Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity you have afforded me to make a statement on this matter. With a view to the new constitutional dispensation coming into operation it is necessary for the Department of Community Development, which is responsible for providing the necessary accommodation, to plan well in advance for the new circumstances.

As I announced last year during the discussion of my Vote in the House of Assembly, the department is in the process of arranging permanent accommodation for the President’s Council in the Goede Hoop Theatre and a section of Tuynhuys. The building alterations are progressing according to schedule and indications are that work will be completed later this year.

After thorough investigation, research and reflection concerning the architectural, historic and aesthetic character of the Parliamentary building, the intention as far as permanent accommodation is concerned is to extend the existing Parliamentary building on the south side, in the direction of Tuynhuys. The extension will be planned in such a way that it will harmonize completely with the classical style of the existing building. The new section will form a close-knit unit with the existing building. It will consist of a basement and five additional storeys which, amongst other things, will provide for council chambers, committee rooms, offices and other facilities.

As a temporary measure the accommodation in the Cape Town Centre which is being utilized by the President’s Council is to be used to accommodate the House of Representatives.

The House of Delegates will be given temporary accommodation in the Marks Building after it has been vacated by the Surveyor-General and the Registrar of Deeds during the second half of this year. The latter will move to offices in the new Government building in Plein Street. The Ministers’ Councils will also be accommodated in the Marks Building.

Mr Speaker, just before the House adjourned yesterday I pointed out that clause 1 of this Bill empowers the Administration to recover debt from the pension benefits of a member who dies or resigns. Since a member contributes R1, whereas the Administration contributes approximately R3, surely the Administration is entitled to recover an amount owing by a member from his estate upon his death, or from his pension benefits if he were to resign.

Nor does the Administration act as an agent for any other institution; it is only interested in what is owing to it. However, what is also important—and of course this is also for the information of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central…

He does not need your information.

He certainly needs a great deal more than that. He needs a great deal more than that in this respect. [Interjections.] What is important is that the Joint Committee on Pension Matters agrees with this amendment in clause 1 of the Bill. After all, officials of the SATS are well represented on this committee. In fact, they are familiar with what is reasonable and fair. That is why they have agreed to this.

In fact, it is no longer necessary to make an actuarial valuation of the pension fund every five years. The Administration has experts who can do so regularly. This money is invested with the Public Debt Commissioners and is also used for the home ownership scheme of the SATS. The pension fund is therefore being well looked after and it is very strong and vital, as every hon member can in fact see from the report of the Auditor-General.

I should now like to say something about clause 6. This clause removes any doubt as to whether the SATS is permitted to undertake towage and salvage services outside the area of its jurisdiction on request. It has already been mentioned that as in the past, the assistance the SATS renders in this regard cannot be faulted. The danger of the pollution of our beaches, the risk it entails for our marine life, remains grave, however. That is why it is necessary that towage and salvage services be carried out swiftly and efficiently, and often the private services that can be rendered in this regard are insufficient.

Fortunately, the SATS has a great deal of space on its own properties—space which is not necessarily utilized immediately. Letting such premises to private businesses for commercial purposes could mean a considerable source of additional income for the SATS.

†One should therefore welcome this particular provision in clause 6. One also notes an urgent approach on the part of the management to increase the profitability of the SATS on many fronts. This is one way of doing it. Apart from increasing income for the SATS, however, it also means better services for the railway user. On his way home the commuter will for instance be able to buy many of his household requirements should facilities of this nature be made available at major railway stations for lease by private trading enterprises.

This Bill therefore deserves our support. We on this side will indeed support it because it is quite clear in its intent. Its content embodies necessary changes and will benefit both workers and officials while it will certainly also promote better services for the user. Therefore we support the Second Reading of this amending measure.

Mr Speaker, we are dealing here with a Bill which has given me a great deal of food for thought. This Bill is effecting far-reaching amendments in respect of existing laws dealing with various matters in regard to the SATS.

Clause 1 of the Bill makes provision for the substitution of section 8 of Act 35 of 1971. This provides that loss or debt can only be recovered from pension benefits on certain conditions. The pension benefits of a former member may not be utilized if he did not have a bursary. His pension benefits can be seized, however, if he has incurred certain debts at work, or if he has certain other debts. To me, this is totally unacceptable. In terms of our common law the first R10 000 bequeathed to a person’s dependents may not be touched if, on his death, such a person is insured. Even if such a person owes R1 million the first R10 000 of such a policy may not be touched, since it is there to provide for, and take care of, his dependents. For that reason one is not permitted to touch it. [Interjections.] No, make no mistake. I am quite correct. The hon member for Springs only worked there, but I owned a share. Sir, I asked Sanlam’s legal adviser about this again yesterday, because I knew that the hon member for Springs, who is also a Sanlam man, would say something like that to me. [Interjections.] Yes, but it is incorrect. The fact remains that the understanding between employer and employee is completely different from the position of a debtor vis-à-vis a creditor. The employer must be better disposed towards the employee. Why should we appear to be grave-robbers? Why does the department want to appear to be a grave-robber?

†The department is making provision here that no compensation will be paid in respect of an act of God. Is death not an act of God? Why, then, should the dependents of this man pay? Is death not an act of God? I am putting this question to hon members opposite because this Bill is effecting amendments in terms of which the department will not compensate any person or institution in respect of an act of God. If lightning strikes a ship in the middle of the sea, that is an act of God. I say that death is also an act of God because it does not happen through the free will of the individual.

*Therefore to die is not a default and such a person should therefore be paid out. The hon the Minister and his department want to increase their wealth unjustly by seizing in this way that which someone has bequeathed to his dependents. I do not think the department ought to go ahead with this provision. I still think the department should alter the clause. How many people die whilst in service? Can the hon the Minister tell me what the percentage is in this regard? I say it is 0,07%, or even less. This is what the death rate will be. [Interjections.]

There is one thing I can say. When I die it will not be necessary for me to wait until hon members opposite decide whether there will be a person in my case, since I am a member of this Parliament and this Parliament protects me because Parliament also protects the benefits of hon members opposite, and they will not allow their benefits to be taken away in the manner in which a law for officials is now being made. Hon members must take note of what I am telling them today. No one in this Parliament would make such aid a law applicable to himself, as is being done now in the case of these officials. No one will be able to seize the pension benefits of an hon member of this Parliament. Hon members would see to it that there is an Act of Parliament which would not permit this. I think this matter is being given sufficient consideration at present.

I agree with the hon the Minister when I consider the valuation of the Fund. One should value a fund more often. I do not think that the period of five years should be exceeded. This should be written into the legislation in some way, and the hon the Minister confirmed that he thought that this should be done.

Do you support the Bill?

The hon the Minister must not become hasty. We are dealing with many matters. Is he asking me whether I support the Bill so that he can tell me that I also support that section of the clause?

No.

Then that is in order.

I now come to the question of annuities. Of course, annuities are essential, particularly in view of the tricameral Parliament which will also be dealing with this legislation. It is imperative that the question of annuities be given substance in this legislation now, before the tricameral Parliament comes into operation. The provisions concerned are now being taken up in the legislation before the tricameral Parliament has to deal with it so that other people will not have a say in such a sensitive matter. That is discrimination in a different form, but this is what one gets from people who do not want discrimination. We shall see what happens with this kind of legislation in future. I find it totally incomprehensible why we do not place this particular section of the Bill before those people once they are here. Then they, too, can have a discussion on the matter.

I now come to another very important point. No one in this House can object to a distress call for a ship and the fact that salvage facilities are to be utilized. I think this falls within the scope of the terms of reference of the SATS. The question is whether it is possible that there will now be competition between tugs and salvage undertakings. I am merely asking; I do not know whether that will be the case. I do not think we should compete on a large scale with people in a certain line of business. I am thinking of undertakings such as salvaging and the towing of ships. As far as these undertakings are concerned, they are in essence restricted to a harbour area, but we are now extending our jurisdiction. I have no objection to that, since I do not have the necessary information as to what the purpose of this really is in terms of the provisions of the Bill.

I am very grateful that we have an Explanatory Memorandum, but it should be borne in mind that an Explanatory Memorandum which has to elaborate on 30 or 40 statutory provisions replacing others, would have to be as thick as a volume of Butterworths.

What about margarine?

I realize that the hon member does not know what Butterworths is. It is not a kind of peanut butter. In any case, peanut butter is toxic at the moment.

Let us now look at the second section of clause 6. I envisage a great problem here. The task of the SATS under this hon Minister is no longer to make comfortable transport facilities available at the lowest possible tariff. The initial purpose of the SATS was to make an improved service available to people and even to make services available on its own premises, for example refreshment services. However, it was never the intention for the SATS to construct large commercial undertakings on its stations. The hon member for De Kuilen let the cat out of the bag by saying that enormous shopping centres can now be erected on the premises of large stations.

†This is the idea of the American Corporation in taking over portions of a railway and then to use it mainly for business purposes. They look for the concentration point of commuters in a city like Johannesburg, for instance, where we have 276 000 Black commuters within the space of two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon in comparison with 40 000 to 70 000 White commuters. What type of situation is going to be created here? A new node, as we call it, is created where thousands of people will congregate at a time when you cannot handle them because while you can sort the people out into different trains we cannot serve them all in a shop. As a result they overflow into the city area. It is a shocking state of affairs to contemplate. Well, I think Raymond Ackerman is high on the cards of the NP. Say for instance Raymond Ackerman comes along and put up a hypermarket on the station’s premises. I tell you, Sir, that he would make a lot of business. But we won’t be able to get the people to the trains. The people who want to make use of the trains would not be able to do so. And there is no apartheid on trains and railway premises anymore. So, let me tell the hon the Minister that he is going to regret this type of thing for the whole of his life.

*Say, for example, a man like Goldberg erects his liquor stores on the other side of the station. [Interjections.] Apparently Solly Kramer has already spoken to the Minister about that.

He gives bigger discounts!

I am sure that Solly Kramer knows more about this legislation than we do.

There is the danger that the Minister can cause an unthinkable situation to arise on this station. The ratio of non-Whites to Whites in the vicinity of the station is 40:1 at present. What is going to be done about this situation? I am speaking only of Johannesburg because it is in my part of the country. What will happen in such a situation in Johannesburg and the surrounding areas, is that the town planning scheme of the city will be disturbed. One would make the flow of people from the station to certain points in the city impossible. Such a practice would also run counter to the existing rights of people in that area. Businesses up to 10 blocks away from these retail and wholesale undertakings at railway stations will be prejudiced because people will even be able to purchase a TV set at a station and they will not have to carry it to the station for a distance of 10 blocks. By creating a situation like this, one would be expropriating 10 to 12 street blocks without paying for it. The situation that is going to be created is an extremely important one, because zoning which is in conflict with the zoning of the surrounding area is now going to take place on railway land. Is this fair? Do not tell me that this is only going to take place in Krugersdorp, in Langlaagte or at certain other railway stations. The same situation I have just sketched will be created at other stations as well and will be just as dangerous and just as big a problem as far as the immediate area surrounding those stations is concerned.

The hon the Minister has a problem. He told the people that he was going to make the SATS profitable.

Are you opposed to that?

No, not if one wishes to make the Transport Services profitable as such, but I am opposed to it when attempts are made to do so by permitting practices like this on SATS land. The CP is the NP’s conscience. The NP must remember what I say today. The CP will be its conscience when it tries to prejudice people unjustly. The speech I am making now, which many NP members do not understand, will be a revelation to those hon members when the situation I have sketched unfolds before them.

As far as the clauses of the Bill are concerned, there are various aspects which it would be better to discuss during the Committee Stage. However, there are a few things I wish to point out to the hon the Minister now. I regard clause 13 as a very important provision. I believe that I am here as the taxpayer’s watchdog. If hon members think that that is no longer their task, they should give up their seats. Although perhaps neither my party nor I am able to remove them from their seats, they are doing the people they represent a disservice if they no longer believe that they are the taxpayer’s watchdogs. In clause 13 the South African Transport Services Finances and Accounts Act is being amended in such a way that the General Manager is now being empowered to grant wholly or in part the remission or refunding of amounts provided that the amount involved in a single case does not exceed R10 000. In cases where this amount is exceeded, the Minister’s authority must be obtained. Although these remissions and refunds must be reported to the Auditor-General, I cannot assume that they will serve before Parliament. I want to present to hon members a parallel situation of what is going to happen. For example, an engineer wants to build a bridge and tenders have to be called for. One of the tenders, for example, is R270 000 and the other is R250 000. The R250 000 tender is accepted. The other tenderer is therefore out of the picture. After work has proceeded for two years, the engineer makes a fatal submission to the General Manager. He says that it rained; that consequently there were delays and that he was not always able to do what he wanted. He now asks that an additional R70 000 be added to the contract. The General Manager can only trust what this engineer has submitted to him. The General Manager then says that he cannot grant an amount of that nature before obtaining permission from the Minister. The Minister asks the General Manager to show him a submission. Of course, he has to support the General Manager, since he and the General Manager are dependent on the submission of the engineer. The engineer is possibly a friend of the original contractor. [Interjections.] What happens now? The Minister has no choice but to accept the submission in good faith. It is, in fact, reported to the Auditor-General, but in terms of this legislation it cannot be discussed since the report is only for submission. We must not look at what we can avoid in practice, but we who have recently become sick and tired of politics and the way in which it is conducted must see to it that something positive is done in this House to save what we can. This must be done through better administration and by not being afraid to tell a Minister that a measure is not to the benefit of the parliamentary system as we know it.

Another case I wish to refer to is the conditions of service of the Railways Police. I want hon members to give me a chance. I do not wish to talk politics now; only to state facts. For example, I wish to refer to the position of a captain in the Railways Police. In terms of this legislation, that captain cannot resign from the police within a period of three years, and I think that is quite correct. Furthermore, when he resigns, he must have a letter of permission, and if he has pension benefits they will be taken away from him. In any case, he enters into conditions of service in terms of the legislation as it stands today. In a few years’ time he may want to leave, and then Mr Rajbansi or Mr Poovalingham may be the Minister and not the present Minister. Under the new legislation the General Manager of the SATS could possibly be a Coloured or an Indian.

What am I going to do in two years’ time? What job will I do then?

Wait a minute. Let us forget about trivialities and let me state the facts.

This man then says that he is sorry, but he does not want to be the Minister’s manager of the section extending from point A through those areas. He resigns, packs his bags and leaves. He is then doing an offence.

One does not “do” an offence; one “commits” an offence.

Yes, very well, that is the legal term. That is quite correct, but the result is the same. He then becomes a criminal (“krimineel”). He can then be given a prison sentence.

A criminal (“misdadiger”).

Yes, “misdadiger”, and to me that is as good as a “krimineel”. In terms of this Bill the person concerned is placed on a par with such a person, since he is charged and he can be given a six-month prison sentence. Is it fair that similar conditions of service are in operation in the existing circumstances when the legislation will remain valid in a system which is unknown to the person concerned? In terms of the legislation he is not permitted to resign and he could even be given a prison sentence if he resigns says “I am leaving”. I simply request that we reflect seriously on these matters.

If the hon the Minister wishes to introduce a complete change in the service of the SATS, what should he do? Let us say that one wanted to let the section between Springs and Soweto to some corporation or another or that one wanted to place the harbour under the management of people in industry. One should do so, but one should first obtain guidance in places like Oakland in San Francisco or in Los Angeles. One should discover precisely how this set-up works. Then it becomes an open question as to whether it is a sound situation. However, the way we want to do it, is totally wrong.

