When the House rose last night I was dealing with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pietersburg, and I had reached the stage where in elaborating the policy of this side of the House, I said that we stood and had always stood for a policy of social and residential separation. While I was making this statement, some hon. members opposite asked whether it was the policy of the United Party to repeal the Group Areas Act when we are returned to power. Sir, I think our attitude has been consistent with regard to that Act, and I should like, with your permission, to quote from a statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition on 21st February, 1952. He said—

He went on to say—

Sir, we warned at the time of the passage of that Bill that in many respects it was neither workable nor equitable.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I think the fact that the Act was amended in so many ways before it was finally consolidated into the Community Development Act of last year, proves our point.

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling and come back to the Bill.

I should now like to deal with clause 1 of the Bill which provides for the insertion of a new subsection (2) (c) in section 15 of the Act. This is a clause that has so far not been dealt with extensively by speakers from this side of the House. This clause deals with the question of compensation for fruitless expenditure and it reads—

“Compensation for fruitless expenditure!” Sir, the hon. member for Green Point asked a question on Tuesday, which is standing over for reply to-morrow, in connection with the number of areas in South Africa which have been deproclaimed. As has happened so often when we have asked questions from this side of the House in anticipation of a debate on a Bill or on a ministerial Vote, the answer has to stand over until the legislation before the House has been dealt with! This was the case again on Tuesday. This, if I may say so, happens too often to be justified. We are being asked in terms of this clause to approve of the payment of an uncertain amount of compensation to those local authorities which claim compensation for expenditure in a group area which has subsequently been deproclaimed. Surely, we are entitled to know what deproclamations which have taken place so far, have cost the country and what they are likely to cost in future. I say that the Government has a most casual attitude to the expenditure of public funds and the provision of information to Members of Parliament on this side of the House. After all, it is the white taxpayers of South Africa who are footing the Bill for the errors that are being made, for the deproclamations which are being made by this Government, and surely we are entitled to know what expenditure is being incurred. Instead of apologizing for the necessity for deproclaiming areas and trying to justify the necessity for these deproclamations, the Minister quite cheerfully admits that deproclamation takes place and this is what he says—

He goes on further to say—

In conclusion he says—

Sir, we may be asked by way of this Bill to approve of the expenditure of millions of rand by the Minister’s Department! We have no idea whether it is thousands or millions of rand. I believe that we are entitled to this information. No wonder the Minister of Planning was reluctant to give the answer on Tuesday and that the reply has to stand over till Friday! The Minister in justifying the provisions of this Bill and in particular the provisions of this section, says that there have been deproclamations in the Transvaal, in the Transkei and in certain parts of the Eastern Cape. Those deproclamations were as the result of changes of attitude in proclaiming group areas and local authorities in those cases had incurred expenditure for which they are now to be paid compensation in terms of this clause of the Bill. But not only local authorities incur expenditure when a group area has been proclaimed. To illustrate the point, I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that in Somerset West some land was made available some years ago to Servitas, for the purpose of erecting a Coloured housing scheme in a proclaimed Coloured group area. The land was obtained very cheaply from De Beers and a home ownership scheme was instituted for the benefit of the Coloured people living in that area. Over 100 houses were built and were being paid for by the Coloured people. Thereafter, as the result of representations made to the Minister, the group area was deproclaimed and the Department had to repurchase from Servitas at considerable expense the property that had formerly been a Coloured group area and which had now been deproclaimed and was to become a white group area.

I should also like to bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that there are sometimes, before proclamation of a group area, expenditures incurred by local authorities with Government blessing and very often with Government financial assistance. I refer here to the situation at Simonstown, where the Municipality negotiated a housing loan and erected municipal sub-economic flats for Coloured people in Simonstown, to say nothing of the housing scheme, which is also for the sub-economic group. This happened before 1948, when this party was in power, but the Government acquiesced in the decision of the Municipality to permit these buildings to go up at considerable expense, and yet in 1967 the area was proclaimed a white area. Now what is the position in regard to the funds that have been expended by the Municipality for those flats and for that Coloured housing scheme? Will the Municipality be compensated? Will the Department perhaps take over those flats and that housing scheme from the Municipality?

I should like to give yet another example, which is slightly different from the previous one, and that is the situation at Noordhoek. There the Divisional Council, the local authority concerned, in 1961 prepared plans for the building of a Coloured housing scheme. Noordhoek was investigated thereafter by the Group Areas Board, and in 1965, after that investigation by the Group Areas Board, after all the permission from Government authorities was obtained, the Divisional Council was told that it could go ahead with that housing scheme. After all these things had taken place, and after a loan for R150,000 had been negotiated by the Divisional Council, in 1967 that area was proclaimed a white group area. I should like to ask what the Minister’s attitude is to situations such as those I have described. Are the local authorities to be compensated? Are they to be entitled to recover their expenditure, in the case of Noordhoek, the cost of the land, which admittedly was cheap, the levelling of the sites, the provision of roads and of drainage? And what about the schools, the church and the clinic in the area? Admittedly those were not erected by the local authority but by institutions and by private individuals. Are they to recover their expenditure incurred in anticipation of there being a real need for these facilities by the Coloured people at Noordhoek?

It is my intention in the Committee Stage to move certain amendments which I hope will rectify some of the obvious difficulties which exist at present. I would like to move, for example, that there should be compensation payable to a local authority, to an institution, perhaps to companies, and perhaps to individuals, for expenditure incurred in a group area before proclamation of that group area. Thereafter in a second amendment the question of whether compensation for expenditure can be paid, perhaps to institutions, to companies and individuals, and not only to the local authorities, where, as in the cases envisaged by the Minister in this Bill, there has been a proclamation and a subsequent deproclamation.

For the reasons I have given, I believe that the attitude of this side of the House at the time of the passing of the Group Areas Act and its subsequent attitude has been fully justified. If I may sum up the attitude of this side of the House, it would be contained in a report in the Argus, the same newspaper that I referred to earlier, on 21st February, 1952, which was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, in the little time at my disposal I want to refer in particular to clause 2 of the Bill because that is the clause on which the attention of the Opposition was specifically focused yesterday and up to this juncture to-day. I hope, however. before proceeding to do so. that von will allow me for a moment to say just a few words about the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown. To my mind his speech was symptomatic of the entire mode of conduct of the United Party when we discuss legislation for the implementation of our policy here. This legislation is consequently aimed at taking our policy of group area development, which is the cornerstone of our policy of separate development, a step further.

What has happened now? The United Party is accustomed to telling one story in the rural areas while they tell a different story in regard to these matters in the cities. I want to come at once to the hon. member for Simonstown, and prove why I am saying this. Yesterday evening he asked in a very pontifical and derogatory manner: “Where is apartheid in this country?” He asked, “Has apartheid ever been applied here; is there any development?” The hon. member probably thinks that politicians have short memories, but that is not the case. During the provincial by-election at Swellendam in April of last year it was none other than the hon. member for Simonstown who made a speech there in which he, in a blatant manner, advocated a policy of separate development. He advocated it to such an extent that certain English-language newspapers attacked him and stated that he would do better to join the National Party, but that they felt that he should not join this party either, because even the National Party would be too moderate for him. In that speech he let fly at our policy in respect of black diplomalts, the treatment of black ministers in our hospitals, etc.

What clause are you discussing now?

I am discussing clause 2. You are opposing this measure which is a cornerstone of our policy of group areas.

As the last speaker on this side—I do not know whether other hon. members on this side will speak after me—I want to say something about the United Party’s pattern of attack.

Have you abandoned that point now? Why?

I am afraid the Speaker will call me to order if I take it any further. The entire pattern of attack of the Opposition in regard to this Bill was that inroads were being made on the powers of the provincial councils and local authorities. For the sake of clarity I want to re-emphasize now that this Bill is nothing else but a reconfirmation of old principles. The Minister introduced this Bill so that there could be no misunderstanding whatsoever about the powers of the Central Government in oases where there are obstinate local administrations that do not want to implement the policy of the Government. The old Act imparted the necessary powers, and in this Bill a detailed definition of the powers of the Central Government is being given. That is all that is being done here. Now I simply cannot understand why the Opposition has, since yesterday already, been devoting hours to launching this vehement attack on the Amendment Bill. If there was ever a case of “much ado about nothing”, then that is what we have had here. As I have said, the main attack is that inroads were being made on the powers of the local authorities. However, speakers on this side of the House all indicated, to devastating effect, that this was by no means the case.

Now I should also like to come to the hon. member for Port Natal who is setting himself up in this House as an authority on every possible subject under the sun.

Order! Yes, but the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am coming back to it, Mr. Speaker. Last night the hon. member for Port Natal also grabbed at the only straw that Opposition had by referring to a speech made recently in Port Elizabeth by Mr. Frans Conradie, Cape M.P.C. The hon. member for Port Natal merely read from a newspaper clipping. However. I have Mr. Conradie’s entire speech before me here. I want to read one of the appropriate parts, on which I should like to comment. It deals with the question of bureaucracy. He stated (translation)—

Now I want to say at once that I am not entirely in agreement with Mr. Conradie on this point. I have read through the speech, and what Mr. Conradie has done here, was to give an academic summary of the prevailing disposition among all lower levels of government; not only in South Africa, but also overseas and even among the general public. He alleges that increasing centralization must of necessity mean bureaucracy. But there is a world of difference between centralization, which takes place in the interests of efficient service for the citizens of a country, and bureaucracy, where the officials virtually take over the government of a country. Any person who knows anything about public administration, ought to know that.

Order! The hon. member can thrash out that matter with Mr. Conradie elsewhere. He should return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, am I not allowed to reply to an allegation which has been made?

Yes, but the hon. member is going off at a complete tangent now.

He is always going off at a tangent.

Order!

I am replying to continuous attacks by that side of the House to the effect that the Government are, by means of clause 2, allegedly abolishing and curtailing certain powers of local authorities. I want to state that this Government, as with all previous Governments since 1910, has always believed in the three-tier system of government. I challenge anyone on that side to bring me any quotation from any Prime Minister since 1910 in which unfavourable remarks are made in regard to this three-tier system. I want to admit that it is true that during the past few years provincial administrations, and through the administrations perhaps city councils, have been deprived of a few minor rights. But I am inviting the Opposition to prove to me that where this was done it resulted, as the hon. member for Green Point said, in the powers of local authorities being emasculated or nullified. In a few cases where the powers have been curtailed, and one can almost enumerate them on the points of one’s fingers, it was only done for more efficient and smoother functioning of the State machinery. There were also cases where there was a great deal of duplication of services, etc. It was only in those cases that a few of the powers were curtailed, but this was by no means done in order to demolish the three-tier system. I also want to state to-day that the administration of our country will collapse if any government was to tamper with that three-tier system. That is why we on this side reject in their entirety the arguments which the Opposition are continually trying to bring home in respect of clause 2, i.e. that the Government, with this legislation, is undermining the powers of the local authorities. Most Western countries throughout the world have, with adjustment of course to particular regional circumstances, a similar administrative system to the one we have in South Africa. This is namely a Central Government, provincial governments, county governments, state governments, or whatever they are called, and also a system of local authorities. In each of these countries the central government, just as we do in South Africa, retains the right to intervene if there should be any obstinacy on the part of any local authority, irrespective of whether it is a United Party or a National Party-controlled town council, when it is necessary to act in the interests of the National policy which has to be implemented. This Bill is not tampering with that. I want to emphasize that this was in fact for me a sign of the impartiality with which this Government is governing the country that we did not hesitate to act, so that our policy could be implemented, when the Stellenbosch town council proved obstinate. This has always been the case, in spite of the arguments which have been raised in regard to clause 2 by the Opposition, that the Central Government has occupied a higher position than the two other levels of government. We have always acted where it was necessary to make short shrift of attempts at obstruction. We know that there are town councils, often controlled by the Opposition and sometimes even, as in the case of Stellenbosch, by our own people, that do not want to react to the requests of the Government. In the case of the United Party-controlled city councils, I want to say that in spite of this placatory language which has been used by the hon. members of the Opposition in the House, they are only too eager that those United Party-controlled city councils, such as Johannesburg for example, should form minor principalities where the United Party men, although they have been totally rejected in the rest of the country, can still hold sway. One of the United Party city councils which, as I have said, thought that they could form a state within a state and could constitute a kind of empire on their own, was the Johannesburg city council. However, I am glad to be able to state here to-day, as my hon. friend of Benoni said, was that we were gradually getting more and better co-operation from the Johannesburg city council.

