committee. If the hon. member for Hillbrow has his way, it seems to me as if it is going to be a committee of at least 100 members. Is this perhaps what the hon. member had in mind? I feel that, as the legislation reads at the moment, it covers all the things which the hon. member for Hillbrow is asking for. Provision is made for all these requirements in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 16, to omit “three persons each” and to substitute “one person”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 32, to omit “four” and to substitute “six”.

I believe these amendments are self-explanatory. I agree with the hon. member for Boksburg that to increase the number of members of this advisory committee until it reaches tremendous proportions, will cause it to become too unwieldy a committee. It is very difficult even to control a committee consisting of 16 members. I feel, however, that the composition can be improved in such a way that we can have a compromise in order to assist the hon. member for Hillbrow. Such a compromise could be reached if we were to decide to increase the number of members who are appointed from outside the inner ring. I feel that we should increase their number of members to six in order to make it possible for the institutes which the hon. member for Hillbrow has mentioned to have representatives on the committee. The hon. member for Boksburg, too, mentioned certain institutes. All those institutes are involved in township development and housing. Should a compromise be reached, the choice would be increased.

Why only six; why not 20?

The hon. member wants to know why not 20, but I should like to point out that I want to limit it to six in order to keep the total number in the committee at 16. I took away two representatives of the Department of Community Development because the department already has two representatives in the Secretary and most probably his second in command. They are reporting on behalf of the whole department and they do not need another two members to assist them in the committee. They are representing the whole department. All the specialists who are in the department are represented via the Secretary and his second in command who will be serving with him on the committee. There is no need to have four representatives of the department on the committee. It should be borne in mind that the Administrators and members of a variety of other authorities in building and township development also serve on the committee. That is why I should like to see more specialists from outside appointed to the committee. I think my amendment will assist the hon. member for Hillbrow in that it will allow the appointment to the committee of more of the people whom he would like to have there. On the other hand it will also assist the hon. member for Boksburg in that the total number of members will not be increased out of all proportions. That is all I am asking.

I think the hon. the Minister ought to agree. I, likewise, think that the committee ought not to be increased to enormous proportions, but the hon. the Minister ought also to agree that there is no need to have four members of his department on the committee since he already has on the committee two of the key and most senior men in his department. They, in fact, represent the entire department in the same way in which an Administrator represents the whole of his province. We do not need four representatives of the department; we only need one or two. That is my motivation for the two amendments which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the new arrangement of the composition of the committee put forward by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, but I am grateful that he had the insight to know that the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow is totally impractical. In fact, it will not be at all capable of working in practice.

One’s premise must be that one has to draw up a representative body which is not so big that it cannot function in practice. One must therefore have the biggest possible body which can act energetically, purposefully and effectively. One must concentrate on the important aspect that if one allows an indefinite number of outside bodies, one will have even more people who actually represent their own interests only. They will in fact be able to be of assistance in certain circumstances, but on other occasions they will not.

I believe the main idea in the clause is that one is dealing with Government machinery aimed at drawing up practical Government policy. However, at the same time it must be Government machinery receptive to the representations of any other body or individual. I believe that the hon. member for Hillbrow is moving on very dangerous ground when he simply picks a number of bodies at random and says that those seven which he has selected must be represented too. In a similar way one will be able to say that attorneys are intimately involved in the registration of property; why are they not represented? Similarly, one will be able to ask: If the architect must be represented, why not the mechanical engineer, the civil engineer, the electrotechnical engineer and the quantity surveyor, all of whom are intimately involved in the development of property? If one refers to the body representing owners, why not, then, to the tenants’ societies? I also just want to point out how dangerous it is to summarily select the Association of Chambers of Commerce here. Why discriminate against the Sakekamer? Why discriminate against the Handelsinstituut and why discriminate against the Federated Chambers of Industries? Why pick one body? If one starts this type of thing, one eventually ends up in such confusion that one is simply never able to extract oneself. The important aspect which we are dealing with here, is the development of townships and the promotion of housing. Let us ask ourselves who is involved in township development and who is involved in the promotion of housing. If one asks that question, one will find that in the first instance it is the local authorities and in the second, the individual and private enterprise. We find an interesting aspect here.