The Railways, Airways and Road Transport Service should be improved, and this ethnic subsidization is totally wrong. Subsidization should take place according to production. If a man produces and his salary is increased as a consequence, there is no problem. However, one cannot simply say that all the people who board a train in Soweto should be subsidized by 60% simply because they are Black. These are the problems of the situation in which we find ourselves. This is a matter we shall have to look at. We shall have to look at the economic problems of the situation in which we find ourselves.

I now want to put a question to the hon the Minister. He must not think that I am trying to attract attention by doing so. I have here a newspaper article of which the headline is: “Meer gifkos dalk van mark”. This comes from Die Vaderland.

That has nothing to do with transport legislation.

That hon member must just keep quiet. He will find out in a minute what this is about. The hon the Minister is aware that the Railways purchases a large amount of stock at certain times. I want to ask the hon the Minister to instruct his department to ascertain whether some of the trade-marks concerned were purchased. A bottle is not placed on the table, and therefore no one knows what the trade-mark is. The hon the Minister would say that his department has an enormous task, as well as a tremendous problem.

Order! Which clause of the Bill is the hon member discussing?

I am not discussing any clause …

Which principle of the Bill is the hon member discussing?

I am discussing the principle that one does not give people contaminated food on the Railways. [Interjections.] I just want to ask the hon the Minister to check the stock bought from August until now, since there is uncertainty about the distribution of the products concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is very difficult to follow the hon member for Langlaagte. I have three problems with him. In the first place he made a great fuss about his tremendous knowledge of the law. I want to suggest, however, that before the hon member participates in the debate again he should first read L C Steyn’s Uitleg van Wette. Perhaps he would then be able to make a better contribution.

The second problem I have with the hon member is that he apparently is incapable of understanding. I should like to quote from the memorandum from which the hon member also quoted. This relates to clause 6 of the Bill. The following is stated there very clearly:

I cannot understand what problem the hon member had with this.

The third problem I have with the hon member can be summed up in the old proverb: “A fool may ask many more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in seven years”. I do not think I need say any more about the hon member.

It gives me pleasure to support this amending Bill. Although the PFP, through the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, also supports the legislation, my approach is rather different to that of that party. If one takes a superficial look at the legislation, one is justified in saying, as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central did, that this is potpourri legislation—hotch-potch or omnibus legislation. If one analyses and studies it in greater depth, however, one sees, I think, some depth to this legislation. What is therefore the deeper significance of the principle contained in the legislation? This amending Bill is a reflection of the development, vigilance and efficiency of the SATS. It is a micro-image, a mirror image of the diverse interests the SATS has to look to and promote. As far as I am concerned that is the consistent principle in the legislation. The more one has to do with the SATS, as is also the case with this particular legislation, the more one is impressed by their attentiveness, effectiveness and precision. Everything has a single aim, namely to provide better services. This is then the main principle of the Bill. It is aimed at constantly improving the efficiency of the staff, the services and the methods of solving problems of the SATS. As is to be expected, this Bill has quite a number of points of contact with the community in which it operates. Things therefore have to be controlled properly, as is in fact being done in this case.

The SATS looks after the interests of its staff. This is as it should be. It looks after the interests of its pensioners. This is also as it should be. It also looks after the lives of people who can be saved. This is also as it should be. The SATS also looks to free enterprise, private initiative and the interests of third parties, as well as—this is meant for the hon member for Langlaagte—its own patrimonial legal interests. As far as I am concerned this amending Bill is adequate proof that the SATS is constantly striving to polish up and improve its services, and with this attitude and approach, and this legislation serving as an example, we know that things can only improve for the SATS in the future.

Mr Speaker, this Bill consists of something like 15 clauses, most of which seek to amend certain Acts which apply to the SATS. We are going to support this Bill in general although I do have a number of queries which I should like to put to the hon the Minister. These concern clauses 1, 2 and 6.

Much has been said about clause 1, the clause that empowers the Administration to recover debts or losses due to it by certain members of the staff who leave the service for any reason. We are most concerned about this clause and I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister because I know him to be a fair man.

Hear, hear!

I hope therefore that he will see the merits of our reasoning in this regard. [Interjections.]

The first question I should like to ask the hon the Minister is in regard to the interpretation of the word “leaves”—“if a member of the New Fund leaves the Service”. For what reason would such member leave the service? Would it be because he has been fired because of some misdeed or of incompetence? Does he decide to leave because there are better prospects elsewhere? Does it also include a member of the service who is retiring? If it includes a person who is retiring, this could place a tremendous burden on such a person’s pension money. We believe that contributions to a person’s pension scheme should be inviolate, because in many instances a person spends a lifetime building up assets in a pension scheme so that when he can no longer work he will be able to provide for himself and his dependents and will not become a burden upon the State. This particular clause, however, empowers the Administration to garnishee that person’s pension benefits if the Administration believes that he owes it a debt or is responsible for some loss of the Administration’s property. As I said, the hon the Minister is a fair man and I wonder whether, in his opinion, this threat over the employees of the Administration is really in their best interest.

If I heard him correctly, the hon member for Bloemfontein East said that the Administration is looking after the interests of its personnel. But I put it to the hon member for De Kuilen that the Administration is certainly not looking after the interests of its personnel in clause 1. It is looking after its own interests. It was, I think, the hon member for De Kuilen who said that the provisions of this clause had been accepted by the staff associations and by the pensions committee. I want, however, to ask the staff associations of the SATS whether they have really looked at what this clause could do to their own members. Furthermore, what sort of debt and what sort of loss are envisaged? For example, a member of the Administration may be driving a very expensive vehicle.

Perhaps the hon the Minister’s own car.

It could be the hon the Minister’s own car. While driving it the employee is involved in an accident with another vehicle belonging to the SATS and, in so doing, causes a tremendous loss. The Administration in its wisdom will find him guilty of carelessness and will decide that he has to repay the loss.

Or somebody has the knife in for him.

My files contain a number of cases where employees came to members of Parliament, including myself, and appealed for assistance. They felt that they had been unjustly treated by the Administration. We often hear these worrying stories—and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred to it—that someone has a knife into them, as the hon member for Umhlanga remarked just now. Under these circumstances, because the employee was involved in an accident, he could be found guilty of careless driving and could be discharged from the service of the SATS. He may have worked for the SATS nearly his entire life, and now he has to find that he has to repay this loss with the Administration saying they are going to take his pension money and use that to pay off his debt to the Administration. We believe this is a very mighty power which the hon the Minister is giving to the SATS. We believe he should think very deeply about giving this power to the Administration. I shall tell him why, Mr Speaker. In the private sector and anywhere else in South Africa such decisions are often only taken by the judiciary, and I should put it to the hon the Minister to consider the following question. Is he not placing in the hands of laymen within his Administration powers which should be retained by the judiciary? I know we have cases of this nature, which go on appeal, cases which even go right to the Railway Board.

They do not take evidence.

That is true. They do not take evidence. I submit they will have great difficulty if they should want to take evidence. Therefore I do appeal to the hon the Minister again. He is a fair man, and I know he is a just man. I know he would like to make sure that the SATS acts in a just manner. I put it to him here today, Sir, that if he goes ahead with this particular provision he is going to take unto himself judicial powers which, I believe, are not really in his sphere of activity. That is why I lodge this appeal with the hon the Minister. We shall, however, discuss this matter again during Committee Stage. I do believe, nevertheless, that he must give this matter serious consideration.

I submit that this is a rather paternalistic clause. It places upon the shoulders of the Administration a power equal to that of a mighty judge.

Big brother!

Big brother, yes. I do not believe that the hon the Minister or the senior management of the SATS should have this sort of power. In respect of this particular matter they should allow the employee the right to go to court, and I am sure the staff associations, if they consider this deeply, will agree with what I say. That employee should be given the right to go to a court of law in order to establish whether he is guilty or not. This is of paramount importance, I submit, because such a man’s pension benefits are at stake, and an ill-considered decision, a decision which might be biased against the employee, perhaps because of some ill feeling amongst his colleagues, or for any other reason, may cause the evidence used against that man to condemn him to utter poverty in his retirement. That is why I believe the hon the Minister should think again. We will, however, discuss this matter again during Committee Stage. The other clause to which I should want to refer is clause 2, which concerns the revaluation of the new pension fund. I was pleased yesterday to hear the hon the Minister say that he was prepared during Committee Stage to agree to an amendment causing the clause to stipulate that this revaluation would be undertaken every five years or after shorter periods. I say this because I believe that inflation, as well as many other factors, necessitate such revaluation to be done at fairly short intervals. Therefore, I believe, this new pension fund should be revalued more often in order that those who benefit from it should receive the fullest benefits possible from this fund.

One thing that does bother me—and perhaps the hon the Minister could elaborate on it—is the following. We do know that these funds are used to finance the expenditure of the SATS. Someone mentioned it was also used for the home-ownership scheme. I am merely making mention of this in order that the hon the Minister can consider it. Perhaps we are using these funds in such a manner to finance certain projects that we may not be giving the fullest consideration we should give to using these funds for achieving the objectives for which they were set up, namely the best benefits possible for employees in their retirement. Perhaps the hon the Minister, when he replies to the debate, could tell us just how far the administrators of these funds do go to ensure that the moneys within the fund are invested in such a manner as to yield the best possible return so that people who retire can get the best benefits.

The next clause to which I want to refer is clause 6, which seeks to amend section 9 of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981.

Paragraph (a) of the proposed new section 9 concerns the area outside the jurisdiction of the SATS and proposes extending the limitations on the Administration in respect of towage and salvage services. We have no complaints about this at all. In fact, we think it is a very good provision and we support it wholeheartedly.

The second portion of this clause, however, deals with the utilization of fixed property of the SATS, and here we disagree entirely with the hon member for Langlaagte. I must say that I am very pleased to see the hon the Minister adopt the attitude he has. I am not sure during which Budget debate it was said—possibly 1979 or 1980—but when I was speaking on behalf of the NRP I gave a list of the objectives that we would set for the SATS, one of which was that there should be the fullest possible utilization of the fixed assets of the SATS so as to bring in as much income as possible in order to assist the SATS financially. We are therefore very pleased to see that this provision has been included. One thing that does, however, concern us is that if the SATS is going to utilize its assets to best advantage—I sincerely hope that that is in fact what it is going to do—develop them to best advantage. We do hear rather disquieting reports about certain facilities on railway stations and so forth such as catering departments, bars etc, which in the past were operated by the Catering Department of the SATS but which in recent years they have ceased to run and have let out to private enterprise to operate. The reports we hear are to the effect that whereas in the past there was a good net income from these assets and they were showing a fair net profit, the income that is now being derived from letting these facilities out to private enterprise is not as high as it was in the past. We wonder, therefore, whether the SATS is really getting a good deal out of this arrangement. We do not, of course, say that they should not do it. We could not, for instance, expect the SATS to branch out into supermarkets, chemist shops and so forth. However, what we do want to know is that the SATS is obtaining a fair share of the profits derived from such activities. Perhaps the hon the Minister will be able to give us more information in this regard when he replies.

As far as the development of these assets is concerned, I want to tell the hon member for Langlaagte that the SATS owns billions of rand worth of fixed assets, and any person who has an asset should utilize it to best advantage. When one travels around the world as the hon member for Langlaagte and other hon members have done, one finds that in many areas or places where there is a station or a concentration of transportation facilities, there are many other commercial activities going on in the vicinity. In fact, as the hon member for Langlaagte said, it is a concentration point for commuters. I say to him, therefore, what better place then to have other activities going on. If the SATS happen to own the real estate then why not let them utilize that asset to best advantage? Perhaps by so doing and feeding that income into their overall revenue they may not have to raise tariffs as often as they do.

Could they then still maintain a monopoly in respect of transport?

Well, that is another subject entirely. I should like to point out to the hon member that even at our airports today the SATS are not monopolizing the transport situation because the bus transportation from the airports to the city centres is already in the hands of private enterprise. Therefore, these facilities are being made available to the private sector. The point is that the Bill does provide in clause 6 that the SATS will be permitted to utilize its real estate assets to best advantage, and we in the NRP are fully in favour of it.

Some of the remaining clauses are mainly of a technical nature and others again have been inserted to comply with the provisions of various other Acts such as the Police Act, and we go along with them. As I have said, we are going to support this Bill at Second Reading but we shall have a further discussion with the hon the Minister on clause 1 at the Committee Stage.

Mr Speaker, the hon members on the Opposition side concentrated mainly on clause 1 in their criticism of the measure before this House. Perhaps I should also say a few words about it.

I think it is a pity for any employer to find it necessary to tamper with the pension benefits of an employee in any way. When this happens, there have to be very good reasons for it. This is not, however, as unusual as it seems here. Other employers also use the pension benefits of their employees on retirement from service as a certain degree of security.

Unfortunately the hon member for Langlaagte left his and my former employer a little early, and that is why his information is a little out of date. He referred to the amount of R10 000 which is protected. This relates to ordinary insurance, however, and has nothing to do with retirement from service. In any case, it only applies in the case of insolvency. The hon member is therefore completely off the track in a discussion of the Railway’s pension fund.

You are quite correct when you say that no one can take your money.

I want to give a practical example. I left an employer with whom I enjoyed certain benefits as an employee, including a subsidized mortgage bond. The mortgage bond was also from my employer. I had to take over that mortgage bond or transfer it to a building society. I did not have that kind of money, and for that reason I approached a building society for a mortgage bond. My pension benefits were therefore held back by that employer as security until I had paid him everything I owed him. That employer is an employer who administers pension funds, one of the largest insurance companies in the country.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

Sir, that hon member is so confused that I do not want to give him an opportunity to ask me a question.

But you signed a cession, not so?

Order! The hon member for Springs does not want to give the hon member for Langlaagte an opportunity to ask him a question. The hon member for Langlaagte is therefore not entitled to ask him a question.

We have to consider the circumstances under which the SATS recovers money from an employee’s pension fund. This happens mainly in the following instances. National servicemen in the employ of the SATS have to do their two years’ national service. During that period they receive part of their salary from the SATS, and in addition the percentage contribution of that national serviceman to the pension fund is paid for him by the Administration. When he returns, his pension benefits have been paid to date by the Administration. The Administration has therefore made certain payments on his behalf. In practice such people have a contract with the Administration to remain in the employ of the Administration for a further two years or for a period equivalent to that of their military service. If they resign before the time, they are breaking the contract. All that happens then is that the Administration recovers from a person only that part of the pension which the Administration paid in on his behalf.

The hon member must now remember what the practical situation is. The SATS has paid a premium on someone’s behalf, and all they are telling him is that he owes the Administration that part of the premium which the Administration has paid in on his behalf; no more and no less. If a sum of money is paid out to him, they recover that portion from him.

Must I reply to you?

I do not need the hon member’s reply; these are the facts.

What about deceased employees?

We shall get to them in a moment.

