I should like to make the following announcement concerning the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into Secret Organizations:

The Government has decided to appoint Judge of Appeal D. H. Botha of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa as a one-man Judicial Commission of Inquiry into harmful secret activities of secret and other organizations. Judge of Appeal Botha joined the Public Service in 1927 and was promoted to Senior Law Adviser in 1953, after which he became a Judge in 1956 in the Orange Free State Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, and in 1958 Judge-President of the same Division. Since 1961 he has been Judge in the Appellate Division. In consequence of his career, Judge of Appeal Botha has never participated in politics, does not belong and has never belonged to any secret organization, and is judicially on the highest level. He is therefore regarded as eminently suitable for the impartial inquiry which has been requested.

The terms of reference will be as follows:

in respect of anything which renders such an organization guilty of:

1. (a) any form of treason or intrigue, or of attempts to obtain for itself domination of, or of harmful or unlawful influencing of, or of subversive activities against, the people or the State or any of its organs such as the Central Government, the provincial authorities or the administration of justice;
2. (b) anything which may weaken the determination and will of the people of South Africa to fight for their survival;
3. (c) the acquisition of funds from hostile sources, or the use of its own funds, for the financing of subversive action against the authority of the State or of threats to the security, peace and order of the population, or for the overthrow of the Government by impermissible and undemocratic methods;
4. (d) nepotism or interference with appointments and promotions in the Public Service, the Defence Force or the Police Service so that persons are appointed or promoted for reasons other than merit;
5. (e) attempts to subvert the relations between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people with the object of bringing about strife and national discord and of undermining national unity;
6. (f) improper or objectionable activities which harm, prejudice or undermine the rights, liberties or interests of persons or groups or which aim at controlling other organizations in an irregular manner;
7. (g) subversion in any form of the morals, customs and way of life of the people of South Africa by circumventing or transgressing the country’s laws or by any other means;
8. (h) becoming a serious danger to peace and order in the body politic by exerting influence in an impermissible manner in the economic and cultural spheres;
9. (i) attempts to dominate the Prime Minister, Ministers. Administrators or any other persons in authority in an effort to use him or them in the service of an organization in such a manner that, as far as the performance of his or their official duties is concerned, loyalty is in the first place shown to the organization and not to the State.

The Commission shall have power to summon, swear and interrogate witnesses, call for documents, visit offices and to take such further action as may in its opinion be necessary to complete its inquiry satisfactorily, provided that in carrying out its task and in drafting its report the confidential nature of anything which comes to its notice as part of its inquiry, but which does not form part of findings disclosing the guilt of any organization or person of any of the abovementioned contraventions, is not violated.”

In three interviews during the past two weeks I consulted the Leader of the Opposition in accordance with my undertaking. It appeared that we could not come to an agreement on one of the four points mentioned by him, namely an inauiry in the form of a public hearing. He preferred that; I did not. Consequently he was not prepared to consult further and accept joint responsibility for the other points. These were: The constitution of the commission; the terms of reference which I had already made available to him for consideration on the occasion of the first meeting and which were mainly based on the accusations made from his side; and that evidence should be given under oath to which I had immediately agreed.

I could not, in this type of case and in spite of certain advantages which would have been attached to it, associate myself with the proposal for a public hearing as in a court case, for inter alia the following reasons:

1. (a) There is no indication of the commission of any crime or offence which should have been heard in public. It is only as a result of so much comment of a particular kind, both in the Press and in Parliament, that, although akin to slander, it was considered wise to investigate in an impartial manner whether grounds for suspicion existed in order to clear the atmosphere of our national life. Should any offence be disclosed, a public hearing would then take place. If not, the persons or bodies concerned are entitled to their privacy.
2. (b) The bodies already mentioned in debates have voluntarily made themselves available for investigation. It would be unjust to them to take unfair advantage of this offer and allow matters to be disclosed as well which they regard as their private affairs and in which nothing wrong is found. Normally any use by the State of its power to interfere without sufficient reason in the private affairs of individuals, undertakings or organizations, even by means of a confidential inquiry, would be condemned.
3. (c) A public hearing would possibly involve bodies and persons not accused of any offence in great expenditure on legal representation which would not be recoverable from complainants. This could happen should it suit others to make ample use of the services of lawyers, for example a newspaper or periodical seeking financial advantage from the publicity which a lengthy inquiry would provide and which they could attempt to convert into a cause célèbre.
4. (d) A public hearing would also provide the opportunity for a heresy-hunt by opponents of any body, organization or business undertaking under investigation. This could be done by laying bare confidential matters or business secrets to which it is entitled and which are innocent, in order to destroy the organization or undertaking against which the vendetta is directed, or which is a competitor.
5. (e) It is not in the public interest that peace and order in South Africa should be disturbed, perhaps for months, and that doubt and suspicion about life in South Africa should be sown abroad through a slow and perhaps deliberately extended process of accusation and refutation. The damage done would not disappear even though the inquiry resulted in the complete justification of the organizations concerned. Such a finding would be news for just one day, and perhaps even reach only a back page as not being sensational enough in comparison with the continuous sensational reports which could be extracted from the public hearing.
6. (f) On the positive side, for the kind of case now being dealt with, a personal inquiry by such a commission, guided by clearly defined terms of reference, is the best procedure. It can meet and interrogate witnesses in an unconstrained and even informal manner, visit offices and inspect documents there, and be taken fully into confidence, which does not happen in a public hearing where hostile elements are present.

For the reasons mentioned I consider a public hearing at this stage unnecessary, undesirable and unjust, and I believe that an inquiry on the high level proposed will be adequate to inform the public as to whether the organizations were justly accused or not of being dangerous or evil.

On 28 April 1964, I gave the undertaking that a Commission of Inquiry would be appointed, whether we reached an agreement or not. That promise is therefore now being fulfilled without agreement, since the Leader of the Opposition did not wish to be consulted further when he could not get his own way in respect of one of his four points.

In order to enable the necessary powers to be granted to the commission, the Commission Act of 1947 will be amended during this Session.

The inquiry will commence as soon as the Judge of Appeal can fit it in with his present duties or can be relieved of them.

I move—

That this House, in terms of Section 3 of the Labour Colonies Act, 1909 (Act No. 10 of 1909, Cape), authorizes the following amendments to the Constitution of the Kakamas Labour Colony promulgated by Proclamation No. 123 of 1948, viz.—

1. (a) in the case of Section 5, by the repeal of paragraphs (d), (h), (i), (j), (1), (n) and (o), and by the insertion in paragraph (k) after the word “commonage” of the words “outside the Municipality of Kakamas”;
2. (b) by the repeal of Sections 14, 15 and 16.
3. (c) by the addition to Section 18 of the following sub-sections:
   “(6) At any time after the settlers and plotholders are in terms of subsection (1) entitled to obtain ownership the board may give a settler or plotholder, as the case may be, notice that he shall apply in writing for ownership of his erf or building plot and that he shall deposit with the board the sums necessary to cover the survey and transfer costs and transfer duty.
   (7) If, within six months of the date of the notice referred to in sub-section (6), a settler or plotholder does not comply with the direction contained therein, the board may resume the erf or plot concerned at a reasonable consideration, the amount whereof shall be mutually agreed upon, or failing such agreement, shall be determined by arbitration.”;
4. (d) in the case of Section 19, by the insertion after the figure “18” of the words “in respect of land which is not subject to conditions imposed by the Administrator in terms of the Townships Ordinance, 1934 (Ordinance No. 33 of 1934, Cape)”;
5. (e) in the case of Section 21, by the repeal of paragraph (c);
6. (f)in the case of Section 22, by the repeal of sub-sections (7) and (9), sub-section (8) becoming sub-section (7), and by the addition after the latter sub-section of the following sub-section:
   “(8) The provisions of this section are not applicable to land within the Municipality of Kakamas.”.

The question of control over Kakamas is a matter in connection with which political feelings ran very high. After various enquiries and agreements it was decided to liquidate the interests of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Kakamas settlement. This will be done in the following way: The inhabitants of Kakamas who are plotholders under Church control will be given ownership of those plots; secondly, the town of Kakamas will become an independent municipality; thirdly, the waterworks which are under the control of the Kakamas Board which was appointed by the Dutch Reformed Church will fall under the Department of Irrigation. This motion, which is necessary in terms of the Labour Colonies Act of 1909, at last gives the Kakamas board the power to liquidate entirely its interests in Kakamas. It has been found that the rules and regulations of the Kakamas Board of the Dutch Reformed Church do not permit of the establishment of a municipality. The first proposal which is being made here therefore is to abolish those rules and regulations insofar as they are inconsistent with the establishment of a municipality and to convert the town of Kakamas into a municipality in terms of the ordinary provincial ordinances. The Dutch Reformed Church is therefore relinquishing whatever control it still has over the Town Council of Kakamas.

The Irrigation works there are subject to certain regulations of the Kakamas Commission and we now want to abolish those regulations so that these irrigation works can be handed over to the Department of Water Affairs. In order to be able to take these steps it is necessary for Parliament to pass this motion.

An attempt is being made in Kakamas to persuade the people to accept ownership of the plots which they formerly hired from the Church. Up to the present moment 90 per cent of the people have applied for ownership, which has now been given to them. The Church cannot, however, entirely liquidate its interests there until such time as the remaining 10 per cent have also done so. We have now received a request that regulations should be promulgated so that the remaining 10 per cent can be given notice to apply for ownership within six months. If they do not do so, the State will be able to re-possess the land upon payment of compensation to the people concerned. As far as the 10 per cent who have not yet applied for ownership are concerned, I think it includes many absentees. It would be to their advantage if the State took over the plots from them and paid them adequate compensation. If we take this step, we will finally dispose of the Kakamas case. I hope therefore that the House will approve of this motion.

I should like to say a few words in support of the motion moved by the hon. the Minister of Lands. I want to express my appreciation of the positive step which is being taken here this morning in the form of legislation. The position is quite simple. Probably 90 per cent of the 600 people who have not yet applied for ownership are willing to do so, but they are waiting until they have the few rand which they need to meet the costs connected with the transfer of the property. I may say that the Act provides, as far as the transfer duty which is payable on taking transfer of the property is concerned, that it will be a nominal amount. The amount which has been fixed is very, very fair. As far as the other works are concerned, the transfer will be attended to by the Department of Lands itself. This is not a case therefore where a heavy financial burden is being placed upon the shoulders of the people who apply for transfer. Most of the people who have not yet applied for ownership are simply delaying their applications until they have collected a little more money. I want to express my appreciation of this final step which is being taken here to make Kakamas independent. At the same time I want to pay tribute to the Dutch Reformed Church for the tremendous task which it undertook there. The Dutch Reformed Church made a great contribution in helping the poorer section of the South African population. It was in the year 1885 that the church decided to take under its wings these people who at that time did not know which way to turn.

Order! The hon. member must not spread his own wings too wide.

Then I just want to express our gratitude and appreciation to the State for what it has done from time to time. Without that sympathetic assistance the Dutch Reformed Church would certainly never have been able to carry out this important task. On behalf of my constituency I therefore say “thank you very much” to the State and to the church.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

In terms of the Ottawa Trade Agreement between South Africa and the United Kingdom South Africa has enjoyed a margin of preference of 10 per cent ad valorem on boxwood in the United Kingdom. Boxwood imports from South Africa by Commonwealth countries has been admitted free of customs duties, whereas a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem was payable on that of other countries. In 1961 and 1962 Parliament however granted its approval to notes confirming South Africa’s agreement with the amendment of the agreement in order to enable the United Kingdom to meet its commitments under the Stockholm convention for the establishment of the European Free Trade Association, the E.F.T.A., and the agreement for the association of Finland with that body. In terms of this exchange of notes, the United Kingdom has been released from the preference, i.a. so as to gradually reduce and ultimately to wipe out the duty of 10 per cent ad valorem on boxwood imports from the E.F.T.A. associated countries. In April 1963 Parliament gave further approval to an exchange of notes which enabled the United Kingdom to completely wipe out the margin of preference on boxwood within a specified description of length and cross section in respect of all countries that may export to the United Kingdom. However, the margin of preference was retained in respect of boxwood not falling within the specified description. On 4 June 1963 the United Kingdom once again approached the South African Government for a further concession, namely, for the complete rescission of the contractual margin of preference enjoyed by South Africa on boxwood in the United Kingdom, in other words, on boxwood not falling within the specified descriptions as indicated earlier.

The reason for the latest request of the United Kingdom arises from its collaboration with the “Programme of Action ” which is undertaken by the G.A.T.T. for the promotion of the trade of less developed countries. In considering the United Kingdom’s request, the South African Government felt disposed to assist the United Kingdom wherever possible in regard to the said G.A.T.T. programme. A previous exchange of notes approved by Parliament in any event wiped out almost the whole preference thereby making the remaining part of the preference almost insignificant. The exports of boxwood from South Africa to the United Kingdom is minimal. According to the Department of Forestry supplies of boxwood are very limited and there is no possibility of expanding the exports thereof to any extent worth speaking of. The complete rescission of the preference on boxwood as indicated in the present exchange of notes, will therefore virtually have no adverse effect on South Africa’s overseas trade. Notes have been exchanged between the United Kingdom and South Africa to get the Republic’s approval for the complete rescission of the preference on boxwood as from 1 January 1964. The House is now asked to approve this exchange of notes.

This is another outcome of the Ottawa Agreement which has arisen as the result of the establishment of Evda. As the hon. the Minister has given us a very full statement on this particular item we have no objection.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

That this House, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 104 of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No. 44 of 1957), approves of the First Schedule to that Act being amended as follows:

1. (1) Section 1: by the insertion in sub-section (1) after the definition of “imprisonment” of the following definition:
   “ ‘institution’ means a club, mess or trading or other institution established or conducted under Section 148 of the Act and any fund controlled under the regulations;”.
2. (2) Section 19: by the substitution in sub section (5) for the words “garrison order” of the words “force order”.
3. (3) Section 20: by the deletion in paragraph (a) of the words “mess, wardroom or”.
4. (4) Section 21:
   1. (a) by the insertion in paragraph (a)after the word “property” where it occurs for the first time of the words “or property belonging to any institution”; and
   2. (b) by the insertion in paragraphs (b),(c) and (d) after the words “South African Defence Force” wherever they occur of the words “or any institution.”.
5. (5) Section 23: by the insertion in paragraph (a) after the word “property” of the words “or property belonging to any institution”.
6. (6) Section 25: by the insertion in paragraphs (a) and (b) after the word “property” wherever it occurs of the words “or property belonging to any institution”.
7. (7) Section 26: by the deletion of the word “mess”.
8. (8) Section 27:
   1. (a) by the insertion in paragraph (b) after the word “interest” of the word “or”; and
   2. (b) by the insertion after paragraph (b) of the following paragraph:
   3. “(c) without proper authority uses or takes or removes from its appointed place any article belonging to any institution.”.
9. (9) Section 36: by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following sub-section:
   (1) Any person who—
   1. (a) having been duly summoned or warned to attend as a witness before a preliminary investigation, summary trial or board of inquiry, fails to attend or to remain in attendance until authorized to leave;
   2. (b) being present at a preliminary investigation, summary trial or board of inquiry after having been duly summoned or warned to attend as a witness, refuses to be sworn or to affirm;
   3. (c) when giving evidence at a preliminary investigation, summary trial or board of inquiry, refuses to answer any questions which in law he could be compelled to answer, or refuses or fails to produce any document or thing in his possession or under his control which in law he could be compelled to produce; or
   4. (d) uses threatening or insulting language at a preliminary investigation, summary trial or board of inquiry or wilfully causes a disturbance or interruption thereat, or wilfully commits any other act calculated or likely to bring the recording officer, trial officer or board of inquiry into contempt, ridicule or disrepute, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.”.
10. (10) Section 47: by the substitution for all the words after the word “to” where it occurs for the third time of the words— “any penalty which could under Section 91 be imposed by a court martial in respect of such offence: Provided that no such penalty of such a nature that it could, if the offence in question had been committed within the Republic, have been imposed by any competent civil court, shall exceed the maximum penalty that could be imposed in respect of such offence by that civil court”.
11. (11) Section 53: by the insertion in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) after the word “vehicle” wherever it occurs of the words “vessel, aircraft”.
12. (12) Section 64: by the substitution in subsection (2) for all the words after the word “who” of the words “may thereupon exercise mutatis mutandis in respect of those proceedings the powers conferred upon the council or review by sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 115”.
13. (13)Section 70: by the substitution for paragraph (b) of the following paragraph:
    “(b) in the case of a civil offence, any penalty that might under Section 91 be imposed in respect of an offence under this Code by a court martial: Provided that no such penalty of such a nature that it could be imposed in respect of such offence by any competent civil court shall exceed the maximum penalty that could be imposed in respect of that offence by that civil court”.
14. (14) Section 91: by the substitution in the Afrikaans version of sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) for the word “ontslag” of the word “afdanking”.
15. (15) Section 93: by the deletion in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of all the words after the word “days”.
16. (16) Section 110: by the deletion of the words “sub-section (2) of Section 64”.
17. (17) Section 115: by the addition of the following sub-section:
    “(5) For the purposes of sub-sections (1),(2) and (3) ‘sentence’ includes an order under sub-section (1) of Section 129.”
18. (18) Section 129:
    1. (a) by the insertion in sub-section (1)after the word “property” of the words “or property belonging to any institution” and after the word “shall” of the words “subject to the provisions of sub-section (3)”;
    2. (b) by the insertion after sub-section (1) of the following sub-section:
       “(l)bis Any amount deducted from a member’s pay in pursuance of an order made under subsection (1) in respect of loss of or damage to property belonging to any institution, shall be paid to the institution concerned.”;
    3. (c) by the substitution for sub-section (3) of the following sub-section:
       “(3) Whenever a military court convicts a person subject to this Code of having in contravention of Section 24 negligently lost, damaged or destroyed his equipment, arms, kit or any other property issued to him at public expense for personal use in the execution of his duties, it shall order that such equipment, arms, kit or other property be replaced or repaired and that the costs involved in such replacement or repair be recovered from the person concerned; Provided that no such order shall be made in the case of a sentence of cashiering, dismissal from the South African Defence Force, discharge with ignominy from the South African Defence Force or discharge from the South African Defence Force if the said equipment, arms, kit or other property has at the time of sentence become the property of the accused pursuant to the regulations.”; and
    4. (d) by the deletion of sub-section (4).
19. (19) Section 138: by the insertion in sub-section (2) after the word “attend” where it occurs for the second time of the words “or to remain in attendance until authorized to leave” and after the word “sworn” of the words “or to affirm”.

In this connection I should like to say that although superficially the motion appears to be formidable, members have, I think, assured themselves that there is nothing contentious in it. As many of the amendments are self-explanatory I do not intend to burden the House with a lengthy explanation of individual clauses. I would, however, like to refer briefly to a few of the major amendments. Should hon. members require any explanations on any of the other proposed amendments, which I do not intend dealing with at this stage. I would only be too happy to furnish the necessary details when the particular clause comes up for consideration.

The amendment to Section 1 (1) must be read with the proposed amendments to Sections 20 (a), 21, 23 (a), 25, 26, 27 (b) and 129 (1).

Mr. Speaker, all the offences named in Sections (20 (a), 21, 23 (a), 25, 26 and 27 (b) can only be committed in relation to public property except in the case of Sections 20 (a) (theft) and 26 (deficiencies) which can also be committed in respect of property belonging to “any mess, wardroom or institution of the South African Defence Force” and to “any mess or institution of the South African Defence Force” respectively. Consequently an act or omission of the kind contemplated by the sections mentioned above which is committed in respect of property belonging to a mess or institution, does not constitute an offence under the Military Discipline Code because the sections in question are applicable only to public property.

Even in the case of Section 20 (a) (theft) and 26 (deficiencies) sports clubs and regimental funds, for example, are not covered and theft of or deficiencies in the property of such clubs or funds are not punishable under the Code.

In terms of Section 129 (1) a military court which has convicted a person of an offence, may, if the act or omission constituting that offence caused any loss of or damage to public property, order that the accused be placed under stoppage of pay equivalent to the amount of the loss or the damage. It frequently happens that a member of the Force is convicted of an offence under Section 20 (a) (i.e. theft of property belonging to a mess) or Section 26 (negligently performing his duties e.g. as secretary or barman) the commission of which resulted in a deficiency in the stocks or funds of the mess concerned. Since such property, stocks or funds are not public property, the accused cannot be placed under stoppage of pay to compensate the mess for the loss. The only redress available to the mess is to institute civil proceedings to recover such loss. The proposed amendments are thus designed to achieve the following: (i) the definition of the word ‘institution’ which is inserted in Section 1 (1) is wide enough to cover messes, wardrooms, clubs and Unit and Service funds; (ii) an act or omission of the nature contemplated by the various sections will also constitute an offence if it relates to property belonging to an institution as defined; and (iii) in view of the proposed amendment to Section 129 (1) which brings damage to or loss of the property of an institution as well as public property within the ambit of the Code, a military court will have the power to place an accused under stoppage of pay, if the commission of any offence referred to previously, caused damage to or loss of property belonging to an institution.

In regard to the amendment contemplated by Clause 9, I have to point out that Section 34 (1) creates certain offences in relation to court martials. Section 36 (1) makes similar provision in relation to a preliminary investigation, summary trial and board of enquiry.

Section 36 (1) repeats the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 34 (1) which deal with refusal to be sworn or to affirm and refusal to answer questions or produce documents respectively.

The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (d) of Section 34 (1) are, however, not repeated n Section 36 (1). Paragraph (a) of Section 34 (1) creates it an offence for a person who has been duly summoned or warned to attend as a witness, to fail to attend or to remain in attendance and paragraph (d) creates it an offence to use threatening or insulting language or to cause a disturbance, etc. It is advisable that the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (d) of Section 34 (1) also be made applicable to the proceedings of a preliminary investigation, summary trial and board of enquiry. For that reason the provisions of Section 36 (1) are now brought into line with that of Section 34 (1).

The amendment of Section 47 referred to in Clause 10 must be read with the amendment of Section 70. Section 47 provides that an act which would have constituted a civil offence, if it had been committed in the Republic, shall also be an offence of such an act is committed beyond the borders of the Republic. According to the present wording of this section the punishments which may be imposed in respect of such offences are limited (as in the case of Section 70 (b)) to those which could be imposed by a court martial in terms of Section 91 and which could be imposed in respect of the offence concerned by a competent civil court. In effect the effect the court martial is, therefore, limited to a choice of three kinds of punishments, viz. death, imprisonment or a fine.

For the reasons which I shall furnish in support of the proposed amendment of Section 70, it is essential that a court martial should have power to impose any one of the punishments prescribed in Section 91 (1) of the Code. It is the more necessary in the case of civil offences committed outside the Republic because facilities for the serving of sentences of imprisonment may under such circumstances not be available.

According to the existing provision of Section 64 (2) Chiefs of Staff have no powers of review in respect of the record of the proceeding of summary trials by commanding officers and which are submitted to them in terms of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 64. Should a Chief of Staff be of the opinion that the proceedings were not in accordance with the real and substantial justice, the record is sent by him to the Adjutant-General, who, in his turn, should he endorse the views of the Chief of Staff, submits the record, in terms of Section 110, to the Commandant-General to exercise his powers of review in terms of Section 115.

This cumbrous method very often gives rise to the full purpose of review being defeated because so much time necessarily elapses before the Commandant-General exercises his powers in regard to mitigation, or setting aside the finding or sentence, that the offender has served the whole or the major portion of his sentence before any variation thereof by the Commandant-General can take effect.

The proposed amendment grants power of review to Chiefs of Staff who can then adjust the matter if they are of the opinion that the proceedings were not in accordance with real and substantial justice. This will result in a saving of time and also ensure that any setting aside of a sentence, etc., will come into effect before the accused has served his sentence.

In connection with the proposed amendment of Section 70—that is the section dealing with the jurisdiction of court martials—I wish to explain that recently doubt arose in regard to the interpretation of paragraph (b) of that section and the jurisdiction of a general court martial in respect of civil offences. According to the opinion of the Government law advisers a court martial can only impose, on conviction, sentences which can be imposed—

1. (i) by a court martial in terms of Section 91 for an offence under the Code; and
2. (ii)by a Civil Court in respect of that offence.

The result is that a court martial can only impose three of the sentences mentioned in section 91 in respect of civil offences namely, death, imprisonment or a fine. The other sentences, viz. cashiering, discharge, reduction in rank or in seniority in rank, detention or field punishment, cannot be imposed by reason of the fact that they are sentences which cannot be imposed by a civil court. It is now proposed to rectify this anomaly.

Regarding the amendment of Section 115, I wish to state that in terms of Section 129 (1) a military court must, when an accused is found guilty of an offence involving loss of or damage to Government property, order that the accused be placed under stoppage of pay to make good the full amount of the loss or damage. If the offence was not committed wilfully the court may in its discretion determine a lesser amount.

In view of the wording of Sections 61, 62 and 91 and Rules 15 and 21 which prescribe the penalties which may be imposed by trial officers and courts martial, such a compensatory order under Section 91 (1), cannot be regarded as part of the sentence. Section 115 read with Sections 64, 65, 108, 109 and 110 confers certain powers on reviewing authorities only in regard to the finding and sentence of military courts. Consequently such reviewing authorities have no power to amend or to set aside a compensatory order in terms of Section 91 (1).

It is desirable that such powers be granted to reviewing authorities especially in view of the fact that the jurisdiction of military courts (including trial officers), unlike that of a magistrate (see Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955) is not limited in so far as the amount of such a compensatory order is concerned.

The proposed amendment of Section 129 should be read with the proposed amendment of Section 1 (1).