I want to return to the question of the subsidiary role of local administrations in overseas countries.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply to the question.

Yes, but the hon. member has put that point quite a number of times now.

Very well, Sir. In this Bill clause 2 is being inserted in the interests of efficient government. For a long period the Stellenbosch town council was virtually implored to give their co-operation in removing the Coloureds to Cloetesdal. All they did, however, was to abandon one shanty town and to allow another shanty town to spring up against the wishes of the Department of Community Development. But that we could, after all, not allow. In this clause it is definitely not being envisaged that a thing like that be allowed. It proves, if such obstinacy occurs, that there is no such thing as the absolute unassailability of the autonomy of provincial administrations and local government. I want to conclude by saying that I have no doubt at all that all the Opposition is doing here is to try and make political capital out of a matter which is quite insubstantial. By labelling us as a parcel of undemocratic bureaucrats, they are trying to catch a few votes. But they will not catch the country out in that way. Nobody who knows how the country is being administrated, will be caught out in that way. Nor will the public take any notice of this obvious manoeuvre on the part of the Opposition, and the fuss they have kicked up in regard to it. No existing rights are being abrogated. All the hon. Minister is doing is to take obstinate town councils, that do not want to act in terms of the normal procedure, to task in this Bill, in very plain language, specifically in clause 2, whether they are National Party or United Party town councils. The Minister can rest assured that this side of the House will support him.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the Bill which is before the House and the hon. member for Green Point’s amendment to the motion. The hon. member for Turffontein followed the same line as other hon. members on that side of the House. Towards the end of the hon. member’s speech he was talking about this side of the House using this particular Bill to gain political advantage. I should like to tell the hon. member that this particular measure is so full of politics and the policy of his side of the House that it automatically stirs up political feelings throughout the country.

Who started it?

You started it. We have come to know the hon. the Minister over the years. He also served on the Provincial Council. He feels that he would like to get things done. When he was in charge of another portfolio he told us that as well. He said that he was going to do things and that he was determined to do them. He wants the Utopia of political power. I should like to tell him right from the start that there is no such thing. The more he amends this particular Bill the less power he will have. [Interjections.]

Order!

It was said of this particular Bill that there was consultation and that the principle thereof was similar to a bill which we dealt with some years ago. The first few lines on page 4 of the Bill, namely in the proposed subsection (2) (a) (i), reads as follows—

It does not refer to group areas as proclaimed. It says any land. There is therefore a tremendous difference between the two. The hon. the Minister has told us that there was consultation, but that statement only came by way of an interjection. He never told us that in his Second Reading speech, namely that there was this consultation with the Administrators and the local authorities. We have heard much about the three-tier form of government which we have in this country, the very basis of our democratic system. The hon. member for Benoni said that he would support these foundations of democracy through thick and thin. Then he went on to defeat his own argument by saying that this Parliament had overall power. We accept that. This Parliament can do anything. It could even destroy itself by passing an Act. We admit that. Parliament is all powerful. We accept that every member here has been democratically elected. But the basis of the democratic system starts in the committee, from the word go.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member said that. But there must be consultation all along the line. Only when that consultation fails, and we have no evidence of it, then this Parliament has the right to step in and take action. If consultation fails, Parliament can step in and do something about it. But it has not failed. In this country of ours we have a government controlled-provincial council in the Cape, one in the Free State and one in the Transvaal. We also have a government controlled Administrator in Natal. I am not convinced by hon. members opposite when they say they can get nothing done by the provincial councils. The provincial councils are directly responsible for the local authorities and the hon. member for Benoni knows it. That is their particular function. But this Bill cuts right across that and even goes so far as to want to do things local authorities should be doing. The hon. member for Parow told us why it was necessary for the Government to take this step. Stellenbosch was mentioned and the name of Gape Town was thrown across the floor of the House. I am not entirely au fait with the background to the Stellenbosch case and with the reasons for the Minister’s actions. As far as Cape Town is concerned, here the ratepayers have had thrust upon them over the years the policy of the Government to move the masses. I disagree with the hon. member for Parow if he says that the other municipalities could not move their Indians because the City of Cape Town did not get on with the job.

In your amendment you ask for the movement of the masses.

I have read the amendment. It is quite clear. If the Government feels they should get on with this job let them then find the money. Why should the Bill be met by the ratepayers of local authorities? Why should they be expected to do that, if it is the Government who wants to do this particular job? What is more, this is not a new attitude of the Government. This attitude is clear throughout the years, since it started to proclaim group areas. It has had to amend the Act year after year, because it proved to be full of inadequacies. The hon. member for Simonstown pointed out what was actually happening—more Blacks were coming into the towns than leaving. This proves the utter failure of this measure. It just could not work. So, I am not surprised that the Minister now takes this strong action. He does it so that they can use it as a sword hanging over the heads of local authorities—“If you don’t get on with the job. I shall do it”. But the Minister and his Department cannot do it. They do not have the machinery to do it. So now they come into the local authority so that they can use the machinery of the local authority at the expense of that local authority. They expect the ratepayers to pay for it. They are not to have any say at all. If the Minister says that there has been failure in the past on the part of local authorities, then he is admitting that for instance in the Cape local authorities, the Provincial Council and divisional councils have failed, and that as a result he is forced to take this action. But I do not believe that that is the position at all. This is only the big stick which he is going to use to make people do things.

The hon. the Minister has admitted in the Press that Cape Town was now toeing the line and was getting on with the job. I do not know what has happened at Rylands—as a matter of fact nobody else in this House knows, apart from the Minister. But I know that the City Council has done more than most other municipalities. The City of Cape Town has done their best to help their people with the available funds. In this respect they are doing a wonderful job although they have to cope with great difficulties. Now the hon. the Minister comes along and threatens them.

I was very interested in the speech of the hon. member for Hercules. Last year he made a speech in which he pleaded with the Government for some relief for the ratepayers of Pretoria, relief from the very heavy burden the Government was placing on them. To-day, however, he gets up and supports the Government on this measure. I wonder what his ratepayers in Pretoria will say about the fact that he supports a measure which may make the burden of ratepayers very much heavier in connection with the creation of group areas—also in Pretoria. He is arguing against himself. Last year he pleaded with the Government for some relief; now he supports a measure which is going to have the effect of loading the ratepayers with greater debts.

You do not know what it is all about.

Sir, this measure is distasteful to everybody because of the way in which the Government implements it. They are moving masses of people and causing misery. I feel that before the Government does these things there should be full consultation. The Minister would get very much further if there was consultation with the local authorities, with the people concerned. There should be consultation and co-operation all along the line. We have to move people at the present moment who are living in houses which were repairable years ago but which have now become slums because there has been so much delay in taking action by the Government. They have not been moved earlier because local authorities have not had the money or because the Government has shown no initiative. I think what we really want here is a Bill instructing the Minister to get on with the job. He is the one who has failed, not the local authorities. His Government has failed horribly over the years to provide the necessary housing and if the Minister has the courage of his convictions he should bring a Bill before this House asking the Government to get on with the job.

And he should stake his reputation on it.

He should also stake his reputation on it that the Government would get on with the job.

There is no reputation left to stake.

He is asking the local authorities to do it instead of getting on with the job himself. I do not know why the Government cannot get on with the job and give the local authorities the money because we have all the money in the world; there is no shortage of money.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I am talking to the amendment and to this particular Bill and I want to emphasize the cost of implementing these schemes, because the Minister, without the consent of the ratepayers is going to raise loans and he is going to force the ratepayers to repay those loans.

Order! That point has been very adequately made.

I think it should be brought home to this Government what they are doing. Sir, we accept that this is a democratically elected Parliament, but I say there has been no consultation with the local authorities, from the highest to the lowest. This is a very grave reflection on our provincial councils and it is a reflection on our Administrators; it is a reflection on all the very well-run local authorities in this country. It is a reflection on Stellenbosch. I think it is wrong that we should be using these powers. Of course, we have the power to do everything; we can dismiss every Provincial Council if we want to do so. That is wrong. Once you start thinking along those lines, then you start thinking like a dictator and I do not think anyone of us would want that to happen in this country. The last thing we want in this country is a dictatorship and this brings us very near to it.

Mr. Speaker, I have learned here that when the United Party opposes legislation, I must simply and unconditionally accept it as being very good legislation, and in this instance I also want to do so to-day. I want to begin by saying that if I had been the member for Salt River I would have sat absolutely still in my bench and not said a word this afternoon. Sir, he is the representative of Salt River in the City of Cape Town …

He knows nothing about salt or water.

… the City which to-day has the greatest slums, and in the constituency in which District Six is situated one finds the greatest slums which have yet existed in South Africa. The hon. member comes along here and says: “The Minister must get on with the job”. Sir, why does he not get on with the “job”; why does he not ask his City Council “to get on with the job” and to clear away these slums? It is outrageous that a man can come along and say such a thing in this House. I think that he is holding the status of this House in contempt by making such an assertion here. He says that there has never been consultation with the local authorities and the provincial councils, but I think that the hon. member does not know the history of this legislation and the segregation implemented by the Government in recent years. I have here the Hansard of 1959 and at that time the then Deputy Minister of the Interior said the following—

A conference with the local authorities to which the hon. member referred was held a while ago under the previous Minister. After that conference the executive of the municipal associations submitted their approval to the principle of this legislation. Here is the proof of the willingness of this Government to bring about the best possible consultation and cooperation with local authorities. But the local authorities have still been unwilling to make use of that co-operation, and therefore I support this legislation wholeheartedly. I welcome it. If it had not been for that unwillingness, this legislation would not have been necessary to-day, but because there is that unwillingness it is the duty of this Government to take the steps deemed necessary to implement this policy; and I say that if an hon. member opposes this he is acting contrary to South Africa’s interests. This is what the hon. member for Salt River did here to-day. The hon. member also said other things that one must react to. He said that the Minister wanted to take more and more powers for himself and that the more the Minister took the less he would have. But the Minister is not taking certain powers for himself; the Minister is placing measures on the Statute Book which will ensure the implementation of the Government’s policy. He is not after additional powers; he is doing his duty in ensuring that the Government’s policy is implemented. In this connection I also want to refer to the hon. member for Salt River’s story of “why should the ratepayers foot the bill?” I want to ask him whether it is not in the interests of the ratepayers as well that this policy be implemented? The policy of peaceful co-existence of the various race groups is intimately bound up with the manner in which they are housed and where they live in our urban complexes. It is of the utmost importance to the ratepayers that that peaceful co-existence should continue and therefore it is the Minister’s duty, no matter what the measure or the costs may be or who may have to pay those costs, to ensure that that policy is implemented.

I should not like to refer to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), who spoke here yesterday. For many years the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) was a very important member of the Johannesburg City Council, and he knows as well as I do, and knows that it is common knowledge to-day, that the council of which he was an important member could not solve the problem of the black spots and the slum areas of Johannesburg. They were powerless because they listened to the stories of the liberalists. At that time, as a result of their impotence, and as a result of the appeals of the “ratepayers” to which the hon. member for Salt River referred, Dr. Verwoerd placed legislation on the Statute Book whereby he established the Resettlement Board. The work which that board did in respect of the resettlement of people who lived in slum areas, is to-day not only the pride of Johannesburg, and also of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), but it is also the pride of the Republic of South Africa. I have always regarded the hon. member as someone with reasonable powers of judgment, and therefore I take it amiss of him that he opposed this legislation in this House yesterday afternoon. He knows that the council of which he was a member and the City of which he was mayor, could do nothing in this connection. We heard the same stories at that time. Dr. Verwoerd was then told, “You want to be a dictator, you want to deprive local authorities of their powers, you want to do this and you want to do that”, but his farsightedness and singleness of purpose have to-day resulted in the fact that Johannesburg can boast with properly settled non-Whites, especially Bantu. The whole of Soweto is a monument to Dr. Verwoerd. I venture to say here to-day that no less a person than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at a function in Johannesburg one day, after we had visited Soweto, “If there was ever a man who built himself an everlasting monument it was Dr. Verwoerd with the monument which he built in Soweto”. Instead of expressing his gratitude here the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) opposed this measure.