The problems experienced by the individual and private enterprise, are conveyed to the local authority. This is the first reception point. That is the body which is informed first about the problems which the private individual experiences in practice. In other words, the composition of this committee must be of such a nature that one can be placed in a position to have all possible problems channelled to one. The problems which private enterprise experiences, are conveyed to the local authorities in the first place, and here they are represented by the United Municipal Executive. Secondly, all the problems of the local authorities are channelled to the Directors of Local Government of the provincial administration concerned. He in turn has the function of listening to all the problems of all the local authorities under him in a particular province. Thirdly, it is the Department of Community Development that is directly involved with national housing, housing in general. This is the third body which is receptive to problems and complaints experienced in this process. In the fourth place, there is still the fact that any other body can have the opportunity to address any request directly to the department, or to the Director of Local Government, the MPC or the relevant city council. In other words, all the important points of reception are properly represented here. I therefore see no reason why the representatives of the most important department, the Department of Community Development, three specialists who occupy the position of Deputy Secretary or similar posts, should be reduced in number. It must be borne in mind that this department consists of absolute experts, this upper zone. It must also be borne in mind that the functions of the Department of Community Development are so divergent that specialization is necessary. I can therefore imagine that one Deputy Secretary might concentrate chiefly on planning and a second on finance, while a third concentrates on construction. That is why one must have a minimum of three persons, representing the entire industry, people who can convey their expert knowledge to this committee. That is why I cannot agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

In conclusion, I believe that outside persons are also properly represented and that the four experts from outside the Public Service who are appointed from the normal business world, are sufficient to be representative of the industry. I believe that the two members of the United Municipal Executive are people who are elected directly to a city council, as the result of their outside qualifications, and are delegated as such. The best amongst them are used for this purpose, and they, too, represent outside interests, just as in the case of the chairman of the Natal Housing Commission, who in this case, is Prof. Louw, a practising quantity surveyor.

With these few words I want to say that I believe that the composition at the moment is representative of the best technicians we have, and I believe the balance between Government departments on the one hand and people who represent businesses or the outside world on the other, is sound and justified. I also believe that we have here a body that has been composed of the right people, precisely because it is a body which works with state funds and their expenditure and which must have a reasonable, fair policy because it is a body which is directly involved in housing and matters of that nature.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the proposals of the hon. Opposition. I should like to thank the members on my side of the House for their replies. I feel they were really quite conclusive.

I shall first deal with the hon. member for Hillbrow. He was courteous enough—I appreciate it very much—to inform me earlier today of the modified amendment which he would move. He moved that seven specific bodies be represented, and that the representatives concerned be appointed by the Minister, instead of the four unspecified members which the Bill determines at present. He mentioned those seven bodies, and when he had mentioned them, he said that I should not rise and say that there were other bodies which may also lay claim to representation. However, this is the only reply which is really valid in respect of this proposal. If I accept the hon. member’s amendment, I am limited to these particular people. However, there may be other people or bodies with the same claim to representation and who also merit consideration. I have a very efficient department and I asked a member of my department to amuse himself this morning by just drawing up a short list for me of people who will probably have the same claim to be nominated as some of the seven bodies which the hon. member specifies. Without taking much trouble or spending much time on it, this official gave me a list of 61 similar bodies. Therefore, there are 61 other bodies which, in the opinion of my advisers, probably have just as valid a claim to representation as the seven bodies which the hon. member for Hillbrow suggested.

For instance, if I accept that I must nominate a member of the S.A. Institute of Architects, the controlling body for quantity surveyors may also be justified in claiming representation, whereas I will not have the right to appoint one of them. The hon. member also mentioned the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, Assocom. If I appoint someone to represent them, I cannot appoint a representative for the Sakekamer or the Handelsinstituut. Nor can I appoint representatives of the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries, and I personally believe that they have more of a claim to representation than the Chamber of Commerce, because it is the industries that provide housing for many of their employees. Therefore they are also concerned here. The Transvaal and Orange Free State Chambers of Mines house many thousands of people. Why should I favour the Chamber of Commerce above them? This is what the hon. member wants. He does not realize that in asking me to appoint these specific seven, he is excluding all others who have a claim to be represented. I am sure that this is not his intention.

He wants to discriminate.

Yes, this is once again a discriminatory act on that side of the House. Now that I have put the matter to the hon. member, he will realize that I cannot accept his amendment. I really cannot do so.

I found it very interesting that he said that the Association of Building Societies also asked to be included. This surprises me because my department did not receive any requests of this nature. I assume that this association did so because they do not want us to get the impression that if they do not appear on a list like this, they are not interested. As I said, I am very sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

Now I come to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Like all his amendments, his amendments are of a more practical nature. However, I cannot reduce the number of representatives of the Department of Community Development on that body. When we spoke about clause 1 of the Bill, that hon. member requested a Ministry of Housing to be established. In practice, the Department of Community Development is in fact a Ministry of Housing, because this is its main function. There is no other department which is so directly involved in the housing problems of the whole nation than the Department of Community Development. If this advisory committee is really to be of value—and it must be of real value—then the knowledge of the specialists of the Department of Community Development is absolutely essential, and that is why it is essential for them to serve on that committee. That is why I should like to have the head of our technical department on the committee. He is an extremely experienced man who can be of great value to us. This holds good for our town planners too. They can provide the committee with technical knowledge which is not so generally available.

