Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the House I withdraw the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper and move that the clause be deleted. There are good reasons for this. The amendment, as we find it in the Bill, does not actually belong in the legislation in which it appears here. At a later stage, we shall move the amendment of another Act in which this specific amendment will be more suitable and will not be out of place.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the official Opposition I welcome the announcement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister that he now wishes to withdraw clause 7. We will support him in that. We were thinking along similar lines. In fact, the first of the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper is identical to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just suggested. My second amendment I do not need to motivate, because it simply falls away. It has now become merely academic. In the circumstances I withdraw both my amendments as they are printed on the Order Paper and express my support of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s motion that the clause be withdrawn.

Clause negatived.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can have an undertaking from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development that all land referred to in the schedule will be purchased by the S.A. Trust before being incorporated by another State; in other words, that the owner of the land be paid out before incorporation if he does not want to hold the land subsequent to incorporation?

Mr. Chairman, I can indeed give that assurance. I can do so on the basis of certain investigations which I carried out again yesterday to follow up some objections and misgivings expressed by hon. members in this House as regards the question of the transfer of land. I may add that this may have arisen because, in the schedule to the Bill, mention was made of land which, as hon. members will know, had not yet been purchased. That is what caused the uncertainty.

I had a look at the independence agreements. Now, I want to add at once that the legislation under discussion presupposes that agreements do in fact exist between the Republic and these three independent States. I am going to quote from these agreements, because that will answer the hon. member’s specific question. I quote from section 3—from the Government Gazette of 12 September 1979—which is applicable to the independence of Venda, but which corresponds word for word with the one concerning the Transkei and Bophuthatswana. Section 3—

I think it is very clear that I can give this undertaking in this regard.

While I am dealing with this clause, I may perhaps just repeat that in terms of this agreement we shall continue, as we have done in the past, to purchase these lands, and as funds are made available by Parliament, we shall negotiate with the farmers and landowners concerned in order to buy them out. In other words, the usual way of doing things will be continued; there will be no change of approach in this regard. I can give this assurance, on the basis of the agreement which we concluded with the States concerned. I can give this assurance.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendments contained in the Housing Amendment Bill, are aimed at increasing efficiency and bringing about uniformity.

In the first place it is being requested that provision be made for the Secretary for Community Development, instead of the National Housing Commission, to decide that action can be taken against tenants who are in arrears. Naturally, the head of the department is more readily available to make a decision of this kind than the commission, or one of its committees, which do not meet so regularly. More rapid action will prevent overdue moneys and losses from mounting up too high, and since the Secretary may already exercise this power in regard to tenants, no new principle is at issue here either.

Secondly, amendments are being proposed in order to facilitate delivering notices to tenants and borrowers by local authorities and the department. Often postal delivery is not effective and personal delivery may not be successful either. This results in repeated visits, with the concomitant wasted expenditure and time, without achieving the objective. The solution is that the Act provides for notices to be affixed to the outer or principal door of the dwelling, as is already the position with some legal documents.

The final amendment is aimed at providing for the extension of the field of activity of officers who are appointed to look after the interests of the commission. The Act already grants certain powers to such officers, for instance right of entry. However, it is also essential for officers to be able to negotiate with the occupants in cases where properties are not being maintained neatly or decently so that scheme dwellings do not compare unfavourably with the rest of the area. Any signs of deterioration or poor upkeep can be remedied timeously.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has outlined the import of this Bill, though he has not given us any specific indication why this new procedure has become necessary after 14 years. He has not indicated why the attaching of a notice to the door has suddenly become necessary, and I therefore hope that in his reply he will indicate the incidence of the problem which the department has had in serving notice in a more orthodox way.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out, this Bill falls into two distinct parts. There are clauses 1 and 4 which deal with the designation of the Secretary as the functionary as far as the implementation of the Act is concerned, and also for carrying out certain specific functions on behalf of the commission. The second part of the Bill deals with the additional procedure for serving notice, i.e. that of putting a notice on the outer or principal door of a dwelling. We in the official Opposition have no objection, in principle, to clauses 1 and 4 dealing with the designation of the Secretary as the functionary. In fact, possibly this has been the procedure in any case and the Bill is merely reflecting the practical normality of a situation in which the Secretary has to act on behalf of the commission. He should be able to carry out these functions, in terms of clause 4, being given certain discretionary powers, and therefore we have no objection to that concept, as contained in the Bill.

The second part, however, deals with the question of the method of serving notice, which is ordinarily by post or by registered letter. In the event of this not being possible, provision is now being made for notice to be affixed to the outer principal door of a dwelling. Once again we cannot object to this in principle in relation to this Bill. This is not a unique way of serving notice since it is contained in certain other measures. It is not, however, a desirable way, and even in terms of this Bill it should only be used as a last resort. I think there are problems connected with it, but we cannot argue that it does introduce a new principle in so far as serving notice or summons is concerned.

What is important to us in the Opposition, however, is what the message and purpose of the summons or notice is. We have checked on the Housing Act, and in terms of section 44 notice is only in respect of arrear rentals, notice either issued by the local authority or by the department itself. So in so far as this legislation deals solely with serving notice in regard to the lapse in fulfilling a contractual or financial obligation to pay rental, we can have no objection to this form of notice. We should, however, like the assurance that this will be used sparingly, will only be used in special circumstances and will not become the standard form of serving notice.

Having said this, I think I must give the hon. the Deputy Minister advance warning of the fact that if this had been a device to make it easier to evict people from their homes for racial reasons, we would not have supported this measure. In so far as this particular measure is, however, a non-racial measure, dealing as it does with financial or contractual obligations and merely facilitating the collection of moneys due to either a local department, authority or board, we shall support the measure. We do so, though, with advance notice of our reservations had there been any racial connotation.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to some of the arguments of the hon. member for Sea Point, I just want to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the increased responsibility resting upon his shoulders, since he is now Deputy Minister of Community Development too. We want to wish him everything of the best. This is also the first opportunity which the hon. the Deputy Minister has of presenting legislation to the House on behalf of the Executive. We congratulate him wholeheartedly on that as well. The hon. the Deputy Minister and myself are neighbours and I am proud of my neighbour. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister can say the same.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point did not actually say very much which we could disagree with. He advanced two arguments in regard to the way in which a notice is served. He also asked to be assured that notices that are served, will not be used for racial instigation. I shall come back to these matters later on in my speech.

The measure before the House amends some provisions of the principal Act. The first amendment pertains to section 20 of the principal Act which deals with the legal remedies at the disposal of the National Housing Commission, vis-à-vis those of borrowers. What it amounts to in effect is that the National Housing Commission is able to take certain steps in connection with rents which have fallen in arrears. In practice, it has proved to be a cumbersome, long drawn-out method of recovering payments in arrears. It simply does not work in practice. All that this amendment proposes, is that instead of the National Housing Commission taking the decisions and activating the legal machinery for recovering rent that has fallen into arrears, this power is now being transferred to the Secretary. The principle in the measure before the House, is not a new one. If we look at section 44 of the Housing Act, we see that it reads—

Therefore, we already have the principle being stipulated here for tenants. In this amendment it is simply being transferred and applied to borrowers.

The second amendment amends sections 44 and 65 of the principal Act and deals with the manner of serving notice. What is the present position in this regard? This brings me to the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point. He asked why this method of serving notice had to be amended now after a period of 10 years. If the hon. member for Sea Point had any appreciation of the realities of providing housing, he would understand this amendment. The present position is that if a borrower or an occupant falls in arrears with his payments, three alternatives are open to the Commission to recover the rental in arrears. Firstly, a notice can be served on the occupant or borrower in person, or secondly, the notice for rental in arrears can be served on an adult person on the site, and thirdly, the notice of rental in arrears can be forwarded to the borrower or occupant by registered post. We know from experience that if a borrower or occupant falls into arrears with his rental, he is not very keen to collect his post. It has been proved in practice that the National Housing Commission—and therefore in actual fact the Government—is sustaining losses due to payments in arrears which cannot be recovered. All that is being envisaged with this measure, is a practical streamlining in order to confirm the interests of the National Housing Commission as well as to point out to the tenants that not only do they have rights, but that they also have certain responsibilities which must be fulfilled. Notice of rental in arrears being pinned on to the principal door of the property, is not a new principle. I want to point out to the hon. member for Sea Point that we have the same principle in section 11(2) of the Insolvency Act, Act No. 24 of 1936. The section concerned reads as follows—

Therefore, the principle of placing a notice on the principal door of the building on the site, is not a new one, and it is done in the interests of protecting the funds issued by the National Housing Commission.

Section 86 of the principal Act is being amended by clause 4 of the Bill. All we are doing here, is granting certain powers to a maintenance officer of the department. This is a very important amendment. If we should ask what powers should be vested in the maintenance officer, we see that the maintenance officer has to look after the aesthetic condition of the housing scheme. He must take care that the housing scheme does not degenerate into a slum, but that the housing scheme, and together with it, the capital outlay of the National Housing Commission, is protected. The maintenance officer must be able to negotiate with the owner in regard to very elementary aspects which affect the aesthetic appearance of the scheme, for instance washing lines, fences, the removal of motor-car bodies, negotiations with local authorities for planting trees, stormwater etc. All these matters fall under the jurisdiction of the maintenance officer.

The Bill before the House aims at bringing about important, positive amendments in order to protect the interests of the National Housing Commission, and in doing so, to protect the interests of the State as well. It is aimed at bringing the responsibilities to the attention of the occupants once again and it is also aimed at increasing the aesthetic value of the housing scheme. These are all positive measures and are part of the great task of the Department of Community Development, not merely to establish bare structures, not only to provide people with houses, but also to establish communities. That is why we on this side of the House are pleased to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is the attitude of the NRP that this particular Bill can be supported. It is important to us that, first of all, the old procedure must be followed before for instance a letter is attached to the front door of a dwelling. It is also clear to us that the commission, as well as local authorities, must have experienced difficulties. We should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to inform us about these difficulties, because one cannot help thinking why it is possible for people in the private sector, through private letting agents, to overcome this difficulty without having to resort to this type of procedure. Is the answer to this not that they should have a look at the type of lease agreements that people sign when they rent dwellings from the department, the commission or local authorities?

The other point I should like to raise at this stage is that in clause 1 we find that power previously being exercised by the commission will now be exercised by the Secretary. In this particular case we have no objection to it, because section 20 is purely an administrative section. It deals with remedies taken against borrowers. We do feel that this is something we can support because I do not think the members of the commission should in the first place have been burdened with that type of administrative matter. I should like to use this opportunity to say to the hon. the Minister that he must guard against a system whereby powers will be taken out of the hands of a commission and then transferred to a person such as the Secretary, especially in view of the fact that we have had announcements that increasingly there are going to be people of other race groups appointed to this type of board. We should not like to see a stage being reached where people are appointed to boards or to commissions and then to find that the functions that they fulfil will in fact be limited as a result of this kind of action. However, the NRP is quite happy about it that in this particular case it is something that we can support, because it is purely an administrative matter. We therefore support the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to welcome the hon. member for Sea Point as his party’s chief spokesman on community development and I express the hope that notwithstanding the differences we may encounter on our way, we shall at all times be able to maintain friendly and good personal relations.

*I want to thank hon. members for the support they have given this Bill. In fact there is nothing contentious or sinister contained in this Bill. I can give the hon. member for Sea Point the full assurance that as far as the afixing of notices to the door frames of dwellings is concerned, this will only be done as a last resort. However, he and the hon. member for Durban Central must understand that we are dealing here with areas where the delivery of post is often very irregular. If, for example, one sends a registered letter to an address in such an area, the slip may be delivered, but because the people have a suspicion as to the contents of the letter, the letter is never collected and is eventually returned. Then, of course, we also have the problem that many of the fathers and mothers of families occupying the properties which they rent from the department are employed, whereas the Act provides that one has to deliver the notice personally to the owner or an adult person. Perhaps he only finds a minor at the house. Then he goes a second time, etc. This makes matters very difficult for us and since the issue here is only one of rent collection and since we must look after the interests of the State, I do not think that hon. members object to this.

The hon. member for Durban Central asks why we have to do this type of thing whereas the private sector does not need to resort to such methods. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of how many clients we have, how many thousands of people owe rent or loan payments to the department of Community Development and with what quality of person we are dealing. Every month there are vast sums of money in arrears. Only through the actions of the department’s officials can we succeed in having a minimum of bad debts. I therefore think that the hon. member will understand that in this regard we must have the powers that we are now assuming.

On the other hand I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Bellville, my neighbour, for the good wishes he expressed and for his support. He is not a bad neighbour. Unfortunately I have quite a few neighbours and if I praise him too much, then I must praise the others too, and accordingly I had rather confine myself to praising this neighbour for the time being.

I think that is all I can say to the questions that hon. members have put.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposals contained in this Bill are aimed at—

1. (a) facilitating the serving of notices on tenants and purchasers of premises leased or sold by the Community Development Board, a statutory body of the Department of Community Development;
2. (b) the revision of steps to recover outstanding rentals in respect of business premises let by the board; and
3. (c) the authorization of appointed officials of the department to enter rented or sold premises in order to approach tenants or purchasers in instances where buildings and/or grounds are not kept tidy or properly maintained.

The proposed procedure to affix notices to the outer or main door of a building is common practice and therefore nothing new. Repeated visits to premises result in the wastage of time and money, and it is considered essential that existing legislation be supplemented to remedy the position.

At present the Act provides for an authorized official of the Department of Community Development, after notice has been given, to enter upon and take possession of residential and business premises in respect of which the tenants or purchaser is in arrear. However, experience has shown that occupants of business premises in particular either pay the arrears or make acceptable arrangements for payment upon recovery of possession being reverted to. In the circumstances an amendment is proposed to enable premises to be locked up without the necessity of first having to revert to the formal recovery of possession, which entails the removal of the occupant’s movable property from the premises to allow the occupant the opportunity to pay the arrears or to make acceptable arrangements in this regard.