It is essential that this measure be adopted. We in South Africa believe that the continued existence of the various race and colour groups in South Africa can only take place peacefully if we are properly segregated from one another, everyone in his own territory where he can be cock of the walk. Now, it is only logical that if a subordinate body such as a local authority does not want to implement Government policy, something must be done about it. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that we perpetuate this peaceful cooperation. It is then only logical that the Government should place measures on the Statute Book to force the local authorities, or whoever the bodies may be, to implement that policy. It therefore seems only logical to me that we should place this measure on the Statute Book. We tell the hon. the Minister to-day that we are grateful that he has had the courage of his convictions to come forward with this measure. Hereby he can force the recalcitrant and obstinate local authorities, who do not want to implement his policy, to do so. I am not at loggerheads with the Municipality of Stellenbosch. As a matter of fact, this morning I was a guest of a large undertaking in Stellenbosch. I found the occasion very pleasant and I think it is a very pleasant town. I have no quarrel with them. They may invite me as many times as they like if we meet as cordially as we did this morning. However, I say to Stellenbosch that if they do not want to implement national policy, it is the Minister’s duty to act, because we demand it of him. If he does not take the necessary measures we are not going to be satisfied with him and we can tell him to make way for a man who will in fact do so, regardless of whether it is Stellenbosch or Johannesburg or Pretoria.

Therefore I say this afternoon that I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this measure. I reject all the arguments advanced by the United Party against this Bill. I say to the hon. the Minister, “Carry on, we shall be very grateful to you in the future for what you are doing”.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Langlaagte. He said that this measure was necessary, even if it should be necessary to deal with a town council like that of Stellenbosch. I think we have indeed reached a sorry state of affairs when an Act should be amended in order to deal with a town council which happens to be in full support of the Nationalist Party Government. I am surprised, indeed, that the hon. the Minister has not used the convincing power he may have sufficiently—I know he uses it quite often on public platforms—in order to convince the town council of Stellenbosch that they should implement his community development scheme.

We are not discussing the principle of separate group areas and community development for the various racial groups to-day. That has been established a long time ago. What we are discussing to-day, is a measure which will give the hon. the Minister more powers in order to convince city councils that they should implement his scheme. Broadly speaking, that is the principle in this particular Bill under discussion.

I do not know of very many local authorities in South Africa who have not been prepared to implement the separate residential areas scheme in this country.

Neither do I.

The hon. the Minister says he does not know of any either. What then is the purpose of this Bill? This question has been put before. As far as I know, my own city council, the City Council of Port Elizabeth, has been in favour of separate residential areas ever since I can remember. As a matter of fact, the development of separate residential areas in Port Elizabeth has always been a matter of great pride to the South African Government. The late A. Schauder, who did a great deal to implement separate housing schemes in South Africa, was featured on the radio and in films. The development of separate residential areas in Port Elizabeth was used as an example of how this had been brought about in South Africa.

You are speaking on the wrong Act.

No, I am not speaking on the wrong Act. I wish to ask this question: If hon. members who have spoken so far in this debate are convinced that what the Minister is doing by introducing this Bill, is right, how many of them have consulted their own local authorities about this particular measure? How many have stated the views of their local authorities? After all, despite all the powers the Minister may take in this piece of legislation, the final execution and implementation of his policy will still remain with the local authorities. After all, they are the most important group under discussion here. I want to confine myself to that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the principle of separate residential areas.

We have tried to ascertain the views, for example, of the City Council of Port Elizabeth. What are their views about this Bill? But before I come to that, I should like first to refer briefly to a point made by the hon. the Minister in his speech. In the proposed new paragraph (c), inserted by clause 1 of this Bill, the Minister talks about; “to pay compensation to any local authority in respect of fruitless expenditure …”. The Minister referred to the movement of Coloured people east of the Fish/Kat River line, and referred to the expenditure incurred by some of those local authorities where these Coloured people will now be moved west of this line. There will have to be compensation, he said. In his speech he said—

What I should like to know is, who took this decision?

The Government, of course. Who else takes decisions in this country?

I am very much interested in this because largely it affects the Eastern Cape. I know that there has been talk publicly about this and that there have been discussions in the Press. However, never have we had it from the Government officially—the wish was expressed by the hon. member for Malmesbury and others before—that this is going to be its official policy, i.e. to move the Coloureds to the west of this line. The hon. the Minister is now asking the House to empower him “to pay compensation to any local authority in respect of fruitless expenditure …”. Therefore, I should like to know from him, what is the extent of this movement and how many people do they intend moving from the east of this line to the west thereof?

All of them.

I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with this in his reply to this debate, because this is important. After all, we want to know in what the country is going to be involved, i.e. how many people they intend moving and what the expense would be.

We have taken the trouble to talk to and to consult certain of our local authorities. What are the views of these local authorities? I am going to state them and I think the hon. the Minister should reply to them. Members on the other side have taken up the attitude that this Bill is not giving the Minister any new power, that the intention of the legislation is merely to clarify existing powers. Well, in the view of certain local authorities that is not so. Indeed, an analysis of this Bill reveals something entirely different. Let us take clause 2, for example. Section 17 of the original Act, i.e. Act No. 3 of 1966, gives the State President the power, after consultation with the local authority and after reference to the Administrator of the province concerned, to give the Community Development Board powers in certain defined areas. But that section does not permit the board to sell and to use immovable property of local authorities. There is nothing like that in the original section, i.e. section 17. But in this legislation the Minister now gets that power. He gets the power to sell and to usurp certain functions of a local authority, which, admittedly, he had before …

Have you read section 17?

Yes.

You better read it again.

As I have said, section 17 does not give the Community Development Board the power to sell or to use immovable property of a local authority. This Bill, however, does it. But it is completely silent on the question of compensation. Local authorities are, I think, entitled to know what the position will be with regard to compensation. It could well be—and this is the view of certain local authorities—that the intention of this legislation is that no compensation shall be payable. If that is so, this Bill should be changed to provide for that. Let us look at clause 2 (a), especially at the proposed new paragraph (2) (ii) to subseotion (2) of section 17. This, unlike the existing Act, enables the board to “enter upon any land or property inside or outside the defined area …”. It has been said here that it seems the board may go onto any land including, obviously, land of the local authority to carry out work thereon. This is the view of local authorities too. This is what they said—

This is a point the Minister should clarify. Let us take the proposed new paragraph (iii) of subsection (2) of section 17. This compels a council to supply information and to perform services, of whatever nature. It may also be that personal services may be requested in terms hereof, especially when one considers the words “of whatever nature”. It may mean that services such as water, electricity, and so on, may be called for. Furthermore, if the council does not comply the Board may supply the services at the council’s expense.

I have only given a few examples of where the Minister is now taking new power, additional to the power contained in section 17. And yet hon. members opposite say he is not taking any new powers and that all the Minister is doing is to clarify the existing position. It is pointed out by local authorities that section 49 of the Housing Act is similar. However, there are important differences. In that regard the Administrator must be consulted …

But he is consulted here as well.

However, no provision is made in this Bill for the Administrator of the province concerned to be consulted. The important point is that the council can be involved in substantial expenditure without receiving anything in return therefor. Is it so, or is it not so? If the Minister expects local authorities to co-operate with him then he shall have to reply to these questions. This Bill has the effect of compelling local authorities to render services absolutely free. They feel that this will be detrimental to local authorities and should therefore be left out of this Bill. The Administrator should be consulted, and the council should not be compelled to render such service without being compensated therefor. I am raising these points because the Minister and hon. members opposite all insist that they want to have the co-operation of local authorities. Well, if the Minister gives them an indication he may get their support, the more so as they do not object to the principle of separate residential areas.

But we do get the support of 95 per cent of them.

In conclusion I now come to the new subsection (5) on page 6 of the Bill. This subsection provides that when the State President repeals any proclamation local authorities should take full responsibility, including full financial responsibility for the actions of the Board. Furthermore, the local authority must pay compensation to the Board. This is an interesting point. When the hon. the Minister takes powers on behalf of the Community Development Board, they do not pay any compensation to the local authority. But the moment the Community Development Board gives it back to the local authority, they say to the local authority: “You pay us compensation.” There is an obvious shortcoming in this provision. This subsection, according to what they believe, could place an onerous responsibility on local authorities. This clause should also provide for the administrator to be consulted before the local authority is compelled to take over the responsibility of the Community Development Board and to pay compensation.

I believe that this measure cannot be a success unless the Minister obtains the support of the local authorities. He can get that support and he can get their assistance, provided, of course, that he is prepared to listen to them and provided that he is prepared to listen to the suggestions made by us. I am certain that if he does so, he will make a success of this provision. The local authorities will then, as they have in the past, realize what their responsibilities are as far as good race relations are concerned, and that nobody wishes to change the conventions or the traditions which all of us in South Africa have become accustomed to over the years.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections] … it has seldom been my lot to be so popular and in such demand among the members of the Opposition to make a speech as I have been yesterday and to-day. The hon. member for Durban (Point) began to sing the tune “the member for Stellenbosch must speak”. But if people carry on as he and his retinue have done, one almost begins to smell a rat, as the saying goes. What, then, is the reason for their insistence that I should speak? Following upon what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, the hon. member for Port Natal also carried on this refrain, i.e. “the member for Stellenbosch must speak”. What I find so interesting is that the hon. member for Port Natal insisted that I should speak, but that last week-end he flew to Durband to prevent my hon. bench-mate from making a public speech there. I want to tell hon. members of the Opposition, who are so eager for me to speak, that this legislation before us is not a “Stellenbosch Bill”. It is a Bill about a principle. [Interjections.] That hon. member from the bundu …

Stellenbosch does not have principles.

I hope the hon. member can distinguish between a principle and this kind of floundering they were engaged in. The rat which I smelt is that, with the attitude which the hon. members of the Opposition adopted for several reasons in this debate, they tried to pretend that they were the protectors of the rights of local and provincial authorities, because a provincial election is in the offing. I want to tell them that they will get nowhere with that pose of theirs. I shall come back to the matter at a later stage, when I shall refer to an opinion from Stellenbosch about this matter.

The other matter to which I want to refer and which makes me smell a rat is this: Why this sudden scurrying about of theirs about a principle which has been on the Statute Book for a long time and which is now being entrenched in detail to make the implementation of the policy of separate residential areas possible? In spite of what is stated in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, their actions here are proof to me that the United Party are not yet prepared to support the policy of separate residential areas in this country. But the third reason why I smell a rat is that the hon. members are now trying to drag in the town council of my principal town and are posing here as the protectors of the rights of the Town Council of Stellenbosch. They will not succeed with that little game either. Sir, if the Town Council of Stellenbosch were to make its interests and the solution of its problems dependent upon the Opposition, far worse days lie in store for it than are lying in store for it now.

I said initially that we have to deal here with a piece of legislation which is concerned with a principle and not with the composition or the personalities, or whatever, of the Town Council of Stellenbosch. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) and all the other hon. members who took up this refrain of his that I should speak, think that I will allow myself to be led astray by them into making Parliament the washing-line of Stellenbosch’s municipal matters, they are making a very great mistake.

Dirty washing.

