presented a petition from R. C. Lloyd, in his capacity as Managing Director of the South African Mutual Life Assurance Society, praying for leave to introduce a Private Bill to amend the South African Mutual Life Assurance Society (Private) Act, 1966, so as to reflect the correct name of the South African Mutual life Assurance Society in the Afrikaans text; to define the persons who are entitled to membership of the Society; to define the circumstances in which membership of the Society will cease; to amend the provisions relating to the voting rights of members in the event of a poll; to define the procedure to be adopted for the amendment of the said Act; and to provide for incidental matters.

Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

laid upon the Table—

Mr. Chairman, when we dealt with the Second Reading yesterday, we dealt in particular with this clause which relates to an amendment to section 18 of the Community Development Act, a section which allows the board by notice either to recover certain moneys or to require people to vacate premises. We on our side stated our point of view, indicating that while we were prepared to assist the Government or the board in the collection of moneys due, we were not prepared to be part or parcel, and I quote (Hansard, 12 February)—

The question therefore hinges upon whether this amendment in anyway affects the implementation of the racial policies of this Government and the dispossession of people’s homes. I put it to the hon. the Minister whether this could in fact be used for this purpose. I asked—and I quote my Hansard of yesterday—

Mr. Chairman, we have investigated the provisions of this clause further. It is quite clear that in many instances the Community Development Board becomes the agent of the Government in implementing the Group Areas Act. An area is declared White, the Community Development Board purchases various properties, and thereafter it becomes the agent of the Government in the development of that area for a particular racial group. It then also becomes involved in the eviction of people for purposes other than for not paying their rental.

I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the provisions of section 18 of the Community Development Act are today being used to evict tenants from properties on which they have lived in District Six and which are now owned by the Community Development Board. I want to refer to the notorious case, the celebrated case, of a certain Mr. Bawa, an Indian gentleman who for many years conducted a business in Kildare Road, Newlands. This area was declared White and subsequently he became a disqualified person. The case of Mr. Bawa came to a crisis on 21 November last year when he was served a certain notice. This notice came from the Department of Community Development and was signed on behalf of it. It was addressed to this gentleman at 32 Kildare Road, Newlands. It reads as follows—

1. 1. Please take notice that: (a) you, as the occupier of the property, situated at the above-mentioned address, belonging to the Community Development Board, failed to vacate the property on or before the date you were lawfully required to do so; and (b), I, the undersigned, duly appointed in terms of section 8(1) of the Community Development Act … and acting on behalf of the Board in terms of section 18(1) of the said Act, therefore, after the expiry of seven days from the date of delivery of this notice to you, may declare by resolution that the above-mentioned property may, without obtaining any judgment or order of court, be entered upon and taken possession of by the Secretary for Community Development or any person acting under his authority.
2. 2. The effect of the foregoing is that you will have to vacate the property forthwith as it will, without further notice, be entered upon and taken possession of by the Secretary for Community Development or any other person acting under his authority after the aforementioned resolution has been taken.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have a notice served by the Secretary, on behalf of the Department of Community Development. This is a flat contradiction of the hon. the Deputy Minister and all the hon. members on that side of the House. Mr. Bawa was dispossessed of his property basically because he was an Indian trading in an area which was proclaimed a White. In the event, the Community Development Board became the agent of the Government in seeing that its race policy was implemented.

I say that this is concrete proof that clause 18(1) is not only used in respect of rentals, but also in respect of disqualified persons—people who are disqualified on racial grounds—living on or occupying property owned by the Community Development Board. There is no doubt that these provisions are being used. I do not have the eviction orders with me, but through inquiries from legal colleagues of mine this morning I learnt that the same type of notice under section 18(1) is being used to evict people in District Six solely because these people in terms of a Group Areas Proclamation have become disqualified persons. On the basis of this notice served by the hon. the Minister’s department on this unfortunate Indian trader, who was evicted, we believe, cruelly and unnecessarily as a result of the colour of his skin …

What is his name?

Bawa. I sent you a telegram about it.

This man was evicted not because his rental was in arrears, but because in terms of section 18(1) he was a disqualified person. The board can act in respect of anybody occupying property belonging to the Community Development Board.

But he sold the property.

The hon. the Minister can say the property was sold, but he knows that the sale took place as the result of the operation of the Group Areas Act. The Community Development Board only acquired the property because the previous incumbent of that property was made a disqualified person. On the basis of the document I have read to hon. members, and other documents, we have no doubt that section 18(1) of the Community Development Act is being used to evict people as a direct consequence of the Group Areas Act and of the racial policies of the Government. In view of that, we have no hesitation whatsoever in opposing this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I admitted to the hon. member for Sea Point yesterday that in terms of this clause, action can be taken against people in District Six in the same way as action is taken against people throughout the country. Therefore, District Six is not an exception. The legislation was not aimed at District Six. However, the hon. member now wants to link District Six to the legislation. Why is he doing so? The hon. member admits that we have the right to take action. He has just said once again that we have the right to take action. We are not asking for anything more than that. We are simply seeking authorization here to serve a notice …

To make it easier.

Why should we make it easier? We simply want to save the Government money and try to prevent inconvenience. The hon. member’s entire argument is irrelevant. The issue here is not one of granting more power in order to evict people from houses. It is the method of serving a notice that is at issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put the views of the NRP very clearly on this issue. The way we read this clause is that it concerns the procedure for persons to be given notice, whether they come under the ambit of the Group Areas Act or whether they are tenants who are in arrears. The test one has to apply is whether the procedure is a fair one. Yesterday all political parties in the House were unanimous, in dealing with the Housing Amendment Bill, that this procedure was a fair one when it requires a notice to be affixed to the front door of the dwelling of an aggrieved party. Having decided this, let us consider the case of an aggrieved party, who could be a married person with ten children, who falls in arrears with his rent. In effect such a person could be evicted. If the interpretation of the hon. member for Sea Point is correct that this clause can also be used to remove people in terms of the Group Areas Act, I accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister that if people are to be moved from one residential area they will not be put out on the street. To us the question is …

Where would Bawa go to?

I do not know where that particular person would move to.

Why do you then accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance?

The hon. member for Groote Schuur is trying to create the impression that through his opposition to this clause he can stop the system. What utter rubbish!

Why help the system by making it easier?

It has already been pointed out that the system as it is applied at present deals with these cases. It only concerns one issue here and that is whether one considers it to be a fair method of giving notice to an aggrieved party. Yesterday the official Opposition approved it as a fair method. How can they therefore now blow hot and cold with regard to such a situation? To what gallery are they playing? Why do they not get serious and argue consistently about a thing like this? Why do they try to use this sort of situation? They should have been consistent and should have opposed a similar clause and should have said that that too was an unfair method, that one could not do this and that for that reason they were against it They must not now adopt this sort of attitude and say that it is all right with one party but not with another. The main point is that one is not going to stop that; it is being dealt with under a different Bill. One will find that in the existing situation people are being moved. That is something we all disagree with. However, they must not think that through their opposition here they are now going to save the position of the person the hon. Chief Whip has mentioned. It would not save his position.

Do not condone it then.

That is not condoning it. But they must be honest with those people and with themselves. They must not think that through their inconsistent type of opposition they are going to change the whole world, because prior to this …

You are simply availing yourself of this opportunity which you have to oppose.

What do those hon. members “opponeer”? Do they oppose things on principle? If there was a principle involved in this system, why then did they yesterday unanimously support that principle? [Interjections.] Why? It is an aggrieved party. Action is taken against a person who becomes a victim of an Act, or whatever it may be. That is all I want to say. I want to say that in this case there was no other option. If they had some political honesty left, they would either support or oppose both clauses. We in the NRP will vote in favour of this clause, because we have already voted in favour of the clause at Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the discomfort of the hon. member who has just sat down, because yesterday he accepted the analysis that this was not used for causing people to be evicted on the grounds of the Government’s race policies. He said that it had nothing to do with that.

I did not say that.

He said that it was merely a procedure for collecting rent and that it was not in any way linked with evictions in terms of Government policy.

Who said that? [Interjections.]

The point is that the hon. member must realize that here we are dealing with an administrative procedure. We believe it is a reasonable administrative procedure to adopt to collect moneys, but we do not believe it is appropriate to apply the same administrative procedure in order to evict people. We shall not support the eviction of people.

But you are supporting it if you …

It is an entirely different thing to say that because one supports one procedure for administrative purposes, one should therefore also support the same procedure when it is used to evict people from their homes in terms of the Government’s race policies. Whatever the hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday, this document, the eviction document of Mr. Bawa, and the information we have that section 18(1) of the Community Development Act is being used to serve notices on people who have become disqualified under the Group Areas Act, make the whole thing quite obnoxious. I would have thought that the hon. member for Durban Central, having heard at last that it was directly related to the eviction of people under the Group Areas Act, would have changed his mind. We hope he will think again before the Third Reading of this Bill takes place.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enter into a debate across the floor of the House with the hon. member for Sea Point on such a general matter as this one, but I really do not want him to leave here with the wrong impression. The situation that we discussed here yesterday, is not being changed at all. The hon. member referred to the Khalfey case. Surely, this has nothing to do with an ordinary occupant or a house-owner, as in District Six. [Interjections.] Wait a moment! Now he sees what he has put his foot into. We deal with thousands of cases, and the hon. member for Sea Point must mention one case to me where we evicted someone from a Government house, a house that was acquired under the Group Areas Act, without having given him alternative accommodation.

I challenge the hon. member to do so. But what does he come up with now? He drags the Khalfey case up here for no other reason than to make a political case of it. I do not want to generate ill-feeling here, but Mr. Khalfey is a businessman. This Indian’s business was bought from him years ago and he received his money. This is the law of the land and that hon. member, other hon. members and I can do nothing about it. Nor about this clause.

We certainly can and we shall.

He received his money and we tolerated him there for years and rented the place to him until such time as we found a buyer for it. The Government used the taxpayers’ money in order to buy the property from the unauthorized person. The Government had to recover that money and then found an authorized person as a buyer. We went through all the prescribed channels. We had no problem with his rental. It had nothing whatsoever to do with this case. We went through all the prescribed channels, but he simply decided to remain there. Why did he decide to remain there? This is because people were behind him, telling him that an incident had to be created, because on the day that he was evicted, the cameras were ready and all the old Black Sash ladies were there with their handkerchiefs at the ready. [Interjections.] That is why the hon. member must not bring that type of story up here in order to illustrate their opposition. Let us discuss this matter like adults. I am not arguing with the hon. member, but he has the wrong end of the stick completely.

I give you two guesses who their advisers are.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 2:

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

1. (1) On page 5, in line 5, after “fund” to insert:

1. (2) on page 5, in line 7, after “board” to insert:

During the Second Reading debate we objected to the fact that this clause is granting powers to the inspector of the Board that may be too extensive, in any event more extensive than necessary. In reply, various speakers on that side, including the hon. the Deputy Minister, pointed out that these powers are only necessary when the Board has a financial interest in the condition of the ground or buildings concerned. My first amendment simply carries into effect the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Deputy Minister by curtailing the provision in the new section 48(1)(e)(i) so that it will then read as follows—

In the same way, my second amendment curtails the power being vested in terms of paragraph (iii) where the inspector is given the right to enter a site or a dwelling sold by the Board, so that the paragraph will then read as follows—

To my mind, both these amendments bring the provisions more into line with the normal practice which is applicable when a mortgagee does have an interest in a building which was built or purchased with funds advanced by the mortgagee.

Mr. Chairman, it is true that I gave this information to the hon. member for Green Point and to the House yesterday. However, the hon. member’s amendments do not go the whole way, because it is also true that in our deeds of sale we stipulate that if someone buys a dwelling from us—even if he should buy it cash—we retain an option on that dwelling for five years. We do so in order to prevent speculation. The money that is used to build dwellings is often subsidized money and that is why we do not want to encourage speculation. Therefore, there is a period during which the Board still has an interest in that property. However, I do not intend splitting hairs.

Just to show the spirit in which I am dealing with this matter, and also to show that I am not angry with hon. members opposite, particularly not with the hon. member for Green Point, I am prepared to accept his amendments. Whilst hon. members opposite do not have enough members to oppose the Third Reading, I do, of course, expect them to allow the Third Reading to be disposed of after this.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

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

1. (1) On page 3, in line 22, after “land” to insert:

1. (2) on page 5, in line 3, after “land” to add:

These two amendments will have the effect of writing into the Bill the assurances or the indications given to us by the Government yesterday that it was not their intention to remove any squatter shacks until the people living in those shacks had been provided with alternative accommodation. In order to establish that such alternative accommodation is appropriate we believe it is necessary to include the concept that such alternative accommodation should be within reasonable proximity to the place of employment of the person or persons concerned. In other words, to say that one is merely going to give alternative accommodation in another shack or another building somewhere else in the country without relating that alternative accommodation to such person’s place of employment is really begging the issue because it boils down to evicting somebody and disrupting both his family and his working life.