The proposed sub-section 129 (1)bis will empower the Chief Paymaster, S.A.D.F. to pay over any sum deducted from a member’s salary in respect of damage to or loss of the property of an institution, to the institution concerned.

The effect of the amendment is—

1. (i) that only property issued to a member for his personal use (i.e. articles which he should always have in his possession in order to be properly equipped according to scale) should come within the purview of sub-section (3) of Section 129 (loss or damage to other Government property, e.g. a motor vehicle, fall to be dealt with in terms of sub-section (1));
2. (ii) that the order of the Court can serve as authority for the issue of the replacement article or the repair of the damaged article, and for the recovery from the member’s pay of the cost of the new article or the cost of repair of the damaged article as the case may be; and
3. (iii) that in the case of a member who is sentenced to be discharged from the South African Defence Force, no order is made for the replacement or repair of lost, destroyed or damaged articles which have already become the property of the member in terms of regulations after a prescribed period of use.

Sub-section (4) is being deleted as a result of the amendment of sub-section (3) which does away with the order that an accused must satisfy his commanding officer that he has replaced the articles in question.

Section 138 creates certain offences which can be committed by civilians who are subpoenad to give evidence at military courts.

The existing provision does not create it an offence for a witness to fail to remain in attendance until authorized to leave; nor does it contain the provision that a witness may make an affirmation instead of taking an oath.

The proposed amendment which embodies these elements brings the section into line with Section 34 which applies in respect of witnesses who are subject to the Military Discipline Code, and also with Sections 209 and 221 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955 (Act No. 56 of 1955).

The hon. the Minister has given a very fair summary of the provisions covered by this notice of motion. I think one can sum it up generally by saying that to a large extent they are improvements which have been necessary in the practical working of the Code, particularly under the much expanded position of Defence where the deficiences have shown up. Unlike some of the measures that come before the House, we have had ample time in this case to consider this matter. The proposals were tabled three and a half months ago and we had time to examine them fairly well and from this side of the House we are not raising any objections to the motion being passed.

The hon. Minister’s explanation with regard to the speeding up of the procedure for review of sentences passed, I think, is particularly welcome under the conditions existing today where you have such large numbers of people who are virtually inexperienced in regard to the Code and have very little idea of what the Code really applies to them. They may inadvertantly slip up and I think the speed-up in any revision of a sentence by an officer experienced in that particular aspect can only result in good. As the hon. Minister rightly said, it will put a certain amount of discretion at the disposal of the officer who finally has to confirm or squash the sentence. Generally speaking we accept the proposals as both being necessary and likely to improve the service and the carrying into effect of the Code, and we will support the motion.

As has already been indicated by my colleague, we on this side have no objection whatsoever to the provisions contained in the motion of the hon. Minister. It is quite clear that the provisions are required to close loopholes and shortcomings in the existing regulations, and in many other cases improvements are introduced.

We all realize that we are living in a changing world and changing circumstances, and this also applies very much to the military set-up, especially in our country where we are now building up the biggest military organization that we have ever had. I am quite sure that very many problems and anomalies are being encountered by the people who are carrying out the military set-up from day to day, working under the old regulations.

I have further no doubt that the Minister will come again in the light of his experience with further amendments to comply with the changing circumstances. Many of these proposals of course are designed to facilitate the smooth running of the administration, and especially of the legal machinery of the Department.

I was particularly pleased to see the new definition of “institution”. There is no doubt about it that the running of these institutions has been the bane in the lives of garrison, of camp, and of unit commanders for very many years, especially as it has so often been necessary to run these institutions by non-attested personnel. I think this new definition is certainly going to make the task of those commanding officers very much easier.

I also find that the legal provisions, the changes proposed there by the motion, are such that they are not in conflict with the rights of the individual, although in certain circumstances they tend to tighten up discipline, which I personally think is very necessary. Many of the clauses are of course consequential, and we have no hesitation in giving the Minister our fullest support.

I should like to say a few words also. I am pleased that the Opposition are welcoming the amendments to our Disciplinary Code. You will recall that before 1957, when South Africa did not have its own Disciplinary Code, we used the British Disciplinary Code which applied to the British Army from 1912 to 1957. In 1957 we made the first attempt to have our own Disciplinary Code, and it goes without saying that after the application thereof for a number of years, shortcomings have been found, and as the hon. member for North-East Rand has said, conditions are developing in South Africa and are not static. For that reason a Disciplinary Code will always have to be overhauled to provide for new circumstances. For that reason we are glad that provision is made here for an overhaul where there have been shortcomings, as well as regarding the procedure at trials. I think it is a very big improvement and I associate myself with the other hon. members in welcoming it.

I am sorry, but I have to move—

A very important principle is involved here. If this proposal is adopted, it will create a precedent which will embarrass the Railway Administration very much. Numerous such cases occur. In this particular case the person resigned. He did not apply for a transfer; he gave no indication that he was going over to this State Department in question, and would be employed there, and now it is proposed that his pension contributions should be paid back to the new fund, and that will really amount to a concatenation of service. There are numerous such cases, and in the past there have already been numerous such cases before the select committee, and they were rejected. As I say, if this is approved by the House, it will create a precedent which will place the administration in a very embarrassing position. Therefore I move that it be referred back to the Government.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has dealt adequately with one or two very important aspects appertaining to this Vote. I would like to confine myself to two specific matters affecting the Coloured people.

I might ask the hon. Minister in regard to education whether he is prepared to make a statement to-day as to how far he has made progress in regard to compulsory education for the Coloured child. Compulsory education is something of great importance to the Coloured people and they are most anxious that there should be an acceleration in this respect. I know that provision is made in the Coloured Education Act for compulsory education, and it would be interesting to know from the hon. Minister how far he has progressed and what difficulties he has encountered in respect of this matter. But I do want to tell the hon. Minister that I have had numerous requests at conferences and by way of private delegations to raise this matter publicly in the House and to ask the hon. Minister to do whatever he can to expedite completely compulsory education for Coloured children.

Speaking of Coloured children, I do believe that the time has now arrived for the Government once again to support a school-feeding scheme. In the past we were told that we must not discuss school feeding because it was a provincial matter, but it is no longer a provincial matter. I hope to show to the House and to the hon. Minister that since school feeding was done away with there has been a deterioration in the health of Coloured children attending school, and if it was not for the public-spirited men and women who have continued with a private scheme, many Coloured children would have been very severely prejudiced in their health. Now it may be said that there were reasons why school feeding was done away with, that the scheme was not properly handled that there were abuses. Let me concede that for the purpose of argument, but to-day those excuses cannot be upheld. There may have been troubles, but I submit that school feeding can be made workable without any loss to the Government, without any abuses by parents or teachers. I would like to read one or two medical reports. Although they are dated some years ago, they are nevertheless germane to the subject to-day, because they were issued at the time when school feeding was stopped by the provincial councils. I have one here from a Dr. Mulder of Groot Brakrivier—

I have one here signed by Dr. Heyns—

Dr. Downes writes—

I have many more certificates from medical men. Here is another one from Dr. Newby of Grahamstown—

I do not want to weary the Committee by reading further certificates. They all point out that it is apparently a very much needed scheme. It should not be necessary, Mr. Chairman, for private people to undertake such a huge scheme. I am able to tell the hon. Minister that the whole organization of the public-spirited men and women will be placed at the disposal of the Department if he will assist them. I do not need to take the matter any further. There you have a good case, and if the hon. Minister wants to see the other reports I will give them to him, and I think I will have the support of the whole House on this very important question.

The next point I want to raise with the hon. Minister is the question of the differentiation in pay not only as far as school teachers are concerned, but also the differentiation in the pensions, social pensions, as between the Coloured and the Europeans. I think the time has come that this matter should receive serious attention, particularly now as the whole matter falls under the Administration of the Coloured Affairs Department. The time has come for the Minister and the Department to see to it that equal pensions are granted to Coloured and White. There is a good case for the ex-soldier, for the man who was blinded in the war. There is a good case to be made out for old people. You cannot possibly say that because a person is Coloured he must continue to live on a lower economic level than the White man. Because we, the Whites, keep them in that economic position lower than ours. We give the Coloured old-age pensioners half of what we give the Whites. Tell me why? I think the Secretary for Coloured Affairs and the hon. Minister himself must know that there are thousands and thousands of Coloured people who live in homes where they pay the same rent as White persons. [Time limit.]

The leader of the group of Coloured Representatives in the House of Assembly (Mr. Bloomberg) yesterday directed almost the whole of his speech at the Progressive Party, but towards the end he said he wishes to warn the Government to get away from petty apartheid. We should like to know from those hon. members who are constantly singing this tune what they regard as petty apartheid. When they refer to petty apartheid, they virtually in the same breath refer to job reservation, and how disadvantageous it is for the non-Whites in this area. Mr. Chairman, the greatest field of labour for Coloured here in the Western Cape at the present time is industry. The people mainly work in factories, apart from the Railways and certain other Departments of State, the police and in the fishing industry. The vast mass are employed in factories. In 1961 there were 33,000 Whites employed in our factories in the Western Cape as against 80,000 Coloured. Since then there has been expansion in this respect, and during the past two years the number of White employees in our factories increased by 3,000, but during the same two years the number of Coloured employed in the factories increased by no less than 13,000. How can hon. members come along here and say that job reservation is prejudicing the Coloured on the labour market? There are two great industries in particular in which the Coloured are interested, and which are at the present time controlled under the application of job reservation. The one is the clothing industry. Let me tell you that the number of Coloured employed in the clothing industry increased during the past three years by no less than 4,000, in spite of job reservation. The other industry in which job reservation is applied, is in the building trade. Now I am making this submission, and I ask the hon. member who have a sense of responsibility towards the Coloured: Had it not been for job reservation; what would have been the position of the Coloured in the building industry to-day? Would the Coloured not have been ousted completely in the building industry as regards unskilled and semiskilled work, by the Bantu? Is it not in the interests of the Coloured in the building trade in the Western Cape that we should protect them against the Bantu? I believe that hon. members, when they refer to job reservation and how it prejudices the Coloured, should investigate the matter a little and then they will convince themselves that in the Western Cape, here where the Coloured people are settled, it is of importance to the Coloured more than to any other population group that job reservation should be there to protect them.

As regards the other group in the House of Assembly, the Official Opposition, they have said a very peculiar thing here through the mouth of their first speaker, the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). He said that the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape would not help the Coloured at all. I do not know how such a responsible person as the hon. member for Gardens can make such a statement here. Take the building industry. Had it not been for the influx control applied by this Government, whereby many Bantu are kept out of the Western Province who otherwise would have come here, there would have been thousands upon thousands of idle Coloured, unemployed because the Bantu would simply have squeezed them out of all unskilled labour and semiskilled work. If we were to abolish influx control and admit the Bantu freely to the Western Cape, what will be the position in five or ten years’ time? Does the hon. member have any idea of what the position of the Coloured will be then?

Who says influx control should be abolished?

The hon. member said that the fact that we want to remove the Bantu systematically means nothing to the Coloured. Is it not a fact that many of our efforts to uplift the Coloured are undermined by the fact that the Bantu are in their midst and are constantly pulling them down? Is it not a fact that the Bantu are demoralizing them? Is it not a fact that when one walks in the streets, one sees the colossal scale upon which miscegenation is taking place between the Coloureds and the Bantu? Is it not a fact that the abnormal percentage of illegitimate children among the Coloureds is largely due to the Bantu who are in their midst? Is it not a fact that the family life of the Coloureds is undermined and that their homes are broken up and their children are suffering as a consequence of the Bantu being in their midst? Is it not a fact that the evidence of agitation we find among certain groups of Coloured can be traced back to the Bantu who are in their midst and who are inciting them against the White man with whom they have to live? Then the hon. member says that the fact that the Bantu must be removed from the Western Cape means nothing to the Coloureds. That is the very cancer in the flesh of the Coloured community, the fact that the Bantu are here. How can the hon. member for Gardens make such a statement? Why does the hon. member and the Opposition not rather help the Government to foster a greater sense of responsibility and create opportunities for employment? Why do they not try to help the Government to make the Coloured understand that we as White people, with all the goodwill we have, cannot drag them up to a higher standard of living, and that they themselves must do something? We must teach the Coloured that they must be prepared to take their hands out of their pockets and come to the labour market and share in the development of that part of the country in which they reside. That is why I should like to ask the Minister this. The hon. the Minister of Labour intimated the other day that arrangements are being made between his Department and Coloured Affairs in regard to the registration of unemployed persons and employment and better control of Coloured labour. I should like to ask the Minister whether he cannot give us more particulars of these arrangements, because that is the crux of the problem, this large mass of idle Coloureds. I should like to ask the Minister also whether there are not too many people in the Coloured rural areas who are idle and rely upon others for their support, and whether they cannot be taken away from there and their labour employed at some other places? The time for us to have to listen to these United Party stories has long since passed. The dogs may go on barking, but the caravan must move on; the Minister and his Department must carry on with their great task without taking notice of it. They are merely trying to break down the great work we are trying to do. But when we ask them to tell us what their policy is, there is dead silence. Every United Party supporter has his own policy. Here I have a United Party election pamphlet which reads: “We stand for complete social and residential separation”. That is the official policy of the United Party, but then the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) goes to his constituency and he says in his election pamphlet: “The United Party stands for the complete rejection of separate development and all it entails.” That is what their policy is like at the present time. They do not know where they are going. All they can do is to attempt to break down this great effort of the Government and to sow suspicion about it. [Time limit.]

Year after year, under the Vote of this Minister, there is raised either by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) or myself the position of the Coloured people of Natal and Zululand in particular. This community is an indigenous community which has always been in Zululand, and apart from the fact that they are called Coloured people they have no links whatever with the Cape Coloured. Their language is either Zulu or English, and very few speak Afrikaans. Those people are a sizeable community of some thousands and their position has been raised every year under this Vote since 1962 when I came to this House, and prior to that it was raised by the hon. member for South Coast and the other representatives of Zululand who were my predecessors.

There are two groups we are concerned with. One is the group principally of towndwellers, tradesmen, who would normally seek their occupation in skilled and semiskilled jobs in the villages of Zululand, but for whom there is no place outside Eshowe, the capital of Zululand. Then there is a second group, mainly farming people, consisting mainly of the descendants of the late John Dunn, who lived in what is called Dunn’s Reserve. That group was some years ago promised freehold tenure of their land. The land has been divided into 100-acre plots, and the difficulty under which these people labour at present is that whereas they have been promised title to their land for years, that promise has not been implemented. There is an additional difficulty facing them, and that is that there is a growing number of Bantu squatters on their land, which they find irksome and whom they are unable to remove as long as they are not granted the freehold title promised to them.

This issue was raised in 1962 under the Vote of this Minister and he said that the matter was being investigated, and that he was conscious of the difficulties facing these people and that he was doing what he could. But then last year the hon. member for South Coast raised the matter again, and the Minister again said that he was keen to reach finality in regard to the land of the Dunns, and that he had all the powers necessary and that he would convey the urgency of the matter to the Minister of Bantu Administration, under whose Department the Dunn lands fell. I do not understand why the Dunn lands should fall under that Department, because that is no longer a scheduled area. It is land lived on and occupied by this Coloured community and I contend that it ought to fall under the Minister of Coloured Affairs. This issue of the Coloured people of Zululand has not only been raised in this House but has been raised for the last six or eight years at the annual congresses of the Zululand Public Bodies Development Association, a body representative of all the interests in Zululand, and at almost all the congresses of that body there has been a representative of the Minister’s Department. The official concerned has always been sympathetic to the resolutions passed urging that something be done, and the same has been the approach of the Minister’s officials to the representations of the Association of Women’s Institutes of Zululand, who have also taken up this matter with the Minister’s Department, even going so far as to send a deputation to Pretoria to meet the officials concerned.

The difficulty is that year after year this issue is raised in the House and outside and we get assurances from the Minister, no doubt well meant, that he is conscious of the problems and the injustices done to these people, but nothing is done. Nor can we get a clear indication of what the Minister intends doing in that regard and how the negotiations with the Minister of Bantu Administration are proceeding, and what prospect there is of having these Bantu squatters removed, and whether alternative land has been found for these squatters. Year after year we get pious assurances that this matter is in hand, but nothing is done, and this has been going on for years.

It came to my ears about a year ago that the position of the Coloured community in Zululand had been considered by the Government and that there was the possibility of their being removed from that area. I corresponded with the Minister over a period of months and he replied to my letters in every instance in the sense of acknowledging them and saying that he was considering the matter, but I was unable to get any information as to what was being done. As the result, I put questions on the Order Paper early this year. I asked the Minister whether it was the intention of the Government to remove from Zululand all or any of the Coloured people living there, and his reply was, “Not at this stage”. I then put a supplementary question as to whether the question of their removal had been considered by the Cabinet, and the reply was, “Yes”.

Now, this is an important question. There are growing municipalities in Zululand who are contemplating providing houses for Coloured people, and one is actually doing so. So it is important not only to the Coloured people themselves to have clarity on this issue, but also to the local authorities as to how and to what extent they should carry out expensive plans to provide houses in the one place where they can be provided, in Eshowe, for Coloured people. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity when he replies to this debate to give us a clear indication as to what the plans are in respect of the Coloured community in Zululand as a whole, and what can be expected in regard to the Dunn community in particular. I am glad to see the Minister of Bantu Administration is in the House, because I have no doubt that he is aware of that problem as well. I must say that the approach one has from the officials of the Department of Coloured Affairs in regard to the Dunns has at all times been sympathetic, but the difficulty seems to stem from that side of the arrangements which are the concern of the Minister of Bantu Administration. I would ask this Minister to give us some clarity on the matter. [Time limit.]

When I first came to this House, I made my maiden speech under the Coloured Affairs Vote, and I said, inter alia, I hope and trust the day will speedily dawn when there will be a Department of full status and a full-time Minister of Coloured Affairs, and I could hardly believe myself, because it soon happened. No pen can aptly describe what that Department has achieved in the short while of just more than two years.

We know the cogs of the State machinery turn slowly sometimes, like Dutch drops on a cold day, but as regards Coloured Affairs it is quite a different picture. This shows what can be done when a matter is urgent.

Our Coloureds were a neglected group in the past, and this is still the position at the present time to a certain extent. I fully agree with the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) that the greatest curse was when the Bantu began to infiltrate into the Western Cape. I am one of the oldest members in this House and I knew the Coloureds for years before there was a single Bantu in the Western Cape. We had enough Coloureds to do all the work, and at the present time we still have enough. All our beautiful farms in the South-Western Districts with their beautiful buildings and the millions of fruit trees and vines were built up by the Coloureds. Therefore I say the sooner the Bantu is removed from the Western Cape, the better it will be for the Coloureds.

At first, if one spoke about Coloured affairs in this House, the electorate got one on the carpet on one’s return to one’s constituency and said: So you have again spoken about the Hottentots. But that is something of the past. One no longer hears a White man referring to the Hottentots, but to the Coloured or to the Brown people. The Whites are co-operating with Coloured Affairs as regards the upliftment of the Coloured, so much so that in my area the farmers have built schools for their Coloured labourers, for they knew that unless there were schools, the Coloured would move to the towns and they would have no labour.

But there is another thing I should like to plead for. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has referred to a feeding scheme and dwellings for Coloured, and there I agree with him. It is no use giving the Coloured school children food at school and to-night they have to sleep in a hovel of one or two rooms. That is where they contact diseases, and not because they do not get enough food. But if I were to live in town to-day and if I had a business with 12 Coloured in my employ, I am not concerned about their homes, because they live in sub-economic dwellings; but on the farm, when a young farmer starts farming and has four or six Coloured in his employ, and he wants to give them a decent house with three rooms, he can no longer build it for R100; the least it costs is R400 for three rooms.

Order! The hon. member ought to discuss this under the next Vote.

Then I should like to thank the Minister and the Department once: again for everything they are doing for the Coloured. I think it is worth while.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) launched an attack on the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) on the assumption that the hon. member for Gardens had said that influx control must be removed from the Western Cape and that the Bantu must be allowed to stream in. That is quite incorrect.

You have it all wrong.

What the hon. member for Gardens said was that if all the Bantu were removed from the Western Province it would depress the standards of the Coloured people here, and that is of course quite correct because the Coloureds would then have to do the work the Bantu do at the moment, and the Coloureds are not suited to do it, nor do they wish to do it. But what the hon. members for Parow and Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) did not say was this, that it is the policy of this Minister to turn the Coloured people into a group of artisans and workers. The proof of that is that they have taken over Coloured education, and what is the basis on which Coloured education is being run? It is being run on mainly two bases. They are concentrating on schools of the reform type, and on trade schools, and in the ordinary schools with the ordinary curriculum, what is happening? If a boy or girl fails to pass Std. VII or VIII they are directed to these trade schools with the object of sending them into our factories or being trained to be artisans. Now, there is nothing wrong with training people to be artisans, but what is the result? The reform schools are not reforming the Coloured. I believe that the percentage who are in fact reformed at these schools is less than 10 per cent, and in the trade schools almost 100 per cent of the students refuse to follow the occupation for which they are trained when they come out. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. That appears to be the position. The whole object of this policy therefore is to make these people a group of workers, artisans and labourers, and everything that the hon. member for Parow said is designed to back that up. We even have it in the take-over of Social Welfare. This Department is not approaching the welfare of the Coloured people on the right basis. It is treating the under-privileged Coloured on two bases, the basis of giving them grants or pensions, and of establishing punitive types of reform schools for the young children. That is the basis on which it is training them, and it is not succeeding. The Coloured people need understanding; they cannot be treated on the same basis as the Bantu. This Department is following too closely on the heels of the Department of Bantu Administration. Why cannot they have a separate policy which takes into consideration the psychological make-up of the Coloured people, and not just have a Department which imitates in all aspects the Department of Bantu Administration?

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) waxed very eloquent about how the Coloured appreciate the development of the Coloured lands, those 2,000,000 morgen of land, and how they had never had anything like this before under any other Government.

Unfortunately the facts do not back him up, because if the hon. member likes to look at the report of the Department of Coloured Affairs for December 1961, which is the last one available, he will find that the development of these lands has been as slow as the getting out of these reports. The last report is for 1961 and I must therefore assume either that the Minister has nothing new to report for the last two years or that the rate at which these reports are published is as slow as the rate at which these lands are developed. This is an important matter, and if the hon. member looks at page 17 of this report he will see what the Department itself regards as necessary for the development of these lands, matters like the sinking of boreholes, the making of dams, the erection of fences, soil conservation, irrigation, etc. If he turns to the next page, he will see what has actually been done. Just let us take two things. Let us take the development of fencing. The report says 2,500 miles of fencing is required, but on the next page we see that 78 miles of fencing has been erected in the course of two or three years. I do not know what the tempo has been since, but if you do a simple calculation on these figures you will find that it will take over 60 years to erect the fencing necessary, and the original fencing will have rusted away by then and will have to be replaced. If you do a similar calculation on boundary fences, you will find that it will take 20 years to complete them. You will also find that in the important matter of boreholes it will take eight to ten years to supply the necessary boreholes. What rate of improvement is this? How do these facts tie up with the speech made by the hon. member for Namaqualand? These are facts, and what he said was only imagination. No wonder we found that Mr. Scholtz in the Karoo by-election did not touch on what was being done for the Coloured on these 2,000,000 morgen. Instead, he promised them diamonds that were to be found on those lands, and he carefully avoided touching on the development of these lands. He probably thought that the sparkle of the diamonds would offset the shortcomings in the development of those lands. You will find, too, that the Minister has budgeted for less this year than he did last year for the development of this land, so it would appear on the surface that he intends still further slowing down the tempo of development of that land. What progress has been made, and what has the Minister got to report over the last few years? You will remember, Sir, that he developed a date plantation, and this report also mentions it. I see that he transferred an amount of R13,465 to development and has written it off as betterment work, but that was two years ago. How much more has been spent on it since then, and how many dates were produced? The amount of information contained in this report is so small that one cannot get an idea, but one hears that things are not going well, and yet we have put some R25,000 into it Will it ever come to fruition? Has the Minister gone about it the right way? Has he had consultations with people who know how to establish a thing like that? [Time limit.]

While listening to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as well as to other hon. members opposite, I could not help coming to the conclusion that the United Party is still suffering from a disease, in respect of the Coloured, from which they have been suffering all these years, namely that they want to promise the Coloured all impossible things, but will not consider the terrain on which the Coloured must move. It is perhaps less sensational to tell a man that you are putting up wire fences for him and are making camps for him in order to enable him to make a living than to tell him how many political rights you contemplate for him, but the actual position is that the Coloured will not be uplifted by holding out a political Utopia to him every day if you neglect to prepare the terrain on which he has to live for him.

The hon. member referred to the question of enclosing Coloured lands in the rural areas, and he argues that because in two years’ time only 78 miles of fencing wire were put up, it will take so many generations for the work to be completed. Does the hon. member ever consider that the enclosing of land is immediately concerned with planning and that planning is a precursor to fencing and that the tempo of fencing will increase in accordance with the completion of farm planning? If the hon. member will take the trouble during the week-end to take his car and travel around to within a radius of 100 miles from Cape Town and go and look at a couple of rural Coloured areas, and then compare those areas with the position only two years ago, he will come back here and testify with appreciation that something real is being done for the rural Coloured.