I feel that the emphasis must be on technical knowledge in this committee. The industrial sector—and this holds good for the hon. member for Hillbrow too—can make valuable contributions. My friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow, also suggested the estate agents. These are valuable people, but they do not have the technical knowledge of the building industry which I need for an advisory committee like this. They know about the commercial aspects of housing, but not the technical and legal aspects which I need special advice about, while the people I am proposing here, can really make a bigger and more valuable contribution than they. I do not want to feel compelled to drop our technical people for the sake of people with a very general involvement in the housing problem.

For this and other reasons—I do not think it is necessary for me to go further—I should like to ask hon. members to allow me to keep to the proposals in the Bill. Those proposals will make it possible—I shall see to that—for the private sector as well as those who have a social interest in the housing industry, to be properly represented so that it will be a balanced advisory committee. My hon. friends must please accept that the purpose of the Bill is to assist the department and everyone involved to create a properly coordinated national housing policy. We should be foolish if we did not make use of the best advice in every technical field. These proposals were not simply finalized overnight. They were formulated after very careful consideration and discussion with other people and we feel that there has not yet been a proposal from the other side which will give us a more balanced and more effective committee than the one proposed in the Bill. Let us see how things go, and if they come to me after a year or two and tell me it is not working, I will always be prepared to look at it again. However, I am full of confidence. What happens very often with legislation of the Department of Community Development, however, is that after a year or so, the Opposition is grateful that their amendments were not accepted.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister replied to these two amendments and I appreciate the way he put it. My hon. friend behind me said: “Die Minister pleit dan so mooi.” It is in that spirit that I took it.

I genuinely want results.

That is exactly why I rose again, because I also want results. I agree with the hon. the Minister, and I specifically agree with him that technical people must serve on the committee. The whole idea is to have a technical committee that can give advice. It is for this reason that I brought this minor amendment. It is a minor amendment, and I realize it. I accept that if the hon. the Minister has some very good technicians in his department—and I accept that they are there—he should leave them on and I will withdraw my first amendment. However, accept my second amendment so that we can have more technical people from outside. [Interjections.] Let us do a bit of horsetrading, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] I am honest in my approach to this matter because I believe that the technical help that this department needs must come from outside. I believe that these technicians and highly trained technical people that are not within the framework of the Department of Community Development, are to be found elsewhere. They are very much involved—I would not say very narrowly—with community housing on the level that they are normally dealing with. They are dealing with subeconomic, economic, Coloured and Black housing. These people are specialists in that line.

The Minister’s department does not deal with Black housing.

They are dealing with the appropriation of funds for Black housing. I am saying that the officials of the Department of Community Development are in fact technicians, but that they are specialists in the field of housing for the lower income groups. I am suggesting that we are dealing with a field here which is completely above and not normal to them. Therefore I suggest that the hon. the Minister should accept my second amendment and increase the number to six.

I have completed that motivation, and I would now like the hon. the Minister to listen to something else. [Interjections.] I am now referring to the incident when the hon. the Minister chopped me to pieces during the Second Reading debate. I would like to quote what he said in relation to this particular clause during his reply to the Second Reading debate—

I made a mistake; I concede that.

I was criticized strongly by this hon. Minister. The hon. the Minister is a very astute politician, which I am not, and he chopped me to pieces. The hon. the Minister told me that I had not done my homework. Here we have an hon. Minister who does not even know how many members are sitting on this committee. He said there are 13.

I deserve to be castigated for that.

Maybe I shall make the hon. the Minister so cross that he will not accept my amendment, but I do not intend that. All I am saying in all sincerity that although he is an astute politician, he must accept the fact that I know more about housing than he will ever know about it. I am saying, in humility, that the hon. the Minister is by far a more able politician than I am, but that he should not accuse me of not doing my homework, because I know this subject. I would like to quote what the hon. the Minister said. He said: “He can wriggle as much as he wants to; I say he should please do his homework.” I suggest that the hon. the Minister now wriggles before he replies.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the fact that there are 61 bodies which can in fact serve on this committee. That is the reason why I ask the hon. the Minister not to reject my amendment. However, if the hon. the Minister is prepared to suggest other bodies, we could consider that and maybe accept them. Our amendment which is before the House at the moment, concerns bodies which can in fact make a contribution in this regard and I feel we are not acting fairly by treating them as the hon. the Minister is doing now. I should like to put one question to the hon. the Minister about those people which he wants to appoint: Who does the hon. the Minister have in mind to appoint? Will it include those bodies which our amendment concerns? Do they form part of the 61 bodies? I shall be obliged if we can have an indication in this regard from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to the arguments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Hillbrow, I want to ask: In discussing this clause, can we not refer back to the report of the commission from which this legislation emanated? It is clear that the members of this expert commission who considered the matter for a long time, who had all possible information at their disposal and who were able to make all possible inquiries, in the first instance identified certain problems. The commission identified specific spheres where excessive or even normal delays occur during the establishment of townships, etc. The result is that it made a recommendation which is embodied in this specific clause of the Bill. The recommendation is aimed at bringing together in one body the bodies that are responsible for and have a hand in the smooth running of township establishment etc., in order to eliminate delays. The commission went on to identify the bodies where possible delays could arise. I understand very well the proposal of the hon. member for Hillbrow that there are other bodies which could make a considerable contribution. I concede to him that the bodies which he mentions probably all consists of experts, just as he should concede to us that apart from the bodies on his list, there are also other expert bodies that would be justified in claiming a seat on this advisory committee. However, we have the limitation that we do not want to establish a body that is too large. The point of departure of the Bill is, after all, to streamline procedures and one could very well stymie this objective by establishing a body which is too all-embracing.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South proposed that the four persons who can be appointed by the Minister in terms of clause 4(1)(g)—these four people will probably all come from outside—should be increased to six. I hope I have done my homework properly in this regard. Do I understand the hon. member correctly that he wants the hon. the Minister to appoint six people in this capacity and forfeit two people from his own department in order to keep the total number of people in the committee at 16? Why should the number be 16? Sixteen is probably an arbitrary number. If the hon. member were to ask that the number of members on the committee be increased by two and that the hon. the Minister appoint six instead of four members, I think that there would be merit in his request.