We do not want to continue with the arguments based on the difference in principle between our approach to squatting and that of the Government. However, in so far as the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us an assurance that this was the Government’s intention, we believe it is appropriate for this provision that alternative accommodation should be provided and that this should be within reasonable proximity of the place of employment of the person concerned. It merely encapsulates the assurance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It also gives some legal protection to the people concerned that the Minister’s intention will be carried out by future Governments.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to indicate to the hon. the Deputy Minister that should he be prepared to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Sea Point we will be supporting that as well. We believe that this will bring about a desirable situation. It will still enable the proper authorities to deal effectively with the problem of squatters, but they will then be able to do so in an orderly manner and also in the fairest manner possible. Therefore I request the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider accepting both amendments moved by the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot accept these two amendments by the hon. member for Sea Point. They have nothing to do with the assurance that I gave yesterday in connection with the provision of guarantees by means of legislation. Nowhere in any legislation administered by the Department of Community Development, are such assurances given in writing. This assurance has been given by one Minister after the other over the years. Over the years, one Minister after the other has honoured the assurances of others.

As I said yesterday, we condoned certain forms of squatting in 1977. We have kept our word in the meantime. Now we come to this House with a request for the situation to be changed. However, we did not throw those squatters out. We have kept our word all along. As I said a moment ago, no one can allege that we put people on the streets merely because we wanted to throw them out of their shacks. We provided them with alternative accommodation.

The hon. member for Sea Point must please understand that suitable alternative accommodation is a relative concept when we are speaking about squatters. If the department were to ask every squatter whether he considered the accommodation to be suitable, what would the reply be? [Interjections.] Surely, if the administration is convinced that the alternative accommodation is suitable, but the squatter does not agree, someone must surely use a discretion. It is a discretion of this kind that we are discussing now. After all, one is liable to cause court cases here. Some people are ready to drag these people into court cases and to complicate our work. The hon. member will concede that one cannot include something so vague in legislation because I feel it is very clear that a squatter could simply say: “No, it is not suitable accommodation. I do not accept it.” What is the department to do then? The argument that the accommodation should be close to his place of employment, is just as unreasonable. How can we do that? He may work in Simonstown and live in Kuilsrivier and then I tell him: “You can no longer live in these woods because I now have a house for you in Bonteheuwel.” Then he could say that it is too far from his work and that he wants to live in Fish Hoek or Grassy Park …

Or in Sea Point.

Do hon. members see how absurd it is to make provision for something of this kind in legislation? If hon. members do not want to accept the assurances that have been honoured since we have been involved with this type of thing, in view of the fact that we have already resettled approximately 16 000 squatters, then I cannot put it into words for them in any form, and consequently I cannot satisfy these members.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has shown remarkable reasonableness during the past two days. I hope that he can continue in that spirit. I should like to address two remarks to the House in relation to what he has just said. In the first place the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he could not point to any example or instance where squatters were summarily removed without alternative accommodation being available for them. We, too, must be reasonable and say to him that there has been a change in the approach of the Government towards this problem. I do not have to go into detail about Unibel and Modderdam. That actually happened; it is a part of history that people were taken out of their homes without any alternative accommodation being made available for them. I do not want to dwell on that. The fact is, however, that why we want the assurance and why we want this to be written into the legislation, is because not all people are as reasonable as the hon. the Deputy Minister. A number of other people are involved. Officials are involved. We can only go on what is in the Bill, on what is in the Act. That is why, whilst we may well accept the reassurance and the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister—as we do—we cannot accept that as a personal assurance. That is why we want it to be written into the legislation.

I think the hon. member for Sea Point would agree with me that if there is any way in which we can improve the wording of these amendments in order to retain the essence of what we are asking for, then, of course, I am sure we would be prepared to look at that …

Yes, of course.

If that is so, would he be prepared to consider these amendments before the Bill goes to the Other Place?

When it goes to the Other Place.

Yes, when it goes to the Other Place.

If the hon. member can satisfy me on that point, I shall be prepared to listen to him.

Mr. Chairman, may I then ask the hon. the Deputy Minister the following question: If he accepts the principle of what we are saying, viz. that we want some written assurance that alternative accommodation … [Interjections.] Sir, please do not listen to the hon. the Minister. I am talking to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I want some guidance from him now in the acceptance, at least, of the principle that alternative accommodation will be available before a squatter is removed from his present situation. That is the assurance we obtained verbally yesterday. All we are asking is that we have it “skriftelik”, and I think that is a reasonable request.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to enter into debate with the hon. member for Pinelands, if he would just give me his attention for a moment.

Yes, of course.

The hon. member is reacting to the assurance of the hon. the Minister that it was determined by policy, in the department, that alternative accommodation would be given to squatters when evicted from their houses. That is on record, quite apart from the assurance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is clearly on record in Hansard. I refer hon. members to the big squatter debate we conducted in 1977, more specifically, the debate of Wednesday, 27 April, col. 6293. I quote—

So it goes on.

Whose speech is that?

That of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. Now follows an important part, and I quote—

And now—

been accepted and changed for the following schemes, and the formula has now been altered so that 60% of the 10 000 dwellings—i.e. in the Peninsula—will be allocated to squatters evicted from their shanties and structures. In other words, the hon. member also has the assurance on record, but now I come to where we differ from the hon. member for Pinelands. We cannot give a blanket assurance that all these squatters whose structures have to be vacated have to be provided with alternative accommodation, because the Government cannot accept responsibility for giving accommodation to those who are in an area illegally. This is precisely the point on which we differ. The official Opposition wants the Government to provide accommodation to everyone who comes to squat and knock together structures in metropolitan areas. However, we cannot accept this. If we can come to an agreement that the Government, in its ambitious programme to solve the squatter problem, will give alternative accommodation to those who are in an area legally, we can meet each other half way. Personally I believe it is unnecessary to include this in the act. They have the assurance on record. The hon. the Deputy Minister, too, has repeatedly given the assurance. By way of illustration—reference is now being made to Crossroads—I just want to make it clear what the position is in respect of Crossroads and the squatters there. I am doing so in order to illustrate in that way the point we are debating with one another. The most recent survey of Crossroads indicates that there are 4 716 heads of families there, or a total of approximately 23 000 persons. Of those heads of families 590, with their dependants will qualify for accommodation. These are the people who have rights in terms of section 10(1)(a) and 10(1)(b). Then there are 617 heads of families qualifying for rights in terms of section 10(1)(d). Single accommodation will be provided for males only. The rest of the family will then have to return to the place from which it came. Then there are 771 compassionate cases that will be provided with accommodation on an ad hoc basis. The vast majority, i.e. 2 738 heads of families together with their households, are there illegally. In other words, approximately 13 000 persons in Crossroads will not be provided with alternative accommodation. The Government cannot accept the responsibility of providing accommodation to one and all who come and squat and are in the area illegally. As far as Crossroads is concerned—this is the example hon. members quoted—the standpoint of the Government is clear. I have here a letter, dated 2 November last year, from the office of the Minister of Cooperation and Development. In it the Government’s standpoint in respect of Crossroads is summarized as follows—

This then illustrates my point that where accommodation is vacated, alternate accommodation will be made available provided the person concerned is in the area legally.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville illustrated in his speech the exact dilemma I was referring to earlier, namely that when we listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister, he did not make the point the hon. member for Bellville has made; rather he quarrelled with the vagueness of the wording and the interpretation of what would be a “reasonable distance” from the place of employment. Now we have the additional point that the Government cannot provide alternative housing for every single squatter who happens to be there. That is a very different argument and it supports my own contention, and obviously that of the mover of the amendment. That is why we need clarity on this. That is why we need to have something written down.

With great respect, Sir, we are not always going to have the same Ministers. Ministers come and go, for which we can be very thankful. Hon. Deputy Ministers come and go and I suppose hon. members of Parliament come and go too.

Only leaders of the Opposition are permanent!

Sir, lots of us come and go. We cannot therefore accept merely the assurances. Although we accept them at the time when they are made, we have to consider what stands in the Bill and will finally stand in the Act. I am sure the hon. member for Bellville will concede that. That is exactly our point. There is confusion and one of the things that has come through loud and clear in the last few months is that when an hon. Minister makes an announcement—we had a brilliant example of this last week—an announcement such as that about a trial scheme for Pretoria and Bloemfontein, concerning the 72-hour provision, there is immediately a response from other people and the hon. the Minister is told: “You cannot do that sort of thing. ”

In the same way we want some written assurance. Before the hon. member for Bellville spoke, and the hon. the Minister interjected, I thought that we were at least moving towards a middle position namely that we could come with some words which would contain the spirit of what we are trying to do. I think we are making a reasonable request and as a reasonable man I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he means by that that even in the case of, say, a prohibited immigrant who entered South Africa and became a squatter here, the Government would be unable, if we had that statutory provision, to remove him unless he was given suitable alternative accommodation? Would that be the effect of the hon. member’s proposal?

That is a ridiculous question. We are talking about a particular situation which affects South Africa now and the hon. member knows it full well. The fact of the matter is that when we dealt with illegal squatters, it was within the province of the Government to make those squatters legal. [Interjections.] That is exactly what they did. [Interjections.] They did it at Crossroads and it is there for everyone to see. A special case was made …

That is not the case.

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows better than that hon. member. He knows this is exactly what happened. There were contract workers, for example, and people with families who were living in single quarters. The whole question of squatters has been recognized and acknowledged on both sides of the House to be a problem. We accept that it is a problem. We want to try to help resolve that problem, but it must be understood that we have a difficulty about accepting merely verbal assurances, and that is the only reason why we are moving these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out a few dangers accompanying this amendment. If the amendment is passed, the hon. the Minister is going to be placed in a position in which he will have great difficulty in solving the existing housing shortage on administrative grounds. I want to point out a few examples which could arise out of the amendment. Firstly, if a person is given alternative accommodation situated in the proximity of his place of employment, it would easily mean that any person dissatisfied with his existing accommodation, can simply go and squat at another place. Such a person could perhaps, to use the Cape Peninsula as an example, be employed in Simonstown at the moment and live in Elsies River. What he has to do, is simply to go and squat. Then the Government is compelled to provide him with alternative accommodation near Simonstown. Surely this is unacceptable, impractical and illogical.

Secondly, at present there is a housing shortage in South Africa, particularly in respect of houses for non-Whites. There is overcrowding in existing housing schemes being administered by the department of the hon. the Minister. If the amendment is passed, it would mean that the squatter who simply wants to avail himself of the opportunity of squatting in order to compel the Government to provide him with alternative accommodation, will merely aggravate the question of overcrowding in existing areas. This would be a very bad thing. That why it is essential that as the hon. member for Bellville indicated, there should be certain percentage allocations. A certain amount should be allocated to curb squatting and a certain amount to solve overcrowding. This is an administrative division that should be determined from time to time and on various occasions on a percentage basis according to the needs. In order to do so, I believe it is essential and compulsory for the hon. the Minister to have the leeway to be able to divide up the available accommodation to the best advantage at that moment. It could create an extremely dangerous situation if his hands were tied through such an amendment being placed on the Statute Book, an amendment that would tie his hands to such an extent that he would have no room to manoeuvre. For that reason I in fact want to issue a warning that any similar amendment is a trap and should be judged very sceptically by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. members for Vasco and Bellville did was to water down the assurance of the hon. the Deputy Minister to such an extent that they have in fact strengthened the resistance to this measure of this side of the House. The hon. member for Bellville, particularly when he dealt with the whole question of Crossroads and qualified the Government’s standpoint in connection with the provision of alternative housing, put his finger on those very things we are afraid will happen as a result of this type of legislation now before the Committee.

The hon. member for Vasco discussed the solution to the acute housing shortage and said that the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department will need these powers in order to solve the acute housing shortage. Squatting is a symptom of an acute housing shortage, as we all probably know. Consequently it is unnecessary to re-examine this matter.

I think the hon. member for Pinelands made a very good point when he asked the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared at least to accept the principle of the amendments. If it is necessary to word them in a somewhat different way, we would have no problems in doing so. We do not want to take the provision that a person should receive a house within reasonable proximity to his place of employment to ridiculous lengths; this is not the Opposition’s objective. We do not want to propagate the standpoint that if a person squats in a certain place, it gives him the right to acquire a home which is across the street from his place of employment. That is not our standpoint at all.

One could word this differently. For example, we need not say that it should be in reasonable proximity to his place of employment, but, that it should not be at an unreasonably further remove from his place of employment than his squatter’s home was, or words to similar effect. We shall have no problem in this regard.

That is the verkrampte Progs’ view.

We shall not give hon. members on that side of the House any problems with regard to the wording if we can have the principle accepted.

The hon. the Deputy Minister gave a very clear assurance. If that assurance could be incorporated into this Bill, I can give the assurance that there will be no problems between us. For those reasons I support the amendments. We trust that it will be possible to include this principle in the legislation in some way. We simply do not believe, speaking in legal terms, that it is impossible to have a meaningful amendment made to this legislation, one which can be implemented and does not undermine the effectiveness of the legislation in any way.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands should rather not have participated in this debate. Having listened to his speech, I came to the conclusion that if there was ever a reason for my not conceding on this point, it was his speech of today. I cannot insert anything in the legislation which will compel the State to give a squatter a house, for then I would in advance today be inviting hordes of future Crossroads, and that hon. member would probably be behind it All that a person need do then is simply to go and squat there, and the Government has to give him a house.

When I refer to squatters, I do not have in mind the category of squatters with whom the hon. member is wholly preoccupied, but other squatters. I am not unapproachable. If they wish to move amendments in the Other Place I shall examine them with an open mind, but I want to tell hon. members that if they want us to insert the principle that we are compelled to give a squatter a house in a law, they may as well not set pen to paper.