The last amendment is intended to assist in taking tenants and purchasers to task who do not keep their premises tidy or properly maintained, because their negligence gives State-financed housing schemes a bad name. This measure will allow the department to act before premises deteriorate to such an extent that action in terms of municipal by-laws and regulations is deemed necessary.

The measures contained in the Bill are in the interests of everyone, be it the authorities, purchasers or tenants.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the kind words he addressed to me as the new spokesman on this side on matters concerning the Department of Community Development. I should also like to congratulate him on his appointment as Deputy Minister in this important department. We have been opposing each other for years in politics, and that will be the case in future too, but where the interests of the ordinary citizen are at stake, a matter in which the Department of Community Development is involved to a large extent, I hope I and the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to see eye to eye in the interest of the population as a whole.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister, in explaining the purpose for changing the form of notice and also for the right to occupy commercial premises rather than to take them over as it was before, has emphasized that it is linked largely to the question of procuring or getting rentals due to the board. Had that been the sole provision of the legislation and had it related only to persons who have not been fulfilling their contractual obligation, we would have, as we did with the previous Bill, supported the Government.

When one looks at the Community Development Act one sees that it does differ from the Housing Act. The Housing Act refers to certain remedies which can be taken in respect of arrear rental, but the Community Development Act goes further. Under the heading “Remedies of board against tenants who fail to pay rental due or to vacate premises,” section 18(1) of this Act reads—

1. (a) to pay the rental payable by him on the due date; or
2. (b) to vacate such property on or before the date on which he has lawfully been required by the board to do so …

In other words, it is not merely a question of rental which can be the subject of a notice, but also the requirement to vacate a premises. When one reads further, one sees that the objectives of the Community Development Board are linked very closely to the Group Areas Act. This notice given by the Community Development Board can be a notice to quit and not merely a notice to a person to pay his rental. Because we see this as a further administrative measure to facilitate the eviction of certain people from their homes, under the Group Areas Act, we cannot support this particular provision.

We believe there has been enough …

Under the Group Areas Act?

Yes. The Community Development Board will serve notice that it is going to require Mr. X to vacate the premises. The Community Development Board works together to accelerate the development of areas which have been proclaimed under the Group Areas Act. So, there is this linking between the two. We think in particular of the situation right now here in District Six. We want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this provision is going to be used. Is this provision going to be used to accelerate the eviction of people in District Six? Can it be used?

No, never!

It can be used but it will not be used.

It can be used to accelerate the eviction of people under the Group Areas Act. We do not want to be part and parcel of any assistance to the Government, administrative or otherwise, to have people dispossessed of their homes in terms of the racial policies or the racial ideologies or the racial laws of this Government. We believe there has been enough hardship. We believe there has been enough misery. There has been enough insecurity already. Therefore we do not want to support an administrative procedure which will assist the Government to dispossess people of their homes in order to apply the Group Areas Act in favour of someone else.

This is the prime reason why we will not support the Second Reading of this Bill.

There is also the clause dealing with the powers of the inspectors. Simply looking at it we feel the hon. the Deputy Minister owes this House a further, more detailed explanation of why such extraordinarily wide powers appear to be necessary. These new powers of an inspector, which are added to the powers he already has of entering premises, inspecting them, requiring people to give information, we believe, are already wide enough. These powers allow him to enter any premises or any building acquired or erected by means of a loan from the fund. That means he has access even to a private property where someone may have borrowed some money from the Community Development Board to purchase the particular property. That means that the invasion of that persons privacy is now permissible in terms of this legislation.

If it was a property of the Community Development Board let to somebody else, one could have understood this. However, where it is a private property, a property owned by an individual who may have happened to receive a loan, small or large, in respect of that property, it seems extraordinary that an inspector should have the right to invade the privacy of that owner by entering that particular property. Furthermore, when one looks at the proposed new section 48(1)(e)(iii) it appears that even if a property has been sold by the board and after the board has severed its interests, an inspector may still enter that property, and he may do so in terms of this legislation. The board has sold this property now to someone else. The board no longer has a formal interest in that particular property. Yet, in terms of this measure, even after the property has been sold to a private individual, at some future date, an inspector may, on behalf of the board, enter that property to investigate it. These two specific provisions seem far too wide and far too far-reaching.

I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister himself will concede that, in terms of the Community Development Act and in terms of the Group Areas Act, we already have sufficient numbers of inspectors, sufficient numbers of people invading the privacy of individuals in their homes. We believe it will be quite wrong to add to the present forms of invasion of the privacy of someone who has borrowed money from the board or who owns the property entirely. We believe it is wrong that merely because that person has at some stage borrowed money from the board in order to buy a particular property he should always be subjected to an inspector wanting to enter the property in order to do certain things.

Finally, we do not want to assist the Government in applying the Group Areas Act and in evicting people from their homes. Therefore we will vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I had thought that the hon. member for Sea Point had really been brought back to reality after the hon. the Deputy Minister put it very clearly to him that we want to overhaul the streamlining in this regard by extending the methods of giving notice in order that the Board’s property may be protected. However the hon. member is now conjuring up a spectre in this regard and unfortunately the fact is that many members of the general public are ignorant enough to believe in his spectre. For example, people living in houses belonging to the Department are now going to believe in this spectre of his. I believe he owes something to this House.

We are dealing with the housing of a large number of people who pay, but who suffer due to those who do not pay. There is an acute housing shortage throughout the country. Now, must we simply allow people who do not pay to carry on because the hon. member for Sea Point does not like the Groups Areas Act? Must we now approve a budget because money for housing is to be voted on the hon. the Minister’s programme and that housing is going to be built on group areas land? What is the Opposition’s argument? What is the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point? When one borrows money, one is subject to the conditions of the lender until one has repaid the money. Is that not so? Does a person not have the right to go and inspect his building when someone is living in it? I do not believe that the department is so silly as to send people to call on those who pay and keep their building in good order, to see what they do from morning to night. The days of snoopers are over.

They are only beginning.

The hon. member for Sea Point has toured through Africa The “snooping” is over.

No, Sir, we are engaged in the task of providing sound accommodation for the population of this country. If there is no legislation in terms of which one can take action, then one is hindering the machinery of the State, the machinery which consists of the officials that have to give effect to the conditions of the State, and under those conditions one’s officials become discouraged. It is not only the man who does not pay who suffers as a result; the man who does pay, too, eventually encounters problems because provision has not been made.

Is the hon. member opposed to our introducing a relaxation at this stage? Previously we could evict someone, but now we merely lock the place. We merely lock it because there is R93 000 outstanding as a result of lessees of shops in the rural areas who do not pay. They say they do not want to pay and then they simply stay in the buildings. When the department’s representative gets there, he sometimes has to evict such a man in the late evening, and often his wife and children too, who live close to the undertaking and even on the premises. All we want to do is to close the building. If the tenant comes to negotiate with the department within one day he can carry on with his business. The hon. member is opposed to that. The hon. members arguments are lapsing one after the other because he is obsessed with the group areas. If he wants to talk about District Six or that type or thing, as he did just now, there is a time for that. However, when you are dealing with the housing of people …

The eviction of people.

Does the hon. member wish to maintain that housing can be arranged without ever evicting anyone? No, that hon. member is seeking a perfect world, but here we do not have such things. [Interjections.] When one has to do with housing, people are evicted.

They evicted their leader.

I am not talking about that now. I should not like to do that to him again. The facts of life are that building societies give a man notice if he does not pay. Is that correct? [Interjections.] He is given notice and his house is sold from under him. Because we know whom we are working with, we are here trying to be accommodating and to give the people a chance, particularly people with businesses. We do not wish to evict them. For example, we do not want the owner of a shop containing perishable goods to have to be put on the street because that causes everyone to say: Look how the department is packing everything on to the streets. Then the hon. member for Pinelands will be standing there among the piles of goods and will have a photo taken so as to let the world know. Now all we do is to close the premises, and we expect the people will pay. If, for example, we consider how much money is outstanding—often the amounts are outstanding over periods of three to six months or even longer—one can see that the department is really doing its best and that there is a feeling for the situation. However, there will come a time when the Opposition will attack the department if it can be proved in this House that there are thousands of rands which are not collected. It is solely for that reason that this legislation was drafted. These are provisions which are already embodied in the housing legislation. It is of particular importance for us to see that in spite of the Board’s and the department’s achievements in the field of housing, they are still streamlining their procedures every day in order to make greater efforts to go out and collect outstanding rent. We take pleasure in providing housing, but we want people to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, it is the view of the NRP that the same principle, as applied to the previous piece of legislation, underlies the legislation now before us. The question we had to ask, in dealing with the previous Bill, was whether the affixing of a notice to a principal door would be fair notice. As a party we took cognizance of the fact that there would be aggrieved parties in the case of both the community development legislation and the housing legislation. As I have said, what we had to decide was whether the affixing of a notice to a door could be regarded as fair means of giving a person a notice before action is taken, of course after one has tried other methods which have, in fact, failed. In regard to the Housing Bill we found that this method would constitute fair notice and, having done so, the NRP decided that in the case of this Bill it would also be fair notice, because in both cases one is dealing with people against whom the State has to take action, in fact people who are defaulters in the sense that they have failed to pay their rent. We appreciate the fact that there is a distinction made in dealing with people’s businesses. It would be most unfair to just come along and lock up business premises, putting everything out onto the street. At least, first giving people notice, and subsequently locking up the premises, can be regarded as an improvement. The issue whether the provisions of this Bill are primarily going to be used to effect evictions under the Group Areas Act is of course a different issue to which we have to apply our minds. The hon. the Minister and the Government have their methods which they can apply to effect evictions under the Group Areas Act. It is our view that on balance these particular provisions will in no way make their task any easier than it was as it was undertaken in the past. For that reason we do not see the danger the official Opposition see in this particular case. We believe that it will be very unusual for the Government to have to resort to this particular provision in order to effect evictions under the Group Areas Act. If we are concerned about stopping that, I want to say that it is something we will not be able to stop by means of this particular piece of legislation.

Why help them?

It is not a matter of helping in this case. It is our considered view that it cannot really be used in cases where the Minister or the Government wants to get rid of people under the Group Areas Act. In that case they apply their usual tactics. This is one thing they have not been able to slip up on from their point of view. Unfortunately for South Africa they have been too efficient at it. I do not believe that they need further help in that respect. They are already past masters at it. Unfortunately that is the case. It is sad that that should be so. I do not see this at all as our helping them in this respect.

*I just want to return briefly to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his speech. With reference to officials having to get access to premises, etc., he spoke about the authority which already exists which permits officials to enter premises or properties to see whether they are kept clean and in proper order. This is a task which they already have. In this Bill their powers in this regard are now being extended. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that that task which they already have is not being carried out very well. Properties belonging to the community councils are the very ones which are unsightly and very badly neglected. I believe this is a matter which should be given attention because it causes a tremendous amount of problems for the environment. In many cases, in fact, it leads to a deterioration of the whole area as a result of the failure to see to it that officials carry out their tasks properly.

That is what we need the authority for. I shall explain it.

The Deputy Minister may need the powers, but one finds that the one is always blaming the other. It is said that it is actually the municipality which is not doing things in the right way. The municipality, in turn, says it is the Department of Community Development which should look after their properties and keep them clean. The ball is being kicked to and fro. Since the department has very large properties, they should make very sure that where they obtain the power to do certain things, they do them properly so that the lives of the people who are still living permanently in that kind of environment are not made miserable because those premises have developed into eyesores.

Mr. Speaker, that is all we want to say about the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central supports the legislation. We thank him for having intimated on behalf of his party that he supports it. He has showed penetrating insight into the legislation—and that is really more than we can say of the hon. member for Sea Point. I have a problem with the hon. member for Sea Point. Either he did not do his homework or else he is just being wilful, or he is insolent, or all three. Believe it or not, the hon. member for Sea Point now wants to use this particular measure before the House as an argument that Coloureds in District Six can be denied their property. Where in the world does the hon. member read such a provision into this legislation? These provisions relate solely to action to be taken when the payments of a tenant or borrower fall into arrears. If a tenant or borrower does not fall into arrears, no action can be taken against him in terms of the provisions of this measure. How in the world, then, can the hon. member for Sea Point see behind this measure the sinister motive of evicting people from their houses in District Six? His argument simply does not hold water. However, I also have further problems with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Sea Point. Every principle embodied in the measure before the House is embodied in the measure which was adopted here a short while ago unopposed by the hon. member for Sea Point and his party. What we have here, therefore, is not mere opportunism but also inconsistency on the other side of the House with regard to these specific measures.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point has made such a hash of this legislation that I hope you will give me a moment to bring back a little perspective as far as this measure is concerned. The Community Development Board which was established in terms of the principal Act provides housing to all groups of the population. The board also has its own fund, viz. the Community Development Fund, and in contrast to what the hon. member for Sea Point said, this Fund is used for urban renewal. Townships are established and maintained out of this Fund. In addition, persons affected under the provisions of the Group Areas Act are resettled using funds from this Fund. In the process of administering the Community Development Fund, the board acquires ownership of certain properties, and some of the persons occupying those properties may fall into arrears with their payments. Accordingly certain measures, such as those detailed under the previous legislation, must be available for the Community Development Fund to take action against tenants in arrears. We have dealt with the procedure of giving notice, and in order to establish in what respect we differ from each other, I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he differs with regard to the method of serving notice with regard to arrear rentals. Does the hon. member differ in that regard? Apparently not. Apparently the hon. member does not wish to answer either.

What is this about?

The notice concerns arrear rental.

It concerns the eviction of people from their homes.

That is not so. Apparently the hon. member for Sea Point did not do his homework. The notice does not concern eviction at all. The notice concerns the issue as to whether Mr. X is in arrears.

Mr. X again!

That is basically what the whole issue is about, and the hon. member really cannot differ with us on that score. Does the hon. member differ with us about the fact that arrear rentals must be collected?

That is not what the objection is about.

But then what is the hon. member’s objection about?

It concerns the eviction of people from their homes.

The measure before the House does not include any power of eviction, unless a tenant is in arrears. Apparently the hon. member is totally uninformed as far as this measure is concerned. [Interjections.] Yes, I think the hon. member might as well go and make another telephone call.