Another example is that of people who receive bursaries from the SATS. We know that ample provision is made for this by the Administration. Bursary-holders have an obligation to the Administration to remain in the employ of the Administration for a certain period. After a bursary of R5 000, R6 000 or R7 000 has been granted, that person may resign from the SATS a few months or a year later. He is therefore also breaking his contract with the SATS. That is where the amendments come into the picture. Provision is now being made for bursary fees to be recovered as well. Up to now it has been a cumbersome affair to recover the money. A tedious procedure, including legal steps, had to be adapted to recover the money. Now provision is merely being made for this money to be recovered from the man’s pension. We have to consider the relevant circumstances. In the first place the employee was benefitted by the bursary he received. In order to get the bursary he had to enter into a contract with the Administration in terms of which he accepted certain obligations towards the Administration. If the relevant employee does not fulfil his contract, the Administration wants the right to use his pension to recover the bursary money. Let us consider what the pension contribution of such a person can amount to in comparison with the amount of the bursary. In this regard I think the Administration will still have a problem. If an employee has only been in the Administration’s employ for 18 months, it would only be able to recover one-fifth of the bursary.

I now come to the deceased employees about whom the hon member for Langlaagte is so concerned. I am also concerned about them, but not for the same reasons as the hon member. I have already said that it is a pity to have to tamper with pensions, particularly if it is borne in mind that this money has to form part of the estate of the employee, in order to care for his dependents. I should like to suggest to the hon the Minister that other measures be adapted in the case of the death of an employee. I want to recommend a life insurance policy which the employer must take out as security for the bursary he receives. That policy must then be ceded to the Administration. On his death the policy money will then accrue to the Administration, and in that way the bursary can be covered. On this point I therefore want to agree with the hon member for Langlaagte. We ex-insurance men do have certain things in common. I admit that in this respect we may be acting a little too drastically. In the case of death there is no breach of a contract. After all, death is beyond an employee’s control. I therefore hope that the hon the Minister will reconsider this and will suggest a solution which is more acceptable to us all.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti discussed certain terrible things which might happen. But there are a number of funds which make provision for a variety of things. There is, for example, a general insurance fund; there is a guarantee fund; there is a fidelity fund and so forth.

These funds make provision for a variety of situations. All that is at issue here is a debt owing to the Administration and the recovery of that debt in some or other way. The Administration does not want to enrich itself, but merely seeks to restore the position to what it was before the employee broke his contract. We are therefore only dealing here with contract-breakers in general, for example employees who resign without fulfilling their obligations to the Administration.

As far as actuarial valuations are concerned, this amendment moved by the Minister is to be welcomed. The amendment relates to a position similar to that which applies in respect of other State Pension Funds. Actuaries are expensive, and I therefore feel that the decision about when the fund should be valued should lie with the Minister. This is a practical arrangement, and as such it is acceptable to me.

I am glad to see that this measure makes provision for the widows of employees of colour. I think this is a logical extension, and everyone expects this sort of benefit to form part of a pension fund. They are therefore more fortunate than we here in Parliament are. The hon member for Langlaagte said that we would not be affected, but I would begin agreeing with him if he suggested that the widows of members of Parliament should be entitled to benefits in the initial stages.

I want to make a final general remark. This concerns the pension fund of the SATS in general. We have what is known in our terminology as the old fund and the new fund. A pension fund is a good fund if it meets one basic requirement for the person retiring, namely to maintain his position as far as buying power is concerned. There must therefore be a periodic upgrading of a person’s pension once he has retired. Such a pension fund is a very good pension fund. Such funds are the order of the day in the times in which we now live. The dilemma, however, is that in the past we did not have to contend with inflation. Pension funds were good then if they insured a certain capital amount, at the end of a person’s working life, from which a fixed annuity could be purchased which could provide him with a fixed income. In the present situation, with the cost of living rising constantly, such a fixed pension is, after a number of years, no longer sufficient to allow a person to maintain his standard of living. Such a pension fund includes the old pension fund of the SATS. I want to ask the board of trustees of the old pension fund to review this old pension fund in its entirety and to see to it that pensions paid out in terms of the old pension fund are upgraded automatically as the cost of living rises so that the people who retired prior to 1973 will be able to maintain their standard of living. At the moment they have to rely on ad hoc adjustments by the hon the Minister, and we feel this to be unnecessary. These people contributed to the establishment of the fund, and I really feel the time has come—there are probably not that many of them left—for these people’s interests to be taken care of. After all, they contributed towards making the SATS the powerful organization it is today.

I take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on his appointment as chairman of the transport group of his party. I shall miss the hon member for Berea, because we got along well. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central can be very trying at times. He is a person who makes a study of a measure and who is inclined to make a fuss about trifling matters. But I suppose that is the job of an opposition party. I believe we shall get along in spite of that.

†The hon member asked me a few questions. As regards his amendment to clause 1 which appears on the Order Paper. I can inform him that I will be prepared to accept it. He said that this Bill is actually a Bill which should be discussed in the Committee Stage, but at this stage I just want to tell him that I can accept the majority of the proposals suggested by him. He inquired about employees who are dismissed for being drunk on duty, but I can assure him that such person’s pension, plus interest, is paid out to him. He does not lose any money. As regards the question of the five-year period in respect of the pension fund I can only say that the same principle is applied in the case of the State Pension Fund, while certain insurance companies also make use of these principles in certain instances. The SATS will therefore be in line with other institutions in this respect. In the circumstances it is not necessary to obtain regular actuarial valuations, but for control purposes they are still done as and when they are required. The whole intention is not to have less control. As the hon member for Springs has pointed out, we have a Board which controls the pension fund and which consists of members of the various staff associations. They control it because it is their money and they are very anxious to see that proper control is exercised over these matters. I will come back to this subject later on.

I can accept a few other proposals of the hon member in regard to clause 6. The insertion of (a) is acceptable and so are the first two lines of amendment 2(b), but we cannot accept the rest, as I will explain in the Committee Stage. I think the hon member made a good contribution and I thank him for supporting the Bill. I will do my utmost during the Committee Stage to accommodate his wishes. After all he said that I was a reasonable man.

*That is very true!

I should like to thank the hon member for De Kuilen for his positive contribution. He knows the legislation. He raised one important matter. That is that the Opposition is raising spectres with regard to this legislation. But there is nothing to hide. All these proposals have been cleared out with the staff associations and they support every one of these clauses. The hon member is quite right, therefore, when he says that it is not necessary to conjure up any spectres here.

The hon member for Langlaagte said that we had let the cat out of the bag. I also wish to let the cat out of the bag concerning certain things which he said. He said that we are “grave-robbers”. If the hon member only realized how we were co-operating with the staff associations and how we were accommodating them in this measure. They themselves say that there are people who incur debts which are detrimental to the business. That is why these have to be deducted from their pensions. A person may receive a study bursary, for example, and then leave the service after graduating, but his debt remains. We now have to pay out his pension to him and he goes to work for another employer. Should we not deduct the amount of the bursary in such a case? In this way, there are several other debts that can be incurred.

The hon member insulted our peanut farmers. The hon member’s words were “the peanut butter is poisonous”. It is outrageous for the Conservative Party to insult the 4 000 peanut farmers of this country. As a peanut farmer I say that the CSIR did research 15 years ago …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Minister has alleged that I referred to the 4 000 farmers … [Interjections.] I said no such thing. I made the point that the hon the Minister knows that peanut butter is poisonous at the moment.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Let me clear up this matter. The hon member says that we should conduct research and should remove all peanut butter from the trains. The CSIR conducted research with aflatoxin 15 years ago and fed it to ducklings in a concentrated form. It was pure aflatoxin, and after three weeks the ducklings died from a liver condition. It has been ascertained that if one were to eat one and a half tons of contaminated peanut butter, it might affect one.

An attempt is being made in this country to harm this industry. The words used by the hon member for Langlaagte were “the peanut butter is poisonous”. What is to become of the peanut farmer who is on his knees today as a result of a drought? [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I concede that there is a small amount of peanut butter which may contain a little poison.

The hon member for Langlaagte says that we want to give Pick ’n Pay the right to establish a shop at Johannesburg station and that in doing so, we want to kill the retail trade within a radius of 14 blocks from the station. We have said that the SATS will be a profitable undertaking. The hon member for Amanzimtoti is quite right in saying that this organization owns land worth millions of rands. There is a piece of land next to the station which we cannot use. Now we are calling for tenders from people who may wish to lease it. Or we may put up a building there and lease it, and a quarter of a million SATS workers will benefit. We enter into an agreement with the city council, the people responsible for town planning. One cannot build a shop today without having consulted the city council about it.

That is not what it says in the Bill.

The hon member simply does not understand what it says here. The hon member wants an asset of the SATS to lie there unutilized. We are not allowed to use it. We are not allowed to lease it to a retailer. We are not allowed to build a number of small shops and to lease them to a retailer. We are not allowed to do that either. The whole idea is to realize our asset so that the quarter of a million people working for the SATS may benefit from it.

The hon member also made a fuss about the amount of R10 000. What is being changed in clause 13? Only one thing is being changed: The amount of R5 000 used to be R4 999. This is the way the provision has read for the past 20 years, but the Auditor-General said: Make it R5 000; do not say “less than R5 000”. That is the whole idea. Now the hon member says that the General Manager can now do whatever he likes. He should read the clause again. This provision has been in force for about 20 years. Therefore it is only being changed from R4 999 to R5 000.

If you do not understand the legislation, what is one to do?

The hon member is entitled to say whatever he likes. He made insinuations in this House. He insinuated that the General Manager and the Minister would be able to do certain things for their friends. Those were his words. I have to sit here and swallow everything, but I am not allowed to defend myself. Then the hon member keeps interrupting me. I did not interrupt him once. The hon member must not think that I have lost my voice. He must not think that the CP can say to me whatever they like and that I have to put up with it. I also have the right to defend myself.

The Prime Minister says that you are a clown.

When did he say that? Why does the hon member not tell the truth?

But you know that. When you said … [Interjections.]

The hon member is lying in his teeth! [Interjections.] I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.] The insinuations that are being made in that dirty little newspaper of theirs, too, I regard as a sign of a dying party. A party which is so insulting and so untruthful is a dying party, in my opinion. This newspaper is dirtier than Die Afrikaner was to begin with. In it, insinuations are being made to the effect that such-and-such a person has said that I said such-and-such a thing. I regard it with contempt, because there is not an atom of truth in it. Now we have this … But let me rather go on, Sir.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East has a good understanding of the matter and gave us a clear explanation of it. This is an hon member who understands the legislation. He agrees that there is nothing underhand about this, but that it is an honest attempt to improve the matter.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti asked whether these provisions apply to a person leaving the service of his own free will or upon retirement. It is applicable to all cases, but the hon member must remember one thing, and that is that the SATS contributed 75% of the whole pension fund whereas the SATS worker contributed only 25%. This whole fund is also controlled by a board of trustees consisting of people representing the different staff associations. That is the reason why I feel satisfied that the whole idea of this pension fund and the amendments to it we are introducing have been agreed to by the people working for us and serving on this board. It is also to the benefit of all the people.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? He says that the pension fund consists of a 25% contribution paid by the employees and a 75% contribution by the Administration. If an employee leaves of his own free will, is he given the 75% the Administration has paid in or does he only receive his own 25%?

At the moment an amount of approximately R2 000 million is invested. That is the value of the pension fund. The contribution to that by the SATS was 75%. But it is all by way of one lump sum and if a man is paid out, he gets the full 100%, of which he contributed 25%.

Not just what he contributed?

The whole lump sum. He gets 100% out.

What about interest?

He gets interest. That is why the money is invested. He also has the benefit that this fund is also used for housing purposes to help him obtain a cheap loan. We grant people with an annual salary of less than R4 000 a loan at 1½% interest. That is the lowest in the world.

But it is inflationary housing.

No, it is for the poor man, for my customers, for the people who earn less than R4 000 a year. It is not for fat cats like you. [Interjections.]

Look who is talking!

We can have each other weighed if the hon member likes.

The hon member for Springs also understands the legislation. He gave a lucid explanation of it and he also spoke about the old fund and the new fund. I sympathize with pensioners who retired before 1973, because inflation has caught up with them. However, one must also be reasonable towards those persons who have contributed much more. The contributions made by those who have retired since 1973 were much bigger than those made by people who retired before 1973. We have already made adjustments, which I shall spell out in my Budget speech. I shall explain how we have adjusted more rapidly the pensions of those who retired before 1973, but that they are still having problems. I admit that. However, we shall always consider these sympathetically. But we must consult the board of trustees in the matter, because they control the funds and they are SATS employees.

I thank hon members for their contributions and I hope that the Second Reading will be taken without a dissenting vote.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, this clause contains definitions of “Administrator”, “Director-General” and “Minister”, ie the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Under the present dispensation, all three offices are held by Whites. I should very much like the hon the Deputy Minister to give me a clear reply. Since we are soon to enter into a dispensation in which there will be a tricameral Parliament, he should say whether the three offices will be held only by Whites, or whether they may also be held by Coloureds or Indians. If the hon the Minister indicates that these positions will be occupied only by Whites under the new dispensation, we shall accept this with regard to the rest of the legislation. However, if the hon the Deputy Minister is not prepared to give a positive reply to this, I want to indicate at once that the CP will consistently oppose the relevant provisions in the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I can hardly be expected to give certain assurances on behalf of the Government at this stage. These are matters which will have to be decided in future, and it would be most improper of me to anticipate what the Government is going to do in future. That is my reply to the hon member.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister has given an amazing reply to the very simple question I put to him. We advanced the very clear argument at Second Reading, and the hon the Deputy Minister did not dispute it, that this legislation would fall under general affairs under the new dispensation. I think this was made very clear by our side and the hon the Deputy Minister did not raise any objection to that contention. Therefore I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I am amazed, either at his ignorance of what is going on in South African politics, or at the fact that he is simply glossing over a standpoint of the Government in this House today. The hon the Deputy Minister should not have any problem with this matter, for he is very close to the Cabinet, after all.

He is the deputy leader of the NP in the Cape Province.

Yes, the hon the Deputy Minister is the deputy leader in the Cape Province. Therefore he cannot rise in this House and say that he does not know and that he cannot commit the Government. We have held a referendum on this matter and I now ask the hon the Deputy Minister to be frank with this House and with the country and to tell us exactly what we shall be voting for if we vote for this clause. Shall we be voting for Whites to occupy these important positions of a Minister, a Director-General or the Administrator, or shall we be voting for a Coloured or an Indian as well? I believe that the hon the Deputy Minister should at least have the courage to be frank with this House and with the electorate outside.

Mr Chairman, trying to belittle me or to run me down is not going to get that hon member anywhere.

Just give us a frank reply.

That hon member should please stop making personal remarks. The new constitution provides for the election of a President, who will also be the Prime Minister of Parliament. As such it will be his prerogative to appoint Cabinet Ministers, and I certainly cannot anticipate his decisions at this stage by saying that he will appoint a White, a Coloured or an Indian. This will be his prerogative, after all, and how can I as Deputy Minister, or any other Minister for that matter, anticipate matters in this House which do not fall within our jurisdiction? That is my reply, and I have nothing more to add.

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Deputy Minister is going to start off the debate on the Committee Stage in this particular tone, we are not going to make very good progress. In the course of the Second Reading debate we on this side of the House drew attention to the fact that under clauses 4 and 8 there is provision for the appointment of boards and standing committees, and we ask the hon the Deputy Minister to indicate the attitude of the Government towards such appointments. We did not expect him to talk for the new State President who may be elected at some stage in the future. The hon the Deputy Minister is introducing this Bill right now, and Mr P W Botha is the Prime Minister, Dr Koornhof is the Minister concerned and he is the Deputy Minister. We are not asking him what the attitude of a future State President may be; we want to know what the attitude of the Government is now. Just as the hon member for Rissik asked him a question in relation to this clause, we are going to ask him the same question in relation to clauses 4 and 8. The hon the Deputy Minister must remember that we put a series of questions to him.