He has already modified his amendment to that effect.

In that case I made a mistake, because I think that there may be merit in a proposal to expand the committee a little without making it so large as to be clumsy by appointing a number of people and bodies from outside. If we can come to such an agreement, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member that we should ask the hon. the Minister to extend the representation as determined in clause 4(1)(g) to six people.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members came up with approximately the same arguments and I am now in a difficult position. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made a suggestion and a very respected hon. member on this side of the House, the hon. member for Tygervallei behind me here, suggested that I accept his proposal. I want to say at once that since the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South treated me so courteously concerning a matter where I had made a mistake, I think that I shall accept his amendment on the advice of my hon. friend behind me. I accept the amendment that there will be six members appointed by the Minister because of their special knowledge. I do this gladly because I believe the hon. member for Hillbrow will then also realize that there will be the opportunity to grant a greater degree of representation to the type of bodies to which he referred. However, I cannot accept the hon. member for Hillbrow’s list of bodies and I cannot accept his amendment to add more bodies, because the more I add, the greater my problem becomes because the precedent of having to appoint other members too becomes stronger. I think if I can appoint six members—five of them on my own initiative due to their special knowledge,—then I shall also satisfy the hon. member for Hillbrow and there will be greater representation.

I want to give the hon. member an idea of the type of problem I have. When we plan a Bill like this, we negotiate with all the people concerned; we also negotiate with Assocom, amongst others. The Association of Chambers of Commerce approached us in this case. They did not ask for representation for themselves, but they very strongly recommended that another organization—I am not going to mention its name now—be represented. They considered it more important that instead of themselves, a certain technical organization be represented on the advisory committee. If Assocom feels like that about it, I do not want to give them representation because it will make it more difficult for me to appoint these technical people whom they would like to see on the committee. I really think that, with the concession which I am making to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I have also given the hon. member for Hillbrow some satisfaction, as far as I can, by increasing the number which may be appointed. Then, too, his ideas will be borne in mind when we make the appointments.

Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my first amendment.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. G. de Jong, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Minister has adopted a reasonable attitude today. I am very happy that he has accepted the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and which seeks to increase the relevant number to six. We welcome and support that amendment. My only plea to the hon. the Minister is that, in appointing those six members, he should give priority consideration to, firstly, the Association of Building Societies because they will provide the finance—the financial aspect is very important; secondly, the aged; and, thirdly, a representative of the technical side concerning either planning or architecture. I trust he will consider this when he appoints those six members.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. G. de Jong agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The motivation for it is very simple. It is really a technical matter and I do not think it goes to the root of anything, and I ask the hon. the Minister to consider it.

Clause 9(b) provides that “one member of the Executive Committee”, and not “a” member, will serve on the Housing Police Council. What is going to happen, I imagine, is that the member of the Executive Committee in charge of local government in each province will obviously be appointed to this council. He will be a particular individual, i.e. Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones or whoever. No provision has been made, as in clause 4(2)(a), for alternates. I think it will be useful to make provision for the Executive Committee member to have an alternative. We only want to tidy up the Bill so that, if such a member is perhaps overseas or ill and therefore cannot attend a meeting, his alternate can take his place.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an unreasonable proposal, but the clause has specifically been drafted in its original form at the insistence of the Administrator of Natal in order that he may be able to appoint somebody in his own discretion. On the Natal Executive Committee there are two members who handle the different aspects of provincial government and who both deal with housing. There are the town planning men and there are naturally the local matters. The Administrator of Natal thought it would be a good idea if he could alternate them from time to time rather than to have alternate persons. I do not think there will be a need for alternates. I do not want to drag out the matter, but I am willing to consider the matter and to discuss it with my department. If I then think that it is advisable, I shall be willing to move such an amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of what the hon. the Minister has said, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The motivation therefore is based on subparagraph (2), which states—

When one reads subsection (3), the subject of the amendment, one will see that—

We feel that the words “shall be made known” are vague. We do not know exactly what they mean. Do they refer to a public statement by which it will be made known? Whatever these words do mean, it is essential that this decision be conveyed to the Administrator of the province concerned and then, of course, the local authority concerned. It is for that reason that I move the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member has read the English text of the clause. It reads “shall be made known”. In the Afrikaans version, the words “word bekend gemaak” are used. It is surely common knowledge what “shall be made known” means. “Made known” means that it is for everybody’s information, for general notice. Does the hon. member now want the hon. Minister to bind himself to a particular method? It can take place either in the Government Gazette or perhaps by means of a circular letter.