I should just like to stress a very important point with regard to this legislation and that is that the recovery of arrear rent is a very important matter. The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to the fact that the arrear rentals in the Pretoria district region alone amount to almost R100 000 for the period 1 January 1979 to 21 December 1979. Over a period of one year the arrear rentals amount to almost R100 000. We must understand that this money is voted from the Community Development Fund, but is eventually to be redeposited in that Fund. This arrear money, when collected, is used to finance new houses, business premises and enterprises. If this arrear money is not collected, other persons are deprived of their right and privilege to share in the advantages of the Community Development Fund.

The objections to the measure before the House advanced by the hon. member for Sea Point are really so weak and transparent that I do not know why this measure is not being supported, because it is another honest effort to protect the interests of the State. The hon. member referred to the maintenance official and the powers entrusted to him as if the official would summarily enter the property of unsuspecting people who were tenants or occupants, and eject them. The hon. member does not know the spirit of the Department of Community Development. The department does not operate like that. It wants to assist people as far as possible.

The hon. member referred to this measure and expressed his misgivings about the powers being granted to this official. As I explained, this official is a maintenance officer. He has to look after the vested interests of the Community Development Fund. He has to see to it that the gardens there look pleasant and attractive. He has to negotiate with the local authority because as hon. members know—I take it that they know—a portion of the rental of the tenant or borrower is used to make provision for the local authority to be able to plant gardens and perform certain other tasks. The powers of this person are such as to enable him to assist the borrower or tenant, and not to shake him up and evict him. This is truly a positive measure. I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to lend my support to the standpoint opposing this piece of legislation adopted by the hon. member for Sea Point. To begin with, I think we must be clear on the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Bellville concerning the possibility that this legislation could give effect to the provisions of the Group Areas Act and that people could be evicted from their homes under a proclamation in terms of the Group Areas Act. As I understand it, the hon. member for Bellville denied that that was in any way possible. Did I understand him correctly? Does he deny that is in any way possible?

In terms of what measure?

In terms of the Bill before us. This could have to do with the facilitation of the eviction of people from their homes when those homes are situated within an area that has been proclaimed in terms of the Group Areas Act. He denies it.

Yes, I deny it.

The hon. member has not the faintest idea what this is all about. Strangely enough, the hon. member for Sea Point put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister across the floor of the House and the hon. the Deputy Minister clearly replied that this would not be done, although it could in fact be done. I think he is right. I concede that point to him. One need only look at the heading of section 18. It reads—

Precisely! That is in arrears.

No, if the hon. member reads this section properly, he will see that it in no way excludes other reasons or other bases on which a house can be vacated. That is by no means the only intention behind it. Section (1)(a) very clearly only concerns rental, but para, (b) only has to do with the vacating of a property. It is certainly not limited to a situation in which rental is due.

I should like to make the statement that legislation such as this and the activities of the Department of Community Development certainly constitute one of the areas of the administration of the country in regard to which there could have been the closest co-operation between Government and Opposition, had it not been for this one miserable piece of legislation, namely the Group Areas Act. Had it not been for the Group Areas Act, we should seldom have found it necessary to oppose legislation concerning housing or community development in general.

I think the hon. member for Langlaagte said that this piece of legislation made it easier for the State to protect its property and that it is necessary, in view of the acute housing shortage we do have in South Africa, that we should do everything possible, to make it easier for the board to protect State property and the facilities falling under housing, but it is in the implementation of this very Group Areas Act that the property of the Department of Community Development, the property of this House, is often most shockingly neglected. The hon. member for Durban Central referred to housing areas that had been neglected, but which belong to the department. I myself can attest to that.

In District Six, to come to that point once again, there is a deliberate neglect of housing which in other circumstances could well be suitable for renewal. It is being deliberately neglected because they know that this is an area which falls under the Group Areas Act. It is envisaged that that area will be redeveloped for Whites, and therefore the housing which is available there now is all to be demolished. This is a scandal which is occurring in that area. Many thousands of rands, Government money, is being wasted there, and therefore the hon. member for Langlaagte must never use the argument that the State must try to protect its property and act on that basis in order to alleviate the housing shortage in South Africa.

You do not understand these things.

Unfortunately that is not what happens.

You must get an attorney.

As regards clause 2, to which the hon. member for Sea Point also referred, here too there is a great deal that is not clear to me. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister could clarify the matter for us, particularly with regard to the proposed para. (e)(iii) in which it is stated that an inspector may “enter upon any premises or any building sold by the board.” It seems to me that this is definitely a clear instance of powers being granted which I really cannot see the sense of, and it is to be hoped that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to clarify the matter.

There could be the best intentions behind this legislation, and it is understandable, too, that procedures be introduced to make it easier to enforce payment of rentals by people who occupy Government houses. On the other hand, this side of the House must not be expected to give its support to such legislation where there is the slightest possibility that persons may be evicted from their homes in terms of the Group Areas Act Unless the legislation can be amended to that extent, I fear that I shall not be able to support this legislation either.

Mr. Speaker, when following this debate, it surprises one how far the Opposition is prepared to go in trying to make political capital out of a matter. In the legislation before the House, we are clearly dealing with two concepts. In the first place the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to streamline his department. Secondly, an effort is being made to protect the community. When one considers these two factors, I believe that all of us, even the hon. member for Sea Point, will agree that streamlining is essential in order to enable the department to carry out its duties properly. At present the department is the largest house-owner and landlord in South Africa. This fact alone gives one some idea of the extent of the problem with which the department is faced. I believe that there can be no objection to the streamlining of the department by means of the amendments before us. As far as the second aspect is concerned, i.e. the protection of the surrounding community, this, together with the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister that it will be possible to extend the department’s maintenance programme by means of this legislation, is something which ought really to be welcomed by all of us. This is really essential, in view of the new towns and communities being established by the department. Several new development programmes are being undertaken by the department, but what happens now is that only one person, like the proverbial rotten apple, can undermine the aesthetic value of a whole scheme. One lessee or owner in a community can cause the standards of the whole community to drop. Consequently it is gratifying to us that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that from now on the department’s maintenance effort will be far more positive and purposeful than has been the case in the past.

When one examines this legislation, it is very clear that one is dealing with only one type of person, i.e. only with people who have not paid their rent and are in arrears as a result. One finds it strange that the official Opposition sees fit to take the part of these people. From the nature of the matter it is strange that an effort is being made to protect such people. If they protect people who have paid their rent and who are an asset to their community, one could still understand it. The hon. member for Bellville rightly pointed out that overdue rent amounts to the victimization of people who are still to be housed in the future. It is strange that that party, which claims to be the champion of people who can be thrown out of their houses and who are on the same level as the people who are overdue with their rent, begrudge people who need houses the opportunity of being able to get them. It is strange that one can have two such contradictory standpoints in a debate on one Bill.

†The hon. member for Sea Point made the point that he was not against the law as it stands, but that he was afraid that this could be used for the eviction of members of other groups from their homes. Despite the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister gave him the assurance that it would never be used for that, he did not accept that assurance. It seems strange that one finds an hon. member in this House who is not prepared to accept the assurance given in all bona fides by an hon. Minister. I think that is the reason why the hon. member, the ex-leader, has been moved back to the second row. I believe that if this is the attitude he is going to display regarding future legislation in this House he may even be moved further back in due course. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point stated that in terms of clause 2 of the Bill, he now objects to the fact that any official of the department can enter upon and take possession of any such premises, house or business premises. However, it is stated very clearly in the Bill that this only affects a person who still owes loan money to the department or the Fund concerned. Surely this is not a foreign concept that is being introduced here, surely this is a concept everyone understands? Everyone who negotiates a loan is aware of this concept. I often have to do with this. Every time I sign a mortgage agreement, I have to give the mortgagee the right to enter the premises concerned at any time and to carry out a reasonable inspection at reasonable times.

When we read clause 2, surely it is very clear that it affords the department or the Fund the necessary protection in cases where loans are granted. Surely this is essential. The hon. the Deputy Minister stated very clearly that at times we are dealing here with people who are not interested in their property and do not pay their rent regularly. Consequently these are also people who are not interested in maintaining the value of their property. In such cases it is therefore essential for the provider of such funds to ensure that if the occupant, the lessee or the mortgagee does not maintain the property, he will have the right to do so himself. Despite what the hon. member for Sea Point said, and despite the argument advanced by the hon. member for Green Point, I cannot see that the legislation under discussion effects any change in the principles. This legislation merely contains administrative changes. Indeed, I believe these are amendments which ought to be welcomed. Personally I would have expected that a provision such as the proposed amendment of section 48 of the principal act, would be welcomed by the official Opposition. In the proposed amendment we now find a relaxation of the conditions in which the department may act against an overdue payer. If we do not pass this provision, the department has only the prescribed legal forms in terms of which it must act.

This would mean two things. In the first place this would lead to greater expense when action is taken against a person. It would be much more expensive to achieve the necessary results in that case, whereas, in terms of the proposed new provision, this can be done more expeditiously and inexpensively. This is also to the advantage of the person against whom action is taken. In the second place, it means that instead of the department being compelled to throw the possessions of the person concerned out on to the pavement where they are at the mercy of the elements, and thus to make the situation irrevocable, the matter can now be dealt with in a much more humane and moderate way. Nor need the goods, status or good name of the debtor concerned be damaged. The official dealing with the matter now simply enters upon the property concerned, takes possession of it, locks the doors of the house or business premises, and the negotiations between the department and the occupier of the premises are dealt with in a reasonable and decent way, without the occupier being humiliated in the eyes of the public. Businessmen in particular are much better treated in this regard than under the usual legal procedure. Otherwise we would not have wanted to adopt this legislation. A further advantage is that one can act much more expeditiously so that the surrounding community does not suffer harm, which can happen because the court procedure takes so long, particularly the question of service—which can sometimes take weeks-—the issue of processes, which can also take a few weeks—and eventually the takeover of the property by the Messenger of the Court or Deputy Sheriff, depending on the amount. In this way a month or two can pass. This can cause the community serious harm because the premises concerned become dilapidated and are a liability to the community. On this basis I have not the slightest doubt that this provision will lead to the improvement of the existing legislation. Consequently I should like to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members for Langlaagte, Bellville and my other neighbour, the hon. member for Vasco, for their contributions in support of the legislation. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that in spite of his reservations he still supports the legislation. I want to explain to the hon. members that we provide accommodation with the aid of the Housing Fund and the Community Development Fund. We use these two instruments to provide housing in our country. We are dealing here with the funds expended from the Community Development Fund, not from the Housing Fund or any other funds. I want to tell the hon. members that, as I said a moment ago in respect of the Housing Fund, the annual appropriation of the Community Development Fund amounts to approximately R50 million and the capital reflux in the form of instalments on houses sold, and so on, amounts to between R25 and R30 million per annum. This is public money, money for which the department is held accountable, before the Select Committee on Public Accounts as well. I imagine that the hon. members of the Opposition would certainly not be pleased if it were reported to the Select Committee on Public Accounts that large amounts of the between R25 and R30 million which must flow back to the State annually to be re-applied for housing are not being collected. It is no easy task. It is an extremely complicated task which has to be carried out.

I want to tell the hon. members that we have sufficient powers under the Group Areas Act to resettle people if we want to resettle them under this Act. The hon. members of the Opposition are wrong if they associate this measure with the Group Areas Act. I am pleased to be able to say that I think that once I have furnished my explanation, the hon. members of the official Opposition will be prepared to support the legislation. I think there are only a few matters which are causing them concern and which I will be able to clear up. If we wish to resettle people under the Group Areas Act, the principle, in the first place, is that we offer them alternative accommodation. We do not throw people out into the streets. That is why, after so many years, there are still so many Coloureds in District Six. The hon. member for Green Point complained about the conditions there. The conditions there are bad, but the hon. member must realize that we are not dealing here with an ordinary scheme which was developed with the aid of the Group Areas Development Fund. We are dealing here with a task which is being carried out under the Slums Act, and it has been decided that conditions in the entire District Six are so backward that the entire area has to be cleared. Nevertheless it is a fact that one cannot resettle all the people at once. The people who are still in District Six today, pay rent for the buildings in which they are still living. They will only be affected by this legislation if they persist in not paying their rent. That is the only reason for evicting them. This is something I must point out very clearly. Yet people are not simply being evicted because they do not pay rent. This provision refers more specifically to big business concerns. In my Second Reading speech I explained that there were people who adopt a stubborn attitude, but when we come along and tell them to pack their belongings and leave, they are prepared to talk to us. As the hon. member for Durban Central said, we have powers in terms of the Group Areas Act which we can apply if necessary. But that is not the intention with this legislation. Nor can we use it to evict group area cases from their homes. The principle is that we provide people with alternative accommodation. In District Six, where there are people who are paying rent, such people can only be jeopardized if they stubbornly refuse to pay and the drastic measure of eviction is decided on at a very high level. This is not decided at a low level. As I said a moment ago, it is the Secretary who has to decide in such a case whether a person should be evicted. As far as this is concerned, there could also be people in District Six who might—I am not saying there are, because I think the people in District Six pay their rent—be jeopardized under these extraordinary circumstances if they do not pay their rent.

The hon. member for Green Point must also realize that the people who are still living in District Six are living in the best remaining structures. When the University of Cape Town carried out a socio-economic survey there at the time, it was found that between 70% and 80% of the houses were in an extremely poor condition. The unanimous recommendation of the State Commission was that no effort should be made to solve the problem by means of other methods but that in this specific case there should be a general clearance and that a brand-new town planning scheme should be devised. Because that was the situation, we have already eliminated the poorest units, and as we are able to provide the people in District Six with accommodation, we take them out there and raze the buildings. Maintenance work is being carried out, but the hon. member must also realize that we ultimately intend to resettle all those people, and if this is one’s intention, one does not go out of one’s way to spend as much money on maintenance as one would normally do.

I think I have now given the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Sea Point the assurance that the Group Areas Act has nothing to do with this legislation. If we wish to evict people in terms of the Group Areas Act, we have the powers to do so. We do not need additional powers. In any case, it has nothing to do with this legislation.