The hon. member also said that the whole education system of the Government is concentrated upon making a worker’s class of the Coloured. I think it links up with what the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) said yesterday, namely, that our policy is concentrated upon the removal of the Bantu here, and the substitution of Coloured so that Coloured may then do Bantu work. I should like to ask the hon. member: What is wrong with doing Bantu work, not only as regards the Coloured, but also as regards the White? Who does the work the Bantu does here in the United States of America and in Germany and in England and other countries of the world? Is that the idealism the hon. member is holding out to the Coloured people by telling them: “You are too good for pick and shovei work; do not work?” That is what the hon. member and his party are holding out to the Coloured. They are promising the Coloured heaven and earth as regards political rights, and in the meantime they are deceiving them, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) said here yesterday, out of the executive committees of the United Party.

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, and I shall substitute another very good Afrikaans word: They are excluding the Coloured by trickery (uit te kul) from the executive bodies of the United Party while they are holding all these things out to them, and at the same time they are preaching to the Coloured that they must not do Bantu work, that they must not do Kaffir work and that that is the kind of work this Government want the Coloured to do. Are hon. members not ashamed of themselves on that score? The Coloured will mean something in this country, and they must mean something to us—they are a great asset to the country—if they have learned to work. Our problems with the Coloured to-day is this— and it is said also by responsible leaders of the Coloured people—that a large number of them are work-shy and that a large number of them are not working full-time; they are part-time workers. When they have worked one or two days a week they think they have done enough work. The basic causes of that state of affairs can be found in shortcomings in the Liquor Act of yore, which we fortunately removed last year; and we find it also in the presence of numerous Bantu here, who have created the feeling among the Coloured, as the hon. member almost intimated to them, that they need not do that type of work, that it is Bantu work.

We are now living in an interim phase. The Department of Coloured Affairs, which has now taken over Coloured education, in my opinion is the means of rectifying this thing for us in future; to create a new approach in the Coloured in respect of work and the necessity for work, not part-time work but full-time work. But there is an interim stage in which we must educate a large number of Coloured who suffer from this complex that they need not work full-time, and in this connection I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) when he pleaded for better machinery between the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Labour to mobilize the Coloured labour which is available in fact but which is not employed full-time; in order to be able to use them where necessary. Sir, it is a fact that the Department of Labour has machinery for the registration of unemployed persons, but in view of the state of mind of a large number of adult Coloured at the present time, they will not register themselves, and that is why this extra encouragement is necessary of supervision by a Department which is immediately interested in finding these people —and we know there are numbers of them, particularly in the rural areas outside the Western Province—to find them and to bring them to the point of labour. Here in the Western Cape our farmers, who have on a basis of percentages always been the largest employers of Coloured labour, are busy preparing themselves to accommodate Coloured labour as far as they are able to do so; they are prepared to build homes which comply with the highest standards and which compare with the best housing schemes in towns, if only they can have available that Coloured labour which is not in full-time employment. That is why I should like to associate myself fully with the hon. member for Parow where he pleaded that the Department of Coloured Affairs should take the initiative, although labour does not fall under it immediately, to create the requisite machinery to mobilize for service unemployed or non-full-time Coloured labour.

I think it is necessary for me to deal with one or two of the points made by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) in this debate. The hon. member refers to the appeal which I had made in this debate and previously to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs to use his influence with the Government to abandon many of these petty apartheid measures in the interests of the Coloured people and in the interests of the country. The hon. member went on to say that when we talk about petty apartheid measures we invariably claim that job reservation is one of them. Let me say immediately that I do not regard job reservation as a petty apartheid measure at all; I think it is one of the major apartheid measures of this Government. But let me deal with it first of all on the basis of his argument. He went on to say that job reservation was introduced in point of fact to help Coloured and he cited the building industry as an example of how it was helping the Coloured as against the Bantu. Sir, I think it is necessary for me to repudiate this completely, particularly as far as the building industry is concerned. The building industry, in the Cape particularly, was at all times regarded traditionally as an occupation almost entirely reserved for the Cape Coloured people. The Cape Coloured skilled artisans predominated in the Cape in the building industry.

Order! The hon. member should have raised this matter under the Labour Vote.

I am not dealing with this matter from the point of view of labour I am dealing with it as an apartheid measure.

The hon. the Minister is not responsible for job reservation.

With respect, Sir, I am dealing with this purely to indicate how the Coloured people have been discriminated against in relation to their trades and occupations here.

The hon. member may mention it in passing but he must not elaborate.

Sir, I do not propose to elaborate on it. I just want to say that when you come to deal with skilled labour in the building industry, the position is that invariably the Coloured have predominated, and now we find as the result of Government policy that they are being discriminated against and that for the future, work like stone-masonry, marble-masonry, joinery in workshops, etc., will be reserved for the Whites. The Bantu have never made any intrusion in those trades; they have been kept exclusively for Coloured.

I want to deal now with some of the other petty apartheid measures in regard to which I have so often appealed to the Minister to use his influence to see that they are eliminated. I want to deal, for instance, with petty apartheid which has been introduced as the result of Government policy and which discriminates against the Coloured people. In this connection I want to appeal again to the hon. the Minister as the head of the Coloured Affairs Department to use his influence with the Government to try to put a stop to this petty apartheid which is bringing so much discredit and tontumely upon our country and which is causing so much friction and so much irritation amongst the Coloured people. The hon. member has asked us to mention what apartheid measures we have in mind and I propose to do so. One such petty apartheid measure is the Government’s decree with regard to taxi apartheid. We find that in terms of Government policy a Coloured man, if he works for a White taxi owner, is allowed …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue along those lines.

Sir, am I not entitled to question the hon. the Minister as to what his policy is in regard to these matters? These are discriminations against the Coloured people.

The hon. member had ample opportunity to discuss it under the Vote of the Minister of Labour.

Sir, I am dealing now with the livelihood of the Coloured people and surely I am entitled to ask the hon. the Minister what his policy is with regard to this matter.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed along those lines.

Am I not entitled to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to use his influence with the Government to eliminate these discriminations against the Coloured people?

Without discussing it.

Very well, I want to say then, without discussing the merits of the matter, that in relation to taxi apartheid these people have been deprived of their livelihood.

Order! The hon. member is again discussing job reservation, which is a matter for the Minister of Labour.

No, Sir, taxi apartheid is not job reservation.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss matters which appertain to the Votes of other hon. Ministers.

Very well, then I want to deal with various other petty apartheid measures which generally discriminate against the Coloured people, if you will not allow me to go into detail. There are countless petty apartheid measures which discriminate against the Coloured people and surely I am entitled to ask, which I do now, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, who claims to have the interests of the Coloured people at heart, to use his influence with the Government to eliminate these petty apartheid measures which are causing so much friction. I appeal to him to say publicly that he will do everything that is humanly possible to eliminate these measures, and to do so not only in the interests of the Coloured people but in the interests of our country.

I have been listening to this debate since yesterday, and I must say that in one respect it is gratifying to see that the discussions can take place in a calm atmosphere, which by itself is a testimonial to the system the Government has created, but in another sense it is disappointing because hon. members of the Opposition who criticized the administration of this Department have convinced me that very few of them have made a study of what my Department is doing.

At the outset I should like to refer to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). The hon. member referred to the rural areas. I do not know whether he has been in a rual area yet, but I suggest he should go there before he again discusses this matter. The facts are that from 1910 to 1952 over a period of 42 years, a total amount of R40,000 was spent on the improvement of rural areas, and from 1952 until last year, more than R 1,000,000 was spent on their improvement. But the hon. member alleges that the Minister hides away the annual reports or that he does not produce an annual report because he has nothing to report. We do not have time to draft annual reports; we are working. I should like to tell the hon. member that on the Estimates for this year alone we are making provision for R415,000 for these areas. In all these areas we are effecting improvements, but I definitely am not prepared to permit—and my Department will not permit it—the taxpayer’s money to be spent extravagantly on certain areas unless it is done judiciously. These areas are being properly developed on a pattern expertly drawn, and only when that pattern assumes shape are we prepared to spend the necessary money. For instance, we are providing for a further 248 boreholes, 300 drinking dams, 2,500 miles of fencing, 30 dams in connection with soil conservation, for 400 miles of contours, for 1,500 morgen under irrigation, for the planting of 530 trees. We are still engaged on these programmes.

Why do you not then submit a report in which we are told of these things?

It is not necessary to bring out a report exactly; hon. members who are interested in the Coloured can get this information from my Department. The hon. member need only ring the parliamentary division of the Department and they will give him this information. But the hon. member is not interested; he has only one object and that is to get up here and send this kind of story into the world. Take his further statement. He says that the welfare services have been taken over by this Department, but that we are not taking the interest in the welfare of the Coloured that we really ought to be taking, that we are only dealing with reformatories. But, Sir, under the United Party Government, which was in power for the longest period since 1910, not a single welfare worker for Coloureds was trained while the Coloured were enjoying equality. Do you know when a start was made with the training of social workers for Coloured so that we could tackle social welfare among the Coloured? It happened recently when the University College of the Western Cape was established; then only could we start. During all the years the United Party governed, not a single step was taken in this direction, but the hon. member nevertheless makes these statements.

In the third place he says we took over Education but that we are confining ourselves only to industrial schools and reformatories. But of the total amount of R5,000,000 made available for this purpose this year, less than R250,000 is available for the purpose he mentioned here; the rest goes to ordinary educational services. The testimonial is in these Estimates. If the hon. member were to study it, he will see what provision is being made here for academic education and for technical education for the Coloured, but he says we concentrate on industrial schools only. But why should we not make industrial schools available if there is a need for industrial schools and technical schools and technical colleges among the Coloureds? You see, Sir, this kind of argument makes this Parliament look ridiculous in the eyes of the public, and therefore I should like to appeal to hon. members, when they discuss racial matters of this nature here, to prepare themselves before they participate in the debate.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Swellendam for his contribution. I am sorry he could not take the housing question further; we shall discuss that again at a later stage.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) again referred to the Dunn land. I am just as anxious as the hon. member to get this problem solved, and I can sssure him that I will have discussions very shortly with my colleague again. The land has not been demarcated yet; it is still under the control of the Department of Bantu Administration. It has not been possible during the last six months to proceed with any further steps in this regard. Sir, this is rather a difficult question. It is not only the Dunns who have to be considered; we also have to consider the interests of the Bantu people there. I hope that the hon. member will not try to press this matter unduly because that may only delay matters.

Then the hon. member also referred to the other Coloured people in Zululand. Well, this issue is dependent on two reports that we are awaiting. Provision must be made for the Coloured people in Zululand, and I understand that the De Villiers Committee of the Department of Lands is at present planning the allocation of State-owned land in Northern Zululand. We are awaiting that report before the Group Areas Board can make its recommendations to the Minister with regard to the future settlement of the Coloured community of Zululand. I am informed that most of them work in different occupations; they are not farmers, and most of them live in towns. We are awaiting this report before we can make the final decision. I am informed, however, that the report of the De Villiers Committee is expected in the near future, in a couple of months’ time.

Does the Minister know that that report was promised originally for January?

Yes, so I am informed but we have not received it yet.

*Then the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) referred to the question of Coloured labour. He asked whether any arrangements have been made between the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Labour. Yes, there have been discussions. We have a problem here, because in the first place there is a large number of Coloureds in South Africa who are not fit to work, owing to poor training in the past and owing to other circumstances …

Why?

There are various reasons. In the second place no proper survey has been made to determine where those unemployed Coloured are. One hears of them here and one hears of them there, but one does not have a proper picture. Hitherto there has been no means of making that labour available properly. In this regard there have been discussions between us and the Department of Labour, and the Department of Labour has suggested to us that a directorate for Coloured labour should be established in the Department of Labour and that this directorate should firstly try to ascertain where the Coloured are who are not working, and why they are not working, and in the second place, what can be done to notify the Coloured that there is labour available for them, and thirdly, what can be done to get them to the source of labour. Only then will one be able to take the further steps in the form of preparing for employment those who are not ready for employment at the present time. This suggestion was made to us by the Department of Labour, and I propose to have further discussions with the Department of Labour as soon as this Vote has been disposed of. It has already been accepted in principle that we will co-operate with Labour in this connection. I hope that from this will also flow close co-operation with local authorities who can be very helpful in this regard, and that we shall be able to get a better picture of the potential available and to what extent we can make it available in the labour market. I hope we shall also have the co-operation of the Coloured people as such.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, the hon. member may not ask questions, he will get an opportunity to speak.

Then the hon. member also asked me whether there are people in the rural areas who cannot make a living there. Yes, that is so. Under the legislation passed in 1963, it is possible to replan the rural areas in such a way—we are engaged on that— that only bona fide farmers will be able to remain on the land. We are also engaged on the planning of 23 townships in these rural areas to provide for people to find accommodation and a living there. They will have to come into the labour market. Hon. members who are familiar with the rural areas know there are many of these rural areas where the Coloured live in their own little townships, but are employed elsewhere. The idea is that people who cannot make a living on the land, must find their livelihood elsewhere. We cannot permit people any longer to occupy the land unless they use the land properly and get the best out of it. They are receiving the requisite technical information. We shall permit only bona fide farmers on the land in future. We are now drastically implementing this planning.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) referred to school feeding. Last year, when I introduced the Education Bill here, I said that this matter had been referred to the National Bureau for Social and Educational Research, and I said that until I am offered a better system than that of which we are aware today, I am not prepared to restore school feeding. The National Bureau for Social and Educational Research is still investigating this matter they have not reported as yet, but I am definitely not prepared to institute a school feeding system which will only mean that the State’s money is being wasted.

The hon. members for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) and Boland (Mr. Barnett) both raised the question of compulsory education. Sir, compulsory education, as I have said in the past, is dependent on a few factors, firstly the availability of school buildings, secondly, the availability of properly qualified teachers, thirdly, the availability of funds and, fourthly, the capability of the children themselves. That is my reply at present. I think about 86 per cent of the Coloured children are attending schools to-day, but large numbers of Coloured children, as the hon. members knows, leave school at a very early stage. I do not think we have reached the stage where we can institute compulsory education. We must see first of all that we have sufficient qualified teachers and that we are able to provide the school buildings which are needed.

And you must also improve their economic conditions.

And the economic conditions of the Coloured must also be improved. The Government has always been setting an example as far as the wages and salaries of Coloured are concerned. Nobody prohibits private enterprise from paying their workers what they need, so those people who preach to the Government about improving the economic conditions of the Coloured must set the example themselves. The hon. member also asked me about State-aided schools in the Orange Free State and in the Transvaal. There are no State-aided schools in those two provinces. The hon. member also asked me about the 808 and 3,181 children in the Orange Free State and Transvaal respectively who were not at school. My reply to that is the same as my reply in regard to compulsory education. Everything is dependent upon the availability of the factors I have mentioned.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised the question of temporary teachers not receiving their salaries promptly and the question of married teachers being paid on the minimum notch. I am afraid I must admit that this is true. In the taking over process the Department of Education in the Transvaal omitted to inform the Department of Coloured Affairs on appointments made at an early stage. That was where the mistake came in. I understand, however, that this has been rectified.

*The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) has congratulated the Department on the smooth way in which it took over Coloured education. I am grateful to the hon. member for having paid tribute to the Department. As hon. members know, we took over Coloured education under difficult circumstances. I also want to thank my Department heartily for the successful way in which they took over Coloured education right throughout the country. Very few things went wrong. Hon. members said yesterday that quite a lot of promises had been made before Coloured education was taken over. I do not know of any promises having been made. What we in fact said was that after the taking over of Coloured education we would order an investigation into the question of improving salary scales. After the takeover, we appointed a Coloured Education Council and their first task was to advise the Public Service Commission. They did so and the P.S.C. gave attention to the matter. The Government has now approved an increase in the salaries of Coloured teachers. According to the basis used for the revised scales for Coloured teachers, the increases will vary from approximately 11 per cent to 25 per cent, and in some cases, particularly in the higher grades, it will be even more favourable. In addition to the improved basic scale and the increased scales based on it, teachers would be granted an extra concession by being moved up an extra notch on the pre-revised key scale which would after 1 April 1964 be adapted to the improved scales. In other words, the Government did not delay long in implementing the undertaking it gave at the time. I am glad to be able to make this announcement. As the hon. the Minister of the Interior has already announced, it has also been decided to improve the salaries of Coloured personnel in the Public Service as from 1 April 1964. It therefore applies to both the Coloured personnel in the Public Service and to Coloured teachers throughout the country.

The hon. member for Parow also referred to the misuse being made of pensions and children’s allowances. I can assure the hon. member that I feel just as strongly in regard to this matter as he does. Since I became Minister I have told my Department that all possible means should be adopted to put a stop to the misuse of pensions and allowances. The Coloured population has one shortcoming, namely that its family life leaves much to be desired. Between 35 per cent and 37 per cent of births are illegitimate. That is partly ascribable, as the hon. member for Parow has said, to the presence of the Bantu, but it can also partly be ascribed to other factors, not only housing; it is to be ascribed to a lack of a certain philosphy of life. This problem should be combated. We shall, however, not be able to combat it by granting pensions and children’s allowances in an extravagant manner. After the recent improvements in this regard which were announced by the Minister of Finance, I gave an instruction to the Department, which was put in the form of a regulation, that no increased children’s allowance should be granted unless the mother could prove that she was unable to trace the father. Six months will elapse during which this allowance will not be paid, in order to give her an opportunity to produce that proof. I do not intend to allow these Coloured pensions and allowances to engender hatred on the part of the Whites to the extent to which that is being done at present because of these abuses. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we have already given instructions to all magistrates and all regional offices of the Department of Coloured Affairs and all welfare officers which assist us, in this regard. Furthermore, I intend during the recess devoting my personal attention very thoroughly to this whole question. My intention is to try to eliminate any abuses to the best of my ability.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) appealed to me to ask the Government to abandon petty apartheid. In other words, he appeals to me to make an appeal to myself to abandon my own policy. Let me tell the hon. member that this type of political manoeuvre does not impress me. I am a member of this Government and as such I take responsibility for every action of the Government. To make appeals to me is tantamount to objecting to the sun rising. I take responsibility for every action of performed by the Government or by a colleague. The Coloured people know that I do not tell them one story and a different one to the Whites. They know that I am very frank with them. They know that I am not an integrationist; I do not believe in this story of the so-called petty apartheid. I think it is a nonsensical thing which has been thought out. There is no such thing. If there are irritating measures in the name of apartheid, it is because there are too many people who try to wreck it. That has been my standpoint throughout. I made a statement in the Cape Times in which I stated my attitude in regard to petty apartheid. The hon. member can read it there.

The hon. member asks me to make representations to the Government in connection with the opera house. I do not intend doing so, because I, together with the Government, adopted that standpoint. My reply to the hon. member is this: The Government’s standpoint is based on two principles, firstly that the Coloureds have the right to have cultural facilities of the highest quality near their university and in the middle of their developing garden township, which will also be the central point of a large Coloured city. The Government is prepared to do its share to make those facilities available to them.. Therefore in this complex of buildings, which will contain administrative offices and a debating chamber for the Coloured Council which is to be established, there will be a hall of the highest standard where the cultural people among the Coloured community can give expression to their art. That complex of buildings is already being planned and will be built as speedily as possible. In other words, we are prepared to give the Coloured population buildings near to their university and in the complex of their garden township of which they need not be ashamed and where they will have the necessary facilities.

Our second standpoint is one which I adopt together with the rest of the Government, namely that the White people in South Africa also have that right. I cannot understand this sickly spirit in this country that whenever the White man creates a facility for himself he must necessarily share it with another racial group. I cannot understand this sickly attitude and I reject it. As a Minister from the Cape Province, I say that I assume full co-responsibility with the Government on this point and that I am not prepared to help in casting that principle overboard.

The hon. member for Peninsula also quoted from SABRA’s book. His request to me was to make a statement as to whether I agree with SABRA. Why should I make a statement as to whether I agree with SABRA or not? Why should I make a statement as to whether I agree with the hon. member or not? In the second place, SABRA did in fact publish this book, but they state clearly in it that everyone who collaborated in publishing this book is responsible for his own standpoint and that it is not necessarily SABRA’s standpoint. Am I now to adopt a standpoint in respect of each of these contributors? What absurdities does the hon. member expect of me? I am not responsible for the publication of this book. It contains many useful things. In the main, it is a very valuable book. I should say that the hon. member ought to read it, because that is something he has not done hitherto. The best proof of the fact that he has not read it yet was his speech, and the best proof that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has not read it was his speech. They quote from it, although neither of them has read it. In the first place, they gave quite the wrong interpretation of Dr. Olivier’s old standpoint. That is not the standpoint he adopted, and I intended quoting a few extracts from the chapter written by Dr. Olivier.

When business was suspended I was pointing out to the hon. member for Peninsula that he was quite wrong in expecting me to adopt a standpoint in regard to SABRA’s alleged standpoint. I informed the hon. member that he had obviously not read this book, because although he quoted from it, it was clear that he had not read it. If he had read the book he would have seen that the person who is responsible for the compilation of the book, Professor Theron, clearly states (translation)—

In other words, not even SABRA’s executive accepts responsibility for it. There are a number of contributors who dealt with a number of subjects. The hon. member therefore cannot expect me to adopt an attitude in respect of a number of articles written by various people. The standpoint of the Government in regard to the Coloured people has repeatedly been clearly stated by me in this House. I did so again this year and the hon. member knows it. In both my introductory speech and in my reply to the second reading of the legislation I handled, I replied to all these questions put by hon. members.

What was interesting was the fact that the hon. member quoted Dr. Olivier in an attempt to strengthen his case. I also want to quote from what Dr. Olivier said. He refers to the differences of opinion which arise from time to time in regard to the future of the Coloured and says—

In other words, one should not advocate things to which there are reactions which wreck the cause one wants to serve, viz. the interests of these people. He continues to say—

If the hon. member had read this book he would have seen these things—

But he goes further, and this is what I finally want to quote. Dr. Olivier says that his standpoint is that further policies other than those which are clearly stated should not be evolved in respect of the Coloured. He says—

That is the judgment he issued in regard to the policy advocated by the hon. member. The hon. member should not quote this book to support his standpoint.

There are only one or two other hon. members to whom I must reply. I see the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) is not here now. In any case, he did not say much and I therefore leave him there.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) made a few statements which cannot be left at that. The first statement he made was that the policy of the Nationalist Pary was leading the Coloured people away from Western civilization.

That is true.

There somebody now says: “that is true”. I am not surprised at the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) immediately saying it is true. His second statement was that the Immorality Act does not protect the Coloureds against the Bantu. Thirdly, the separate universities also drive the Coloureds away from Western civilization. The Group Areas Act, according to him, is also one of those measures which drive the Coloured people away from Western civilization. Then he said that this Government had bought 2,000,000 morgen of land for the Coloureds. When did we do that? Surely the hon. member comes from the North-West Before he transferred to the Gardens, he lived in the North-West. He knows that this land was already set aside by previous generations. This Government did not purchase it. We are simply improving what the previous Government neglected. Let us take these statements and deal with them briefly. Who takes the Coloured people out of the Bantu locations? Is it this Government, or was it that hon. member’s Government? Who is busy with a positive, systematic process, a process which is beginning to take shape everywhere in our towns and cities, of taking the Coloured out of the Bantu locations and the slums and letting them live in civilized conditions? Then the hon. member says we are chasing them away from Western civilization! [Interjection.] That hon. member’s Government forced them in among the Bantu.

Where?

Inter alia, in Windermere and Sophiatown and Cato Manor. Are hon. members not ashamed of themselves in view of the fact that the stigma of Cato Manor and Windermere and Sophiatown clings to them? Just imagine a party running away from its own past to that extent! The hon. member says the separate universities take the Coloured people away from Western civilization. Did an opportunity ever exist in their time for Coloured students, such as there exists to-day, for 394 of them to be able to study at their own university while still retaining the right, if their own university cannot offer certain courses, to go to the so-called open universities?

Apartheid legislation is not popular in this country.

Order! The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) cannot make a speech now.

The fact is that the hon. member just made a number of unfounded statements here.

The hon. member referred to the Group Areas Act. But let him read this book by SABRA and see what they say about the Group Areas Act. Let him read what they say, that this Act particularly gives the Coloured people the basis on which they can build a community, in which they can have the right of occupation and property rights and become a well-ordered community. But the hon. member made another statement. He referred to the Immorality Act. Surely the hon. member knows that if one passes an Act to-day preventing the Coloured and the Bantu from intermingling, it will be practically impossible to implement it as long as the Coloured are not properly physically separated from the Bantu. Surely he knows that. Why does he now make a statement about a matter in regard to which he knows that if we were to do it he would in any case oppose it? This is now the type of argument to which we have had to listen for hours. I leave it there.

I wish to say that the task of this Government, which it is implementing, is reflected in the Estimates before the House and in the amounts appearing on the Loan Votes and the Estimates of Expenditure for the welfare services, the education, for the training of Coloured, for their development in the rural areas and for the facilities made available to the Coloured population. I say that never before under any previous Government or under any other system has the human dignity of the Coloured people been considered so much, or their right to develop in their own circle, as was made possible by this Government.

