Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks and appreciation at once to those hon. members who made positive contributions to this debate and who also referred in a very friendly way to my officials and to me. This is something which we really appreciate. I think I can justifiably say that we work together very well as a team. I do not think I could have had better officials with me in my Ministry. Consequently I want to congratulate Dr. De Loor very sincerely on his appointment as Director-General of Finance, as well as Mr. Sarel du Plessis, who has been appointed Director-General of Minerals and Energy. His departure is a great loss to the Treasury, but we do not begrudge him his well-earned promotion. Furthermore, I wish to express my appreciation for the good work that has been done throughout by Mr. Van der Walt, the Secretary for Inland Revenue, and by Mr. Odendal, the Secretary for Customs and Excise. They realize very clearly that there cannot be more than 18 of these appointments, and I know that we shall in future be able to rely on their extremely competent and loyal service.

Dr. De Kock, who is also rendering outstanding service for us, is in a rather different category, and therefore I shall leave the matter at that.

Then, I think, it was a feature of this debate that we had an exceptionally large number of maiden speeches, speeches to which one could really listen with appreciation. It is clear to me that these new hon. members are a definite asset to this House. Not only do I congratulate them on their contributions but I also wish them everything of the best for the future. Now, it is true that in a debate of this nature it is probably to be expected that we shall agree with one another on certain matters. That did in fact happen. But it is also very certain that we shall definitely disagree with one another on other matters.

I was delighted to observe that it was or is being accepted by almost everyone that one principal reason for South Africa’s present strong economic growth and its sound economic position is to be found in the policy which we have for quite a long time now being calling financial discipline. By exercising more stringent control over Government expenditure and the money supply we have succeeded in creating a sound foundation from which we will now, in the period which lies ahead, be able to grow more rapidly. We hope that we will now be able to utilize the increased gold price to the benefit of all sectors of the population and in a way which would not have been possible if we had not applied this discipline in recent years.

†In this debate there has certainly been no shortage of advice on financial policy to be followed in the budget and in general this year. The hon. member for Yeoville, I think, set the ball rolling by virtually writing a long letter to Santa Claus, and numerous other hon. members followed his example.

Did you receive it? [Interjections.]

The list of budgetary concessions which they have proposed and the additional expenditure which they desire are so extensive that I have no doubt that to finance them would require a gold price probably in excess of $2 000 a fine ounce. Many other hon. members also made suggestions in connection with tax reductions or additional expenditures, or both. I shall, of course, consider these various suggestions during the weeks ahead, but I must point out that if I were to adopt all the advice given to me in this respect during this debate, next month’s main budget would probably be the most disastrous in our time.

There has been free talk of the gold bonanza This has cropped up time and again and I have been adjured to see to it that this gold bonanza is distributed with a benefit to everybody. I should, of course, immediately like to ask the question: What is the best way to ensure that everybody benefits from the stronger economic position? It is by ensuring that the growth rate increases, which is another way of saying that one ensures that one’s standard of living will rise. That is the challenge, and that is, of course, what we will give very considerable attention to. We are indeed doing that now.

I should like to point out that during the no-confidence debate I referred to the possibility of the growth rate in real terms reaching perhaps 5% towards the end of this year. Some hon. member on the Opposition side said that was not enough. I said I thought it would be a remarkable achievement under present conditions in the world economy. Since then I have seen an authoritative assessment which says that any country reaching a growth rate of 5% in real terms this year would possibly be reaching the highest growth rate in the world. I merely mention that because every assessment that is made in this respect to date involves a downward adjustment in the previous growth rate assessment. So we have to take the reality of the situation into account. Some years ago it was customary, I think, for Ministers of Finance specifically to warn hon. members not to draw any conclusions from the amount requested in the Part Appropriation Bill, in other words not to jump to conclusions from that figure about what the main budget was going to be like. This year, in order not to repeat the monotony I left that specific sentence out, and immediately the hon. member for Yeoville jumped in and drew the conclusion …

Asked a question.

… that because there was an increase of 19,7% in this small amount, for three or four months, we would obviously be having a very substantial increase in the budget as a whole.

So we are not?

The hon. member must just have a little patience a little longer. We shall be coming to the main budget, and then he will have an opportunity to have his say. He will then see what we are trying to achieve. Let me say again, therefore, that we must be careful not to draw any far-reaching conclusions from a part appropriation amount, which is what it says, i.e. simply a figure estimated to see us through for the first few months until the proposals of the main budget are formally approved by this House.

*The hon. member for Yeoville asked me to explain where the further R10 million was supposed to have come from, after I had said that the State Trust Board had informed me that up to 15 February 1980 a cash amount of just over R20,8 million had already been recovered, while according to the tabled report of the State Trust Board, assets realized and rights enforced up to 30 November 1979 only amounted to R10 672 000. I want to point out to the hon. member that at no stage did I say that the State Trust Board itself had recovered a cash amount of R20,8 million. The amount referred to was the total which had been recovered up to 15 February 1980. Of this amount an amount of R10,18 million was recovered by the Pretorius Committee and the Information Service of South Africa prior to the establishment of the State Trust Board, while the board itself recovered the remaining R10,67 million.

So what is new?

Of course the State Trust Board is still engaged in its activities, and as I indicated on a previous occasion I definitely expect that the amount of R29 million, which I mentioned last year as a possible amount, could still be exceeded.

What about the R70 million?

In the course of the debate various hon. members addressed specific requests to me. Unfortunately I cannot, of course, in such a debate, do justice to all my friends who made contributions because time simply does not allow me to do so. Consequently one must go to work selectively when making one’s reply.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North made the interesting suggestion that the new half-ounce gold coin which might make its appearance later this year, should be named after Pres. Steyn. I want to thank him for that very fine suggestion. Of course I shall still have to hold quite a few discussions with interested parties in this connection, as well as with the Chamber of Mines. But I shall bear it in mind very carefully when we discuss the matter further, and I shall also discuss the matter with my hon. friend.

The hon. member for Griqualand East, who informed me that he could not be here this afternoon, proposed the abolition of estate duty. I do not wish to spend much time on this subject in this debate. Not that it is an unimportant subject. But I could just inform this House that since we are engaged in preparing new estimates, we shall give thorough consideration to all these requests. This is one of them, but a great many others were also made. The hon. member referred to the Franzsen Commission, which had considerably more to say on this matter in its report. Consequently I wish to make a very friendly request to my hon. friend to read carefully through that full treatment of the matter by the Franzsen Commission. I shall also look into it once again, and I shall be glad to discuss this matter further with him.

The hon. member for Vasco asked for steps to be taken to encourage food production. I wish to bring it to his attention that a great deal has already been done in the form of various tax concessions, and in other ways as well, to achieve the important objective of increasing our food production. This is something we are always looking into and we shall definitely give further attention to the matter. This is something to which the Jacobs Committee is also giving attention.

In this connection the hon. member for Mooi River expressed the opinion that subsidies should be paid on agricultural inputs in order to ensure that the consumer is thus able to obtain food at lower prices. It was his opinion that this would be more beneficial than consumer subsidies. Yesterday, I think, my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture dealt very effectively with certain aspects of the subsidization of food. I cannot go into that matter in detail. I just wish to draw the attention of the hon. member for Mooi River to the fact that the Jacobs Committee considered this particular aspect and arrived at the conclusion that it is not to be recommended at this stage. They said that a subsidization of inputs tended to conceal inefficiency and could lead to the occupation of marginal lands and to misapplication of production means. This does not mean to say that we maintain that food subsidies could always have this effect. However, I think it is right to say that in general we should be very careful, for in the long term subsidies do not really solve many problems. In fact, they can very easily disrupt the entire marketing system. However, both of us are looking into this matter. If one examines the appropriation made during the current financial year for food subsidies, one will see that the figures are the highest in our history. At least this shows that we are not indifferent to this very important matter. We are of course giving further attention to this matter as well.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether, if a subsidy of R1 is put in before the middle-man takes his share, one will not get double the benefit that subsidizing it at the end would give one?

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said yesterday, it is a question of what control one can really have over the whole distribution process. That is extremely important If one follows some of the marketing methods through, one finds one really has no influence at all. This is a matter which obviously needs very careful examination, and it so happens that my hon. colleague and I will be discussing subsidies once again later on this afternoon.

Fix him!

Mr. Speaker, I think that what the hon. member for Vasco said was very appropriate. He said, inter alia, that if the Minister would concede to all the requests made by the Opposition we would have a mishmash of cost-push and imported inflation. I think he could with justification have added that we would then probably have had a bankrupt country as well. I just want to try to quantify a few of the proposals, so that we can establish what we are dealing with. I think this is something which the hon. members for Kliprivier, Gezina, Malmesbury, Smithfield and others warned against, and I think it is high time such a warning was issued. The hon. member for Gezina said something which I found striking. He said that we should guard against the price of labour going sky-high. We must see these things in perspective. An opinion which is at present being frequently expressed is that apparently we can at present allow salaries and wages to soar. But we must be very careful because these things cost a lot of money. It is not only the public sector, but also the entire private sector which is involved, and then there is also the effect of this on inflation, which is already unacceptably high.

The hon. member for Smithfield advocated that the scale at which income tax is levied ought not to exceed 50% and he declared himself to be strongly in favour of the total abolition of the tax on undistributed profits. We on this side of the House, and I think all of us, would of course liked to see tax rates being reduced where possible, and therefore we are speaking the same language in this regard. However, it is a question of what our financial means at any given moment are. I have problems with the suggestion that we should abolish the tax on undistributed profits. At present I do not think that I can readily accept this suggestion. Company tax consists of two parts. There is the tax on the company itself and the tax on the dividends paid to shareholders. This tax serves the underlying purpose for which it was established very well, viz. to ensure that companies, especially investment companies, pay their shareholders reasonable profits. The generous amount which commercial and industrial companies are allowed to plough back, i.e. 56% of their profits, as well as the generous deduction allowed in respect of the commissioning of new machinery and plant, ensures that such companies are exempted from the tax and that no unreasonable restraints are imposed on new development and expansions. However, if the general situation allows in future, we shall reconsider the matter, and if it is possible, we shall do something about this suggestion as well.

†Mr. Speaker, I think it was the hon. member for Yeoville who referred to taxation of Blacks. He asked that during this year we should see a further movement towards achieving parity between the income tax payable by Black taxpayers and other taxpayers. It is of course the Government’s avowed policy to achieve that. Hon. members may remember that in my budget speech last year I dealt specifically with this aspect and, in fact, took certain steps to put this into practice, which cost quite a few million rand. I said that a further amount would be involved this year and possibly next year in an endeavour to achieve this kind of parity. So this is a policy that we are actively engaged in and we are hoping to achieve the full results as soon as we practically can.

The hon. member for Durban North, in the course of what I thought was a very well thought-out speech—it was easy to see where he learnt his economics—made one or two statements on unemployment that I could not easily accept, but on the whole, I thought he put his case very well. Among other things, he suggested that the interest on mortgage bonds should be free of tax, and the hon. member for Yeoville, if I am correct, said much the same. In the first instance, it is so that at present South Africa’s interest rates are remarkably low. In fact, if one compares them with the rest of the world they are quite astonishingly low. I mention this only by way of background. I would, however, like to deal with this for a few minutes because this is something which has also reached me from other quarters, not only this year, but also in previous years and particularly so in the past few months. It has always been a basic principle of the taxation of income that only expenditure incurred in the production of that income qualifies for deduction in the determination of taxable income and that private or domestic expenses are not deductible. I think this is a sound principle. It is universally applied and I think it has to be preserved if the goal of low rates of tax is to be achieved and maintained. Interest paid in respect of a bond on a taxpayer’s residence forms part of the expenditure incurred by him to provide accommodation for himself and his family, and such expenses can never be regarded as being other than of a private or domestic nature. The allowance of such interest as a deduction for income tax purposes would therefore not only offend against the established principle, but also discriminate against those taxpayers who, for instance, reside on rented premises and are not entitled to a similar deduction. Once the precedent of allowing the interest on bonds on private residences to become a factor in the calculation of income tax has been created, it could prove to be a breach in the dike which would not be easy to shore up as there would undoubtedly be a deluge of requests for the deduction of other kinds of private and domestic expenditures which would then be very difficult to refuse. What at the outset may be intended as a limited concession could consequently result in a serious erosion of the tax base, which in turn would make an increase in rates unavoidable. It is true that in some overseas countries this type of interest is deductible for income tax purposes, sometimes with limitations and sometimes without limitations. When comparing the position in those countries with that in South Africa, it is, of course, a fallacy to consider the concession in isolation. Regard must be had to all the aspects of the tax structures of the countries concerned. For example, the basic rate of tax at present is 25% in the UK, 14% in the USA and only 7% in South Africa. The allowance of the deduction in question might in a measure conceivably encourage home ownership. I concede that. It might also encourage immigration or the acquisition of dwellings by other racial groups. It might even afford a boost to the building industry, which my hon. friend was also keen to see. Even if limitations similar to those imposed by some countries were to be imposed here, they would always bring with them disparities and inequities between the so-called “haves” and the “have-nots”. This can perhaps be illustrated by an example. In the case of a bond of R15 000 with an interest rate of, say, 10%—which is a bit unrealistic at the moment, but let us just take it as an example—the effect of allowing the bond interest as a deduction for income tax purposes, would be to reduce the effective rate of interest for the taxpayer with a taxable income of R31 500 to 4,5%, and for a taxpayer with a taxable income of R7 500, to 8,7%. One therefore finds those disparities which one has to be very careful about. It is not inconceivable that the concession could be used to avoid tax. Taxpayers without existing bonds on their residences could be encouraged to raise such bonds and to re-invest the funds obtained in this manner. In doing so they would not only obtain a substantial reduction in the tax payable by them as a result of the deduction of the interest on the bond, but by investing in one of the many available forms of investment yielding tax-free interest, could in fact increase the net income available to them at the expense of the fiscus. The deduction of bond interest for income tax purposes is of course not the only way in which to attempt to encourage home ownership. I think a more effective way is to increase the after-tax income of a taxpayer, so that even those who do not have homes as a result of the cost of housing, could afford to save towards that goal. A larger after-tax income can be achieved by the general lowering of tax rates, the attainment of which can be frustrated by a constant erosion of the tax base through what might be piecemeal tax concessions.

The estimated tax revenues, based on mortgage interest receipts of building societies for the financial year which ended 31 March 1979, would be between R140 and R180 million. This is a fairly sizeable amount. For these reasons, if I had to give my answer immediately, I would say that it is unlikely that I would be able to concede to this request. Yet I say that it is not an unreasonable request, and I have tried to give the reasons why I am adopting this attitude at the present time.

Coming back to subsidies, I should like to say that it is not only a question of subsidies on foodstuffs. We have subsidies on transport, substantial subsidies on bus fares and train fares, and I think we have to be very careful—and I stress it again—to keep a proper sense of perspective as to what precisely this very substantial subsidization on, for instance, foodstuffs and transport and other services would mean to the economy. We should keep our perspective as to who is really going to get the benefit in the long run. We have substantial subsidies at the moment, and the Government would obviously not like simply to abolish them overnight. But I am trying to take a somewhat longer view, and I should like to ask the hon. Opposition, particularly the official Opposition, which has put some very far-reaching requests to me to hand out largess on a big scale, to be really specific in this regard. We have had a great deal of detail published on these matters. I should like to ask them, when they say that we must look after the poor and that we must hand out the bonanza so that everybody can benefit, and so on—the hon. member for Bryanston went very far in this direction and even brought discrimination into it, the possibility of war, etc.—what precisely these subsidies should be. They have the latest information available to them. What must we do with the subsidy on bread? What must we do with the subsidy on dairy products? Must we continue with it, must we reduce it or must we increase it; if the latter, by how much? I have to decide very shortly precisely by how much it should be increased or reduced. The Opposition has precisely the same information in front of them.