The Rand Daily Mail.

No, it really cannot be the Rand Daily Mail. That paper would distort it so much that it would appear totally different. I think we should leave that to the hon. the Minister. I believe that if he makes it known, he will, from the nature of things, at least make it known to the Administrator. I am convinced of that. In a case where it applies specifically to a particular local authority, the local authority concerned will be advised thereof. It will probably be sufficient to do that by way of notice in the Press. But if he prefers to do it by means of the Government Gazette, that will also be all right. But how many people read the Government Gazette?

Very few.

I think very few. If the hon. the Minister were now to bind himself to make it known in the Government Gazette, how many people would read it there? I think we should leave it to his own discretion to announce it in the Press, or to leave it to the Administrator, or to make it known by means of a circular letter, or in whatever way he considers to be the most suitable at that stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boksburg has strongly supported the reasons for my amendment, because the various suggestions which he has made—and he himself is not clear as to how it will be made known—are in accordance with mine. I think people are entitled to know where it is to be made known. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will clarify the matter for us.

What do you suggest?

Accept my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot understand the problem of the hon. member for Hillbrow. As a person who was involved in local government for so many years and who ought to understand what the function of this council will be, surely he ought to understand perfectly well that this council will make decisions and recommendations at different levels. Certain decisions taken by the council will purely affect the conduct of the provincial administrations. In that case, it is surely clear that it will not be necessary to inform a wider public than merely the Administrator of the province concerned. When it is about a matter which concerns local authorities in general, it will only be logical that notice should be given— as is the accepted practice today—by way of a numbered circular letter to all the local authorities. Where the general public is involved in a particular planning or policy aspect, it is clear that notice cannot be limited to a circular letter to the local authorities. Then it will have to be made known either in the Government Gazette or by way of a public statement in the Press. It is surely quite clear that the nature of the notice will depend upon the scope of the decision and upon those who must be notified of it.

To attempt now to limit the nature of the notice provided for in this clause to a particular method, would therefore have a quite adverse effect on the impact and the scope of the notice in certain circumstances. I am sure the hon. member will accept that this is the situation and that the hon. the Minister cannot tell him now whether notice will be given by way of publication in the Government Gazette or by way of a circular letter or by way of a public statement. The method of notification will inevitably depend upon the nature of the decision and the nature of the advice which this body is going to give to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the problem with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow is that it imposes an obligation on the Minister to give general notice of all decisions taken. The problem is that decisions which are taken here may be of a wide-ranging nature. One decision may affect local authorities directly, while another decision may affect the internal functioning of the Department of Community Development, whilst it need not be germane to local authorities as such. Yet another decision may affect the relationship between the provincial administration and the Department of Community Development.

The hon. member for Hillbrow therefore wants an obligation placed on the Minister, not only to give general notice of every decision made, but also to make the decisions known to the Administrator. I believe that the Administrator, if he is involved, will naturally be advised. There is surely no doubt about that. But to make known every decision in connection with internal functioning— whether or not it affects local authorities—to the more than the 600 local authorities in the country, surely does not serve any purpose. Where would we end up? The implication of this amendment is that the minutes of proceedings of this committee must indeed be circulated to the more than 600 local authorities in South Africa. If we allow that, I believe, we will get tied down in an administrative involvement from which we will never be able to extricate ourselves. I believe that matters which affect local authorities will be made known to them in accordance with the fixed pattern according to which such bodies are given notice, namely by way of notice to the Administrator and by way of notice by the Director of Local Government to the local authorities concerned.

For that reason I believe that the amendment by the hon. member for Hillbrow is completely impracticable, and I definitely cannot support it.

Mr. Chairman, I have given the amendment due consideration and I should like to ask the hon. member to have another look at the clause. Subsection (3) provides—

After those words the hon. member wants to insert certain words, but the subsection provides further—

I want to put it to the hon. member that one cannot put a policy decision into operation without inevitably making that decision known to the people concerned. I think the mere act of putting it into operation will ensure that the people concerned will be informed. For that reason alone I do not think it is necessary to accept the amendment. I should, however, like to add the following: I know that the hon. member has great experience of local government—in fact, he has quite distinguished experience—in the field of which the dividing line between legislative aspects and executive aspects is not so clearly defined. As far as the Central Government is concerned, the position is totally different and I say this with great respect to him. Parliament is the legislative body and the executive body is the Cabinet. I do not think it is the function of the legislative body to prescribe to the executive body in detail how an Act should be administered. There should be a certain amount of discretion left to the executive body. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Department of Community Development has considerable experience in practice of making policy decisions known to local authorities and everybody else concerned.