*In his reply to the Second Reading debate he said that those questions could more appropriately be asked and answered during the Committee Stage of this Bill. We are now in the Committee Stage, but now the hon the Deputy Minister says that he cannot commit a future Government. We do not expect him to commit a future Government. We want to know what the attitude of the present Government is. It is the duty of the hon the Deputy Minister to answer our questions.

Mr Chairman, I undertook to continue the debate in the spirit which prevailed during the discussion of this Bill yesterday, but then the least I expect is that hon members should not make disparaging remarks, by saying, for example, that I am the deputy leader of this party in the Cape Province. In the first place, the hon member knows that this is not true, and in the second place, he was only playing the fool when he said that. I am not prepared to continue the debate at that level. I have already given my reply with regard to this aspect, and if hon members are not satisfied with it, there are steps which they can take in that connection.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 9, from line 33, to omit sub-paragraph (i).

Provision is made in clause 2 of the Bill that while this legislation as a whole will apply throughout the Republic of South Africa, with the exception of the national states, clause 2(2)(a)(i) allows the State President, by proclamation, to declare that five of the provisions of this legislation need not apply in certain parts of the Republic of South Africa. These five provisions relate to the right of leasehold. We therefore have a situation here that this legislation stipulates that Blacks outside of the national states have a right to leasehold title of land in areas designated for them. The State President, however, can indeed negate that right in any part of South Africa which he deems to be appropriate.

We feel this is quite wrong. We believe that property rights, whether they be leasehold or freehold—in this particular case we are of course talking of leasehold—which is the only property right which a Black outside of the national states can enjoy, should not be dependent upon an executive proclamation. We believe that that right should be written into this legislation, and that there should be no uncertainty about the existence of that right in respect of Black people.

If one reads further one sees that this clause also allows the State President at any time to repeal or amend such proclamation. That means that a second element of uncertainty is being introduced because the State President is entitled to repeal or amend any proclamation he may have issued in this regard. We believe that this discretionary right of the executive should not be written into this legislation. We believe that the legislature should determine what the property rights of Blacks are outside of the national states. The hon the Minister is aware—and I state this for the sake of hon members opposite who are still nervous about the property rights of Blacks—that such rights can in any case only be exercised in areas which have been proclaimed for Black occupation. Those rights have to be exercised in terms of registration and in terms of the various provisions of this legislation. We believe access to property rights is a fundamental right which should be based in law. When one looks at the reason for this provision it is quite obvious that it is because of the fact that the Government still wants to exclude Blacks living in the Western Cape from access to leasehold property rights.

All the evidence that came before the select committee, including the very powerful evidence by the Urban Foundation, testifies to the fact that nothing is more designed to create tension, discord and instability among the Black people in the Western Cape than the knowledge that they are the only Black people in the country who are going to be denied the elementary right of leasehold ownership of property. We believe that not only is it right in law that it should be written in, that not only is it right as a principle, but that it is also good socio-economic politics for the sake of maintaining stability in this area. This right should be written into this legislation. For this reason we are pleased that at least the hon member for Bellville—I have not yet seen him here in the House today—came out very strongly during Second Reading in favour of Blacks in the Western Cape being included in this right. We ask the Government, even at this late stage, not to leave this right to the discretion of the executive but to see that this fundamental right, this property right, the only right which Blacks can enjoy in this field, is written into this legislation. The way of writing it into this legislation is by way of deleting this particular provision, which allows the State President by proclamation to nullify these rights as far as Blacks in the Western Cape are concerned.

Mr Chairman, I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon member for Sea Point, and also to make a few remarks about the fact that it has been mentioned that the primary consideration is in fact that the Blacks in the Western Cape should be denied the right of leasehold. This is being done by way of the discretionary power which is being conferred upon the State President.

We are aware of the considerations which originally led the Government to establish this area as a Coloured and White labour preference area. We shall not discuss the question of whether this was a mistake. However, I think that views have changed since then. As has already been indicated, it actually has nothing to do with the question of labour preference. I know that the hon the Minister and the select committee were very keen to create an urban Black community which could be kept as happy as possible for political and other considerations. We are actually concerned here with the question of what should be done to create the same circumstances, as far as possible, for the Black community of the Western Cape, in order to afford them the best possible opportunity of living in the Western Cape as a happy community and, in that sense, of improving the quality of their lives.

There have been Blacks in the Western Cape for more than 75 years. They were here at the beginning of the century. As the hon the Deputy Minister knows, they used to live at Ndabeni, and in 1904 they were moved to other places in the Peninsula. So their presence in the Peninsula and the Western Cape is not a recent phenomenon. It may be a recent phenomenon in terms of numbers, but not in terms of their actual presence in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister knows that as far as the areas surrounding Cape Town are concerned, the influx took place mainly at the end of the 1930s and the beginning of the 1940s. All the slum conditions in areas such as Paarl, Wellington, Worcester and Stellenbosch developed as a result of the influx of Blacks because of the labour requirements which arose in the Western Cape in the 1930s and 1940s, chiefly because of war conditions.

While you were still studying, there were very few of them.

That is correct, but they were already here in large numbers. That influx began 30 or 40 years ago, and according to the latest information furnished by the Department of Statistics for September 1983, there are no fewer than 377 000 Blacks in the Western Cape. These are the latest particulars with regard to the Western Cape. Of course, they include the rural areas of the Western Cape. It is very clear, therefore, that we are dealing with a considerable number of people here, and the hon the Minister will concede that it is our responsibility to keep those communities here in the Western Cape as happy as possible. There is absolutely no reason, in terms of that premise or principle, why the Blacks in the Western Cape should be dealt with on any other basis, or why the objectives that we wish to achieve with regard to the Blacks in the urban areas should be different in the Western Cape from our objectives elsewhere. I want to say, in all humility and honesty, that I cannot see how the granting of leasehold is at variance with the question of preference labour per se, which was actually the reason why the Government introduced its policy in this connection.

There was also a period—as I admitted yesterday—when the ideological considerations carried great weight. I think we have now come to the stage, in our handling of Black/White relations in South Africa, where we are guided by considerations of realism, of reality’s as the hon the Deputy Minister said yesterday, and no longer by mere considerations of an ideological nature, or whatever they may be. I want to address a serious appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister, in the light of the considerations mentioned by my hon colleague, that this right of leasehold should also be made available to the people in the Western Cape. As we understood it, this is the reason why this provision has been inserted into the Bill.

In addition, I want to say, arising from the proposed establishment of Khayelitsha and the intention of settling a large number of Blacks in that area, that it seems essential to me, specifically in the interests of orderly settlement and of the greatest possible degree of satisfaction in that community, to remove this restrictive provision. Whether the Government will indeed allow those people the right of leasehold in the Western Cape, that decision can be taken at a later stage, but do not let us spoil the matter in advance by having a fundamental right, as the hon member for Sea Point indicated, removed in this unsatisfactory way. It is a fundamental right, and I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to give careful consideration to the representations made in this connection by my colleague and myself.

Mr Chairman, as I indicated during the Second Reading debate, the NRP is also opposed to this provision. We shall support the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point as I did in the select committee. We shall be consistent and so again.

This provision is something which is a hangover from the era which the years have passed by. It was part of the old Eiselen line concept, the Verwoerdian concept which history has now passed by and which is no longer realistic. I think the time has come when we have to get rid of this flotsam and jetsam that we drag from an old era into a new one where it is totally irrelevant and has no place. This is something purely political. The only reason for putting it in here is political—to pretend that something has not changed when in fact the situation has changed entirely.

The people who are legal residents here in the Peninsula are legally here. Whether they are here leasing a house or whether they have leasehold is not going to change their right to be here; they will still be here whether they have leasehold or whether they are merely tenants. They will still be here legally with the authority of the law. Therefore it is not going to make one jot of difference to job competition with the Coloured people. This is just crazy thinking because if a person is here employed in a job, legally in a job, whether he is living in a house which belongs to him or he is living in a house which he rents legally, it does not change his competing for the job. If he is competing for the job, then he is doing so whether he lives in a compound, whether he rents a house or whether he has leasehold title.

What it does make a difference to is his stability, the stability of the township in which he lives, the general atmosphere which is changed by creating a class of people with something which belongs to them, something which they want to protect which makes them part of the side of law and order. It puts them on the side of law and order. When they hear agitators going around preaching revolution and anarchy, they know their property is going to be damaged if there are riots, if there are uprisings. They know their property will be burnt down if there are riots. They then find themselves on the side of law and order. It gives them roots, which they are entitled to anyway by way of their legal presence, and it affords South Africa additional stability. If you have half the Black population permanently and legally resident here in the Western Cape who own their property by leasehold, you have half of that population on your side against the agitator, the revolutionary and the inciter. This is what we have to look at and not at the Eiselen line Verwoerdian theory of 30 years ago, the theory of not competing with Coloureds for jobs. This is not a issue here. The issue here is whether you are going to have a stable society which is going to be on the side of law and order or whether you are going to have a shiftless and rootless society who are going to be on the side of the squatters and the rootless. That is why I am pleading with the hon the Deputy Minister and the Government, because they know that this has got to come. Why dillydally further? Let us accept reality. The arguments against it are nonsense. I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister is an intelligent man and that he knows the arguments that this is for the protection of Coloured jobs are nonsense. This is an attempt to hang on to the flotsam of an era that history has passed by. We will vote for the amendment to delete this provision and will go on pleading and urging that the Government realizes the importance of what is set out in clause 16 and in the preamble of this Bill, namely the establishment of a viable, stable and happy society and communities. A major part of creating that stable, settled and happy community is the right to own a piece of ground and the home in which you live. I hope that even if the whip cracks and it is rejected now as it probably will be and even if the Government does not want to admit to it now, that this debate will just add that little bit of pressure to make the Government realize that it has to come, that it has to come soon so that they will get on with it. We will vote for the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Chairman, the CP will not support the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point. I suppose that hon members will not be surprised by our refusal to do so. We are not ashamed to say that we still adhere to the old principle which was laid down by the founders of the NP.

I want to tell the hon member for Durban Point that I can understand that in terms of the principles of his party he has to support the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that it is very clear that there is a difference of opinion within the NP ranks about this amendment.

Just see what happens when we vote on it.

The hon the Minister really should listen. His problem in life is that he has done too much talking and not enough listening. That is why he finds himself where he does today.

That is why he is a Minister and you are sitting over there.

Mr Chairman, if the hon Whip has stopped making that thunderous noise, I should like to make my point. The hon member for Bellville made it quite clear during the Second Reading debate that he agreed with the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for Durban Point. It is clear to me, therefore, that there is a difference of opinion on this matter within the ranks of the NP. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister, when he rises, to tell us quite clearly what the standpoint of the Government is on this matter, to indicate quite clearly to us why it is the Government’s standpoint, and also to tell us quite clearly why he does not support the standpoint of the hon member for Bellville.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik said that the fully agreed with the National Party because the National Party still adhered to the fundamental principles of the party. I should like to express my appreciation for that, because this is in fact the case. It is an admission which he has made and I want to convey my appreciation to him for that statement.

When I look at clause 2(2)(a), however, I do not find in it any reference to the Western Cape. Therefore I cannot understand why we have had to listen to a tirade in this House about a policy which is not referred to in the Bill. The Bill does not refer to it at all. All that is said in the Bill, and this testifies to the good sense and foresight of the National Party, is that we are providing in practice for certain cases which may arise. I want to refer to one example. It is possible, after all, that there may be land which may have to be incorporated into the national states sooner or later. Surely it would be pointless to allow leasehold in such areas. When special arrangements have to be made or special planning has to be done with regard to an area of land, therefore, it is necessary that the State President should have the right under certain circumstances to say that he is not going to allow leasehold in those areas. There is nothing sinister about this. There is no question here of any malicious intentions towards Blacks or anyone else. It is simply a question of facing up to the reality of South Africa in this measure. That is the reason for the legislation, and that is why the amendment that has been moved is completely incomprehensible. It is impractical, incapable of implementation and illogical. Therefore I want to repeat that no policy is being laid down here with regard to the Western Cape. However, there are cases where it is absolutely necessary to exclude the right of leasehold, and for that reason I am afraid that we shall not be able to support the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I expected that the debate would be conducted on the implementation of leasehold in the Western Cape. I want to make it quite clear that it is a fundamental standpoint of the National Party that leasehold will not be implemented in the Western Cape. The highest authority of the National Party in the Cape Province is its congress, and this congress has repeatedly and specifically resolved that leasehold will not be applicable in the Western Cape. That is something we cannot get round.

However, I want to remind the hon member of the fact that these are also the arguments which he and the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Durban Point advanced during the deliberations of the select committee. According to the report of the select committee, they also voted for an identical amendment. Only the three of them voted for it, all the other members of the committee were against it. The hon member may doubt my intelligence, but I do not think he can doubt the intelligence of the hon members who voted against it. It has been submitted here that as an intelligent person, I should support the amendment. However, I regret that I am unable to do so, since we are concerned here with an established principle.

The hon member for Rissik, while expressing his support for our standpoint, also tried to have a dig at us. He tried to play the hon member for Bellville off against the rest of the party and specifically against me. I want to give him some good advice. There is a healthy exchange of opinions within this party which gives it the dynamism which is inherent in this party. That is why this party is represented in this House in these numbers and why it still occupies the Government benches. It is because it allows healthy dialogue. In 1982, however, there were people who could not tolerate healthy dialogue, and who then walked out.

We were kicked out before we could talk.

I ask those hon members not to use this kind of tactic, therefore, because it will not get them anywhere. I am afraid that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, I am shocked that the best motivation the hon the Deputy Minister can give for not including an entirely sensible amendment is that it is in conflict with an old principle of the National Party. Yet in this morning’s newspaper we read that the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs called a special meeting of foreign newspapermen to whom he said “apartheid is dead”.

As it is interpreted.

Well, the interpretation is that, if a principle of the National Party says apartheid is alive, then apartheid is alive. I want to say that what the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation did today has completely cut the ground from underneath the statement made by the hon the Deputy Minister yesterday.

I said that your perception of apartheid is dead; and it will remain dead.

The perception is that the National Party takes certain decisions on the basis of an ideological principle. That is what the hon the Deputy Minister said. That ideological principle is apartheid. If in fact they have taken their decision on that principle then apartheid is the determining factor and not the welfare and the interests of the people of South Africa.

The only other interesting thing is that the hon the Deputy Minister completely contradicted the hon member for Pretoria West who is the chairman of the Black Affairs Commission. That hon member said this has nothing to do with the Western Cape but it is introduced for purely pragmatic reasons in that one day there may be an area contiguous upon a national state which is going to be incorporated. I would have thought that the Western Cape would be the last area to be incorporated in a Black national state.

At least the hon the Deputy Minister gave us a frank answer, although I think it was a disgraceful one. It was that the ideology of the National Party comes first and not the welfare of either the Blacks or the people of South Africa as a whole. What he said was: Certainly in this respect apartheid is still just as alive as it ever was in South Africa. I regret that the hon the Deputy Minister has elevated what I believe to be a very practical issue to a matter of fundamental ideology.