Keep the price of brown bread at the present level.

Yes, that is one reasonably specific proposal. I did not get it in the hon. member’s speech. But the matter goes much further than that. My point at the moment is that we have had a wealth of generalizations and one of them refers to subsidies. Why do they not tell us exactly? What about the subsidies on bus fares and those that are aimed at helping the poor and thus substantially helping the Black people. What about the subsidies on passenger train fares? What precisely should they be? How far can we take these amounts? All this information is before the Opposition, just as it is before me. Surely this House is the place in which these things should be discussed. What does it assist this House if we are simply going to talk in terms of generalizations? It goes even further. Let us take the budget as a whole. What should this budget be? The Opposition knows what the amount of the existing budget is, and in a day or two they will know what the additional amount is that we have to vote for absolutely essential increases, as I hope we can prove to them. What should the budget be, therefore, that we have to introduce towards the end of March? Should it be 10% higher than the existing one?

Are you making us understand that you are going to resign …

No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Yeoville is one of those who has asked to discuss these proposals with me. I say that this is a reasonable request, but to my mind the place to do so is here. The Government is here and the Opposition is over there, and they did not speak for half an hour only. He may have spoken for half an hour, but how long did his hon. friends on that side speak altogether? After all, this is a budget debate; it is a Part Appropriation Bill, and I ask again: What should we be doing? What should our policy be? Must we let go to the extent that we have no more constraints on Government expenditure?

This is almost what I understand from the hon. member for Bryanston. I tried to quantify what the hon. member for Hillbrow asked for and I got some remarkable figures. I shall still come to that. If the Opposition will help us to decide how large the next budget must be, they must also tell us where the increases should be. We have to keep South Africa safe. We have an arms boycott against us, which is no doing of ours and it is a shocking thing. Nevertheless we have to take it into account. Hon. members know what these things cost today.

The Opposition have been saying the whole time that we must increase social services. What should housing be? What should pensions be? This is a good one: What about pensions? We have heard so much and I fully agree, as I have said all along, that we have got to do the best we can for the aged, but what must the increase be and what must it cost? Hon. members have all the figures for the present budget and they say they want to discuss the details with us, but I say why not discuss them in this House?

We have been discussing them for three days.

And so one can go on. I have already asked what subsidies should be. What policy should be adopted in that regard? I do not want to belabour the point, but that would surely have been a most meaningful debate.

Where were you the last three days?

I now come back to the hon. member for Durban North. He quite rightly pointed out the problem of inflation. Of course, he was not the only one to do so. Hon. members on this side of the House did the same. He also pointed to unemployment and raised the question of productivity. He said that we need to raise productivity. These were all perfectly legitimate and reasonable points to make, but he did say, and this is where I disagree with him, that we have adopted a passive, reactive approach to these problems. He said that we must be positive, that we are not dynamic and goodness knows what else. I must in all fairness very strongly disagree with my hon. friend in that regard. For example, let us take inflation. This is an excellent point for discussion. What specific proposals have we received in this whole debate for countering inflation? Hon. members have said, correctly, that we must spend more on education and more on productivity. But how much, and in what way? The reasons for inflation are substantially, although not altogether, out of our hands. We have no say in the oil price, but we have to have oil. The price of oil is a big factor in inflation. If it had not been for the very large increases in the price of oil last year, the inflation rate would be nowhere near 14%. I say that with absolute confidence. And, of course, there is another reason. We have deliberately for many reasons, not simply economic reasons, engaged in a policy to endeavour to narrow the wage gap. We are spending very large amounts and the economy is spending very large amounts to raise the wages of the lower income groups, which substantially, but not altogether of course, covers the Blacks. Those rises have been very substantial, but it is nevertheless an inflationary factor in the economy, because one does not raise productivity by nearly that amount in the short run. My hon. friend will know that perfectly well. This is a substantial inflationary factor in the economy, but we say there are other reasons why that is a sound investment in the long-term view. And we are committed to it. So serious is inflation in the world at large that I wish to refer to a report which I have here from Die Transvaler of 25 February where a very well known leading financial expert in the United States, Henry Kaufmann, says „Inflasie is ’n noodtoestand.” He says that inflation is so serious in the world that it is in fact an emergency. He then quotes one country after the other that is in exactly this very awkward position in which we are. We are in it and we are doing our level best to hold the line.

Here is another example in The Argus of 22 February 1980. The title is “Inflation Fears Hit Wall Street” and the report talks about “a near chaotic market setting in on Wall Street” because of this very serious inflation and what happened in that week and how this caused a near panic and a wave of selling. It says that this is a world-wide phenomenon. I merely mention these things so that we keep a sense of perspective. When it is said that the Government is adopting a “passive reactive” policy in this respect, I honestly do not think that one can substantiate that.

[Inaudible.]

Incidentally, what is interesting with regard to narrowing of the wage gap, is an article in the Washington Post of as recently as 23 January 1980. I have it here. The headline of the article is “White-Black Gap in Income Widens, an Authoritative News Study finds in the USA”. This is in the USA. The gap widens. [Interjections.] The hon. member must look at these things.

But not in the same job.

The hon. member must read it; he has not even read it. Here it is. Has the hon. member read this? The hon. member must study these things. I cannot deal with this this afternoon. “White-Black Gap in Income Widens, News Study finds in the USA.” It is then explained. And I tell hon. members that the position there is obviously worse than it is in South Africa. [Interjections.] When one draws these facts to the hon. member’s attention, he starts raising something else.

There is also something interesting concerning the question of unemployment. I have never said there is not unemployment, obviously. I said last year, and I have said it many times, that the sort of things that have been said about the extent of unemployment in this country have often been badly exaggerated. I have here an article in The Argus of 21 February 1980, virtually yesterday. Mr. Kantor, a well-known senior lecturer in the School of Economics at the University of Cape Town, says—

Do you believe that?

The hon. member for Pinelands is probably a very good churchman, but I am not aware of him being an economist. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is a dangerous thing to move outside one’s field. Does the hon. member think that this economics has just written that on his thumb-nail? He has given a reasoned statement here. [Interjections.]

Ask the Minister of Manpower Utilization …

I did not say that the economist said that there was no unemployment, and I did not say it myself. I said he said there was no Black unemployment problem.

600 000 is no problem!

That is what the economist said and he gives his reasons. [Interjections.] We can argue about it, how serious or not serious it is.

Order! The hon. members can argue that point further in a later debate. There are too many interjections.

I am quoting a man who is recognized as a prominent economist in this country. In fact, he is a well-known economist in this country. I have seen many of his publications, and they are worth reading. I quoted what he said.

I just want to come back to the various things that have been said about the distribution of the huge bonanza. For example, the hon. member for Yeoville said we must reduce the rate of sales tax, or we must remove the general sales tax from basic foodstuffs. We went through this in great detail when we put the case for this new tax recently in the House. My view remains exactly the same. In one country after another this type of tax—whether it is a value-added tax or a general sales tax with variations; it is the same kind of tax—has reached the rate of 15%. It has reached 15% because of the exemptions which they have given. They have exempted this and they have exempted that and they have got into a complete administrative mess with this tax. They admit it. We have kept it spread over the whole base. It is the only time that we have had a tax everybody pays. If Black wages have risen in real terms by nearly 50% in the last six to seven years, why should they not pay this tax? Why should they not pay this tax? I ask that question. We have kept it at 4%, by far the lowest in the world. We cannot reduce it further. We are supposed to give away billions of rand, not millions of rand, according to the hon. Opposition. In this respect the hon. member for Hillbrow not only surpassed all his colleagues, but also himself. I am willing to swear that he does not understand what he himself said. What did he say?

The fastest voice in the West!

Yesterday the hon. member for Klip River reminded the House that the hon. member for Hillbrow had been mayor of Johannesburg. The hon. member asked for a six-months’ tax holiday and for the general sales tax to be reduced from 4% to 1%.

Yes.

In this respect he left everybody else in this House standing, even the hon. member for Bryanston. What would it amount to if the Government were to give a six-months’ tax holiday and the general sales tax were to be reduced from 4% to 1%? Does the hon. member know what we would give away in one year? We would be giving away well over R3½ billion. It is a very simple calculation; so the hon. member could have made it too. But what did he do? He thought this was the time to get up and really be sensational. He is prepared to give away R3½ billion, but at the same time says that we should increase concessions on everything under the sun. After all that, as the hon. member for Klip River said, the hon. member still expects the Government to keep the country solvent at the same time. I leave the hon. member for Hillbrow and his remarkable brand of public finance there.

Finally, I would like to come to a matter which I think is one of great importance to our country. Our policy embraces a strong commitment to private enterprise. We want to increase the productive economy as much as we possibly can, always bearing in mind the importance of the public sector. It embraces a strong commitment to private enterprise, lower taxes wherever possible and higher growth. In a nutshell, that is what we are trying to achieve. Who does the official Opposition represent? The official Opposition represents a relatively small part of the urban White community. When I said this to somebody he asked whether I meant the “fat cats” of Houghton. You can call them that, but I call them a small part of the urban White community. If this is where their support lies, surely the Opposition have to aim their efforts at at least making an impact on their electorate. But what do they do? What do you find when you analyse their speeches in this debate and in others? They are absolutely obsessed with Black politics and Black interests. It is a very fine thing to have compassion for one’s fellowman if one is in a more privileged position. This Government bears that in mind every day and the hon. the Prime Minister himself sets the example in many ways. But to lose all perspective and see only this issue in front of one, Black politics and Black interests, raises the question of what they feel about other communities in this country. Surely they should strike a balance. The Opposition say that they too have a commission which is studying the economy of this country.

There is also a commission in the USA which they call the “Trilateral Commission”. I must warn my hon. friends not to fall into the trap of this kind of commission. I hope they are not also aiming towards some sort of trilateral commission …

What you want is a Try-Horwood Commission. [Interjections.]

I warn them not to aim towards that kind of commission, because that will be a very serious matter. I want to ask with what that commission is really dealing. The hon. member for Yeoville talks about “social democracy”. Social democracy is not a new idea. I think that his version of it, however, has some remarkably new things in it But the idea itself is not new. Social democracy goes back a long time. In England a generation or two ago one had men of the calibre of Maurice Dobbs. E. F. M. Durbin and others who wrote with great force on these things, but they were people who realized that this was something which had two sides to it. This was particularly evident in the writings of E. F. M. Durbin. If one looks at what has happened in the countries where one today has social democracy, one must ask which are those countries. They are either socialist countries or they are turning towards socialism.

Is West Germany one of them?

There is a strong element of socialism in their governing party. [Interjections.] Of course it is true.

Is Schmidt a socialist?

Order!

From my own experience I can mention foremost Germans who are extremely worried about certain aspects of those policies. Of course it is so.

But now you are …

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville is keeping up a running commentary by way of interjections. He must stop that now.

The hon. member for Yeoville must not put words in my mouth. I have said exactly what I mean here, and he must not say I am saying something else. I am saying that I think it is a very serious matter that the hon. member for Yeoville, who I understand is chairman of that commission in his party, is propagating a social democracy which, if it could be applied, would be disastrous to this country. [Interjections.] The hon. member will not believe me, but here I have a considered statement. In this article from a journal it is correctly stated in a few words what they think the hon. the Prime Minister—they also mention me as the Minister of Finance—is trying to achieve in the financial and economic field. They then ask—

[Interjections.] Sir, these are not my words; I am simply reading from what I have in front of me.

I did not hear properly.

I shall read it again—

And then this comment—

[Interjections.]

Order!

It then goes on to say how Harry Schwarz attacked free enterprise. Imagine it!

It is a false statement.

The leader of the commission on economic policy appointed by the official Opposition of this country …

You are propogating a falsehood.

This journal was in the past far more partial to that party than to me or to us …

And they wanted to make Harry leader. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, they wanted to do that, but now they say that he attacked free enterprise. I read further—

That is in a state of capitalist free enterprise—

Of course, he would be labelled a socialist if he talks in this way about a social democracy. And then they say—

Then they quote our old friend Adam Smith, and they quote John Maynard Keynes’ father, John Neville Keynes, who said—

They quote that in relation to my hon. friend. Then they say—

I do not say that. I am just reading it. Then he says—

And it has hardly started! [Interjections.] Therefore I think the hon. member for Yeoville … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am asking your leave to rise on a point of personal explanation. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. the Minister prepared to allow the hon. member for Yeoville an opportunity to rise on a point of personal explanation?

Mr. Speaker, I have used up nearly all my time. I have only a couple of minutes left. If the hon. member is brief, he may.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very short. The hon. the Minister quoted from a magazine article which in fact purported to quote an article of mine, but quoted it falsely. They inserted the words—and I have them here before me—in the article which never appeared and which the hon. the Minister has in front of him, that the remarks related to “in the opinion of supporters of capitalism”, but they left out the material portion which said the following—

The hon. the Minister has quoted from a false article, an article from which portions were left out deliberately … [Interjections.] Portions were deliberately left out. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would you rule that when an hon. member is giving a personal explanation he is entitled to be heard without interruption? [Interjections.]

Order! I believe the hon. member for Yeoville gave his explanation up to a certain point. He can be satisfied with the opportunity given him up to that point I must ask the hon. member for Yeoville, however, whether he implies that the hon. the Minister deliberately created a false impression.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister quoted from an article which is false. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have merely read what I have in front of me. Any hon. member of this House is entitled to read it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think that what the hon. member has just done is that he has made his case worse, because he has further attacked private enterprise. [Interjections.] He has referred to people as being “exploiters” and goodness knows what else under this system. [Interjections.] That is what comes through here. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I have spared him. I have not read everything yet. [Interjections.] There is a reference here to his asinine statement.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has made enough interjections now. He may make no further interjections during this debate.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister has now sought to use an unparliamentary expression by quoting it from a document, which he cannot do. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order! I have given my ruling, and I have told the hon. member for Yeoville that he is not to make any further interjections during this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I did the hon. member the courtesy of allowing him to make a personal statement, and he has effectively wasted many minutes of my time. I have done no more than to read this …

You have to accept his explanation.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member must keep quiet. He has nothing to do with it. He does not understand it. He does not have the faintest idea what capitalism means. It is foreign to his whole philosophy of life. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it really is strange how sensitive our hon. friends are. [Interjections.] They are becoming quite hysterical, and what about? In a calm and collected way I am reading the facts which I have before me. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that tactic. It is very clear to me that they are trying to waste my time. The hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members on that side of the House, including the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, will have ample—I would almost say more than ample—opportunities during this session, in the debates yet to come, to tell us, if this is wrong, how the Financial Mail was able to state the case in this way, and do so in quotation marks each time. They will also have to tell us, if it is not true, what the economic philosophy of the hon. official Opposition is. They will have to spell it out to us very carefully, because if it is true, that hon. official Opposition which already has no future in a political sense, would have had it in respect of economic and financial policy as well!