The question I wanted to put to the hon. the Minister while he was speaking was merely this: In the consultations with the Department of Labour that have taken place, and which will take place in future, will the Minister consider when there is an inquiry as to where the Coloureds are who may be used as labourers that it is not only purely a case of a Bantu being removed from a place and having a Coloured do his work? The economic factors must also be taken into consideration. In my constituency, particularly in the South-Western Districts, I constantly come up against the position that municipalities permit companies doing construction work for instance to introduce Bantu to do the work, as happened at Mossel Bay for instance when the new power station was built; and then it is said that there is no Coloured labour available. That is the excuse which is made by the construction company concerned. Nevertheless there are hundreds of Coloured who would be willing to accept employment, but a Coloured person with a family of five or four children cannot pay rent and reside at a place other than where the construction work is in progress, at the wage on which the Bantu can live. That is the great difficulty in connection with the matter, that the construction companies want the Bantu labour because the Bantu is willing to work for lower wages than the Coloured person. I go so far as to say that the Coloured person cannot possibly work at the wage for which the Bantu can work. He cannot maintain a proper civilized standard and feed his family and himself at the wage for which the Bantu can work. I saw it in the days of my childhood. My father was a builder. Four, five Bantu sleep in the hut on the premises where the building is being put up. They buy one ox head and half a bag of mealie meal and they live well on that for a week. But one cannot expect the Coloured man and his family to subsist on that. Mr. Chairman, when Coloured Affairs is discussed in this House, one finds members on both sides of the House who are keen to participate in it, and the debate has not progressed very far before one hears recriminations being flung across the floor of the House of what the one party is supposed to have done while it was in power, and what it is supposed not to have done, and what the other party is doing or is supposed to have done. Yesterday we had charges of misleading here. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) denied that on his side there was any misleading, but it is not realized on both sides of the House that what has happened throughout the hundreds of years, one may say, of the history of the Coloureds in our country should have taught us something. Having regard to the position of our country vis-à-vis the outside world, and having regard to our internal matters as regards racial groups and numbers, I feel it is high time for positive thinking and positive action to instil the necessary confidence in the 1,500,000 people constituting our Coloured community in South Africa. I acknowledge what the Government has done in the material sphere, as regards education, as regards housing, and as regards the rural areas, of which I have good experience. I am always at the Minister’s doorstep in regard to another area which should be incorporated, and I should like to tell the hon. the Minister now that it is appreciated that approval has been given for the water scheme which will be completed for Slangrivier near Heidelberg. But, Mr. Chairman, you will have seen that in any civilized nation we know of it was not only material defects which caused revolutions and created dissatisfaction. As a community develops interest is necessarily taken in the political order and in how the country is being governed.

I should like to point out one aspect, and I do not wish to remonstrate with the Opposition or the Government, but everybody involved in it. The hon. member for Gardens said yesterday that the Government is leading the Coloured to second-class citizenship. Now the question arises on the part of the Coloured, and I put the question on their behalf: Is that hon. member for Gardens in favour of first-class citizenship for the Coloured: If he is in favour of first-class citizenship for the Coloured, and surely I must infer from his statement that he is opposed to second-class citizenship, is the hon. member then willing to give the Coloured man his rightful place in our country as regards the political order too? But there is no reply. You see, Mr. Chairman, the Coloured man in South Africa desires that the White man should not mislead him but should be honest with him. We have heard what the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) said: “I demand first-class citizenship for the Coloured people.” Will he say here that he is in favour of full citizenship for the Coloureds in the true sense of the term? Or is he in favour of the position continuing where his Coloured voters in Kimberley may vote for him, but as soon as a Coloured man moves to Dealesville on the other side of the Free State border, he has no political rights? Or when some of his voters of Vryburg move to Lichtenburg, do they have political rights then? I see the hon. member for Gardens cannot answer. He is walking out now.

Are you now criticizing the Minister’s vote?

I am talking for the Coloured people I represent, and the whole theme of my speech is that we must stop this deception and hypocrisy, and that applies to any one on both sides of the House. I should like to mention another example. The hon. member for Karoo unfortunately is not here now, but he spoke against job reservation. I quite agree with him. When I made an interjection and asked him “all job reservation” he said I could make my own speech. I am now doing so. I should like to know from anybody concerned with it: If we were to abolish job reservation and if we were to abolish that injustice to the Coloureds, are we going to take it to its full conclusion? Are we going to abolish job reservation in the Public Service, in the South African Railways, and are we going to abolish the colour bar in respect of the mines as regards the Coloureds?

What are you saying now?

I say it must be done. The Coloureds are part of the Western population group. He has the same aptitude, it is possible to train him for the same work the White man does. And as regards the mines: Why can the Coloured man in the mines be only a labourer and do the work done by the Bantu at present? Why can he not qualify for other work? We are talking about job reservation as regards the Coloureds. What does it amount to? On Monday last week I was present at a conference of Coloured organizations at Umtata, where the Ciskei and the Transkei and the whole Griqualand East were represented. One man got up and asked why it was that in the Department of Coloured Affairs, in Cape Town, where he was last year, there are hundreds of White officials, and why can Coloureds not work there? The Chairman asked whether I could reply to that. I said: Yes, it is as a result of the application of job reservation which has been applied in the Public Service throughout all these years, so that the position now is that while a Coloured man can on paper advance to the highest posts in the Department of Coloured Affairs, the people who have the necessary experience are just not there, because they could never enter the Public Service. That is the position we have in consequence of job reservation. The Government has made one great blunder in connection with job reservation, and it is a blunder the Government has made from time to time in connection with other aspects. The Government has given something which has traditionally existed in South Africa over hundreds of years a name which has contributed to our country being made the polecat of the world, namely “apartheid”. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, may I on a point of order get your ruling on a matter which we regard as of great importance to the subject matter of the Minister’s Vote. This morning during the course of our discussions, I raised in reply to an issue mentioned by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) the question of petty apartheid, and in the course of that discussion I cited several instances of how this petty apartheid was applied against Coloured people and how it was affecting them and how it was bringing our country into ridicule and contempt and how it was causing a great deal of friction among the Coloured people as against the Whites. The Deputy-Chairman who was in the Chair at the time, ruled that these instances which I cited could only be raised under the Votes of the respective Ministers whose Departments were concerned with the matters in question. Now, Sir, I want to draw your attention to a statement made by the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs on 7 June 1963 (Hansard, Vol. 7, Col. 7486) which reads as follows in reply to a question that I raised with the hon. Minister—

This morning, Sir, in the course of his reply the hon. Minister again repeated this and said that he is co-responsible for every one of the steps that he and his colleagues have taken in regard to the Coloured people. I ask your ruling, Sir, whether it is not competent when we come to discuss the Vote of the Minister of Coloured Affairs for us to raise these various steps that are taken against the Coloured people and for which the hon. Minister has acknowledged his co-responsibility.

Only matters of policy for which this hon. Minister is responsible can be raised on this Vote.

Despite the fact, Sir, that he accepts co-responsibility?

Despite that fact.

When my ten minutes expired, I was saying that in my opinion the Government has made a big mistake in calling the form of traditional development and the relationship that has always existed in South Africa “apartheid”. This is something that we want to get away from to-day. The big mistake made by the Government in connection with so-called job reservation was to give it a name. It has existed in its grossest form over the years. I want here to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the Government to abolish job reservation completely and to make it clear that we accept the Coloured group in South Africa as a Western group speaking our language, having our religion and maintaining our way of life as soon as they reach the economic and educational level of the Whites, and that we cannot therefore prevent the Coloured from accepting a post or doing a job for which he is properly qualified, a job in which he can earn the same money as that earned by a White man.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) had a great deal to say this morning about the various ways in which job reservation can protect the Coloured. But the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) pointed out that the removal of the Bantu will not make things any better for the Coloured in the building industry. The Bantu have never been artisans. This is the sort of thing that happens. I personally know that a firm in Cape Town was awarded the contract to lay floors in a new building in East London. That firm sent material and workers to East London but when the Coloured floor-layers arrived at East London the company had simply to bring them back to Cape Town at their own expense because a Coloured cannot do that sort of work there.

That falls under the Department of Labour.

I am talking to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs because he has to plead the case of the Coloured before the Cabinet. Let us take another example.

The other example must be relevant. The matter raised by the hon. member falls under the Department of Labour.

Sir, with the greatest respect, the matters we have been discussing here throughout the morning have been labour matters. The hon. member for Parow devoted his entire speech to these matters. As long as the Coloured is prevented from doing certain work …

Order! The hon. member may not discuss labour matters.

There are hundreds of Coloured …

Order! The hon. member must obey the Chair and advance a new argument.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. The new argument that I want to advance is that hundreds of Coloured are employed by the Department of Coloured Affairs. I have been given to understand that there is no job reservation in the Department of Coloured Affairs and that if a man qualifies for a post that is vacant, he can be appointed to that post. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence to ensure that this will be the position throughout.

Criticism has been expressed here of the arguments advanced against “petty apartheid”. I sometimes ask myself how many Whites in general and particularly, how many hon. members in this House, realize what it is to be a Coloured in our everyday life in South Africa. I have used this example previously: “How would a White man feel if he lived at Humansdorp and wanted to lay a wreath at the war monument on which his father’s name is inscribed in the park there and was not allowed to do so because he was not White?” That is the sort of thing that one finds throughout. The Government can assist in making White South Africa realize that we must put a stop to this sort of thing. We are faced with the problem that when this Government came into power in 1948, as a result of circumstances which I admit existed before the time and which brought this about, an attitude was revealed in regard to our relationship with the Coloured which has changed completely to-day. Everyone admits that the feeling in respect of the Coloured which existed in 1948 has changed completely. But unfortunately, the legislation which was passed in that different spirit after 1948 still exists, and I want to make an appeal to the Government and to the hon. the Minister to ensure that aspects of that legislation which have become completely superfluous and unnecessary today, be done away with. As long as they stand on our Statute Book they constitute an insult to and a humiliation for the Coloured. I can give the House the assurance that I am speaking on behalf of Afrikaans-speaking Whites, supporters of the Nationalist Party, Whites who feel unhappy, deeply unhappy about certain aspects of legislation which is still on the Statute Book to-day and which was passed at that time. I can understand what it was that caused that feeling to arise at the time. For years and years the Nationalist Party fought and lost election after election. The Coloured voted for the United Party. So it was a case of: Now we will show these people; we are the masters now. That had a great deal to do with it.

Nonsense!

No, it had a great deal to do with it and the implementation of the apartheid promises was of course a further reason. Why do we seek to run away from the past? We all make mistakes. But the time has come when the fact that we have now rid ourselves of that spirit must also be reflected in the way in which we consider legislation which was passed after those years.

Now your are talking nonsense!

I cannot expect a political organizer to admit that but sensible people opposite will, I am sure, agree with me.

Order! The hon. member must not go too far.

No, Mr. Chairman. One can understand that the truth hurts. I consider the hon. the Minister—and this is the way I describe him to the Coloured—to be the representative of the Coloured in the Cabinet, just as I am their representative in the House of Assembly. I did not say that he was a bad fellow. I expressed appreciation for what he had done. But what other representative do they have in the Cabinet? I expressed appreciation for what has been done for the Coloured people of South Africa in the material sphere, particularly over the past years. But I cannot express appreciation—in fact, I want to lodge a protest in this regard— for what has not been done in connection with legislation which has become obsolete and unnecessary, which simply serves to irritate the Whites and to humiliate the national group whose salvation—we want them to understand this—lies with the Whites.

I want to conclude by making an appeal to the hon. the Minister and by making an appeal to my colleagues on the Government side to be objective and to try and see these matters from the point of view of the Coloured who want to be first-class citizens of South Africa. They do not want an ambiguous citizenship. Their loyalty is to South Africa and they have never been loyal to anyone else but the White man. We have reached a stage where it is possible—please God it does not happen—that there may within the foreseeable future be attempts at international intervention in South Africa. We have here a population group whom we cannot do without. Let us make them feel that they have their rights in South Africa.

Before I proceed to deal with the few points I want to raise, I think I should tell the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) that now for the second time in this House he has very cunningly insulted the Coloured people.

On a point of order, may the hon. member say that I have cunningly insulted anybody?

He has very cunningly insulted the Coloured people, but if the hon. member feels insulted I will withdraw that expression, and I want to say that very stupidly he has insulted the Coloured people of South Africa. I merely want to say that I take the strongest objection to the hon. member for Parow indicating to the House and to the country that the Coloured people are a lazy lot of people who do not want to work. I say that that is completely wrong. If the hon. member will help me and others who are fighting for the Coloured people to see that adequate wages are paid to these people, you will find they will come in their thousands to work.

The Coloured are not as piggish (“varklik”) as he is.

On a point of order, may the hon. member for Parow say to a Jew that he is “varklik”?

What did the hon. member say?

I said that the Coloured are not as piggish as he is. I withdraw that.

I want to come to the question which I dealt with before my time expired and that is to make an appeal to the hon. Minister in regard to the difference in the pensions of the Coloured people and the White people. Under this Vote a considerable amount is allocated for war pensions, pensions for blind people and so on, but I say the hon. Minister should now make it his business to see that the Coloured people get the same pensions as the White people. I want to remind him of the fact that a little while ago the cost-of-living for the poorer people has increased. The price of butter has been increased, there has been an increase in the price of milk, there have been increases in regard to other commodities, and the Coloured people who are pensioners, find it very difficult to meet those increased prices. The hon. Minister should see to it that these scales should be equalized as between Europeans and Coloured.

You raised that matter before.

I want to get results. You cannot meet the demands of the farmers by raising the prices of milk, butter and cheese and other commodities and still say to the poor Coloured pensioner he can receive only 50 per cent of what the White man gets. It is wrong for the old-age pensioner, and even more wrong for the Coloured blind or the war veteran. I sincerely trust that the Minister will during the recess try to obtain some amelioration for the Coloured pensioners in this regard.

I think it is only right at this stage for me to pay a tribute to the Minister’s Department. Whenever I have gone to the Department to see officials, I have had nothing but courtesy and a very sincere desire to assist me. But the Minister himself in his reply here to-day has tried to become granite like the Prime Minister. He does not want to be moved. He must realize that times change and policies must change. The Coloured man is progressing and there is a new thought arising among the intelligent Afrikaners in regard to the Coloured, and the Minister must move with the intelligent people. He must move with the times in regard to the Coloured. He cannot say that is the policy and he is not changing it. That is most disheartening to the Coloured people.

I want to add one more point to show hon. members opposite how difficult it is for the Coloured people. I met some people the other day from the area represented by the hon. member for Outeniqua. They come from a little place where 80 per cent of the houses have been condemned as unfit for human habitation, and they asked me to make representations on their behalf. I am not talking to the Minister now because he knows of the matter and has indicated his sympathy, but I am talking to the disbelievers on that side. I asked these people why they could not put their houses in order and they said: “How can we possibly do anything when we only receive 55c a day for our work from the farmer?”. How do you who are farmers expect them to five on that?

We feed them like anything.

Yes, and I suppose you just feed them anything and expect them to be atisfied. The Minister has been sympathetic in regard to this matter and has promised to go into it, but those hon. members must understand that that is what is hurting the Coloured man, when he has to work for a miserable 55c a day and to keep his family alive and clothe them. [Interjections.] The hon. member says it is the exception to the rule, but the fact is that there are 400 families affected. I want to make an appeal to the people of the platteland who are mainly responsible for the Coloured people being work-shy, as indicated by the hon. member for Parow, because they are not prepared to work like slaves for such low wages any more. [Interjections.] I know it does not apply to every farmer. I have been a farmer myself, but the more I hit at these gentlemen the more I am hurting them because they know it is the truth. [Time limit.]

It is not my intention to prolong this debate but I do not think that I can remain seated and allow the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) to say what he has just said without, as Minister, rising to defend the farming population of South Africa. I myself represent a farming constituency. I am continually having discussions with agricultural unions and I repudiate any statement to the effect that there is a lack of goodwill on their part in regard to their employees. I have just recently again had important discussions with agricultural unions, people who have made concrete suggestions to the Department. I have nothing but praise for the leaders of those agricultural organizations for the fine and objective way in which they have approached this whole matter. I think it is unworthy of the hon. member to act in such a way, a way which can only have unpleasant repercussions, and I must object to what he has had to say. I feel it my duty to defend the agricultural organizations against these unjust attacks.

For the sake of the record, I just want to correct one impression of what took place yesterday in regard to the fracas between me and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). I want to make it quite clear that there is no change whatsoever in the basic policy of the party I represent as far as the Coloured people are concerned. Our party from its early inception has stood for Common Roll representation for all races in this country, based on a qualified franchise. We continue with that policy. There is no change whatever. It is qualified franchise for everybody, irrespective of colour, race or creed, and it applies to the entire Republic, irrespective of the provinces, and for both sexes. Both men and women can be on the Voters’ Roll provided they qualify. There is no racial discrimination, but differentiation on the basis of standards of education and development.

I want to say, further, that the hon. member for Peninsula, who made the deplorable statement that the party was using ex-communists at the meetings it has been holding in the Peninsula, is quite wrong. These meetings are held openly and people are invited and the party puts its point of view. The hon. member should not cast aspersions on the Coloured people who come to those meetings. Many of them might previously have been his own supporters, although I doubt it. I want to say that we make no promises to the Coloured people other than that we will fight their cause in this House, if we do decide to change our policy, which is the only change envisaged, namely that we will use the forum of separate representation to put forward our policy on their behalf and on behalf of all the other races in the country, which is the removal of race discrimination. That is the only promise we make to the Coloured people, together with the promise to restore their self-respect which has been taken from them when they were removed from the Common Roll, which in my opinion gave them second-class citizenship.

I want to say one more thing to the hon. the Minister before I sit down. I hope that he has a policy not for this generation but for the coming generation of Coloured children, those who are finishing school within the next few years, because there is a tendency for hon. Ministers, be it the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Indian Affairs, to say that nobody under the present circumstances will be deprived of his livelihood, and that all Coloured may retain the jobs they now hold when job reservation is introduced, and that the idea is to preserve the status quo, and the same thing applies to group areas. It is said that no one of the existing generation will be deprived of his livelihood. But I want to ask the Minister whether he has a policy for the coming generation of Coloured children who will shortly finish school and who might have wished to enter those trades where their fathers have been artisans and who from now on will not be allowed to enter those trades because of job reservation. I want to point out that there is nothing more calculated to engender racial grievances than for a parent to feel that there is no hope for his children to improve their status, and in this case not even to reach the status of the parent himself.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 44,—“Community Development”, R479,000,

I should like to claim the privilege of the half-hour. I want to deal with the question of Group Areas proclamations under this Minister’s Department, and I want to do so in the light of a Department which has probably had more coals of fire heaped on our heads by our friends in the outside world as well as our critics, than any other Department. One would think, as the result of this, that the Minister and his Department would be scrupulous in the implementation of the policy of group areas, but to me it is becoming more and more obvious that this is in fact not so and that group areas decisions are becoming more arbitrary, and they seem to bear little or no relationship to the normal process which should be gone through, as I understand it. To me, when it has been decided to investigate an area, a hearing is set down at which evidence is called for from the various interested parties, and I always thought that the determination as to what should happen to that area, whether it should in fact go to one or other of the racial groups or be left as it is, was decided on the weight of the evidence heard at that hearing. But I am beginning to think—in fact, I am quite convinced— that this is not in fact the process that is followed, and in order to illustrate my point I want to cite Proclamation No. 272 of 4 October last year, which applied to portions of the City of Durban and also to the area of Isipingo Beach.

In the case of those areas of the City of Durban, Block AK and other portions of the central area, which had been occupied by Indians and still are occupied by them, were declared for occupation and ownership by members of the White group, and an estimated 59,000 members of the Indian group were displaced from those areas. It is rather interesting to note in passing that one of the two reasons which the Minister gave for the proclamation of Block AK for the White group was the fact that it was in line with the development trends in Durban, and also that it was in close proximity to the new site for the railway station. I find this interesting, because later on, when Isipingo Beach was proclaimed, it had the effect of completely encircling the airport with members of the non-White groups, which is a reason exactly opposite to that which the Minister gave in regard to Block AK. But let us go back and follow this and see the points I tried to make, and I hope that I will be able to prove to the House that what I say is correct, that these decisions are made arbitrarily.

I have not got the proclamation dealing with Durban itself, but I know that the city council did not agree with the proclamations contained in Proclamation No. 272. They obviously had other ideas, and obviously the Minister’s decision was not taken on the weight of evidence at the hearing in connection with those central city areas. In the case of Isipingo Beach, the position serves better to illustrate the point I am trying to make. This area, as the Minister knows, is a quiet little backwater where many people went to retire. It has been set aside for and occupied by members of the White group for some 70 years. It was occupied largely by pensioners and people with small incomes, and they could eke out the twilight days of their lives there without any fears of not being able to keep up the standards of living to which they were accustomed. Suddenly notices appeared in the Natal Mercury and the Nataller on 23 June 1961 to the effect that this particular area was to be investigated by the Group Areas Board. The hearing was held on 20 November 1961 and eventually a proclamation on 4 October 1963 changed this from occupation by the White group to occupation by the Indian group.

I think the question of the hearing of the evidence at Isipingo is quite interesting. Here I have a complete record of all the evidence which was given at those proceedings, and it is a certified copy. I think there was a fair representation of people and organizations who gave evidence. For instance, there were the Town Board of Isipingo Beach, the 448 burgesses of Isipingo Beach and the Holiday Homes for the Aged, all represented by one counsel. The Durban City Council itself had a legal adviser and the assistant engineer. Then there was counsel representing the estate of C. Platt, Mrs. B. Compton, the Sugar Estates, the Isipingo Hill Development Co., Ballatium South Africa, S.A. Petrol Refineries, the newest refinery, the Isipingo Ratepayers’ Association, and there was a whole list of individuals and a manufacturing company and the church and the Public Works Department, and I was also represented by myself at that hearing. I gave evidence to help in a constructive way. That is why I appeared at this hearing on behalf of the people I represented.

What happened at this hearing? Evidence was given by all these various people, either represented by themselves or by counsel, and the chairman was very fair. He ended up by interrupting one of the counsel who appeared and saying that it was not necessary for him to continue because there was not one request that Isipingo Beach should be other than for White ownership and occupation. That was the chairman’s own interjection, and that was the tone in which the whole of the evidence was heard and the proceedings were conducted. I want to deal with one point of evidence particularly. It was the evidence given by the S.A. Petrol Refineries, the refinery at Isipingo Beach. I do not want to detain the House by reading through it, because it is quite lengthy, but the points which emerged from it are these. One of the factors which induced the refinery company to build the refinery on that particular site was the fact that Isipingo Beach was available as a dormitory for essential personnel at the refinery. They emphasized in the evidence how essential it was that this should be available to the refinery as a dormitory for essential staff. You, Sir, will realize that in operating a refinery it is absolutely essential that staff should be accommodated as near as possible. The question might be asked as to why they did not house them on their own property. I think the refinery gave adequate reasons for that. So they established a very good case which was accepted by the chairman, according to remarks he made afterwards.

The other point that was queried was the question that this was to provide beach accommodation for Indians and housing for those who had been displaced. Of course the absurdity of that argument was proved by the fact that more or less 2,000 people occupy the area of Isipingo Beach, whereas 59,000 Indians were being displaced by the same proclamation. In any case, Isipingo Beach is not the kind of place which could be afforded or inhabited by the type of people displaced, and that was later borne out by the number of applications for options at Isipingo Beach by Indians other than those who were being displaced from their homes in Durban. There was a troupe of Indians from Pretoria and Johannesburg who came down to try to get options, and it is rather interesting that some of these gentlemen appeared there before the proclamation. Obviously there was a leakage somewhere which set them on the track. The Minister knows that negotiations for an option had been concluded in regard to the Island Hotel at Isipingo before the proclamation was made on 4 October, and I think this is a very important matter. It is rather interesting that before the proclamation of Isipingo Beach came to hand, a debate took place in this House, and the hon. member who was addressing the House was the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), and he made an appeal to the Minister and, coupled with his appeal, an offer of co-operation. His appeal was based on the question of Isipingo Beach being an integral part of the South Coast of Natal which, as he stated here, stretches from Isipingo Beach, or in other words, from the boundary of Durban, to the Umtamvuma River on the southern boundary of Natal. He appealed to the Minister to stop all group areas proclamations along this stretch, because these townships were running one into another, and eventually, in the foreseeable future, the whole of the South Coast of Natal would in fact be one joined-up township with all the interests of industry and commerce and visitors, etc., which he felt should be co-ordinated, and that the planning of this area should not take place on a piecemeal basis, but that a regional plan should be developed for the whole of the South Coast. This Minister agreed to that, and it is recorded in Col. 9077 of Hansard, where the hon. member for South Coast asked for this and the Minister of Coloured Affairs said: “I agree with you”. The hon. member for South Coast then ended up by saying that in that case he would leave it at that, because the Minister was prepared to accept it, and he asked him please not to go on with this piecemeal planning, and the Minister said: “We are only investigating”. The hon. member for South Coast and I both kept our part of the bargain. The hon. member for South Coast was ill, but I attended the meeting held at Margate of all the local authorities to implement this undertaking which we agreed to in this House. It is rather interesting that even at the last moment we received a letter from the Department which indicated to us that the whole idea of the meeting had been changed and that the Department at that late hour was not prepared to enter into any discussion other than that concerning group areas. Not only were the hon. member for South Coast and I let down, but I believe all those local authorities who at our invitation attended that meeting with the sincere and honest intention of helping to plan the Natal South Coast on a regional basis, were also let down by the Minister and his Department. I do not know how the Minister can ever hope to get co-operation in the planning and carrying out of his group areas if that is the way he is going to treat undertakings given to members of this House.