Minister after Minister gave reassurances in this regard and we have abided by those reassurances. If hon. members are not prepared to accept this and want to abuse the legislation in order to place further problems in our way, I want to tell them in advance that they will not succeed. I think this could be regarded as my final reply to this particular request.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether I misunderstood him when I heard him say that the Government simply does not put people out of their houses unless alternative accommodation is available?

No, the hon. member knows very well what I said. He must not pretend now that he does not know. I said it was apart from those squatters with whom he is so preoccupied. The Government has never thrown people out of their houses without providing alternative accommodation. I am not referring now to Unibel and those places. I think we should now leave the matter at that. I do not think we shall ever agree on this matter, and consequently I am not prepared to debate this point any further.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

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

The provisions of this clause enable the Minister of Community Development to extend the areas of jurisdiction of a local authority so that the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act can apply. There may be occasions where this is necessary, but because in circumstances like this the provisions of town-planning schemes, the building regulations or the health regulations of that local authority are going to become a material factor in determining whether the squatters’ camps or the squatter houses are in fact authorized or not authorized, quite clearly it is not sufficient to merely say “after consultation with”. It becomes necessary to say “after consultation with and with the agreement of". If one wants a local authority to act in a matter over which they have no jurisdiction, then clearly one wants their agreement in getting them to take that particular action.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of clause 2 I wish to move two amendments. The first one reads—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 7, to omit “after” and to substitute “in”;

The meaning and effect of this amendment will be more or less the same as that of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point. It means that one must obtain the assent of the local authority to which the task of taking action in terms of this legislation will be entrusted.

The second amendment I wish to move, reads—

1. (2) On page 5, in line 12, after “authority” to add:

†Mr. Chairman, the main reason why I move the last amendment is that in the case of existing buildings in a particular area, one may find that in that particular area, if one applies the old local authorities’ regulations that exist for buildings, that particular structure or building would have qualified and would have been passed and been approved. We know that the regulations vary. A divisional council may have authority over a certain area and not insist on such strict requirements as for example a municipality might In terms of this legislation both of them are regarded as being local authorities. We deem it necessary to prevent the sort of situation where a person erects an authorized building and then, because of the extension of the jurisdiction of a local authority, finds that his building or structure is regarded as an unauthorized building and therefore liable to be demolished.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point and the first amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, which have more or less the same object. It is not customary for the central Government to allow itself to be dictated to by a local authority. That cannot be laid down in legislation. It is stipulated that we should consult these people, and we are doing so. We are experiencing no problems at present in respect of co-operation with local authorities. In fact, we get along very well with them. However, this is a serious matter and we have to make provision for any circumstances that might arise. In this case the provision will be applied only in Natal, and not in the rest of the country. In the rest of the country we do not have the problem with which these amendments are concerned. I do not want to bedevil the sound co-operation that exists at present by giving a local authority the opportunity of dictating to the Government what it should do. Nevertheless, the Government does expect local authorities to perform certain tasks for us after they have been granted powers beyond their local area of jurisdiction. If we cannot reach an agreement with them, surely we cannot expect co-operation from them afterwards. It is therefore essential that we should reach agreement with them and that we should have their co-operation in the process. However, it is not customary for local authorities to be able to do anything of this nature, and for this reason and for no other, I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. members.

As far as the other amendment by the hon. member for Durban Central is concerned, it seems reasonable to me. He sent me a copy of the amendment while the caucus meeting was in progress. I only received it at 2 o’clock this afternoon and I have therefore not yet had an opportunity of going into all its implications properly. However, it appears to me there is some merit in this amendment, and I wish to give the hon. member the assurance that if he will allow me to give it further consideration, I may perhaps accept it in the Other Place. Perhaps it will not be exactly the same wording, but something similar. If I do not accept it, I shall inform the hon. member personally of why I cannot do so.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond briefly to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said concerning the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point. I must say that I hesitate to participate in the discussion, because it seems that as soon as I do the hon. the Deputy Minister does not like it and immediately gets “kragdadig”. But the fact that he has already turned down the amendment means that I can enter into the discussion quite safely. I want to say that he is not being consistent Yesterday, when this matter was raised by the hon. member for Sea Point, he said: “Ag, maar jy sien spoke.” He said that this had nothing to do with the rest of the country, only with Natal because the system was different there. I think I am quoting him correctly as having said that what happens is that these local authorities very often come to the Government to help them to solve certain problems. Why then, in the name of reason, is it not possible for the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept this brief amendment which, we believe, actually improves the measure and also ensures that it is not a question of the State forcing anybody but rather negotiating and coming to an agreement before going forward? I believe it is a very reasonable proposal.

But it is not done.

What does the hon. the Deputy Minister mean when he says it is not done? The hon. the Deputy Minister says it is not done. It is high time that it was done. That is the problem. We have control at the very top and we are saying that we need to have a dispersal of control so that local authorities can have much more authority over their own affairs. Now, if it has not been done in the past—and we notice that a few things are now being done—then perhaps we should include this one too.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that in the light of his attitude towards the second amendment and the undertaking that he will reconsider it, I am now prepared to withdraw that amendment of mine. I am doing this because the hon. the Deputy Minister is apparently going to move an amendment similar to this one himself, in the Other Place.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper, with leave, withdrawn.

With regard to my first amendment, as well as the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point, which the hon. the Deputy Minister says he is not prepared to accept, I just want to point out that the hon. the Deputy Minister is adopting a standpoint which is again unacceptable to us. In the first place, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that it is not being done. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister alleges that if these amendments were accepted, it would be possible for local authorities to dictate to the central Government. However, I believe that this is precisely what is wrong with our system in South Africa. This is apparent from the attitude adopted by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

It is not an attitude.

It is nevertheless wrong. We have too much government from above. We must bring the Government a little closer to the people.

†It is my contention that the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept either my amendment or the one moved by the hon. member for Sea Point. By doing that we could create a reasonable situation. I do not believe that local authorities will dictate to the central Government. All we will reach through this is mutual agreement.

But they are consulted.

Yes, there is consultation. What does “after consultation” really mean? One can perhaps make a telephone call and call that consultation despite the fact that no agreement may have been reached at all.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is in such a reasonable mood today. I want him to understand that he is dealing here with a very serious problem. He wants mutual agreement to be reached and he wants local authorities to act effectively against squatters. Therefore I honestly believe he should try to reach agreement throughout He simply cannot allege that this is always done with the agreement of the local authority concerned. If he should make this kind of statement, then, in the light of what he said earlier, it would seem that local authorities do dictate to the central Government. That would be an untenable situation. All I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is to consider this request once more. He should forget about his so-called belief that the higher authority should always take the final decision and that everybody else should merely say: “Ja, baas. Laat ons nou maar mooi in ’n ry kom staan.”

*We should decentralize decision-making as far as possible in South Africa. We should place a larger measure of government in the hands of people. Here we have a wonderful opportunity for doing precisely this. Therefore the hon. the Deputy Minister should have the courage now to show what can be done without being afraid that the central Government may allege that local authorities are dictating to it. We must realize that when local authorities understand that it is a really important task which has to be performed, they are capable of performing that task just as well. All that is necessary is a little mutual confidence. Then we will have the position where no local authority will think that it has to do this work against its will for the Government, or for the central authorities. Then the local authority will rather do these things in the most effective way. In other words, if the hon. the Deputy Minister is so serious about the matter, he should see to it that he gets this co-operation. Let us write it into this Bill straight away, for we have said that Ministers come and go and the hon. the Deputy Minister may yet be promoted, so that we may not see him again. What will happen if someone else is appointed to his post who may not show the same goodwill as the hon. the Deputy Minister?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central is now taking the matter too far. Let us look at his argument. For those people who do not have the Bill in front of them, I want to say that the words “after consultation” occur in the legislation. In other words, we are not just going to use force. We are not forcing this on a local authority without any consultation. The hon. member for Durban Central himself referred to the possible situation where matters may be urgent and the local authority concerned—which I do not think will be there—may not be amenable to it. If there is no local authority, the hon. member’s amendment is unnecessary. Suppose there is one. Then it will mean a conflict of interests, and someone will then have to decide. However, the hon. member wants it to be written into the Bill that the permission of the local authority will first have to be obtained …

In consultation.

This actually means that there may be a conflict of interests where the State cannot enforce its authority. We should not anticipate all these difficulties. The official Opposition will never have any problems. If the hon. member for Durban Central has any problems in connection with his local authorities, let him come to us and we shall solve his problems for him.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a point to the hon. the Deputy Minister? He said this was mainly a matter concerning the people in Natal. He should ask himself why a local authority would say to the central Government that it was not prepared to handle a situation on that local authority’s borders. The reason why the hon. the Deputy Minister goes to that local authority is to tell them to handle a problem on their borders. What reasonable local authority is going to refuse, except for one reason? The onus which the hon. the Deputy Minister is placing upon that local authority is financial; there will be a considerable load upon the resources of that local authority to cope with the situation brought to their attention by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I have given you the assurance.

I asked yesterday whether there would now be negotiation, an arrangement, between the department and the local authority.

Financial assistance will be given.

The problem is where a financial arrangement is made which the local authority does not accept as being adequate. The local authority represents the people in that area, the voters in that area, to whom they are responsible. Where should the decision be taken? The hon. the Deputy Minister says somebody must take the decision. He asks: “As daar ’n botsing tussen die Regering en die plaaslike owerheid is, wie moet ’n beslissing gee?”

*He is quite right; someone has to decide. Should it not be the local authority which represents the people there, which has to carry the burden, which has to pay? Are they not the people who should take the decision?

†I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is putting it the wrong way round. Surely the onus of deciding whether the local authority is able to bear the burden, placed on them by the hon. the Deputy Minister, is a matter for negotiation. Local authorities should not be in the position where they can be forced to accept a burden which they regard to be beyond their resources. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister could quite easily accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central that states “in consultation”, which has a different meaning because it means “in agreement with the local authority” rather than “after consultation”. This means that the matter has been discussed, although the hon. the Minister takes the final decision. I think that is a very reasonable amendment, and I say so for the reasons I have put forward. I do not think it is otherwise fair or right to a local authority which may be a very small local authority, e.g. a health committee. One must remember the situation in Natal. A great portion of Natal is honeycombed with areas of kwaZulu, and right on the borders of a small local authority a very considerable problem of people squatting may arise. So I think the local authority should be given the decision. I think that is a reasonable request. The local authority concerned should ask itself whether it can handle the situation. If they find they cannot, they can negotiate with the hon. the Minister. If in the final analysis, however, the local authority finds it cannot handle the matter, it has to be able to say “No” in the interests of its own people.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooirivier has now raised a new approach, i.e. the one of financial aid if such a financial burden is imposed upon a local authority through the extension of its jurisdiction. This was mentioned here yesterday as well, and I gave the assurance—and I have the assurance of the hon. the Minister in this connection—that where there are smaller local authorities that have to be financially assisted in this connection, we shall provide such assistance. If this were written into the Act, a local authority could then place us in a position of stalemate in that it could decide whether a thing should be done or not. This could happen especially if we were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, for in that case, if the local authority did not agree to it, the operation could not proceed. A local authority could lay down very difficult requirements, of course. It could say, for example, that it will not agree to it unless the Government pays everything. This cuts both ways. Let us rather stick to the existing wording, “after consultation”, therefore, and let us trust one another in this connection. I know it is not so easy to ask this of those hon. members, but I do not think it will get us anywhere to continue the discussion on this matter. I am afraid I cannot yield on this point. That is all I have to say.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

HOUSE RESUMED:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned last night I said that, although we agreed that the S.A. Indian Council should be a fully elected body, there were three reasons why a delay in the forthcoming elections was fully justified. The first was that the S.A. Indian Council had themselves requested to wait until some constitutional pattern had emerged from the Interim Report of the Schlebusch Commission. Secondly, there was still widespread ignorance of the achievements of the Indian Council, ignorance which could only be eliminated in time. There is also, however, a third reason and that is that the Indian political parties themselves must be given time to bring their house in order.

When the Indian community’s first elections take place to determine who their political leaders are to be, when that community in fact will be in the process of finding its own political identity, it will be essential that, whatever parties there are, they should enunciate their policies clearly and unequivocally. I have already said that at the present time political parties among the Indian people have not really crystallized to that extent.

That is absolute trash.

In the case of the major political party in the Indian community, the Reform Party, there is also still a lot of confusion about what their views and policies really are.

But the people decide that.

That party at present controls the S.A. Indian Council. It has 13 or 14 council members as against 12 who belong to the other parties or are independents. It is under the leadership of that party that the council has put its request. In fact, according to one newspaper, the Sunday Tribune-Herald of 27 January, the vice-chairman of the Reform Party, Mr. J. N. Reddy, has stated quite clearly that “it was pointless to hold an election before the Schlebusch Commission had issued its recommendations as to how South Africa should be governed”. Moreover, Mr. Rajbansi, the chief organizer and the prime mover of that party, has also in the Graphic of 18 January said that in their submissions to the Schlebusch Commission “the party had pointed out that they regarded the present council as a channel of communication with the Government for a transitory period”.