I never used the word “dirty”. The hon. member who has just spoken about dirty washing is the one who complained the other day that he did not have razor blades and soap any more because he could not afford them. I am not at his level. Sir, the Town Council of Stellenbosch is an elected town council which is able to look after its own affairs. This is not the occasion to discuss its problems with the Department of Community Development. That occasion will present itself when the hon. the Minister’s Vote is discussed, and I think the Stellenbosch Town Council is perfectly capable of fending for itself, of defending its own affairs. Their representative does not pose as, nor is he, a glorified town councillor.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Green Point, who has just made that interjection, is a great stickler for the rights of local authorities, and I want to agree with him that one should be, but while pleading for the rights of local authorities he must not try to entice me into acting like a glorified town councillor. Sir, I say that here we are dealing with a piece of legislation which is concerned with a principle, a principle which was accepted years ago and which is now being detailed and must be detailed, whatever municipality may be implicated. Since the passing of the Group Areas Act and the subsequent legislation related thereto, the Community Development Board Act, amendments have been effected from year to year as practice showed us that it was necessary to streamline the machinery of this Department, and what is wrong with that? If hon. members want to know from me to-day what my standpoint is about powers which the Minister and his Department must have to be able to act in the event of problems developing with individual town councils, whoever or wherever they may be, I am not ashamed to tell them that I believe it to be in the interests of the good administration of the country to grant those powers to the Minister. But since hon. members want to know what I say and what Stellenbosch says about this matter, I should like to refer them back to a quotation which was made here yesterday. I want to refer to what was said by the chairman of the Cape Province Municipal Association, i.e. Mr. W. C. Dempsey, a former mayor of Stellenbosch and still a member of that town council at present. Therefore I say with justification that that town council will be able to look after its own affairs. Hon. members who make such pleas here for the town councils, may safely leave matters to them. The Town Council of Stellenbosch will also be able to look after its own affairs. But what was said by Mr. Dempsey, an ex-mayor of Stellenbosch, still a member of that town council and the leading personality in municipal affairs in the Cape Province? What did he say about this legislation before us? He stated—

Sir, let us have absolute clarity about this. One of the hon. members on this side also pointed out yesterday that the powers which the local authorities and others have, derive from this the highest authority in the country. Let us have no quarrel and uncertainty about this. Mr. Dempsey went on to state—

Sir, these are the words of a man who has experience of local affairs, a man not obsessed with the idea of trying to make political capital out of matters such as this, like hon. members opposite. He displays the levelheadedness to say to local authorities: “Remember, you are one of the lower tiers of government of the country.” Sir, someone asked here yesterday whether Mr. Dempsey was a lawyer. This is of no importance to me. But the opinion which he expressed here is a common-sense one which one also encounters among the ordinary voters in the street, because when problems are experienced with local authorities to-day, when problems are experienced with any body outside which in one capacity or another is concerned with the implementation of Government policy, the ordinary voter will tell you: “There is an impasse there at the moment, but is the Government not at the head of affairs in the country”? And this is, after all, what this is all about. It is not about the everyday administration of the Department of Community Development; it is about the impasses, and this is where the voter, who gave this Government its mandate, also makes the same point as the chairman of the Municipal Association.

Do you regard Stellenbosch as the impasse?

The hon. member already has my reply.

Order! The hon. member must continue with his speech.

I leave the hon. member there. I want to quote further what the chairman of the Municipal Association said—

You see, Sir, that the man who is concerned with these matters says that no new principle is involved. In other words, the cry which was raised here about the terrain of local authorities being entered upon, being intruded upon, is so much nonsense as far as this legislation is concerned. Therefore I want to repeat that it is my view that if powers are required for the Minister, powers which he will not be able to use left, right and centre, but which he must use judiciously, and in respect of which he must account to this House, when such powers are necessary for the good administration of his Department and for the implementation of Government policy, here specifically in respect of separate residential areas, I am whole-heartedly in favour of those powers being granted to him.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch says that yesterday there was raised in his mind “hond se gedagte” about what we were up to; but we also had raised in our minds “hond se gedagte” as to why the hon. member for Stellenbosch was so shy, why he was so quiet, why he had not taken part in this debate.

I can choose my own time to speak.

I want to say that I am extremely glad that he has taken part in the debate this afternoon, because “hond se gedagte” was raised in our minds also by the proclamation which the hon. the Minister issued, Proclamation 71 of 1969, in Government Gazette 2335 of 28th March. When this Gazette was presented, I took it to the leader of our group and asked him what this was all about; what did it mean? We then had an idea that this Minister was going to come with such a measure as we are now debating, and it is for that reason that yesterday, and the day before for that matter, we wondered why we did not hear from the hon. member for Stellenbosch; because it is obvious for various reasons, as I shall show during the course of my speech, that this Bill is aimed primarily and immediately at the Municipality of Stellenbosch. It is to validate the very proclamation I have referred to. This is the prime object and, shall I say, the reason for the unseemly haste with which this House has been asked to debate this measure.

What is unseemly about it?

The Minister asks what is unseemly about it. This is the last measure that was introduced by the hon. the Minister before the recess. In fact, it arrived on our desks after this House had gone into recess. The first opportunity we had of examining the measure was after we came back. There are other measures placed on the Order Paper by this Minister, but he brings this one in first.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The hon. member is not the Leader of the House.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch said that we were now trying to put ourselves in the position of protectors of the authority of provincial administrations and of the system of local authority government. Let me say that this is what we have always done, particularly in the words of Mr. Dempsey, quoted by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, “so much as remains in their power after 20 years of Nationalist Party government”. While dealing with Mr. Dempsey, I have the cutting that the hon. member for Stellenbosch quoted from and he knows that Mr. Dempsey also said that the Government was going to continue to impinge on the autonomy of the local authority, but he did not quote that. The last quotation he made from Mr. Dempsey reads—

Sir, Mr. Dempsey qualified his contention. He said “as I read its provisions”. But he goes on to qualify it by saying the newspapers have “rightly or wrongly” created that impression. Therefore he does not give a definite decision as to what exactly the provisions of this Bill are.

Read the next paragraph.

And this, of course, is because neither Mr. Dempsey nor you or me, nor any local authority, has really been consulted on this matter. Nobody has really had the time or the opportunity to study it. In fact, we have a statement by Mr. Percy Fowle, the member of the Executive Committee in Natal charged with local government in which he deplores this measure. The headline reads “Usurping Power, says Fowle: Bill Serious Threat to Local Autonomy”, and he goes on to say that after studying a copy of the Bill “lent to him by the Natal Mercury”. The Natal Executive Council, he said, had not yet ibeen given ithe opportunity of studying the proposed measure. And this was on 4th April, which if my memory serves me correctly was six days after this Bill was tabled in the House. And the Executive Committee had not even been consulted. They had not even seen a copy of the Bill at that stage. [Interjection.] The Minister says they were notified. I would be very glad to hear from him in what manner they were notified and in what manner they were consulted if they were in fact consulted.

They were informed by the Secretary for Community Development.

Is that consultation?

They did not raise any objection. They did not approach me.

But when were they advised?

On 3rd March.

Of the full implications and the full contents of this Bill? Were they given a copy of the Bill? [Interjection.] This Bill, as has been said by the hon. member for Green Point, is an infringement of provincial rights. It is an extension of what has been going on since 1948 and, Sir, with your permission, I have here a list of measures passed by this Government which have infringed the rights of the provinces.

Order! No, the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Then I will not quote from that list, but may I mention that, as you can also see, the list is two foolscap typewritten pages of measures which have infringed those rights.

I want to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Parow, who yesterday tried to draw a comparison between this Bill and the Act placed on the Statute Book in 1945 by the United Party Government. A study of Act No. 25 of 1945, which incidentally refers only to Bantu, shows that section 2 provides for the reservation of areas by an urban local authority only after reference to the Administrator. So, we have consultation. Then section 3 provides that if, after a public hearing at which the local authority and any interested persons are heard—and they have the opportunity to give evidence—the Minister still finds that his needs are not satisfied, he may require, through the Administrator—once again there is consultation through the Administrator—the setting aside of certain areas for occupation by Bantu.

Then we come to section 4, which is the section the hon. member wants me to refer to, and there we find that if the local authority neglects to carry out anything the Minister might require them to carry out, then only after reference to the Administrator and a notice thereafter, if this is not done, the Minister may, again after reference to the Administrator, do what is necessary. And section 4 (2) provides that the Minister under those circumstances, after all this consultation, after the holding of a public inquiry, can act as the Administrator and as a local authority.

And only in respect of normal housing requirements.

Yes, and only in respect of a defined area. Those provisions are not in this Bill, and can I ask the Minister whether he will accept amendments to this Bill to insert that type of provision, i.e. that he will exercise the Draconian powers which he is now taking only after consultation with the Administrator and after a public inquiry and after consultation with the local authorities through the Administrator, and not apply them as is laid down in this Bill in clause 17 (2) (b), which reads that the board in exercising its powers “shall not”—and I stress that—“be required to comply with any requirement, whether as regards approval of any proposed action or otherwise, including the entering into of financial obligations, with which a local authority is required to comply in connection with the exercise by it of any such power or the performance by it of any such function or duty”.

You can give me a copy of your amendments and I will consider them very sympathetically.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister for this undertaking and I hope that we shall have a fruitful Committee Stage debate when we come to that provision.

This hon. Minister with his usual sophistry introduced this Bill as one which makes timely compensatory provisions in regard to local authorities. In terms of clause 1 it is no longer necessary for them to ask for an ex gratia payment, cap in hand, for out-of-pocket expenses. If there has been fruitless expenditure, the hon. the Minister can compensate them for this fruitless expenditure.

In respect of clause 2 the hon. the Minister alleged that this contained no new principle. He claimed that it contained nothing more than the powers already provided for in section 17 of the principal Act. In his Second-Reading introductory speech he said:

It is scandalous that that should be so.

The hon. member for Green Point then asked by way of interjection:

Is dit die Indiër-groepsgebied by Rylands?

An hon. member on my left said something about “skandalig”. I want to say that what the hon. the Minister has said was “skandalig”, because immediately afterwards when the hon. member for Wynberg was speaking the hon. the Minister told her that there was no problem in regard to Rylands. He told us that the Cape Town City Council was co-operating fully with his department on this matter.

During the last two months.

But this is overnight. This change of heart came overnight.

Do not blame me, blame the City Council.

On Tuesday evening the hon. the Minister made this statement in regard to Rylands and yet he interjected yesterday afternoon, when the hon. member for Wynberg was speaking, that there was no problem in regard to Rylands and that the Cape Town City Council was co-operating fully. Why was this smokescreen put up? This is why we had “hond se gedagte” about this speech made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

There was a look of complete surprise on the face of the hon. the Minister when the hon. member for Green Point opposed this Bill. He expected that we would accept it in exactly the same way as he attempted to persuade the United Municipal Executive.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill or he must resume his seat. All these points have been adequately covered.

I accept your ruling, Sir. In his introductory speech during the Second-Reading debate the hon. the Minister said that these provisions were absolutely necessary if he was to carry out the provisions of the Act. The hon. member for Pietersburg said that they were necessary if the Minister was to carry out the mandate of the people. I do not agree with this, but I do not intend to deal with it now. In this speech the hon. the Minister said:

In other words, there is no new principle involved. Let us look at the Act as it is to-day. Section 17 (1) reads that “the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette determine that the Board shall, with reference to any defined area, be vested and charged with any or all of the powers, function or duties of any local authority which could be established”. I submit that the operative phrase here is “with reference to any defined area”. Let us compare this with the Bill under discussion now. Section 17 of the principal Act is amended by clause 2 of the Bill. I want to read from the proposed subsection (2) (a) (iii). This paragraph provides that the Board may recover such costs as it has expended from the local authority—

1. “(aa) by action in a competent court;
2. (bb) by declaring that any revenue of the local authority shall be applied to the payment of such costs and by appointing a receiver who is hereby authorized to collect so much of such revenue as will discharge the amount of such costs and to pay over the same to the board; or
3. (cc) by levying a special rate on all rateable property within the area under the jurisdiction of such local authority; or by all three or any two of such methods.”

The act of declaring that any revenue of the local authorities shall be applied to the cost of the Board—not only that pertaining to a defined area, but to the whole area of the local authority—and levying a special rate—not only on the rateable property in a defined area as laid down in the present section 17 (1) of the Act, but on all rateable property anywhere in the area under the jurisdiction of the local authority, is the new principle that is involved. This is the additional power which this Bill will give to the Minister and to the Board. Previously the Board had the power to exercise its powers in a defined area, usually in a group area, as defined, for occupation by a particular group of people. Now the hon. the Minister takes the powers to levy rates and to act as a local authority in all respects over the whole of the area of jurisdiction of the local authority. This is why we oppose this measure. This is why Mr. Conradie made the statement he did. This is why Mr. Percy Fowle, to whom I referred earlier, opposed this measure. This is why almost every major local authority in this country has opposed this Bill. This is why we have the Pietermaritzburg City Council opposing this measure.

As I have said the major purpose of this Bill Lies in clause 2. It creates extensive powers in the hands of the Minister and of his increasing army of bureaucratic servants.

Order! That point has been dealt with over and over again.

May I enumerate and point out the additional powers the hon. the Minister and his officials are taking. In terms of the sections I have just read out the hon. the Minister and his officials can now enforce the supply of any information by local authorities. They can demand the assistance and support of a local authority for any services as the Board may direct. If the local authority fails to respond the hon. the Minister can incur any costs he wishes, to enforce these directives.