As the result of this proclamation, both the hon. member for South Coast and I tried to contact the Minister, but he was overseas, this was all done in his absence, which I think is quite wrong when a proclamation of this magnitude is going to be made. I believe that the Minister should do it when he is here. I am not complaining about his going overseas, but I think that proclamations of this nature should not be left to his Department to be made during his absence. I think it is something which demands the presence of the Minister to deal with the things that crop up. We have to ask ourselves why was Isipingo Beach proclaimed for Indian occupation and ownership in the face of the evidence taken at that hearing? The Chairman himself, in my presence, after that hearing, gave the assurance that there was no likelihood that Isipingo Beach would be used other than for the White group. He also accepted the alternative strip of beach offered by the refinery, which bordered on their refinery site and which was an ideal site because it linked up with the Indian beaches opposite the existing and the planned Indian townships, and it gave them a run of beach some seven miles long. It is rather interesting that even Mr. Singh, who appeared for the Indian ratepayers, did not at any stage of the proceedings ask that Isipingo Beach be given to the Indians, nor did any Indian who appeared at the hearing. Not one person asked for Isipingo to be “other than White”, in the words of the chairman. This Minister obviously, during contacts with the hon. member for South Coast, indicated, also in a letter to me, that he was amazed at my making a request that he withdraw this proclamation, after the speeches I have made in this House and requests for a quick zoning of Isipingo Beach. Of course I made those requests. I made them at the request of the people concerned, because they had been led to believe at the hearing that Isipingo could not possibly be other than White. That was the reason why they wanted these proclamations to be made, and because the time between the hearing and the proclamation ran to almost two years and the chaos that existed in that area during that period was something which had to be seen to be believed. Nobody knew where they were and on what lines the development would take place. Why was this little township of Isipingo proclaimed for Indian occupation? I have tried to find a reason which would justify this action, and the only reason I can find—and I believe it is the correct one—is that Isipingo Beach was offered as a sop to the 59,000 Indians who were being displaced from their homes in Durban, to try to make them feel a little bit better, but in addition to that I believe it was also being offered to them as a sop to try to induce them to accept this Indian Advisory Council which had been formed to give them the impression that they have some form of local government.

Sir, one of the interesting things about this proclamation was its immediate effect, because it was proclaimed for immediate occupation of and ownership by the Indian group, and I think in view of this Government’s apartheid policy this is almost in the nature of a joke, if it were not so serious. It had the effect of taking a township which was White and immediately making it a township that was shared by White people and Indians, and the reason was quite simple. Those people had a minimum of 12 months to live there, after which the Minister could give them three month’s notice to get out, so they had occupation for 15 months. But the Indians had the right to immediate occupation and ownership. Not only could they buy houses and live in the area with the Whites, where they had not been able to live before, but they could have a flat in the same block of flats as the White people and, still further, when I ’phoned the representative of the Group Areas Board in Durban he assured me that they could occupy rooms in the same hotel. I asked him then how apartheid works in the case of this proclamation and he said: “We have to depend on the goodwill of the people who are being put out, to arrange a day when the change-over should take place.” Sir, what an amazing effect some of this apartheid legislation does have! But the whole of this Group Areas legislation is peculiar, to say the least of it. Why, if the Minister is going to take no note whatsoever of the evidence which is presented when he has a hearing at a place such as this, if he is not going to base his findings on the evidence, does he mislead these people into believing that when they come there to give evidence notice will be taken of that evidence? Obviously no notice is taken of it, because here you have a case where the decision was contrary to all the evidence, not just part of it; it was contrary to all the evidence that was given at this hearing. The hon. the Minister gave as his reason that he had excluded Isipingo Beach and planned it as part of Durban. But, Sir, if that is so does the hon. the Minister not remember that Durban refused to incorporate Isipingo Beach round about the same time, just before he had his hearing? They did not want it. But this Minister comes along and puts it there whether they want it or not and then says that he is planning it as part of Durban when Durban itself, by vote of the City Council, rejected the incorporation of Isipingo Beach into the area of Greater Durban. Sir, if he is going to call for evidence from people so as to decide when he is investigating whether an area is going to be declared for the occupation of any group or not, why does he not take heed of that evidence? If he is not going to take heed of the evidence why does he induce these people to come and give evidence; why does he waste their time and money? Why does he not decide, as he is doing now, what he is going to do with an area and just get on and do it? I think that will be a far more honest approach. But to mislead people into believing that they are actually taking part in a decision on a particular area, is entirely wrong to my mind, because the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that they do not take any part at all in the decision as to what shall happen to an area as planned by the Minister and his Department. That decision is simply taken and it is implemented and the hearing is just a sham because he takes no notice whatever of the evidence. I believe that this is one of the worst aspects of the whole of the application of the Group Areas policy of this Government, and I believe it is time the Minister reconsidered the manner in which he handles it and that he should get on and say exactly what he is going to do with an area. If he is going to ask people to give evidence then he should at least take some notice of that evidence.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) has confined his attack in regard to Community Development and Housing to the narrowest front imaginable. He only discussed certain aspects of the Group Areas Act; moreover, he only discussed Natal and indeed, a specific case in Natal. His whole complaint is restricted to the argument that the hon. the Minister does not apparently take proper notice of evidence which is submitted in the event of a Group Areas investigation. Mr. Chairman, before going any further with this specific contention I just want to say this to the hon. member: Natal has distinguished itself since the days of the formation of Union in that it has not been able to think further than Natal. I think that the hon. member should try to give the lead to his province to get rid of that super Natal complex and to consider South Africa as well besides Natal. There are also other places besides Natal.

On what was the hon. member’s complaint based? His complaint in regard to Proclamation No. 272, as far as it affected Durban, rested simply on the contention that the City Council had submitted evidence in conflict with the eventual decision of the hon. the Minister. On the basis of that fact he has come to this highest House in the country and has told us that because the City Council of Durban submitted different evidence, evidence in conflict with the final decision of the hon. the Minister, there could have been no careful inquiry and consideration.

I said that they did not agree with the decision and that they could obviously therefore not have given evidence in favour of that decision.

Precisely. Actually, I have overlooked one point. The hon. member has no proof that Durban submitted contradictory evidence; he accepts the fact that the Durban City Council submitted contradictory evidence and that is why he says that careful attention was not given to the evidence. As far as the evidence of Isipingo is concerned, the hon. member has told us here that the evidence was actually unanimously in favour of the proclamation of a White area. The only details he gave us were in regard to the evidence of the refinery which wants Isipingo as its housing centre, and on those grounds he argued that a decision was taken against the weight of evidence. I want to make use of this opportunity to make this point. This Parliament, except in exceptional cases, is certainly not a forum for the rehearing of a group areas inquiry. A group areas inquiry is an administrative inquiry for the information of the hon. the Minister and the recommendations flowing from the group areas inquiry are submitted to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. The Minister undoubtedly has other sources of knowledge in connection with a matter of this nature. I do not say that in this case he received specific representations or that he was given specific information in connection with the matter but, as a rule, the hon. the Minister and his Department also have other sources of information at their disposal in connection with a matter of this nature. It is the task of the hon. the Minister to consider the recommendation of the Group Areas Board which has been set up under the Act and which has to advise him, after a specific procedure has been followed, apart from all other sources of information at his disposal. The point at issue is whether the hon. the Minister’s decision was justified on the merits of the case; the point of issue is not how the final decision of the hon. the Minister compared with the evidence given during the group areas inquiry and which was only one of the facets of the collection of information. So much for the attack of the hon. member.

I want actually to devote my time to congratulating the hon. the Minister on the important progress that has once again been made over the past year as far as the proclamation of group areas is concerned. I want particularly to congratulate the hon. the Minister upon and encourage him in his approach to the task of the Department of Community Development and Housing. I want to say that it is an integrated task of planning; that the declaration of group areas is not simply a disembodied effort to disentangle the race knots in South Africa according to reasonable pattern, but that the declaration of group areas, the utilization of housing schemes and the renovation of our urban areas are all part of an integrated and planned action to make better living space available for the various race groups in the country; to make better living space available as far as the distribution of open spaces is concerned, as far as the availability of means of communication and transport is concerned and as far as the availability of education and other facilities is concerned. The hon. the Minister has tackled this matter from the point of view that this development of residential areas is related to the economic utilization of space in South Africa; that the siting of the various elements of the population must have as its aim making the existing economic production potential of South Africa more effective and more serviceable so that it will be more easily available to the race group concerned. We must establish a living pattern in South Africa which will assist our entire economic life and production pattern. In this connection I want to refer to the departmental report of last year in which in my opinion these fundamental principles were set out in a very effective way for the first time. But there are a few step-children of the hon. the Minister’s perceptive planning. One step-child of this perceptive planning is the smallholdings which have so often been mentioned here. The smallholding is a planning anachronism in the whole of our living pattern in South Africa. I want to refer the hon. gentleman once again to Report No. U.G. 37 of 1957, in which it is stated (translation)—

Later on, when the learned members who framed the report came to making their recommendations, they dealt with the same aspects and their first recommendation was a change in the legislation. The second recommendation was that there should be a policy of consolidation. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to forget this problem of the smallholdings in the totality of the comprehensive residential planning of South Africa, the more comprehensive and imaginative planning of South Africa which includes group areas and everything else. I want to ask that a section or a number of officials of his Department be instructed to frame a planned policy once and for all, a policy in terms of which there will on the one hand be a subdivision of the smallholdings into plots and provision for their liaison with adjacent urban areas; that on the other hand there will be consolidation and that housing will be provided which will make these places useful and habitable. They must not be a liability to the whole economic pattern of South Africa but a great asset.

I want to make use of the opportunity to say something in connection with housing and I want to point out certain shortcomings in this regard. [Time limit.]

Before the start of this Session various leading members of the Indian community in Johannesburg approached me in connection with their problems in regard to group areas in and around Johannesburg. There is not the slightest doubt that those who discuss this matter with one feel very bitter and heartsore in regard to what is being done to them. One can understand this because it must make any person bitter to be forced to leave his home, to live far from his place of employment and to live at a place which he does not like. I did not resent their attitude because there is undoubtedly a great deal of human tragedy involved in this matter. But I did gain the impression that, for all that, the leaders of the Indian community adopted the attitude that they could accept the position if the Group Areas Act was applied with the minimum of inconvenience to them. But their complaint is that the removal of the Indians who have lived in the municipal area of Johannesburg for generations is being carried out in a most unfair manner and to their very great discomfort. I do not like passing final judgment on a matter until I have heard the arguments of all concerned and so I rise here actually to submit this complaint to the hon. the Minister, as it was put to me, and I should like to hear his reply in this regard.

The first important complaint of the Indian community in Johannesburg is that no group area has been set aside for them within the municipal area of Johannesburg. In spite of the fact that thousands of Indians have been resident in Johannesburg for three-quarters of a century, no group area has been set aside for them within the municipal area of the city. The effect of this is that as far as their residential area is concerned every one of them has to live beyond the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg, although, as I have said, they have been living in Johannesburg for generations and that is where they have to make their living. Their second complaint is that not only have they been pushed completely out of the municipal area of Johannesburg but the part of the Indian area which is closest to Johannesburg is Lenasia, which is 17 miles from the centre of Johannesburg. Because there is some difference of opinion in regard to this distance, I took the trouble of measuring it myself. There is a board just outside Lenasia stating that the distance from Johannesburg is 11 miles, but I do not think that it reflects the true distance. It may be 11 miles from the outermost boundary of the municipal area but it is more than 17 miles from the middle of Johannesburg. Every Indian, whether he wants to or not, or whether he can afford it or not, or whether he has the time or not, or whether he likes it or not, will, every day of his fife, have to travel 34 miles from his home to his place of employment and back. I visited certain families there and I must say that I was shocked to find certain people there who had scarcely enough to eat and who had to pay 40c per day in bus or train fares, or a little less if they had a season ticket, to get to work. If, for some or other reason, an Indian does not have 40c, this fact starts a chain of events which result in the most abject misery for him. This question of distance from the middle of Johannesburg has become a bitter grievance amongst these people, particularly because most of the Indians belong to the poorer class. I have heard unthinking people say that there are Whites who live just as far or even further from their work. Of course, this is true, but that is not a just comparison because the Whites who do so, do so from choice. They do so because it suits them, because they can afford it. When it no longer suits them to do so, when they can no longer afford to do so, they are at liberty to Eve as close to their place of work as possible. I do not think, therefore, that any comparison can be drawn between the compulsion which rests upon the Indians and the position of the Whites who, of their own free will, because it suits them, prefer to live so far from their place of work.

There is also much objection to Lenasia as a town. I have been there myself and all that I can say is that, personally, I was not at all impressed with the town. It does not give the impression of being a model town; it has not been well planned and it has not been laid out attractively. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us that this is still to be done, but as it stands at the moment, it does no make one feel that one would like to live there.

Another important objection is that the Indians have no choice as far as their residential area is concerned. It was put to me that the Whites of Johannesburg have 250 suburbs in any of which they can choose to live, each according to his taste and according to his economic position. But all those thousands of Indians have only one place at which they have to live—this is as far as the Indians of Johannesburg are concerned. I am not interested in those areas which have been proclaimed on other parts of the Witwatersrand; I am speaking now more specifically about the Indians who have lived and who are still living in Johannesburg. Their complaint is that all of them have to live at Lenasia; that, irrespective of the level of their economic development, Indians from all walks of life, from all economic groups, of different cultures, have to live there, whether they want to live there or not. It appears to me that they really have a legitimate grievance as far as this lack of choice is concerned.

Another matter which they often mention when discussing their grievances is that there are urban areas within the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg which are as much as 90 per cent Indian. For example, there is the Burgersdorp-Newtown-Fordsburg complex which has been an Indian area for generations, or at least, predominantly Indian, and which in their opinion is eminently suitable for proclamation as an Indian residential area. For example, a new hotel and new bioscopes have been built for Indians at Fordsburg over the past year or two. When one drives through that area one can see that it is predominantly Indian. I fear that the fact that they do not have any choice in this regard together with the psychological effect that it has on them that they have been placed completely beyond the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg, gives rise to very great bitterness on their part towards the Government of the White man.

I have mentioned their complaints and points of view as they have been put to me. I discussed the matter with officials of the Department of the hon. the Minister in Johannesburg but it is obvious that these are policy matters in regard to which these officials have no authority. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has already had the opportunity of discussing these matters and problems with the leading members of the Indian community in Johannesburg. I ask this question because time and again they tell me that nobody wants to listen to them; that they are not given the opportunity to put their case. I was disappointed to read in the newspaper that the hon. the Minister refused the request of an organization of Indian women in February to give the Indian community a hearing so that they could tell him personally how they felt about these matters. The hon. the Minister will himself be able to tell us why he did not see his way clear to give them a hearing. In conclusion I want to know from the hon. the Minister the number of Indians who will have to leave Johannesburg; secondly, how long he expects this process to continue; thirdly, why no area can be set aside for them within the municipal area of Johannesburg as they have requested and, lastly, why it is not possible for him to give them a choice of residential areas instead of making only one place which is 17 miles beyond the boundary of Johannesburg available to those Indians.

I raise this matter because I believe that as long as this Group Areas Act is on the Statute Book it is in the interests of the White man in the interests of all of us to ensure that it be applied as justly as possible, as fairly as the Act itself permits. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister can convince me that the complaints which the Indians have and which I have put to him here as they have put them to me, are unfounded and that the arrangement which he has made is a fair one.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) who has just sat down made a very important statement towards the end of his speech when he said that as long as the Group Areas Act remains on the Statute Book we must ensure that its provisions are applied fairly.

As fairly as possible.

Yes, as fairly as possible, but that is not the point. The point is that the hon. member used the words: “As long as this Act remains on the Statute Book”, and it is those words which disturb us. In other words, we must now accept the fact that this Act will only remain on the Statute Book as long as this Government remains in power.

It will not stand for 100 years.

Therefore, if the United Party come into power, this Act will be removed from the Statute Book. This then brings me to the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) when he fought the election at the end of last year. This is what he had to say in his election manifesto—this was his fourth point—

That is actually the attitude of the United Party in connection with the Group Areas Act. What they actually want is that the Act should be rendered completely powerless in its application. They want group areas to come into being on a voluntary basis; they want them to be optional. We have also heard the argument on the part of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the Indians who have to be removed to Lenasia should be given a chance of residential areas in Johannesburg. Those were the words he used here. This merely goes to show how one can deviate from one’s former point of view. You will remember the struggle we had here over the years to have the western areas of Johannesburg cleared. I think here of Sophiatown, Martindale and Newclare. At that time the hon. member was still a member of this party and he assisted us in that struggle.

Those places are still within the Johannesburg city limits.

But now that the hon. member is a member of that party, he has changed his point of view and he now wants the Indians to have a residential area in Fordsburg.

That is what they want. I did not ask for it.

Just listen to his reasoning, Sir. But the Bantu also asked at the time to be allowed to remain in the western areas of Johannesburg. The hon. member will remember that we had to remove them from those areas to Meadowlands after we had developed Meadowlands.

But Meadowlands is still within the city limits.

I did not interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking but I am quite prepared to reply if the hon. member wants to ask me questions in regard to this matter.

He will only put his foot further into it.

Do not distort my words.

The hon. member says that I distort …

No, he said that you must not distort his words.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said “Now you are distorting my words”.

No, I said: “Do not distort my words”.

Mr.Chairman, I shall not distort the facts. The implication of what the hon. member has said is, of course, that I am distorting the facts.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to have a clear ruling from you in regard to an insinuation by an hon. member that another hon. member is distorting the facts.

He may not say that the hon. member is “deliberately distorting” his words.

I shall not deliberately distort the facts, nor is it my intention to do so. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he definitely said here that the Indians should have a residential area within Johannesburg and he cannot get away from that fact. He may perhaps not have said so deliberately but if he wants to create another impression here now, then I say that he is distorting what he said previously.

I am in favour of it.

Very well. The hon. member admits that he is in favour of the fact that the Indians be given another residential area in Johannesburg. But that is not what we have in mind with community development. As far as his argument that Indians of all classes and standings will be thrown together in Lenasia is concerned, I just want to ask him whether this is any different to the position in the White areas. Is the position any different, for example, at Sea Point? Is it any different at Bezuidenhout where the hon. member lives? That argument of his holds no water at all. The point is that in principle the United Party are opposed to the fact that the Group Areas Act should be applied. That is their objection.

I listened attentively to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). He told us about the difficulties in connection with the proclaiming of group areas at Isipingo. Every one of us in this House can probably talk for half an hour on the difficulties experienced in towns in our various constituencies, difficulties experienced by one or other section of the community because of the proclamation of group areas. We are aware of the fact that when a group area is proclamined one or other race group will always feel that it is being unjustly treated; or else it will feel that it should be given more than it has been given; or else it is dissatisfied in regard to what it has had to give up, although it often happens that what has to be given up is replaced by something far better. What the hon. member did not say was whether the provisions of the Act were being applied fairly or not. Are the groups which have to be removed being treated fairly? When expropriation has to take place is fair compensation paid to the people whose properties are expropriated? Are they compensated in such a way that they can obtain the same housing, or better housing, in an area other than a White area?

Mr. Chairman, to my mind, community development—in other words, the practical application of the Group Areas Act—is the cornerstone of our race relationship in South Africa. If we want to eliminate race friction and unhappiness we must apply community development in terms of the Group Areas Act. We must apply it as it is now being applied by the hon. the Minister and his Department. We must remember that we cannot overnight change a position which has developed over 300 years, a position in which we have had an intermingling of the various races which has resulted in unhappiness and race friction. It is impossible to rectify a position of this nature in a short time. Hon. members who are so concerned about the injustice which is apparently being committed because of the application of the Group Areas Act and the proclaiming of certain areas are themselves aware of what happened previously. We all know of White areas with good housing into which persons of another race group have moved. We know that this results in the fact that the value of that property drops because the Whites simply leave that area. Has this not been the cause of most of the slum conditions that we have to-day? In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is this fact which has been responsible for slum conditions in South Africa. [Time limit.]

The Group Areas Act is having side-effects which are distressing to the general development of certain aspects of our lives. Just a few days ago the Director of Hospital Services in Natal reported—

Rapid movement of population also makes it difficult to determine where to site and what are the needs of the future hospitals and schools. This, Sir, combined with the growing call by non-Whites for hospital services is creating many difficulties. The trouble with the Group Areas Act, trouble which was probably not foreseen when the Act was passed, is that even before it is implemented the mere threat that it might be implemented brings every community movement to a standstill; every local authority and every provincial authority which is troubled by it immediately seizes upon the threat of the implementation of the Group Areas Act to hold everything up.

From whose report were you quoting?

That is the report of the Director of Hospitals and Medical Services for the Province of Natal of 1963. Sir, I think the Group Areas Act ought to put up over its office the motto: “Coming events cast their shadows before.” That is what the Group Areas Act does. All development is held up.

Apart from that, Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his attention has been directed to the position of St. Aidans Hospital in Durban? This is an Indian hospital which has developed over the last 20 years into a 100-bedded hospital. It was established by the Indians themselves and provides an excellent service for the Indians. It provides something which nobody else provides. It takes the place of a nursing home for the Indians besides accepting ordinary humble people. No other nursing home in the country, certainly not in Natal, accepts Indians. This hospital is really an excellent example of self-help. The Indians have established it themselves. They raise most of the money although they receive a subsidy from the Province. I have seen this hospital develop from a four-bedded cottage to a hospital with 100 beds. When they built their new hospital on land which had been given to them by the City of Durban…

Order! Under which item is the hon. member talking? Hospitals do not fall under the hon. the Minister.

I am talking under the Minister’s salary, Sir. I am referring to the Minister’s policy of preventing them from building. Perhaps if you would allow me to proceed I could make it clear. These people were given land by the City of Durban. With the subsidy from the provincial administration and from private sources they built their hospital. They also built a home for the White nurses but they did not have sufficient funds to build a home for the Indian nurses. They have recently raised the money. Their plans have been passed by the City of Durban but the Group Areas Board has refused permission to allow them to build a home for the Indian nurses. This is a grave blow not only to the hospital but to the Indian community throughout Natal. It is the only hospital in Natal, possibly the only one in the country, where Indian nurses are trained. They actually have 60 Indian nurses in training and they have a waiting list. They have had to use rooms built for patients to house the nurses. Because of the delay the province has threatened to withdraw its subsidy if they do not build the nurses home. It is also threatened with loss of the subsidy which they have been receiving from an Indian charitable fund. This hospital serves a wonderful purpose. It takes in Asiatic sailors of all kinds. There is no other place where they can go, especially the better class of Indian or Chinaman or Japanese. This is the place where they have to go. It is in the interests of this country that this hospital should be encouraged. It is in an Indian area. The only White institution within half a mile of it is the Durban Fire Station which has always to be in a central area.

Is it in an Indian proclaimed area?

I am not sure whether it is a proclaimed Indian area, but it is in the Old Dutch Road area which should be Indian. It is within half a mile of Grey Street. It is near the Botanic Gardens. The Indian technical college is next door; the Indian Roman Catholic School is next door; the church the Indians use is across the road; there is a big bus stop in front which the Indians use; there is another big bus stop behind; there are no White residents at all; a few Coloured people live in the Old Dutch Road. It is an Indian area; it always has been one. All they ask is permission to build a home for their Indian nurses. They have the money; the plans have been passed and they have the land. Even if the Group Areas Act is implemented from top to bottom it would take them ten years to build another hospital and by that time all sorts of things may have happened. We may even not have the same Minister.

I shall not follow up what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. It appears to me as though he is not very sure himself whether the hospital to which he referred falls under the Vote of this hon. Minister or not.

Mr. Chairman, we all agree that there must be no unfairness as far as the proclaiming of group areas is concerned. We also agree that one cannot proclaim group areas without one or other race’s feeling unjustly treated. We have simply to accept that fact. If we do not accept it, then we must leave the position as it is to-day. That is the only alternative. We shall then have to leave the position as it is now, a position which has proved over the ages to be untenable. We can give sufficient examples to prove that it is for the best to have the various races live in separate residential areas.

Hon. members of the Opposition also say that adequate compensation must be paid to those who are removed from one or other area as a result of the proclaiming of that certain area. But the machinery is there to ensure that that compensation will be adequate. I think we all know that the Group Areas Act makes provision whereby, if the Development Board makes an offer to a person who has to be removed from an area and that person is not satisfied with the offer, then that person has the right of appeal. He has the right of appeal to a court set up by the hon. the Minister and composed of sworn valuators, people who will ensure, as experience has already taught us, that a just offer is made to such a person. I think that we can rest assured—and this has also been our experience —that people who are removed are treated fairly.

It has also been contended that we should not make group areas compulsory but that this should take place on a voluntary basis, and in this regard, Mr. Chairman, I have this to say: If this were to be the case we might just as well repeal the whole of the Group Areas Act and give up any idea that we have in South Africa of establishing separate residential areas for the various races. If the United Party maintain that they can implement the Group Areas Act and that they can establish separate residential areas for the various races on a voluntary basis, we want to tell them in advance that it will be the greatest failure of them all. Which race group will subject itself voluntarily to these provisions? If a Bantu or an Indian or a Coloured decides to buy a certain property in one of the best White residential areas, how is the United Party going to prevent his buying that property by sweet talk? Will they be able to prevent his doing so by asking him nicely please to stay away from that area? That is the most arrant nonsense I have ever heard, Mr. Chairman.

The Whites are leaving Notting Hill.

Yes, the Whites are leaving there but the other race groups still have the right to follow them and to force those who do not want to stay in a mixed residential area to move from one area to the other. It is a fact that we need separate residential areas in South Africa in order to eliminate race friction. One can only establish separate residential areas in South Africa if one makes provision in this regard by means of legislation.

It seems to me that the hon. the Minister has very little idea of the utter misery, confusion and insecurity which has permeated both the Indian community and the Coloured community of South Africa as a result of Group Areas proclamations. I say this, Sir, because I have here copies of correspondence between the hon. the Minister and Indian Women’s Organization. They first tried to interview the hon. the Prime Minister towards the end of last year and then the hon. the Minister of Community Development. They were unsuccessful in both attempts. As the hon. the Minister will remember, police dogs were actually set on these women when they came to the Union Buildings in a peaceful procession.