It is therefore quite clear that in some publications the Reform Party has said that the term of office of the S.A. Indian Council should be extended and that elections should be delayed until some later stage. However, not all members of the Reform Party share the same views. It is a fact that that party is also a member of the Black Alliance and that they do not want to fall foul of Inkatha and the Zulu people. Moreover, they are worried about the Natal Indian Congress’s confrontation politics. It is controlled by ex-South Africans from overseas and some of the most notorius leftists in the world. Consequently, we have the situation that, according to a report in The Natal Mercury-Extra of 30 January under the title “MP’s Approached to Oppose Reinstatement”—

“Mr. Swart had agreed to take my representations to Parliament,” he said …

Moreover, the very branch of the Reform Party to which Mr. Rajbansi belongs, stated the following in a circular dated 3 February 1980—

That the Reform Party demand that the Government scrap the Indian Council immediately and the elections be not held at all.

This circular was issued by the National Secretary, Mr. George Thaver, on the 3rd of this month. Shortly after this a further circular was sent out from the same source. It stated, inter alia—

Order! That issue is not under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that before the election for a South African Indian Council takes place, political parties among the Indian people would need time to state their position quite clearly. The Indian community is the smallest of the minority groups in this country. In their efforts to find their own identity they will, in due course, learn that confrontation politics are fruitless and that no nation can build its future on a situation where its political parties, leading it into an election, have not made its position quite clear. The sooner the political parties of the Indian people start to spell out this message clearly, the better the interests of the Indian people, as a whole, will be served. If this short delay in the run-up to the election will help the Indian parties to clarify their position, more meaningful elections for a representative council can follow.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was somewhat astounded to hear the hon. member for Umlazi give his three reasons as to why the Indian Council should not now become an elected body. He started off by saying that their place in the constitutional pattern had not yet emerged. It was interesting, as I listened to the hon. the Minister yesterday using the words to explain why he was introducing this Bill, that it rang a bell at the back of my head because I seemed to have heard those words before. He was explaining that the Schlebusch Commission was sitting and that new dispensations were being considered for South Africa. It seemed to me that I had heard those sentiments expressed before and I checked back in Hansard for them. It might interest hon. members to hear the following words spoken by the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion. In 1977, very nearly three years ago, we had a debate on the South African Indian Council Bill and at that stage the legislations which allowed for an elected council had not yet been introduced. The hon. the Minister was saying that it had been his intention to introduce the legislation during that session, but for a reason that he was going to put forward he had not done so, and I quote from his Hansard as follows (Hansard, Friday 24 June 1977, col. 11471)—

As hon. members may recall, the former Prime Minister at that stage had appointed a Committee to look into constitutional problems, which is exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing now. He went on to say—

We heard exactly the same thing yesterday. The excuse that was offered three years ago, viz. that the NP did not have a policy for the Indians in 1977, still holds good today. In 1980 they still do not have a policy for the Indians. For how long are the Indians going to go on without having elected people to represent them?

At that time, in that very debate in 1977, that hon. Minister said to the House (Hansard, 24 June 1977, col. 11471)—

Hear! Hear!

Does the hon. the Minister then feel that he has not prolonged the life of that council one day longer than necessary? I am afraid I have to tell the hon. the Minister that we do not agree with him.

I am terrified!

We believe that the time is overdue for that council to become an elected body. I could accept that excuse in 1977, and we did accept it, because at that stage very few Indians had registered on the roll. As the hon. member for Musgrave said yesterday, very few had at that stage registered. But later, urged on by the hon. the Minister and his department, a tremendously successful registration drive was undertaken and a much larger percentage of the Indians came on the roll, thereby indicating quite clearly that the majority of the Indian people wanted an elected council. However, they are still not going to get it, and the reasons advanced are various.

We went right up to March 1979, when the hon. the Minister debated this matter in the House. At that stage he was planning for a November election. It was “all systems go” for a November election. He gave us an undertaking that that was going to be the time of the election. It was “all systems go” right up to 2 November 1979, when proclamation 262 was issued. At that stage it was still “all systems go”. They were planning for an election in March, a little later than the November election that had originally been planned, but still not too bad. Proclamation 263 extended the life of the council from 5 November to 15 January 1980 in readiness for that March election.

You say that was 2 November?

That proclamation was issued on 2 November.

I must warn you that you have not done your homework again.

Well, I have here a copy of the Government Gazette containing that proclamation. If the hon. the Minister feels that I have stated it incorrectly, he is welcome to look at this copy of the Government Gazette, No. 6715, dated 2 November.

I know it well.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister now agrees with me.

You have made the wrong statement.

What sort of homework is the hon. the Minister suggesting I should do? I said that on 2 November proclamation 262 was issued …

What do you say about it?

About proclamation 262 I am going to say that I wonder what changed the hon. the Minister’s mind after 2 November.

You knew.

I did not know.

You have forgotten that you did know.

At that stage, on 2 November, proclamations 262 and 263 were issued. After that time something happened. I wonder what it was that happened, because right up to 2 November 1979 it was “all systems go” for the Indians to have an elected council. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the Schlebusch Commission had at that stage been sitting for some considerable time. They had by then already been hearing evidence in public. I am sure it is well known to that hon. Minister and to all hon. members on that side of the House that the Schlebusch Commission was then sitting. But even that stage the Minister was still prepared to hold an election for the Indian Council. They were prepared to turn that council into an elected body. Subsequently, however, they changed their minds. The hon. member for Umlazi said yesterday that there was no benefit for the Government in delaying the election. Well, Sir, perhaps I have a suspicious nature, but I wonder why the Government changed its mind.

You have every reason to be suspicious!

I have thought back a little bit to what happened shortly after 2 November, and I shall tell the hon. the Minister if he does not remember. On 9 November last year, the famous meeting between the hon. the Prime Minister and the elected Coloured leaders took place, and we all know the unfortunate results of that meeting where, instead of consultation, we had the hon. the Prime Minister telling the Coloured leaders what he felt they should do.

Order! That matter is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling.

You are a “bitterbek”!

I believe the reason why the Government have decided not to hold those elections …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member permitted to refer to another hon. member as a “bitterbek”?

The word “bitterbek” is one of the less pleasant words and I should prefer an hon. member not to use it with reference to another hon. member.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I believe the realization came to that side of the House that it was perhaps a little more difficult to deal with the elected representatives of people than with people whom they themselves have appointed. The present Indian Council have quite openly admitted in the past that they do not relish a situation in which they are not the elected representatives of the people. They have said so quite openly, and the hon. the Minister himself now says that he does not like the situation where the Indian Council is not elected. He has put forward the reasons, reasons which have obviously changed since 2 November. Another reason he advanced was that the Indian Council themselves asked for it. This does not particularly surprise me, because what non-elected representative wants to face his electorate? There are many hon. members on the other side of the House who are not too keen either on facing their electorate. I think for example of the hon. member for South Coast, the hon. member for Albany or the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, who are not too keen to face elections. If they can perpetuate themselves in office they have a vested interest to do so and would very much like to do so. I would therefore suggest that representations of that nature should really not influence us in making a decision on whether or not we should extend the life of the Indian Council.

You are now insulting the members of the Indian Council.

The techniques of this hon. Minister are well known. We are accused of insulting the members of the Indian Council, which is not true at all. We know the techniques the hon. the Minister uses when he is under pressure. I have a great respect for many members of that council, but I shall have a greater respect for them, as will the Indian people themselves, if they face up to an election situation and are elected to that council, just as I would have respect for certain Ministers who have never faced elections.

On behalf of whom are you now speaking?

The question from the hon. member for Newcastle is the same question that was addressed to us yesterday. We talk on behalf of the members of the PFP in this House. I may add, however, that we have had tremendous support from the Indian community from the point of view that we are expressing. Only this morning we had a very favourable reaction from many members of the Indian community, from Indian political parties, who have been in contact with us and who have said that they, too, agree with the stand that we have taken. That hon. member asks us on behalf of whom we are speaking. Actually we are only speaking for ourselves, but I can tell him that there are many, many hundreds of thousands of Indian people who agree with us. The hon. the Minister’s excuse about how much money it is going to cost, which might be money down the drain, really does not hold water with us. What we want to know from that hon. the Minister is how long this situation is going to be allowed to exist. When is he prepared to have an election? Yesterday various members spoke about the Schlebusch Commission. It has been pointed out that it is quite likely that this commission may sit for several years before it comes to its final conclusions. Are we going to wait that length of time? Are we going to wait all that time before we are prepared to allow the Indians to have elected representatives? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us exactly when he is prepared to allow an election to go forward.

He wants to retire first.

I sometimes think that before we do have that elected Indian Council this hon. the Minister will have to retire.

Wishful thinking, is it not?

I want to ask a very simple question across the floor of the House: Is he prepared to have an election for the Indian Council this year?

I am going to deal with that in my reply.

I am very glad that he is going to deal with it. I would have thought that it would have been a very simple assurance for him to have given us.

I am not prepared to play your game.

I must say that it is very difficult to make a speech in competition with the speech being made by the hon. the Minister from his front bench on the other side. All we want is a simple assurance that at some time or another this year he is going to go ahead with an election for the Indian Council, but we do not get that assurance.

The hon. member for Newcastle has asked us whether it is fair not to agree to a request from a statutory body. I must answer him quite directly and say that it is quite fair not to agree to that request. Let us take a look at that statutory body. We know the make-up of that statutory body, we know that 50% of the people in that statutory body—less three, because I believe there are three vacancies at the moment—are appointed by the Government and the other 50% are elected by an electoral college, which is not really a satisfactory way of representing the broad mass of Indian people. In the final analysis it therefore seems that what we are doing is waiting for the NP to get a policy on the Indian people. I listened with a sense of horror to the reasons put forward by the hon. member for Umlazi. He said, firstly, that there was a great deal of ignorance about the achievements of the Indian Council amongst the Indian people. I think the original Indian Council came into operation in 1964, while the present Indian Council legislation came into operation in 1968. If those councillors have not had an opportunity to let the Indian people know of their achievements by this time, I do not know when they will. Certainly I would have said that they have had that time. His second reason was that they did not know what their place in the constitutional pattern that is emerging would be. It was my understanding it was the duty of the elected members of for example the CRC or the Indian Council to come forward and to place their views before the Schlebusch Commission. As the hon. member for Musgrave said yesterday, one of the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister when he put forward last year’s piece of legislation was that it was vitally necessary that there should be an elected body so that the elected representatives of the Indian people could put their viewpoint before the Schlebusch Commission. All that has changed, however.

I stand by it.

I am glad he stands by it, because the hon. member for Umlazi obviously does not. Finally, the hon. member for Umlazi said that the Indian parties must be given time to put their house in order. I find that most extraordinary and insulting. I find that to be a most insulting remark, because I believe that the parties among the Indian community have put their house in order. Those parties know what they stand for, and I believe that they want to fight an election and put their platform before the Indian people of South Africa.

There is therefore no way we can support this piece of legislation, specifically because the hon. the Minister will not give us the assurance that he will hold an election at all. He has said that he is going to reply to us, but I would have thought the time to talk about a date for an election would have been in his short, pithy, uninformative and very brief introductory speech. However, it has not been forthcoming. Perhaps I could ask just one question of the hon. the Minister. As he knows there are three vacancies—I think I am right in saying that—in the Indian Council at the moment. It is within his power to nominate those three members. In doing so is he going to take account of registered Indian political parties, acknowledged political parties operating at the moment? Is he going to do that when he makes those new appointments? Or is he simply going to put three Government yes-men into the Indian Council? What is he going to do? We should like to know a little bit more about his policy when it comes to appointments of this nature and if we are not going to have elected members in this council.

I shall deal with that. I shall give you an answer. However, that suggestion of yours is utterly contemptible.

Well, there we have it again. The hon. the Minister becomes very insulting across the floor of the House. That again is his great technique whenever he runs into trouble. Then he becomes very personal. [Interjections.] Yes, he becomes very personal indeed. However, it flows like water off a duck’s back. We really take it from whence it comes, for exactly what it’s worth, and it is worth very little indeed.

We are not prepared to support this legislation and we shall vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the hon. member for Orange Grove again evinced his mistrust, as usual, of everything the Government says and does. It was very clear …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove must please give me a chance to speak now. While he was speaking, I sat quietly and listened to him. It was very clear that in the opinion of the PFP, there is nothing at all to be said in the NP’s favour. However, the PFP are criticizing destructively as far as they go. The hon. member’s entire argument was aimed at announcing that they do not believe anything of what is put to them with the best of intentions. All I can tell the hon. member for Orange Grove is that I have never in my life met anyone who comes so close to being a doubting Thomas as he does.

According to the hon. member, the Indian Council said several times that they were not elected. However, surely we are aware of this. They did in fact say so. The hon. the Minister, however, explained the whole matter here yesterday. He also gave reasons for it. There is one matter, however, that I should like to mention, one matter that I want to be placed on record. I should like the hon. member for Orange Grove to listen to what I am going to say now. It seems to me that he is first holding a debate with the hon. members behind him. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Orange Grove, if he is capable of listening to me. The hon. member alleged that there was a certain hon. Minister who is not keen on participating in an election. These were the hon. member’s words. I think this is a disgraceful statement. [Interjections.] I should very much like to know what motivation promoted that insinuation by the hon. member.

It was not an insinuation.

It was not an insinuation at all.

Then what was it, Horace? [Interjections.]

However, I should very much like to reply to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. He insists that an election should be held in the Indian Community. If I understood him correctly, he also referred us to proclamation 262. According to that proclamation, such an extension is in fact being granted for a period of one year. However, it is not being granted for longer than one year. Consequently, I believe that he can draw the conclusion that the election may possibly take place within a year. I want to leave him at that, however. I do not want to cross swords any longer with the hon. member for Orange Grove here this afternoon.