I now wish to come to the other aspect which was raised here by hon. members. I want to begin with the objection raised by the hon. members for Sea Point and Green Point. They asked us what ostensible interest we had in a place that had already been sold and why we were even asking for authorization to enter those places. They wanted to know what the motive behind this was. There are no sinister motives behind this. These bodies are all sold with a bond from the Community Development Fund. As long as we have a bond on a property, we have an interest in that property. Surely the hon. gentlemen will concede that. It is exactly what happens in the case of a building society. All building society contracts contain the provision that as long as the owner still owes something on the bond, they have the right to come and see whether the place is being maintained. That is the only motive behind this legislation. As long as the owners still owe us money on their houses, we must have the right to go and see whether the houses are being properly maintained. As hon. members said here, there are in fact many cases of people who are looking after their properties with great care. The department is seeking to encourage ownership. It is leaning over backwards to do so, and because that is so, cases are constantly occurring where we have to take the people by the hand and drag them along to enable them to become good owners. If it were not for the sympathy and the attitude of compassion which the department displays towards them, they would not be good owners. However, the fact that we are cosseting them to such an extent eventually turns them into good owners. Some of them struggle and skip their rent payments for a month or two, but are nevertheless people who take an interest in their property. We have exceptional patience with those people who, although they do not pay regularly, nevertheless show that they can look after their places well and are proud of them. We are not keen to evict people like this. But if it continues, we will approach them one day and say: “Look, we are closing up now, my friend, let us discuss this matter, you cannot go on like this. After all, we have an obligation to the State and to the taxpayer. This money must be paid for a change.” What measures can we adopt now? This is our intention with this Bill.

As I have said, we must take an interest in the property that has been sold as long as money is owing on it. Of course we must realize that the property we have sold is perhaps surrounded by other properties which also belong to us and form part of a community. Repeated complaints are in fact received: “Cannot you please look after certain of your schemes? Look how neglected they are. Look how unfavourably they compare with other areas.” I pointed this out in my Second Reading speech.

Certain hon. members asked what other people we now wanted to send in as well to inspect people’s houses. I want to point out that the department has decided that it has become essential that it should have a division which would pay special attention to the environment and the maintenance of residential areas. That is why we have now appointed housing managers, with their own staffs. There are other people to whom rights of entry have been granted under the Act. However, that is not for this purpose. We now wish to give the housing managers as well the right to go and inspect an environment or a backyard, to go and speak to people and to look at properties themselves. They must ensure that the decay does not become irreparable and that maintenance costs do not soar. We are already doing a great deal in this connection. I can inform the hon. member for Durban Central that we have purchased quite a number of bush-cutters and tractors and are consequently trying to clean up the residential areas regularly. I am referring in particular now to the cutting of grass, to cleaning services and the picking up of papers, cardboard boxes, plastic material and bottles. We try to hold a big spring-clean at least once a month in every residential area. Of course this costs money, but in some places, particularly in the vicinity of Johannesburg, there is so much littering that it does not help much. Two days after the cleaners have left, it looks like the Wanderers or Newlands cricket grounds after a provincial match the previous day. We are doing our best, and as funds become available to us again we want to expand this cleaning task of the housing manager and empower him to ensure that houses do not become dilapidated, thus detrimentally affecting the value of the properties of other property owners. This is the background to the third leg of this legislation. There is nothing sinister in this legislation. We do not want to send out “snoopers” and more inspectors to prejudice people.

I think I have now furnished hon. members with the reasons as to why we want these measures at our disposal, and I think I have succeeded in allaying the suspicions of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? According to our analysis of the Bill powers are being allocated which may be used to evict people from their homes in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. The question is not whether it is the intention of the Government to use these powers, but whether new powers are in fact being conferred upon the Government by the Bill, powers which can be used?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is a definite “No”. If we do wish to remove people in terms of the Groups Areas Act, the Government does so in terms of the powers conferred upon it by the Group Areas Act. The Government does not need additional powers. However, I wish to concede that in respect of people living in certain areas of the country, areas that were originally given a certain group character by the provisions of the Group Areas Act, the Community Development Act comes into operation and the areas are being developed. District Six, for example, is such an area. But the powers that are being conferred upon the Government by this legislation have nothing to do with the eviction of people in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act I wish to concede that if a lessee falls behind with his rent in District Six, this continues and he refuses to move out when he has received proper notice—he cannot simply be taken by the scruff of his neck and evicted; the Act determines how action should be taken against him—because the arrear amount is already too high, he can, if he does not want to listen, be evicted. If he does not want to move even then, we can lock up his house in terms of the provisions of the Act. However, we do not evict him physically. The house is simply locked up, and negotiations are then held with him. As a last resort we can evict him if he refuses to pay, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the Group Areas Act.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether I understood him correctly to say that it has nothing to do with disqualified persons in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act, but that it does have a bearing on persons who fail to pay rent in arrears?

Perhaps I should put it to the hon. member a little more simply. What he and we are concerned with here is a matter of principle. He feels strongly that people should not be evicted from their homes in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. Here, however, we are dealing with a case in which certain areas came into the hands of the State after the areas had acquired a certain group character. Now the State is in danger of losing a vast amount of money. What does the hon. member for Sea Point think we ought to do if all the people in District Six who are still renting houses there suddenly refused to pay rent? Should we not—and this has nothing to do with the Group Areas Act—take action against such people, send them reminders, follow the usual procedures, do everything which we do in respect of other people and use this step as the eventual solution? Should we simply say to the District Six people that we will try everything, but if they do not pay, they can rest assured that we will never evict them from their homes? Then, surely, I could notify the people of District Six today already that they need not pay any further rent in future. Do hon. members understand my position now? [Interjections.] The hon. member now realizes my position. Once again I assure him that this Bill does not provide that we can evict people in terms of the Group Areas Act.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—122: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, R. P.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Olckers, R. de V.; Page, B. W. B.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; 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 Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, W. L. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen and A. J. Vlok.

Noes—15: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In order to clear up squatter conditions, it is necessary to demolish all shacks systematically as and when the occupants are resettled in proper accommodation. As a result of an obvious oversight, there is no provision in existing legislation in terms of which a shack built before 1977 with the approval of the owner, may also be demolished. The result is that the owner simply allows a new family of squatters to occupy the vacated shack, which make the clearing of such shacks practically impossible.

Furthermore, experience has taught us that squatter conditions often develop in the immediate vicinity of towns or cities, but outside the municipal boundaries. The second amendment is therefore aimed at establishing the necessary machinery, in consultation with local government, so that for the purposes of the provisions of the Illegal Squatting Act a local government can obtain jurisdiction over an area outside its jurisdiction where squatter conditions are developing.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches had hoped for a more detailed and satisfactory explanation by the hon. the Deputy Minister. What he is saying now is that in spite of the debates of 1977, in spite of the “stootskrapers” and all the trauma of Modderdam and Unibell, somehow or other there may still be some squatter dwellings that have got through the Government’s nets. He gives no specific examples of where this may be the case and what the nature of the problem is.

I think it is fair to say that there is a difference of approach between the Government and the official Opposition towards this problem. All of us consider squatting to be a problem. The Government considers squatting to be evil, while we believe squatting to be a symptom of the evil, a symptom of our socio-economic conditions, a symptom of the lack of employment in the rural areas, a symptom of the lack of housing and a symptom of the fact that people basically like to live as family units and that these family units should not be disturbed except in the most extreme circumstances. It is also a symptom of the natural urge in a developing society for people to move from the rural to the urban areas, the process of urbanization. We therefore do not see squatting as an evil in itself, but as a problem, which is a symptom of certain problems of a socio-economic kind and of the natural urge of people to live as a family unit. In the absence of an explanation by the hon. the Deputy Minister of a much more detailed nature than he has given us today, other than to say that the “Wet is ontoereikend”, we are not in favour of this Government having more powers than it has at the moment to demolish squatter camps and homes, to harass squatters and to evict them from whatever shelter they may have at the present time. We do not believe that the explanation which is given is satisfactory at all. The Bill changes the emphasis of the grounds on which you may destroy a squatter home from that where before you had to have the owner’s permission. Now, even if an owner has given permission for a squatter’s home to be erected, if he does not comply with municipal or local authority regulations, either the local authority or the Community Development Board, the Bantu Administration Board as it was called, can take action against him. Even in areas outside the municipal area, when no plans are required for an owner to permit this to take place, provision is now being made for the authorities to move in and to disturb that squatter family or squatter community. I find this aspect of the Bill most remarkable indeed. For the purposes of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act a local authority which has no authority over a certain piece of land is now going to be given authority over such a piece of land. At the time when such squatter camps were erected, they did not have to have the approval of the local authority. They were legitimately established and there were no laws whatsoever to prevent the owner giving his consent and the dwelling being built on that piece of land. In terms of this provision, not only is the owner not allowed to give his consent, or his consent is made irrelevant; in addition the area of jurisdiction of a local authority is moved outside of its formal authority to this new piece of territory. We find it an constitutional, political and administrative anomaly that local authorities, for the purposes of this Act only, can make their rules and regulations applicable in an area over which they had no authority in the past. I presume it can also be used against such good Samaritans as those who at the time of the dust, the tear-gas, the police dogs and the bulldozers last year, gave some people temporary sanctuary and revealed a humanitarian spirit towards them when they saw the tragedy of the plight of particular squatters whose camps had been disturbed and to whom no alternative accommodation had been given. I would assume that this is going to apply to such people as well. If some people, in such an emergency situation, act from a humanitarian point of view, this measure could be invoked in order to pull down those squatter shacks and to see to it that squatters are being driven out despite the fact that no alternative accommodation is provided for them.

This measure also contains certain other anomalies. It does not say that this is to be done with the approval of the local authority concerned. It merely says: “After consultation with that local authority.” I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the intention is that this is to be done with the approval of the local authority concerned, or is it merely to impose this on a local authority so that he or his department can act even if it is against the wishes of the particular local authority? Does “consultation with” mean “with the approval of"? If that is so, will the hon. the Deputy Minister accept an amendment to make that quite specific? Otherwise one can have a situation in which this device of extending the boundaries of a local authority is used not in the interests of the local authority, but in order to validate the actions of a community development board or the administration board of a particular area. Secondly, does this not lead to the possibility of the area of authority being taken away from one local authority and being given to another? For instance, if an area is under the control of a divisional council where no such regulations exist, or where they exist without the approval of the Minister, the authority will in fact be taken away from the divisional council and will be given to some neighbouring local authority. Or if one local authority did not act, could the Government therefore transfer the authority over squatters, even in that local authority area, to a different local authority?

I do not say all these things will happen. However, as we read the Bill, all three of these freak situations could arise if the Government finds that a local authority does not want to co-operate with it in the extending of its boundaries or that the local authority does not act as the Government would have acted in connection with squatters.

We realize that squatting is a problem. We see it as the manifestation, as the outward expression of a socio-economic problem of people who neither work nor have normal places of residence in the areas where they would otherwise be living. Therefore, we ask the Government not to continue to close up what they call the loopholes, not to see this problem primarily as one for which legislation should be increased, for which areas of jurisdiction should be increased. We recognize that certain steps have been taken, steps of a positive nature. Housing has been provided. We believe that the Crossroads squatter episode and the humanitarian approach which was shown by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is an example of the fact that it is not necessary to demolish shacks merely because people do not comply with regulations pertaining to squatting. They did not comply. However, the Government did not demolish their shacks. The Government said: “Let us first build a new town for all those squatters—not in the Ciskei, not in the Transkei, but on the very fringes of Crossroads—before we take any action.” We believe that that is the approach which should be taken. The Government’s approach should be positive. It should be orientated towards providing housing, community life, family life and employment. What it should not be geared to is more authority, the extension of authority with the object of demolishing squatter homes without seeing to it that the real alternative for full and proper living is made available to the people in those areas.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point did not make it quite clear whether he supported this Bill or not. Perhaps I did not quite hear what he said.

We are not going to support it.

The hon. member says he is not going to support it. It almost seemed to me that the hon. member was implying at one stage that he was in fact going to support it conditionally.

One is grateful for the fact that the official Opposition also understands the squatting problem. Now I want to request the hon. member for Sea Point today to accept the good faith of the Government, the good faith of the Government in its attempt to find a true and lasting solution to this problem as well. I think that if one looks at the achievements and the activities of the Department of Community Development in recent years, and one sees the planning that is going on, one has reason to accept the assurance given by the hon. the Minister that this problem can be completely solved within three to five years, depending on the funds available. In the light of that evidence, one really cannot quite understand some of their arguments. As far as the hon. member’s remark about Crossroads is concerned—I do not think the debate is specifically concerned with Crossroads—I just want to mention to him that the fact that there was some wrangling about what local authority or government authority was responsible for that particular place actually has nothing to do with this piece of legislation, because the situation exists in the Cape Province that areas which do not fall under municipal control are controlled by a divisional council.

As far as Crossroads is concerned, there was no problem in this connection, therefore. When we talk about Crossroads, there is a different principle at issue, and that is that specific persons and bodies advocated that illegal situations should be tolerated and that permanence should be granted in such cases. The Government objected to that, and naturally we are opposed to that.

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has made it quite clear that no new principle is at stake here. This is concerned with squatters’ huts which existed before 1977 and those erected subsequently. In the one case, such a hut may now be demolished, after the occupants have been properly accommodated, and in the other case such a hut may not be demolished. The only problem is that as long as an empty shack is standing, it will tempt another squatter to move into it. This is all we are trying to regulate in respect of that aspect of the legislation, to see to it that the repeated occupation of an existing shack erected before 1977 can sooner or later be stopped.

I believe it is already being proved in practice that people are not simply collared and thrown out. The hon. the Deputy Minister has also emphasized this. The hon. member for Sea Point will concede to me that when attempts were perhaps made a few years ago to do this, cases were heard in our magistrates’ courts and Supreme Courts, cases in which it was ruled that such people cannot be evicted unless they have been provided with alternative accommodation. I do not think we need argue about that aspect at all; these are the facts of the matter, and this will be done in the future as well.