In an exchange of letters, copies of which have been sent to me, the hon. the Minister made the astonishing statement that—

Yes.

Well, Sir, the following day the leader of that organization, Dr. Asvat, was banned under the Suppression of Communism Act. I would like the hon. the Minister and other hon. members who say “Ja” with such satisfaction, to tell me how it is likely that somebody who is advancing the aims of Communism should be representing the wealthy minority of the Indians who are dissatisfied with Group Areas proclamations? The hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways. The group of women who went to interview him either represented this wealthy minority of Indians who are the only people who are “dissatisfied” with Group Area proclamations and other restrictions under which the Indian community of this country lives, or they represented the so-called communist group. The Minister cannot have it both ways. It seems to me that whatever they were, whether they were bloated capitalists, as the hon. the Minister first thought they were, or whether they were indeed representing communists, as he, or the Minister of Justice advised by him, appeared to think they were the following day, they we right in their contentions. Their contentions were that indeed the hon. the Minister was wrong when he believed that the vast mass of Indian people were satisfied with the group areas proclamations. If the hon. Minister can explain to me how a population which is being removed piecemeal from areas which they have occupied from before the Anglo Boer War to areas which are usually miles out of town, such as Lenasia which is 20 miles out of Johannesburg, or areas which are across the track or on the other side of the river, away from the centres where they earn their livelihood, can be satisfied, then the hon. the Minister is deluding himself.

For example?

I have one cutting after the other relating to something like 30,000 or 40,000 Indians being moved from the Johannesburg central area to Lenasia; on the East Rand. Indians, I think, are about to be moved from Springs and Boksburg to Benoni; thousands of Coloureds are being moved from other areas on the East Rand to Boksburg. There is a huge wholesale movement of population as if the Minister is a croupier at a roulette table pushing people along as a croupier does a mass of chips from one side of the table to the other. The hon. the Minister and his Group Areas Board are dealing with human beings here, Sir.

The Minister takes shelter in a statement which he has made on several occasions and that is that the livelihood of the present generation of Indian traders would be undisturbed by Group Areas legislation. In other words, the present generation of Indian traders will be allowed to live out their lives in the shops they occupy at the moment, but residentially, of course, they have to move. I have already described the hardships of the residential move, particularly when it means a 20-mile journey in and out of Johannesburg for people who have to be early in their businesses such as waiters, etc. [Interjections.] Houghton, in fact, is six miles from Johannesburg. And, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has pointed out, Whites live there by choice. If they do not like Houghton, they can live slap in the middle of Johannesburg. There is nothing to stop them. There is no law which stops them if they wish to live in the centre of Johannesburg.

The hon. Minister’s statement about the livelihood of Indian traders is such a gross self-deception that I wonder if he would explain what he believes the next generation of Indians was going to do? After all, the Indian community of South Africa does not die out with the present generation of traders. What is to happen to the children of the present generation of traders? What livelihood will they be able to follow? Where are they going to earn their living? Does the hon. the Minister realize that for every trader who goes out of business, Indian employees go out of business as well, and that remarkable few avenues of employment, outside of trade, are open to Indians? There are very few special occupations open to them in South Africa. Very few industrial areas have been set aside for them. They have great difficulty in becoming apprenticed.

Where do you get that from?

In the whole of South Africa, very few industrial areas have been set aside for them. What is more they cannot own land because of all the prohibitions on Indian ownership of land. All this leads naturally to a feeling of insecurity amongst these people. As I said earlier, the hon. the Minister is deluding himself if he seriously believes, that the Indians throughout the Transvaal, where something like 40,000 out of the 50,000 Indians live under the shadow of removal under the Group Areas Act, can possibly be happy.

The hon. the Minister went on in the same letter to say that the Coloured people set an example when it came to cordial co-operation. He says the Coloureds are more or less settled in their own areas where they use the facilities, opportunities and advantages placed at their disposal to the betterment of each settled community. I wonder if he could tell me what the Coloureds in District Six, for example, are feeling about the investigation into the possibility of turning District Six into a White area? At the moment all property sales are frozen. People are taking advantage of this to make the Coloured community pay higher rentals, etc. The whole question of the removal of the Coloured people from District Six is so iniquitous that it really passes belief. This is an area which traditionally has been occupied by Coloured people since time immemorial. Something like 60,000 people live there, the Coloureds, by the way, do not want it for themselves. The Coloured people are perfectly prepared for it to remain a multi-racial area, which it is at the moment. They share this area with other races but they are by far in the majority. It is a slum; nobody denies that. That slum clearance is one thing and the dispossession of an entire racial population is another thing. That is what I object to. Sir. I have no objection to slum clearance. I object most strongly to the idea that must certainly be occupying the Group Areas Board, i.e. dispossessing the Coloured people of District Six and herding all the Coloured people of the Cape in these vast areas on the perimeter of the city. I believe there cannot be a person in the Indian community or in the Coloured community who does not look with the utmost despair on the intentions of the Group Areas Board for their future livelihood and that of their children. I can assure the hon. the Minister that if he believes that the people in this community are satisfied he is deluding himself. They are certainly accepting the situation. As the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has said, they must be “realistic and reasonable”. In other words, obedience to these laws, which, after all, is all these wretched people can do. But the Minister or his colleague must not delude themselves that there is anything but dissatisfaction, misery and insecurity among these people.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is a capable member; nobody denies that; nobody denies her capabilities but we all know by this time that when she starts talking she is not very careful about what she says.

Have you ever caught me out?

I want to test the statements of the hon. member. She said that I was moving between 40,000 and 50,000 Indians on the East Rand.

People.

I want to give her the figures in this regard.

I said between 30,000 and 40,000 in the Transvaal.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has the habit of keeping up a stream of interjections when she is being taken to task. I want her to be quiet. She said that I was moving between 40,000 and 50.000 Indians on the East Rand.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member must not continue speaking when I call her to order.

What is the position? There are 1,394 Indians at Springs; there are 2,995 at Benoni and there are 1,456 at Boksburg. These are the people who are now experiencing such abject “misery” because of the actions of this cruel Government! But I am sure the hon. member will not tell us that one of the worst slums in the entire country is Bazaar No. 2 at Boksburg. She maintains that that slum, that cesspool, should remain unchanged. That is what the hon. member and her party want.

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon. member continues to interrupt I shall have to ask her to leave the Chamber.

I say that the hon. member for Houghton as the representative of her party wants these evil conditions to continue because her party will then be able to continue its agitation amongst the non-Whites in this country. When the Government improves the position of the non-Whites by clearing slums and cesspools, those non-Whites are less likely to fall prey to her irresponsible party. That is why she has said these things here. We are sick and tired of seeing her stand up here with a long face and make allegations which are not in conformity with the facts in this country. I hope she will realize now that she makes an impression upon nobody as far as these matters are concerned.

The hon. member made a second statement —that we are removing the Indian dealers in a reckless way. She has made this statement in spite of the fact that a few years ago I made a very important statement on behalf of the Government in this House in regard to our approach in connection with the Indian and his trade. But she has taken no notice of that statement. She has simply gone along in her own way as though that statement had never been made. Let me read to her what an Indian newspaper, the Leader, has to say about this position. She resents the fact that I did not want to meet those Indian women. I did not want to meet them because they were a group of agitators and because I had seen the contents of the letter which they wrote to me. I believe that they are under communistic leadership. But I want to read to the hon. member for Houghton what the Leader has to say—

The newspaper continues to say—

These are the people whom she is defending. These are the people who have the Indians under the economic whip and who exploit them. This exploitation enables them to prevent the Indians from co-operating with us to improve conditions. We know that this is the position throughout the world when the so-called “landlord” has a hold over people— that he forces them to refuse to co-operate. We know what happened in Sophiatown amongst the “landlords”. We know what is happening in other countries of Europe under the “landlord”—that they obtain such an economic hold over the poor people that those people dare not co-operate in order to obtain better accommodation. These are the people whose advocate she is. I accuse her of being the advocate of these people to whom this Indian newspaper refers.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) referred to the hospitals. I do not know anything about it. If it happened that the permit was not granted, the association concerned can come forward and they can always appeal to the Minister and their application will be dealt with on its merits. I do not know anything about it and my Department does not know anything about it. So I am afraid the hon. member raised a matter that has not been brought to our attention up to now. All I wish to say is that we have no difficulties with other administrations in the other provinces. We have a clearcut policy laid down, and all the administrations know what the policy is as regards the establishment and the building of hospitals in areas. There is the closest co-operation and goodwill between the provincial administrations and my Department. So I do not know of any difficulties that cannot be ironed out, and I would suggest that the hon. member tell the association to apply for a permit, and if it has been refused by the Department, to appeal to the Minister concerned, and he will deal with it on its merits.

*I come now to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). He has said that he bases his views on a few considerations. The first is that there is no group area for Indians in the Johannesburg municipal area. Well, this matter has a long history. I want to tell the hon. member that when an effort was originally made to obtain a group area for the Indians in the Johannesburg municipal area, an area there with the name of Mondeor was offered them and they summarily rejected it. You see, the biggest difficulty of the Indians in our country up to the present has been that they have adopted the attitude that they want nothing to do with legislation of this kind. When the offer of Mondeor was made to them, they rejected it. If things go against them, they can only blame it on their own unwillingness to co-operate in the past. The fact is that Lenasia came into being under the greatest pressure and strife. What is the position to-day? Lenasia Extension No. 1 was proclaimed a township on 26 November 1958 and since that time 240 scheme houses have been built there by the Department of Housing. Four hundred low cost houses have also been built in Lenasia Extension No. 2. Of course, it does not help to build homes which people cannot afford; we have to build homes for them which they can afford. Furthermore, 100 detached and 368 semi-detached houses are being built. The hon. member objects to this. But there are also 579 plots on which private persons can build. I think that more than 1,000 families have already been settled at Lenasia. The hon. member says that he was there. He is not satisfied with Lenasia. I was also there and I am very satisfied with it. The hon. member will have to wait until he reaches my position one day. Then he can show his dissatisfaction! But while I am here we are going to continue with Lenasia on the present scale.

The fact remains that Lenasia will develop into a good town. We have also built a post office and other buildings for the people there. The streets are being laid and lights will be provided where there are none at present. A town of this nature cannot be built in a year or two. But as we settle the Indians there and as people with initiative settle there so the community will be built up properly.

There are three Indian group areas on the Rand—at Benoni, at Lenasia and one on the West Rand. I think that this number is quite adequate for the number of Indians on the Rand. I think that there are 27,000 Indians in the municipal area who have to be accommodated but as far as I can see it appears to me that these three areas ought to be adequate to enable communities to be built up. It is not our idea to let these people live under slum conditions; it is not our idea to force them to go there while we do not have proper housing available for them. Those housing facilities are given to them. But the Indian must learn one thing and that is that his development will suffer as long as he continues to follow the guidance of those who tell him to be a passive resistor in South Africa. If he wants to co-operate, he has the opportunity under the legislation of this Government to build up worthy communities, and I think that the hon. member can do nothing but good in encouraging those Indians to follow this advice. The Johannesburg City Council has already progressed a long way in accepting Lenasia and assisting with its development.

Did they take a resolution to that effect?

I am informed that if the Johannesburg City Council has not yet taken such a resolution, it has already progressed a long way towards helping to develop Lenasia. Reports have appeared to the effect that they have already made this decision but we have not yet been informed officially in this regard. I hope, however, that we shall be able to give them more encouragement to co-operate positively.

As far as Indian trade is concerned, the Indian dealer will not be driven out of a controlled area provided that he is there lawfully. He will not be driven out of an industrial area if he trades there. The vast majority of Indian dealers in the large urban complexes are in these controlled and industrial areas. I have the figures here but I do not want to detain the House by quoting statistics. It is generally known that the vast majority of Indian dealers in the urban areas are not being moved. Take Fordsburg. Fordsburg has been indicated by way of a Government statement as an area in which Indian dealers are at liberty to develop and settle. We simply do not want to permit residential development to take place for very understandable reasons. If we permit residential development in a place like Fordsburg, it will mean that we will be encouraging slums in the sky. We do not want to permit that.

It is no different to Hillbrow.

I hope that Hillbrow is not going to be held up to us as an example of what should be done in South Africa. I shall certainly do everything in my power, in as far as it is in my power to do so, to oppose development in South Africa as it exists at Hillbrow.

And Sea Point too?

This also holds good for Sea Point in regard to certain aspects. I think it is a pity that we allow these vast concentrations of concrete jungles in South Africa, particularly when we are dealing with groups such as the Coloured and the Indians. If we permit it we will be encouraging future slum conditions.

I want to say in connection with the question of the distance from Lenasia to Johannesburg mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I admit that it is more or less as far from Johannesburg as Bellville or Kuils River is from Cape Town.

It is very much further.

No, Bellville is 13 miles from Cape Town; some parts of it are 15 miles from Cape Town. But does the hon. member not know that the railway transport for Indians from Lenasia to Johannesburg is subsidized transport? You see, Mr. Chairman, we have to tell them these things so that they will realize that these Indians are not the terribly oppressed persons they are made out to be.

Let us take the question of removals on a large scale. Do hon. members not know that urban communities throughout the world are to-day being resettled on a large scale for the sake of better planning? From whence then comes the story that we act cruelly in South Africa when we resettle thousands of people? This is something that is being done throughout the world. This accusation does not make the slightest impression upon me as long as we can improve the position of these people and settle them in communities where they can make a decent living.

I want to remove one misconception. The impression has been created in the Press, in pursuance of what the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs had to say, that permits will now be issued to Indian dealers on a large scale at places where they have come disqualified. That is not so and my colleague did not say that. I have the Hansard report of his speech here and I am in full agreement with what he had to say, according to the Hansard report of his speech. The impression that has been created in this regard is a wrong one. The actual position is that preference will be given to residential removal. The Government has already made an announcement to this effect. We will not deprive anybody who is a dealer of his livelihood by removing him. Priority is given to residential removal and once this has been done, we will allocate permits in a sympathetic way. But I want to remove the “impression that has been created that permits will be issued on an unrestricted and large scale, because that is not correct. I also put the position very clearly to the Indian Council and my speech is on record. So the Indian Council also knows what my attitude is. I am very sorry that this wrong impression has been created. I have here a report which appeared in the Pretoria News and which gives a completely wrong impression of what my colleague had to say here.

May I ask a question? The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs said that people who had businesses in the controlled areas, like Grey Street in Durban, could stay there, and that this held good for their successors as well. In other words, they can sell their businesses.

I am coming to that. I am talking about areas that have been proclaimed as White areas. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) made a strong attack upon me. As the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) so rightly said, the hon. member for Umlazi has taken a small fraction of a fraction of a frcation of this matter and has made a great fuss about it. The fact is that 731 group areas have already been proclaimed. Last year alone, 136 group areas were proclaimed. Why did this happen? Because, since I became Minister, I have said that I want to give the largest measure of stability and certainty to the country and that for this reason the proclamation of group areas must be accelerated. We have achieved that purpose. With a few exceptions virtually all the urban complexes have been proclaimed and the development can now proceed in an orderly fashion. But the hon. member selected one urban area. Although 136 areas were proclaimed last year, he could only find one to attack, and moreover, his facts in this regard are wrong. What is the position? The hon. member raised this matter on 7 June 1963. He resented the fact that the proclaiming of group areas in Durban was not being done swiftly enough. (Hansard, Col. 7495.)

Correct.

The hon. member said: “What is wrong with the hon. the Minister that he cannot finish proclaiming these areas?” He mentioned Isipingo. I then replied to him and told him that I hoped that he would be able to assist the Natal Executive Committee to submit their comments to me during the recess. I went on to say: “Durban (Central) is there; Cato Manor is there; Isipingo is there and Isipingo Rail is there. I am awaiting the comments of the Provincial Administration.” In other words, at that stage the hon. member knew that I was simply waiting for their comments before I decided on these areas. How then could I have broken my word to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) if I had already told the hon. member last year that I was awaiting comments in connection with Isipingo? It could never have formed part of the planning for South Coast. Isipingo had to become part of the planning of Durban and Durban (Central). That is my first reply to the hon. member. In the second place he said that I went overseas and that I left it to the Department to deal with the proclamation. That is not correct. Before an Acting Minister was appointed I dealt personally with that proclamation because I wanted to accept the responsibility for it myself. So his second fact is wrong. In the third place the hon. member said that I had declared the A.K. block to be a White area and he asked me why I had done so because the evidence was against it. I collected a great deal of evidence in connection with the A.K. block. It was only after the reports had been submitted to the provincial authorities, to the transport authorities and also to other bodies for their comments, amongst others, the R.O.N.A., that those reports reached me, as did the evidence. There is a great deal of interesting evidence in connection with this question of Durban and I think that the time has come for me to make it known because the hon. member has again accused me of many bad things here this afternoon. He has more or less given the impression that I am not to be trusted in regard to this matter; that I pay no attention to reports and evidence submitted to me; that I simply push the Group Areas Board aside when they make their reports and that I decide these matters in advance. But the facts are that I dealt with the areas of Durban (Central), Cato Manor, the A.K. block, Warrick Avenue area, Isipingo and Isipingo Rail as a unit, and made my decision on that basis. I had to see Isipingo and Isipingo Rail against the background of what was happening at Wentworth and Chatsworth and the development there, and I had to see Cato Manor against the background of the fact that Durban (Central) had to remain part of White South Africa. I had to see the A.K. block as a real part of Durban (Central), as indeed was the position as far as the Warrick Avenue area was concerned. That left the Grey St. area. I decided that the Grey St. area would remain controlled; that it would be defined as being open to all races for trading purposes, not only the Indians. It would remain a trading area. I think that in this regard I made a sensible decision.

I had a great deal of important evidence before me as far as the A.K. block was concerned. This included evidence given on behalf of the White companies and interested groups there at the inquiry. The person who represented them had this to say, amongst other things—

He went on to say—

That is the A.K. block. He continued—

Apart from this evidence—and this is very important evidence because this evidence was led by Mr. Hourquebie, the advocate for the White people in the area; I am sure the hon. member knows Mr. Hourquebie; he is the advocate who acted for the White people— there is still further evidence that I can quote. Amongst other things I had his valuable arguments as to why the A.K. block should be declared to be White and in the second place I had the consideration that the A.K. block had to be developed as the centre in which the White railway station of Durban would be built. But in the third place it would have been wrong to set up an Indian community there because it could not become a community in that completely White urban area, in spite of the numbers that might be there. That was my reason. As far as Isipingo was concerned, I could not proclaim Isipingo Rail which had of necessity to be declared an Indian area, and leave the small group of Whites as a White spot on the coast. The only sensible thing to do was to give Chatsworth which is an Indian area, and a part of Wentworth and Isipingo Rail access to the sea because the Indians are also entitled to their beaches. These were the considerations which governed our actions. In other words, we did not act arbitrarily. We planned Durban in such a way that thousands of people who are not even prepared to admit it, are grateful to us for having assisted them out of their difficulties. I know that in his heart of hearts the hon. member will also be grateful that the Government has had the courage to tackle Durban’s problems in this way.

There is one more point to which I must reply and that is in regard to the question of “regional planning”. I am still in favour of regional planning where possible but it is not possible for us under existing legislation to take the lead on our own in respect of regional planning because regional and urban planning must also take economic factors into account and machinery has first to be set up in this regard. I have only expressed myself in favour of this in principle, and I am still in favour of it, but it is not correct to say that the group areas legislation is the only way in which one can make provision for that regional planning. Other ways have also to be found to make this possible. That is my view.

In his speech the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) indicated that under group areas certain people will be dissatisfied, whether they belong to the one race or the other, but that as long as they are adequately compensated they should not complain. Mr. Chairman, if you ask the Coloured people throughout the country, they will claim, as they have claimed to me, that the Group Areas Act is the most iniquitous, the most inhuman and immoral Act on the Statute Book.

Nonsense!

That is the claim of the Coloured people. I am sorry I forgot to claim the half-hour privilege, but I want to say, and the hon. Minister knows the case I am going to put to him …

On a point of order, the hon. member wants to raise a matter that falls under the Development Board and the Development Board resorts under the Department of Housing.

I am quite willing to deal with this matter under “Housing”.

I wish to raise one or two points with the Minister in regard to group areas. The Coloured community always feels that it is their lot to be moved and that it is their lot always to receive the lowest price for their properties under the price structure which is set by the Group Areas Board. They feel that they have always to be shifted from where they are. Much play is being made of the fact that we are clearing slums but I should like to point out to the Minister that if in slum clearance, with which we all agree, these properties are demolished, the thing to do is to built other houses in their place. There are one or two examples I want to quote in this regard. After all, the Minister likes to have examples. Now, I have some examples of the sort of thing which creates confusion and frustration amongst the Coloured people.

First of all there is Darling. I have had representations made to me by the “belasting-betalersvereniging” of the Coloured people there, to the effect that they feel that the proposals which they made have been superseded by other proposals but that they do not know what these proposals are, or who made them. They feel aggrieved. I have correspondence here about many places in the Cape Province where something very much on the same lines has happened. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that when these things are dealt with, it would be to his advantage to insist that the Coloured representative committee, of whatever town that is involved, and where a decision is to be made, should be consulted, together with the departmental inspectors and officials, right at the beginning.

Take for instance the position at Ceres. There the council has declared a certain area a Coloured area. The Coloured people of that particular township wished to remain there while the council wished to move them. I, as a public representative, in a spirit of helpfulness wrote to the town council pointing out what the difficulties were and what the people complained about. But I received no reply. That is not common to local authorities, I must say, but it has happened with many of them. Let us go to Cradock. There has been a Coloured area recognized as such for many years. It is now being suggested that the area must be demolished, and that the Coloured people must be placed on the Port Elizabeth side of the town and along the national road.

The hon. the Minister said in regard to the Indians at Lenasia that the Railway Administration was subsidizing their transport to and from work. But I want to put it to the Minister that the cost of transport is a considerable item of expense to the person who can least afford it. It does happen that in these cases the Coloured man is always moved further and further away. Let me quote another example because the Minister likes being given examples. This one concerns Mint Village at Kimberley. This area was declared a Coloured area and houses were built on the site and purchased by Coloured persons. They were quite happy to stay there. But the Group Areas Board, faced with difficulties to find a place for Indians and in the face of pressure from the Indian community who resisted a suggestion that they be put alongside the municipal sewage farm, decided to change the zoning of the area and to declare it an Indian area. The result is that people who have been occupying these properties, for a number of years, and in many cases have bought them, are now forced to move a second time and to go to properties which cannot be built at the price which they must pay for them. So once again the Coloured man is the loser.

There are many other examples. There is for instance, the case of Prieska. There the Coloured area has been defined but all classes of Coloured persons are lumped together and consequently you find that teachers, for instance, are living in quite nice houses but cheek by jowl with all and sundry—no roads, no lights, and very little of facilities that make life comfortable. Let me come to Beaufort West. Beaufort West has a large community of Coloured persons who, I was told, came there as a result of farmers not wishing to have them on their farms. So they came and camped in a placed called Sakkiesbaai. The conditions in that township, or slum rather, were disgraceful. So the Beaufort West municipality decided to build a number of houses to take care of these people. Along came the Group Areas Board, defined the White area, and promptly decided that all Coloured persons in that area had to move. I have correspondence here with the Town Clerk of Beaufort West in which is confirmed what I say. The town council laid out a Coloured township and has tried to sell sites. In this they have succeeded to a certain extent. In the meantime, however, the Department said that the Coloured persons in the White area had to get out. The Town Clerk wrote a letter to the Department pleading for an extension or for a postponement so that they could get on with the job, which they are doing. But they were told that the matter was out of the hands of the Department and was now a matter for the police. I want the Minister to know that this sort of thing is causing the dissatisfaction of which we hear so much in this House from persons who plead the case of the Coloured man. Here is the letter, addressed to the Town Clerk of the Municipality of Beaufort West on 15 May this year. It says—

This is the sort of thing which causes the Coloured man furiously to think. I admit, and I concede, that there are municipalities who have attacked the problem with a will and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the compulsion, which is the cardinal feature of the Group Areas Act, is causing more trouble and irritation to the Coloured community than does anything else. The hon. member for Somerset East said that unless the Act was made compulsory, nothing could be done and that he would like to see the person who would manage to get persons to move voluntarily. I am sorry he is not in his seat because I want to show him what we have done at Kimberley over many years by pleasant means and without compulsion, with good relations amongst everybody concerned, and goodwill to all. [Interruptions.] It is all well and good that there are catcalls from the back of the Chamber but here is an example of what can be achieved by co-operation and what has in fact been achieved. There exists in this country the fallacy that everybody has to be taken by the scruff of the neck and told where he has to go. But I can without any fear of contradiction say, that a great deal of this legislation can be carried out if the attitude of the Government was a little more friendly towards the Coloured persons when it comes to the carrying out of the Group Areas Act. My final point is this. The hon. the Minister is first of all … [Time limit.]

I agree with the hon. member that there ought to be co-ordination between the city councils concerned and the inhabitants of the other areas and it is with a view to this fact that we are bringing a system of local committees into being so that those people will have a mouthpiece by means of which they will be able to negotiate with local authorities. But this was also opposed when we originally wanted to bring it into being.

As far as Mint Village in Kimberley is concerned I want to say that it was never proclaimed a Coloured area. In this respect therefore the hon. member is wrong. It was proclaimed an Indian area, not a Coloured area. It was a housing scheme under the town council.

Within the Coloured area.