I am also disappointed in the hon the Minister of Community Development. He is very pragmatic in a number of fields, but suddenly when it comes to “Swartes in Wes-Kaapland” he is as old-fashioned on apartheid as anybody in South Africa ever was. This breed of people must disappear from the South African political scene.

This whole thing is nonsense. In spite of what the hon the Deputy Minister says, by sleight of hand they are in fact “verneuk”-ing their own supporters by giving the Blacks some form of leasehold in the Western Cape. He knows what they are doing. They form a public utility housing company like Uluntu and they will lease the land to it, knowing that it will be allowed to lease the land to the Blacks. The practical effect is that they will have a 30-year lease. That is in fact what is happening. Whom is he trying to bluff? What he knows, however, is that he is preventing the private sector from coming in and playing its full role in township development. It is not only the Blacks who are going to be denied this, but, in terms of clause 52(2) township developers are going to be cut out. No township developer will be able to get leasehold in order to do something positive for Blacks in this area. The practical effect of this nonsensical, ideological hangup from the past is, therefore, that 377 000 in the Western Cape are going to be deprived of the ordinary, elementary rights of formal home-ownership; they are going to be denied a form of stability, and the housing program for the Western Cape is going to go further and further back until one day it is going to result in a socio-economic explosion in this part of the world.

I am absolutely shocked. The hon the Deputy Minister did not come with practical arguments why at the moment it is not quite desirable, but at this time, in 1984, when another hon Minister says “apartheid is dead” to the outside world, that hon Deputy Minister says “we are proud that in this particular field the National Party principle of apartheid stands”.

We will with all the energy we have oppose this provision in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I have nothing to add to the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Sea Point, except to say that I was somewhat shocked at the hon member for Pretoria West. He knows that the primary motivation that was given for this provision relates to the position of Blacks in the Western Cape. We cannot conduct a debate in this way. We cannot argue that the letter of the law does not provide for the Western Cape, while knowing that this provision is concerned primarily with the Western Cape. We cannot conduct a meaningful debate in this House if we try to evade discussion by means of technicalities such as these. I want to ask the hon member in all sincerity that we should consider the essence of the matter rather than mere technicalities.

Secondly, I want to say that I actually feel very sorry for the hon the Deputy Minister. I am not suggesting that he should be disloyal to his party, but I have a feeling that he knows, because he is the responsible person, that we cannot continue with the implementation of this policy in the Western Cape. Our problem does not lie with the hon the Deputy Minister—he comes from the Eastern Cape—but primarily with the hon the Minister of Community Development and others from the Western Cape, who have repeatedly induced NP congresses to pass these resolutions. I do not blame the hon the Deputy Minister. The guilty ones are the hon the Minister of Community Development and a few other hon members from the Western Cape. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister, in his very important position, that he should not continue to place us in the situation in which the other hon Deputy Minister has been placed and should not proceed with a measure which cannot be described as anything but discriminatory. We cannot say that it is the policy of the Government to move away from blatant discrimination—even if it is qualified as unfair discrimination—on the basis of race and colour, for what discrimination could be more unfair than this kind of discrimination? I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that he has a very great responsibility in this connection—that we cannot go on saying that it is the policy of the Government to move away from that kind of discrimination and then state, the very first time it is put to the test, that this is what the party has resolved, that the decision is final and that nothing can be done about it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to take up one point with the hon the Deputy Minister, something which I find very curious in view of the new political dispensation which is at hand. I appreciate the hon the Deputy Minister’s very clear and unequivocal reply in respect of the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point. He took a very clear stand against the hon member for Bellville and the hon member for Pretoria West. However, the hon the Deputy Minister has made a very curious statement. He says that the NP congress of the Cape Province is the highest authority and that it has laid down the principle that leasehold should not be extended to the Western Cape. I want to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister which he does not have to answer now. How is it possible that under a system of consensus politics in which one’s party is the highest authority and lays down a principle, one has to try to achieve consensus with the other two groups, on the basis of that principle, under a new dispensation? I appreciate the standpoint which the hon the Minister has adopted, but he is going to be faced with very serious problems in future.

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

1. 1. On page 9, in line 52, to omit “after consultation with” and to substitute “with the consent of”.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to motivate my amendment briefly. We are dealing here with White land that, in this instance, is under the control of a White city council. Therefore I believe it is only right and essential that when White land is alienated in this way and cannot therefore be further used, it should at least be done with the consent of the government body in question.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment, for the simple reason that we should be creating an impossible situation here. When, for example, the Government or a development board needs land to establish a Black township which, as a rule, has to be established for people who work in a specific area, the Government would now—if this amendment were to be accepted—be dependent on the permission of a minor body. Surely this would simply create an untenable situation. This is something that cannot be tolerated.

It is possible that land may be urgently needed and that a city council which is not well-disposed to the Government’s policy may simply decide not to grant permission for the establishment of such a township. This would simply create an untenable situation. After all, in the nature of the matter, a development board has to be established with minimum limitations as far as its area of jurisdiction is concerned. Accordingly it ought not to be dependent on the permission of local authorities, for example divisional councils and so on, for the reasons I have just mentioned. What this amendment would also amount to would be that a principle laid down by the select committee was violated. I think the hon member for Rissik will agree with me that it is not a healthy state of affairs that matters approved in principle by the select committee should be amended once again in this House. I regard it as important that we should take careful and serious note of the attitudes adopted in select committees, specifically because in general, matters can be discussed in far greater depth there than in this House. I therefore regret that I am unable to accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister contended that the Government could not take cognizance of the attitude of a lesser body. However, it is not the Government that will be developing such an area for Black residential facilities. It is the development board, which is not a higher body than a city council. That is the first point.

The second point the hon the Deputy Minister made was that in the nature of the matter, those Black people would work in the area of that White authority. That is not correct either, because we know that where there is a group of White towns, as is the case on the Rand, the Black people do not necessarily live in the Black residential area provided by each specific town. In the third place, if the hon the Deputy Minister contends that the lesser body must yield to the superior, why consult at all with the local government body? “After consultation” means nothing. Time and again we have had court rulings to the effect that “after consultation” means virtually nothing. Therefore it is desirable that the local authority, which is in fact, according to the Government’s own policy of decentralization, in touch with public opinion in that area, should consent to the alienation of its own area, of land falling within its area, before a development board may proceed with it. Moreover to say that a select committee adopted a certain standpoint on principle and may subsequently change that standpoint on principle is something that we cannot agree with either. In the first place it is not a standpoint on principle; this is merely a point of detail in the legislation. Secondly, there are all kinds of other things that happened after the select committee sat. After the select committee sat, Act 110 of 1983 was passed and the Rhikhoto judgment was accepted. Many things have happened that have convinced us that the Government is on the road to integration. For that reason we shall do everything in our power to prevent this kind of thing. There is no point in advancing such an argument if it does not go to the heart of the CP’s argument.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan surprised me somewhat because he said that the provision “after consultation with the local government body concerned” in this clause, was meaningless. However, that is the basis of the audi alteram partem rule. It is a recognized legal principle and an exceptionally important legal principle that by way of consultation, one can hear what the other man’s standpoint is. Therefore I must honestly say that to me it was not quite logical for the hon member to refer so lightly to this matter as if it were meaningless. On the contrary, I think that this is a very important safety valve for a White local authority when its area of jurisdiction is to be placed under the jurisdiction of a development board. I think that the White local authorities do need this protection and it would be foolish for us to pretend that this protection they do have is meaningless, because that is not true. It would be a deception as far as those local authorities are concerned.

May I please ask a question?

Later, perhaps, if I have the time.

What also amazed me is this. Do you know what hon members of the CP are saying? They say there must be “local option”. They are now adopting the policy of the NRP. They are really taking over that policy. I am not surprised, however, because it is a well-known fact that the hon member for Rissik comes from that party. What is the policy of the NRP? They say they want local option. The people who live there must say what they want. This will mean that every individual local authority will have to ask: What do you want? Surely we know that not all local authorities pursue the same policy. What a confused mixture we would have if we permit every local authority to decide what it wished. However, that is what the hon member for Brakpan advocates and I cannot understand why the hon member for Brakpan cannot see this. Therefore I cannot understand why the amendment was moved.

The NP’s policy is very clear. We govern the country. The NP is in power and we are carrying out our policy, and that is why the provision reads as it does. That is why it is provided that the Minister can issue certain decisions, after consultation. With all due respect, we cannot permit a patchwork quilt to evolve in this country, in that the policy will vary from local authority to local authority. That would be the effect of the amendment which, in my opinion, is totally illogical and is in any event the policy of the NRP.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to what the hon member for Pretoria West had to say. Since he now wishes to link us to the so-called “local option” policy of the NRP, I want to say that he must not do what was done at the time of the referendum, when the whole world was told that we were the bedfellows of the PFP and that afterwards, when the blanket was lifted—

Order!

I specifically want to tell the hon member that this Bill takes us towards the new dispensation. It may be true that for a shorter or a longer period the governing party may still be in power for a time—up to and including the next election. The important point here is that it may indeed be true—I foresee this—that in many large parts of the country the control of a city council or a town council will be in the hands of people who subscribe to the standpoint that the CP subscribes to. That is why I am pointing out that we want to make specific provision that whereas one has in power in this country a Government which is prepared to share power and give away what used to belong to the Whites, we at least want to curtail what such a Government does in the only way we can, to prevent it from giving away too much White land during the period that it is still in power.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I do not wish to express an opinion on the speech by the hon member for Rissik, but I do just want to point out to him that the establishment of a development board area concerns more than just the making available or acquisition of land for the purposes of Black accommodation, because the Development Board is also obtaining other functions that it carries out with regard to the Black population. That is why it is called a Development Board. As regards the functions of a development board relating to the Blacks in an urban area, it is essential that development board areas should be declared. Therefore I cannot quite understand the hon member’s objection in this regard.

The hon members of the CP are constantly referring to standpoints previously adopted or laid down in legislation by the Government, and arguing that they want to stick to old standpoints and continue to uphold them. The relevant provision in the Bill does not differ in any way from the existing provision. In section 2(l)(b) of the existing Act we encounter a provision which corresponds, virtually verbatim, to the new one. It is provided that such an administration board area may include the area of jurisdiction of an urban local authority mentioned in such and such an article, but no such area or part of an area may be so included except after consultation with the urban local authority in question. Therefore I want to say to the hon member for Rissik that this Bill contains no new provision; this already appears in the existing Act.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan saw fit to criticize me for speaking about the Government when townships have to be developed for Black people, whereas in fact it is development boards that do this. To begin with, I think that that is merely splitting hairs, but secondly it is also very clear to me that he does not know exactly how a government works. The development board is an instrument of the State or of the Government. Such development that takes place, takes place in the closest co-operation with the Government of the day and with the development board. There is no question of the development board being able to carry on its own. It is provided in legislation that it must have the permission of the Minister. Therefore, when we say that the Government has to deal with the development, then that is perhaps not technically correct from a legal point of view, but it is at least correct in practice, because the development board is the instrument used by the Government to effect certain developments. I meant it in that sense. I repeat that we cannot allow any Government, and it does not matter what Government is in power, even in the unlikely event of the CP coming into power in the distant future, to do so. This would afford protection even to the CP, because there will be many people who would not agree with their policy. Therefore it is simply a question of the Government of the day having to see to it that it achieves its aims and objectives. It must take steps to achieve them. As the hon member for Pretoria West rightly remarked, the country has to be governed. This must not be done by subordinate bodies, but by the Government that was elected by the voters.

Amendment 1 negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to a matter I raised during the Second Reading debate, viz the attitude of the Government with regard to the implementation of this clause. This clause provides for the composition of the board. The board will be composed of seven members. A chairman and six other members. Five of those six members have to possess special expertise or knowledge of certain matters, whereas with regard to the sixth member, no mention is made of his having to be acquainted with any specific subject.

Our attitude to this clause will depend largely on the attitude of the Government with regard to the implementation of the clause. Since one is dealing here with the development of Black communities, those Black communities must be consulted in the decision-making process. What we should like from the hon the Deputy Minister is an exposition of the Government’s approach in this regard. The Government is requesting the permission of this Committee to establish a new development board. We should like to know what the attitude of the Government is with regard to the appointment of members to this board. In making appointments, is preference going to be given to the appointment of Black people to these boards? Does the Government intend appointing Blacks to these boards, or is it the opinion of the Government that the members of these boards will be Whites? To us this aspect is of cardinal importance. When we put this question to the hon the Deputy Minister in the course of the Second Reading debate, the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development was present. I do not know whether something was, perhaps, wrong with his tie, but at the time he seemed to give a nod, which gave me the impression that the Government did indeed intend to appoint Black people as members of development boards as far as possible. Therefore we should like to know what the attitude of the Government is with regard to the appointment of Black people to development boards.

Mr Chairman, legislation has been introduced in respect of various boards in this country in which no provision is made for those boards to be manned solely by Whites. This clause is contained almost verbatim in the Black Affairs Administration Act, Act No 45 of 1971, in which it is not provided that a board appointed in terms of that legislation should only be comprised of Whites. However, as matters have worked out thus far, Blacks have not been appointed to these boards. When one considers the qualifications of members as specified in this legislation, it is very clear that merit will count in this regard. I believe, too, that when a Black man can be found who complies with this requirement, his appointment to such a board will be duly considered on merit. This possibility cannot be excluded, but I cannot give hon members the undertaking that we shall appoint Blacks to these boards when they are first established. This will depend on whether there are Blacks who stand out in their areas as experts in the spheres laid down by statute.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr Chairman, clause 15 deals with the staff of the board and certain pension benefits they will retain and so on. Can the hon the Deputy Minister give the Committee a final answer on what exactly the future position will be of people who are at present in the employ of Administration Boards? I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that there is a feeling of great uncertainty among these officials because the reduction in size of these new development boards, and the staff of those boards, is going to ential that some of these officials will become redundant. We know that negotiations with these officials are in progress, but nevertheless there is tremendous uncertainty as to what their future will be in terms of the new dispensation in these development boards. This is an important matter, because those officials have done fantastic work over the years. The hon the Deputy Minister will agree with me that together with the police, they were the first contact point with the Black people in the Black residential areas. They are the people who know what goes on there and who pass the message on to the Government and the Administration Boards. They are valuable officials, and I think that it is in their interest that it be spelt out clearly what the Government envisages as far as their future is concerned.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Brakpan for the message of appreciation he conveyed in respect of the officials of the Administration Boards, because what he said was true. They are in the front line of contact. These people perform very valuable work. They have often been castigated, but in spite of this they performed the duties entrusted to them in a very loyal and conscientious way. We are aware that there is uncertainty among these people, too, and certainly not without reason. Indeed, a new dispensation is being created and in such circumstances one is concerned about one’s future.

However, I can give the hon member the assurance that both the Ministry and the department have great sympathy with these people. At present, as the hon member rightly remarked, we are negotiating with them concerning those things about which they are entitled to feel uncertain. I do not wish to anticipate the discussions at this point, nor would it be fair for me to make public at this juncture everything we are considering. The hon member may rest assured that the parties in question are co-operating very closely and that the department and ourselves are concerned to ensure that those people be relieved of their uncertainty. We know that they cannot do the work that is expected of them if their future is uncertain. The hon member may rest assured that we shall negotiate with these people at the right time and that we shall create a dispensation that will eliminate that uncertainty.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr Chairman, we have some problems with the practical application of clause 29. I am not going to move an amendment because it is a complicated clause with a lot of consequences and, if one starts tampering around a bit, one might get an even less perfect piece of legislation. I want to draw the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention to some matters of concern to us. That concern can be eliminated depending, once again, on what the Government does in future as regards the handing over of the rights of Administration Boards to local authorities.