These points have all been made. The hon. member is repeating now.

I am just summarizing them to lead up to a point I wish to make. The hon. the Minister can recover these costs from the local authority. The hon. the Minister takes an additional power in this Bill, which has been clouded by a lot of the verbiage which we have in this Bill. Normally, when two bodies have an argument over costs or expenses they have recourse to the court. The court then settles the argument and provides for the payment of amounts which it considers due. There is provision for this in the Bill. But, Sir, the hon. the Minister takes additional powers. For instance, he takes the power to levy a special rate on all rateable property in order to recover the cost. He can do so all on his own, without referring to the courts.

Order! The hon. member himself has made that point over and over again.

I shall then deal with another point.

Why don’t you resume your seat?

This I consider is authoritarian and autocratic in the extreme. It is directly against the principle of common law as it is applied in this country to-day. If a person owes me money I dare not take the law into my own hands and levy a tax on him or take from his belongings something to compensate me for what he owes me.

You can if Parliament gives you the power.

Ah, there we have it. The hon. the Minister is, indeed, asking Parliament for that power. Am I right? If so, this is a new principle, a principle not contained in the existing law.

Order! I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will refrain from making interjections. He unnecessarily prolongs the debate thereby.

Here we then have the position where the Minister is asking Parliament for power to put himself into the position of a plaintiff who takes the law into his own hands and recovers that which the defendant owes him in his own way, without recourse to the courts. This he does merely on a certificate from the secretary of the Development Board. Then he issues execution himself and he himself collects.

In conclusion let me say that this Bill detracts further from the already depleted rights of provincial administrations and local authorities. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point.

I want to deal at once with the statement made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, i.e. his statement in regard to Rylands here in Cape Town. Let me tell the House what happened in Rylands. Eleven years ago Rylands was proclaimed an Indian group area. One cannot build there without roads or streets being made first, for the simple reason that the soil is too sandy there. Nevertheless, we have been struggling for the past 11 years to get the Cape Town City Council to build roads and streets there. They refused to do so until I recently threatened them with section 17 of the Act. Only then did they commence building them.

That is untrue.

That is the truth about this matter. I have these powers in terms of section 17. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the re-settlement of Coloureds west of the Fish River/Kat River/Aliwal North line. He asked for more particulars. I shall furnish him with further particulars during the Committee State, i.e. how much money was involved, and so forth. But there is no new principle here. We can already make ex gratia payments up to R1,000. All we are asking for here, is authorization to make ex gratia payments of amounts in excess of R1,000. That is all we are asking. The hon. member wanted to know by whom the decision had been taken to re-settle the Coloureds. Of course, the Government took that decision. What is more, this is a decision that was taken years ago already, i.e. to settle the Coloureds west of this line and to concentrate them in certain areas in the Transvaal. After all. it is common knowledge that this is the policy.

As regards this debate in general. I must honestly admit that if the Opposition has to make such a fuss about what is an innocent piece of legislation, then they do not need much to make a fuss. I want to congratulate hon. members on this side, from the hon. member for Parow up to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, on the havoc they wrought in the ranks of the Opposition. I wonder what political gain the Opposition hopes to derive from this demonstration which they have now kept up for two days. What are we actually asking for in this legislation? All we are asking for, is for legally valid powers, powers to ensure that no slum conditions develop and that all our people—Whites, Bantu, Coloureds and Indians—are housed properly. We are merely asking for legally valid powers, as the hon. member for Pietersburg rightly said. What advantage is the Opposition trying to gain by opposing the Government’s obtaining legally valid powers for preventing the development of slum conditions and for providing our people of all race groups with proper housing? What intelligent person would be opposed to that? Much fuss was made here about the powers of local authorities. Not a single power of one single local authority is being taken away here. The only right, if one can call it a right, which is being taken away here, is the right of a local authority to neglect its duty. If this is what the Opposition is putting up such a fight for, i.e. that one may neglect one’s duty, then I say to them that this side of the House regards that right as being a worthless right, but we regard slum clearance and providing the population with housing as being of much greater importance than is the right to neglect one’s duty. No local authority which does its duty, need fear anything in this measure. I now declare quite emphatically that 95 per cent, if not more, of the local authorities in the Republic of South Africa are doing their duty. They are doing their duty well, and in this regard I shall say a few more words later on.

I do not think it often happens that the Opposition’s amendment is really more important than the legislation is, but in this case I definitely think that their amendment is more important than this legislation is. Let me read out to you, Sir, what their amendment is. They moved the following amendment, i.e. to omit certain words and to substitute “whilst this House desires the provision of adequate housing in separate residential areas for the different race groups …” They refer to adequate housing “in separate residential areas for the different race groups”. This is the first time that the Opposition has put this in writing and that this has appeared in Hansard, i.e. that they accept the principle of group areas. Up to now they have opposed the principle of group areas; they have been opposing in this House every piece of legislation which sought to bring about group areas, and now they say that they approve of separate housing in separate residential areas. Now I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point): How can one house people separately if one does not house them in separate residential areas?

I hope that in future I shall obtain the support of the Opposition when I wish to effect residential separation in South Africa, and this will be put to the test one of these days. There are many areas left in our country where people are still living in mixed residential conditions. Resettlement is a difficult and lengthy process. Up to now the Opposition has always placed obstacles in the way as regards the implementation of separate residential areas. The moment we re-settle people, one hears the outcry of “the uprooting of people”. Then we hear all these stories, but now all of a sudden the Opposition is in favour of “adequate housing in separate residential areas”.

When people live in mixed residential areas and we want to place them in separate residential areas, I hope that there will now be an end to this story of “uprooting the people”. I hope that in future I shall have the wholehearted support of the hon. member for Green Point when we take steps in this regard. I said a moment ago that that test would come. Well, that test will come one of these days. I say that there are parts where people are still living in mixed residential areas, people whom we now have to house separately, and one of those areas is District Six. I hope that once the commission has completed its work in regard to District Six and drawn up its plans, and when I ask the provincial authority and the Cape Town City Council for their assistance, the hon. member for Green Point will give me his wholehearted support in clearing up this mess in District Six. But even at this early stage they are beginning to complain about “the uprooting of the people from where they were born” and all that sort of nonsense.

Does adequate housing for every race exist at the moment?

No, adequate housing for every race does not exist as yet. I say that the people in District Six are still living in mixed residential conditions. White families, Coloured families, Malay families and Indian families are living there, and I am going to separate them. Am I going to obtain the support of the hon. member for Durban (Point)?

I shall reply to you.

I shall now ask him an easier question. There are 300 white families in District Six and there are Coloureds as well. My plan is to house the Coloureds in the Cape Flats. The Cape Times is complaining, the Liberal Party is complaining, the Progressive Party is complaining, the United Party is complaining. the whole lot are complaining. Now I ask the hon. members for Green Point and Durban (Point) this question: Should I move the white families from there or should I move the Coloured families from there?

We shall have an opportunity for discussing that matter; I am not going to reply yes or no, we shall discuss it.

We have heard the real voice of the United Party in the words of the hon. member for Durban (Point). After all, he is the great champion of apartheid when he visits Newcastle, he is the great patron of the white civilization when he visits the rural areas. But last night we heard his real voice in all its nakedness, and that is a wide expanse of nakedness! Then the hon. member said, “You are pushing these people around like pieces of ivory on a chess-board”. Now I want to ask him this: How can one house people separately without moving them? He asks me whether adequate housing exists. No, adequate housing does not exist as yet, but I challenge him to mention to me one single White, Coloured, Indian or Bantu in South Africa who was moved before proper housing had been provided for him.

Limehill.

But they are opposed to separate development, they are opposed to separate residential areas. I am sorry to have to drag the hon. member for Karoo into this debate. Unfortunately he is not well and I hope he recovers very soon. I wish him everything of the best. I am rather fond of him. Here I have an election manifesto he used during the last election. He said the following—

But now they pretend to be in favour of residential separation. I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point): How can one house people separately, how can one house them in separate residential areas, as requested in the amendment moved by that side, without moving them? I prefer the correct word, and that is not to remove them. I want to see how one can have separate residential areas in District Six either for Whites, or for Coloureds, or for Malays, without moving them elsewhere. The hon. member oan do it! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands should not talk; how can he do it? Of course, I prefer the word “resettle”.

Now I challenge any hon. member opposite, and we may possibly take the Committee Stage to-morrow, to tell me at what stage we re-settled—or in their own words—moved people who were not moved from poor housing conditions, mostly slums, to better housing conditions. Let them noint that out to me. Even at Limehill and all those places people were re-settled from poor conditions to better conditions.

I am proud of my predecessors. The short while I have been in the Department of Community Development makes me feel proud of what my predecessors accomplished in the sphere of housing. I am proud of what the Department is doing to-day. We have built tens of thousands of houses for our Whites, and we are still doing so to-day. We are building these houses so that they are within the financial means of these people. The other day at Springs I had the privilege of taking over 65 houses on behalf of the Municipality of Springs. Those houses consist of a lounge, a dining-room, three bedrooms, of which the main bedroom is a large room, a bathroom with a separate toilet, a kitchen, a pantry, a garage and a servant’s room, for between R4,500 and R5,000. This is what the Department of Community Development is doing. Do hon. members know how the Municipality of Springs, which is doing its duty, meets its liabilities? They do not let these houses, but sell them. Do hon. members know what the interest and redemption are which they have to pay monthly? These amount to between R34 and R37 per month. This is a proud achievement for the Municipality of Springs and for the Department of Community Development. We have built houses for the Whites in South Africa.

May I ask a question? Is it in line with Government policy to include a servant’s room in these houses?

Yes, a servant’s room may be included. If the hon. member wants to work for me as a servant, he would have to pay in. [Laughter.] But this does not apply to the Whites only. The Department of Community Development did this in conjunction with the local authorities. I have no quarrel with local authorities that do their work; my quarrel is with the few local authorities that do not do their work. In conjunction with local authorities we have performed miracles as far as Coloured housing is concerned. Pay a visit to Bonteheuwel. Take a look at the Coloured housing in Port Elizabeth. Has my hon. friend ever been there?

Yes.

What does he have to say about it? Pay a visit to the housing schemes in East London and the Indian housing schemes in Durban. Take Lenasia, a model residential area where almost 30,000 Indians are living already, Indians who used to live in backyards and slums. Take Ladium.

Without these powers.

Yes, Sir, all of them without these powers. But now I want to have the power to deal with the few exceptions that do not want to do their work; such as the trouble we had in the past with the Municipality of Johannesburg. We also had trouble with the Cape Town City Council, until I threatened them with section 17 of the Act. I say that we are proud of what has been achieved, but we shall not rest on our laurels. There is still a great deal to be done. That is why I must have these powers, to ensure that what has to be done, is done well. Is that not simple? I am not going to allow myself to be put off by any local authority or by anybody else or by this ridiculous fuss about the powers of local authorities. All this fuss about the powers of local authorities we heard ten years ago. At that time the debate lasted three days and not merely two days. When the 1959 Group Areas Act was before this House, we were told, under the leadership of the hon. member for South Coast, that in terms of that Act the local authorities would simply disappear, that it would mean the end of local authorities in South Africa. What has happened to those predictions? Which local authority disappeared? Which local authorities have less power than they had at that time? No, Sir, that Act was necessary to force local authorities to carry out their duties. No local authority has disappeared. All we found was splendid housing schemes for all the population groups, such as has never been seen in the history of this country. They compare with the best in the world.

Now I come to this Bill.

At last!

I may not have discussed the Opposition’s amendment? Was it worth so little that I should not have taken any notice of it? [Laughter.] I say that in section 17 we have all the powers we want. I shall read out a part of section 17 of the Consolidating Act of 1966. It reads as follows—

This section provides all of this. What has happened here now? Our legal advisers said it was possible that, if a local authority took us to court, they would not be able to state beyond all doubt that the court’s judgment on certain matters, such as making streets and levying rates, would be in our favour. All we are doing here now, is to eliminate that doubt. That is all we are doing and, as the hon. member for Pietersburg said, to give full legal validity to that principle which was accepted in 1959 and 1963. What is so strange about this? Every year legislation and amending legislation is adopted in this Parliament in order to make provision for court judgments which were at variance with what Parliament intended. Last year, when I was still Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, the Appeal Court found against us for certain steps we had taken in Sebokeng. Subsequent to that I came to his House, which passed legislation to set aside the judgment of the court. What is so strange about that? The courts do not make these laws; this Parliament makes them.