We are dealing here with legislation concerning the smallest population group in our country. It is concerned with the registration of Indian voters, as well as the delimitation of their constituencies. Last but not least, it is also concerned with the election itself.

Now, however, I should like to come back to the hon. member for Musgrave. I want to quote from column 3412 of last year’s Hansard, in order to show what this hon. member was up to. I quote—

I do not want to enlarge on this, but once again these sentences have a sting in their tail. The hon. member went on, however, after the Minister had replied—

Minister said so. Then the hon. member says—

This afternoon we heard the same speech from the hon. member for Orange Grove. We discussed this legislation concerning the election of the S.A. Indian Council in the House last year. I should like to go on to refer to the hon. member for Musgrave, because he is harping on the election as such and on extending the life of the Indian Council, before an election is held. However, we can have it put on record. The election was to have been held on 31 March 1980. The machinery for the election was set in motion. I want to pay tribute this afternoon to the small Department of Indian Affairs that was entrusted with the registration of voters for the Indian community. We are aware that they did a very good job. More than 70% of the Indian community has been placed on the voters’ roll. The delimitation has been carried out. It was possible to hold the election, but the Indian Council—this was clearly spelled out by the hon. the Minister yesterday—asked for the election to be postponed for various reasons. I should like to put a question to hon. members of the official Opposition in this regard, and they must listen to my question: Do they expect this Government to do everything for the good of the Indian community? Now there is no reply. I shall answer that myself. They will agree that this must be done for that population group. I now ask at once: What is the Opposition doing? I said that the best must be done for those people, but what is the official Opposition doing about those people, about arranging an election that must take place, about legislation that is before this House at present? It was brought home to me this afternoon that the intentions and viewpoints of the official Opposition are not honest. They are not honest in what they are doing. The S.A. Indian Council asked the hon. the Minister to extend their term of office, and we are now coming to this House and asking for it to be done. The Indian Council has given acceptable reasons for this. That is why this debate is being held this afternoon. The hon. the Minister spelled this matter out very clearly and I cannot understand why there is any opposition to it now. We are now aware that opposition can always be expected from that side of the House, regardless of what legislation is being dealt with. However, before I come to that, I want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave if he stands by what he said about the S.A. Indian Council in April 1978. I do not think he will remember what he said, because the hon. member vented his spleen here yesterday, if I may put it like that, after the hon. the Minister had spoken. That is why I should like to quote a few extracts from the Natal Mercury of 27 April 1978. Firstly, it says—

That is what it says here. Yesterday, however, the hon. the Minister put it to us that one of the reasons was that a reason which could assist these people, could possibly emanate from the proceedings of the Schlebusch Commission. Then that hon. member turns round and asks whether the hon. the Minister spoke nonsense last year or whether he is speaking nonsense now. I want to point out, however, what the hon. member also said on 27 April 1978, when he was aware that the Schlebusch Commission was in session and was aware of what could possibly emanate from it. I quote—

Surely that hon. member was aware at that time of the reason the hon. the Minister advanced here in connection with that matter. However, I quote further—

Of course, we agree on that. They are not representative of the whole community. However, I have already said that the hon. the Minister complied with those people’s request and that we have to wait and see whether something worthwhile may emanate from the proceedings of that commission, and also because those people asked for the election to be postponed.

There is another question, however, which I want to ask. What is the task of each one of the hon. Opposition members in this regard, and what is our task on the Government side? Before I come to that, I just want to mention another point. I am not going to waste the time of the House with it. I have here a list of 23 tasks which have been disposed of since the appointment of the Indian Council. I am going to mention one of these, viz. compulsory education for Indian children as from January 1979. So far, more than 183 000 Indian children are already attending school in Natal, and 212 894 Indian children in the Republic as a whole. Surely this shows that these people have been working, that they have not been sitting around doing nothing.

However, there are also other reasons why postponement was granted, and here I want to agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga who said in his speech yesterday that the Indian Council must put its house in order. I agree with the hon. member there, because some leaders of the Indian Council abused their position when they visited the voters who would have had to vote for them if the election had taken place in March. I just want to quote a short piece from the Leader of 4 January 1980 in connection with this matter. It says—

Then he goes on—

Surely this is not true. They came to us as a council and not separately. The writer, a certain Mr. Mohammed Suleman, goes on to say—

This is what this writer says after everything that happened.

Mr. Speaker, other things happened in the Indian community as such in connection with this election, things that would create chaos if they were allowed to continue. That is why I am asking, as previous speakers have done, for these people to put their house in order. Now I do not want the hon. member for Orange Grove to say once again, as he said recently, that “It is a disgrace” to ask something of this kind. We have proof of what is happening. Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? A certain so-called aspirant candidate visited voters and drew up a form which they had to sign. They called it a pledge. He wanted to commit those people to him.

Accordingly I say that is one of the reasons why the election has been postponed. As the hon. the Minister spelled out, one of the reasons is that it was requested, in order to give the Indian community the right to choose their own representatives, their own leaders, according to and in agreement with the Electoral Act, which was piloted through this House last year. That is why we are asking for support of this legislation. Another reason is to allow the Indian community to exercise the right and freedom which is their due, in a democratic way, should they prefer to do so. There are many of them who said that they were not going to vote. However, they must be given the opportunity. Moreover they will be given the opportunity when the time is ripe. The Indians must also be able to vote for their own candidate, the candidate who, in their opinion, will provide the best service to the community.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. members of the official Opposition, in all fairness and honesty: “Stop trying to steal a political march on us all the time, in every possible way, and in connection with all legislation concerning the other communities. Stop acting in a predatory manner. Rather try to co-operate in order to make this beautiful country even more beautiful and more pleasant for all its people.”

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will excuse me if I do not react to his speech directly. During the course of my remarks I shall deal with some of the matters raised by him.

Sir, we have heard about the achievements of the Indian Council and about a lot of ancillary matters. In my humble opinion there is, however, only one crisp issue at stake in this particular Bill and that is the question of whether we grant the extension or not. All the other ancillary matters, quite candidly, are interesting for the record and historically, but do not contribute to the question of whether we accept this Bill or not.

If the official Opposition were to be successful in opposing this Bill, which I know they will not be …

Why do you say that?

Let us assume that the official Opposition are successful—I shall take the hon. member for Pinelands a little further along this road—in opposing this Bill: The effect would be that one would have to have an election next month for the Indian Council.

That is right.

The hon. member for Pinelands says “That is right”. Does the hon. member think that it is fair towards the Indian community that they should have an election at short notice, as early as next month?

They have been preparing for months.

Mr. Speaker, we are all agreed that the members of the Indian Council must be elected. I do not think there is an hon. member in this House who does not agree with that fact. However, to expect them to have an election within a period of five or six weeks from this day is asking them to prepare for something that is physically impossible. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether he would be happy if the hon. the Prime Minister called for an election for this Parliament and only gave six weeks notice?

I would walk it. [Interjections.]

The only walking I can remember the hon. member for Pinelands being concerned with was when he objected to Black people walking through Pinelands. [Interjections.]

That is a lie and you should know it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pinelands has just said to me: “That is a lie and you should know it”. May I have your ruling on this matter?

Did the hon. member for Pinelands use those words?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. It is not true and the hon. member should know it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that the machinery for the election is ready, that the registration was successful and that the delimitation has been completed. We are faced with the situation where the Indian Council, the Indian people, the hon. the Minister and all the political parties want an election in 1980. If one looks at the Bill, it seems apparent that there will be an election in 1980. The hon. the Minister will obviously have to consult with the parties concerned and will have to decide on a date for the election before 5 November 1980. It is obvious that the parties could easily agree that the election should be held four to five months hence; in other words, it would be feasible and would give all the parties an opportunity if the election were held in, say, July or August. In the circumstances, the hon. the Minister could provide for an extended date in the Bill. To us that does not seem unreasonable or unfair. In this regard I may mention that the NRP have made certain suggestions and proposed certain amendments which I think are valid and worth supporting. In the circumstances we in the SAP will not be opposing this Bill.

Order! Referring to my earlier ruling, I want to explain that if the hon. member for Pinelands had said “It is not true” and nothing further, it would have been in order. It is, however, unparliamentary to say “It is not true and the hon. member knows it”. The hon. member must therefore also withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this issue? I did not say that. With respect, Sir, I said “That is not true and the hon. member should know it”. I understood that to be parliamentary as that is the ruling which has been given in the past. That is what I said and my Hansard will prove it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Walmer that I basically agree with what he said, and for that reason I want to address my remarks mainly to the hon. members of the official Opposition. Listening yesterday to the speech made by the hon. member for Musgrave, and again this afternoon to the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove, it occurred to me, as it has often occurred to me in the past, how ironic it is that a party that so often professes to speak on behalf of the Black people and the people of colour in this country—or at least that the vast majority of those people support their views—so seldom listen to those people or take any notice of what they have to say.

†It reminded me of a previous occasion in this House when we were debating Indian education. On that occasion the hon. member for Musgrave opposed, as he did again yesterday, a specific request from the Indian Council. When the hon. the Minister asked him whether he had consulted the Indian community about this attitude, he replied that he was relying on his innate intelligence.

*I want to say at once to that hon. member and the other members of his party that this innate intelligence that they rate so highly is obviously judged quite differently by the electorate, otherwise the representation of that party in this House would have been quite different. This is not only true in respect of the Whites, but in respect of the other population groups as well. It is that very attitude of the official Opposition which is causing them to become increasingly irrelevant in South African politics. That is why, for example, Inkatha is no longer talking to that party, but to the NP. That party will find that because of their attitude, the Indian leaders will increasingly realize who is important in White politics and who is not and with whom they can fruitfully negotiate and deliberate and on whom they are wasting their time.

†Yesterday the hon. member for Musgrave tried to convey the impression that he was speaking for the majority of the Indian community when he opposed the extension proposed in this Bill. Since he rejects the Indian Council as being representative of any majority—firstly because it is ethnically based and secondly because it is partly nominated—it is quite clear that he did not have the Indian Council in mind. I should therefore like to know from him on what he bases his claim.

Ask your telephone tappers to tell you about the telephone calls I have been getting all day.

How many telephone calls did he receive?

You should know.

Did he receive 285 000, perhaps? Since the Indian community has not yet had an election on party lines, it is quite clear that there is not a majority party on which he can base his claim. I should therefore like to know from him whether he has in fact conducted a scientific, proper and authoritative public opinion poll amongst the Indian community to establish this claim and, if so, why nobody else has had the benefit of insight into the results of such a poll; or has he perhaps found in the Indian community a self-appointed, self-styled majority leader like Dr. Motlana, for example, with whom his party is wont to share political platforms? They also shared a political platform in my constituency. What is more, it was on Republic Day, which I find a disgrace in itself.

Where did you see that? On television?

It was in my constituency.

*That hon. member and his party are not at all concerned with what the Indians want or with their future, but merely with the petty political capital they want to make in this House, no matter who gets trampled upon in the process. That is why the fact that the hon. the Minister held out the prospect last year of an election being held in November 1977 is more important to him than the fact that the Indian Council requested the extension and that it was their wish that this should be done. What is more, the statement of that hon. member that this Bill is before the House because the Government is allegedly afraid that its policy will be rejected by an elected Indian Council is absolute nonsence. Surely it is completely absurd, for what would it matter whether that rejection, which that hon. member is obviously eager to see, takes place in six weeks’ time in March or six months later in November? The history of man is not reckoned in days, weeks and months, but in years, decades and even centuries.

†I think it is quite clear from what other hon. members on this side of the House have said that the Government is as anxious as anybody else in the House to have a fully representative, a fully elected, Indian Council come into being as soon as possible. It regards this step as a major one of historical significance, and one which would therefore not be jeopardized by an over-hasty, premature and half-baked election. That is why I am also glad that the hon. member for Umhlanga agrees with us on this side of the House that a postponement of the election is justified in the particular circumstances prevailing at present. I also tend to agree with that hon. member that the Indian Council will probably have some difficulty in finding a reasonable justification …

You are giving me the kiss of death.

If the hon. member prefers to align himself with the other side, that is his business. The Indian Council will probably find some difficulty in finding a reasonable justification for a further postponement beyond the one proposed in the Bill. As I read it, 30 November is the maximum limit to which the councils term can be extended in terms of the Bill. That does not mean, however, that the Indian Council has to stay in session or sit until 30 November. For example, if the Schlebusch Commission were to produce an interim report well before that date, and the Indian political parties felt that on that basis they could hold an election soon afterwards, in my view the council could very well be disbanded before 30 November. In view of that I think the amendment the hon. member for Umhlanga intends proposing in the Committee Stage would seem to be superfluous.

Do you support it?

I said it would be superfluous.

*However that may be, the hon. member agrees that the request which led to the introduction of this Bill was a reasonable one. That is why it was granted by the Government. I think it is important to note that this attitude of the Government is typical of its good relations with the Indian community and its willingness to recognize and accommodate the Indian community at all times.

This has been typical of the entire course of political development of the Indian community in South Africa, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to illustrate this statement with four short examples.