Let me first of all point out that I am not talking about the housing or developmental functions of the boards. That is dealt with under Chapter IV of this particular Bill. I am dealing solely with the question of the local government functions of the boards. I am restricting it to that. I know the argument will be advanced: What about the other functions?

The position is that at the moment, if one started off de novo, one would have a development area and if there was no local authority in that development area the development board would have all the functions of the Administration Board and it would also have the functions of a local authority. It would have an omnibus function consisting of the functions of the Administration Board and of a local authority. As soon as a local authority was established, the development board would lose the local authority functions. They would be handed over to the local authority. However, it would still retain the functions of the Administration Board—not the developmental ones, but the governmental ones—and there is no doubt that if one has a local authority operating in an area together with a development board which still has the residual governmental functions of the Administration Board, a conflict could develop about where the real authority lay within that local authority area.

It is correct that in terms of the local authorities legislation passed last year it becomes possible for the Minister also to hand over functions of the Administration Board to the local authority. If it is the intention of the Minister to do this as rapidly as possible, then of course this duality of authority will disappear because the local authority will not only have local authority powers but it will also have handed over to it all the powers left over to Administration Boards. If, on the other hand, it is the policy of the Government to go very slowly on this with the accent of authority staying with Administration Boards—now the development boards—I believe a serious conflict could develop in the fields of credibility and of liaison. Also, doubt could develop as to the intentions of the Government in this regard.

While we have not been able to move an amendment which satisfactorily deals with a phasing-in stage and a phasing-out stage, we would like the hon the Minister to give us some indication of the Government’s intentions as regards the handing over of the residual powers of the Administration Boards to the new local authorities. A statement on this in the House will go some way towards quelling some of the doubts we have on the efficacy and suitability of this particular clause.

Mr Chairman, various bodies made representations on this clause, particularly in regard to the matters raised by the hon member for Sea Point. It was requested that we should make this clause more positive. We discussed this again in depth as recently as this morning with the law advisers of our department and the law advisers of the State together with representatives of the Urban Foundation. We are very sympathetic towards this approach which the hon member has just mentioned. However, I think it would be wrong at this stage—we have reached consensus on this—to accept an amendment. As I have said before in discussions on a previous clause, the select committee decided in its wisdom to approve of this clause. It was not debated there. That I admit.

*However, I gave the bodies concerned the undertaking—one which I repeat this afternoon—that after this measure had been put into operation, the set-up would constantly be watched by us. I want to give the assurance this afternoon that if deficiencies were to emerge we would ensure, by means of amendments or otherwise, that Black local authorities came into their own in all respects. We are truly very proud of these Black local authorities and hon members may rest assured that neither we as responsible Ministers nor the department will tolerate anything which will curtail or prejudice the powers of the Black local authorities. We are very jealous of the powers we have allocated to them. Hon members may rest assured that if there is anything in this legislation that infringes those powers, we shall rectify the matter as soon as possible in this House. I give hon members that assurance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34:

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

1. 1. On page 47, after line 35, to insert:
   1. (d) make any such land available, subject to such conditions as he may determine, for acquisition by Blacks in freehold ownership.

What we are dealing with here is the power which is acquired by the Minister when a Black local authority is established in a development board area. In terms of clause 34 it is clear that when this happens the development board is in fact deprived of its freehold ownership of the land. The freehold ownership of public places and so on is then transferred to the local authority and other freehold ownership is transferred to the State. The Minister then acquires controlling rights over the land.

What we are proposing with this amendment is that in exercising that controlling right the Minister should be empowered to make the land which belongs to the State available to Blacks, with full freehold ownership. In other words, this can be done in accordance with the Minister’s conditions. Consequently, what we are actually dealing with here is the possibility that the Minister may indeed grant full freehold ownership of land over which he has controlling rights to Blacks. This is the essence of the matter.

The select committee discussed this matter for quite a long time, and we were not really able to reach finality or unanimity on this point. As appears from the report of the select committee on this specific point, mention is made of the fact that the matter was referred to the Cabinet Committee on urban Blacks. The relevant paragraph, paragraph 2, in the report of the select committee reads:

The first question we should like to put to the hon the Deputy Minister is to what extent the Cabinet Committee gave attention to this issue, and to what extent the Cabinet Committee make progress in respect of this specific issue.

This still does not exempt this House from giving sober consideration to this matter. As we indicated on the select committee it is very clear that, as far as we are concerned, it is essential that provision should also be made for freehold ownership for Blacks in urban areas. I am making it clear in my amendment that it is a discretionary power which we wish to confer on the Minister here, and that formulation ought therefore to be more acceptable to the hon the Deputy Minister and the Government.

As I and other hon members on this side have repeatedly said, the primary aim with legislation of this nature is to create urban Black communities in which sources of friction will have been eliminated as much as possible. I can understand that in earlier years, when we still accepted the concept of the non-permanence of urban Black people as a point of departure, the argument could in fact have been advanced that we could not confer such rights on Black people—for example 99-year leasehold and freehold ownership—because that would mean the implicit recognition of the permanence of the Black urban population. But that argument no longer applies, because we have accepted that there is a permanent Black urban population.

They are not of necessity the same people.

I do not follow what the hon member means. If we now accept the fact that we are dealing with a permanent urban Black population, the obligation rests on us to eliminate all the unnecessary points of friction, those things which are unacceptable to the urban Black communities and which cause them to offer resistance. In other words, once we have accepted the concept of permanence, it is essential that we confer on the Black people all the rights which should flow from such acceptance, because we cannot on the one hand wish to move away from the old ideological view that the urban Black people have no permanence, and still, on the other hand, wish to cling to those things which were accepted at the time as essential components of that ideology. This we cannot do, because not only does it demonstrate a lack of logic, but also a lack of responsibility premises in respect of the way in which we should deal with the urban Black communities.

When freehold ownership in respect of 99-year leasehold used to be discussed, on members on the opposite side, and others as well, asked repeatedly: What are you talking about? Ninety-nine year leasehold is as good as freehold ownership because it provides the same measure of security, and so on. We have heard this argument time and again. If this argument is valid, if it is indeed true that there is no essential difference between 99-year leasehold and freehold ownership, surely it is utterly illogical to say that we are prepared to grant leasehold, but not freehold ownership. Surely that is entirely illogical, and on that basis all the arguments which were advanced in the past as to why freehold ownership cannot be conferred on Black people are no longer valid.

Another argument which is being advanced, and which used to be advanced in the past as well, is that if we confer freehold ownership on Black people, we are in that way also conferring on them the right to demand participation in the political system, in the political decision-making process.

In all honesty, Mr Chairman, I submit that freehold ownership, or the absence thereof, has nothing to do with the demands for participation in the political system. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. Whether a person has 99-year leasehold or whether he has freehold ownership, is surely not going to determine whether he demands to participate in the political decision-making processes.

It is the mere presence of people in the urban areas, their permanent presence there, their permanent membership of the population living in this state which confers on them—whoever they may be—the right to demand that they should not be excluded from the political decision-making process. It has nothing to do with whether they are owners of land or with whether they have 99-year leasehold or not.

Put in concrete terms, surely it is the case that not all the Whites who are not owners of land, that not all the Whites who are lessees of properties, are excluded from the political decision-making process merely because they are lessees. Surely we do not recognize the right to participate in the political decision-making process only in the case of those people who are owners of land. Surely that would be nonsensical. Consequently the argument which is advanced time and again that freehold ownership means that we are giving people the right to demand political participation has no validity at all. On that basis we cannot refuse to consider this matter again here.

In this respect I should like to quote what the Grosskopf Committee itself had to say about this matter.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

I also regret to say that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon member prof Olivier as it seeks to introduce a new and important principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

1. 2. On page 47, from line 1, to omit paragraph (a).

Copies of the notice given of my amendment were tabled and also presented to the representatives of the respective parties. It also corresponds to an amendment which we moved on the select committee. What it amounts to is that our standpoint is the same as the one we have continuously adopted, namely that it is undesirable for Black people to acquire freehold title in White areas to the land in those areas.

Provision is being made here for land to be transferred to a local authority. A local authority, as the Bill under discussion relates to it, is of course a Black local authority. Land which may be transferred in this way is, and I quote what clause 34(7)(a)(i) and (ii) lays down in this respect, as follows:

It was also in line with our attitude when the abovementioned Black Local Authorities Act was passed in this House last year, when a provision was inserted that freehold title to land could be granted to Black local authorities.

We are opposed to this in principle, and we even wish to allege in terms of the Local Government Ordinance No 17 of 1939, in the Transvaal, and also in terms of other similar ordinances of other provinces, land which is situated in public places cannot be transferred to a local authority in full freehold title. It is transferred to the local authority concerned in trust, to the benefit of the community which it serves. Consequently the local authority concerned cannot do what it likes with those public places. For example, it cannot lay out townships at will there. Here we have a provision, however, stating that public places may be transferred to a local authority, without any conditions, and what is more in freehold title.

When one therefore confers freehold title to a Black local authority the next step is of course that freehold title will be given to the Black people themselves. One is therefore relaxing one’s principle, as is happening here, and has been pointed out to the Government time and again.

I should also like to elaborate for a while on the argument put forward by the hon member Prof Olivier in respect of temporary and permanent inhabitants—the question of the permanence of Black inhabitants. Here in fact we have the inconsistency of the Government as far as this aspect is concerned. As far as certain areas of South Africa is concerned, the Black people are permanent inhabitants and are able to acquire leasehold rights which are more or less equivalent to freehold title. In other areas of South Africa, however, where the Blacks are present in the same way, they are temporary inhabitants and they cannot be granted those 99-year leasehold rights, nor can they become the owners of public places.

Our standpoint has consistently been and still is that it is not correct to give Blacks or Black local authorities freehold title to land in a White area.

What about leasehold rights?

We are opposed to leasehold rights as well. We decided the issue at our congresses that it was undesirable throughout the White area of South Africa that this type of permanence be given to Black people. The same rule applies of course to Whites in the national states. They cannot acquire freehold title to land in the national states and consequently the Black people cannot acquire freehold title in the White area, whether they are Black individuals, or local authorities. The policy of the Government in this connection is inconsistent, and that is why I moved my amendment.

Mr Chairman, this is the second point in regard to which this party has a major difference of opinion with the Government. Because you have ruled a previous amendment out of order, Sir, I shall speak to the clause.

We believe as does the official Opposition that the time has come for us to get away from the myth that leasehold title which is renewable every time there is a transfer and therefore is leasehold in perpetuity is politically different to freehold title. We believe that the time has come when freehold title should be available to Black persons in Black towns. However, we do accept the fact that there are certain benefits under the leasehold system and therefore we are not opposed to it per se. The leasehold system enables people to obtain a form of title to the land which is being developed in terms of Chapter IV and specifically in terms of clause 34. That land can be more easily acquired under leasehold title particularly in terms of the general plan that is referred to in clause 34(3)(b) which provides that leasehold can be granted without the necessary survey having been completed. Provision is also made that should there be differences in the plan it can be cancelled and people can be recompensed. Those safeguards are there. However, the fact remains that leasehold makes it possible for Black people to acquire an ownership right more easily.

The proposal that was included here was simply a permissive on. This is not the clause in terms of which a person would be granted leasehold title. However, this was the point at which the authority was sought by the amendment which has been declared to be out of order. That leaves in further clauses of the Bill only the leasehold. I do not want to argue the case—it has been debated very fully here—and I am not talking philosophically but I am talking from the practical point of view that while we accept leasehold as a method, as a modus vivendi which enables an easier acquisition of land, we believe that this measure was a measure in which the principle of freehold title should also have been introduced. Therefore, if there were no surveyed sites, if it was not possible practically, then the option of leasehold was there, but where it was possible to have freehold title, that should be provided for in this measure. I do not want to debate the ruling of the presiding officer, but this Bill makes provision for a form of title to land. I would have thought that whether that title were leasehold or freehold was not a principle but a method of owning land, but if the presiding officer rules that in fact the kind of title is the principle whereas I believe the principle is the obtaining of a right to land, then in fact the method is the principle, and I must abide by the ruling. What I am arguing is that I believe that the method we must move towards is that of freehold title. This party has always included that in its policy, and we stand for it. I want to place it on record that this is our approach. While we cannot now vote on this and we shall accept the Bill as it is, it remains our objective and we shall continue to plead for it.

Mr Chairman, further to the viewpoints stated by the hon member for Durban Point, may I take the liberty to address you on your ruling?

Yes, you may.

You said it was a new principle …

Order! You may address me. I indicated very clearly that it was a principle that was not contained in this Bill. Indeed, it was contrary to the principles of the Bill.

Sir, may I address you on that point?

You may address me.

Sir, I have a problem with your interpretation. I have respect for the Chair and I cannot, after all, argue with the Chair. You have all the authority; I have nothing.

In the first instance we had a full discussion of this issue on the select committee, within the framework of the Bill, and the chairman of the select committee did not rule that it fell outside the ambit of the Bill.

The second point I wish to submit for your consideration is that in so far as clause 34 provides that land may be transferred to a Black urban local authority in freehold ownership, we are dealing here with the concept of freehold ownership for Black people. This is not contrary to the principle of the Bill.

In the third place, with all due respect, as the hon member for Durban Point indicated, clause 34(9)(c) reads that all land within a local authority area which vests in the State, is subject to control by the Minister who—

and I come now to the specific points:

There is nothing in this clause which precludes the Minister from deciding, in his discretion, to allocate land to Black members of the Black communities in freehold ownership.

I respect your ruling, Sir, but I am stating these considerations in order to ask you whether you could not re-consider your ruling. After you have given your reply, I should like to put a second question.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon member Prof Olivier to the fact that this Bill was referred to a select committee prior to Second Reading, and that the select committee was therefore at liberty to discuss its principles as well. As far as the Black local authorities are concerned, it was stated very clearly on the select committee that what was being dealt with there was not individuals, but government institutions. Consequently the same approach does not apply there.

As far as subsection 9(c) is concerned, no provision is being made here for freehold. It is not a principle for which provision is being made in this Bill. I therefore adhere to my ruling.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I accept your ruling.

I have already stated my standpoint on the whole issue of freehold ownership. I therefore wish to conclude by referring to the recommendations of the Grosskopf Committee, because I think it is important that we take cognizance of them. This committee stated inter alia:

Order! This matter can be discussed again during the Third Reading debate. The matter was raised in the hon member’s amendment and it was then ruled that it was out of order. I cannot allow any further debate on this matter at this stage.

Mr Chairman, I accept your ruling.

Mr Chairman, the amendment of the hon member for Brakpan foresees a situation in which the Black local authority cannot have freehold ownership. It would be absurd for me to accept this amendment because this principle has already been accepted in the Black Local Authorities Act. I am aware that the CP was opposed to that provision, but surely they cannot now expect me to accept an amendment which would then be contrary to the provisions of another Act. Surely that is only logical.

I thought that by now you would have been aware of the inconsistency of the matter.

If we have now, according to the hon member, become aware of the so-called inconsistency, he could at least give us credit for having had this much sense, namely that we would then have come forward with an amendment to the other Act. In other words, we therefore do not think that we are being inconsistent. We are being consistent, and that is why we are inserting that provision in this measure as well.