The big stick.

The hon. member who sits back there and is shaking his h“ad so. may refer to the “big stick” as much as he pleases. The fact of the matter is that this Parliament is the “big stick”. That is all we are doing.

Hon. members opposite wanted to know why I had not consulted the United Municipal Executive. Why should I have consulted them? Must I consult them for the purpose of legalizing something to which they had agreed previously? For this is all that happened. I do not wish to read out again what Mr. Dempsey said. It has been read out here time and again. But I want to read out what was said by one of their own members, i.e. Mr. Widman, a Provincial Councillor. I think he is their leader in the Johannesburg City Council. He said—

Sir, have you ever heard greater nonsense in your life? This Parliament grants power to the Development Board, and Mr. Widman says that this is merely a theoretical power. Then he adds

Therefore there was no reason why I should have consulted them. In 1959 the United Municipal Executive with a vast majority—I think only Johannesburg and Cape Town were against it—voted in favour of this principle which is contained in section 17.

That was after Marais Steyn had told them to vote against it.

Yes, after the hon. member for Yeoville had said that they should vote against it.

Now they say that I did not consult the Administrators. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that I had only sent a note. I did not send a note; I sent a full-length letter to all the Administrators. Now I should like to know what other ways there are to consult persons. Some of the Administrators replied that they did not agree with it. I replied and explained to them. I have not heard of them since. How does one consult? Surely, this is the only way to consult. I do not know of another way to consult. My door is open at all times. I am the most approachable Minister there is. If they wanted to see me they should merely have telephoned me. I should have liked to see them.

I think that Mr. Conradie, M.E.C., has been done a great injustice. He assured me that he had not criticized this Bill at all. The only thing he said, was that he was sorry that such legislation had become necessary …

He wants to become Administrator!

Order! I think that is an unworthy remark.

I withdraw it.

What did the hon. member say? [Laughter.]

Mr. Conradie did not say that he disagreed with the legislation he only said that it was a pity that such legislation had become necessary. After the Cape Times had interviewed Mr. Conradie, the following report appeared in the paper—

Mr. Conradie’s own words which appeared in inverted commas in the report, are as follows—

I also deplore this Bill. I wish it had not been necessary to introduce this Bill. Now the hon. member for Green Point asks me whether we want to strip local authorities of their powers. My reply is an unconditional “no”. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not want to strip local authorities of their powers. To tell the truth, if they do their duty, I do not mind their being granted more powers. Now I want to ask the hon. Opposition: In cases where a local authority neglects its duty, what am I as the Minister to do? Should I look on with folded hands? Should I stand by and see that slum conditions are created. Should I stand by and see that slums are developed when local authorities fail to do their duty? If I were to do that, it would amount to gross irresponsibility. However, I do not want to be guilty of that. If I were to be guilty of that, I would not be worthy of being in this Cabinet. No Government dare do this, and this Government will definitely not do so. The trouble is that this Opposition would be the first to blame the Government if I did not intervene in cases where local authorities were not doing their work. I have already made a start with this. The following report about the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) appeared in the Eastern Province Herald—

This is being done by the local authorities, and the Act stipulates it. This is the duty of the local authorities. If local authorities do not do their duty, then I ask hon. members what I am to do other than to intervene and point out their duty to them. This morning a deputation from the hon. member for Constantia’s constituency came to see me. Is that hon. member aware of the existing conditions in Strawberry Lane? Has he seen that mess in Strawberry Lane? I have photographs of the conditions there. Dirtier conditions one cannot find. Five ladies from Strawberry Lane came to see me this morning. However, from that hon. member I have not heard a single word up to now. I am now going to take steps in Strawberry Lane. [Laughter.] That deputation told me that the Divisional Council was not going to act. I do not know whether this is the case. I find it hard to believe this because the Cape Town Divisional Council cooperates very well with the Department of Community Development. But the fact remains that in this part of Cape Town and in that hon. member’s constituency one finds conditions which have been in existence for years. However, he has never spoken to me about these conditions at all. If what these ladies say is correct, i.e. that the Divisional Council does not want to act, what am I to do? Should I allow this mess to continue? Or should I make use of this Act and do my duty? No, Sir, I shall do my duty. This story of the “three-tier government” is nonsense. We do not have three-tier government here in South Africa.

You reckon there is not?

No, there is not. We have one-tier government here in South Africa, namely this Parliament and this Cabinet. In addition to that there are administrations and not governments. There is a provincial administration and not a provincial government. In addition, there is a local administration and not a local government. Any government which permits its plans to be obstructed by any of the administrations, is not worthy of being called a government. Now the hon. member for Green Point says that the Development Board should bear all the costs. That is quite correct. In cases where the Development Board undertakes development on its own behalf, such as the Development taking place at many places, the Development Board has to pay all the costs. It has to pay for the services, the streets and so forth. But when the Development Board takes action under this Act, it does not act on its own behalf. It acts on behalf of a local authority which has neglected its duty. If that local authority had done its duty, it would after all have had to incur certain costs. However, it refuses to incur those costs. Now the Development Board incurs those costs. It does so on behalf of the local authority and that is why the local authority has to bear the costs involved. The local authority does not lose anything by paying those costs, because this Bill provides that the State President may, when he is S3tisfied that the task has been completed, rescind the proclamation. Then the Development Board has to withdraw and all the things it has developed: the services, the streets it has made, the houses it has built, all those things revent to the local authority. After all, they cannot get them free of charge. Surely, they must pay for them. Under section 49 of the Housing Act I have all these powers of levying rates on authorities. I can take steps against any authority which does not do its duty and levy rates indiscriminately just as I please, i.e. under section 49 of the Housing Act.

Why did you then bring in the present Bill?

I have already said this, and I shall repeat it for the last time for the information of the hon. member for Wynberg. It is being done because there are doubts in the minds of the legal advisers as to whether the powers we have at the moment would stand up to being tested in court. That is all. All we are doing now, is to make sure that these powers will in fact stand up to being tested in court. I sincerely hope that this is clear enough to the hon. member for Wynberg.

Now we come to the position of Stellenbosch. The hon. member for Green Point wanted to know whether Stellenbosch was satisfied. After all, by now quite some time has passed since this Bill was published. Up to now I have not received one single objection from Stellenbosch. Nor from my friend, Mr. J. C. de Wet. He is a very good friend of mine. So far I have not received any objections from anybody from Stellenbosch. I do not know why the hon. member for Green Point is so concerned about Stellenbosch. Apparently they are quite satisfied with this Bill. I am quite convinced that the vast majority of the ratepayers in Stellenbosch and the Municipality of Stellenbosch are satisfied with this Bill. Sir, they moved Coloured squatters there against our wishes, and they allowed them to squat at Cloetesdal. For Heaven’s sake, why does one move squatters from one part, only to allow them to squat in another part? That is simply not our policy. If we move a squatter, we provide him with proper housing. What difference does it make where he squats, unless specific conditions, such as sanitary conditions, develop, which did not develop there? The number of squatters at Cloetesdal kept on multiplying, and we warned the town council that they should not allow it. The squatters overflowed into Community Development land and there they cut down a number of trees, and despite our warning these squatter conditions deteriorated. We asked them when they were going to start providing housing there. The most unhygienic conditions prevailed there and we could not get anything out of them. Sir, Stellenbosch has a large Coloured population. Those Coloureds must be housed elsewhere, and they must be moved. Apparently the hon. member for Durban (Point) has a secret formula according to which the Coloureds can be housed differently without moving them! There is a serious shortage of housing for Whites at Stellenbosch. We had a survey made of housing for Whites at Stellenbosch, and we found that 600 people who were working in Stellenbosch had to live elsewhere. They have to live in places such as the Strand, Kuils River, Somerset West, etc., because there is no housing for them at Stellenbosch. These are people in the middle income group. That is why we decided that we ourselves would develop Cloetesdal if the town council did not want to do so, and that is why that proclamation was issued. I do not know what is wrong with it. We tackled a small urban renewal plan in Stellenbosch. We appointed three town planners, of whom Professor Page is one. Professor Page is professor in town planning at the University of Stellenbosch. He is the official town planner of Stellenbosch. They issued a unanimous report on how we should carry out that urban renewal, and the town council rejected the report. When we asked them for their reasons, they refused to give them to us. Sir, one cannot carry on in that manner, surely. That is why we issued that proclamation and that is why we shall continue to take the steps which should be taken.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) says that I shall abuse my powers. Sir, I know that these are major powers. I could, of course, abuse those powers. But this Parliament meets every year and I can be called to account here every year when my Vote is under discussion; my salary can be withheld from me if the Opposition can convince this House that I am abusing my powers. After all, I am not working behind an iron curtain or in secret; I work in public and if I were to abuse any of my powers, I could be called to account in this House. No, Sir, this Bill is essential. The principle that the State takes steps when certain administrations fail to do their duty, has formed part of our law in South Africa for a long time. The hon. member for Parow very clearly brought this to the fore when he quoted from the Act of 1945, where, under a United Party Government, it had been provided that the State could intervene in cases where the steps taken by a local authority were not to the satisfaction of the State. Sir, this was the case in regard to the late Dr. Verwoerd’s Act in regard to Sophiatown and the resettlement of the Bantu of Sophiatown in Meadowlands. Therefore this forms part of our legislation and of the policy followed by the Government in South Africa for many years. That is why I have no hesitation whatsoever in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The Opposition can say whatever they please; we shall continue and do our duty.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill, in the main, concerns the pensions of railway staff and of railway pensioners and gives effect to the improvements of which mention was made in the Railway Budget speech on 5th March, 1969. My remarks will, therefore, be brief.

The purpose of clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 (a), 7 (b), 7 (d), 8, 11 and 12 of the Bill is to provide for improved pensions for present and future railway pensioners and widow pensioners. As mentioned in the Budget speech, it is proposed to increase the pensions of all pensioners who retired before 1st April, 1968, and of widows of such pensioners, by 10 per cent, whilst the pensions of pensioners who retired on or after that date or retire in the future, as well as the pensions granted to widows of such pensioners or widows of servants who die whilst still in the Service, will be increased by 5 per cent. The reason for the differentiation between these two classes of pensioners is that prior to 1st April, 1968, the pensions of both servants and widows were based on the servant’s average pensionable emoluments during the last seven years of the servant’s service. This period was reduced to four years from 1st April, 1968, resulting in higher pensions being granted on and after that date. In order to offset increases in the cost of living, pensions will, furthermore, be increased by a further 2 per cent, compounded annually, for each completed year of pension up to a maximum period of 20 years.

In so far as future pensioners are concerned, the terminal period on which pensions are based is being reduced from four to three years and the factors used for converting a portion of their annuity into a lump-sum payment on retirement are also being increased.

Clause 3 concerns the date upon which servants are retired from the Railway Service. At present servants are retired from the Service on the day on which they attain the prescribed age of retirement applicable to them. Administrative work will be facilitated if retirements were to be effected from the first day of a month and the purpose of this amendment is to provide that servants who attain their retiring age on any day other than the first day of a month, will retire on the first day of the following month. This is in accordance with a recommendation of the committee which investigated pension matters and with the procedure already followed in the Public Service.

The object of clause 7 (c) is to ensure that the widow of a servant who dies between the date of his birthday and the first day of the following month will not be placed in a less favourable financial position than she would have been had her husband retired from the Service on his birthday, whilst clause 7 (d) also deals with the pension benefits payable to widows of servants who had been promoted from the footplate to salaried positions. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the widows referred to will not be adversely affected by their husbands’ promotion, to salaried positions.

Clause 9 of the Bill provides for a legally adopted child to enjoy the same rights in respect of pension benefits as own children, unless a servant advises in writing that that should not be the case.

The purpose of clause 10 is to facilitate the financial adjustments to be made between the various pension funds involved when servants are transferred with continuity of pension rights to and from the Public Service, Provincial Administrations, the Administration of South-West Africa and the Railway Administration; this is in accordance with similar action being taken by the Public Service in so far as the other pension funds are concerned. The provisions of this Bill will apply retrospectively from 1st April, 1969.