No, not in a proclaimed area. It was not in a proclaimed area. I hope that the hon. member will now accept that fact once and for all. It was proclaimed an Indian area. The hon. member has told us of the wonderful co-operation in Kimberley but will he admit that the heart of Kimberley in the shape of its Cape Malay Camp, was the biggest slum that existed in South Africa and that it was only after group areas had been proclaimed that it was cleared? Their civic centre stands there to-day. Will the hon. member admit that?

No. I shall raise the matter under Housing.

No, the hon. member will not admit it. The heart of Kimberley was a slum before group areas were proclaimed there. It was the proclamation of group areas which made Kimberley what it is to-day. Is it not shameless that an hon. member will not stand up here and admit that fact?

As far as Beaufort West is concerned I want to say that I have no lance to break for the town council there. As far as I know, the Coloured community were living in the Bantu locations …

That is true.

… and the town council did a great deal in regard to the resettlement of those people in their own areas. There is the closest co-operation between my Department and all the councils of towns in the Western Cape. If they have any requirements in this regard, they must submit those requirements to the regional office where they will be given the necessary guidance in order to enable them to overcome their problems.

For the second time the hon. the Minister has said that the Group Areas Act and the Government were responsible for the removal of the Malay Camp, the biggest slum in Kimberley. But let me give the House the history of the case, because the Minister is absolutely and horribly wrong, the facts are that in 1938 the farm Bultfontein, which formed half the city of Kimberley, was transferred to the city council by its owner, the De Beers Company. In 1938 the council undertook to remove the whole of the Malay Camp. I did a deal with the Coloured people—which is also what I am suggesting the Minister should do. We got them together and we agreed that we would not sell the land for White occupation and do nothing else with it but use it for a civic centre with access to all.

When did this happen? When did this change take place?

It was started in 1943 when I was the mayor …

But when did the change take place?

In 1943 I was the mayor of Kimberley. In 1944 we started demolishing the slum in the Malay Camp, i.e., long before the Minister became a Minister! In those days he still was the Nationalist Party’s organizer.

When was the change completed?

Never mind when it was completed. We made the change. We built a technical college, we built a theatre and an art gallery and our own civic buildings. We housed these people in the Floors township long before the Government even thought of this horrible word “apartheid”.

I cannot allow the wild statements of the hon. member to go by unchallenged. The fact is that the slum conditions in Kimberley continued until after the proclamation of group area in terms of which that area was declared a White area. Those are the facts. It was after this that the process of clearing up began. Prior to the proclamation of these group areas, the hon. member did not have the power to improve conditions there. The stories that he has told us here this afternoon therefore are completely valueless, and he ought to know it.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 45.—“Housing”, R5,456,000,

I ask for the privilege of the half-hour, Mr. Chairman.

I now want to deal with a case which I could not discuss under the previous Vote and I hope I shall have the attention of the House because this case is only one of many tragic cases that befall Coloured people under the Group Areas Act. Before I start, I wish to make certain points perfectly clear. I do not intend under any circumstances to attack the officials of the Group Areas Development Board because they, I believe, carried out the Act as they saw it and they interpreted it according to what they believed was the true position. Therefore there is no attack intended upon them. Nor is there an attack on the Minister personally, except in so far as he is a member of the Government and of the Cabinet who was responsible for placing upon the Statute Book this Act which, as I said earlier, is described by the Coloured people as perhaps the most iniquitous, inhuman and immoral Act. I hope the case I shall unfold to this House will expose the iniquity of this Act. Before I go further I want to say that as soon as an area is proclaimed either for the one race or for the other …

Order! Did the hon. member refer to this Act as being iniquitous?

No, Sir, but I said that the Coloured people claimed that Act to be so because if you ask them what is the worst Act that is on the Statute Book, those are the words they use …

It is only another way of saying it.

No. It is because of the hardship the people claim they are suffering as a result of this Act, that they apply that appellation to it. I hope hon. members will listen to this case and if they do not then say that there ought to be some amendment in order to help people in this position, then I say they are completely devoid of any feeling.

When an area is declared either for the one race or the other, houses owned by the group affected becomes affected property. I do not want to go into details but the process ends by a basic valuation being placed on those properties of the affected persons. At this stage I should point out that when that happens the Department sends out a circular pointing out to the affected persons that when they sell their properties below the basic valuation, they will receive 80 per cent of the difference and if they sell it for something above the basic valuation, they must pay to the Government 50 per cent of the difference. But nowhere in the circular are the people warned of the consequence of selling a property by public auction. There are of course several ways of selling a property: between the two parties concerned, between an agent and the party, etc. Then there is also the accepted principle of selling it by public auction. The Act says that any condition which is to the benefit of the seller and contained in the conditions of sale shall be regarded as part of the purchase price. I think I have put the position clearly so that there ought to be no doubt as to what the position really is.

Now, here is a case which, I repeat, is one of many. The hon. the Minister knows because I have discussed the case with him, but I also felt it should be publicly aired in this House because of its importance not only to the person involved but also to hundreds of other Coloured people in a similar position. This poor unfortunate Coloured man managed to get a property which was eventually valued at R280—a magnificent property of R280 upon which there was a corrugated iron shack! He was then prevailed upon by a certain auctioneer—the Minister will no doubt deal with this gentleman if he feels that way disposed—who came not only to this man but also to several other Coloured people to allow their properties to be sold by public auction. They agreed and signed a condition of sale to the effect that the commission irrespective of the purchase price would be R30, the purchaser also having to pay the costs of advertisements, and so on. Let us now trace what happened to this unfortunate Coloured man who had this valuable (sic) property of R280

The public auction was duly held and the price which was offered for his property at the public sale was R150—a shortfall of R130. This Coloured man then believed that he would receive 80 per cent of the R130, i.e. R104, which would bring the sale price for him up to R254. But let us see what he in fact received. When his attorney applied for a certificate to enable the transfer to be passed … May I say here, incidentally, that the Development Board became the purchaser of this property. They exercised their pre-emptive rights, and so the Government became the owner of this particular property for R150. And the seller expected the extra R104, being the 80 per cent of the difference. But what did he get in fact? When the attorney applied for the certificate to enable transfer to be effected to the Government, he received a form like the one I have here. On it is set out the purchase price, i.e. R150. Then it states that the auctioneer’s commission is a condition in his favour, i.e. in favour of the seller, so that the R30 will be added to the purchase price. The advertisement charges amounted to R21.50 and this too is a condition favourable to him and accordingly the amount will also be added to the purchase price. It then states that the attorney is going to charge him R10 for the application for transfer—or the agent could have done it; I am not quite sure—which is payable by the purchaser and is a condition favourable to the seller. This too will then be added to the purchase price. So now the purchase price is no longer R150, but is already R211. The seller then asks to remove the little corrugated iron shed and the board very magnanimously agreed that it can be moved but that it is valued at R40. Everybody will know what a corrugated iron shack valued at R40 is worth when it is removed—it could not be worth R2 or even 2c. However, R40 was added to the purchase price. So now the purchase price is already R251. Magnanimously again the board said that he could stay on for two years in this little castle of his at a rental of R2 per month. So the man is happy no doubt, but what does the board say? It says that it thinks the shack is worth R4 per month in rental and consequently the man is benefiting to the extent of R48 over two years. So that is added to the purchase price. So the purchase price of this poor unfortunate man’s property which was valued at R280 basically and which was sold by public aution for R150, ultimately amounted to R299.50. Instead of this poor unfortunate creature therefore getting R104, i.e. the 80 per cent of the difference between the basic valuation of R280 and the sale price of R150, he has to pay the Government R9.75!

Well, I think this is a tragic tale and it not only concerns this particular man but hundreds of them, all of them having to sell their properties and finding themselves in this position …

Did you say it affected hundreds of them?

I understood there were several of these cases. The Department told me that. If the Minister tells me that there are not hundreds that are affected, I accept it. Any way, there are several cases. I was told that by the Department. I did not know. I am merely repeating what the Department told me. Well, I cannot grumble at the R30, the R21.50 and the R10 but I can grumble at the valuation of the shack at R40, because if the man had said that he did not want the shack, he would at least have received 80 per cent of R40 to enable him to buy a new shed! But let us come to the rental of R2 per month. R2 per month on a value of R150 is how much expressed as a percentage …?

What about the Rents Act?

That is what I am coming to … the Rents Act. Here is an instance of a blatant rent racket on the part of the Government … charging a man R2 per month on a property which they purchased for R150! And this poor man had to pay for all the water, which is contrary to municipal custom and usage in terms of which the landlord must pay for water up to a certain minimum and thereafter only does the tenant pay. But the information I got from the Department indicates that this man had to pay for all the water he used. The Minister must correct me if I am wrong. They also, I believe, put in some drainage there and they made this poor unfortunate man pay for this too! So the benefit goes to the Government but this man had to pay it by means of his rental! Why, I think there ought to be a summons issued against the Minister and his Department! But unfortunately I do not think the Rents Act applies to the Minister. With everything that happens the Minister is so lucky … he even escapes the Rents Act! But here is a blatant example of a rent racket!

Mr. Chairman, is there any hon. member in this House who can say that what has happened to this poor Coloured man is just? I want to pay tribute to the Minister for saying that he himself was shocked. When I originally put the case to him he said he was shocked and he felt that something should be done. So the question now is what can we do? What can we do to help these poor unfortunate Coloured people who find themselves in this position? This man did nothing illegal. He only accepted the usual method of selling properties, i.e. by public auction. He was told that he would get 80 per cent of the difference but he did not get it. Instead he found himself in terrible trouble. I believe I have exposed a case which should bring all hon. members of the Government over to the point of view that something must be done.

This working out of figures is in accordance with the Act, except, of course, the rent and the value of the shack. The value placed upon it is, I think, particularly high. I do not think we should permit these things. I want to make an appeal to the Minister and also to the other Ministers sitting here, to see that something is done to amend this Act accordingly. I have other cases where a man has paid the rates and where there has to be a refund of those rates, it is added to the purchase price. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is common knowledge amongst attorneys, conveyancers, etc., that when you sell a property the condition is that if you have paid the rates in advance, you should get it back. But here they have added it to the purchase price of the property. I do not think it is right. My complaint is that the implementation of the Group Areas Act falls heavily on these poor Coloured people. That is the Act. The Department is carrying out its duty and I do not blame it, but I feel that the time has come for us to do something about helping these people and I hope the Minister will make a statement to-day and say that he will go into the matter and see how he can help these people, because I do not think the Minister wants the Government to have a property for which the man only receives R141 if the property is worth R280. And then the man lives there for two years. If he had left, he would have been better off. I do not think there is anyone here who would want to perpetuate this state of affairs, and therefore my appeal to the Minister is to see what he can do to alleviate the position of people who follow the accepted manner of selling property. I think the Minister should give us some hope for these people. When I said there were hundreds of cases, I perhaps exaggerated, but when we discussed it officially I understood there were several such cases. If I exceeded the number somewhat, there is still no blame on the Department, but the Act must be amended.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) gave us to understand that he had discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister and that the hon. the Minister had said hat he would give attention to this particular case and would have an inquiry made into any such cases which were brought to his notice. But what has the hon. member achieved by discussing this matter across the floor of the House to-day? He will not be able to persuade the hon. the Minister to amend the law by this sort of action. What the hon. member actually wants to achieve is to place this individual and exceptional case, one of hundreds which are dealt with by the Department, in a wrong light so that the people outside will be given an impression that a very great injustice is being done under this Act. But the hon. member has remained completely silent in regard to all the other cases in which the people whom he represents are benefited to a large extent as a result of the application of this Act. He says nothing about that. He just wants to create a wrong impression. I leave the matter at that.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a matter which has been discussed very often in this part of the world recently and that is: What is to become of District Six. District Six lies on the edge of the centre of the city. Investigations have already been made and because of this fact, all sorts of wild rumours are doing the rounds and I believe that many of them are being spread maliciously. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will be able to give the House any details at this stage in regard to what the Department intends doing in regard to this area.

I just want to say that the Nationalist Government has a proud record in connection with the provision of houses. Over the past ten years particularly a great deal of research has been done in connection with the building of houses and the hon. the Minister and his Department have made it their task to become acquainted with the most modem methods in that sphere. The C.S.I.R. has played an important role in doing research over the past ten years. Government Departments have also done a great deal on their part in connection with the pruning of expenditure and improving the standard and durability of these houses, and particularly too in regard to the putting into operation of cheap mass production methods. We have progressed so far in this connection that it was with great pleasure that I read an article recently written by Dr. D. M. Caldenwood, head of the Architectonic Division of the Building Research Institute. He writes as follows in regard to the aspect of standard housing units [translation.]—

When I say that the Government has a proud record in connection with the building of houses, I want to point out that during the war years very little was done in connection with housing. In 1948 the Government inherited a backlog of about 55,000 houses which were required for Whites and within a few years had wiped out that backlog. For the next ten years, therefore, South Africa had no problems in regard to housing. The manner in which the hon. the Minister and his Department are tackling this matter to-day is inspiring the confidence of the people of the Republic.

It is our experience that there is a great deal of ignorance, particularly on the part of the public, in regard to the facilities offered by the Department of Housing in regard to homes for private individuals. That ignorance does not exist only on the part of individuals; it goes further than that. We find that as a result of a lack of interest, that ignorance also exists on the part of local authorities. Recently, as a result of radio talks and Press statements by the hon. the Minister, a great deal has been done to disseminate information in regard to the Department as it has at present been re-organized. This has helped a great deal and I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to continue along these lines to give details to the public in regard to the facilities made available by the Department of Housing to private individuals as well, including loans to enable them to build their own homes. We must make the public realize that it is not the duty of the State alone to provide all the housing requirements but that it is also the duty of the local authorities to make provision in this regard in their own areas. I do not think that all our local authorities view the matter in this light. That is why we find that many local authorities do not want to accept this responsibility; in many other cases the municipalities simply do not have the enterprising spirit to do anything in connection with housing. One is struck by the amount of ignorance that often exists on the part of local authorities in connection with the need for housing in their own areas. They have no idea of the scope of the housing problem. The reason for this is because they so seldom give attention to this matter which is the task of a local authority. I have also often wondered whether all the municipalities realize that when they are ready and prepared to provide their local housing requirements, it is not necessary for them to assume extra financial burdens. It is not necessary for them to suffer losses by tackling schemes. The State bears all the loss in interest in connection with housing schemes to-day. What is more, the arrangement now is such that local authorities can now recover the costs in connection with the planning and supplying of necessary services, the costs in connection with professional and technical services, from the Housing Fund. [Time limit.]

First of all, I should like to seek a little information from the Minister. I have information, and I believe it is correct, that the Minister intends to embark upon a housing scheme in Durban to cope with the housing requirements of immigrants. We know, for instance, that the Department has acquired some 40 acres of land in Grey’s Inn Road at the Bluff, and reports have been published which show that the Department intends to erect some 300 houses there. We know, too, that the Department controls some quite large pieces of land in the Cato Manor area, and I believe that is also intended for a housing project. We also know that the Department is exercising its pre-emptive right, and is acquiring property in the present Indian areas of Durban, which have been proclaimed for White occupation, and I assume that the Minister will embark upon some sort of scheme there, but I would like some more information about it. I have heard rumours, too, that tenders have been called for by the Department for three blocks of flats, one at Marriott Road, another in Botanic Gardens Road, and the other at Avondale Road, and that these blocks of flats are due to be ready in 18 months’ time. Obviously, if this information is correct, then the Department is going to embark upon quite a big housing scheme, and we would like to know whether this is correct, and if so, what development is envisaged both in regard to the housing schemes and the blocks of flats.

The next point I wish to deal with is the question of group areas development. This Department has now taken over that part of the group areas plan to develop after proclamations have been made. I indicated to the Minister a little while ago that I thought it was a very good move to transfer it to the Department of Housing, because under the Group Areas Development Board I thought it had failed. But there are one or two aspects I would like to put to the Minister for his consideration now that he has a chance to wipe the slate clean and perhaps to get this particular aspect of his Department functioning better. I should like to put forward one or two views of the people in the estate agency business, who have to deal with this particular aspect of group areas.

The first complaint they have is on the question of valuation. They are not very happy about the valuations at all. The view they take is that the method of valuation is too cursory, to start with. This is possibly due to the very low rates of remuneration paid to valuators in determining the basic values of these properties. I do not know what the remuneration is, but I have heard it said that it is R3 a day. If that is correct, I think the Department must accept that it cannot have a valuation done properly for the sum of R3 a day by a qualified man. This seems to be leading to the practice that a panel of valuers is not, in fact, valuing the property. One man goes out to do the job and then the other members of the panel have a cursory glance at the property and endorse the valuation, and of course this is contrary to all the rules laid down and contrary to the requirements of Schedule “F” attached to the regulations.

The other complaint is this, that the Group Areas Board is acting as secretaries to the valuators. This is something which is not provided for in the Act. The Act says that they can have some assistance from the Group Areas Board to do their secretarial work, but what happens in practice is that the Board is not only housing the valuators, but is directing their efforts; so that the Board has prior knowledge of all the valuations, whereas, in fact, the seller and the Board should be treated on an equal basis. The Board has obviously been holding up issuing notices on valuations to owners until they have decided what their course of action will be and whether they will oppose the valuation or not. The Group Areas Act, as they say, merely specifies that upon request committees of valuers may be granted clerical assistance at the discretion of the Minister, but the inference is plain, that the panels have to do their own despatching of advice to all parties concerned, and the Board is included as an interested party, and not as the secretary of the panel. But the opposite seems to be happening.

Another complaint they have is that the Group Areas Board serves eviction notices on tenants upon expiry of permits. The premises are thereafter left empty and, in the majority of cases, no White person will occupy premises previously occupied by members of the Indian group, and as the result certain damages due to neglect and vandalism are sustained. It has been the policy of the Development Board to check on the properties and thereafter, in terms of Section 18 (4), to communicate with the owner of the property concerned stating that they will request a re-determination of the value because of the damage done to the property. These complaints come from the agents who deal with the property, and they have asked me to put forward these points on their behalf.

They also complain that there would appear to be a certain amount of speculative practice on the part of the Department. That is on the basis that they are exercising their pre-emptive right and are re-offering the property in certain cases to the original buyer who made the offer at a price which suits the Board. I think that is a very bad practice for a Government Department to indulge in. It means that the Department cannot lose. It means that they make a profit both ways, because they take 50 per cent of the seller’s profit and only reimburse 80 per cent of his losses, but on the resale of these properties they take all the profit. Especially in the case of the poorer people, I think this is a very bad practice indeed. I think they should let them get as high a price as possible for their properties, because they have such difficulty in re-establishing themselves elsewhere on a scale that they have been accustomed to. The time factor does not allow me to raise any more points, but I would like the Minister to deal with these particular aspects, because these are things which have actually been come across by people who are dealing with the implementation of the Act.

The hon. the Minister and his Department are making a great success of housing and we all want to pay tribute to them in this regard. I think that he merits praise for the task he has undertaken. After having complimented him, I fear I must make a request of him, otherwise things will not seem right. This is my request. I feel that the hon. the Minister and his Department are responsible for housing in the country as a whole. There is one specific group of people whom I feel cannot under the present circumstances actually make an appeal to anyone to assist them with housing. These are the people living on agricultural holdings falling outside the municipal areas. Those living on agricultural holdings within municipal areas can apply for the usual loans made available by the Housing Commission and they can also obtain assistance from the building societies. The people with more than 10 morgen of land—this is usually the size of an agricultural holding—are also in no difficulty because they can be assisted by the Land Bank. These people make their living mainly from farming. The group of people whom I have mentioned are the people who own 10 morgen of land outside a municipal area; they are people who do not make their living from farming but use it as a means of additional income and work in the town or city. The question is, how many of these people are affected? It appears to me that these people actually fall between two stools and cannot be assisted anywhere in regard to housing. Their numbers are not small. In March, 1957, a special commission was appointed to inquire into the question of small-holdings. It was under the chairmanship of Prof. Tomlinson and the following facts appear in the report of that commission. At that time there were 47,299 of these small-holdings in the Transvaal, 14,339 in Natal, 7,342 in the Cape and 4,169 in the Free State—a total of 73,189. The houses on these small-holdings varied; they differed from one another. In the first place, 38.4 per cent of these homes, according to this report, were mediocre houses, houses described in the report as being houses which could not be regarded as being slum houses but which nevertheless suffered from some or other defects of a minor nature or which gave the impression of not having been well and carefully built, and 10.1 per cent of these houses were poor houses, houses which because of defective material or construction or an inadequate amount of light or ventilation or because of their broken-down condition, were such that they could in terms of present standards be regarded to be slum houses. I feel that we are dealing here with a group of people who want to stand on their own feet but who, just like other people, need help and cannot obtain it.

What is the position? I am aware of the fact that a scheme does exist in terms of which people can obtain a loan of R3,000 from the Housing Commission to purchase material for the building of a house and R500 to lay on water for domestic purposes. But the application of this Act eliminates 99 per cent of these people. What are the conditions set by the Department before these people can be assisted? In the first place, such agricultural holding has to be fully paid for and its owner must have the title deeds to that land. Secondly, there must be no housing of any nature on that holding. The Department is then prepared to consider a loan and the house is built from scratch according to the specifications of the Department. But we know that in practice things do not work out in this way. The owner of an agricultural holding leaves the town in order to live more cheaply. When he has bought his holding, he starts paying it off and plans a nice home and outbuildings. But because he cannot obtain assistance through the medium of a loan for a house, he uses his own cash. He builds his outbuildings and then he and his family move into those buildings and live there in the meantime in the hope that they will eventually obtain assistance to enable them to build their dream house. Because that housing is already available, that man is disqualified and he cannot obtain a loan. Then we have the other case where people do build a house. They start with a few rooms and then they make application for a loan to complete the house. They are immediately told that they cannot be given a loan because the Department has not approved of the foundations and because they do not know what materials have been used. Because of these reasons, they cannot assist that person. These people fall between two stools in this way and it has been for some years now that I have felt that something should be done to assist these people. Because this Department has now become a full-fledged Department, I feel that it is time for a thorough investigation to be made into housing on these agricultural holdings so that methods can be found to assist these people by means of loans. I understand the problem of the hon. the Minister. If the holding has not been paid off, he has no security for his money. But I do think that other methods can be followed. The Department of Lands has another method in terms of which it protects its loans. When a man is given a loan, he is asked to pay 7 per cent instead of 5 per cent interest. The additional 2 per cent is used as a premium which he pays on an insurance policy to cover the loan. Can a scheme of this nature not be followed so that these people can also be assisted in this way? They can pay an additional 2 per cent in interest to pay for an insurance policy or to pay for some other cover as security for the loan. I feel that these people really have something to complain about because, as I say, they fall between these two stools. The building societies operate in an arbitrary manner as far as their funds are concerned. When funds are plentiful, they are prepared to make them available, but as soon as money becomes scarce, the small-holders are the first people to have these facilities withdrawn. The Department of Lands, the Land Bank and the Land Board adopt the attitude that these people do not make their living from agriculture; that they are not bona fide farmers and they cannot therefore be assisted in any way. I really feel that our Department of Housing is the only Department which can help these people. I want to assure you, Sir, that their numbers are not few; a fairly large number of people are affected.

Sir, I heard the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) say a few minutes ago, that the Minister and his Department had made a great success of housing. Whereas I think I would be amongst the first to say that the Minister and his Department have tried to make a success of housing, I think the hon. Minister would agree that it is a little premature to claim that he has already achieved that success which can only be proved by the simple fact that all those people in South Africa who require housing have in fact been adequately housed as at a certain date. I think we should look at the position a little more objectively than did the hon. member for Randfontein, and try to see in what way we can accelerate this movement towards the goal which I think the Minister and his Department and all members of this House would like to reach—and that is to provide adequate housing for the whole population of South Africa, wherever they may be and regardless of their race or creed. Sir, one of the most tragic facts about the present situation is the fact that there is a housing crisis, and I do not think the hon. the Minister will deny that. There was a survey made last month, for example, in the city of Johannesburg, the results of which were published in the Press, and according to the letting agents who are responsible for the bulk of the letting in a city like Johannesburg, today’s accommodation crisis can be likened to that of 1946-7. The person who made this survey says—

I can vouch for this—

I know this area very well, and it is perfectly true that in the early part of 1963 you had a wide choice of flats in that very well-known “flatland” of Johannesburg, whereas to-day it is impossible to find a flat at anything like a reasonable price. This person goes on to say—

Then there is the question of the immigrant families who come in. In this connection he says—

I could let 60 in Springs immediately.

There you are, Sir, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) who happens to be in that field of human endeavour, says that he could let 60 homes in Springs immediately. Therefore, to say that we have achieved success is simply shutting one’s eyes to the facts. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is more than a coincidence that within the last few days I have been approached, in each case by the head of the family, to find accommodation for three families who, because of the transfer of the head of the household to Johannesburg, have to go up there by July, and up to this date their friends and their family connections in Johannesburg—and estate agents—have failed to find a single house for any one of those three.

Where?

In Johannesburg.

Where is Johannesburg?

Johannesburg is the little dorp to the west of Brakpan, I would say! I think in all honesty that we must look at this matter squarely, and decide just how housing schemes of the various municipalities under the direction of the Department of Housing can be accelerated, instead of sitting back and saying that we have achieved success. There are two ways which come to mind immediately. The one, of course, has already been explored by the hon. the Minister and that is to use new methods, new materials, in housing in order to reduce costs and to speed up building. I see there is an item of R40 in the Estimates to enable the Bureau of Standards to investigate certain materials. First of all, I would like to suggest that there must be a wide range of materials available to-day. I have here a report of one which is now being used experimentally in Germany. It is called the “hydrolite hard foam”, and it is described as follows—

To say that R40 is adequate for the Bureau of Standards to experiment and to advise the Minister and the Department about the newest kind of materials, is being optimistic …

But I have replied to that already. I dealt with it under the Bill.