The Administrator, although he is an executive member, will be involved with the actual decision making by the policy-forming committee and I therefore do not think that it is necessary to give him notice of the decisions. After all, his own representative will be sitting on the committee and he will be a party to the decision making. As far as the local authorities are concerned, I should like to point out that we maintain very close liaison with them. We have a system of sending them from time to time numbered minutes, as has been explained by the hon. member for Durbanville. By means of those minutes we inform them about our policy and we ask them for their reaction. We maintain a very intimate relationship. I have said that the relationship between the Department of Community Development and the local authorities in the spheres where we should make contact and do make contact is almost a daily and continuous one. In this regard the question of the financing of building operations is the main issue on which we make contact. I should therefore like to appeal to the hon. member not to try to prescribe to the department how we should do it; we have to do it because we want results and we cannot get results unless the people are informed of our policy and our decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a quick point. I moved the amendment because I have been on the receiving end all these years and I know what it is like. I do not wish to circumscribe the powers of the Government; far from it, but I want to put a very simple point to the hon. the Minister. Let us assume that the recommendation of the Advisory Committee is that a particular residential area in which people are living ought to be converted into an area in which a housing scheme is to be undertaken. Does the hon. the Minister not think that in such a case the department should make its intentions publicly known or will the department simply serve notices of expropriation on such residents?

Of course we shall make our intentions publicly known. That is the way in which we would operate.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that the long title “to promote housing and the provision of land for housing in general for the inhabitants of the Republic …” is a misleading title to this Bill in view of the fact that since clause 3(3) has been retained, the Advisory Committee will not have any power as to any housing matter to which the provisions of the Community Development Act, 1966, or the Housing Act, 1966, apply. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think it desirable to introduce an amendment at this stage to make it quite clear that this is limited to housing matters that fall outside the scope of the two Acts mentioned in clause 3(3). If he should think it necessary, I would be glad to move it.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not move an amendment now but I shall consider the point made by the hon. member. If I am advised that an amendment is necessary, I shall certainly move an amendment in the Other Place.

Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I must thank hon. gentlemen for allowing me to address the House on the Third Reading of the Prisons Amendment Bill. Therefore I shall not make the caustic comments which I was considering making about the earlier incident in this House. There is, however, just something I must say. I find it irresistible. Out of 10 Whips, someone should have spotted the fact that the hon. the Minister of Prisons could have been expected to be in the House. For once, however, I do not lay the blame at the feet of the hon. the Minister of Prisons.

Why?

Well, because it was not your fault. That is why. [Interjections.]

What do you want, Helen?

What do I want? I want him to let everybody out of detention. The hon. the Minister knows that we did not oppose this Bill at Second Reading, having weighed up the provisions of the Bill and found that although there were certainly one or two clauses which we found objectionable and to which we expressed our objections during the Second Reading and again during the Committee Stage. By and large, however, we found that the Bill does introduce improvements to the penal system in South Africa, improvements which are very much in line with recommendations of the Viljoen Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa. I simply want to detail these very briefly.

The Bill has decreased the maximum number of strokes which a person may receive at any given time and reduces the maximum age at which a convicted prisoner may receive corporal punishment. The reduction is from 50 years to 40 years. It also reduces the minimum length of detention of a prisoner who has been sentenced to indeterminate detention, the reduction being from nine years to seven years. It also gives the hon. the Minister greater powers to release prisoners on probation as well as on parole. This last aspect, we believe, will help to reduce our very high daily average prison population, and therefore we support all those aspects.

The clause which we do not, of course, agree with—a major clause—is the clause which virtually makes it impossible for any prisoner to win an appeal against the removal of privileges and indulgences, if he should happen to lodge such an appeal. I cannot say that this makes very much difference in practice because we already have cases on record which have decided that the granting of indulgences and privileges may be removed forthwith, but this does, of course, remove any necessity for the Commissioner, or any person to whom the hon. the Minister has delegated that power, to give any explanation or even to give a hearing to any prisoner concerned. We made strong objections to this in the Committee Stage, but unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not accept any of the amendments we moved. The only amendment he did accept was an amendment from the hon. member for East London North. I hope I have my compass-point right.

Yes.

And we do not really consider that that amendment is going to make much difference in practice.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that all those persons—and I do count myself and others on these benches among them—who are interested in the welfare of prisoners, will be watching very carefully to see if in fact the lives of men behind bars, men who have been deprived of their liberty by the courts or, indeed, by the Minister and who are so dependent on the granting of indulgences and privileges that their lives can be made bearable or unbearable by the granting or withholding of such indulgences and privileges, will be adversely affected by the operation of the new section 22 of the Prisons Act.