In 1963, the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, and Indian leaders met to deliberate and to consult about the political future of the community. As a result of this, a nominated Indian Council of 21 members was appointed, and it was also decided that this House would assist in the development of the eventual Indian representation. Surely this is exactly what has been happening ever since and is still happening today—at the present moment, for example, by means of the giving of evidence before the Schlebusch Commission and in a certain sense through the introduction of this legislation. In 1967, the Indian Council recommended that it should become a statutory body and eventually a representative body. As a result of that request, it was converted into a statutory council of 25 members the next year. In 1973, the council requested that it should be reconstituted, after the expiry of its term of office on 31 August 1974, to consist of 15 elected and 15 nominated members, and the Government undertook to make a recommendation to this effect to the State President. This was granted and this is in fact the present constitution of the council.

In 1978, this House passed legislation to convert the Indian Council into a representative body of 40 elected members and five nominated members to be designated by the elected members, once again after consultation with the Indian Council and at its request. The Electoral Act for Indians was adapted to that of the Whites. The Fannin Commission was appointed to delimitate constituencies for the Indian community. A registration campaign was launched, and on 30 June last year, almost 285 000 Indian voters were registered, or approximately 75% of the estimated total. In my opinion, this clearly indicates that the Indian community wants an elected Indian Council such as has been proposed. As he has done on previous occasions, the hon. member for Musgrave expressed his reservations about this again yesterday. These are reservations arising from his party’s well-known, but totally unacceptable, policy of integration and the total denial of the inherent right of peoples to full self-determination.

You are talking rubbish.

What do the Indians themselves want? That is important.

Before hon. members on the other side get too excited, I want to point out that the hon. member for Musgrave had to admit—somewhat reluctantly, but he did admit it—that a fully elected Indian Council was a step in the right direction. He has done this on previous occasions as well and he has furnished his reasons. I should like to quote the hon. member’s Hansard …

Order! I think the hon. member should come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this quotation has a direct bearing on the legislation. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 74, col. 8152, of 30 May 1978, as follows—

In column 8153, the hon. member says the following—

As other speakers have indicated, Indian politicians would like to know more about exactly where they are going to find themselves in the future constitutional dispensation. Until the Schlebusch Commission has provided certain guidelines, they do not know which political dispensation they can support, or which one they wish to oppose. They would like to know exactly where they stand and what their political platforms will be like before venturing upon the first party-political election for Indians in the history of South Africa. Surely this is quite understandable. Moreover, it is a well-known fact that until comparatively recently, the Indian community was not organized on a party-political basis. As recently as the beginning of last year, there was only one Indian political party, i.e. the Indian Reform Party. As could have been expected, however, the prospect of an election has changed this situation completely. The latest annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs, on which I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his officials, says on page 5—

It is clear, therefore, that within the space of a single year, several political parties have been established. Some of the political parties are only a few months old. Nor do they resemble the NRP or the PFP, which split off from an established party and took the experience with them. They have had to start from scratch. Now I should like to know from the hon. member for Musgrave whether he really thinks that such embryonic parties, with so little experience, can participate in a party-political election in a truly meaningful and equitable way within such a short period. I really want to know whether he considers it in the interests of Indian politics that such a premature election should be held for the sake of just six months. I also want to know from the hon. member whether he deliberately wants the Indian community to fail in this important historical event in their political development, merely because the proposed development does not agree in every respect with the political views of the hon. member’s small political minority group.

I want to quote the hon. member for Musgrave once again, from his speech in this House on 5 June 1978 (Hansard, Vol. 74, col. 8431)—

†Mr. Speaker, I believe I have shown conclusively that the Government has demonstrated consistently that it is prepared to listen to and to accede to all reasonable requests by the S.A. Indian Council. I think that the hon. member for Musgrave has shown equally conclusively that the Indian Council, no matter in what form it is constituted, cannot rely on the same treatment from that party. I believe that the Government has shown throughout the whole development that it has acted decently, democratically and in the interests of democracy.

You do not want an election.

We do want an election.

Why not have it then?

What we do not want is a half-baked, premature, damaging election, which is exactly what hon. members opposite do want. [Interjections.] Therefore, because the Government has acted decently towards the Indian community, because the Government has acted democratically and in the interest of democracy as a whole, I have no hesitation in supporting the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when I introduced this Bill yesterday, my speech was, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, short and pithy. As a matter of fact, I really did not expect the measure to elicit as much resistance as it actually did. To me it is still a very clear matter, a very simple matter, as well as a very desirable matter that we should accede to the request of this large majority—there were only three votes against it—of the Indian Council, especially since I am convinced that this extension is in the interests of the Indian community and of proper representation. It will also, I believe, serve the interests of very important developments later, when more about the intentions of the Schlebusch Commission become known.

I gained the impression, however, while I was listening to the hon. member for Musgrave, that we were dealing here with honourable people who had decided for political reasons to adopt a standpoint. However, they were not properly informed about the facts, and they did not even take the trouble to enlighten themselves properly. They then looked for arguments to motivate their standpoint.

†I want to illustrate this by referring to the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member knows that I have a very high regard for him and that I regard him as a man who maintains the most honourable standards in his public life. When I say now that he did not tell the whole story and the whole truth to the House yesterday, I am not suggesting that he did so in a dishonourable way. I only think that he was negligent, rash and engaged in a process of rationalization, which rendered it impossible for him to live up to this normal high standards of thinking and conduct. [Interjections.] He quoted what I had said in Parliament on 30 March 1979, when we discussed the Electoral Act for Indians Amendment Bill. He quoted me quite correctly that I expressed myself quite strongly as being in favour of a fully elected council for our South African Indians. I still believe that, and it is still my policy and my intention to bring it about as soon as is reasonably possible and rational. I think hon. members will agree that my department has proved that it is indeed the Government’s intention to have a fully elected council as soon as possible. The Department of Indian Affairs is a very small one. When the Department of Coloured Affairs had to prepare and compile the voters’ roll for the Coloured community the work was done for them by the Department of the Interior. When my very small department had to do the same work with regard to the Indians, the Department of the Interior was unable to do the work, for good reasons. We had to improvise, create the machinery, provide the staff and create the circumstances to make it possible, and every hon. member on the opposite side of the House would agree that it was a success story. They did have some doubts as to whether we would succeed—they expressed that in the House—but we did succeed. We obtained a better percentage registration for our South African Indians than the Americans obtain for their presidential elections. That is a very good criterium; and I am very proud of my department. They went out of their way to do it quickly and efficiently, since they knew that we were wedded in principle to the idea that the members of this Indian Council should be elected as soon as possible, and that has not changed. I can give the hon. member that assurance. However, we have to make changes. The hon. member for Musgrave repeatedly referred to the fact that I indicated last year that the election would take place in November 1979. He said twice that I had changed the date to March 1980, and now he is complaining that I am changing the date again, which, according to his argument, showed that there was some motive, that we were afraid of an Indian electorate choosing their own representatives. Why did he say that? Why did he read that part of my speech from Hansard when he should have known—and this is why I accuse him on negligence and recklessness—that on a later occasion in Parliament, in reply to questions he put to me during the discussion of the Vote of the Department of Indian Affairs, I explained to him why there had been a postponement.

I shall quote that in a minute. I explained to him why there was a postponement. I motivated it and he must have accepted my explanation, because shortly after that speech he spoke for his full 10 minutes, on a variety of subjects, but did not criticize my statement in any way at all. He is a trained lawyer. So surely, since he reacted to my speech, I am entitled to accept that at least I had his tacit agreement for my point of view. Otherwise he is not fit to be a frontbencher in charge of the debate for the Opposition. Let us see what happened, not on 30 March, the date he quoted me as having spoken on, but two months later, on 28 May, when, in response to a speech he made—so he must have listened to the answer—I told him the following (Hansard, Vol. 82, col. 1045)—

That is the member for Musgrave, and no other hon. friend—

Then I went further—

A little later I went on to say—

He knew about it. But wait, let me go further—

This is also what I want to point out. There were no objections last time, but now there are furious objections. Some people have even said that I am insulting the Indian people, but last year I said—

I was referring to a democratic election—

problems for my department. When they need more time, I am glad to give it to them, and they still need more time. They came, and told me so, a convincing majority of the members of the council. I repeat what I said then, and that was that if they wanted more time, I was prepared to give it to them. Hon. members opposite conceded as much by their silence, by their tacit acceptance of what I said on that occasion, because my speech was reacted to by the hon. member for Musgrave and, interestingly enough, also by the hon. member for Orange Grove’s long speech and no criticism was levelled on that point.

You stated March.

No, I am quoting from my speech in May. The hon. member should know that one of the rules of logic is that when one quotes an authority one quotes his most recent statement. [Interjections.] On 30 March I made a speech which the hon. member quoted here in this House, but on 28 May, two months later, I explained why I had not strictly observed what I had said earlier, and I say again that by his silence on this issue, when he reacted to my speech, and in view of the silence of the hon. member for Orange Grove, when he reacted to my speech that same afternoon, I am entitled to say that I had their tacit agreement on that.

Silence is golden.

Of course!

We accept, of course, that you made a later statement, as you have indicated …

Please address the Chair. It embarrasses me when you shout at me.

Sorry. Mr. Speaker, did the hon. the Minister say, or did he not say, that the election was going to be delayed until March?

Mr. Speaker, I probably said March. [Interjections.] Wait. On 28 March I said the election would take place in November—that is the point—and I meant it. I wanted it to take place in November, but in the meantime the Indian people came to me and asked to have it postponed, for good reasons. Then on 28 May I took the opportunity of taking the House into my confidence to tell hon. members why, and I am saying that I had the tacit agreement of the Opposition.

For March.

For similar reasons I announced in May that if the Indian people asked me for more time I would give it to them. I received no criticism, no objections from the Opposition, but now, suddenly, for some political stunt they are trying to pull—which I cannot understand—they have decided to fight a weak case by using weak arguments. It is as simple as that.

At the time, I also made the point that I thought in view of the appointment of a parliamentary Select Committee, subsequently converted into the Schlebusch Commission, it would be wise, it would be better, that there should be elected representatives of the Indian people to put their case to the Schlebusch Commission. But then, for reasons which were accepted by the Opposition, it was not possible to hold the election until at least 26 March 1980. In the meantime the Schlebusch Commission has functioned; it received evidence from the S.A. Indian Council. As a result of the commission’s work we are all expecting some interim report from the commission which may alter all constitutional planning for the future. I repeat with great conviction and sincerity that I think it is wise that the election for the Indian Council should take place when they have knowledge of what this new development may be, because it may affect their whole outlook. It may also affect the issues upon which they will fight their election and it may also affect the attitude of people to that election. It may even cause the Indian Congress to participate in the election.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Indian people are going to be consulted about the new development which the Minister now envisages, and, if so, who he is going to consult?

At this stage I cannot give an answer to that, for obvious reasons. I am a member of the commission. But when the commission’s interim report appears the hon. member will have a more than adequate answer, one which will satisfy him. I cannot say more than that.

I have now dealt with the two points of the hon. member and I do not think there are any other arguments I need deal with from the official Opposition. They were, in fact, non-arguments; they were rationalizations; they were attempts to justify the unjustifiable attitude they adopted in this matter. I do hope they will yet reconsider their attitude and not make themselves guilty of empty demonstrations contrary to all reason and fact just for the sake of being difficult.

Go back to Hyde Park.

I come now to the other two opposition parties. I do want to say that although the hon. member for Umhlanga while he was speaking and I had our differences across the floor, he and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central of the SAP presented quite a different case to that of the official Opposition. I want to express my appreciation to them for their reasonableness.

The hon. member for Umhlanga asked me whether I would accept an amendment in the Committee Stage, that the election should be held I think he said not later than 5 November 1980 …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove thought that was such a good idea that he tried to jump the gun by asking me to reply to that question across the floor, but I thought it my duty to reply to the hon. member who thought of this first, and I am doing that now. I had taken the trouble to obtain legal advice, before this debate, on whether under this Bill I shall have the power to anticipate the date of 5 November 1980, and I have been assured by the law advisers that I have the power to anticipate the date. I also have the power under the original Act, the amending Act we passed last year, by proclamation to prolong the date beyond 5 November. I want the facts to be perfectly clear. I can therefore anticipate 5 November 1980. The only question which remains is whether I should accept an amendment which binds me to a particular date. I regret that I cannot do it. I can only give the hon. member my sincere assurance that if it is at all possible I want this election to take place as soon as possible. I want it to take place this year. I also know that there is a considerable body of opinion among our Indians who want the same thing. A deputation consisting of the three minority members came to see me. I see Sunday Times Extra spoke about a “clandestine” meeting I had with them. Sir, I do not have clandestine meetings with people. It is not necessary. They came openly to see me in my office in the ordinary course, while I was conducting my daily work at office to put their case to me. I have also had representations from other groups and organizations. I therefore know that there is a body of opinion among Indians who want this election. There are not hundreds of thousands, like the hon. member for Orange Grove said rather irrationally. I do not know when he had the opportunity of counting them. There is, however, a considerable body of opinion and I take that into account I also take into account that if there are any interim suggestions from the Schlebusch Commission, we shall know fairly soon whether the Government accepts them or not. I give my word that an election will then take place promptly, because the Department of the Interior has printed the voters’ rolls, we have the complete delimitation and there is time for a full supplementary registration since the first registration closed. I therefore give my word that I shall do everything in my power for that election to take place. I also know that my Indian friends realize that they too have had enough time and they will not plead for a further extension of time. I want to give hon. members the assurance that in taking the decision to bring forward this Bill to extend the life of the Indian Council, the only motive has been to accede to a wish expressed by the recognized leaders of the Indian community and to make the election a more meaningful one, more related to the realities of life in South Africa, by postponing it until after we know what interim recommendations the Schlebusch Commission will make. Question put, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—122: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; 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.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; 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, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; 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.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scholtz, E. M.; 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.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; 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.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B. Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen and A. J. Vlok.