This provision has no other purpose than merely to afford local authorities the maximum opportunity to perform their functions in terms of the powers granted to them by the Black Urban Authorities Act. When all is said and done, this purchase of land must take place with the consent of the Minister. It cannot simply be done at random and on the spur of the moment. Cases of this nature will be gone into thoroughly. The Minister retains his control over such transactions.

The standpoint which we are now adopting was confirmed by the select committee.

Amendment 2 negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 35:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. 1. On page 47, in line 40, after “persons” to insert:

The standpoint of the Conservative Party in this respect was debated during the Second Reading. We indicated that we did not agree that development for Black people in the White areas should be such that the preponderance of the development was in the White areas, for in that way the settlement of the Black people was only made more permanent while development within the national states themselves would be neglected. We prefer to see the development being such that in respect of the development of industries and so on, it will take place within, or if not within, then very close to, the national states.

Mr Chairman, I cannot accept this amendment either because it is at variance with a principle accepted by the select committee. I seem to recall that when this matter was raised on the select committee, the hon member of the Conservative Party present there agreed to it. The hon member has now told us that things happened afterwards which compelled him to adopt a different view. I find it strange, however, that the mover of this amendment, the hon member for Rissik, was not present at that meeting and that he did not avail himself of that opportunity to move his amendment. I just find it strange.

Were you a member of the select committee?

No.

Very well, then, you should not talk about things you know nothing about.

Let me now satisfy the hon member by referring to the report of the select committee. This Bill was dealt with on the select committee—Mr Chairman, you will have to be patient with me—on Tuesday, 24 May 1983. I see all the hon members’ names here, except that of the hon member for Rissik.

Are there not sometimes reasons why one cannot be present?

No wait, I am stating the facts because the hon member questioned them. I am not asking the hon member to offer an apology for that now; I think it is too late to do so now. The fact of the matter is, however, that the hon member was not present at that meeting. He need not become excited about it now and tell me that I do not know what I am talking about. I do know what I am talking about.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Oh please, Sir, that is the usual argument of the Conservative Party. As soon as they do not have a reply to what you are saying, then they suddenly do not know what you are talking about. The hon member has demonstrated this so many times that it is not even necessary to debate the matter any further.

It will simply have to be accepted that if a Black town is situated far from a national state, employment opportunities for the people in that Black residential area have to be provided because they cannot all be accommodated in the surrounding industries. Consequently we see nothing wrong with making provision for the needs of the Blacks in that residential area as well.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to give very serious consideration to this amendment. He did not reply in full detail to the argument advanced here yesterday by the hon member for Lichtenburg.

The argument is that when one makes a start with industrial development in the Black communities in White areas, the inevitable consequence is that industrial development in the national states and the independent states is going to suffer. What one would like is that the entrepreneurs in the Black communities in the White area should in fact decentralize in order to keep the people in the national states and in order to attract the people in the White area to the national states. When industrial development in the Black communities is promoted, it can only be to the detriment of industrial development in the national states, the Black states.

There has now been some discussion here of what people said on the select committee. I just wish to remind hon members that this is part of the legacy of Mr Fanie Botha, who in a provocative way challenged the hon member for Waterberg to a battle in the Bergs and who caused the work that had to be done in this House and on the select committee to suffer. This is part of the price which the people of South Africa had to pay owing to the fact that the Hon S P Botha issued that provocative challenge.

Mr Chairman, in view of the way in which the hon the Deputy Minister referred to my absence from the relevant meeting, I just want to tell him that owing to certain circumstances members of select committees are sometimes unable to attend all the meetings.

I am not disputing that.

Reference is frequently made to Die Patriot and so on, but I just want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister …

I did not mention it at all.

I just want to tell him that he is saddled with a Press which interprets events in this House and wrenches things completely out of context. That is why I think it is unfair of the hon the Deputy Minister to raise that argument of his. As my hon colleague said, the then Leader of the House acted in such way that, while we were members of the select committee, some of us—and at present there are not that many members on this side of the House, but our numbers will be increasing in due course—were unable to attend every meeting. That is why I want to say that the argument raised by the hon the Deputy Minister is not valid. I want to ask him please to reply now to our arguments in the Second Reading stage as well as to the amendment we have moved.

Mr Chairman, if I understood the hon member for Brakpan correctly, his reasoning was that it is not necessary or desirable for industrial and other economic development to take place, to the benefit of the Blacks, in White areas, ie in Black residential areas, because the economic utilization of Black people residing there may only take place in the Black states. I would politely like to ask the hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for Rissik to give a little attention to the White Paper on a Strategy for the Creation of Employment Opportunities in the Republic of South Africa which we received no more than a week ago. One need only page through this White Paper …

What clause are you discussing now?

We are discussing the matter of the establishment of industries in the Black residential areas in urban areas. One need only look at this report and the unemployment figures for the various places to see that there is large-scale unemployment among Blacks. The hon member for Rissik is being verbose. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that in the Johannesburg area there is an unemployment figure of 6,4% among Blacks. When one looks at the unemployment figure for other parts of the country, one sees that it is absolutely impossible to think one can get away from the necessity of assisting in the creation of job opportunities in our urban areas by way of industrial and other development in the Black residential areas. I therefore want to tell the hon member for Rissik that his standpoint on this clause is an absolutely racistic one. It is a standpoint which tells the Blacks, in the first place, that they do not belong there at all, even if they reside there on a permanent basis and, in the second place, that they do not also have the right to make use of their entrepreneurial talents.

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

No, Sir. I should therefore like to tell hon members of the CP that we cannot agree at all with their reasoning that this clause should be amended because it is wrong in principle for Black people to be able to trade in Black urban residential areas and to establish light industries there. I believe that if we want to destroy ourselves in South Africa, we should continue with this foolish view that Black people are only temporary residents in certain parts of our country. This is the view adopted by the CP. If we want to destroy ourselves, we should continue with the view that these Black residential areas should remain poor appendages of a rich South Africa. This cannot be true. I want to tell the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Brakpan that on the basis of my personal experience and on the basis of the experience of other hon members …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but we cannot debate the Second Reading all over again. The hon member is now discussing the principle again.

I merely felt that I should totally demolish the reasons for the amendment moved by the CP. I shall round off my argument by saying that with this sort of amendment we are playing with fire. In contrast with what the Government wants to tell the Black people in this Bill, they are saying in their amendment: Go for them! They are telling the Blacks in South Africa that they are inferior and do not have any rights, knowing full well that there are insufficient opportunities for them to develop in the Black states alone. That is why we on this side of the House can never ever content ourselves with the amendment moved by the hon member.

Mr Chairman, we have just listened to the left wing of the NP, strongly influenced by America, of which the hon member …

Order! May I ask the hon member where he sees that in the clause?

I just want to reply to a few unfair and unjust things the hon member said about the CP, inter alia that we are supposedly racists and that in this amendment we supposedly begrudge the Black people each and every single thing. He is projecting that kind of image to the people outside. The hon member did not follow the trend of the debate. I think he sounded a rather false note in the overall discussion we held here this afternoon. The hon member would do well to tell us whether he subscribes to the principle adopted by the hon the Deputy Minister with regard to Black people. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but I cannot allow any discussion of the principle now.

As far as the development of Black national states is concerned, it is our standpoint that it is better for development to take place within the national states, and in fact in such a way that Black people are not compelled to come to White areas in even greater numbers. That is, in fact, why we want these industrial areas to be situated where they can assist in the development of Black people within their national states. I want to tell the hon member for Innesdal—and I am not at all ashamed of this—that I consider a certain part of Southern Africa to be my White fatherland.

Which part?

That is a very good question. Those hon members no longer know which part it is. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, can the hon member for Rissik tell us whether he sees the Black people living in Soweto near Johannesburg, in Kagiso near Krugersdorp and in other Black residential areas in the PWV area as temporary residents who do not have the right to run businesses?

I shall gladly reply to the hon member’s question, but he must first reply to my question in connection with … [Interjections.] I asked the hon member a question which he did not want to reply to. I shall reply to the hon member’s question if he tells me why he views the Black people north of the so-called Eiselen line in a different light to those south of it.

Order! I have to point out to hon members that this clause relates to the establishment of towns and hostels. The hon member may therefore not discuss the principle of Black people north and south of a line now. He has to confine himself to the clause.

Mr Chairman, I was merely trying to give an amicable reply to a question the hon member put to me.

In conclusion I just want to say that we in the CP are not racists, but that we want the development of Black people to take place in such a way that they do not crowd us out of our own fatherland, so that we are eventually placed in the position where they make demands with regard to our territory and political structures which we cannot accept.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan accused me of not replying yesterday afternoon to questions put by the hon member for Lichtenburg in connection with industrial development and the establishment of industrial areas around our Black towns. I want to remind him, however, that I clearly spelt out the initiatives taken by the Government in connection with the development of eight development areas. These areas were grouped in such a way that maximum industrial development could take place in and around the national states. Is the hon member not aware of the fact that as a result of this scheme almost 1 000 industries have already been established in these developmental regions? It is therefore totally incorrect to profess here that the regional development strategy was devised by the CP. It is not the hon member for Lichtenburg who originated this idea, although he may have played a part in its introduction while he was still a member of the Cabinet and before he was led astray by his friends.

In any Black community, irrespective of whether such a community is situated in a national state or in the heart of White South Africa, a micro-economy develops in which smaller industries evolve. We cannot avoid this. As a matter of fact, we should encourage this because it creates employment opportunities for the people in those Black communities.

For the sake of good town planning, for the sake of hygiene and the orderly running of things in such a town it is, after all, desirable for an area to be set aside where the residents can practice some or other trade. It need not necessarily be a steel factory, and this is not what the legislation envisages either. All that is envisaged in this legislation is that areas may be set aside where the people can establish and run their industries and business undertakings. Hon members will agree with me that in most Black residential areas, for example, one comes across motor mechanics repairing motor vehicles in their backyards, and this is actually an undesirable situation. One would far rather see these people established in an industrial area where they can perform essential work for the residents of the relevant town. After all, it is useless and senseless to compel these people to do their motor repairs in the national states.

All that this clause is therefore doing is to authorize the development boards to set aside areas where the people may operate their tertiary industries. After all, the micro-economy already exists there. We have to take cognizance of realities and make provision for them. This is all the clause envisages and I therefore cannot accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to draw the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister to a place where he can establish these envisaged industrial areas very quickly indeed, ie in the Edendale area, outside Pietermaritzburg. This area borders on the municipal area of Pietermaritzburg. There is a great need for industrial premises in that area, and I believe that the hon the Deputy Minister, in fact, do well to instruct his officials in Edendale—which is situated in a national state, and borders on the municipal area of Pietermaritzburg—to apply the policy, which he envisages in this clause, in that area.

Amendment 1 negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 40:

Mr Chairman, clause 40 is, I believe an unfortunate clause. It is interesting to note how the Government has begun to adopt a pragmatic approach in many areas in South Africa. This Bill is an example of the increasing realization on the part of the Government that South Africa cannot be governed by ideology.

Every now and again, however, we come across a clause in a Bill which still exhibits the ideological fetters in which the Government is chained.

There is an amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Green Point, which I will be moving shortly.

This clause seeks to enforce separation in South Africa, and if one goes through our Statute Book in order to see how many Acts we need in order to enforce separation in this country one understands why apartheid is such an obnoxious doctrine in the eyes of the world. The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs indeed endeavours to persuade foreign correspondents that apartheid is dead but nothing highlights better than this very clause the difference between groups founded on voluntary association and groups forced to become groups, often against their will, by this Government. It is this kind of clause which makes South Africa the polecat of the world. It is this kind of clause which ensures our isolation in international sport. It is this kind of clause which proves to us that apartheid is alive and well in South Africa. Not only is it an objectionable, racist piece of legislation; it is also an undemocratic clause, which smacks of authoritarianism of the worst kind.

In clause 40(4)(a)(iii) we find the curious right to demolish and to remove all buildings and structures which may have been erected without the person in possession thereof being allowed any right of appeal. There is also a unilateral decision by the Minister—I am referring now to clause 40(5)—in respect of the kind of compensation, if any, that may be paid. I believe this is the kind of clause which is a blot on what is really in other respects a very positive piece of legislation.

What will the practical effects of this clause be? There are of course in South Africa many so-called Coloured people who reside in Black areas. One should only think particularly of the Karoo, which the hon the Deputy Minister should know better than I do, to realize that on many of the farms in the Karoo and in many of the townships adjacent to Karoo villages it is sometimes quite difficult to distinguish the boundaries between Coloured and Black residential areas. There are many Coloured people who live happily in well adjusted communities, many of which are mixed. Here, however, we have the hon the Minister after consultation with the hon the Minister of Community Development having the right to force Coloured people out of a Black town. How much better would it not have been if there had been a voluntary choice and if these people had been approached and told that decent accommodation had been found for them and asked if they would not like to leave, but no. The hon the Deputy Minister wishes to arrogate to himself this right.

I believe that it is in the interest of South Africa and in the interest of opposition to racialism to support the proposed amendments to this clause printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Green Point which I now wish to move, as follows;

1. 1. On page 55, from line 2, to omit “subsections (2), (3) and (4)” and to substitute “subsection (2)”.
2. 2. On page 55, from line 16, to omit subsection (3).
3. 3. On page 55, from line 26, to omit subsection (4).

Mr Chairman, I just wish to put a few questions to the hon the Deputy Minister because I was unable to gain clarity in this regard from the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech introducing the Second Reading or his reply to the Second Reading debate.

In the first instance I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he can give the Committee an indication of the number of people or families who will be affected by this clause. I want to ask whether a survey has been carried out of the number of people involved. My second question to the hon the Deputy Minister concerns people who are indeed living there and who elect to stay there. Will they be permitted to stay there?

The third question I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister is whether, if marriages take place between Brown men and Black women or vice versa, it is the standpoint of the hon the Deputy Minister that they may in fact stay there or whether the whole family as such would have to move to a Brown town.

Mr Chairman, the NRP supports the amendment moved by the official Opposition as we did on the select committee. Obviously, we are completely in favour of Coloured people legally resident there having the right to remain in that township. We believe that if they are to be moved it should not be at the decision of the department or the board. This should take place either of their own volition if there is suitable alternative accommodation and they wish to move or, if there is conflict with the local residents, at the request of the local authority. It should not therefore be arbitrary. We would prefer only to have the provision that they remain there and that any removal has to be voluntary. For this reason we shall support the amendment to omit the two subsections although we accept the clause as a whole because we believe that it does make provision for a specific right on the part of the Coloureds to remain. If we were to oppose the whole clause we would have to oppose that provision as well. We believe, however, that the right to remain is overriding and therefore we must support it but we would rather see it without the two alternatives.

I shall not move the amendment which I moved on the select committee to the effect that a removal should only be at the request of the Black local authority. That amendment was in fact withdrawn after debate. I shall, therefore, on behalf of the NRP, support the amendment and vote for the clause.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to the questions put to me by the hon members for Durban Point and Rissik.