Be careful, Jimmy: Big Sister is watching!

With those few words, Sir, I simply want to state again that we on these benches will not be opposing the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to thank the Minister for the amendments which are being made in this amending Bill with regard to prisoners. I not only wish to thank him, but I also wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on these amendments, for there are, generally speaking, two sides to punishment. The one side is the negative side, and this implies punishment. The other side emphasizes the positive aspect; it wishes to bring about rehabilitation.

The amendments contained in this Bill emphasize the positive and only the positive, i.e. rehabilitation. It also includes the attitude of people towards prisoners. It gives one a funny feeling to hear the comment made by the hon. member for Houghton, viz. that we are very concerned about the welfare of prisoners behind bars. She deliberately adds the words “behind bars”. This is the type of thing which worries one. When one is interested in people who trespass and has sympathy with them and when one is interested in education and also in the rehabilitation of such people, one cannot accept such remarks. When those words are used on purpose, it once again indicates negativism. I wish to advise the hon. member, when we are discussing rehabilitation in respect of prisoners and especially ex-prisoners, rather to try to educate, inspire and convince the public outside that many of the prisoners who are released are people who can readjust themselves in society and who have been made useful to society once again. The granting of privileges to these people serves as an incentive to help them to rehabilitate themselves and the withdrawal of privileges is once again punishment in the positive sense of the word. It encourages people to behave themselves in such a way that they can enjoy certain privileges.

One should not confuse rights with privileges. We are discussing privileges which are granted and privileges which can be withdrawn, but in the same way as privileges can be withdrawn, privileges can also be granted.

I wish to emphasize some of these amendments, especially those which have a great advantage for the purposes of rehabilitation of prisoners. One of the amendments concerns the question of privileges which I have just discussed. As far as corporal punishment is concerned, the number of strokes is reduced from ten to seven. This still has deterrent value. The age limit is reduced from 50 to 40 with regard to corporal punishment. One of the fine things in this Bill is that prisoners can now be released on probation—which is something completely different from parole— where the prisoner is, so to speak, released on his own responsibility, with only the supervision of an official of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and other departments. The increase in the special remission granted in respect of imprisonment is another positive aspect emphasized in this Bill. Furthermore, the minimum period of detention for habitual criminals is being reduced from nine years to seven years.

I cannot do otherwise than to support this Bill, to welcome it and to give it my blessing. I wish to emphasize that punishment is not only concerned with punishment in the negative sense; it also serves as a deterrent for other people and also serves to give people the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves, and all the rehabilitation methods are contained in the amending Bill. Therefore I wish to give my full support to the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the Third Reading of the Bill. The hon. member for Hercules has indicated the priority that must be given to rehabilitation, and we do agree entirely that, whereas in the past emphasis was on the punitive aspect, in more recent times the emphasis is being placed on the rehabilitative aspects of legislation dealing with prisons and other forms of detention, and as far as reformatories and other aspects are concerned. We agree with the hon. member for Hercules in that regard. In supporting this Bill, we visualize measures which are conducive to rehabilitation. We had certain doubts concerning the provisions of clause 4, but we realize that as far as good discipline is concerned as an encouragement to good behaviour, it might be necessary expeditiously to grant certain privileges and indulgences so as to bring about a situation where rehabilitation and good behaviour can be encouraged. There might be certain prisoners who will abuse such privileges and indulgences and then those privileges and indulgences must be expeditiously withdrawn for the sake of good discipline.

However, there is another aspect which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, namely the effective dates contained in this legislation. We know that this Bill still has to pass through the Other Place. After that it will become law. In clause 25 it does indicate when the Act will come into operation, apart from section 23, which will come into operation on a date to be fixed in the Government Gazette. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister something with regard to clause 10 of the Bill, which provides for monetary rewards to persons who render a service or provide information to the Commissioner. The Commissioner, at his discretion, may pay such monetary rewards. This is connected with the commencement of legislation such as this. I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister or the Commissioner may authorize the payment of such a reward for information that might be in the interest of the Department of Prisons, if the information is passed on prior to the passing of this legislation. Would it therefore have some retrospective effect? It would appear that there could be instances where although persons have, through their efforts, in the opinion of the Commissioner rendered meritorious service which has been of assistance to the Department of Prisons, the Commissioner is unable to give that person any form of reward. I would like to know whether the Commissioner will now be empowered to grant monetary rewards in respect of information given prior to the passing of this legislation. With these few words we agree to the Third Reading of this legislation. We do not see any sinister motives behind any of the provisions of the Bill, and we do hope that it will have the desired effect of bringing about a greater degree of rehabilitation to the prisoners by our Prisons Department.