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—101: Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. L; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; 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 Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, F. J. le Roux, P. J. van B. Viljoen, H. D. K. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—26: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This House counts amongst its members a number of very distinguished graduates of the University of the Witwatersrand with some of them sitting not very far from me. For that reason particularly, it is a privilege for a product of a different—though I hope equally distinguished—institution to introduce this measure this afternoon. This is by any standards one of our great universities. Although today it encompasses a very wide area of study, of research and activity, it does have special historical links with the great mining industry of South Africa, and mention should be made of this fact.

Wits had its origins in the old S.A. School of Mines which was established at Kimberley in 1896, which trained mining engineers, the fourth year of the course being taken even then in Johannesburg. In 1904 the Transvaal Technical Institute was established in Johannesburg and the staff and students of the School of Mines were transferred there from Kimberley. In 1905 the institute was extended by the provision of classes in art, science and law. This perhaps initiated the phase of its development from a purely technical type of institution into a rounded university. In 1906 recognition was given to this by the adoption of the name “The Transvaal University College.” In 1907 the foundation of a new building in Eloff Street was laid and in the same year the TUC began its branch in Pretoria, offering classes in art and science.

These two institutions, the one in Johannesburg and the one in Pretoria, were governed by a common council until 1910, when the Transvaal Legislature created two institutions, namely the Transvaal University College in Pretoria and the S. A. School of Mines and Technology in Johannesburg.

In 1916, when the University of South Africa was incorporated, the school became a constituent college of that university, and it was then granted powers to extend its courses once more into the art and science faculties. In 1919 the university first offered courses in medicine and that was the start of the faculty which has, of course, since then achieved great distinction in a number of fields. In 1920 Parliament passed legislation establishing the University College of Johannesburg. In 1921 Parliament passed the University of the Witwatersrand (Private) Act which became effective on 1 March 1922.

Since then the university has grown steadily and smoothly, both in the physical sense and in the intellectual and human sense. It has developed into almost every field of study and it has maintained throughout its history a consistent, fine and open tradition. At present the investment in land and buildings, that is their book value, amounts to R62 million. The expenditure of the university annually on current account is some R30 million and the student enrolment in 1979 was 12 525.

I am now turning to the Bill before the House. This Bill amends Act 15 of 1959 which was a consolidating measure and which has itself been amended by Act 22 of 1968. The Bill deals with a number of necessary administrative amendments and improvements and is as such what is sometimes referred to as a Committee Stage Bill. There is no major principle on which one finds it necessary to discourse. This being so, I shall mention to hon. members the more important of the provisions contained in the Bill and for the rest leave the hon. members to study the Bill for themselves.

The Bill commences, as many do, with some amendments to the definitions in the principal Act. I think it is only necessary at this stage to mention one of these, which is that the definition of “lecturer” is altered so as to encompass within itself two new grades, which are adjunct professor and assistant professor. These titles, like the one of associate professor, which is already in use, are intended to denote lecturers of senior standing who do not, however, occupy the full position of professor and are therefore properly included under the definition of “lecturer”.

Clause 2 of the Bill establishes the area wherein the university may conduct its academic activities and defines those academic activities so as to exclude from the geographical restriction contained in the clause such other activities as fund raising.

Clause 3 provides for the appointment of certain new officials in posts which have become necessary to accommodate the growth of the university, viz. two or more deputy vice-chancellors and two or more registrars. It also adds to the offices and bodies of which the university consists members of the non-academic staff of the university.

Clause 4 provides that the council should determine rather than prescribe the powers, privileges, functions and so forth of a deputy vice-chancellor.

Clause 5 empowers the council to determine the powers, privileges, functions and duties of the registrars of whom there will now be more than one, because it is obviously necessary to allocate duties to them if that is so.

Clause 6 has to do with the rights of members of the university staff in relation to membership of the council and lays down certain necessary restrictions, the thrust of which is to prevent people on the university’s pay-roll from becoming members of the council. It also provides for the appointment of a secretary of the council.

Clause 7 reschedules the ordinary meetings of the senate so as to give greater flexibility to cope with modern circumstances, and provides for the appointment of a secretary of the senate.

Clause 8 stipulates that the council may delegate certain powers and functions not merely to committees as heretofore, but in prescribed circumstances also to members of the staff of the university on certain terms. This follows the precedent of a measure introduced in respect of the University of Stellenbosch. It also provides that the senate may delegate certain functions to members of the staff. In this respect it is following the precedents not only of the University of Stellenbosch, but also of Rhodes University.

Clause 9 includes registrars and certain former members of academic staff in the Convocation and provides for other incidental matters relevant to the convocation.

In clause 10 certain faculties, to whit those of education and of business administration, are included in the list of the faculties established.

Clause 11 provides that among those who may be consulted regarding academic appointments may be a member of staff designated for that purpose by the senate. Here we are following the precedent of Rhodes University.

Clause 12 provides for the admission of graduates of other universities of status, and for the acceptance of certain categories of candidates for post-graduate qualifications to be a function of the senate.

This relates to clause 13 also, which provides that the senate should also have power over the admission of research students.

Clause 14 makes certain provisions in regard to the university’s property.

Clause 15 is in some ways the most interesting clause in the Bill, because it reflects an important trend in higher education in our country at this time. It provides that the university may recognize training given at technikons or other institutions of higher learning for degree, diploma or certificate purposes. Clause 15 further provides for the organization of colleges, institutions or other bodies within the university, following the precedent in this instance of the Universities of Natal, Orange Free State and Potchefstroom.

I think it is clear from what I have said and from a reading of the Bill that these are streamlining measures, facilitating measures, measures designed to meet the needs of a larger university, of a university operating in a time of faster technological advancement in our society. These are measures designed to provide greater efficiency in the future, and it is therefore a great privilege for me to ask that the Bill be read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in support of the measure before us. A large part of the university falls within my own constituency, the constituency of Von Brandis, although important parts of the university—and it is becoming more and more widespread—fall as well within the constituency of the hon. member for Parktown as well. Although we who represent constituencies on the Witwatersrand and in the City of Johannesburg may belong to different political parties, we all share, I believe, a common pride in the University of the Witwatersrand as being one of the foremost, if not the greatest, institution of learning in our country. The growth of the university to its present size—the hon. member for Parktown has quoted certain figures in regard to the numbers of the student body—and its importance, not only with regard to teaching, but also in the fields of research, reflects, I think—and I hope hon. members will agree with me on this—the great advance that has been made in all fields of our own national endeavour in the past years. This is clearly reflected in the growth of the university. I do not want to go closely into all the detail of the past history that led to the establishment of the University of the Witwatersrand, as the hon. member for Parktown has already done so, but I do want to draw attention to one or two aspects. The first Bill to incorporate the University of the Witwatersrand was introduced into this House in 1921. At that time it was the successor of an unbroken series of institutions of higher education commencing, as the hon. member for Parktown has pointed out, with the old South African School of Mines, which was originally established in 1896 in association with my own alma mater, the South African College in Cape Town. In 1906 this became the University College of the Transvaal. As a result of a civic movement at that time, led by the mayor of Johannesburg of that time and supported by the municipalities of the Witwatersrand as a whole, substantial subscriptions were raised with the result that the institution was re-incorporated in the year 1920, attaining full university status in 1922 by the passing of an Act of Parliament. It is very interesting to note that it was the first university Bill that was introduced in this House as a private Bill as a result of a ruling by the then Mr. Speaker Krige of those days. The two amendments since the passing of the Act of 1922 which was subsequently passed in 1936 and in 1952, were also introduced as private member’s Bills. The original text of the Bill of 1922 contained a Dutch version of the English text, and with the passing of the Consolidated Act of 1959, which also embraced certain other amendments, the opportunity was taken to incorporate an Afrikaans version in the new consolidated measure that was passed by the House in that year. The consolidated Act of 1959 has since been amended only on one occasion and that was in 1968, and I think the major amendment to the original Act in that amending legislation was to provide for a deputy vice-chancellor. Today we have this amendment Bill before us.

It is inevitable that, with the continuing growth of a university as a place of learning and research, the administration and management of its affairs have to be looked at from time to time, and this, of course, necessitates amending the original Act, as is evidenced by the provision of this Bill, the details of which has been very clearly outlined to the House by the hon. member for Parktown. As he has stated, these are primarily amendments to provide for the better administration of the university. The provisions in the Bill by which the council is empowered to appoint two or more deputy vice-chancellors or two or more registrars, is a direct result of the growth of the university and the consequent demands for better administration and conduct of the affairs of the university.

An examination of the preamble to the Bill would indicate this clearly, since nearly all the amendments that have been proposed are of an administrative nature for the greater efficiency in the conduct of its affairs, as, for example, the provision providing for the establishment of an executive committee of the convocation, with its own secretariate. In the original Act, the university is described with its seat as being in Johannesburg. That is in the Act of 1959. With the inclusion of the new subsection by clause 2 of the Bill, provision is now being made that “the university may conduct its academic activities in any or all of the magisterial districts of the Witwatersrand”. In view of the growth of the university’s activities in so many fields, this provision is essential. In a sense, it broadens the seat of the university, and it is interesting to note the inclusion of this provision after 56 years of its existence, as the original endowment which led to its foundation in 1922 was, as I have already pointed out, supported by the other municipalities of the Witwatersrand.

One could quote a number of statistics to show the advancement of the University of the Witwatersrand. My hon. friend has pointed out that there is a student body today in excess of 12 000 students. When the university celebrated its 50 years of existence approximately six years ago, the student body consisted, I think, of 9 000 students. The growth of the student body indicates the growth of this university. One can quote figures in extenso to show the increase in the number of faculties, e.g. the medical school and the nuclear physics research unit, the increase of the full-time and part-time staff, the development of one of the finest, and possibly one of the largest libraries of its kind in South Africa, the development of its archives, etc. I have made a passing reference to all these achievements in the realms of higher learning, but, while it has achieved all these things in the growth of the university as an institute of learning, I think the greatest achievement of the University of the Witwatersrand is in the human material that it has produced, people who have excelled in all aspects of our national life. While it continues to do this, it is deserving of the support of this hon. House in the passing of this Bill. We wish it well in the future and we wish that it may continue to produce men and women who will help our nation to achieve greater things in future.

Mr. Speaker, in the same way as it was a privilege for the other two hon. members who spoke before me to participate in this debate, I also regard it as a privilege to be able to say a few words about one of our best known universities. Personally, I cannot claim any connection with the university, except that I did research there. I am grateful that I had the opportunity of being able to make use of the facilities which the university offers.

For the most part this Bill makes provision for administrative matters. Certain of the provisions are merely directed at bringing the university into line with other universities where such institutions already exist and where certain functions are being performed, particularly at the administrative level. I think it is important to point out that this Bill ventures into new fields. The new definition of “professor” is something altogether new in South Africa. There will now be reference to an “adjunct professor”, an “associate professor”, a “professor”, and an “assistant professor”. These designations are not in general use in South Africa and as such they are something new.

†I also wish to refer to clause 10 whereby the number of faculties are increased from eight to ten. The two new faculties will be those of education and business administration. The creation of a new Faculty of Education is a very significant development. One of the greatest problems we have, especially in the Transvaal, is that there is not a shortage of teachers as such, but a drastic shortage of English-speaking teachers. It is therefore important to note that only now such a well-known university, the only English-language university in the Transvaal, has reached the stage where it will have its own Faculty of Education.

In the past teacher training was primarily left to the Johannesburg College of Education, later it was undertaken in association with the university. Perhaps the root of the problem in the Transvaal was that at the only English-language university there was no Faculty of Education. Although this move came at a rather late stage, I think it is a most welcome one. We can only hope that as a result of this, and once the faculty is properly established, this problem will be overcome in the Transvaal. Previously teacher training took place in conjunction with the Teachers’ Training College as a result of certain changes in educational legislation. This Faculty of Education can act as an encouragement to more English-speaking persons to enter the teaching profession. I want to appeal to young men and women and pupils leaving school to take up education as a career and to make use of their local university, the University of the Witwatersrand, for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer to this House it is a privilege for me to be able to make a speech for the first time here this afternoon. In the nature of things, it is a privilege for any new member to be able to make his maiden speech in this House, and if, to crown it all, one is still young, it is an even greater privilege. Perhaps then it is not inopportune for me to try to make a contribution to a debate on a Bill dealing with the studies and training of young people.

As a newcomer to this House I want to say that I shall strive to gain knowledge from the Source from which I believe all knowledge is to be gained. I realize that this Source, no matter how adequate it may be for our use, sometimes fails because one has shortcomings when it comes to the application of that knowledge that is offered one. I am well aware of my own shortcomings and limitations as regards the demands of knowledge and wisdom. Perhaps this is the time to quote what Dr. Adenauer wrote on one occasion—

I have the privilege of succeeding a young man as the representative of the constituency of Johannesburg West. Dawie de Villiers was a young man when he came to the House in 1973. It is a great privilege for me to be able to succeed a young man like that, a man who achieved a great deal. I am sure that the example that he set here, particularly the example that he set in his constituency, will be a good one for us young people to follow, and we should like to emulate him. We also wish him everything of the best, on behalf of the constituency too, in regard to his task in London.

I read the maiden speech of my predecessor—not that I am trying to suggest that I can follow him in every respect—and, as it happened, he also spoke about education. Since I am participating in this debate this afternoon, I should like to take the subject further. I refer in particular to the proposed insertion of sections 23A to 23C after section 23 of Act 15 of 1959. I am referring to clause 15 of the amending Bill. The proposed section 23A provides for the recognition of training provided at technikons and other similar institutions for higher education. In the proposed section 23C, provision is made for agreements that can be entered into in this regard with the authorities concerned.

To my mind this means that provision is being made for the recognition of training at the institutions concerned, particularly the training at technikons. This means that the recognition of this training entails the recognition of extra-university training for the purpose of university qualification. I feel that this is a favourable development. It definitely places technikons on a higher level of recognition and this means that technikons do not necessarily have to compete with universities but can complement them in the training that is provided on a tertiary level at universities. I also think that in this way technikons will be able to develop into fully-fledged institutions for tertiary education where specialization can take precedence and where education will be more professionally oriented.

I do not think that this is strange because most of the existing universities actually developed in this way in their early stages of development. The University of the Witwatersrand is possibly an example par excellence of this type of development. When he sketched the history of the origin of this university, the hon. member for Parktown pointed out, quite correctly, that it began as a technical institute. Even after its separation into the university college of the Transvaal in Pretoria and the Institute for Mining Technology in Johannesburg, this process was continued until it became a fully-fledged university in 1921. Today we find further examples of this type of development in our teacher training colleges. They liaise with universities and enter into agreements whereby universities can also offer degree courses to students at teacher training colleges. I feel that this course of development which is being held out in prospect for the technikons is a very good one and is a very favourable development for us.

This also means that students who are attending university at the moment and whose potential could be better utilized in a practical way, can now attend a technikon and receive an equally good, fully-fledged and recognized academic training there. I feel that this will bring about differentiation at the higher education level so that the university can ultimately be geared to producing the researcher and the academician, whilst the technikon in its turn can produce the designer, the practical person. This development certainly requires the expansion of the institutions concerned, viz. the technikons. I believe that there is an urgent need for the expansion of these institutions for all population groups, but that they should also be situated in areas where they will be suitable for those people who will most probably spend most of the day working and then study further after hours. Consequently, the siting of these institutions is an important factor.