I can only say that if this amendment is accepted, it will imply that we shall not have the right to remove Brown people from Black residential areas. The existing position is that as soon as facilities are created for the Brown people, it is usually unnecessary for us to remove those people from those residential areas forcibly. Hon members will be amazed how many representations we receive from Brown people who are compelled to reside in the Black residential areas, to establish a residential area from themselves. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to towns in the Karoo where it is difficult to see which is Coloured area and which is Black area. This is a somewhat exaggerated statement because in the majority of such instances the numbers concerned are small. Indeed, the hon member for Rissik asked me about the extent of this. No survey has been carried out and I am unfortunately not in the possession of figures enabling me to tell him how many people are involved in that regard, but in the majority of such instances small Coloured communities are involved, and because one cannot establish an economically viable town for them, they are granted a concession to live in the Black residential areas. The hon the Minister of Community Development receives several representations from these people in which they ask us please to create a separate residential area for them. To accuse us of racism, as the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North did, with his absolutely exaggerated choice of adjectives to describe this clause, is absolutely meaningless, and I reject his accusation with contempt.

I cannot say how many people are involved, but the question of marriages is regulated in terms of the legislation on population registration. At the moment I am not aware of what the exact position is, but I think that when a Coloured marries a Black woman, the woman can claim classification as a Coloured, but not the other way around; that is to say, if a Black man marries a Coloured woman. I believe that that is the correct position, but I speak under correction.

Nevertheless the position is that we attempt to establish these people in an orderly fashion, and with their co-operation, in their own residential areas, as far as possible. Moreover, in many instances we succeed in doing so, but we have to make provision for conditions that mean that we are unable to establish an economically viable residential area for these people. Unfortunately I am unable to accept this amendment moved by the hon member either.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that the hon the Deputy Minister is unable to accept this amendment. He mentioned two considerations which in my opinion are in fact decisive. He says that the people move of their own accord. I believe that if proper alternative accommodation is available, those people who do not feel at home in the Black community will move of their own accord. Therefore it is unnecessary for us to use the proverbial sledge-hammer to achieve something that could be left to the natural evolutionary process. I think that in fact the hon the Deputy Minister conceded this by his own statements.

The second point I want to refer to is that if we really believe, as we sometimes intimate, that ethnicity is such a predominant factor in our society, so that people want to be together on the basis of ethnic considerations, and be with those people who belong to their own ethnic group, and if that argument indeed has any validity, then it is unnecessary for us to use force to move the people.

In the third place, as the hon the Deputy Minister himself indicated in his interpretation of the legislation on population registration, there is the sober fact that in many instances in the rural areas—we are all aware of this—a situation is in fact created, due to coexistence and intermarriage in many instances, where, in fact no conflict exists due to the presence of that type of Coloured in the Black residential area. He may be married to a Black woman and he, his wife and children may have been accepted in the society. There is no friction at all that might make it essential that he should be removed from there. On the basis of this consideration it seems to me as if the hon the Deputy Minister should reconsider this matter. If at a later stage it becomes evident that major problems do in fact arise—I cannot see it happening—then the hon the Deputy Minister can come back to this House and say that he did his best to attract people to go where he wanted them to go by means of positive measures. If that happened, we should understand his position. As the provision reads at present, it is a continuation of the old provision of the 1923 Act which was subsequently included in the legislation of 1945 as well. I think that we could well remove the provision at this stage due to its implications and the impression created by its existence in legislation.

I should like to refer the hon the Deputy Minister to an inconsistency in the clause. I did not move an amendment in this regard, but I do want to put it to the hon the Deputy Minister so that he can give the matter consideration at some stage. The removal of persons in terms of the clause can only take place after the Minister is satisfied that there is adequate and suitable accommodation or land in the area outside the Black town together with the necessary water, sanitary and other services available for Coloureds residing in that town. In other words, the hon the Minister may only remove people if he is satisfied that somewhere outside that town, adequate alternative facilities are available. However, subsection 4(b) now provides:

How is one to understand this? The Minister can issue the order once he is satisfied that there is suitable alternative housing available. The person is then moved, but after that the commissioner in whose area such a place is situated may stipulate that it is not a suitable place for the person. Such a person can then be transferred again. I contend that one cannot reconcile the provisions in subsection (4)(b) with those in subsection (4)(a). To me this seems unnecessary and it creates the impression that people can be moved from place to place at will, despite the fact that the Minister had first to satisfy himself that suitable housing was indeed available at a specific place. To me, therefore, this appears to be an unnecessary provision and one that creates a very poor impression.

Mr Chairman, I undertake to go into the specific matter that the hon member referred to. If necessary we can effect an amendment in this regard at a later stage. However, to suggest that we should not maintain the status quo until we have determined that a need exists to change it, is something I cannot accede to. The fact is that we are already receiving requests, not only from specific Coloured communities, but also from Black community councils, that we should remove Coloureds from their residential areas. This matter is often a two-edged sword. It is not only Coloureds who want their own residential areas, often it is the Black people who do not want them in their residential areas. We must at least have the power to do this in cases where we receive such a request, where it is justified and where we can comply with all the other requirements.

I omitted to refer to this, but the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made a tremendous song and dance about subsection (4)(a)(iii). The paragraph reads as follows:

However, the hon member will agree with me that in most instances they are shacks and slum areas. We should be very unwise to leave those shacks and slum areas there, because that would merely afford squatters the opportunity to move in. Therefore it is not such a terrible sledge-hammer we are going to use here; it is done merely for practical reasons. I hope that answers the hon members’s question.

As far as the hon member Prof Olivier is concerned, I shall go into the matter he raised, as I have already mentioned, and will effect the necessary amendment at a later stage if there is justification for doing so.

Amendment 1 negatived and amendments 2 and 3 dropped (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 51:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. 1. On page 67, in line 11, after “law” to insert:

From our point of view, it is possible that such a situation could be created. Moreover, there is a deficiency in the clause with regard to the links that individuals of the ethnic group of a specific state have with one another. This may be one way in which the umbilical cord between the two communities may be preserved.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment as moved by the hon member for Rissik as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 52:

Mr Chairman, we now come to the important Chapter VI which deals with leasehold property. One welcomes the 99 year lease which is entrenched in this Bill. One also welcomes the fact that when the first period of 99 years expires, a second period of 99 years follows.

We also welcome the acceptance of the fact that non-Blacks can obtain property for development by leasehold. We hope and trust that non-Blacks who have the finances, will take the opportunity to acquire land in this way and to provide the necessary homes, offices and businesses for the good of the Black people living in that area.

This clause also deals with leasehold rights in so far as it affects Black individuals. Clause 52(2) deals with those people who are entitled to acquire leasehold property in terms of 10(1)(a) and 10(1)(b) qualifications. Clause 52(2)(b) refers to the wife or partner in a customary union of a person contemplated in paragraph (a) upon the decease of such person. In this regard we want to urge the hon the Deputy Minister to accept the amendment which is printed on the Order Paper in the name of my colleague, the hon member for Houghton, which I now move, as follows:

1. 1. On page 69, in line 33, after “wife” to insert “, reputed wife”.

I think it is accepted by all of us that a “reputed wife” has the same status as a wife as well as the same qualifications and shows the same devotion as a wife.

I also want to move as a further amendment:

1. 2. On page 69, in line 37, after “(a)” to insert:

In other words, the inheritance should not stop with the first descendant, but it should go on in perpetuity to the descendant of the descendant. The descendants will therefore throughout be able to acquire the property in this particular way.

Then we come to the question of the inheritance. That should not be the only way in which the property can devolve upon other people. The situation can arise that the husband and wife get divorced. In terms of the court order authorizing the settlement before the court the property could be awarded to the wife. This happens on numerous occasions. Anybody with any experience of the central divorce court where Blacks do get divorced will know that invariably the ownership and occupation of the property previously occupied by the couple become a central issue in the case itself. Therefore in these cases the court orders who gets occupation or it is done by a settlement. Therefore I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 3. On page 69, in line 35, after “person” to insert:

In other words, in the case of a proper marriage and a proper divorce, the wife can acquire the property. The husband may have deserted her and left her with a lot of children whom she must bring up and provide for. She must therefore have a home for them. Therefore it will be awarded to her. The same thing happens in respect of a customary union as well. We recognize a customary union and therefore we have accepted the status of a woman in such circumstances. We therefore aim to make it possible for the people I have mentioned to obtain the property under these circumstances.

This whole clause deals, as I have said, with the question of leasehold property. I want to move as further amendments:

1. 9. On page 67, in line 56, after “LEASEHOLD” to insert “AND FREEHOLD”.
2. 10. On page 69, in line 28, after “Leasehold” to insert “or freehold”.
3. 11. On page 69, in line 52, after “Leasehold” to insert “or freehold”.
4. 12. On page 69, in line 64, after “Leasehold” to insert “or freehold”.
5. 13. On page 71, in line 38, after “leasehold” to insert “or freehold”.
6. 14. On page 71, in line 40, after “leasehold” to insert “or freehold”.
7. 15. On page 71, in line 43, after “leasehold” to insert “or freehold”.

Your colleague, Sir, who was in the Chair a little while ago when we were dealing with clause 34 ruled that an amendment moved by my hon colleague the hon member prof Olivier was out of order. The reason he advanced for it being out of order was that that clause dealt with the acquisition of land by a local authority. We are dealing here, as one sees in subsection (2), with the acquisition of land by a Black person. I want to submit to you, Sir, that we are dealing with the acquisition of land either by leasehold or, as is recognized in law, by freehold as well.

I want to point out that in law any lease of 10 years’ duration is recognized as a long lease and must be registered in the deeds office as a long lease. It is in law a real right. A freehold title is similar. It can be registered in a deeds office and it is a real right. The acquisition of land by transfer is already acknowledged in clause 34 in terms of which a local authority can acquire land by transfer and have freehold title. The principle has therefore been accepted that a real right can be given to a Black person to acquire land. The real right mentioned in this particular clause is in respect of a 99-year lease which can be registered against a title deed in a deeds office and against which even a mortgage bond can be registered. Freehold title is exactly the same because it is a real right, it can be registered in a deeds office and a mortgage bond can be registered against it. Therefore, in law, to that extent there is no difference between a leasehold and a freehold.

Why then the big complaint?

Well, our point is: Why then not include freehold title since that is recognized in our law? Freehold title connotes freehold. The word “freehold” has a tremendous impact on and meaning for people. In terms of the Preamble of the Bill before us we are doing something positive and purposeful for Blacks and for their upliftment. Therefore I would say that there should be no problem if the words “or freehold” are inserted.

I remember very well what happened many years ago at the time of the expropriation of Alexandra township. The board was undertaking development at that stage. A Black man came into my office and told me that they wished to expropriate his land. I told him that they were entitled to expropriate his land because there was a law which permitted that. He had his title deed in his hand and he clutched it to his chest and said: “This is my land, this is my title deed, it is my freehold”. That illustrates to the Committee the meaning of freehold title and what it means to the people concerned. Perhaps some hon members might have seen the television programme last night where leaders of Soweto and other Black leaders were interviewed. There too it was clear that freehold title has meaning for them. It connotes a degree of permanence. It also connotes an acceptance. If one wishes to establish goodwill, if one wishes to establish a decent and peaceful community among Black people, then I think the Government should give in and accept my amendment to insert “and freehold”. It has the same connotation.

Order! I accept and put amendments Nos 1 and 2 moved by the hon member for Hillbrow and printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Houghton. I also accept and put amendment No 3 moved by the hon member for Hillbrow as printed in his name on the Order Paper. I regret, however, that I am unable to accept amendments 9 to 15 moved by the hon member for Hillbrow as they seek to introduce a new and important principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that point? I would say in this Bill the principle of the acquisition of land by Black people has been accepted. The principle accepted in this Bill is that of leasehold. Sir, if it were a lease for under 10 years, which is not a real right in our law, I would agree with you and I would not even stand up to argue against it. However, I submit that a lease in excess of 10 years, in this case 99 years, is a real right registerable in a deeds office. That has the same meaning in law as freehold title. Therefore the principle of the acquisition of land by a Black person on leasehold for 99 years is exactly the same principle as acquisition by a Black person of freehold title. One gets a deed of lease and a deed of transfer. They are exactly the same. With great respect, there is no difference in principle.

Mr Chairman, may I also address you on that point? There is a huge difference in the quality of the rights. Several real rights are registerable in a Deeds Office but the quality of the right differs from case to case. For instance, one could have a servitude of usufruct, one could have a leasehold, one could have servitudes, one could have freehold etc. All these things are real rights because they are registerable as such. However, there is a huge difference in the quality and substance these rights give to a person holding them. Therefore I disagree with the hon member. I submit there is a huge difference between the quality of rights of a leasehold, a usufruct, and freehold.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member tell me whether there is a difference between leasehold and freehold as far as occupational rights are concerned.

Mr Chairman, in my circumstances I should have liked to ask Dr Connie Mulder what exactly the difference was as he would have seen it. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member for Langlaagte should ask Dr Connie Mulder, but if he does not know, I shall try to furnish an answer. There is no difference as regards the occupational rights of a person renting a house on a day to day basis. Whether one has a contract for a month or for 20 years, one’s occupation is confirmed in terms of the provisions of that contract. In other words, it does not matter. There can be various rights, for example leasehold, freehold or an ordinary leasing contract, but the quality of one’s occupational rights is exactly the same because in all these circumstances one is protected in law. That is the answer which I wanted to give the hon member.

Therefore, with great respect, my submission is that the hon member for Hillbrow is completely out of order. There is no qualitative comparison between leasehold and freehold.

Mr Chairman, may I address you briefly on the same point? Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the Chair is applying completely neutral, abstract, objective tests to the word “freehold”. In the context of South African politics, the word “freehold” has developed a certain emotional connotation. This is what it is really about; in English it is called a vibe word. Are we going to allow this new vibe word to be debated? When one looks at the substance, one finds that this Bill makes provision for property rights; an individual can acquire property rights. Secondly, it allows one to have these property rights registered in a deeds office. Thirdly, it allows one not only to continue to have those rights for 99 years, which for any individual is a long time, but it allows an automatic transfer of the property rights to the next person entitled to receive them; in other words, it is a leasehold in perpetuity. Now in my view it is difficult to argue that a leasehold in perpetuity is substantially different in principle from freehold. Our argument is supported by the hon member for Pretoria-West, because he says there is a qualitative difference. I accept that there is a qualitative difference, but if there is a difference in quality then there is not a difference in principle. That is the point—there is a difference in quality but there is not a difference in principle. The substance is that this Bill makes provision for registerable property rights that one can hold and can transfer in perpetuity. All I want to suggest is that we in this House, led and guided by its presiding officers, should be careful that the emotional symbolism of the word “freehold” is not interpreted as a principle which is in conflict with the principle contained in this Bill.

Order! I have listened carefully to the arguments of all hon members and I want to thank them for their contributions. I should not like to become involved in a debate on the ideology of what constitutes leasehold, quitrent-tenure and the other concepts to which hon members referred. In my opinion it is a fact that this Bill provides for leasehold and not for the concept of freehold which the hon member for Hillbrow has now proposed. If we were to accept his amendment, therefore, I believe it would certainly be an extension of the principle already adopted in this Bill. Furthermore, my colleague has already given a ruling in respect of clause 34 which deals, basically, with precisely the same principle and where the proposed amendment was considered an extension of the principle in this Bill. Consequently I want to point out to hon members that my ruling in this regard is final. The amendment is therefore out of order and I am unfortunately unable to accept it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Hillbrow may not speak on this clause again tomorrow. He has already discussed it four times.

The hon Leader of the House can leave that to the Chairman’s book.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.