The hon. member for Sea Point also mentioned the disruption of family life. Once again, I honestly do not know what this has to do with the matter, for the idea is not to resettle one member of such a community or family of squatters and then to demolish the shack, but to resettle the whole family or to take them to a final destination. So there is no disruption of family life, and that is really an irrelevant argument.

It seems to me that we really cannot remove the radical differences between us and the official Opposition concerning the handling of squatters. If I remember correctly, the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was still the chief spokesman on community development affairs, expressed the opinion that squatter communities should under certain circumstances be given permanence. He motivated it well from his point of view and even found some merit in it. We have already dealt with that matter, and it is a point on which we and the Opposition differ. We are not interested in giving permanence to any squatter community, irrespective of whether colour is a factor. In any event, I do not think colour enters into this legislation at all. A squatter is a squatter, irrespective of whether he is Brown, White or Black. Are we now to allow squatting, even if it is only because of the failure of the existing legislation to deal effectively with squatting which has been taking place since before 1977? Are we to allow the environment to be permanently disfigured just because the Opposition is opposed to the official Government policy? If this is so, we are not discussing the administration of these measures now, but we are discussing our policy, and then the principle Act becomes relevant again. Sir, I really do not think you will allow me to discuss that. For that reason, I am really disappointed about the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point used this argument.

The present Leader of the Opposition said in his no-confidence speech—if I remember correctly—that the official Opposition would support the Government in matters which it believed to be in the interests of South Africa. I want to make this statement across the floor of the House this afternoon: If the removal of squatters, in the way in which it is being done at the moment, is undertaken in a humane manner and leads to an improvement in the circumstances of those people—which means that they gain by it—surely this is in the interests of South Africa Then one would really expect the official Opposition to support this legislation, in accordance with the statement made by their leader, and to help the department to realize the splendid ideal it has set itself by resettling all squatters in South Africa within a maximum period of five years and providing them with decent housing. This could have been a splendid feather in South Africa’s cap if the Government and the Opposition could have agreed that this fine thing should be done so that all people in South Africa may be properly housed within the framework of what South Africa can afford.

One wonders, by the way, whether it is not in some people’s interests that squatters’ complexes and squatters’ shacks should remain, so that other enemies of South Africa will have something to photograph and to make films about for using against South Africa.

This legislation is merely an administrative arrangement. There is no new principle at stake. It is merely an attempt to solve the problem of squatting effectively, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said. It is also in the interests of South Africa. In addition, it will mean a saving for the State if one does not have to keep on evicting people from the same shack repeatedly. It really is demoralising to have to do that. Now the official Opposition is opposing all that. According to the hon. member for Sea Point, the existing discrimination should continue, because it is discrimination to distinguish between a squatter in a shack erected before 1977 and a squatter in a shack erected subsequently. [Interjections.] It is discrimination, and it is surprising that the official Opposition can be accused of being in favour of discrimination. According to the hon. member for Sea Point, however, he believes that that official discrimination should remain. A shack erected after 1977 may be demolished, but a shack erected before that time may not be demolished. [Interjections.] The deciding factor, then, is no longer a principle or a policy, nor has it anything to do with a sense of justice, a sense of fairness, humanity, compassion, or anything of that nature. The deciding factor has merely become a date. This, then, is the deciding factor in the one case, and in the other case, it is the boundary of a local authority. If these are our norms, I can only say that I think they are very distorted norms, norms which can only be maintained by a distorted Opposition. This Government cannot work according to such norms. We have other norms according to which we work, and for that reason, we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for False Bay said right at the outset that the point at issue was really the squatter shacks erected before 1977, and those erected after that date. Then, later, he came to his long dissertation on so-called discrimination with regard to that date. However, I do not think we can dispose of the matter so easily. If I remember correctly, there was a stage when certain promises were made or undertakings given in connection with existing shacks, when it was stated that specific legislation would only refer to new shacks that were erected. If, therefore, there has been discrimination, that discrimination originally came from the Government when they introduced the original legislation. That is how I see that point.

Let us look at clause 1 only now. If one were to place a narrow interpretation on it, one would be able to state that we are dealing here with a measure of alleviation or improvement, because in the past it was very obvious that any building or structure in the area of a particular local authority could be demolished without a court order. In terms of the new definition it has to be verified that it is indeed an unauthorized building.

†With that sort of application of the new definition it in fact means that the building has become an unauthorized building. It is made clear here that this is only intended in respect of buildings that were erected for occupation by people. In that way one could say it serves to limit the scope of the original legislation.

The problem of the NRP is really that one should read the particular provision in clause 1 in relation of what is stipulated in clause 2. I want to remind hon. members that it is not always the case that in a certain area one has a local authority and beyond that just a void where there is no local authority as such. In some provinces the divisional council is a local authority.

Only in Natal.

Yes, there are cases there. One even finds the situation there that in the final analysis the magistrate is deemed to be the local authority. My problem is in respect of the situation that can arise where a person with due permission and according to the existing requirements of a local authority erects a building which is in fact intended for occupation by people and which is therefore in fact an authorized building. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that various standards or requirements may apply under different local authorities. In some cases there may be health committees, divisional committees or municipalities. One will always find that the municipalities will naturally adopt far stricter regulations. This is the problem we have. If one looks at clause 2, one sees that nowhere is there approval sought of the local authority in whose area of jurisdiction the building was located before it was transferred. There is no reference to any consultation before the building is transferred from the area of jurisdiction of one local authority to that of another. Although a person may therefore in all good faith erect something according to the specific requirements of a local authority, he may find that as a result of a sudden extension of the boundary of jurisdiction of a local authority in terms of clause 2, an extension over which neither he nor the local authority in whose area of jurisdiction he was originally situated have any power whatsoever, the building may have to be demolished. That is the problem with which we are faced. The matter now goes much further than simply acting against squatters in this case. There will in fact be innocent victims. Unless we can get an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that clause 2 can be amended to make it quite clear that, once buildings have been authorized by a particular local authority, they can never be demolished, unless we can get an indication of an acceptance of that, we shall have to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we consider the points raised by the hon. member for Durban Central. I think he is completely wrong. We are dealing here with squatter legislation. There are no peri-urban or other boards in certain parts of Natal. It is true that the administrator has certain powers but magistrates very definitely have none. The fact that a magistrate may exercise his discretion in his magisterial district, does not give him control over buildings.

He approves of it …

The hon. member is talking about boroughs. That system in Natal is already outmoded. When one talks about the local authority system and one takes the south coast of Natal for example, it is a disgrace and one of these days someone will have to do something about it, because the boroughs system is causing a problem. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the law as it stands today.

*It is important that attention be given to the problem of squatting in South Africa. We have been saddled for the past number of years with the problem of squatting and with the sanctimonious talk of people who encourage the squatters. I know of no country where an Opposition or any person, except radical humanists and certain individual persons, has taken up the cudgels on behalf of squatters. Squatting in any form is illegal, but not all squatters squat illegally, and that is the great problem as far as squatting is concerned. The great problem with squatting is that a child is allowed to grow up in circumstances for which he cannot be blamed. The child finds himself in circumstances from which there is no escape for him. Then one still finds hon. members of the highest authority in the country, namely, Parliament, interceding on behalf of the squatters because it suits their political ends. For their own political reasons they are willing simply to leave women and children in places unfit for human habitation.

Do you want them to live apart?

I do not want to speak to the “red Pope” at this stage. I shall address the hon. member when we deal with communistic statements.

The hon. member for Sea Point referred to Crossroads. I want to ask him whether he wants us to leave the structures vacated by the people at Crossroads as they are or whether we should demolish them? [Interjections.] Answer the question. You remember that you did not answer the three questions I put to you on the last occasion.

Order! The hon. member must refer to another hon. member as “the hon. member”.

On a previous occasion, when the hon. member for Sea Point was still a front-bencher, I put three questions to him and he still owes me a reply. He is no longer a front-bencher. I would not like him to be moved further back. I want to know from the hon. member whether we should leave the hovels in which the people used to live at Crossroads so that new occupants can move in?

We do not need this legislation for that.

The hon. member must not hide behind this legislation. Does the hon. member want a position to arise where, six months hence, we shall again have to remove 40 000 people from those hovels at Crossroads?

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

That is precisely what it is all about. We are discussing the prevention of illegal squatting and that includes the demolition of hovels which, if left intact, will enable other squatters to move in.

I come now to the position of local authorities. At the moment there are many people—there are probably more of them in Natal than in any other province—who farm with squatters. They know whom we are talking about. They farm with squatters. In other words, their land is situated outside a municipal area and they allow squatters to live on their land for a price. No water is laid on and no other services are provided for those squatters.

We have a situation in this country in which the non-Whites are being uplifted and the Whites are slowly but surely making many sacrifices in order to provide the non-Whites with housing, because we know that many of these non-Whites have to be uplifted and that there is only one pool from which the necessary money can be drawn. A situation will also arise in this country when, in times of over-supply when there are problems, people will ask themselves whether it would not be better for them to become squatters because that will enhance their chances of getting a house. Then it will not be necessary for them to stand in a queue in order to get a house; all they need do is simply to squat and they will be allocated a house. Those hon. members are aggravating the problems we are trying to solve.

In 1926 a newspaper like The Cape Times published an article in this connection. I do not think the Group Areas Act was on the Statute Book in 1926. As far back as 1926 The Cape Times already gave the answer. They used an article which had appeared in the Spectator at the time, as an example. They enumerated the adverse effects squatting had on people and stated that immediate steps should be taken—

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am merely drawing the attention of hon. members to the facts as far as squatting is concerned. If we support this Bill today, we shall to a great extent be helping to prevent all the problems to which I have referred.

Sir, I could tell you things about what is probably the greatest slum area in the world that I have visited. I think our people and the PFP will understand when one talks about places like Tigerbaum Gardens and other places where the UN have been trying for years now to bring about improvements.

However, without legalized action the problem cannot be solved. One cannot simply allow people to continue erecting shacks day after day and then vacating them for the next squatter to move in. The greatest problem experienced in this regard, for example—we have legislation in this connection—is that the period of notice is of such long duration that one’s entire case collapses before one can evict the offender.

We have to bring it home to the people of this country that the squatter of today may be the tenant of an attractive house tomorrow. The tendency to squat must be removed from the minds of our people. The tendency to squat is something which is passed down from one generation to the other and the sociological reports we have had over the past few years, as well as the views expressed by people like Domingo, show that the level of education of a child who has grown up in a squatter camp is no higher than that of his father who grew up under similar circumstances. There are no social amenities in those places. There are no social amenities in the true sense of the word. The urge to destroy is rampant in a squatter camp. This, together with the sense of insecurity, in fact constitutes one of the major problems of a squatter camp, not the cold and the rain. For that reason we ask the Opposition to think about this seriously. They must give serious consideration to this measure by means of which further squatting, especially in areas where it is on the increase today as in Natal, can be prevented.

Mr. Speaker, it was really very touching to observe the way in which the hon. member for Langlaagte pleaded the cause of the children, the wives and particularly the young girls of our nation. He spoke about the severe suffering these people had to endure as a result of the fact that they had to live in squatter camps and squatter areas. He also referred to the fact that children were reared in those camps and that they were subjected to conditions to which they would rather not have been subjected had they had the choice.

However, the important point the hon. member should not forget in this regard, is the fact that people do not squat for the sake of their health. As the hon. member for Sea Point has stated so clearly, squatting is a symptom of another extremely big problem. Had there been sufficient housing, more specifically in the Western Cape and in South Africa generally, and had there not been restrictive measures which precluded certain race groups from living in an area and forced them to go elsewhere in order to make a living, squatting would in all probability have been a minor problem in South Africa, a problem that would hardly have called for legislation to solve. Unfortunately, the opposite is true.

The mere fact that the hon. member for Langlaagte had to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he would prefer the Government not to demolish the hovels in certain parts of the Western Cape from which the occupants had been evicted, but to leave them standing so that within a few months’ time another 40 000 people would have to be evicted, illustrates the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore, the fact that he regards it as probable that empty hovels that can house 40 000 people will again be full within a few months’ time, in fact points to the scope and seriousness of the problem. As long as hon. members opposite do not try to get to the very root of this problem, as long as this problem remains unsolved and as long as they simply try to treat the symptoms of this problem rather than the root cause of it, squatting in South Africa will continue to be a problem and we shall have to live with it for years to come.

I predict that the extent to which this piece of legislation gives more bite to the original Act will make no difference to squatting and to the extent to which squatting takes place in South Africa. It will make no difference. It may probably cause greater suffering and cause more problems to certain people but it will make very little, if any, difference to the extent to which squatting is taking place now because the reasons why people squat are not in any way dealt with in the legislation before us today. I am not suggesting that nothing should be done about it. A great deal of money is being spent on providing housing but there is still a very big shortfall. No hon. member in this House will deny that. As long as that problem remains unsolved, this kind of legislation will have a negative effect and it is hopeless to think that it will yield anything positive.

Mr. Speaker, squatting, of course, is not a problem that is peculiar to South Africa. I think it is a problem in every developing country, especially in Africa. As far as the squatting problem in Africa is concerned, hon. members opposite may perhaps find it interesting to study the methods employed by other countries in this regard, countries which criticize South Africa daily. As a sociologist who should have made a study of this, I think their hon. leader is fully aware of the position. The action taken against squatters in Africa, South America and the East can in no way be compared with the humane action taken by ourselves in South Africa. One cannot get away from this fact, Sir. The most interesting case of squatting I have ever come across is in Hong Kong. One finds it in a certain part of that colony called “the walled city” and it comprises approximately eight morgen. This area does not belong to the British. Technically it belongs to the Chinese, but it falls outside their jurisdiction, a position which is typical of the position we are providing for in this legislation. “The walled city” lies beyond the periphery of Hong Kong and it is estimated that some 80 000 people live there. Some people estimate the figure to be 160 000. The reason why the exact number cannot be determined is the fact that there is no law or order in that area. No sanitary or water facilities are provided for those people. The British authorities do not want to become involved in the problem because they are afraid of the unfavourable publicity that may flow from it. Neither do the Chinese authorities want to become involved in the problem and they advance as their reason the fact that the area is surrounded by British territory and that in consequence they cannot take action. I visited that area and, as in the case of the inhabitants of most other squatter camps, those people are very peace-loving. They steal water and electricity from the British authorities in Hong Kong without paying for it. This is a practical example, Sir, of what can happen here if this legislation is not passed. The highest crime rate in Hong Kong is to be found in that squatter town. Its health services are also the poorest and, taking everything into consideration, that is the one area in the entire colony in which the most appalling conditions prevail.