One requirement as regards this matter which one would certainly like to stipulate, is that the education offered must not only be of a technical nature, but that human development should continue to be taken in account. I believe therefore that development of this nature, development in regard to which the university and the technikon stand side by side and not in competition with one another, is very sound development.

A final matter which, I believe, emenates from this development, is the idea of the comparative advantage to people and the better utilization of our human potential in this country. When I say that the concept of comparative advantage applies in this case, I think one can go back to the creator of this principle of comparative advantage, viz. David Ricardo, who began a campaign in the British Parliament for the amendment of the then prevailing com laws nearly one and a half centuries ago. The landowners in Britain at that time insisted on the retention of the com laws in order to prevent com being imported to Britain because they wanted to try to maintain the prevailing com prices in Britain. Then David Ricardo started his campaign and, in the process, tried to utilize the principle of comparative advantage in this regard. Eventually he succeeded. This meant that the borders of the country were opened to free trade and that the general level of prosperity increased accordingly.

Briefly, this principle means that total production will be higher if two countries specialize, for instance, in the manufacture of products and in their production. Ultimately, it may mean that one is assured of a better, cheaper product. We can make this equally applicable to man. For instance, instead of an athlete who excels at athletics and rugby devoting himself to both, he may decide to devote himself to only one and in this way possibly set a world record in hurdles, for instance. Instead of simply being a provincial rugby player or only obtaining provincial colours for athletics, he can make sure that he reaches the top in one sport by devoting himself exclusively to that sport.

Once again, in general terms, I believe that this principle is very important to us; for instance, when it is applied to the sphere of a choice of profession and perhaps also in our situation of striving for co-operation among the states of Southern Africa When the principle of comparative advantage is applied to the individual, I believe we can say that every individual must ensure that his comparative advantage is determined. He must make sure of what it is and then devote himself to it so that he can make his best contribution in the interests of the country. I feel that this can ultimately result in increasing and improving efficiency in this country.

This also means, in my opinion, that the services of every person can best be used according to his own nature and character, that the best can be obtained from him and that the best that is in him will be given expression to the benefit of the community as a whole. This also means that each person can fulfil himself to the best of his ability and reach the top. In conclusion perhaps I may just refer to what Einstein once said—

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Johannesburg West on his maiden speech. I am particularly pleased to do so because in the first place he represents a constituency, Johannesburg West, in which I am to some extent sentimentally involved since parts of it formed part of my constituency before subsequent delimitation. I am therefore naturally pleased that a capable young man such as he is now going to look after the interests of those voters. In the second place, of course, he is a lawyer, and I think we need still more of this type of man in this House. [Interjections.] Of course, if one may say so, after the hon. the Minister of Finance quoted from a certain periodical, I feel that we also need people who know something about the economy of our country. I think the hon. member can also make a contribution in this House in that respect. There is yet another reason, however. Looking around in this House, I see too many people with grey hair, too many bald people. I think we need a few more young people in this House. [Interjections.] I think it is very important that we should get more young people in this House. [Interjections.] For that reason, too, that hon. member is very welcome in this House. Having listened to his contribution, I think we can also say that we could expect a great deal from him in future.

I think I can welcome him on behalf of everybody in this House and tell him that we are hoping that he is going to do well here. We believe he will, too.

†It would, of course, be inappropriate if, in a Bill on the University of the Witwatersrand no graduate of that university participated in the debate, but it is remarkable that so far none has. We have had former students of the University of Potchefstroom and the University of Cape Town. I think the hon. member for Von Brandis is also a former student of the University of Cape Town. I am not sure where the hon. member for Johannesburg West studied, but I do not think he studied at Wits.

Where do you think? Just guess.

Until now I have been on the hon. member for Johannesburg West’s side, so I think it is very inappropriate of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence to seek to turn me against him. I think it is appropriate, however, for someone with a close connection with Wits to participate in this debate. I do not think I take second place to anyone, but perhaps I take an equal place with others, when it comes to my connection with Wits. I was there as a student, I served on its Students’ Representative Council, I have served on the University Council, I have lectured at the university and whatever lack of knowledge of economics I may or may not have, I acquired in part at that university. [Interjections.] Therefore I feel very closely and sentimentally attached to that university.

There are some things that I think need to be said about that university. The one thing this particular measure demonstrates is that it is a university that keeps up to date with the developments in South Africa and the rest of the world and tries to take a lead in those developments, something it does to the benefit of all the people of South Africa and the country as a whole. That is why those of us who are associated with Wits can take pride in the introduction of this piece of legislation today.

A second thing that needs to be said about Wits is that I believe that the university takes the lead in equipping the young men of South Africa to meet the challenges of tomorrow, stimulating not only their academic abilities but also their thinking ability generally. The university seeks to create individuals who can make a contribution in South Africa. There again I believe the university takes the lead and is a university in which we can take great pride.

There are two particular matters following on from this with which I should like to deal. This measure deals with the renaming of certain posts and with a number of posts in a particular context. There is, however, a little more to it than that. The question is how one is to attract and keep the best people at a university of this kind today. One of the factors we have to bear in mind is that it is not enough to give names to posts, but that one must give meaning in financial terms to posts in this context. I believe that in South Africa we need to look very carefully at whether or not we are paying the people who teach our children at the universities enough to make their jobs meaningful economically. It is true that, as far as professors and other staff members at universities are concerned, there is great mobility between one university and another and even between different countries. One does not want to discourage that mobility, but I should never like to see the situation come about in South Africa where it is purely to a man’s economic advantage to leave South Africa to take up a post at a university overseas. If we compare the incomes of people at universities in South Africa with that of people at universities in other Western countries, I think there is something wanting in regard to South Africa. I should like to take this opportunity to make an appeal not only on behalf of the academic staff of Wits, but also on behalf of the academic staff of all the universities in respect of their economic standards, their living and their salaries.

Then we come to the second leg of the argument. It is perfectly true that the State makes a big contribution to all universities and that without that contribution it would hardly be possible for any university to function properly in South Africa. There is, however, an increasing burden today on the ordinary citizen, the average middle-class individual, to keep his children at university. I am not speaking about the man who is that bright that he can acquire a scholarship nor about the man who is that bright that he can get a bursary, but about the ordinary middle-of-the-road individual who gets through his examinations, who is the solid foundation and backbone of the future in the fields of technical and academic training and who carries that burden for the future. That individual and his family carry an extremely great burden in South Africa with the increasing cost of keeping children at university. I would, on behalf of those persons too, like to appeal today for greater assistance to be made available to put university education within the reach of everyone—not merely the bright one who can get a scholarship or the bright one who can get a bursary, but the man who can take advantage of university education and who wants to go to university but finds that the financial burden presents a real problem for his family. These are real problems for many hundreds of people in South Africa and I should like to take this opportunity to put their case to the House, because I believe it is important.

Sir, this piece of legislation, as the hon. member for Parktown indicated, advances a number of aspects of the operation of the university. There can be no objection to any of them and I think all of us in the House will wish the university well in its endeavours in the future.

Mr. Speaker, as a graduate of the University of the Witwatersrand, I should also like to say a few words, because this is the university that made me an NP supporter. This is also the university that will ensure that I always remain an NP supporter. However, I am a loyal ex-student of the university, and that is why I want to express my good wishes to the university in this debate for doing such wonderful work in the education of people in South Africa. With these few words we are pleased to give our support to this legislation before the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to convey my sincere thanks to those hon. members who participated in the debate for their contributions. I think the debate was conducted on a high level. I am pleased that we had two Wits graduates who participated in the debate towards the end and said something of value.

I should like to refer in passing to what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say about the two new faculties. He is a great authority on education and he pointed out to us that there is a tremendous shortage of teachers, especially English-speaking teachers, in the Transvaal. Perhaps it will not sound very nice coming from me if I say that there is also a serious shortage of businessmen in the Transvaal, but I believe that I should be allowed to say that, as a faculty, the School of Business Administration has been making a major contribution for some time and will continue to do so in the future. Perhaps I should just explain that these two activities have been in existence as departments at Wits for some time now. What is happening here is that they are being added to the list that appears in the Act in the form of fully-fledged faculties. I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville to the young hon. member for Johannesburg West on a fine maiden speech.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, the last time we discussed this clause the hon. member for Sea Point put certain questions to me. I should now like to react to those questions by way of a statement. Instead of replying to the questions of the hon. member for Sea Point separately, it is more to the purpose to adopt a general approach to the questions as a group. The principles involved provide the answers to the questions. When the Sectional Titles Act was passed in 1971, rent control was an accepted procedure and it was accepted that the Sectional Titles Act had to be applied in such a way that it entailed, as a new method of acquiring ownership, the least possible disruption for lessees of then existing flat units. In addition the demand for dwelling units in an exceptionally favourable economic climate far exceeded the supply. So as not to cause the situation in respect of flats to undergo a sudden and dramatic change, section 39(1) was inserted into that Act, inter alia, to prevent the selling prices of sectional title units from skyrocketing.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development has informed me that the Fouché Commission of inquiry threw a completely new light on the system of rent control. Inter alia, the recommendation that rent control be abolished gradually was accepted, and the stage has now been reached where only dwelling units which were in general occupied prior to 1955 are subject to rent control. This means that buildings which by now are 25 years old are no longer subject to rent control and that their lessees, except those in certain lower income groups, are at this stage no longer being protected. The Consumer Council was represented on the Commission and even its representative supported the abolition of rent control and the deletion of section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act Consequently this Bill is not creating any new principle, but merely forms a part of the process of phasing out rent control and is virtually an inseparable part of it In any event, the old flat units which are still subject to rent control lend themselves with great difficulty to being sold under sectional title, and consequently the effect of this amendment will be relatively limited.

One factor in the process of phasing out rent control which is important in view of questions put by the hon. member for Sea Point is the fact that clause 3 of the Bill seeks to make a de facto position de jure. The hon. member for Sea Point asked how many notices had already been promulgated in this way. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has informed me that it is an impossible task to determine the number because the files will have to be gone through. Exemption is granted for a diversity of reasons and each case will have to be examined to determine whether section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act was in any way involved. However, my colleague assured me that many such exemptions were being granted as part of the phasing out process. Applications for exemption from sectional title owners are considered sympathetically in terms of policy and are almost always granted. This means that application now has to be made in each case and all the processes have to be gone through. By removing section 39(1) from the Sectional Titles Act, this red tape will be eliminated. I think this is probably one of the reasons why the clause is supported by bodies such as the Association of Law Societies, the Association of Building Societies and the Department of Community Development, but in view of the specific approach which certain groups here in this House are adopting to the clause, particularly in view of the fact that they are concerned about inhabitants of flats situated within their constituencies, I am prepared to move an amendment which will have the effect of repealing section 39(1) only with effect from 1 April 1981. In this way any person who may possibly be affected will be receiving notice of more than a year that a change is going to take place. Of course a lessee affected in this way will also receive his statutory notice to vacate. The amendment is similar to an amendment initially submitted to me by the hon. member for Hillbrow and which I was prepared to accept. However, I cannot support the subsequent amendment which he formulated for in that way the entire matter is shelved indefinitely and the clause is negated instead of being postponed. Therefore I move the following amendment—

1. (2) Subsection (1) shall come into operation on 1 April 1981.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow will react more specifically to the issue of the date, because the amendment in the form in which it has been moved by the hon. the Minister originated from the hon. member for Hillbrow. For reasons which he will advance he will say why he believes that the amendment which now stands on the Order Paper in his name would be a more appropriate way to deal with this particular issue. Therefore I leave the issue of the date, whether it should be 1981, 1991, or never, to one side.

What I would like to do is to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) are occupied by tenants with families falling within the income categories as determined in terms of the Housing Act, 1966 (Act No. 4 of 1966), and which the Minister of Community Development has by notice in the Gazette excluded from the exemption from rent control as long as they are occupied by the same tenants and as long as the incomes of the tenants do not exceed these limits; or
2. (b) were occupied for the first time prior to 21 October 1949.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow the Government to fulfil its pledge which it has already given to tenants. This particular amendment would mean that the Government would not in any way restricted in phasing out rent control in terms of its present policy. It does not deal with the phasing in or out of rent control. What it does say is that as part of the process of phasing out of rent control, the Government, through Ministers and Deputy Ministers, has repeatedly given the assurance that even in the process of phasing out rent control certain groups of tenants in a certain income group would not lose their security under the Rent Control Act for as long as they fell under the limit of R540 and for as long as they occupied those premises. Therefore, if they died, if they moved out or if their income increased to exceed that particular sum, then that was not transferable to another property and would lapse even in respect of that particular property.

They get three months’ notice.

However, what it did mean with reference to those tenants—and as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, it is largely older people who have resided for a long, long time in old blocks of flats—is that the Government said that it would see to it that whatever else happened those older people would have security of tenure. Subsection (a) of my amendment merely takes the exact words of the formal declaration of the hon. the Minister of Community Development and introduces them as a form of qualification into the Bill which is now before us. We are asking for no more. In terms of this amendment those people whom the Government said would be protected because of their income, will remain protected for as long as they occupy those premises and for as long as their income does not exceed the limit. It does involve a phasing out, but it also involves a guarantee to these people.

The second leg of my amendment, subsection (b), reads “were occupied for the first time prior to 21 October 1949”. The hon. the Minister should know—the hon. the Deputy Minister certainly knows—that the right of the Minister to relax rent control by proclamation is only in respect of properties occupied after 21 October 1949. To change rent control in respect of properties occupied before 21 October 1949 requires legislation to amend the Rent Control Act. Therefore the Government could never have contemplated doing it administratively.

The Government said it was going to relax rent control administratively and would in due course come to this House. We say that until it comes to this House with a specific provision to get rid of rent control in respect of properties which are now over 31 years old, it should be done through the backdoor by allowing people to be ejected from their property when they have been living there for a long time and where they, in any case, are the kind of people who because of their low income deserve some protection. The hon. the Minister and other hon. members have said that only a very few people would be affected. However, the hon. the Minister has said today that in respect of exemptions there are so many files to go through that it would not be possible to give an answer to the question how many people would be affected. If there are so many files to go through, we must assume that a significant number of people are going to be affected. Only this morning I had sent in, from my advice centre in Sea Point, three completely genuine communications from people. One is a round robin signed by some 15 tenants of a building which was erected in 1925 and in which the average length of tenure of tenants is about 23 years and the average age of the tenants is approaching 70 years. They are old people and they have been living here for ages. The property has recently been bought by a new property speculator. They know that, when this Bill is passed, that speculator can say that they must move within three months. There is no alternative accommodation for them at a price they can pay in the environment in which they have been living for the past 30 years. That is just the reality of the situation.