Mr. Speaker, since the Second Reading of this legislation we have been telling one another how we agree about the necessity of the legislation. Apart from the skirmishes which we had during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage, we have once again agreed with one another that we are ad idem about this legislation. With regard to the request by the hon. member for Umbilo, I wish to say that it is my experience that while the House of Assembly is sitting, legislation is signed by the State President and returned very soon after the Third Reading and I wonder whether it is really necessary to make any special provision for this. If we hurry up, the legislation can be promulgated round about Monday, and therefore it is not in my opinion necessary to set a date. A date has to be set somewhere, and someone who has rendered a service before that date will then not be receiving that reward.

The most important aspect of this legislation is, to my mind, the streamlining of the Administration of Prisons. When an administration makes its arrangements in this manner and keeps an eye on its legislation in this way and revises it from time to time to keep pace with changes, it indicates a good and sound administration. Another good aspect of this legislation is that it extends the power of delegation of the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner. I have always been of the opinion that the hallmark of a good administrator is the effectiveness with which he can delegate his powers to able subordinates. Therefore I find it very important that we once again have an aspect of delegation in this regard which indeed emphasizes good administration. Hon. members on both sides of the House, and also those of us who have been in contact with the Department of Prisons through the years as a result of the professions which we practise, are impressed by the growth and development which have been taking place in the department through the years. We have witnessed that development, and now this is also evidenced by the provisions of this legislation. We are particularly impressed by the way in which the professionalism of the officials of the Prisons Service has increased and developed. We are also impressed by the way in which they have qualified themselves academically by making use of the opportunities which have been created for them.

At the same time there has also been a change of attitude with regard to the approach to the prisoner. As far as the modernization of buildings are concerned, there has also been a move away from the cold, damp and dark cell or dungeon to light and airy buildings and rooms. I believe that this approach can exercise a very great influence over the spirit and rehabilitation of the prisoner. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we have been in agreement with one another throughout, except during the Committee Stage, when we had a few slight disagreements. I could perhaps just add that the liberation of our homelands is also confirmed in this legislation in a positive way. I am now going to sit down in the hope that the legislation will soon be appearing on the Statute Book so that the mind of the hon. member for Umbilo may be set at rest as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my gratitude to all the hon. members who participated in the debate for their contributions, as well as for the various amendments which they moved. It is true that only one of the amendments was accepted. But surely the value of an amendment lies in the fact that it affords one the opportunity of debating a matter properly, and I believe that in this case we could have been able to debate the matter properly and very fruitfully. It stimulated me to pay attention to aspects which the Opposition saw and it afforded me the opportunity of considering them properly.

With regard to clause 10 I wish to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that it is true that it is not possible at the moment to give an additional amount to someone who has rendered a particular service to the department. We can only remunerate such a person for his ordinary expenses, as the present legislation provides. Therefore I am as eager as he is to have this legislation piloted through the Other Place as soon as possible so that the good aspects of this Bill can be placed on the Statute Book and implemented as soon as possible.

I think it goes without saying that it is a very sad day in someone’s life when he lands in prison. He is disrupted; he is out of his environment and away from his wife and children. He has landed in a completely different environment, which he must surely find extremely unpleasant. On the other hand it is, in the same way, an extremely unpleasant task for the warder, whose job it is to look after these people, to guard these people, people whom he does not know and against whom he has no grudge. For this reason it is essential that one completely eliminates all possible levels of friction which may arise between the prisoner and the warder. I make bold to say that the effect of the provisions of clause 4 will be precisely to eliminate one of those levels of friction. It will now be very clear to the prisoner that he cannot lay claim to something which, in actual fact, is an indulgence granted to him for the purposes of rehabilitation and not a right to which he is entitled. It will bring about a great improvement in the relationship between the warder and the prisoner, because it will enable the warder, by manipulating indulgences, to bring his prisoner to a point of rehabilitation and friendship with him. This can only be to the advantage of all prisons. It has been pointed out, quite rightly, that warders are by and large people who are studying. I made bold to say that there are probably more graduates in this department than in many of the other departments. There is a very large number of graduates in this department. The warders are all studying the social sciences and concerning themselves with technical prison work, for instance rehabilitation. During the years that I have been involved in this department, my respect for these people has increased constantly. This is the result of the Bill before us at the moment. This is an improvement on the existing Prisons Act and for all of us. We have incorporated in the Bill the aspects which the Viljoen Commission regarded as essential. When the Bill has finally gone through all its stages, one can only foresee that the prison system will be able to render better service to the prisoner and to afford him the opportunity to rehabilitate himself completely so that we can consider granting him parole or releasing him on probation. I hope that this new legislation will enable us to extend a hand of friendship to the unfortunate person who lands in prison and for whom the future must surely be very dark. I am sure that the prison staff will do everything possible to make life as easy as possible for the prisoners in the unfortunate circumstances in which these people find themselves. From my own experience I know that these people are very sympathetic towards prisoners. I wish to express the hope that prisoners will not take up an attitude of obstinacy and rebelliousness. Furthermore I hope that there will be a general improvement in this service and in their circumstances.

Main Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.