The object of this legislation is to prevent a similar situation from developing here. I would have expected the representatives from Natal to support this legislation. It is an accepted fact that the Cape Province is not actually faced with this problem because, as the hon. member for Sea Point has rightly said, we have either municipalities or divisional councils here that have jurisdiction over certain areas. Even in the Transvaal and in the Free State this is not a serious problem. The hon. member for Durban Central advanced a very interesting argument. I do not see him here at the moment …

Here he is.

Oh yes, there he is. I am sorry, but he looks different from the back than he does from the front so I did not recognize him. As I understood the hon. member, he has no problem with clause 1 but with clause 2.

Read together.

In that case, what I find interesting is this: If one accepts clause 1(b) one is obliged to accept clause 2 as well. I shall tell the hon. member why. The proposed new section 3B(1)(b) provides that an officer of a local authority may without an order of court demolish any building or structure which—

1. (i) is intended for occupation by persons;
2. (ii) does not comply with the requirements of any legal provision under which a plan or description is to be approved by the local authority before the building or structure may be erected; …

When one reads and accepts that, one is also obliged to accept clause 2. The hon. member said that the magistrate was per se in control of the area. However, the magistrate has no jurisdiction as far as health services or the erection of structures, for example, is concerned. Therefore, when one accepts the provision contained in clause 1, namely, that there must be an authority, one has in consequence to accept clause 2. Surely there has to be an authority that has to see to it that certain legal provisions such as building regulations for example, are complied with. Therefore, when one accepts the proposed section 1(b) it would appear as if clause 2 is merely consequential.

If you are right then we are against clause 2 as well.

Well, when one solves the problem for the hon. member and his brain remains in reverse, one can do nothing further to help him. I am sorry. I thought I had solved the problem for the hon. member. I am merely pointing out to him the logic of this specific Bill.

As the hon. member for False Bay has remarked, the arguments advanced by hon. members of the PFP are not very cogent. The hon. member for Sea Point says—

… this, that and the other thing.

†Be it as it may, the hon. member for Sea Point continues to argue that he cannot support this Bill because if a particular squatters’ camp, for some reason or other, falls outside the jurisdiction of a local authority it may have been legitimately established. I fail to see the validity of such an argument. Firstly, if such squatter camp falls outside the jurisdiction of a local authority, there is no authority that could have legalized its establishment. Secondly, I have never come across any squatter camp or squatter settlement that has been legalized in circumstances in which the provisions of this legislation would apply. If circumstances such as those depicted by the hon. member for Sea Point were to occur, the whole issue would fall within the ambit of a particular local authority. Then that local authority or even the department would not necessarily be compelled to take action. Therefore, as far as I can see, that argument is not valid.

Referring to incidents last year in which tear gas was used, the hon. member for Sea Point said certain good Samaritans had housed people on humanitarian grounds. However, such people were not housed outside local authority areas. They were in fact accommodated right inside local authority areas. Such local authorities have the right, in terms of the authority granted to them, to take action.

This is a very short Bill and I fail to understand why hon. members opposite put up such a big performance about it. These are purely and simply two administrative measures which, I thought, would simply be allowed to pass. The third argument used, the one of imposing upon a local authority, I also fail to understand. I cannot see the reason for that objection at all. If it should fall under the authority or within the authority sphere of an existing local authority I fail to see why the Minister should consider taking it away from that authority and giving it to another local authority. I fail to see why the Minister should ever consider anything like that.

*I believe the position in a nutshell is this: That the arguments advanced by the Official Opposition are not the real reasons for their opposition to the legislation in question. I think they have an ulterior motive in advancing those arguments although it is not clear to me at this stage what that motive is. The legislation before the House is obviously an honest and sincere attempt to avoid this type of danger and to solve the problems that flow from it. I think hon. members, especially those representing Cape Town constituencies—therefore the hon. member for Sea Point as well—ought to be aware of the fact that we are faced with practical problems here in the Western Cape, problems which this legislation will assist in solving. Other provinces are also experiencing real problems and for that reason I believe that the members from Natal, in particular, ought to support this legislation. I myself foresee no problems in this connection and with these few words, Sir, I strongly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not try to persuade the hon. member for Sea Point and his colleagues to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, because it touches on a principle on which we disagree. I accept that, and with that in mind I want now to furnish the explanations for which they asked. I know that no matter what I say the hon. member and his colleagues will not support the Bill.

To begin with, I want to say that the hon. member for Sea Point and members of the Opposition said here that they did not regard the legislation as a problem but rather as a symptom of a problem.

An evil.

They regard it as a symptom of an evil. We are not inflexible as regards the whole situation but the fact remains that this Government, when it came to power, inherited a legacy in this connection which created many problems for us. [Interjections.] We have still not completed that task. This arose as a result of the “let it ride” attitude which is the policy of the hon. member for Sea Point even now, a let-things-develop policy, do not use pressure, do not stop them, let this one squat and let that one squat and in any case do not evict them. That hon. member’s attitude has not altered in this regard since 1948, and as a result of that sort of attitude adopted by governments before us in this country in connection with squatting, we in this country inherited a legacy of which we as Whites cannot be proud. There was a scandalous slum situation in South Africa. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on this matter again today, but the fact remains that social circumstances developed as a reesult of this evil, circumstances which cried to high heaven. I think that if this Government has one just claim, it is to claim for itself the appreciation and praise for what it has done to set up decent societies in South Africa. By that I do not want to convey that people were not hurt in the process.

A former Minister of Community Development said that a price would have to be paid by Whites as well as people of other colours as a result of the Group Areas Act and the process of the clearance of slum areas and other stigmas in our communities. Unfortunately, most of our people who lived under these terrible circumstances were the underprivileged, the non-Whites. When I say that we rendered this service to South Africa, I must add that it was a lengthy and difficult process which cost South Africa many millions of rands. No hon. member opposite would have the courage of his convictions and stand up here today and tell us we should never have done it. The hon. member for Pinelands would not dare say that. [Interjections.] We did it, and what do those hon. members ask now? They ask that what we have achieved over the years with great difficulty and at great expense we should now break down and undermine by adopting an attitude of “let things develop”. We have to yield a little here and yield a little there and one of these days our slum areas will look the same as they did then. Hon. members asked: “Why not kill the spider?” I had a friend, Major Berman of the Cape Town City Council, who always had to criticize the budget in the provincial council. With almost every budget he came up with the stereotyped story of the Sunday School pupil who always stood up when the teacher gave him the opportunity to do so and opened his prayer with: “Oh Lord, take the cobwebs from my eyes.” One day, when this child started in the same way, another child came out with: “Oh Lord, kill the spider.” Those hon. members ask why we have not done something to improve those social conditions. But is there an hon. member in this House who will say that there was ever a government in South Africa that did more than this Government has done to give people better housing, particularly the lower income groups, the lower paid groups, those who lived under corrugated iron in hovels? During the discussions in Johannesburg last year did a Brown man not stand up and say: No matter how one tries to differ with this Government, there is one thing which stands out clearly and that is that this Government has done wonders in respect of Coloured housing?

And you spoil it with negative legislation.

No. This year again, within a single year, as the hon. the Minister said here the other day, we have built 43 000 houses, and in respect of the vast majority of houses that we have built, especially during the past few years, the accent has shifted from the provision of housing for the White group to the non-White group. The largest portion of the money that we spend on the houses we build has been spent on housing for Coloureds, Indians and Black people. I do not think anyone can justifiably stand up in this House, or in South Africa, and ask what we are doing to improve those social conditions through the provision of housing. This, after all, lies at the root of the solution to the problem of squatting—that people should have a decent roof over their heads. Is that not so? I ask the hon. member for Green Point. [Interjections.] What more can the Government do with the limited funds at its disposal? After all, we do not have limitless amounts of money at our disposal. What more can a Government do than this Government has done over the years to provide housing for these people? We have done wonderful work. There is not a country on this planet on which we live that has done as much for the housing of its people as South Africa has done through this Government. [Interjections.] Name me one from America to Siberia. In this connection our country has an unequalled record and the hon. members cannot dispute that.

In proportion to our population.

Yes, of course, in proportion to our inhabitants, as the hon. the Minister says. [Interjections.] In this respect I must also tell hon. members what we have done specifically regarding the clearance of squatter camps. We still have some of the 39 467 slum dwellers today, and hon. members must realize that the problem is still a big one notwithstanding everything we have already done. Of the 39 467 slum dwellers there are still 23 863 remaining. This is no small number, although we have reduced the number by more than 15 613. In the Peninsula alone we have reduced the number of slum dwellers from 26 000 to approximately 13 000.

We have therefore made progress, but we cannot accept the principle of squatting in this country or try to justify it because then we will have lost the fight. In addition, we say that we will not evict a man from his home, no matter how modest or lowly, until we have provided him with an alternative decent place to live. Is that not fair? Is that not Christian? What more can we do than that?

Who asked you to do that at Crossroads?

Crossroads is not at issue now. Crossroads is an exceptional case for which exceptional measures had to be taken. This shows the care the Government takes when dealing with such problems in the country.

We saw it with Marais’s front-end loaders.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Central, who adopts a more moderate attitude in this matter, and other members who have amendments, to put those amendments on the Order Paper. After all, we shall not take all the stages of this Bill today. The hon. member for Durban Central must therefore put his amendment on the Order Paper so that we can have a look at it. I cannot decide across the floor if there is any merit in it, and the same applies to the hon. member for Sea Point. Let us look at them properly. I am not unsympathetic. We must not act arbitrarily against the slum dwellers; they are the lowest group in our society, the people in regard to whom we must exercise our Christian duty and guardianship with compassion, and in this connection we accept no lessons from any priest or other person in the Opposition. The hon. member for Durban Central says the local authorities have the right, under existing legislation, to demolish slums in their areas of jurisdiction. If they do not want to do it, officials of the State, of our department, who are authorized, or officials of the Department of Co-operation and Development, can do it. As far as the local authorities are concerned, there is no chance of getting away with it. Under the Act they are compelled to take action and, if they neglect to do so, we act on their behalf and we recover the costs from them.

The hon. member for Sea Point specifically asked me a few questions. He wanted to know if the jurisdiction of one local authority could be transferred to another when it came to a case where one gave the right to a local authority to act outside its local jurisdiction in terms of the Bill. I shall give an illustration. If the Cape Town City Council refused to do certain things, say in the divisional council area, i.e. outside its area, could we then not instruct the divisional council to do so? No. There is no such provision in the Act and this cannot be read into it either. The whole problem is thus restricted to Natal. That aspect of the Act applies only to Natal. The problem is not encountered in the other provinces. In the Cape there are the divisional councils, i.e. local authorities, which cover the whole area. In the Transvaal there is the Peri-Urban Areas Board and in the Orange Free State there is a control board which exercises authority over smallholdings. These bodies combat these conditions in and around the cities and municipalities. The problem is therefore confined to Natal. Hon. members of the PFP need therefore not be afraid because they have no say in Natal. They must leave this matter to hon. members of the NRP. [Interjections.]

The hon. member put a further question. He wanted to know if the department would step in if a local authority, after it had been consulted, adamantly refused to clear a disturbing squatter camp in its area. Would the department then step in and force the local authority to do it by extending the area of jurisdiction on the part of the government? Yes, that can be done. But that only applies to a limited part of the Republic. Should a municipality refuse to act in such a case, after we had consulted them, it is theoretically possible that we could give them the jurisdiction and they would then have to act But that does not normally happen. Normally we are approached by a local authority and asked, because illegal squatting in the area concerned has reached serious proportions and because they do not have the authority to act, if we will assist them in this connection.

The legislation before the House has been born of necessity. The hon. member also asked what would happen if a local authority did not want to exercise those functions and did not want to exercise the jurisdiction we give them. The Department of Community Development has no powers to act in terms of the provisions of the Slums Act. Such jurisdiction falls under the local authorities. But we have no fears that the local authorities will not carry out those obligations in terms of the provisions of the Slums Act. So we do not need legislation in this connection and we do not expect any problems in this connection. Should we one day be faced with a problem municipality which does not want to co-operate with us, we will have to consider the problem, but at the moment there is nothing we can do to take a municipality by the scruff of the neck and force it to do something in a particular case. The local authority must act in terms of the provisions of existing legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the department will assist an authority with the necessary funds and so forth if the onus is placed on a smaller local authority to clear an area?

Yes, we always do that. We have the right to do so. We work closely with the local authorities and we receive their fullest co-operation, particularly from the authorities in Natal. That is why we have no problem in this connection. We always help the smaller authorities.

I should like to take this opportunity to sketch the background to what has happened for those hon. members who apparently do not know how these things are done. The amending Bill of 1977 provided that from the date of commencement of the Act no person could erect a building which did not comply with a plan, specifications or prescriptions laid down by a local authority. Nobody could erect an unauthorized structure after 1977. If such an unauthorized structure existed on someone’s property, and it was vacant, that person could not allow it to be occupied. But if such a structure existed in which there were already people living, the local health officer had to ascertain if there was any health risk or safety risk in regard to that structure. If such a safety or health risk existed, that structure had to be demolished within seven days, unless, of course, that person had made use of his right of appeal. In such a case he was always allowed seven days’ grace after the judgment. That was the situation. If in 1977 a structure existed which had been erected without his consent, he could remove it himself, and if he did not remove it, the authorized local authority officials could do so or officials of the Department of Community Development or of the Department of Co-operation and Development could be instructed to do so. We had that authority. We could remove such structures that had been erected prior to 1977 without the consent of the owner and recover the costs from the owner if he did not want to take action himself.