Noes—16: Basson, J. D. du P.; De Beer, Z. 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.; Suzman, H.; 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—

The Mining Titles Registration Act, 1967, regulates the registration of mining titles, i.e. mining rights granted or acquired under the mineral laws, other rights connected with prospecting and mining, stand titles and certain other deeds and documents, by the Registrar of Mining Titles.

A nomination agreement for the purposes of the mineral laws relates to alienated State land, i.e. land which is not owned by the State and in the title deed of which there is a reservation to the State of the right to minerals. The owner has the exclusive right of prospecting on alienated State land and he may either himself exercise that right or grant that right and the right to acquire a mining lease over the land in question to his nominee by means of a nomination agreement which is binding upon the successors in title of the owner of the land if such agreement is embodied in a notarial deed and registered in the Mining Titles Office.

In terms of section 5(1)(d) of the Act it is one of the duties of the Registrar of Mining Titles to register a nomination agreement and any cession, renewal, modification, abandonment or cancellation thereof upon application.

Section 48 of the Act contains provisions regarding applications to the Registrar of Mining Titles for the registration of nomination agreements and matters incidental thereto.

According to the present wording of section 48, it is only compulsory to submit the owner’s copy of the title deed of the land in question to the Registrar of Mining Titles when application is made for the registration of a nomination agreement. The said Registrar must forward a copy of the agreement and the title deed to the Registrar of Deeds for the area in which the land is situated, who has to note the agreement against the title deed and in the appropriate registers. Although section 48(3) requires that the abandonment or cancellation of a nomination agreement be noted against the title deed by the Registrar of Deeds concerned, section 48(1) imposes no obligation that the title deed of the land in question be handed in at the office of the Registrar of Mining Titles for that purpose.

Hon. members will notice that section 48 contains no prescriptions to the applicant in connection with the registration of a renewal, modification, abandonment or cancellation of a registered nomination agreement. Section 48 also does not provide that an applicant for the registration of a cession of a registered nomination agreement has to hand in the title deed of the land in question and that such cession has to be noted against the title deed.

*Since a registered nomination agreement is binding upon the successor in title of the owner of the land, it is essential, for the information of prospective purchasers of the land, that the owner’s title deed and the Deeds Registry’s copy of it should indicate not only the existence of such an agreement, but should also indicate, for example, that it has been renewed.

Problems arise when attorneys, notaries public and conveyancers undertake to do reference work in the Deeds Registry for prospective purchasers of land, for example, and the title deed of the land or the copy of the nomination agreement do not indicate the true state of affairs in respect of, for example, a renewal. Nor does the land owner’s title deed indicate the position. There are cases where, according to the registers in the Deeds Registry, or according to the owner’s title deed, it may be accepted that a nomination agreement has elapsed owing to effluxion of time and the land is “clean”, but where it is subsequently discovered that the agreement was in actual fact renewed. The reason for such an unsatisfactory situation being able to arise, is that section 48 lays down no provisions with regard to the renewal of such an agreement.

Attorneys, notaries public and conveyancers have requested—and they are supported in this by the Registrar of Mining Titles—that section 48 of the Act be rectified so that the registration of any cession, renewal or modification of a registered nomination agreement shall also be noted against the title deed of the land as well as in the registers of the Deeds Registry.

A problem that can be foreseen is in the case where a holder of an agreement may renew it without again having to consult the owner of the land in the matter, or where an agreement is ceded and the owner is not party to such a cession, and the owner refuses to make his title deed available for notation. In order to cope with such a situation it is being proposed that section 48 be extended to provide that the registration by the Registrar of Mining Titles of a cession, renewal, modification, abandonment or cancellation of a registered nomination agreement shall nevertheless be noted in his records by the Registrar of Deeds and that such a registration be noted against the owner’s title deed at a later stage when it finds its way to the Deeds Registry in connection with another matter. Section 45(3) of the Mining Rights Act, 1967 (Act No. 20 of 1967) contains similar provisions, in case the owner’s title deed is unobtainable, for making an endorsement on it to the effect that the land has been proclaimed or deproclaimed for the purposes of that Act, as the case may be.

The Chief Registrar of Deeds was consulted and he has no objection to the proposed amendment of section 48 of the Act.

Hon. members will also note that a few improvements to the Act are being proposed, viz. the improvement in the definition of “nomination agreement”, in section 1, and the improvement of the wording of section 5(1)(d).

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has explained the operation of the existing Mining Titles Registration Act of 1967, and has shown the need why there should be greater clarity in some of the wording of that Act and how greater effectiveness can be achieved in the registration, renewal, cancellation and modification of nomination agreements as newly defined in the Bill before us. I believe that the improvements proposed by the hon. the Minister are fully justified and will in fact effect an improvement Having ourselves struggled through what is a rather difficult Bill to read, we have no hesitation in saying that the effect of the Bill is beneficial. It will no doubt be helpful also to the Registrar of Deeds and the Registrar of Mining Titles. We will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we have no objection to the Amendment Bill. We have been told that it is an improvement which has been made at the request of various persons and bodies, i.e. those affected by it most. In practice this will mean an improvement, while the principle of the measure is not being change. Consequently we support the improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to convey to the hon. the Minister the support of this side of the House in the acceptance of this Bill.

There is a deeper principle underlying this legislation, on which I should like to express a few thoughts. We are dealing here with something more than the mere extension of section 48 of the Act, as envisaged in clause 3 of the Bill. We are in fact concerned with the perfecting of the South African Registration Law. According to J. W. S. Heyl in a work, Grondregistrasie in Suid-Afrika, the principle upon which Registration Law is based, is twofold, i.e. to ensure on the one hand that there is unassailability of title for the owner, and on the other to provide interested parties outside the immediate parties with legal security. In the earliest times, as far back as the time when Roman Law held sway, ownership was transferred, initially by giving possession with a concomitant intention of allowing the transfer to take place. This could take place either by means of a physical transaction or by entering into an expressed agreement. In Roman Dutch Law this developed further into a formal system, where parties that had negotiated a transaction had to appear before a judge in the area where the particular property was situated. The transaction was then concluded there. This was afforded statutory force for the first time with the Edict of Charles V, in 1529, which made the transfer of ownership by means of registration a fixed and inflexible practice. Consequently this law was the prevailing law in South Africa after the Dutch East India Company occupied the Cape in 1652.

The first act of registration recorded in South Africa was the registration of property in the name of a certain Steven Jansz, one of the first freeburgers, on 14 April 1657. Before long, however, the unreliability of the records, which is basically the problem we are dealing with here, and is in fact the cause of the legislation before us, because a great problem, inter alia, because no endorsement was made to the deeds to indicate that they were deeds that had expired when the property was again transferred in further ownership. We find the first attempt to provide legal security in South Africa with the promulgation of a Proclamation, in the Cape Colony, on 2 July 1686. In terms of this Proclamation, Johannes Gulielmus de Grevenbroeck opened the first registration book. He copied the deeds that had already been issued into a register. What was also important was that a diagram was included with each deed. Thus was basically the forerunner of what we know today as the office of the Surveyor-General.

Only in 19 January 1828 was the office of Registrar of Deeds introduced for the first time, and this was done in terms of a Cape ordinance. What is also interesting, is that he was initially known as the “Registrar of Slaves and Deeds” until the office of Registrar of Slaves disappeared in 1834. Incidentally it is also interesting to know that one of the oldest stamps still being preserved in the Cape Town Registration Office is that of the Registrar of Slaves and Deeds. Over the decades the law of registration extended here and subsequently made provision for the keeping of other registers, and, inter alia, in 1909 the register for mining titles as well. I believe we can say with pride that the system in South Africa has developed into at least one of the best systems if not the very best in the world.

The Bill we are now dealing with is in fact an effort to extend these principles further in order to demonstrate to the general public the unassailability of title as well as the legal security. For that reason I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to thank hon. members who participated in this debate for their support of the Bill. In particular I should like to thank the hon. member for Randburg most sincerely for his contribution. I believe he did us a favour by giving us this wonderful survey of the history of a fantastic registration system. I share with him the pride he has in our legal system, and in particular our registration system as well. His speech, I believe, will be a useful piece of reference for anyone in future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 7(1) of the Act prohibits or restricts prospecting for precious stones on certain land. In terms of subsection (1)(e) of that section a prospecting lease or prospecting permit does not authorize the holder thereof to prospect for precious stones on land over which a right to dig or mine for precious metals or base minerals is held by any other person, except with the written consent of that other person or the Minister. Section 7(1)(e) does therefore not prohibit or restrict prospecting for precious stones on land in respect of which any other person holds a right to prospect for precious metals or base minerals. In order to prevent problems or friction between prospectors holding prospecting or mining rights in respect of different minerals over the same land, it is suggested that the anomaly occurring in the said section 7(1)(e) be rectified.

Such an amendment will bring the said provisions of the Precious Stones Act in line with section 17(2) of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, in terms of which a prospector is prohibited from prospecting for precious metals or base minerals on land over which any other person holds a prospecting lease for precious stones or a right to dig or mine for precious stones, except with the consent of such other person or the Minister.

The provisions of section 8(2), (3) and (4) of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, providing for the registration in the Mining Titles Office of nomination agreements, became redundant when the Mining Titles Registration Act came into operation in 1967 and the object of clause 2 of the Bill is in fact to ask this House to repeal those redundant provisions. Similar provisions are contained in sections 5(1)(d), 48(1) and 48(2) of the Mining Titles Registration Act, 1967, which is the Act wherein measures relating to, inter alia, the registration of prospecting and mining rights belong. Section 8 of the Precious Stones Act in the form now proposed in clause 2 of the Bill, does not contain any new principles.

In terms of section 9(2) of the Precious Stones Act, the mining commissioner may at any time by notice in writing served upon the holder of a prospecting permit carrying on any operations purporting to be prospecting operations, declare that such operations amount to digging and prohibit the continuance of such operations. This section, however, does not vest the mining commissioner with authority to prohibit the holder of a prospecting lease as opposed to a prospecting permit, from carrying on digging operations under the guise of prospecting. There is no reason why it should be permissible for the holder of a prospecting lease to carry on digging operations under the guise of prospecting and it is therefore suggested that section 9(2) be amended as indicated in clause 3 of the Bill in order to eliminate this anomaly as well.

*Hon. members are probably aware that the extent of the prospecting for and exploitation of diamonds on the sea-bed along the West Coast of the Republic has continued to increase during the past few years, and that great progress has been made in the technological sphere. When the Precious Stones Act came into operation in 1964 the possibility that diamonds would be recovered from the ocean on a large scale was not foreseen. Now that it has become a reality, it appears to be necessary to adapt the Act. Prospecting in the sea areas is carried out in terms of prospecting leases.

The principal is laid down in the Act that the prospector who has discovered precious stones in payable quantities is rewarded by way of discoverers’ claims. In the case of State land, i.e. the sea areas as well, the discoverer of diamonds which occur in alluvial receives a discoverer’s certificate entitling him to peg 50 claims in one block over the workings where the discovery was made. A block of 50 claims covers only one hectare. On the issue of the discoverers’ certificate the prospector must then cease all prospecting in the sea area in respect of which the prospecting lease is held.

The application of sections 13 and 21 of the Act, which relate, inter alia, to discoverers’ claims and the granting of a mining lease over a sea area, respectively, create problems for the department in the case of diamonds which are discovered in payable quantities in alluvial gravel in the ocean. By way of elucidation, I should like to mention the following examples. Firstly it is impracticable to peg claims in the ocean. Secondly, all the gravel which is located in pockets on the sea-bed is brought to the surface by means of suction pumps and the claim which the prospector has to discoverers’ rights will be of no use to him because he has to peg the discoverers’ claims, if that were possible, over the worked-out portions. Thirdly, the worked-out portions of the seabed are filled up again with other material as a result of ocean currents and it would therefore be impossible for the mining commissioner to verify that the block of discoverers’ claims, if it were possible to peg them, is situated over the workings.

Fourthly, if one were to proceed to issue a discoverer’s certificate in respect of a sea area, the prospectors would not only have to cease their prospecting with consequential financial losses, but the department would impose on them the impracticable requirement of pegging claims in the ocean. Exploitation on discoverers’ claims may only take place after the claims have been pegged.

Finally, the ocean prospector requires a large area to be able to operate profitably. The deeper sea areas over which prospecting leases are granted, are between 200 000 and 500 000 ha in extent, and if one takes into account that a block of 50 claims is only one hectare in extent, and that the gravel which occurs on one hectare can be pumped up to the surface and treated within a few weeks, the granting of discoverers’ rights in the ocean does not really hold any advantages for the prospector.

Section 21(1) of the Act provides, inter alia, that when diamonds are discovered in any part of the ocean, the Minister may, if he is satisfied that diamonds occur in payable quantities, and subject to the rights of the discoverer, enter into a mining lease with the holder of the prospecting lease in question or any other person for the winning of diamonds from the part of the sea in question or any portion thereof.