We on this side of the House will obviously support the Second Reading of this Bill, and in fact support the Bill in all its stages. We believe an important step forward is being made in regard to the administration of railway pensions in terms of this Bill. Indeed, the system of increasing the pensions on a 2 per cent compound basis is one which is commended from this side of the House, as it is believed that it is most necessary that steps should be taken to safe-guard the purchasing power of pensioners to a certain extent against the erosion in the value of money.

We were hoping that perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister who has introduced the Bill could have given a little further information in regard to the administration of the increases proposed in terms of this Bill. For instance, throughout all the clauses dealing with the increase there is a proviso that this shall be limited to a period not exceeding 20 years. We raised this matter during the course of the railway debate and we had a reply from the hon. the Minister to the effect that 20 years was a long time and he would not necessarily be bound by that period. I would like to say that we on this side of the House believe that this particular proviso contained in the Bill is unfortunate in that in the practical application of the increases being granted there will still be quite a number of railway pensioners who in fact will not receive any increase as the result of the provisions of this Bill. I refer to those who are receiving a very low basic pension from the Superannuation Fund. These increases provided for in the Bill would increase those basic pensions. However, to peg it at a 20-year period will mean that the older pensioner, who is receiving a very small basic pension and therefore is now receiving a minimum pension, will in fact only receive an increase in the minimum pension which was mentioned by the hon. the Minister when he delivered the Budget speech. It will mean that these people will not in fact receive any benefit in regard to the total amount of pension received in terms of this Bill. I have calculated some examples with regard to this aspect to see whether the provisions of this Bill will bring about increases in some of these cases of pensioners who retired a long time ago from the Service. It is felt that in calculating these figures it is obvious that the only amount which will really be altered to any great extent is the supplementary allowance to bring these pensions up to the minimum levels provided for. Therefore it is a pity that the Deputy Minister in introducing the Bill did not give some further information in regard to this period of 20 years’ limitation in so far as the 2 per cent compounded increase in the basic pension is concerned. We know that with the advance of science the life expectancy is continually increasing. It means that where there are pensioners who retired more than 20 years ago, they will not receive any increase at all in terms of this Bill. The position is that a person who retired 20 years ago will receive the increase worked out on his past service, but in actual fact the money he will receive, if he is on a small basic pension, will not be increased because he is receiving a minimum pension as it is. The increased figure as calculated in terms of this Bill will fall short of the minimum pension paid, and therefore in fact he will not receive any increase. We know that if you calculate 2 per cent per annum compounded over 20 years, it comes to 48.4 per cent, and if they retired before April, 1968, they will receive another 10 per cent, so it means an 58.4 per cent increase in their basic pension. The point is that they will then be receiving the maximum increase in terms of the Bill, but due to the fact that their basic pension is increased to that figure it will still mean that they will be below the minimum pension paid in the case of the older pensioner. We hope that the Deputy Minister in replying to the debate will give some indication that he is not bound to this stipulation of 20 years. We realize that actuaries must have a basis of calculation and therefore a basis of calculation has been provided by this 20-year stipulation. We feel that the Minister should give an indication that this matter will be subject to further review at a later date.

Another aspect on which I was hoping that the Deputy Minister would give some further information is in regard to the position of the fund and the effect this increase will have on the fund. Obviously an increase in the expenditure incurred by the fund will bring about an alteration, and therefore if the Deputy Minister could give some information as to what the effect will be on the position of the fund, it will be appreciated. If one refers to the latest report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the accounts of the S.A. Railways, on page 113, information is given about the standing of the fund as at 31st March, 1968. The revenue exceeds expenditure by some R30 million a year, It means that the credit balance of the fund has increased now to almost R500 million. It would appear that the fund, which is earning interest at 4½ per cent, is now receiving interest to the extent of R21.5 million a year. It would appear that the fund is increasing to the extent of some R30 million a year, as I said before. It would therefore appear that the fund is in a strong financial position, and I believe that the Government should give due consideration to even increasing further the basic pension provided for in this Bill by bringing about a consolidation of the temporary allowances and the bonus paid in respect of railway pensioners. This would mean that the 2 per cent per annum compounded would have a greater effect in that a person would actually be receiving a 2 per cent increase in the total amount of pension being paid, rather than merely receiving the 2 per cent per annum increase on the basic pension, which is far below the figure received when one takes into account the temporary allowance of R35 a month, or the bonus of R4 a month for a married person. It would then help to bring about in actual fact a 2 per cent increase per annum compounded in railway pensions.

There are other aspects of the Bill which we believe are a great improvement on the present system and we welcome the provisions of this Bill as we believe it is a step forward and a step in the right direction towards modernizing the system of pensions being paid by the Railways to those people who have rendered service to the Railway Administration. We therefore have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

I should like to begin by giving some more clarity on the one aspect. The hon. member for Umbilo again mentioned the 20 years here, as he did in the Budget debate. I want to point out that I also made a calculation of what the increase in the pensions would be, and I want to give an example. Take a person who retired in October, 1949, and let us take 100 as the figure. If his basic pension was 100 per month prior to 1st April, 1969, I first add the 10 per cent which makes it 110. If I now calculate the 2 per cent compound per annum for the 19 years, which comes to 45.68, it gives him another R50.25 on the 110. In other words, such a person will receive a basic pension of R160.25 as from 1st April, 1969. This is the difference on the basis of the 100 he received prior to April, 1969. Now it is R160.25. In actual fact it amounts to an increase of 60¼ per cent on the pension he received previously. I think the Railways staff are very grateful for this, because it is a large increase. The hon. member for Umbilo then immediately asks me in the same breath that I should tell him what the position of the fund is. I want to tell him that the actuaries are at present engaged in making another actuarial survey for us. We make a valuation every five years, and as soon as that valuation is available we will reconsider this whole aspect. I immediately want to tell the hon. member for Umbilo, in thanking him for his support, that we did not simply decide on these amounts and on this increase in an arbitrary way, and that we did not decide on the 20 years arbitrarily. In fact, we had a commission of inquiry, and all the members of that commission were Railway staff members. I am not going to give their names now, because I do not want to take up the time of the House.

But it would be very interesting.

Then I will gladly do so. The commission made a thorough submission to us in regard to the whole matter of pensions. I shall first give the names of the members of the commission. They were Mr. Purvis, the financial manager, Mr. P. G. du Plessis, chief clerk, Mr. Murray of the mechanical division, Mr. Roscoe, chief super intendent, staff; Mr. Ulyate, chief of the statistics division, Mr. Ziervogel, the chief pensions officer and Mr. Simpson, the chief pensions officer designate, as secretary.

Were there recommendations unanimous?

Yes. After instituting a very thorough investigation, this commission made two recommendations, which I want to read to you—

They themselves recommended a period of 20 years. Proposal 3 (b) reads as follows—

They made these recommendations with the fullest possible sense of responsibility. It is a fact that this fund has grown enormously, but in the case of such an increase we must receive the actuarial report and analysis before we can go any further. I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said in his Budget speech. He said that this Parliament did not even tie next year’s Parliament to this period of 20 years. If the actuarial report presents a different picture to us and we see that a change can be made, it is still within the powers of this Parliament to consider and to change it. I think that this increase as a first step is as good as anyone could expect. The Railway staff will greatly welcome this increase.

Motion put and agreed to

Bill read a Second Time

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members have had the benefit of an explanatory memorandum, and it will be clear that this measure is not contentious. This Bill is mainly concerned with matters arising from, or relating to, the new Load Line Convention of 1966, the simplification of procedures in regard to the engagement and discharge of seamen and matters relating to shipping casualties. The old Load Line Convention dated from the year 1930 and it formed part of our legislation as the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act. South Africa accepted the new Load Line Convention which replaced the Convention of 1930. Acceptance of the new convention entailed the substitution of the new convention for the old convention as the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act. This was done by Proclamation No. R280 of 27th September, 1968, in terms of section 356bis of the principal Act. It also entailed the promulgation of the Load Line Regulations, 1968, in substitution for the Load Line Regulations, 1960. It has become essential also to effect the necessary amendments to the principal Act and in this respect I refer hon. members to clauses 1 and 14 to 19. I may add, further, in regard to clause 14, it is realized that circumstances relating to exemptions in load line certificates may change from time to time. It is, therefore, desirable that such matters be dealt with by regulation in the same way as has been done in the case of safety certificates.

I now wish to deal with the amendment contained in clause 2. It has become apparent from experience gained in the administration of the principal Act that, apart from the powers of delegation already existing in section 4 of the principal Act—and which were intended for the delegation of powers to public servants—provision will also have to be made for the delegation of powers to a classification society. For example, if the amendment is adopted, it will be possible to delegate to one or more classification societies the powers to issue load line certificates and safety certificates. In certain circumstances such delegation may obviate delay in the issue of the certificates and, consequently, delay in the movement of the ships concerned. The new Convention contemplates an arrangement of this nature and it is widely in force among maritime states. The present provisions of sections 120 and 121 of the principal Act have been found to be too rigid and to cause delay and inconvenience to the parties concerned. It is considered that the proposals embodied in clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill will simplify matters and will make it possible to effect the payment of wages of seamen more expeditiously.

Finally, I would like to refer to certain aspects of clauses 23 and 24. At present a court of marine inquiry or a maritime court has no power to deal with a master or officer who is not certificated but who serves by virtue of an exemption, with the result that no purpose is served by constituting such a court in a case where an uncertificated person may be at fault. Such court presently also has no power to reprimand such a person. The proposed amendments will give a court of marine inquiry or a maritime court the necessary powers. The draft Bill was circulated to all interested parties, including the South African Society of Ship Owners and the South African Society of Master Mariners, and no objections have been received. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is not contentious and I hope that it will receive the favourable consideration of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is not a contentious Bill. At the outset I want to say that it was very difficult to do research on this Bill. I think the principal Act really requires consolidation. With the growing importance of our merchant fleet and coasters coming into our ports it is essential for ship’s officers and captains to have a copy of this Act. This Act affects their position and they have to keep within the provisions of it. It is very difficult for them to wade through all the various amendments which have been made to this Act since 1951.

Especially if the ship is rolling.

It is essential that legislation should be kept up to date in regard to load line certificates. This is a very important item in regard to the safety aspect on ships. In the old days overloaded sailing ships often disappeared. In the end the Plimsoll Line was introduced and load line certificates were issued in respect of all ships. The load lines of ships were of course at first very crudely worked out. But over the years they were able to discern ocean temperatures. You have different temperatures in different oceans, and thus you have for one ocean a certain load line whilst for another ocean you have a different load line. We also have what we call winter and summer loadings. One can see the various marks on ships. This is essential.

There is another point I should like to make regarding our small boats running up and down our coast. The amendments proposed in this Bill make provision for the registration of ships and it lays down that the Department must be notified if you are building a ship. I do not mean a dinghy or anything like that. The sizes are laid down. This, too, is also very necessary. But we are rather concerned about our fishing craft losses. If one sees a photograph of our west coast fisheries which are often featured in our magazines and even in our digests …

Order! What clause is the hon. member referring to now?

I am talking about load line safety, Sir.

Fishing craft are not so difficult.

That is just the point I want to make; I am talking about load line safety. I am not concerned by the loss of a boat because that is covered by insurance, but I am concerned about the loss of life. We find that these fishing boats are as large as a trawler or one of our big coasters. They are invariably overloaded and then they go down. There is no load line certificate. As the hon. the Deputy Minister had quite rightly said, there is no control. The boat can be written off because it is covered by insurance, but the danger is the loss of life. We have lost quite a number of lives on our coast. That is one of the things the hon. the Deputy Minister must go into. Unfortunately, abuses are taking place and the position must be watched.

Order! I do not think that has anything to do with this Bill.

The Bill states that fishing boats are exempted, but I am making the point that the Minister should take note of it; it is a matter that should be taken note of.

Perhaps it can be raised in another debate, but not in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill that controls load lines, which have a bearing on the safety of ships at sea.

But fishing boats are exempted from this requirement.

That is the trouble, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that they should not be exempted.

Order! The hon. member must do that under the hon. the Minister’s Vote.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

I will make a note of it.

I hope the Minister regards this as essential because we do not like to see people lose their lives through the carelessness of masters who overload their boats. I think it is essential. That is one of the basic reasons why the load line was brought in. It was brought in not to save the boat but to save life. That is something which the Minister must watch.