The hon. the Minister said that old flats are unsuitable for sectional title sales. Here is another example. Mrs. X, on behalf of five other tenants in a flat which was built in 1935—most of these people have been living there for over 20 years—asked whether this particular flat could be sold over their heads. They are apprehensive. I have a third example. Before this Bill has even been passed, an estate agent has written to certain people in a block of flats which was built in 1936 and said—

Not the old owners who have suffered under rent control because of the low return. He continues—

They informed the tenants very kindly that they could have first option, but added that, unless they purchased, if they should not hear from them in that regard by 15 March 1980, they would assume that they did not wish to purchase the flats. I know this block of flats. None of the people who are living there, are able, for financial reasons, to purchase a flat in this particular block. Before this Bill has even been published, property speculators are writing to tenants and stating that it is their intention, as soon as the Bill is passed, to sell the flat over their heads. They inform them that they can purchase it. But unless they do so, they will have to evict them in any case. In respect of the older blocks of flats, and in respect of the older tenants who qualify under the income level set by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, there is a severe problem. This Government is taking a heartless attitude towards these people. I have not heard anything positive from the hon. the Minister. What is he going to do? Why is he not purchasing some of these older blocks himself and securing them for older tenants and people who cannot afford anything else? Mr. Chairman, we have heard nothing positive by way of relief or even by way of sympathy. We heard from the hon. member for Algoa: “Dis net ’n paar mense.” We heard from other people that people will get hurt.

You know that it does not fall under my department.

The hon. the Minister is moving this particular Bill, and all we ask is that the amendment that is printed in my name be accepted. It does not interrupt the process of decontrol as outlined by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. All that it says is that in respect of those people to whom he gave a promise, in respect of those people who, in any case, cannot be kicked out of their flats until legislation changes the Rent Control Act because those flats are now over 31 years old, and in respect of the old people who need assistance, they should be able to continue living there with security of tenure and not feel harassed and insecure because the property speculators are already writing to them and saying that, as soon as this legislation is passed, the property is going to be sold over their heads.

Mr. Chairman, clause 3, as it stands at the moment is, of course, the most objectionable clause of the Bill, and I think one should just remind the hon. the Minister that one of the reasons for the unanimity at the particular time when rent control was phased out was the promise of protection given to people in a certain income category. The hon. the Minister also mentioned that it would be impossible to say how many flats and how many units would be affected by this measure. I think the time has come for us just to refer to the report of the Fouché Commission, because it does give some guidelines. It was found at the time that up to 1976 there were 170 000 rent-controlled flat units. A survey which was conducted by the department in 18 urban areas as well as on the platteland showed, for instance, that 30% of the flat units in the urban areas—and most flat units are in the urban areas—had tenants with an income of below R299 per month. One does not know how many of those buildings are in fact going to be sold under sectional title. This is the unknown factor, but one starts off here with the clear indication that approximately 30% of 170 000 could well fall within this category.

You are assuming that they are all going to be sold under sectional title.

No, I have already said that I do not know what percentage of those flats are going to be sold under sectional title and that that is the unknown factor, but one has to try to estimate the maximum number of people who could be affected by this provision. As regards people with dependents and whose incomes are less than R540 per month, the Fouché Commission report unfortunately does not provide the applicable figures. However, it does have particulars about people earning less than R399 per month. It says that 50% of tenants living in the 170 000 flat units have incomes of less than R400 per month and that 70% of tenants living in urban flats have incomes of less than R599 per month. The percentage for the rural area is slightly higher, viz. 78%. The figures in this report are unfortunately the only statistics we can go by in this regard.

I have prepared an amendment to this clause which I have passed on to the hon. the Minister. I now wish to move it, as follows—

I wish to indicate to the hon. the Minister that we will obviously support the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point. My amendment does not go as far as the hon. member for Sea Point’s amendment in the sense that mine tries to cater for the other side of the coin as well. There are those people who do enjoy a measure of protection, perhaps under dubious circumstances. The effect of my amendment would be that the Minister would be entitled to apply his mind to every single case when an automatic appeal is made. The real needy case could then still be catered for. It has been brought to my attention that there are cases of people living in flats who state that they have a low income, but who can still afford to travel overseas from time to time and whose style of living does not correspond with that sort of income. I admit that cases such as these exist. My amendment would allow for an investigation to take place in order to eliminate this type of practice. Each case would then be dealt with on its merits. I want to make it quite clear that we will be supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point, but if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept it, I feel that my amendment would provide the fairest solution in the circumstances. I do not regard my amendment as a compromise really. After all, a promise was made and as a result of that promise everybody supported the phasing out of rent control. That promise gave people a sense of security.

The argument has been advanced that people will now have the wonderful opportunity of purchasing their flats. However, I have already quoted what the factual position is. 50% of tenants occupying rent-controlled flats have incomes of less than R400 per month. These people will find it extremely difficult to purchase their flats under sectional title at the exorbitant prices they will have to pay for them with the current rate of inflation, etc. I have here a telegram from East London which just proves this particular point. It says—

Here we have the situation where a lot of people in those flats will be unable to pay for them. I have a letter here from Pretoria.

Not from Pretoria Central I hope.

Yes, it is no use going to members of the NP.

People say they have no confidence in them. I do not even know where this is in Pretoria. It is Mercury Court, Schoeman Street, Arcadia. As I say, I do not know where it is. People send these letters to us. [Interjections.] I do not know where it is, but as far as I am concerned, I am doing my duty to fight for these people. If their MPs cannot care for them, that is it. Here we have exactly the same sort of situation. The writer says—

And this is the point—

In this case the building was first occupied on 1 April 1952 and he was residing in a particular flat from 1 February 1958. That is 22 years. I want to give hon. members an idea of the tremendous escalation in prices at the present moment, with the current rate of inflation being what it is.

It is not inflation, it is greed, pure greed.

Let me cite this particular case in Pretoria. The municipal evaluation is R285 000. If the present owners sell the flats under sectional title, the building will be sold for a total of R719 500. One can see that what is happening is that people are going to make a tremendous profit. The point is not so much that the people who own the flats are not entitled to sell them, but that the poorer people, the people who were promised protection, should be given that protection.

I have therefore moved my amendment so that the real needy case can still be catered for. The promise will still be broken as far as the others who perhaps just qualify on technical grounds are concerned. It will still break that promise, but at least it will enable some protection to be given. So let us accept the amendment.

The Fouché report states that the only people who would qualify as being rich and who live in controlled flats in urban areas are those earning over R800 per month. That group amounts to only 10% of the occupants of controlled flats. So those are the only people whom we could say are really the rich. Those earning over R1 000 per month represent only 0,1%. So we must get away from this fallacy that everybody who occupies a rent-controlled flat happens to be in a tremendously high income bracket.

Mr. Chairman, as the clause stands at the moment we are obviously implacably opposed to it. The hon. the Minister has made some very important announcements here this afternoon. What is also of particular importance is the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. I want to deal with that amendment now as well as with the clause seen in the light of the hon. the Minister’s amendment. What the hon. the Minister proposes is certainly an improvement on the current position. The hon. the Minister has referred to the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper in which it is proposed that this should come into effect on 1 April 1981. The reason is that we should have time to have a look at the whole situation.

Subsequently I proposed another amendment, which is printed on page 58 of the Order Paper and which reads—

1. (2) Subsection (1) shall not come into operation on a date prior to 1 April 1981, such date of commencement to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

The effect of this amendment would be that the stipulation will not come into operation as such on 1 April 1981, but that it will first have to be published by way of proclamation in the Gazette. It can be proclaimed on 1 April 1981, but the date of commencement must not be a date prior to 1 April 1981.

There has been a change in my stance, and I have notified the hon. the Minister of it. The reason for that is that we do not want to accept that this will in fact come into effect in a period of say nine months, because we believe the situation needs being investigated first. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point is by far more preferable because it seeks to give protection to the vast majority of people who really require this type of protection. Now, I realize the hon. the Minister has some difficulty because in a way—and I am referring to the specific Bill with which we are dealing now—he is also handling the portfolio of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The reason why we are pressing the issue here is because it is inextricably bound up with the whole question of the phasing out of rent control. It cannot be separated from it in any way. It also links up with the situation which will arise when this measure comes into effect. If one looks at the phasing out of rent control which is proposed and which, as far as I can understand from the hon. the Minister, will continue, it appears that next in turn will be blocks of flats first occupied between 20 October 1949 and 31 December 1954. Rent control on these flats will be phased out within the next five years. Also taking into account the two-year period for the expiration of rent control in respect of flats in the previous category, it appears that there is going to be a tremendous demand for accommodation. We all know that very few blocks of flats have been built since 1966. That means that there is a complete lack of flat accommodation at the moment. In connection with the question of the availability of flat accommodation I should like to refer to a debate that was conducted here in this House in April 1978. In that debate the hon. the Minister of Community Development said there were many flats available everywhere. He referred to newspaper advertisements, and in particular to the classified column in The Star. Now, when he said that the hon. the Minister was quite correct. In The Star of 25 April 1978 I personally counted the classified advertisements of vacant flat accommodation. There were 185 such advertisements in that day’s edition of The Star. I repeated the same check a few days ago, on a Friday evening. I chose a Friday evening newspaper because Friday, as we all know, is a very good day for advertising. On that particular Friday evening there were only 37 advertisements advertising vacant flat accommodation. I have that particular edition of The Star here in front of me. Any hon. member is welcome to have a look at it. It shows clearly the shortage of available flat accommodation at the moment.

Referring again to the debate we had here in the House in April 1978, I should like to point out one thing to hon. members. The question of the phasing out of rent control was also discussed and the hon. the Minister of Community Development then had the following to say about this matter (Hansard, 28 April 1978, col. 5919)—

Now, we are trying to reveal the needs as they exist today. We are trying to do that by showing that with the phasing out of rent control tremendous problems are going to arise. An additional point I should like to make is in connection with something said by the hon. member for Algoa. He referred to the Commission of Inquiry into the Development of Land Schemes. What is being proposed in that instance is that block-share schemes should be converted into sectional titles as soon as possible.

That being the case, let us look at page 12 of that report. There one finds that figures that were submitted to the commission showed that in Durban alone there are 30 000 apartments under the share-block scheme that are likely to convert to sectional title. So all those people are going to be affected. Now if Durban alone has 30 000 flats under the share-block scheme, I think it is fair to say that there must be at least 60 000 or 70 000 in South Africa as a whole that are going to be affected as well. Although the hon. the Minister wants this to come into effect on 1 April 1980, what we are asking for—and I have an amendment to clause 4 on the Order Paper—is that we keep to the appeal made by the official Opposition, as contained in a letter I have sent to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, a letter he is considering at the moment. Our appeal is that he should freeze the phasing out of rent control. Let us then take a look, say by the end of this year, at the position of the availability of flat accommodation, who are going to be affected, who are not going to be affected and whether we are not taking, from these people, the roof they have had over their heads, accommodation upon which they are so dependent.

Order! Is the hon. member dealing with the amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the hon. the Minister’s amendment and the reason why I find it difficult to accept it. I am dealing with why we would prefer to have the amendment to clause 4 that I have on the Order Paper rather than the amendment that he is moving which firmly fixes 1 April 1980 as the date. I do so because if, after an inquiry, we come to the conclusion that we need more time, i.e. that this should be phased out over a longer period, we are still committed by a fixed date, whereas in terms of my amendment we are not committed to a fixed date. That is the argument I am trying to put forward. Under the circumstances I think we need time to reconsider the matter.

I must now refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. That is also an improvement on the situation, but I think it can only be given second or third prize. The hon. member might like to help me with certain of the difficulties I have with it. Obviously, if we have nothing better, we shall support it. It does entail an appeal to the hon. the Minister, but I find that the people we are dealing with, e.g. the elderly or the pensioners, firstly do not know which Minister is involved. Secondly, they do not know where to write to the Minister and, thirdly, they ask themselves what criteria the hon. the Minister would lay down in judging the merits of their appeal. In other words, they do not know what criteria the hon. the Minister sets when judging their appeals. If one leaves the decision to the discretion of the hon. the Minister, I think one would be having him inundated with appeals, which is really not necessary from an administrative point of view. I am sure the hon. member for Durban Central would, in fact, prefer our amendment.

I said so.

Yes, quite right. One gets the impression, from the Government’s attitude, that in spite of the small concession the hon. the Minister has made today, perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on the position of the landlord as opposed to that of the tenant. It would seem as if there is more concern about the landlord getting his return, whilst less consideration is given to the tenant who has a fixed pension and whose cost of living is not being adjusted accordingly. We get the impression that the Government does not really care very much about the common man; it does not care for the pensioner or the low-salaried individual.

Now you are talking nonsense!

One gets the impression that the Government is just worried about the landlord, as the Government has shown by what it has done so far. The Government has clearly shown which side it has chosen.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow has restated all the objections he raised during the Second Reading debate, as did the hon. member for Sea Point. It is true that if the position were as they put it, one would have great cause for concern. One can only, however, accept what the Department of Community Development has said. One cannot gainsay what the department says. The department has said that in its considered view this measure would not have any large-scale effect since it would not affect very many blocks of flats or very many people. Oscar Wilde has said that there is nothing as futile as people arguing opinions. So it is no use that side of the House saying one thing, our saying “No” to it, their saying “It is so”, etc. The fact of the matter is that one must accept the assurances of the department and one cannot legislate for the state of the property market at any given moment in time.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, in my constituency there are thousands of units of flats and properties affected under the rent board. Let me say that in my case no occasion exists where the matter could not be dealt with by the rent board or where I have not been able to find assisted housing for people who qualified for such housing. So I have experienced no problem. The point is that that may just apply to that part of the world. It may be that problems do exist in other parts. The fact is, however, that demonstrably there is at the moment an oversupply of housing available for people requiring assisted housing. In my Second Reading speech I mentioned a whole series of such blocks of flats. We mentioned Albow Gardens on the Koeberg Road.

Tell us the full story of Albow Gardens.

We mentioned 90 empty houses in Epping, and there are other examples one can mention, such as in Johannesburg and Claremont, in Natal and so on. The fact is that there is an oversupply. That is the second point.

Thirdly, there is the principle of it. The principle is an accepted principle. That side of the House has also accepted it. It is that we cannot discriminate against one category of sectional title owner. It is nonsense to do that. It is not the private individual’s responsibility to provide assisted housing. Do the hon. members opposite agree with that? Do they think it is the private individual’s responsibility?

Have you read the commission’s report?

The fact of the matter is that it is not the private individual’s responsibility to provide assisted housing for persons who may require it. It is the State’s responsibility, and the State does not run away from that responsibility, but accepts it. The fact is that at the moment there are houses available. Should the department’s statistics be wrong and should an urgent need arise, I am quite certain the department would rectify the matter immediately, perhaps by the acquisition of existing buildings.

Sir, this side of the House cannot be accused of begging its responsibility to the poor. The hon. member for Sea Point spoke in emotive terms about eviction, ejection, people being kicked out, and so on. That is nonsense. He knows as well as I do that, if the worst were to happen and there were to be a block of flats where people might be affected and might have to move, a sectional title register would have to be opened. He knows that almost invariably the flats have to be modified and that in the case of attached houses modifications almost always have to be carried out. He knows that the tenant will be aware of the work taking place. He knows that in the event of a sale some time will elapse before the property is sold and that, when it is sold, the tenant will have three months’ notice. There is therefore no question of the tenant being kicked out or, as the hon. member seems to suggest, of a registered letter appearing out of the blue in the morning when the tenant wakes up and of his being evicted the following day. That is an incorrect impression. I honestly think it is irresponsible. It is so that people living in blocks of flats are nervous about their position. The reason is that they have been harrassed for generations by the owners, the Prog landlords of blocks of flats in this country. So they do feel vulnerable living in blocks of flats. But it cannot be said of the Government that it harrasses the poor. The fact is that the machinery is there, the will is there, the accommodation is there at the moment and the State will do everything to protect the people who require to be protected. It is, however, not the responsibility of private individuals to provide subsidized housing for the populace of South Africa. I think hon. members opposite have accepted that principle in the past.