It is therefore being proposed that section 13(1) of the Act shall provide that the mining commissioner shall not issue a discoverer’s certificate to the prospector if the prospector has in writing requested him not to do so. If section 13(1) is amended, as is being proposed, and the discoverer has indicated in writing that a discoverer’s certificate should not be issued to him, the requirement that the Minister shall grant the mining lease subject to the rights of the discoverer will fall away.

The granting of mining rights to the discoverer of diamonds in payable quantities in the sea will be preceded by negotiations, and it goes without saying that such a discoverer will not surrender his discoverers’ rights before he has received the assurance from the department that mining rights will be granted to him. It is also important for members to bear in mind that the Minister is not obliged to enter into a mining lease with such a discoverer in respect of a sea area. Consequently, when a mining lease over a sea area is granted to such a discoverer, he receives a right over a large, promising area, in comparison with a claim block of only one hectare to which he is legally entitled and which, as has already been said, has already been worked out. If the holder of a prospecting lease over a sea area should be unwilling to co-operate and should continue his exploitation activities while he holds a prospecting lease, the mining commissioner may prohibit the continuance of such activities if section 9(2) is amended as is being proposed in clause 3.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed correction in the Afrikaans text of sections 86(4)(b) and 96(1) of the Act requires no explanation.

Hon. members will agree with me that the Bill, seen in its entirety, is not of a contentious nature. The principal amendment is the one being proposed in respect of discoverers’ certificates and is necessary to enable the department to normalize the exploitation of diamonds in the sea along the West Coast by granting mining rights over those portions of prospecting lease areas in the sea in regard to which payability has already been demonstrated, without discoverers’ claims first having to be pegged.

Mr. Speaker, in this case too we shall support the legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister. In the first instance we agree that it is necessary for the limitations to be more clearly defined when prospectors beyond their rights and also when the conditions have to be specified under which any rights connected with precious stones have to be binding on the successors-in-title of the original owners.

In the second instance we also agree that section 8 has become redundant because of the provisions laid down in the Mining Titles Registration Act.

The amendment effected to section 9 eliminates anomalies and we support it. In the third instance, we think the improvements effected to this legislation in connection with the development of alluvial diamond diggings are important improvements and that they will, on this new basis, enable developers to extract diamonds from the sea more economically.

For these reasons we regard this amending Bill as an improvement and we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Constantia also supports this legislation and that in consequence we can finalize it in a spirit of unanimity. The aim of the Bill before us is to amend the Precious Stones Act of 1964 which is a fairly complicated Act. In contrast, this amending Bill is lucid and more or less self-explanatory. In its amended form, clause 1 which amends the existing section 7 to a limited extent provides that if an owner has already granted a prospector prospecting rights and he wishes to grant prospecting rights to another prospector, he can only do so with the written consent of the first prospector or, if he cannot obtain such consent, then with the consent of the Minister. I think it is reasonable to ask whether the action of the hon. the Minister cannot be construed as authoritarian interference in the rights and activities of the first prospector because the latter may object to a second contract being entered into. The argument is that very often the first prospector has no bona fide grounds for objecting or else he objects because there has been friction between him and the owner. It may happen—and it does sometimes—that in the course of his prospecting and other activities under his contract the first prospector has found signs of minerals not covered by his contract and in regard to which he and the owner cannot come to terms. On the other hand, the first prospector may have absolutely valid grounds for objecting, for example, if the activities and prospecting in terms of the second contract may jeopardize or nullify the first contract. Whatever the case may be, the first prospector is sufficiently protected because the Minister can only give his consent after he has considered the written representations of the first prospector.

Clause 2 in effect contains no amendments. With certain redundant subsections having been scrapped—provision is in any case made for that in the Mining Titles Registration Act—what remains now forms section 8. It provides that a contract that has been notarially executed and registered in the office of the Registrar of Mining Titles, is binding on the successors-in-title of the owner of that land. It is simply a factual statement of the legal position. That has always been the position and it remains so.

The aim of clauses 3 and 4 is mainly to regulate and to administer efficiently prospecting and mining leases along the seaboard, especially the areas adjoining Namaqualand. That is why the expression “any prospector” is being substituted for the expression “holder of a prospecting permit” because sea prospecting is done under a prospecting lease and not under a prospecting permit. This places the position, as far as sea and land prospecting are concerned, on the same basis in law. Whether the prospector conducts his activities in terms of a permit or in terms of a lease, it will have no effect on the powers of the Mining Commissioner. He will decide when prospecting has to stop and when mining operations should commence.

Clause 4 amends the existing section 13 of the principal Act in that a prospector can relinquish his rights under his discoverer’s certificate. That condition is a prerequisite for the acquisition ultimately of a mining lease. However, the prospector does not sacrifice any rights by doing so because naturally he will not relinquish those rights, even if those rights are in respect of the seabed and only cover 1 ha., until he has the assurance that he will be granted certain mining rights.

Although the amendments contained in the Bill are mainly of a technical and administrative nature and seek to rectify the position in law, they are nevertheless essential because this places the sea-diamond mining industry, in particular, on a sound administrative basis and this, in the long run, will enable all activities to be regulated. This is of the utmost importance as far as the constituency of Namaqualand is concerned because the recovery of diamonds from the sea along the Namaqualand coastline is developing into a major industry. During the 14 month period which ended on 31 December 1979 diamonds amounting to 56 000 carats and valued at R9¼ million were produced. It is very interesting to know that most of the diamonds are found in an area 31 metres below the low-water mark to a contour depth of approximately 200 metres. That may perhaps be the reason why ingenious persons with ordinary boats and unsophisticated equipment have been able to place the industry on a profitable basis. I sincerely trust that the Government will consider methods that will enable the inhabitants of this inhospitable part of the world to share to a greater extent in the riches of that area I want to conclude by saying that I am pleased to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, after the hon. the Minister of Mines delivered his Second Reading speech we, in the NRP, were quite prepared to support the Bill without comment. However, after hearing the hon. member for Namakwaland waxing eloquent I thought it would be appropriate to compliment him on his wonderful exposition of the jewels of Namakwaland. It is a fact that with technological change one has to bring about amendments even to legislation such as the Precious Stones Act in order to cater for the technological advancement in the acquiring of diamonds, particularly off the coast. In this regard we are taking timeous and appropriate measures to ensure that the exploitation of this particular commodity off the West coast of South Africa is done in an orderly and fair manner. If we did not do this, it would be quite possible that the exploiters of this precious gem could find themselves in certain technical difficulties which could also give rise to quite considerable delays and costs in the exploitation of these diamonds. The NRP, therefore, has pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank those hon. members who have taken part in the debate and who have supported this Bill. The hon. member for Namaqualand had me worried for a moment when he asked such a searching question in respect of clause 1, but he answered his own question so effectively that I am sure he is satisfied with his own reply. He gave the House impressive figures regarding the recovery of diamonds from the sea in his part of the world and along the borders of his part of the world. He asked that the inhabitants of his part of the world should have a greater share in those riches. Unfortunately, the revenue derived from those diamonds and due to the State does not find its way to the Department of Mines, and however much I would have liked to dispense largesse, I am unable to do so. I suggest, therefore, that he repeats those figures during the Budget debate so that those hon. Ministers who are in a position to dispense largesse, can take note. My department receives more than it gives.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Because the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, relating to the making good of losses and damage do not apply to statutory bodies, the Treasury has requested, at the behest of the Auditor-General, that each statutory body determine its own provisions in connection with the making good of any loss or damage caused it by any person in its service or who was in its service. Hon. members will remember that there were two similar Bills before the House last year.

The measures that are contained in this Bill in this connection are taken from existing legislation, namely sections 15 and 34 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, but with the necessary changes effected to them in order to suit the South African Tourist Corporation and the employees in its service.

Firstly, the Bill provides that the chairman of the Board of Control of the South African Tourist Corporation shall be the accounting officer of the corporation charged with the responsibility for all money received and payments made by the corporation, and secondly, that certain duties and certain powers shall be allocated to him in connection with the making good of losses or damage caused by employees or former employees of the corporation. In this regard the Bill clearly defines the manner in which the employee or former employee through his actions or failure to act can cause damage or loss, and provides further the manner in which the payment of a claim, with or without interest being levied, shall be effected by the employee or former employee. On the one hand the interests of the corporation are protected, but on the other hand the rights of the employee or former employee against whom action is taken are also protected.

As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, similar measures in respect of various other statutory bodies have been approved by the House, and this measure too is being introduced at the behest of the Auditor-General. For these reasons I trust that the measure before the House will have the support of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, this is the first speech the hon. Minister has made as Minister of Tourism. In any event, it is the first Bill he has introduced in his new capacity. I should like to congratulate him and wish him luck in his conduct of that department.

As the hon. the Minister has indicated, this Bill basically contains two elements. The first is that the chairman of the corporation is appointed as accounting officer and secondly, certain provisions are laid down in terms of which amounts may be recovered from employees or former employees of the corporation through whose misconduct the corporation has suffered that amount of damage.

The first clause needs no further comment and in our view is not contentious.

Clause 2 is really a verbatim transcription of the provisions of section 34 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, and I notice that similar provisions are also contained in another Bill shortly to come before the House, namely the Lake Districts Development Amendment Bill. In our view these provisions are reasonable and are necessary for the protection of the interests of the corporation. It makes sense that the responsibilities which rest on ordinary public servants should also be applicable to employees of statutory corporations such as the S.A. Tourist Corporation. The responsibilities and accountability implicit in the proposed provisions are also reasonable in our view and they are obviously necessary for sound government. There is nothing revolutionary in these provisions, and it seems to me they are in line with the normal common law relations which exist between employer and employee, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions. For that reason and bearing that in mind, we are prepared to give our support to this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the hon. member for Green Point and convey our congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of this portfolio. We on this side of the House can assure him of our wholehearted co-operation and want to express the hope that he will find joy and pleasure in leading this department in the future.

When one looks at the S. A. Tourist Corporation and remembers that this corporation was set up by Act of Parliament as far back as 1 August 1947 with the object of developing the tourist industry in the Republic of South Africa by encouraging people from elsewhere to visit the Republic and to travel around, and when one bears in mind the diligence and working ability of the officials of this corporation, one realizes that these measures introduced by the hon. the Minister have become necessary for the corporation. The corporation must carry out its mandate and, in order to achieve these aims, the corporation adopts a dynamic marketing philosophy to sell the tourist attractions of the Republic overseas by providing the travel industry and the consumer with information on all aspects of travel to and from the Republic.

When one considers the dynamic action of the corporation and notices the total number of publications that are published in a financial year, one finds that 5 430 000 publications a year are printed and distributed. One of the particularly expensive items in the budget is photographs taken by our photographers among whom are some of the best photographers in the world. One finds that 16 134 duplicate colour transparencies have been made available, 1 437 duplicate monochrome negatives, 13 000 copies in black and white and in addition approximately 160 colour inter-negatives. In the light of these activities we welcome the measures the hon. the Minister has announced.

I think we on this side of the House must also stress that we know the officials of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and at this stage we have no fear because of the quality of the officials in service that the measures taken by the hon. the Minister will be necessary for those officials at present in the corporation’s service.

One realizes that this corporation works with the finest material that any control board or corporation could hope to have, namely the scenic beauty we have in South Africa. I think that when officials work with this wonderful legacy of ours and present this wonderful legacy of ours, one sees the beauties of nature through the conduct of those officials.

We should like to support the hon. the Minister in regard to this Bill and express the hope and trust that the S.A. Tourist Corporation, as in the past, will render South Africa valuable service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the first place to tell the new hon. Minister of Tourism that we welcome his appointment. We look forward to working with him, possibly not always agreeing with him, but we wish him well and wish him every success in the portfolio he now holds. We have no problem with this Bill, because it is a measure that is to be welcomed. I do not think it has a contentious word in it.

I wish to say a few words about the S.A. Tourist Corporation. What the hon. member for Bethlehem said here earlier reminded me of the time the year before last when my wife and I were walking down the streets of Milan, which is not the brightest city in the world. We came across a window, on a rather dull and dismal day, that was dressed out in brochures, in Italian, that had been published by the S.A. Tourist Corporation. We stood in front of this window, for about ten minutes, feeling good. I went inside and got one of those brochures. I shall send it to the hon. the Minister, because it was really good to feel that there was South Africa being presented to Milan by the S.A. Tourist Corporation in the form of a very attractive window display. It was like seeing a little bit of home and feeling at home in a foreign country. I think that our corporation does a good job of work, and in that spirit we wish it well under the new hon. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to express my grateful thanks to hon. members for their good wishes expressed in regard to my management of this portfolio. I also thank them for their support of this Bill. There is one matter to which hon. members have not referred, and to which I should like to refer to round it off, i.e., that the Bill also refers to officials who are or were in the service of the corporation. The “were” has not been inserted because we have somebody in mind in regard to whom we want the Bill to apply retrospectively. We are not aware of any such person. The affairs of this corporation are very well managed but this is to cover the case of an official who may perhaps leave the service in future and when it may seem that certain irregularities have taken place. That is the only reason for this.

I should also like to express my thanks for the kind words expressed in regard to the officials of the organization. I can bear witness to the fact that the work these officials do is of the highest order.

†I wish to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for the kind remarks he made in connection with the work of this corporation and for telling us what he experienced overseas. It is a very fine tribute to the work of this corporation.

*I am grateful for the remarks of hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Bethlehem, the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Umhlanga.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.