But if a structure did exist at that stage—and this is the point I want to emphasize—which had not been built according to a plan which complied with the local building regulations or local prescriptions, we could have it removed. It must be remembered that in this connection I am only referring to that sort of building. We are not giving authority or instructions here whereby buildings erected before 1977 and which had been built according to a plan which complied with building regulations and the requirements of a local authority, can be demolished. It is only buildings and structures which do not comply with those requirements that can be demolished. But if a building had been built prior to 1977 with the consent of the owner and proof can be produced by a squatter or an occupier that the lessor had the title right to lease it to him, we have made the concession that this can be condoned and that those people who lived there prior to 1977 with the consent of the owner can remain. We have made it clear to those people what our intentions are and told them that in future we will not tolerate it. But because we were very far behind in 1977 in respect of the provision of housing and found it much more difficult to provide the people with alternative housing than is the case today, we made that concession to enable us too to catch up and make alternative housing available, because it has always been our policy not to evict anybody from such a structure if we cannot give them alternative housing. For that reason it was not really practical in 1977.

Obviously we had to allow it then because we could do nothing about it at that stage. We are still doing it. Notwithstanding the fact that we are now taking the power to demolish those structures which we condoned in 1977, we nevertheless give the assurance that nobody in such a structure will be evicted if there is not proper alternative housing available to him. What can be more reasonable than that? There are still 23 000 of these cases, and we cannot give them all alternative accommodation within the foreseeable future; in other words, the greater majority of them will have to continue as they are today until we can give them alternative accommodation. But once we have taken all the trouble to provide alternative accommodation, once the squatter is taken from the slum and placed in proper housing, when we turn your back the owner puts another family in the slum and this makes it very frustrating. No right-thinking person here will tell me that this is a tenable situation that we can tolerate …

You set difficult conditions.

Of course! No, Sir, we just cannot allow it. The point is that we just want the right where we provide alternative accommodation, to ensure that the owner does not have the opportunity to put another squatter family in there and so undo all our good work.

I think we have shown good faith and we are still engaged, as far as the question of the resettlement of squatters is concerned, in doing our utmost with the available means at our disposal. We are trying to remove those things which cannot be tolerated in a Christian oriented society, those things which do us no credit in our wonderful country, this wonderful country that has an ever-increasing number of tourists visiting it. During the approach to D. F. Malan, I always pray that the tourists are not at that moment looking out of the windows of the aircraft. Why do we have to live with this sort of thing? Why should it be our ideal, as it is the ideal of the hon. member for Sea Point, to have these conditions? Should we not do something better for the people in this country? Here we have people sitting pretty in rich, well-established suburbs who have no feeling for the people living under a bush. But the Government takes a different view of this matter. That is why we do not want the hon. member to adopt a sanctimonious attitude and point a finger at us. We are doing our best in a Christian way.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—114: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, R. P.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; 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 Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, W. L. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen and A. J. Vlok.

Noes—24: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; 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.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the Parliamentary session of 1979, as all hon. members know, a joint committee, later converted into a parliamentary commission, was appointed, to consider the drafting of a new Constitution for the Republic of South Africa. The Commission is today known as the Schlebusch Commission and will probably submit proposals to this House during this session of Parliament. This Commission is in no way bound by proposals already made by the Government in connection with a possible new Constitution. Therefore it is quite possible that this commission may produce acceptable proposals which may affect the continued existence of an Indian Council constituted in terms of the provisions of the S.A. Indian Council Amendment Act, 1978. If this were to happen, and the Council to be elected this year had to be dissolved, this would mean that all the expenses incurred in holding the election would have been to no purpose. Here I am thinking not only of the expenses incurred by the State, but much rather of expenses incurred by candidates and political parties. My information is that many candidates were to have taken part in the election.

I sincerely believe, therefore—and I believe all hon. members will agree with this—that it would be unjust towards every member if the council were to be dissolved shortly after having been constituted, because it does not fit into the new proposals.

Another aspect is that it has struck me, in conversations with members of the Indian public, that these people found it difficult to decide exactly what their political approach to the election of members to the Indian Council should be. In my opinion, this doubt exists in the minds of these people because they cannot determine exactly where they will fit into the new dispensation, nor do they understand what their position in the country will be.

It is purely for these reasons, therefore, and for no other consideration, and also because the Indian Council has addressed a definite request to me in this connection, that I have decided, after mature consideration, to introduce this piece of legislation and to ask all hon. members to support the measure. In this way, we shall retain the services of the present Indian Council, while representation in accordance with the accepted proposals of the Schlebusch Commission can then be introduced at the earliest opportunity. Time and money will also be saved, while the Indians will be enabled to form a clearer impression of what their future position in the country will be. Then they will also be able to decide for themselves with an open mind what school of thought within Indian politics they themselves wish to support.

With regard to the Bill I just want to explain that Proclamation 262 of 1979 was promulgated to cause certain sections of the S.A. Indian Council Amendment Act, 1978, to come into operation on 16 January 1980. These sections had to be brought into operation to make it possible to promulgate the next proclamation concerning nomination day and election day. The State law advisers were of the opinion that if these sections were brought into operation, the old council could not continue to exist, and for that reason, the term of office of the members of the council was extended only to 15 January 1980 by proclamation 262 of 1979.

What is now being done, therefore, is to extend the term of office of the members of the council and to repeal proclamation 262 of 1979.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. the Minister with a good deal of interest and with not a little amazement at the motivation he has given for introducing this measure here today.

The Bill seeks to extend the life of the Indian Council. Now, our attitude to the principle of an accepted legislative body for the Indian community or, for that matter, for any other racial community, is well known. We are opposed to separate racial or ethnic institutions and we believe that the political aspirations of all South Africans should be met by joint participation in the same legislative processes and institutions. However, because for the present we have to see matters within the framework of Government policy, we believe that if we are going to have an Indian Council and if that council is going to continue to operate it should be a fully elected body, which can at least claim to be representative of the Indian community. As things stand now the council whose life we are being asked to extend, even in the exercise of its very limited functions, cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Indian people of South Africa. It is partly elected and partly nominated, and it is more and more resented by the Indian people for this reason when it purports to speak on their behalf. A separate racial institution is bad enough in itself, but to perpetuate a situation in which the institution is not even fully elected by the people whose views it is supposed to represent, is adding insult to injury as far as the Indian community of South Africa is concerned. The more we extend the life of a body such as this, the more we bring it into disrepute with the people it is supposed to represent. The council has been aware of its own limitations in the past. When it rejected the Government’s constitutional proposals of 1977 in the first instance it gave, as one of its reasons, the fact that it felt that because it was not an elected body, it could not speak on behalf of the Indian community on so important matter as a new constitution for South Africa. Since then there has been an apparent commitment, on the part of the Government, to remedy this defect, and one wonders once again whether what we are witnessing this afternoon is not a case of great expectations having been created and the Government now being unable to deliver the goods. There was a registration of voters, apparently a very effective and very successful registration of voters in which 70% to 80% of those who were eligible to register as voters, for election to the Indian Council, participated.

You admit it was successful.

Of course it was successful. I have admitted that in previous debates. It was a very effective registration of voters, but this was a case of creating expectations among the Indian people. There was obviously some excitement about the fact that for once they would be able to participate in an election to elect their own council, for what purpose is, of course, another matter. Then there was a delimitation commission—we have heard a good deal about this through the years—to delimit constituency boundaries. There has also been a grouping and a regrouping of people into political parties, again in anticipation of the election of the Indian Council. There has been a succession of projected dates on which the election would take place. Last year the House was told, was led to believe, that the election would take place during November 1979, and later it was announced that the election could be expected to take place in March 1980. This was again a case of high expectations being given rise to by the Government’s attitude and policies. However, we are now told that because of the operation of the Schlebusch Commission the life of the Indian Council, in its present form, is to be extended, and that the promised election is not going to take place. When this matter was debated in this House last year, we were given entirely the opposite reason. When we discussed the Indian Electoral Amendment Bill, the hon. the Minister said, during the Third Reading of the Bill, in reply to a question raised by an hon. member on that side of the House, and I quote from column 3697 of Hansard of 30 March 1979—

That is the Schlebusch Select Committee which was announced on the same day the hon. the Minister made this speech—

That was what he said last year: We should like those bodies, because of the operation of the Schlebusch Commission, to be fully-elected and represented bodies. This afternoon he comes here and gives exactly the opposite reason by saying: Because of the Schlebusch Commission, we cannot allow it to be an elected and fully-represented body. He went on to say—

That is what the Minister says. I quote further—

Now what are we to believe? Was the hon. the Minister talking nonsense then, or has he been talking nonsense this afternoon? There is, however, a third alternative. Perhaps he has been talking nonsense on both occasions. [Interjections.] It is certainly a situation which is totally ridiculous. The hon. the Minister comes along with this sort of reason, which is diametrically opposed to the reason given last year when the hon. the Minister took part in that debate. Why the change? What is the real reason for the change? Can it be that the Government is afraid it will get the same sort of rebuff from the elected representatives of the Indian community in South Africa that it has already received from the elected representatives of the Coloured people in South Africa? Can this perhaps be the reason, that already they know that the sort of reaction they might get to their constitutional proposals from the Indian community will be similar to that which they received from the Coloured community?

What have we received from the Coloured community?

If so, why is the Government afraid to proceed with this sort of election?

You do not know what you are talking about.

The hon. the Minister does not know what he is talking about, and how must we know what he is talking about when he talks with two different voices from one parliamentary session to the next? After putting together all the trappings of a voters’ roll and a delimitation commission, and after all the promises of an election for the Indian people, why is the Government really afraid, at this stage, to proceed with that election, so that at least when there are representations from those people, to the commission, they will know that these are representations that come from the Indian community itself? How long must we wait? How long must everything in South Africa stand in abeyance until the Schlebusch Commission has completed its task, and why should it?

This is not the only matter that is being dealt with in this way. The Government’s rejection of the extended powers offered to the local affairs committees in Natal has also been based on the argument that it is premature and might prejudice the workings of the Schlebusch Commission. Now we get the same argument advanced in regard to the Indian Council. Must all progress in this country come to a halt or to a standstill because of what is apparent confusion or indecisiveness in Government ranks, or perhaps fear, as I have said, of the reaction they may get from properly-elected representatives of the people?

We have seen this sort of thing take place before when the life of legislative bodies and their representatives is extended simply in order to cater for a Government which seems to have lost its direction in many instances. It is thoroughly bad, in principle, simply to extend the life of a body of this kind.

We also saw it previously, in this House, when the political, the parliamentary, life of the Coloured representatives in this House was extended time and time again. We also saw it when the life of the Other Place was extended from time to time. So we have bodies of this kind being made, by the Government, to live on borrowed time. It is the belief of this side of the House that it hardly enhances the prestige of these institutions, and the systems involved, if we go along with this sort of process. I believe that what the hon. the Minister is seeking to do this afternoon, by extending the life of this council, is a cynical act that will operate to the detriment of the standing of any sort of council within the Indian community. I believe that as a result the Indian Council will be seen as a far greater farce, in the future, than it has been in the past and it will therefore be less and less acceptable to the Indian community. For these reasons we on this side of the House are going to oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to the comments of the hon. member for Musgrave it is necessary, in my view, that we should perhaps consider certain basic premises in connection with this legislation. Otherwise we cannot conduct a meaningful debate at all. We should merely be arguing in circles unless we agree on certain basic premises. I wish to mention these premises right at the outset for if the Opposition agrees that in point of fact that is what this whole piece of legislation is all about, we may perhaps have a meaningful debate on this whole matter.

In the first place it is a fact that the present Indian Council is a statutory institution, an authoritative body which the Government must of necessity take into account. The Government cannot summarily ignore the wishes of such an existing, established constitutional body. I think the hon. member for Musgrave really ought to agree with this statement.

The second aspect of the matter is that the proposed new constitutional dispensation is the subject of a discussion and an inquiry by a Select Committee of Parliament, which is dealing with the matter at the moment. The findings and recommendations of this committee must of necessity have a substantial influence on the basis on which any election, even that of the Indian Council, has to be held.

In the third place I wish to point out that this Bill is not intended to extend the existence of the present Indian Council and the method of constituting that body ad infinitum. Just as the hon. member for Musgrave expressed the wish of the official Opposition, it is also the wish of the Government that we should ultimately have a fully elected body, since that is the only equitable way in which we can designate the true leaders of the Indian population.

If, therefore, we accept these premises before we debate on these matters, I think it makes somewhat of a farce of the objection which the official Opposition has to this matter. The Government cannot consider the requests of every self-appointed mouthpiece of the Indian population or of any other population group. Nor can we fail to appreciate the extremely important role which the Indian Council has played, even in its present form. I know it has already become a habit to disparage the Indian Council at every opportunity. However, that council has achieved a very great deal during its period of existence.

If we consider the impressively long list of achievements of the present Indian Council, there is no reason why it should not continue to function for yet another year or even longer until the new constitutional dispensation has been finalized. The people who are saying “they have achieved absolutely nothing” do not know what they are talking about. I have here an impressively long list of the achievements of the Indian Council over the years. I do not wish to tire the House with this. I think all hon. members are acquainted with them. Perhaps some of the subsequent speakers could go into that specifically.

It must also again be clearly emphasized that it is not the abolition of the council that is being sought, but merely an extension of time, which I think is a reasonable request under the circumstances and one which we shall take a closer look at later on.