Mr. Chairman, as I see it, there is one possible form of abuse which the rent board should guard against. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister is in the House. I would be grateful if he could alert the rent board to this. There is the danger that, in the case where a person sells a property prior to sectional title applying to it and conditional upon gaining sectional title permission and all sorts of other suspensive conditions, the deed of sale can then be produced to the unsuspecting tenant and he can be given three months’ notice. I have come across this and we must guard against it. Otherwise I see no dangers at all attached to this Bill. It is going to be limited in its scope. There is adequate housing. For the benefit of the hon. member for Sea Point, let me say that a great monument is in the process of being erected for the pensioners at Three Anchor Bay under the auspices of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. So the Government has never begged its responsibility in respect of the needs of the poor, particularly not in the field of housing. There is an oversupply of assisted housing for Whites.

Mr. Chairman, as the only Independent Opposition member of this House, I rise to support this clause of a Bill. I must express my amazement at the insincere antics, and obvious desire for sensational Press publicity, on the part of a number of Opposition spokesmen. I intend dealing with their amendments and arguments regarding clause 3, one by one. I should like to start with my old friend, the hon. member for East London North, who unfortunately is not in the House but who moved an amendment as printed in his name on the Order Paper. I want to tell the hon. member that I fully understand his unenviable position in the NRP. I know and he knows that he would actually oppose this clause with his tongue in his cheek and his fingers crossed behind his back. To prove that this is the case, let us examine his view and opinions on this clause, as expressed during his Second Reading speech. His speech clearly indicated, to me at any rate, that he would not really like to see section 39(1) retained at all and I want to quote from his Hansard to prove this. He stated the following (Hansard, 1980, col. 1081)—

The hon. member comes to the conclusion that: “It is the responsibility of the State …” Later in his speech the hon. member went on to say (Hansard, 1980, col. 1084)—

That is exactly what the hon. member for Maitland also said. It is clear from the hon. member for East London North’s speech that he believes in the free-enterprise system, as we all proclaim to do. I agree with his view that it is not the social responsibility of the entrepreneur to provide sub-economic accommodation for the needy. However, the hon. member for East London North, who normally takes such a strong stand on free enterprise, voted against the Second Reading of this Bill and he would, in fact, vote against this clause if he were here today. This clause specifically removes that obligation of the property-owner to subsidize the less fortunate tenant. I find it difficult to comprehend that anyone can rationalize and water down his belief in the free-enterprise system and oppose legislation which, in fact, attempts to partially correct an unjust anomaly and actually reintroduces that free enterprise to the flat-building industry. Regarding the hon. member’s amendment to clause 3, as printed on the Order Paper, one can see that he did not really have his heart in it and certainly did not spend much time and thought on it. At a cursory glance one wonders if this is the same amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Durban Central.

That shows that you only have cursory hearing, my friend.

We cannot help it if you are stupid.

A cursory glance at the original amendment moved by the hon. member for East London North shows that it is totally impractical and, in fact, unworkable. I shall not spend much time on it, except to say that the hon. member should try to visualize not only the problems that the hon. the Minister would experience in administering such a provision, but also how impossible it would be for both the developer and the potential new buyer of a flat under sectional title to try to conclude a sale if they did not know whether the new owner would be allowed to take occupation of the flat he had just bought. I am afraid that the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. member for East London North is a non-starter. I should now like to turn my attention to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Sea Point. Likewise I cannot support his amendment to this clause, again for simple practical reasons and also from a moral and free-enterprise point of view. Unfortunately the hon. member’s suggestion places an intolerable burden on the developer or owner, and I cannot stress it strongly enough that restrictions on development need to be removed and not retained or tightened.

I believe this Bill provides for a real incentive whereby owners and builders would be able to achieve remarkable rejuvenation of some of our older and more dilapidated areas. I am surprised that the hon. member for Sea Point was actually highly critical of the updating and rejuvenating processes, in respect of these older blocks of flats, that are occurring throughout South Africa.

I supported it.

The hon. member said that he supported it, but I understood from his speech that he was in fact critical of it.

Another cursory glance.

I would not give you a cursory glance, Mr. Page.

Order! The hon. member must at all times address the Chair.

My apologies, Mr. Chairman, but this continuous heckling by this hon. gentleman below me is rather upsetting.

[Inaudible.]

One would think the hon. member for Sea Point would welcome a reversal in the trend in respect of slums in densely populated areas. It must be obvious that before any developer can remodel, redevelop or rejuvenate a block of flats, he would have to be able to realize certain things. He would firstly have to complete a register for his scheme, a register that would be subject to the fact that he would still have to go through the long process of assessing and surveying the building and, secondly, he must also know for certain that he can obtain occupation of these flats for the potential buyer that may buy the flats in the future. I believe that clause 3, which removes certain restrictions, could have a dramatic effect on slum-clearing programmes and assist the Government accordingly.

I should also like to comment on some other views the hon. member for Sea Point has expressed in his speech. I should like to start with the staggering deductions that have been made—and I quote (Hansard, 21 February 1980, col. 1219)—

As hon. members know, the hon. member for Sea Point is a very highly qualified quantity surveyor, and therefore he should not only know how to calculate and draw conclusions, but should also know quite a great deal about the building industry and the marketing of properties. However, I wonder about this, because I can only come up with an estimate of one-tenth of what the hon. member for Sea Point has deduced, namely approximately 10 000 units. I shall explain how I have arrived at my figure. I did not just pluck it out of the air.

I also started my calculation on the basis of a total of 170 000 flats built prior to 1966. From experience, however, I happen to know that less than 25% of the old flats built during that time are, in fact, physically suitable for redevelopment under a sectional title scheme. That brings us down to a basic total of 40 000 units that we are now talking about. However, I have furthermore come to the conclusion that at least half of the owners of these blocks of flats originally purchased these blocks of flats as fixed investments and had no wish to sell them because they had these fund-generating properties. They would not sell them for a variety of reasons, one of them having to do with tax. Most people involved in property development cannot sell their blocks of flats under sectional title because then they immediately become property developers and are taxed accordingly. This brings me down to 20 000 units, only 10 000 of which might involve families that qualify as needing financial assistance. We are now down to a sum of approximately 10 000 units in South Africa which could be affected by this measure.

I immediately hasten to add that even if 10 000 flats come onto the market for sale tomorrow—and in this respect I think the hon. member for Maitland can help—these 10 000 flats could not be sold within a year. I am prepared to stake my head on that. I therefore respectfully suggest that the hon. member for Sea Point should consult any property agent to establish how long it would take to sell, for example, 2 000 units in Cape Town. I believe it would take way in excess of a year to dispose of so many units. We have heard in the Press of the tens of thousands of flats from which people are going to be evicted, but when one starts doing one’s sums one ends up finding that it is not practical because, firstly, the flats are not available and, secondly, they are not readily marketable. The normal market process could not possibly absorb such quantities in so short a time, let alone the phenominal estimate of 100 000 units quoted by the hon. member for Sea Point. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise so as to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Newcastle. I suggest that the eviction of 100 000 people, as mentioned by the hon. member for Sea Point, is so much more dramatic than it is possible.

I now wish to return to the emotive word “eviction” which has frequently been used during the discussion of this clause. To me the word “eviction” conjures up a grim picture of innocent people being unjustly and immorally thrown out of their homes. I would rather use the words “request to vacate” or “to terminate the contract” because that is the fact of the matter. This clause does not provide or allow for any person living in a flat to be evicted, illegally or immorally.

Order! I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that as far as the discussion of principles during Committee Stages is concerned, Standing Order No. 63 expressly prohibits this. On this rule, however, the Chair from time to time allows exceptions, and has done so in the past, on the understanding that the parties are allowed to speak briefly on principles when the clause containing principles is under discussion. I would say that “briefly” means that this should be limited to one ten-minute speech at the utmost on this matter but, on the other hand, if the hon. member were also speaking about amendments, this would change the situation. However, as far as the ruling is concerned, he may only have one opportunity of ten minutes, at the utmost, to speak on the principle.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your ruling. I shall certainly abide by it. I might add that I am trying to contradict the views that were expressed here this afternoon by the hon. member for Sea Point, as well as the hon. member for Hillbrow, and I am not dealing with principles. I am dealing specifically with their attitude towards the rejection of this particular clause and their subsequent amendment. I considered this matter very carefully last night when I was jotting down my notes and, Mr. Chairman, you may certainly stop me at any time when you feel that I am overstepping the mark.

This clause, as I see it, merely provides for the situation where a tenant may now be asked to vacate the premises so that its bona fide owner may personally take occupation of his own premises, provided that this may only be done after their contractual agreement or lease has expired and, furthermore, that the owner would have to give the tenant at least three months’ notice of his intention to occupy his own premises. I think this is why so many hon. members have mistaken the intention of the provisions of the Bill. As they see it, in terms of the provisions of the Bill these people will be summarily ejected, but these people do have a contract. They have an agreement between the owner and themselves. They have signed a contract and they cannot be evicted. Their term of residence is such that they can stay there until their lease has expired. This clause, in fact, supports and accepts the contractual right of these two parties, and further provides that now, for the first time, both parties have the right to cancel their agreement, provided that the owner himself will occupy the flat. This is what is, in fact, being done by this clause, and the hon. member for Sea Point, as well as other hon. members, have hammered away at the hon. the Minister of Community Development and alleged that he had promised tenants that they would be protected from the landlords. This has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I can understand their view on this. They have the right to accuse and castigate the Government if they believe that it has broken a promise, but my attitude to this particular position is just the opposite. I believe that I would tend to castigate the State for making the promise in the first place. I would also question the moral right of the State to promise and to impose a social obligation on a section of the public in favour of another section.

Order! To my mind the hon. member has now been dwelling on the principle for quite a while and I think he should proceed without discussing the principle any further. He has already had ample time to discuss the principle.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to change my notes accordingly. It would seem that I am trying to shoot down exactly what the Opposition has been trying to do and have tried to have this clause retained. I am being prevented from stating the opposite view but, Mr. Chairman, I am not disputing your ruling, and I should like to continue and try to modify my stance accordingly. I certainly believe that the Opposition is trying to throw the baby out because the bath-water has become dirty. They have attacked the hon. the Minister on an issue, and I cannot see how they can now ask the hon. the Minister to change this provision in clause 3 because he has made a promise, since I believe that it was incorrect to have made that promise originally.

I should like to deal with the hon. member for Hillbrow and inform him at the outset that I certainly would have gone along with his amendment, but I am very pleased to note that the hon. the Minister has acceded to that request because, in my opinion, under the unfortunate circumstances of a lot of unfavourable publicity, which arose as a result of excessive political posturing and exaggerations by politicians, it is wise for the hon. the Minister to accede to this request for a period of grace and cooling off.

I now wish to turn to another aspect of the proposal of the hon. member for Hillbrow. I want to take him to task for the attitude he adopted towards the S.A. Property Owners’ Association. It is very evident from his Hansard when he discussed this specific clause in his Second Reading speech, and I should like to quote what he said on this issue (Hansard, 1980, col. 1085)—

Order! The hon. member cannot continue along those lines. He has been discussing the principle of this matter all along.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling and deal with the matter in the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Maitland have dealt with the clause and the proposed amendments from the view of the landlord. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in particular, in endeavouring to quote from the speech of the hon. member for East London North during the Second Reading debate, should have mentioned that that member during the course of his speech indicated that there are two sides to the coin. Indeed, that was his purpose of raising the matter as he did. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South should also bear in mind that the amendment that was placed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for East London North, has not been moved and is therefore not before the Committee. However, the Committee is considering the amendments of the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Durban Central. The purpose of both these amendments is to incorporate a proviso so as to leave a degree of protection and a recourse of appeal to the Minister of Community Development. Tenants will thus have a degree of protection and will have recourse to the Minister so that a case can be considered on its merits. The tenants will then at least feel that he has the opportunity of having his case considered by the hon. the Minister. I hope the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to the attitude of particularly the hon. member for Durban Central in moving the amendment so that protection can be afforded to those people who have been under the impression that that protection will be granted to them.

When this legislation first received publicity, it caused a tremendous amount of consternation amongst a large number of tenants. During the course of last week I attended a meeting of a group of tenants, all of whom were pensioners. I think it would do hon. members well to remember that these people regard their flats as their home. Consequently they believe that they have some security of tenure and that they enjoy some protection from the Government. Mr. Chairman, as you have quite rightly ruled, the principle has been accepted and I do not want to deal with it now, but one must bear in mind that the passing of clause 3, whereby section 39(1) of the principal Act is deleted, will create the situation where a considerable number of flats will now be sold under sectional title. We have seen what has happened in regard to the sale of flats particularly in the Durban area. A large number of flats have been sold under the block-share system. As a result certain tenants have been harassed to such an extent that they have had to move from those flats. We know that there is a practice developing in that area whereby these flats are bought and then used as holiday flats, causing tremendous inconvenience and a great deal of difficulty for existing tenants.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member said that he was not going to discuss the principle of the amendment contained in the clause but, with all due respect, I want to suggest that that is exactly what the hon. member is doing.

Order! The hon. member for Umbilo may proceed.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Pretoria Central, I wish to point out that I am trying to indicate what the result will be if these amendments are accepted and there is no proviso. I am pleading for wisdom on the part of this Committee and the hon. the Minister and to accept these amendments. The Committee should either accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point or that of the hon. member for Durban Central, so as to lessen the severe blow that will come to fall with the passing of this particular clause. I hope that the consternation that has been caused in the minds of many people through their flats possibly being sold under the block-share system, will be allayed. Unless some sort of proviso is inserted in section 9 of the principal Act, their flats will now come under sectional title. If this should happen and the provisions as now proposed by the hon. the Minister are evoked, it is going to cause great and complete upheaval in the lives of these people who are at this moment enjoying some degree of protection. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to give due consideration to the amendments moved by the two hon. members so as to display a fairer attitude with regard to the tenants who are living in these flats.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister is so fair to any person who could be affected by this legislation that one is astonished that the Opposition is persisting in its opposition to the legislation. One wonders whether the real issue is the interests of the people who are going to be affected, or whether the opposition is concerned with other motives. [Interjections.]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I just wish to refer briefly to the amendments which have been moved. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban Central will create so much legal uncertainty that it would be simply impossible to apply it. I think this is the one occasion where I am in the position that I have to agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow that this will not be able to work. No criteria whatsoever have been set, and it will depend every day on how the Minister feels about the way in which he will evaluate these matters.

As for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point, what it really means is that section 39(1) will not be deleted. In practice there is no difference between the two, for what it amounts to is that paragraph (b) of the hon. member’s amendment fully maintains the status quo. This is because we all expect, and I think we can do so with reasonable certainty, that the last facet of the phasing out of rent control will occur soon. It is expected to happen during April. Then the phasing out will take us back to October 1949, and nothing else remains for the hon. member to exempt. In practice that means that the status quo will be maintained.