Sir, I am looking at the Estimates. The Minister has placed in his Estimates R40 for the Bureau of Standards to experiment with new materials. I would like to know how much experimentation the Minister thinks a Bureau of Standards anywhere in the world can undertake with R40! I therefore say, with respect to the Minister, who says that he has dealt with this, that he has not yet dealt with it clearly, because if he was serious about using new materials he would place a little more than R40 on the Estimates in order to help the Bureau of Standards to investigate these matters and to report to him.

The other way in which the provision of housing can be stepped up is, of course, by the provision of more multistorey accommodation, multiple dwellings, a matter in regard to which there has been a little dispute between the Minister and myself. Sir, I remember that when we discussed this matter quite recently in the House, the Minister said: “Multistorey accommodation creates social problems.” He called them “agterbuurtes” and he said that he had seen this for himself in Europe. Sir, this is against all the evidence. It may well be that there are slums where there are multistorey dwellings in Europe or elsewhere, but if the Minister suggests that the one is responsible for the other, I must deny it, because it does not follow that merely because a building houses a 100 dwelling units it immediately tends to become a slum. It depends on all sorts of other factors; it depends on the provision of amenities; it depends on the type of tenant who lives in the building, and I can give him the “horrible” example of Hillbrow which is no slum by any standards, and yet it has more flats than any other part of South Africa. What makes the position of people in a suburb like Hillbrow difficult is the fact that it was not planned, that there is not adequate parkland, that there are no social amenities and that there are no schools in the area, etc.; but I insist in a properly planned housing development, the multiple type of dwelling is still the quickest and the readiest answer. The Minister himself in his circular last year pointed out that in all the large urban centres there was a dearth of land suitable for housing development, and yet he and his Department persist in this argument that “agterbuurtes” follow upon flat building, and that therefore each home must be on a stand of its own. In this way, instead of using the land that is available to the full, they do in fact waste 80 per cent of the land— because they erect one house on a stand on which you could have 20 dwellings of the multistorey type. There is the very recent example of Belfast in Northern Ireland. I have a report here which says—

How can the Minister suggest that these people are now creating a new slum where they are demolishing an old one? His argument is that the moment you put up a block of flats you create slum conditions. Then you have the case of France, where this type of multiple-unit dwelling is the order of the day, and not the exception. The Minister told us about his interviews with a certain Greek architect. There is the case here of an architect who worked for many years with another very famous architect, Le Corbusier. I have a report here which states, under the heading “George Candilis is building Tolouse-parallele”—

A whole new city is being built on this basis. [Time limit.]

In the short time at my disposal I do not want to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down, but I want to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister in the interests of the people whom I represent here. The position of the local authorities on the platteland, the divisional councils as we know them here in Cape Town, is aggravated greatly by the influx of visitors, particularly Coloureds, at holiday times and at week-ends. These people, in their striving to live like the White people live and to go where the White people go—a right which no one, of course, begrudges them— visit our beaches in large numbers. Because I represent a constituency which has a very long and lovely and popular coastline, I want to mention the fact here that this presents problems for the local authorities as far as the provision of water, sanitation, means of access and so forth is concerned. While in the old days the pattern was that these people could swim everywhere and had access to every place, the province has now appointed a commission to put the matter in order by demarcating certain areas for the various races. But the fact that these areas are demarcated is of absolutely no assistance to the local authority. The local authority does not have the means at its disposal to develop these places and arrange matters in an orderly fashion. I want to suggest that local authorities be encouraged to do the necessary development work in this regard, because I find that there is some measure of hesitancy on the part of local authorities to do this work. I do not think that that hesitancy springs from an unwillingness to do that work. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give his attention to this problem which the divisional councils have to contend with around our cities. I do not know whether the Peninsula has sufficient facilities for these people. Even if we did have adequate facilities for them, the fact remains that when one is on holiday or when one goes somewhere over the week-end, one wants to get away from one’s usual way of life and relax in a different atmosphere. We do not begrudge these people these things, and I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter.

The other matter that I want to mention is quite a personal one, but is, nevertheless, quite romantic as well. It is the case of a White family in my constituency. I want to make a plea here for this man and woman, who belong to the lower income group. I want to make a plea for this family and for other families in similar circumstances. I feel that these people with large families merit more assistance on the part of the State. I brought this case to the attention of the hon. the Minister’s Department, and they were very sympathetic, but I want to advocate a little more elasticity when dealing with matters of this nature. I have pleasure in making this plea here this afternoon, because in this particular case, when there were already 16 children in the family, numbers 17 and 18 came along together!

What does the father do in his spare time?

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not break a lance for these people, because I myself am the father of twins. I have already counted as many as 66 items of washing a day on the washing line of that family’s house. Of the 18 children, 11 are at home, and seven are still at school. They live in a four-roomed house with two bedrooms. The house has a cement floor and no bathroom. Most of the income of that family is derived from Social Welfare. Although the officials are very sympathetically disposed in this regard, they have to keep within the limits of the Act and the regulations. I want to ask that there should be a little more elasticity in cases of this nature so that people in these circumstances can be assisted.

When the hon. the Minister spoke earlier on he said I was against the clearance of slums because I pleaded against any decision to remove the Coloureds from District Six. In the second breath he said I was pleading the cause of exploiting landlords because I objected to the removal of Indians from certain areas. I will not go into that, Sir, because the hon. the Minister knows that is nonsense. I stated originally that I was all for the clearance of slums. I said District Six was a slum, but that the way to clear it was not to remove the Coloured people from that area, but to rebuild and improve the area without the forcible removal of people who had been there for many years. As for the exploitation by rack-renting landlords, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the only reason why exploiting landlords can ever carry out their nefarious trade is because there is a shortage of housing. When there is a good supply of housing, one does not get rack-renting landlords. Therefore the Minister’s entire concern, as Minister of Housing, should be to see that enough houses are built to house the population.

In an answer to a question the other day the hon. the Minister gave me the figures of housing. A considerable amount is being done for the Coloured and White groups. I grant him that at once. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister why, in view of the fact that every possible avenue of increasing the number of houses available should be used, the Minister has now issued a directive that in future local authorities may not grant loans to private companies which are so-called White companies in order that they can erect housing for Coloured people. In other words, in future a White company, a utility company, will no longer be able to borrow money from a local authority in order to build houses for non-White people. The only exception, as far as I can gather, is in respect of schemes already under way. This means that in Cape Town, for instance, the Citizens Housing League, Cafda Utility Company, Garden Cities, Servitas and all the other private utility comoanies will in due course be stopped from building houses. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that all these organizations have been pioneers in the provision of housing. The Citizens Housing League, 30 years ago, pioneered low-cost housing for poor Whites in Cape Town. They have nearly 5,000 lettings at the present stage. They have now started in the field of non-White housing, and they have over 1,000 lettings in the Bishop Lavis Township. Cafda, of course, pioneered a new approach to sub-economic housing for non-Whites, in which the house is used as a solution to social problems. Cafda already has 336 houses, and another 400 were actually in the process of being negotiated when this whole scheme was stopped dead by ministerial edict. Servitas has pioneered a new home-ownership scheme in which over 500 houses were put up. That has been stopped. Garden Cities, I must point out to the Minister, pioneered lower and middle income home-ownership for Whites at Pinelands. They have provided over 3,000 houses. They are now pioneering the same in respect of Coloured housing. They have completed, and were envisaging completing, approximately 3,000 houses for Coloured people. They own large tracts of land which they were going to use for future development. I would implore the Minister not to stop further development in this regard. I believe it would be a tragedy if this additional manner of supplying houses which are in short supply was stopped by means of ministerial declaration. I do not know what the reason is; perhaps the hon. the Minister would tell me. Is it a matter of control? Is it because the hon. the Minister controls municipalities, because he has statutory powers over them, and that he finds he cannot control utility companies in the same way?

The standard of housing for non-White lower-income groups has, in fact, been steadily dropping as far as the sub-economic families are concerned. Because, irrespective of size, a family is housed in a two-roomed house—a living room and a bedroom. It is only the private utility company that has built a different type of house. The private utility company has been providing a far better type of housing than the two-roomed housing.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that, where similar shortages of housing have developed in other countries, the State has always made use of every single available resource in order to catch up the backlog. When Amsterdam, to give an example, was short of about 40,000 houses after the war, because of bomb damage and so on, Amsterdam did not build a single house, but called in six utility companies to put up houses which were completed two years ahead of schedule, particularly because it was private enterprise, which gets a move on. The same principle is in operation in Canada and all over the United States. But here we find that private enterprise is eliminated. I believe the hon. the Minister is making a serious mistake in this regard by not allowing utility companies to continue in the way in which they have done before. I ask him for a reason for his ruling.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised the question of utility companies. Her information is slightly incorrect in some respects. She is correct in one respect. I and the Department have the greatest respect for the work being done by utility companies. We encourage them to perform this work. But there is one principle which we cannot allow utility companies to break, and that is to enable disqualified persons to obtain land on a large scale in proclaimed areas. The hon. member will understand that this will frustrate the whole purpose of the development of the Coloured community. I hope that the existing utility companies, whose work I greatly appreciate, will come forward and will assist in, for example, having a utility company established amongst the Coloured community in the Peninsula, a utility company which can do that work in the proclaimed Coloured areas.

Will they be able to incur loans?

I have no objection to loans and assistance being given to a Coloured utility company. All that I say is that I think Garden Cities, which is a White company, and the Stedelike Behuisingsbond, must operate in proclaimed White areas. This is the point of view of the Government which does not want to allow disqualified persons to obtain land in proclaimed areas. I hope, therefore, that these utility companies will themselves take the lead in having a utility company established amongst the Coloureds. If there is any difficulty in this regard, the assistance of even the Development Corporation must be called in to guide the Coloureds and to enable them to set up a company of this nature for themselves. It is a source of employment and provides the Coloureds with a new development. I hope that the hon. member now understands what our approach to the matter is.

I understand it, but I disagree with it.

The hon. member may disagree with us, but that is her affair.

The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. De Villiers) referred to Hawston. I think he had Hawston in mind. I can tell him that the chairman of the Development Board will pay a visit to Hawston to-morrow. It has already been decided that the Development Board should assist the Divisional Council of Caledon in developing Hawston. As far as the large Smit family is concerned, I can only say that it is an exceptional case. We have been dealing with this matter now for a long time. I can tell the hon. member that the matter has now been taken so far that steps are being taken to provide this family with suitable accommodation.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) spoke about agricultural holdings. Other hon. members also referred to this matter, members like the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. J. A. Schlebusch). This matter has often been raised. It is not easy to solve this problem. We are working with State funds, and the Housing Commission has to ensure that control is exercised over the loans which it makes available. If it were to make the same facilities available for peri-urban areas, it would have no organization like a local authority to give a guarantee and supervise things on behalf of the commission. There are various factors affecting loans made in these areas. In cases where people make their living on agricultural holdings in the sense that they also use it for farming purposes, I do not think that the Housing Act is the appointed instrument to be used to assist them. But if they only use the agricultural holdings for residential purposes, a case can be made out in this regard. What happens is this: Some of these areas fall under the local authority which is nearest to them. Then we can assist in regard to re-distribution and in regard to loans. The case of Witbank was recently brought to my attention. Witbank has now incorporated that area. We are going to give assistance there. I hope that other areas will also assist in this way—also through the medium of the provincial administrations—to make it possible for us to help. I should like us to discuss this matter further during the recess, so that we can obtain clarity once and for all in regard to what we can do and what we cannot do.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) said we were apparently building a housing scheme in Durban. He wanted to know whether that was true. Yes, the Durban Municipality is developing a scheme of 1,000 units, and it is planning another scheme for another few hundred. The Department of Housing is busy with a special housing programme in Durban in Sea View, the Bluff, Cato Manor, the Botanic Gardens, Marriott Road, Avondale Road, Mayville, Hillary and Finland. We intend shortly to build 490 units there. They will be single units and flats.

I may mention that, apart from our longterm programme, we are also planning a crash programme of 6,000 units for Europeans in the bigger metropolitan area of which Durban will receive 490 units.

The hon. member also referred to the fees paid to the valuators. This matter is in the discretion of the Development Board and the chairman of the board is present here. I will refer this matter to the board. But I am told that they use their discretion in paying the valuators. They feel that the fees are not too low. In any case, I will ask the board to go into the matter again. I shall also ask them to let the hon. member know by letter what the true position is.

Thank you.

The hon. member for parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) asked whether more could not be done to make people realize the facilities that are available to them in connection with housing. My reply to that is in the affirmative. I have already given a radio talk in this regard. Prof. Erika Theron is now going to meet the women’s bodies and tell them about this matter. A brochure on housing will also be published within a few weeks, a brochure which will be distributed throughout the country on a large scale so that people will be properly informed in this regard. I also want to say—I address these remarks particularly to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel)—that there is still the private sector which has to play its part. The State alone is not responsible for housing. The State does its duty and local authorities are also encouraged to do their duty in this regard. Many of them are already doing their duty in this respect. But the private sector must also assist in making housing available. Neither the hon. member for Hospital nor I will ever in our lifetime or in our children’s lifetime see the utopia which the hon. member has conjured up for us in which everyone will have been provided with housing. The hon. member is living in a fool’s paradise because nothing of this nature exists anywhere in the world.

The hon. member for Parow also asked a question in connection with District Six. I want to say a few words in this regard.

Is the matter not sub judice?

The hon. member can safely leave it to me to decide.

That is why I did not raise the matter.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) also referred to District Six. All sorts of rumours have been in circulation, particularly during last week. One day we had decided that District Six should be declared a White area and the next day we had decided that it should be declared a Coloured area. The facts in connection with District Six, according to the evidence submitted, are that there are not a very large number of White persons in District Six. It is contended that there are 800 of them there as against 61,000 Coloureds and 600 Indians. The estimated market value of the properties are as follows: For Whites, R 17,000,000; for Coloureds, R6,000,000; for Indians, R5,000,000; and for the municipality and the State R7,000,000. These are merely approximate figures.

I did not know that this matter could be discussed.

I wish the hon. member would remain silent. These are approximate figures. I am now expected summarily to decide that the status quo in District Six should be retained. There was an investigation into an alternative scheme, that is to say, whether District Six should be declared to be a White area or whether it should be declared to be a Coloured area. The Department and the Government are blamed in this regard. Instead of the persons who submitted evidence to the Group Areas Board putting forward positive suggestions with a view to assisting us to find a solution, all of them, including the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), simply made propaganda there.

That is completely untrue.

The position is that we are saddled with the problem of District Six. Hon. members will be surprised to hear of the representations which I have received, amongst others, from Coloureds, that some plan has to be framed in regard to District Six. District Six is a blot on Cape Town, not because Coloureds live there but because of the conditions that prevail there. We have now decided that before any progress can be made in giving District Six a specific racial character, there are other facts which have first to be ascertanied. With this aim in mind I decided to appoint a departmental committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary for Housing, Mr. Niemand. Serving with him on the departmental committee will be Prof. Tobie Louw of the University of Pretoria—he is also a member of the National Housing Commission —and Mr. P. Reyneke, the chief town planner of the Department of Housing. I want to invite another person to serve on this committee together with these three aforementioned members, namely, Dr. Morris, the City Engineer of Cape Town, subject to the fact that the City Council of Cape Town approved of his appointment. This committee will co-operate most closely with the Provincial Administration. Indeed, I have already been assured of the co-operation of the Administration. The Administrator has given me the assurance that we will have the co-operation of the Administration as far as the availability of information is concerned. This committee will consider the whole question of District Six in order to see what can be done in terms of the Slums Act and the Housing Act in regard to the future development of the area. The committee will take account of existing zoning and possible steps that can be taken to give District Six a new status. But these things cannot be done within a day or two, or even within a year or two. We have once and for all to lay down a basis on which we can tackle the problem and to determine the development that can take place there in the future. It will only be when the report of this committee is available that we can reach finality in regard to the future of District Six. I shall therefore wait until I have received the expert advice of this committee.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Order! The hon. member cannot ask questions now; the time has been divided between the hon. the Minister and hon. members.

This departmental committee will therefore investigate the replanning and development possibilities of the whole complex and will then report to me. Only then will I decide finally in regard to District Six. In other words, this is an attempt to obtain the necessary co-operation between my Department, the City Council of Cape Town and the Provincial Administration in order to enable me to make a decision in regard to District Six.

In conclusion there is the matter raised by the hon. member for Boland—the shameless malpractices that have taken place under the Act. The hon. member was good enough to inform me in advance that he would raise the matter here. Let me say that there were not hundreds of cases involved in this regard as was contended by the hon. member. As far as my Department has been able to ascertain, there were only three such cases. These cases arose as the result of exploitation by a certain estate agent in Cape Town, called J. Ihring. After a certain group area had been proclaimed for Coloureds, he recruited a number of people to enter the area and tell the Coloureds that they should sell. He drew up deeds of sale in terms of which the buyer would be responsible for the cost of transfer and for auctioneer’s fees of 5 per cent on the purchase price but with a minimum of from R30 to R50. The buyer would also be responsible for the advertising expenses amounting to R70. It was also provided that the seller would be able to occupy the property of the buyer at a ridiculously low rental from 3 to 24 months after the date of sale. The malpractices all arose from these provisions with the result that, as the hon. member also pointed out, some of the Coloured owners had to pay money over to the Group Areas Development Board.

When the matter came to my attention, my Department immediately sent its officials into the area concerned to warn the Coloureds not to allow themselves to be misled in this way. We also published a warning in the Coloured newspaper, Die Banier. Moreover, we informed the Coloured Council of the position and asked it to assist us to ensure that more people did not fall victims to these malpractices. Everything possible therefore was done by the Department to prevent this sort of thing. I want now to make a brief quotation from a letter which my Department received from one of the victims—

Those are the facts. I want to tell the hon. member that I am prepared to ask the Group Areas Development Board to devote its attention during the recess to finding a way in which we can prevent malpractices of this nature. All that I want to add in this regard is that these malpractices are not the fault of my Department but are a result of rascally actions of a person who has exploited the situation to his own advantage.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill in broad principle follows the Admission of Attorneys Act dealt with by us earlier this year in this House. This measure is largely an agreed measure. It was drafted after consultations with the Bar Council, and after being drafted, it was re-submitted to the Bar Council. The Bar Council had certain comments to make on it, and arising from that I once again had discussions with the local representatives of the Bar Council and on that occasion all the points outstanding up to that stage were cleared up.

The existing law relating to the admission of Advocates in the Republic is contained in more than a dozen Acts, the first of which is dated 1832. Admission of advocates will in future, if this Bill is passed, be governed by this measure and the rules made thereunder. Several of the existing provisions contain concessions in respect of British subjects and persons who have been admitted to practice as advocates in certain countries or territories. The lastmentioned advocates are also British subjects in practice. For understandable reasons mentioned by me during the discussion of the Attorneys Act also, these concessions are now being done away with and it is now provided that only South African citizens and those who have been admitted to permanent residence in the Republic may be admitted to practice. As regards permanent residence, the provision in this regard is a concession made to immigrants. The continuance of the concession to British subjects, since we are no longer a member of the British Commonwealth and the Britons already have done away with the reciprocal treatment previously applying to our people, is of course out of place. In any event, it is a principle in all civilized states that foreigners are permitted to practice in its courts only in exceptional circumstances. We also follow this principle.

It is not excluded that somebody who has the necessary qualifications may, nevertheless, be unfit to be admitted as an advocate. Provision is made, therefore, that a prospective advocate should not only be qualified academically, but that he should also otherwise be a fit and proper person before he may be admitted as an advocate.

The provisions of paragraphs (d) and (e) of Clause 3 (1) regarding the admission of persons who have been admitted to practice as an attorney, or who has been employed by an attorney, notary or conveyancer as a clerk, is substantially in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1955, and therefore no new principle is being introduced. In addition, the provisions seem to be desirable in view of the clear distinction existing between the Bar and the Side-Bar. Similar provisions are contained in the Admission of Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Act of 1934.

Admission of advocates in the Republic, as hon. members know, is based primarily on the LL.B, degree, which is normally obtained only after a Baccalaureus degree in a faculty other than law has been gained, that is to say, after a B.Com. or a B.A. degree falling under the arts faculty have been obtained. Admission may, however, also be on the basis of a variety of foreign qualifications, which in practice virtually amount to British qualifications. However, a Baccalaureus degree gained at a South African university after a study course of at least five years and which includes at least one course in Afrikaans, one course in English, and one course in Latin, is a pre-requisite to admission. However, the door is left open to admit as an advocate a person who has been admitted to the status of such a degree. In other words, the universities have the power and may award to a person who has gained his degree elsewhere, the status of their degree for those purposes. South African universities are properly equipped to provide the requisite training for prospective advocates, and there is no need for us to turn to overseas countries to train our advocates. In saying this, I am not disparaging the value of overseas study; on the contrary, we all know how this can contribute to the development of a person. It is very important that South African advocates should be trained in South African law, and should receive their training against the background of the South African administration of justice. South African universities in the very nature of things are better equipped to do so than overseas universities. In addition, it is uncertain to what extent overseas legal qualifications are comparable with South African qualifications. In any event, our universities are able, when such a course is justified, to grant recognition in respect of overseas legal qualifications with or without supplementary examinations, and overseas qualifications will, therefore, not necessarily be useless in this regard.

An important deviation, as far as South African qualifications are concerned, is that it is no longer a requirement that the Bachelor of Laws degree should be gained after a B.A. degree in faculty other than the faculty of law has been gained. This change has been introduced at the instance of the Universities of Pretoria, Witwatersrand and the Orange Free State. I am not suggesting by this, and this Act must not be construed in such a manner, that a person shall no longer be permitted to take the B.Com., LL.B, course or the B.A., LL.B, course, but these universities have asked for this change for reasons I shall explain now. They feel they want to offer their students only a continuous five-year law course. The present provisions in this regard are, therefore, unnecessary and out of date, and merely involve that students who are de facto law students really, are not law students de jure for a number of years. The ideal aimed at by these universities is to enrol a student who aspires to the LL.B, degree, in the faculty of law from his very first year of study; and not as is presently the case at most universities, that he should first be a member of another faculty for three years. In this connection they compare the M.B., Ch.B. degree of the medical man. These universities maintain that such a step, seen from the point of view of the university, will promote efficiency and benefit the student in various respects.

The requirement of bilingualism is necessary because a good deal of difficulty was experienced with unilingual advocates in the past. A sound knowledge of the two official languages of the Republic in any event is as indispensable to an advocate as a knowledge of law. The Bar Council supports the requirement of bilingualism. I wish to say I am gratified that, as regards both the attorneys and advocates, we have at long last reached the position where bilingualism has been accepted as a prerequisite. Of course this does not apply to those who have been admitted already, but only to those who desire to be admitted in future.

It can be envisaged that at the commencement of the proposed law, there may be persons eligible for admission under the existing laws, but have not applied for admission for some reason before. Among those there will probably be public servants and persons in commerce, and even attorneys, who are qualified and may wish to go to the Bar. There is no reason why they should be deprived of the rights they possess now, and for that reason provision is made for them in Clause 3 (2) (b). It may also be possible that at the commencement of the Act there may be persons who are studying overseas with a view to their admission here on the basis of existing legal provisions in this connection. Their rights are safeguarded in Clause 3 (2) (c). The rights of those studying at a South African university or university college for the LL.B, degree, are preserved by Clause 3 (2) (d), while in Clause 3 (2) (e) provision is made for those who, at that stage, are studying at such institutions for the B.A. degree for instance, with a view to subsequent attainment of the LL.B, degree. University colleges for non-Europeans are not at present empowered to confer degrees. Degrees for which students at such colleges are being prepared are at present still being conferred by the University of South Africa in terms of Section 21 of the Extension of University Training Act, 1959. Students of these colleges are, however, enrolled at the colleges in question under Section 13 of the said Act. It is necessary, therefore, that the rights of students enrolled at these colleges should be safeguarded when the Act comes into operation. The Natal Advocates and Attorneys Preservation of Rights Act, 1939, provides that certain advocates may practice as attorneys and vice versa. It is desirable that these rights be preserved in order to prevent hardship to certain members of the profession in Natal. The State Attorney and the State Attorney Windhoek, and their staff apparently do not compete with members of the advocates’ and attorneys’ professions, and therefore it is not necessary that the limitations in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Clause 3 (1) should be applicable to them. The Bar has no objection to that either. Clause 3 (3) ensures the necessary relief to the Natal advocates and attorneys and the Government attorneys. Clause 3 (4) only gives the right to have his name enrolled on the roll of advocates to any person who has been admitted as an advocate.

It is necessary that provision be made as in Clause 4 (1) in order to ensure that those who have already been admitted as advocates do not lose their right to practise or to have their names enrolled on the roll of advocates. Those persons who are admitted by the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, while serving on the staff of the Attorney-General of Natal, are, in terms of the rules of that Court, normally exempted from the requirements regarding the payment of fees to the Bar Council, the furnishing of certificates of good conduct and the publication of a notice in the Gazette on condition that they comply with these requirements when they no longer serve on the staff of the Attorney-General. Those persons will now be deemed to be unconditionally admitted in terms of Clause 4 (1). This provision has been inserted at the instance of the General Bar Council.

Clause 4 (2) provides that the names of those who are deemed to be admitted as advocates (that is to say, those who have already been admitted when this Act comes into operation) will be enrolled on the roll of advocates, and that particulars shall be furnished to the Secretary of Justice, who has to keep the roll.