I wish to pay tribute here to the council for the responsible manner in which it has acted as a statutory body over the years. It is precisely as a result of that responsible action that the Government sees its way clear to considering the next step of its constitutional development and to entrust greater responsibilities to it in future. It has proved that it is able to bear the responsibility of a decentralized group government.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask: On whose behalf is the official Opposition speaking? Are they merely talking party-politics now, or are they talking on behalf of some specific group or other in society today? Are they perhaps merely talking at random as a self-appointed mouthpiece as they have evidently taken it upon themselves in the past to talk on behalf of all and sundry in South Africa? This method which certain political parties in South Africa have adopted in the past of appointing themselves as mouthpieces of particular groups, is beginning to boomerang, particularly when we consider certain statements by certain responsible leaders of Black groups in South Africa during the most recent past We are thinking, for example, of remarks made by Chief Buthelezi in connection with the role which the official Opposition has played in respect of Black politics in the context of South African politics. The role is being seriously repudiated. The Indians themselves made it very clear, on the occasion of certain discussions I had with Indian leaders and Indian communities, that they were tired of being used by certain political parties and leftist groups that all too readily appointing themselves as spokesmen for the Indian community, or even of being associated with them. The hon. member for Musgrave asked, inter alia: “Why is the Government afraid to have an election?”

†Mr. Speaker, the Government is not afraid to have an election. It is quite clear from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech that he was acting at the request of the Indian Council. We have nothing to lose by letting them have an election. An election is the last thing we are afraid of. In fact, if it were not for the special circumstances in which we find ourselves, we would certainly have gone ahead with an election.

*We must not try and force the pace of Indian politics. A fruit that is squeezed too hard before it is ripe, becomes rotten. If I understood the hon. member for Musgrave correctly, he and his party are not quite sure whether they want to do away with the Indian Council or whether they would like to see it evolve as a constitutional instrument. We want clarity on this matter, and it does not help if we have to listen to double talk from morning till night. We want clarity on this matter now. Is group development in South Africa, seen in the light of constitutional development, not also part of his political vision and, for that matter, also part of the NRP’s political vision? Surely that is so. But when there is legislation before the House in respect of group identity and decentralized forms of government for the various groups in South Africa, this is consistently opposed by the Opposition. I have never been able to understand this, for surely it is consistent with certain facets of their own political view of the matter.

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that the principle of the Indian Council is not at issue in the Bill, and I cannot therefore allow a discussion of the whole principle of councils for the various population groups in South Africa. The hon. member may proceed.

I abide by your decision, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to point out, however, that I was reacting to a certain point which the hon. member for Musgrave raised in this connection.

The legislation is merely concerned with the question of whether it is equitable and correct to comply with the request of a statutory body. I think that is the crux of the whole matter. I referred to the fact that certain political matters of current interest, on which an election could reasonably have been held, would remain hanging in the air as a result of the fact that the Schlebusch Commission still has to reach finality on them. I think the Indian population would be placed in a very difficult position if they were to have an election on such an important matter and they were not to know what was actually being envisaged for them in the field of constitutional development.

What about the speech the hon. the Minister made last year?

I shall reply to that myself.

I believe the hon. the Minister will reply to that himself. In any event, the hon. member must accept it as self-evident that conditions have in the meantime changed completely in view of the request by the Indian Council. Here one is dealing with totally different circumstances. It would be most unfair to expect them to fight an election on the basis of arbitrary standpoints and possibilities that could entail a new dispensation, for that could in fact make a farce of such an election.

In addition, this is perhaps an opportunity to make the standpoint of my party on this matter clear once again, particularly since there are certain Indian groups that are perhaps echoing what the hon. member for Musgrave and other hon. members of the PFP are propagandising, i.e. a “one man, one vote” situation in South Africa I do not wish to debate the principle of that issue again, since this is perhaps not the right occasion to do it Indeed, I do not think this is the right time to discuss constitutional matters, while these matters are being investigated by a committee of Parliament. We must obtain clarity on one thing, however, and that is that any minority group that prefers to ignore the harsh reality of this system, namely the Westminster System, in which one encounters a situation of “winner take all”, is not acting in the best interests of its own group. For that reason it is gratifying that the Indian Council has made this request, not to abolish the council, but indeed to extend its term of office so that there can be a more thorough reflection on this matter.

The existence of the Indian Council also offers the Indian population the opportunity of focusing on its own peculiar problems as a group. I wish to refer to that very impressive list of achievements by the Indian Council in its present form over the years and for that reason I think we should readily accede to this request.

I gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill, which will contribute towards giving greater meaning and substance to Indian politics, instead of having an election on local and national matters, an election that is so important, but which gives no clarity on the political future as it is in fact being envisaged.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with two words expressed by the hon. member for Newcastle. In the course of his speech he said: “Ons moet vra: Is dit billik of reg?” In other words, we must ask whether it is fair and we must ask whether it is right. This is the motivation behind our argument in respect of this measure, viz. is it fair and is it right? Is it fair and right to the Indian Council, to the Indian people, to all communities of South Africa and to this Parliament? We believe that the answer lies in a middle course in this respect. I must say that I regret that I cannot agree wholeheartedly with everything the hon. member for Musgrave has said here this afternoon, and I certainly cannot agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Newcastle has said.

As we, particularly those of us from Natal, know, the Indian Council is looked upon today as a fully nominated body, in contrast to one that is partly elected and partly nominated. It has this aura about it. It has gained this aura over the passage of time. A new council is envisaged, a new council we have debated in this House. We know that it is to come. It was an agreed measure that ultimately a new council would be formed consisting of 40 fully-elected members and five nominated members, but nominated in the sense that they would be selected by leaders of the majority and minority parties. Even though two would be appointed by the State President their names, if my memory serves me correctly, would be put forward by the majority party.

It is similar to the Senate.

Thank you. I am given to understand that as a result of the introduction of proclamations 262 and 263 the envisaged date of election would be 26 March 1980. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether that is correct?

Yes.

So my information there is correct. We therefore have the Indian people expecting an election to take place on 26 March this year. Let us forget the history, let us forget that we were told by the hon. the Minister that we would have it in November last year. I accept and can understand that, in the light of the Schlebusch Commission, things have changed and that the Indian people and the Indian Council thought: Let us wait and see, because we were all led to believe that we would have the answers by now; we were all led to believe that some legislation would possibly be introduced early in this session. I think that is an inescapable fact. Expectations of these changes were awakened with the setting up of the Schlebusch Commission which was there to study constitutional proposals for all people in South Africa. I think it is perfectly natural to expect that the Indian Council, and more particularly the Indian political parties, would want to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. I think it is equally natural to expect that they would have asked for an extension of time. I think that the extension of time that they have requested was the one that would take them into an election on 26 March 1980. Now we are being asked for a further extension of time. Originally we were talking in terms of months for the Schlebusch Commission’s deliberations. Now, because of utterances from the hon. the Minister of Justice, I believe that we can be talking in terms of years. He tells us this is an ongoing thing. How long is on-going? In the meantime we have an electorate, ready, waiting and wanting to exercise its vote.

You did not listen to my speech a few minutes ago.

I listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech and I would like him to listen to mine. The attitude of the Indian Council is perfectly correct, but I say now to the members of the Indian Council—and I am not saying this to the hon. the Minister—that they cannot fairly ask for any further extension of time. They must not come to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and have him appear here in this hon. House again and ask us to further extend this period. Now it is up to the political parties and the Indian community to get their platforms right, to get their houses in order. I know that they have gone into a “free-wheel” approach on this matter, and we have debated the reasons why, but now they have got to get their houses in order so that they can hold this election and so that we can have this fully-elected body at the earliest possible opportunity.

Talking about earliest possible opportunities, I think 26 March would be impracticable, and that is why I must say, on behalf of the NRP, that we should steer a middle course because I believe we have to be practical about this matter. I think it would be hopelessly impracticable to expect these people, at this stage, to gear up for an election to be held on 26 March. We are talking about six or seven weeks hence. That is hopelessly impracticable, but we certainly can talk about a date between now and 5 November. I do not believe that the Indian political parties should use, as their election platforms, their views of the proposals that emanate from the Schlebusch Commission. I think that their electoral platforms must be the debate on how they see the constitutional form that this country should have. These would be fully elected members who would then be able to present their thoughts in this connection. At the moment members of the parties pose the following question: How can we go to an electorate and ask them to elect us when the intentions of this Government are not clear in regard to the future of this council? [Interjections.] That is, however, missing the point. I believe they must go to their electorate after the very successful registration of voters that has now taken place. I have very carefully gone through the delimitations and I must say that I think they are very fair and reasonable. The machinery is all there, and I feel that the candidates must now gear themselves up and prepare for the election, as we have done. We did not need any Schlebusch Commission to tell us what our future was before we started. I can go back to 1910. We did not need a commission. We had a National Convention. Then we decided whether we would be a federal or unitary State. That was the argument, that was the divide.

We had 100 years of constitutional development, from 1815 onwards.

The hon. the Minister must please not tell me that the Indian people i have no knowledge of constitutional development, because I will not buy that. We are dealing with the Indian people here. The attitude of the electorate is that they are now ready. Delimitation has taken place, voters’ rolls have been prepared and they want to exercise their vote. It is interesting to note what is said in an article in this morning’s Cape Times. It says—

If this is true, then surely we want to see elected representatives of the Indian people making their submissions to this President’s Council, or serving on this council, in the same way as we would have the elected representatives of the White people of this country and in the same way in which, if the Coloureds want to participate, they would have the elected representatives of their people.

What about the urban Blacks?

I can start that debate too, but I shall be ruled out of order so quickly it would be unbelievable.

In the Committee Stage I propose to move an amendment, but we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill because we believe that it is not practical to do anything in the short term, within seven weeks. In the Committee Stage, however, I shall propose that the election be held not later than 5 November 1980, or such earlier date as may be fixed by proclamation because this party will have no part in any further “uitstelling” of this date. We support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Umhlanga has indicated that his party will support the principle of this Bill. I think he showed a quite realistic approach to the measure. Whatever amendments he wishes to move in the Committee Stage will probably be less important than the general principle. I think it is clear that we are ad idem in this House about the basic premise that the S.A. Indian Council should be an elected body. The NP and the NRP, as well as the hon. member for Musgrave, on behalf of the PFP, have indicated that if there is to be a group institution at all, it should be an elected one. We certainly agree with that general premise. After all, there is no reason why the Government should wish to delay the introduction of an elected council. One of the greatest problems which arises in the political development of any population group, and specifically in South Africa, is the problem of the parent body, or guardian body, to ascertain who are the leaders in that community. It is a fact of life that every people has to produce its own leaders, and for this reason one is forced, in the process of emancipating various peoples, to begin by approaching leaders in the cultural, sport and business fields, as well as educationists and religious leaders, to begin the preparatory work. One cannot make a start in any other way, because it is not at all clear in such cases who the eventual political leaders of such a community will be.

Such a beginning remains an unsatisfactory substitute, for the demands made on these leaders in their walks of life are different from the demands which the political life in those communities will eventually make on the political leaders of those communities. When we look at our own history, the same situation applies. Our cultural, educational and church leaders initially had the lion’s share in the development of the political pattern of the South African White community, but gradually a completely new political generation appeared. I say, therefore, that there is no reason why it should be in the interests of the Government to delay the introduction of an elected Indian Council. On the contrary.

As the hon. the Minister has indicated, it is also true that the South African Indian Council submitted very strong recommendations in its representation to the Government.

I want to join issue with the hon. member for Umhlanga about his statement that the Whites did not need a Schlebusch Commission before being able to hold an election to indicate their leaders. The Whites in the Cape Colony obtained representative government in 1854. In 1872, responsible government was granted to the Cape Colony. The Whites of a united South Africa held an election in 1910 on the basis of a constitution which had been drafted by a national convention, with the approval of the colonial power, i.e. Britain. The future political pattern for South Africa was therefore determined even at that stage, a pattern according to which the political leaders of the White community have been elected since that first election in 1910. After all, the Indian community has only asked the Government, by means of the Indian Council, to allow them some time so that they may see what pattern, what guidelines, will emerge, even if it has to be from an interim report by the Schlebusch Commission, so that they will at least have a basis on which to hold an election. I also believe that when such a basic guideline has been laid down, it will be easier for the Indian community to see the crystallization of various political schools of thought in their community. These are schools of thought that are in favour of the retention of an Indian Council as such, elected or not, and schools of thought that are in favour of certain further developments along the guidelines that have been laid down or in directions which are in accordance with political views in this House.

At the moment, many Indian leaders are still divided between apparently conflicting standpoints. I have with me a large number of excerpts from various publications, which I shall not tire the House by quoting, however. These excerpts illustrate the various standpoints adopted by various Indian leaders. The one extreme is the confrontation politics advocated by the Natal Indian Congress, which wants absolutely nothing to do with the S.A. Indian Council, whether elected or nominated. Others want to work within the existing dispensation, although it is their eventual aim to bring about a “one man, one vote” system within a unitary dispensation.

I wish to refer very briefly to what Mr. Rajbansi of the Reform Party said during the past month in the Graphic. In this report he said very clearly that to him the Indian Council was merely an instrument for bringing about an interim situation, but his party “states its ideals clearly that it must be one that leads to Black majority rule”. Interim measures advocated by him, therefore, are—

These are interim measures which have to lead to a system of “one man, one vote” in a unitary State, but still within the present dispensation.

There are still other Indian leaders who believe in the principles of group identity and ethnicity. However, we cannot really talk yet about clearly defined parties and policies.

In the second place, this delay will also enable the Indian Council to bring home more strongly to the Indian community the achievements there have been up to now, to which the hon. member for Newcastle referred in passing. Like the hon. member for Newcastle, I do not intend to discuss all these achievements in detail, but it is true that a large measure of the resistance which there is against the Indian Council among the Indian community is based on ignorance, ignorance about what has already been achieved by this party.

I just want to point out one or two examples. During the past year I served on the Commission of Inquiry into Public Holidays. Two members of the Coloured community and one member of the Indian community served on that commission. This was one of the things that had been a direct result of the representations of the S.A. Indian Council. The fact that members of these communities serve on commissions of inquiry is something which is perhaps not generally known yet in the Indian community. It is one of the things which will gradually be brought home to all members of the community. The fact that Stateless Indians are being naturalized can also be attributed to the representations of the S.A. Indian Council. Housing is regarded by the Indian community as their number one preference and need.

What clause are you dealing with?

As a result of the representations of the S.A. Indian Council, enormous amounts have been spent on housing. I am merely mentioning this by way of illustration.