I want to refer briefly to what the effect of the legislation will be if it is passed. One of the aspects is the extent of the detrimental effect which it could have on the people who are affected. Another aspect is that we should consider what the repeal of the section means in terms of the philosophy behind the Sectional Titles Act. It was said in the past that the actual purpose of the Sectional Titles Act was concerned with home-ownership. This is only one matter with which sectional titles is concerned, and it was said at the time that it should bring flat-ownership within the reach of a larger sector of the community. We see the matter in this light: Section 39(1) placed a temporary restriction on the ideal postulated by the legislation. It placed a temporary obstacle in the way of the full development of the whole principle, on the maximum realization of the ideal of the principle of sectional titles. It was certainly never intended for normal times. It was because we admitted that times were still abnormal or partly abnormal that this obstacle was placed, on a temporary basis, in the way of the full development of the principle of sectional titles, on the principle of home-ownership and more specifically flat-ownership. It was certainly not intended to remain a permanent impediment and consequently it is fitting that we should now consider whether the time is not right to remove this impediment.

This legislation is so reasonable, particularly in view of the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, in terms of which a further moratorium is granted, that it should not but be accepted. The repeal of section 39(1) is nothing but another facet of the phasing out of rent control. It is a principle accepted by all of us, and I take it by the Opposition as well.

With protection for those who still fall under rent control.

There is still a measure of protection, but in effect it is merely a further phasing out. Surely it is so clear that no one can deny it. It is a logical process. The fact of the matter is that we have, in accepting the principle of flat-ownership, placed the two matters on a par. We have therefore placed flat-ownership on a par with ordinary ownership. In the long run we cannot draw a distinction between the two, and we must therefore accept that the two will ultimately be placed completely on a par. That is in fact what is being done here. One cannot have one form of ownership free of impediments, while impediments are imposed on another form of ownership.

There is one statement which the hon. member for East London North made which is a really valid one. I do not think that the hon. member’s heart was in his opposition to this legislation. If there had not been a courtship in progress between the hon. member and the PFP I believe that he would probably have supported this legislation. However, there is considerable weight in the hon. member’s argument that there are many people for whom home-ownership will now be brought within reach by way of this legislation, people who would otherwise never have had the prospect of owning a home of their own. Now they, too, are being afforded an opportunity to own their own home.

Now I also wish to contend that it is not fair to make it impossible for an investor to realize his investment. By means of the present legislation we are making this possible. By this we are admitting, too, that times were abnormal when the present Act was passed. However, it is no longer justified to retain the Act in its present form.

As for the extent of the detrimental effect which this measure could have on people, I think that the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon, stated the case quite comprehensively. During the Second Reading debate we conceded that there were a certain number of people who would be detrimentally affected by this legislation. However, it is also true that every piece of legislation has a detrimental effect on certain people. We need only take note of all comparable measures. I am referring, for example, to the process of the systematic elimination of rent control now. At each phase of the elimination of rent control certain people were detrimentally affected. In 1978 rent control pertaining to a certain category of flats was removed. Inevitably many people must have been affected by that. In 1979 precicely the same thing happened. Another category of properties was exempted from rent control. In that way a considerable number of people were also affected. Consequently it merely amounts to a difference in degree. This time people are again going to be affected by this measure. But this is in no way a deviation from the principle. We simply accept that it has to be done. The repeal of section 39 of the principal Act is therefore, as the hon. the Minister said, nothing but another step in the Government’s declared policy of systematically eliminating rent control.

After the elimination of rent control which will take place during this year, there are very few properties left over which rent control still has to be lifted. This means therefore that there are very few people who are still going to be affected. All that is going to remain now is blocks of flats which were completed and occupied for the first time prior to October 1949. It is also true that these are mostly old blocks of flats and therefore perhaps far less suitable for conversion into sectional title units. Consequently the number of people who are going to be detrimentally affected by this measure could only be a minimal number. It is probably impossible for any one to determine today, without a very thorough investigation, how many people are going to be affected by this measure. However, I think we may infer that it is not going to be a very large number of people.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the remark made by the hon. member for Algoa purporting ulterior motives I shall treat with the contempt it deserves. Let me invite the hon. member for Algoa and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to come to Hillbrow. Let them come with me, speak to the tenants and share their present desperate worry and concern about their future accommodation. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will, I am sure, side with those people who are uncertain about having a roof over their heads rather than with those people who are assured of their blocks of flats and the mansions they live in some distance from those blocks of flats. The hon. member has mentioned free enterprise, but unfortunately I do not think he was present when we dealt with the free-enterprise system in relation to this matter and explained to this House that there are laws in force in South Africa today curtailing, in the free-enterprise system, matters such as interest, etc. Let me, however, now leave the matter there.

There is one argument I want to come to before I move an amendment. The hon. the Minister himself mentioned, in his speech today, that the building societies have difficulties with regard to bonds and that that is one of the problems involved. I can only mention my personal experience, having sat in on the proceedings of a sectional title committee that was very recently considering a block of flats in Hillbrow. The tenants were complaining that they had bought flats from the owners under sectional title but could not get a bond, even after having applied to many building societies. I happen to know intimately the manager of a certain well-known building society and I approached him about this. I asked him what the problem was. He said that they did not want to give bonds on high-rise apartments, and the block in question happened to be a high-rise apartment block.

Order! The hon. member is not discussing details now.

This was raised by the hon. the Minister himself.

Order! Yes, the hon. the Minister did reply to the hon. member for Sea Point’s speech in this regard, but this does not mean that the hon. member can proceed to discuss the principle of the Bill again. His party has had an opportunity to discuss the principle.

As you wish, Mr. Chairman. I now want to turn to my amendment. In view of the amendment the hon. the Minister has moved in clause 3, if I were to move my amendment on clause 4, I do not think I would be allowed to do so. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (2) Subsection (1) shall not come into operation on a date prior to 1 April 1981, such date of commencement to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, and also to the hon. the Minister of Community Development who is in the House as well. If we accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment, this process definitely comes into operation on 1 April 1981. I hope that is clear to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South because the hon. the Minister did not accept my present amendment. He accepted a suggested amendment that I had not placed on the Order Paper but told him I had intended moving, as I might well have done prior to having given the matter further consideration. I am being quite frank about that. We are pleading with the hon. the Minister to please allow the department to reassess the entire position of the availability of accommodation and the ability of the people concerned to pay, and also what would happen if this measure were implemented in conjunction with the Rents Act, because the two are inextricably bound up with one another.

Just before I came into the House today, I received a telephone call from Johannesburg. The telephone call was from my MPC who is also a member of the city council. He had been speaking to the person in charge of housing in Johannesburg. I am advised that there have been vacancies for quite a long time in the economic housing provided by the Johannesburg city council. In certain areas there was difficulty in filling these vacancies. Those vacancies have now been filled, however, and they are now anticipating a waiting-list for Whites wanting economic housing. That is a situation we have not had for years, quite frankly, as I think hon. members will agree. So there has definitely been a change in the availability of accommodation.

There is another argument I want to put to the hon. the Minister. I do not want to become emotional about this, but I do think it is an important, in fact vital, point that has also been put to me. There are certain events taking place in Rhodesia at this very moment. We hope and trust and pray that everything will go well in Rhodesia and that there will be no problems.

Order! I cannot see how the events in Rhodesia have anything to do with the details of this Bill.

But if they do not go well, we are going to be inundated as never before with requests for housing and apartments in South Africa. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give us this moratorium.

Order! I cannot see that this has anything to do with the detail of this clause. The hon. member can raise that matter in the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, we are arguing whether the amendment I have just moved or whether the hon. the Minister’s amendment on the Order Paper should be accepted. My amendment will give us an opportunity to assess the whole position of the availability of housing. If we accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment, the case is cut and dried. I am sure you will understand that, Sir.

The hon. member has made his point.

Thank you, Sir. In making this appeal, I may say that this thought did not originate with me. It originated in the housing section in Johannesburg. They feel the necessary provision must be made now. They are worried about the accommodation they have available at present. They anticipate that, if the situation I referred to should arise, there would be such a tremendous demand for housing, accommodation, in our towns that we would not be able to cope.

We are then back at the situation the hon. member for Algoa referred to a little while ago, i.e. where there is a shortage of accommodation. In the circumstances I can only appeal to both hon. Ministers concerned to grant this moratorium. Let us not be committed to 1 April 1981. Rather leave it on the basis of the amendment I have moved, i.e. that this clause can come into effect by proclamation in the Gazette provided it is not before 1 April 1981. If then what we all fear and what we have been told, becomes academic, this can still come into effect on 1 April 1981. But let us please be in a position realistically to assess the situation so that we will not have crossed the Rubicon.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to my amendment and also just put one or two matters straight. I feel that, before the hon. the Minister considers the matter and gives his verdict on it, he should see the problem the way we see it.

First of all, hon. members have mentioned that it would create an impossible situation if, as my amendment proposes, the discretion be left in the hands of the hon. the Minister. I think it was the hon. member for Algoa who said that on one day one decision may be taken and on another day a different one. Sir, it is in fact common practice to leave discretion in the hands of the Minister. At one moment the hon. members say that so many cases would be involved that the Minister would be completely inundated and then at the very next moment the argument is advanced that in fact not many people would be affected by this, that a minimum number of cases would be involved. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister that this will only concern cases where it is common knowledge who the people concerned are. The owner, when selling, would know that flat No. 10 or flat No. 20 was at the time being occupied by a person who, as my amendment states, was receiving an income which resulted in his enjoying the protection of rent control. Some hon. members created the impression as if everything was going to be confused and no one would know what to do. One would in fact know exactly where to buy and in what cases there would be danger attached. From time to time we have heard the argument raised that we have a free enterprise system. Surely, Sir, it works both ways. The person who wants to buy, knows exactly that it is up to him to acquaint himself with the sort of difficulties that may arise in regard to such a transaction.

I should also like to refer to the view expressed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that eviction is an emotive word. Unless my amendment is accepted—which in fact contains the word eviction—one will find a factual situation that, if the clause as it is worded at present is accepted, it will result in people being evicted. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South attacked the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. member for East London North. If he had listened carefully when I read out my amendment he would have seen that his attack could also have been levelled at my amendment because it is in essence the same type of amendment. I do not think it was fitting for the hon. member to level the accusation at the hon. member for East London North that by moving his amendment he would have been dishonest. That is what he, in fact, said. He said that the hon. member for East London North if he had moved the amendment, would have done so with his tongue in his cheek. He then quoted from the hon. member’s speech about there being two sides of the coin, but in doing so he quoted only the argument relating to one side of the coin. I do not know where dishonesty starts and ends in this particular argument. One should tell the hon. member that when he attacks an amendment or speeches of this nature, he should at least make a point of being present in the House at all times so that he can listen. If he had listened carefully when I moved my amendment, he would have seen the point we were leading up to.

I want to emphasize one last point so that there can be no confusion about it. I have made it quite clear that I accept that the amendments of the hon. member for Sea Point would obviously be the best and the easiest method of dealing with this issue. My amendment was moved in a spirit of compromise. I think it was the hon. member for Hillbrow who said my amendment was second or third choice. I am well aware of the fact that it is not the ideal situation. I was, however, trying to anticipate the hon. the Minister not accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point. If that situation arose we would then still have had some second line of defence.

A fall-back position.

Yes, a fall-back position. It would at least put in the hands of the Administration, to whom the powers are obviously going to be delegated, the power to deal with and help the real needy cases. If this amendment is not going to be accepted, one will be faced with the situation where the needy tenants need to be assisted, one cannot really intervene and, in fact, a promise would be broken completely. That, of course, is the sort of situation we would like to prevent, and therefore I believe it is in the interest of the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. It has nothing to do with the free enterprise system or the phasing out of rent control in its entirety. Rent control is being phased out in a free enterprise system on a basis of promises, and I disagree with the hon. member for Algoa who said: “Dit is ’n logiese proses om nou te verander.” I do not accept that it is logical to break promises which have been made to people.

Mr. Chairman, I rise because the hon. the Minister has not yet responded to the amendments moved by myself and by the hon. member for Durban Central. I assume that he is still open to persuasion on these issues. I therefore want to raise one or two points to emphasize why I believe that the amendments standing in my name would help the Government. It would solve a problem, it would get the Government off the hook and it would provide the security that is necessary for certain people. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must not be sensitive about the use of words such as “eviction”, “ejection” and so forth. They are used in the Act. The Act says—

These are the words used in the Act. If he says it is insensitive to use these words the Act is insensitive too.

You are not talking to your amendment.

One is indeed moving into a very sensitive area. People who receive what he calls a “kind request” to vacate their premises, will see it as a notice of ejection, and whether it is done with a bouquet of roses or brought on with a mailed fist, the tenant is still out and can find no alternative accommodation at a price he can afford.

The second point that has been discussed is that the lease will always continue. Once again the Act is quite specific about this. It anticipates that the lease will expire. It stipulates (section 21(1) of Act No. 43/ 1950)—

The fact is that many people …

About which section are you talking now?

I am talking about section 1 of the parent Act. The fact is that many people in rent-controlled premises do not renew their leases, because where rent control applies it has not been necessary to renew them.

Order! The hon. member must apply his mind to the details.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to motivate my amendment, which says that certain people should be given formal protection. It has been argued that they enjoy protection in any case, but I am trying to point out that in view of the fact that leases are no longer current, they no longer have that protection.

There is a third point. If only one or two persons were involved, one obviously would not need legislation. The question is: What is the incidence? On how many people will this particular amendment have a bearing? By my amendment I am trying to reduce the number of people who will be affected by this particular provision. The hon. the Minister has said that nobody is to be protected. I say that we must protect at least a limited number of people. I said that 85 000 to 100 000 flat units would become vulnerable. This is correct. The Fouché Commission has given these figures. The hon. member for Durban Central has said that between 85 000 and 100 000 flat units will become vulnerable because they will no longer enjoy the protection they have enjoyed. He did not say how many would be affected in practice. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned a figure of 10 000. I think that that is a sizeable number of people and they deserve protection. If, on the other hand, as he argues this is only a small number, it follows that one does not need to get rid of the present clause in the Act. If 160 000 out of 170 000 units are not affected by this, one can get on with the rejuvenation of that 160 000. The Rents Control Act is really then not affecting or retarding rejuvenation if only 10 000 units are affected, and therefore all the arguments we have heard about private enterprise, about people who cannot renew their flats and about the strain on the economy, are nonsense. One cannot have it both ways. If this legislation concerns only 10 000 units … We have spoken before about 10 000 people in this House before. He has said that 10 000 people are likely to be ejected, but 85 000 have the sword of Damocles hanging over them. It is no use the hon. member saying that many flats are not going to be sold. Because the people know that the protection they have enjoyed before now no longer applies to them they know that they are vulnerable.

The fact is that the older people in the lower income group covered by my amendment, are worried, scared, frightened and nervous. During the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage I have heard nothing coming from the Government side which gives them any reassurance whatsoever. The hon. member for Maitland has said that we must have a look at Albow Gardens. Is he going to uproot 8 000 to 10 000 individuals in my constituency by giving them three months’ notice? [Interjections.] However, there is another factor to which I want to refer.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The moment the hon. member refers to those 10 000 people, he deals with the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, this argument has not been raised.

Order! I am listening to the hon. member and I am satisfied that he is advancing his arguments in terms of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am also doing my best to be of assistance to you.

†There is a final point I want to make to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister of Community Development gave one other assurance, and this is particularly germane. If one looks at the debates of 1978 and 1979 one will see that he then said that if there was any exploitation, if there was any harassment, he would have no qualms whatsoever but to re-apply the Rents Act to that particular building. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice how the Rents Act is going to be re-applied once the tenant has been ejected and the premises have been sold to somebody else. The occupier has changed and the owner has changed. It will not be possible to give effect to the second assurance which was given by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. This was made quite clear during the debate on the parent Act in respect of this particular clause. Four members: the hon. the Minister of Justice, Mr. Emdin, Mr. Visser and Mr. Hourquebie, all said that the clause was necessary because there was the risk of victimization. They said that there was the risk that somebody would say that unless the occupier bought the flat, he would be evicted. We want to see that there is no prospect of exploitation, that it is still possible to fulfil the obligations of the Government to protect people from exploitation and harassment.

For these reasons I have confined my amendment to those people whom the Government has said need protection, those people whom the Government promised would have protection. We believe that if that can be done, it will allow the Government to act honourably in this matter. It will allow the Government to stick by its word and will allow these people, the poorer people, many of them in the closing days of their lives, to live with a sense of security in that, if they have paid their rent, they can continue to live in their flats without exploitation or harassment.

Mr. Chairman, an effort has been made in very emotional terms, to make out a case that if clause 3 is passed, as I have moved it, then very grave hardships will be suffered. Therefore, by your leave, Mr. Chairman, I just want to quote certain figures. The total number of dwelling units up to 1976, controlled and uncontrolled, was 1 230 000. In 1976 238 000 were under rent control, i.e. 19,3%. Up to and including 1978, 63 600 had already been exempted. This means that by the end of 1978, 174 400 were under control. In 1979 a further 26 160 were exempted. Therefore, at the end of 1979, 148 240 dwelling units were under control. This means that since 1978, 89 760 units have already been exempted without any evidence of hardship. I am not referring to individual hardship; I am referring to an overall picture of hardship. With exemption, the protection afforded those units that were exempted by section 39, also lapsed, also without noteworthy evidence of hardship being suffered. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point should at least give me a chance to speak too. I have listened to him the whole afternoon. I do not want to deny that there will be individual cases of hardship after the legislation has been passed, and I am very sorry about that, but my submission is that just as there was no overall pattern of serious hardship in these previous cases, there will not be any after the passing of this amending Bill either. I just want to say, incidentally, that as Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission and as Minister of Justice, who in the context of rationalization of the Public Service, is also going to examine the rationalization of legislation, I will most certainly seek to eliminate the difficult situation arising here, viz. that one Minister has to stand in for and argue about legislation which is really the province of another Minister. I want to say at once that I am by no means insinuating that my hon. colleague has acted at all incorrectly in this regard.

I want to quote more figures since the hon. member for Hillbrow, in the course of his first speech, hurled the accusation at the Government that: “This Government does not care for the common man.” Of course I want to reject that allegation vigorously and quote certain figures in this regard. In respect of dwelling units built for the aged during the period 1 March 1978 to 8 February 1979 only, 886 rooms for the aged in old-age homes were built for an amount of R13,9 million. During the period 1948 to 1978, 354 complexes, consisting of thousands of rooms and costing a total of R93 million were built for them. Surely it is clear that these figures belie the allegation made by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

In addition I want to state my position in this case. I, as the Minister who does not, basically, work with the merits of this legislation, have been informed by the department in question that on consideration of the merits of the whole matter, they have already granted de facto exemptions from time to time. I admit that I cannot inform the member for Sea Point, in reply to a question he asked here, what the extent of such exemptions was, but the controlling department in this regard, the Department of Community Development, says that after due consideration of the merits of this matter, they have for a considerable time been granting de facto exemptions. I, as the Minister in question under whom this Act falls, then decided—correctly, in my opinion-—that if it is aa de facto situation which occurs daily, it is surely appropriate that since I deal with the Act, and the whole Act really falls under my jurisdiction, I should also grant de jure status to this point which has already been applied de facto by my colleague. This is what I am engaged in in this regard.

Your colleague can surely participate in this debate.

I do not think my hon. colleague will allow himself to be prescribed to by that hon. member. He will participate in this debate if he wishes to.

The hon. member for Durban Central raised the point that a person who enjoyed this rent protection for 22 years, could not possibly be evicted. It is not possible and not self-evident that if this legislation is passed, everyone is going to be put out on the street tomorrow. They must still be given notice in terms of the remaining Rent Control measures.

Let us at least be reasonable. After all, there are two sides to the matter. If the person buys property for himself as an investment and accommodates a tenant for 22 years in terms of rent control measures imposed on him in terms of the Act, surely on the other hand it is only reasonable that such an owner should, under certain circumstances which the Act allows him, eventually be in a position to dispose of a property as he sees fit. Under certain circumstances we should after all look at the other side of the matter. Surely we live in a country where there is a free economy.

I want to come back once again to the question I raised when this matter was debated a few days ago. In my opinion there is no longer any justification for differentiation. Under similar circumstances houses are not subject to restrictions. If they are subject to rent control, they are only subject to three months’ notice and what that involves. This discrimination will only remain in respect of sectional title flats. To the best of my ability I made a comprehensive announcement at the beginning of this discussion today. I believe that in it I tried in an honest way to deal with all the objections that have already been raised to the amendment and all the objections that have been raised again today. As far as the original proposal of the hon. member for Hillbrow is concerned with regard to the postponement of the implementation of this measure to 1 April 1981, I believe this is reasonable—it has not been described as such in all quarters—in the sense that it gives people more than a year’s time to rearrange their affairs, and not only gives people time to rearrange their affairs, but also gives the authorities, whoever they may be, whether it be the central Government, local authorities or even individuals, time to make alternative arrangements.

Under these circumstances I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point, which seeks to protect certain categories of person, that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow, which in fact merely seeks to extend further the time I stipulated and that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, since he himself said that fundamentally, he agreed with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point. Therefore I ask that the clause be accepted in its present form.

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to deal with one specific issue raised by the hon. the Minister now. He mentioned it in passing during the Second Reading debate, but has now confirmed it loudly and clearly. I refer to the admission that before this measure was brought before this House, his colleague the Minister of Community Development, in conflict with the undertaking given de facto exempted from rent control buildings affected by this clause.

By notice in the Government Gazette, which you should have read if you are interested in this matter.

I read the Government Gazette and I look at every block of flats that is exempted. Occasionally blocks of flats are exempted, occasionally only certain flats in a block, but what the hon. the Minister of Justice said was that de facto all these …

No.

He said it. I listened very carefully. The hon. the Minister said “ de facto”. He said he was merely giving de jure effect to what is the de facto position. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. the Minister said. According to his colleague, that hon. Minister has de facto, in complete contempt of the undertaking that people falling within the housing means test would still be protected by rent control, ignored that undertaking and has in practice lifted rent control irrespective of whether they fall under that protection or not. [Interjections.] What else does the hon. the Minister mean? He says that all he is doing is giving de jure recognition to a de facto position. That means that that hon. the Minister has quietly been lifting rent control after he gave the undertaking, when we discussed the Rent Control Act, that those falling within the housing means test—i.e. those with an income of less than R300 for single persons or R540 for families per month—would continue to be protected. Now we find that in fact they have not been protected. Or have they been protected? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member tell us what amendment he is now speaking to? [Interjections.]

Go and lose your little book of jokes.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to tell the aspirant Chairman that I am speaking to the amendment that is intended to remove those qualifying for protection in terms of the means test under the Rents Act, from the application of this clause. That is the amendment I am discussing. If the hon. member continues in that way, he will never become a Chairman.

Order! I did not inquire whether the hon. member’s speech was concerned with a matter of principle or an amendment. He need not reply to the hon. member. The Chair arranges the order in the Committee. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if I may return to the amendment which seeks to exclude people promised protection because of their means, their low income level, I want to get this matter absolutely clear. Do I now understand that the hon. the Minister of Community Development says that he has in fact not been exempting them?

I told you how I did it through the Government Gazette. [Interjections.]

What did you do? We are not asking how you did it.

I want to know which is correct. Is it the de facto position that nobody in a flat to which sectional title applies is protected by the Rent Control Act by virtue of falling within the qualifying income level? Either they are or they are not. The hon. the Minister says he has done it through the Government Gazette. If those are the only buildings exempted then I do not know what this Bill is all about, because if the number that have been exempted are so small—and I paid particular attention to this, month in and month out, because my constituency is particularly affected—we do not need this Bill because then it does not seriously affect the situation.

It just shows you how you are exaggerating the position.

I am not exaggerating it. [Interjections.] The Government cannot have it both ways. Either there are a great number of people affected or there are so few people affected that we do not need this clause at all. Now, which is it? Are there very many people affected? That will mean that Parliament has to pass this clause without an amendment protecting the lower-income group or their …

You ought to be able to tell us how many people are being affected. [Interjections.]

I know that the number affected does not justify this clause.

[Inaudible.]

I say I know that the number affected does not justify this clause. Therefore, the hon. the Minister of Justice can accept this amendment. He can accept the amendment because his hon. colleague has indicated that the number affected is minimal. Therefore, if the number affected is minimal I submit that the hon. the Minister of Justice can then accept the amendment that has been moved because it is not going to upset the accommodation business; it is not going to hurt anyone. There is in fact then a de jure situation, which does not have to be changed.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I believe the hon. member for Durban Point is putting words into my mouth, words I never used. [Interjections.] I did not ever insinuate that there was a total de facto exemption. Exemption was granted de facto in individual cases of merit, and the hon. the Minister of Community Development is most certainly legally entitled to do so and he acted legally. I cannot take the matter further. I merely wanted to rectify this.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely reacting in respect of one aspect of my amendment. I specifically asked in my amendment that the Minister of Community Development should be empowered to apply his mind to particular cases, needy cases. The hon. the Minister agrees that we have this de facto situation at the moment. He himself said that cases of real merit had already been considered by the department, and that some of them had been exempted and others not. If that is then what the department has really been doing, and the hon. the Minister also said it would be done by proclamation published in the Gazette, it really means that the hon. the Minister uses the Gazette to break promises. [Interjections.] The situation being what it is, I cannot see why the hon. the Minister should have any difficulty in accepting my amendment. The effect of my amendment will only be to provide for a de jure situation where a de facto situation already exists. It will not create any additional burden and it will only apply in those few cases in which the Minister has to take a decision about a possible exemption. I really cannot see what objection there could be to this. I am sure the hon. the Minister is in possession of all the information concerning the already existing de facto situation. I do not understand why he does not divulge that information to the House. By adopting the attitude he adopts now he is also being unfair to the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

Yes, it is completely unfair. [Interjections.]

Of course, it is unfair. [Interjections.] I am only trying to obtain some explanation from the hon. the Minister of Community Development, but all I receive is a flood of interjections. Is that the way the hon. the Minister is trying to run his department. There is no rule which prevents the hon. the Minister from giving us the information we need. Why does he not get up and make a coherent speech? [Interjections.] What is the kind of game that is being played here now? We simply ask for information, but what do we get instead? All we get is a flood of interjections.

Mr. Chairman, I call on the hon. the Minister now to get up and to give us the information we need.

Mr. Chairman, this is the final opportunity I have of speaking during this Committee Stage. Should the hon. the Minister think I sound emotional I want to point out to him that I do not intend to sound emotional. This is an emotional subject, however. It is certainly a subject which brings out the emotions of those who are being affected by this measure.

I do not want to make a long speech. I have only three points with which I want to deal. In the first instance I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the figures he has given us. He has mentioned the figure of 89 760 saying that is the number of people who will now be affected by this measure. Because this specifically relates to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point I think it is important that the hon. the Minister tells us how many of these 89 760 people fall under the sectional title scheme. How many of those living in flats that may be sold under the sectional title scheme will be affected by this very measure with which we are dealing now? That is the crucial question. There may be thousands. We do not know and that is what we have to examine. That is my first point. The second point is that the hon. the Minister has said that there has been a gradual phasing out of rent control and that it has gone quite well as seen by the lack of objections to this. However, the real test will only come on 1 April of this year, because that is when the two-year period, embracing the two 10% increases which were pegged, elapses. Then the landlords can charge what they like. That is why we had a report in The Star of 16 February under the headline “Critical Shortage of Flats in Johannesburg”. The report says, inter alia—

A day or two later we find that they predict that on 1 April rents may increase by 60% in uncontrolled blocks. The Sunday Express stated that in uncontrolled premises landlords have already put up rents by as much as 60%. The report states further—

Let me also just quote the following sentence to the hon. the Minister—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is a fair statement or not? Would he say that that statement was made by a responsible person? I am not trying to catch the hon. the Minister out, because this statement was made by Mr. B. v.d. Vyver, Senior Deputy Secretary of the Department of Community Development. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the amendment he moved today.

My information is that the figures are wrong.

I bow to the hon. the Minister’s superior knowledge. Thanking the hon. the Minister for the step he has taken in moving the amendment, I think I can say that we have come very much closer together in our thinking and arguments. We both agree on the date of 1 April 1981. The only difference between us and the hon. the Minister, as far as the amendment is concerned, is that we want to give the hon. the Minister the additional discretion not to make it a hard and fast rule that this will come into effect on 1 April 1981, but to give him the right to do so if he thinks it is necessary. We want to give him more discretion, more elbow-room. Surely, I can appeal to the hon. the Minister, at this late stage, to please accept the amendment which would give him that discretion, so that in case we are making a mistake, because we do not know what the position will be on 1 April 1981, he would still have the option of deciding whether or not to implement this clause. On that basis I make a last appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have a request to put to the hon. member for Hillbrow, and that is that he must please give me the whole Committee Stage now.

*Mr. Chairman, I shall again investigate the figures which the hon. member mentioned and during the Third Reading we can debate this further. At the moment I am not in a position to confirm the figures. My information is that the figures which he has mentioned, are not quite correct. I should once again like to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that I am sorry, but I cannot accept his amendment, for his amendment provides that “a tenant shall have a right of appeal to the Minister of Community Development, who shall have the power to declare such notice null and void”.

†On what grounds will he have the power to declare such notice null and void?

*I find that amendment too vague. To tell the truth, the hon. member realized it himself. He then crept in under the wings of the hon. member for Sea Point and said he thought the amendment by the hon. member for Sea Point was better because it had merit in the sense that it referred to a specific category of person who will still be protected. I am sorry, but even if the hon. member for Durban Central talks until he is blue in the face, I cannot accept his amendment. I think we must leave it at that. I just want to say one more thing. After all the reproaches that have been hurled at my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, today, I should like to say that I gained the impression that he has consistently made an honest attempt to phase out rent control on the one hand, and to give the poor, the widows and the orphans maximum protection on the other.

Amendment moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

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

Noes—91: Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanche, J. P. L; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Jong, G.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; 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 Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, F. J. le Roux, P. J. van B. Viljoen, H. D. K. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment negatived,

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Justice agreed to and amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Widman dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—92: Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Jong, G.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, F. J. le Roux, P. J. van B. Viljoen, H. D. K. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—24: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, A. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.