We also welcome the amendments regarding the payment of crews on discharge. Crews are paid off all over the world. They have to be returned to their home ports. It is not so easy to pay out a crew member because there are all sorts of conventions to be considered, deductions have to be made for all sorts of things. I am glad to see the Act will now be amended to make that easier.

Then there is the matter of the qualifications of officers, and I am glad to see this matter is dealt with in this Bill. In conclusion I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give serious consideration to the consolidation of this Act because with the growing size of our marine fleet it is very necessary that the Act should be consolidated.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As you doubtless know, a Rents Amendment Bill was introduced in the Senate during the 1968 parliamentary session. It was published, and was also read there a First Time, but was subsequently withdrawn. However, there is clearly a need for the supplementation and amendment of certain of the provisions of the Act and that is why this amendment Bill, in a somewhat different form, is now before this House. I should like to give you a quick survey of the various provisions.

Clause I (a) relates to the definition of “reasonable rent”, and deals with the premiums in respect of insurance which a lessor is entitled to add to his rent. Provision is now being made in this paragraph for the recovery of premiums which a lessor pays in respect of insurance against special perils, such as riots and strikes as well.

It is necessary that provision be made for this type of insurance as well because many mortgagors are not prepared to lend money on mortgage for the erection of flats unless the mortgagees obtain this specific coverage, since, they feel that, in times of riot and strikes, and also as a result of special perils, a situation can arise which can destroy their security.

The premiums in respect of this type of insurance are exceptionally low, the more so as provision is not made in the concession for consequential losses which may arise from such damage. However, this will contribute towards alaying the fear of persons and institutions who want to make money available on mortgage for the erection of flat accommodation.

Paragraph (b) deals exclusively with correction of an incorrect translation in the Afrikaans text of the Rents Act. According to the English text—and that is the one which has been signed—“such amount (if any)” can be allowed in respect of collection charges, which means that a rent board can make an allowance in terms of this item, irrespective of whether any actual expenditure in respect of the service was incurred or not. However, the Afrikaans translation reads “sodanige bedrae (indien daar is)”, which on the other hand means that expenditure must first in fact be incurred before the rent board is enabled to grant the amount which it deems reasonable. This said paragraph of clause I therefore merely rectifies an incorrect translation.

As far as paragraph (c) is concerned: There are two systems by means of which electricity is supplied to lessors of flats. In the one case each separate flat is supplied with a principal meter and the lessee contracts directly with the supplier for the supply of electricity and pays his account monthly to the supplier upon receipt of an account. In the other case only one principal meter is installed for the entire building, and only this one meter is read by the supplier who submits his account directly to the owner who then pays it monthly.

In order to enable the owner in the latter case to collect from each separate lessee the amount for the electric current consumed by him, he instals sub-meters in the various flats. The sub meters are then read each month by the owner and the lessees pay the owner for the electric current consumed according to that sub-meter reading. This second system still applies to-day particularly in Johannesburg, but other large city councils are also considering introducing this system.

According to the definition of “reasonable rent” in the Act a lessor is, inter alia, also allowed to recover any amount spent by the lessor in regard to the supply of electricity, gas, water, etc. When rent boards determine rent therefore, they must, where the second system of electricity supply is in use, take into account the consumption of electric current. Because the consumption of electric current is a fluctuating factor, it is the custom of rent boards to specify the amounts of the rent in the written instructions and then to indicate that the amount of electric consumption is additional to that determined rent. In rent determination in respect of flats, each of which is provided with its own principal meter, any reference to the costs of electric consumption is of course omitted from the written determination. Apparently as a result of confusion which has arisen because of these two systems, there was subsequently failure in cases where lessees were supplied by sub-meters from one principal meter, to specify that the amount for electricity consumed monthly was additional to the determined monthly rent.

Where a written rent determination omitted to specify the electric consumption, as mentioned above, it would be illegal for a lessor to recover any amount in respect of electric current from the lessee. Despite the fact that the specification was omitted, lessees in many cases continued for years to pay for their electricity consumption, probably because nobody disputed the matter since it was morally right. Last year, however, this matter came before the courts which then pointed out that in such cases the recovery of such amounts for electricity consumption was illegal in terms of the Rents Act. However, it was noted that the lessees obviously had no intention of contravening the Act, since the rent board made it clear during hearings that electricity consumption was additional. Some lessees are not availing themselves of this opportunity to claim repayment of the amounts paid by them for electric current or they are working the amounts off against the rent, as a result of which they are now occupying the flats for fluctuating periods of time without paying rent. To protect lessors against these unjustified losses the provision, as contained in paragraph (c) is being inserted into the Act. As the Rents Act reads at present a rent board upon the determination of value, shall consider and take into account all the factors specified in the definition of “value”, before it can make its value determination, but, as hon. members will realize, circumstances often arise when it is impossible to have all these factors available for consideration. Paragraph (d) simply brings the position into line with what is possible in practice.

Clause 2: According to the Rents Act it has always been possible for the lessor of a furnished flat to charge any deposit which he thinks fit upon leasing the flat, whereas in respect of an unfurnished flat the deposit cannot exceed an amount equal to one month’s rent. In addition it could only be charged in respect of lights, gas, water or sewerage where such services were not included in the rent. As a result of problems which arose through the charging of unlimited deposits upon the leasing of furnished flats, and what usually cropped up as soon as the deposit had to be refunded, it was decided to place the charging of deposits in respect of furnished as well as unfurnished flats on the same basis, but to continue to limit the amount of such a deposit to an amount not exceeding one month’s rent. However, with the object of affording the lessor the necessary protection against damages, it was also decided to expand the purpose for which the deposit may be charged and that to cover damage to the flat, or the loss of the keys which may be suffered by the lessor. Then, too, in order to afford the lessee protection in respect of his deposit—there are cases where such deposits were simply not refunded to lessees after the expiry of their term of lease—it is now being provided that that part of the deposit charged in respect of damage and loss of keys must be recorded as such in the receipt; that it must earn interest equal to the interest earned on Post Office Savings Bank Accounts; that upon the lessee vacating the premises it must be refunded to him, less the amount of damages caused by him, but that, if the lessee and the lessor cannot agree on the amount of damages, the lessor must submit an application for determination of the amount of damages by the rent board, and that the determination of damages by the rent board will be final. In addition a penalty clause is being written in to make provision for cases where there is unreasonable delay on the part of a lessor, in the absence of an agreement between lessor and lessee, to submit an application for determination of damages to a rent board. In order to implement these new provisions, it is necessary for the powers of the rent board to be expanded, and this matter is consequently being rectified in clause 2 (the amendment of section 5) whereas the accepting of deposits is being regulated by clause 5 (a) (2) which amends section 25 (2).

Clause 3: As the Act reads at present, a rent board, where one tenant in a block of flats submits a complaint in regard to unreasonably high rent in respect of his flat, is only competent to investigate and hear the particular complaint to determine an enforceable rent in respect of the one flat only. However, it cannot at the same time undertake an investigation in respect of other identical flats in the same block, even though the investigation were to disclose that the other rents are also unreasonably high. In respect of the other flats each lessee will either have to submit an individual complaint or a rent inspection will have to lay a complaint of such flats before the rent board. The position is also that in the case of controlled dwellings where there has been no previous rent determination, or in the case of dwellings which, with the extension of rent control in terms of section 33 (1A) are placed under rent control, a lessor may apply for the current rent to be increased. If the rent board should find upon investigation that the application is unreasonable, and should in addition find that even the current rent is quite unreasonably high, it will once again refuse only the application for an increase, but it is not able to make a determination in order to reduce the current, unreasonably high rent to a reasonable level. In such a case as well, the matter can only be rectified by a subsequent investigation and complaint by a rent inspector, and a hearing by the rent board—a process which can take months during which time the lessee must continue to pay the unreasonably high rent.

The amendments proposed in clause 3, i.e. the proposed amendment of section 8 (1) and (2) will make it possible for a rent board, in the case of one complaint of unreasonable rent in a building complex, to investigate the rent in respect of the other dwellings in the same complex, and will in the same way be able to make a determination in respect of the other dwellings in that complex. In the same way a rent board, in the light of the amendment which is being proposed, will be in a position, where a lessor makes an application for an increase in the rent which is being paid and it is found that his application is unreasonable and that the rent which is being paid is in any case unreasonable, to decrease the current rent to an amount which is regarded as reasonable, and the decreased determination will apply from the first day of the month following the date of the order of the Board. It often happens that rent board cases are brought to court; that the case is placed on the roll for a certain day; that witnesses are summoned and that when the case is to be heard, one or other of the parties applies for application at such a late stage that persons who have been summoned to appear before the rent board cannot be given reasonable notice of the change, and then turn up to no avail on the said day. The amendment of section 8 as proposed in section (3) (c) of clause 3 must serve as a deterrent in order to put an end to this irregular conduct. The insertion in section 8 (4) is of course purely consequential.

Clause 4: The insertion in section 21, which is proposed by clause 4, is simply being done in order to rectify an error which arose in 1951 when paragraph (c)bis was inserted at the time in section 21 (1).

Clause 5: The insertion in section 25 as envisaged by clause 5 (a) (i), is once again a purely consequential amendment. I have already referred to the provisions of clause 5 (a) (2) when I spoke previously on the charging of deposits. As far as clause 5 (b) and (c) is concerned—the proposed amendment of section 25 (2)bis and ter—I must point out that in order to eliminate circumvention of the Rents Act in cases where, for example, controlled, unfurnished dwellings are subsequently furnished and is separate, and possibly abnormally high rent, is then imposed in respect of furniture, the Act was amended in 1964 and 1966 to provide that: (a) such unfurnished premises shall not be deemed to have changed its identity by, for example, having been furnished, for example, with tables and chairs; and (b) no higher rental than the rental determined by the rent board in respect of such a dwelling may be charged.

In respect of the interpretation of these two concepts there are at present two schools of thought.

One school believes that the provision means that the prohibition only applies, if, and after the rent board has in fact made a former rent determination, whereas the other school attaches to it the interpretation that no rent may be charged unless a determination is made. The latter is of course what the old Act wanted to achieve.

Because it cannot now be confirmed beyond any doubt that in case of a court action the second interpretation will in fact be attached to the words, the amendments are being introduced in order to clarify the position beyond any doubt.

Clause 6: Section 26 of the Act determines that no lessor may refuse to let a dwelling to a person with children, and it may not be stated in any notification by the lessor or on his behalf by way of advertisement or otherwise be stated (either expressly or indirectly) that he is not prepared to let such a dwelling to any person who intends to let a child dwell therein. However, it has come to my attention recently that advertisements in this connection are appearing which give rise to the strong assumption that they are intended to circumvent the Act. Typical examples of these are the following: “Preferably business couple only.” “Will suit couple with no children.” “Will suit couple with grown-up children.

I have already issued instructions to the effect that such advertisements should be brought to the attention of public prosecutors with the view to prosecution, and I want to issue a serious warning on this occasion to lessors that severe action will be taken against those who contravene the Act in this respect. The amendment contained in clause 6 is aimed at curbing this malpractice.

I may just mention that I have also approached the National Press Union in this connection. I asked them to request the newspapers belonging to their Press Union to refrain from placing such advertisements. The National Press Union agreed to request their newspapers to refrain from placing such advertisements in future. We are simply giving legal force to this now.

Will the newspapers commit an offence if they publish such an advertisement?

Yes, the newspapers will actually commit an offence. However, it is very difficult to prove these offences, because the wording is not definite enough. The Press Union have agreed not to publish any of these advertisements which try to indirectly circumvent the law. They asked me to make provision for that in the law.

*Clause 7: The existing provision of section 33 (1) (b), in terms of which a dwelling is exempt from the provisions of the Rents Act if it is older than 100 years, and if the owner has spent a certain amount on its restoration leads to great difficulty, which is in fact aggravated by the fact that restoration can in fact simply mean ordinary repairs.

The position therefore arises that some of the old, in many cases decrepit, structures which were used for residential accommodation are being purchased; they are then repaired in a way which do in fact make them habitable, but which has no bearing on the historic value of the building, or does not in any way typify the period from which it is supposed to date, and then merely because it is old and a specific amount has been spent in restoring it, it is exempted from rent control so that in respect of such dwellings a rent can be charged which has no bearing on the residential accommodation it offers.

Because I have the right in any case, in terms of section 33 (9) to exempt an owner from rent control and will be able to make use of these provisions if it should become necessary to exempt dwellings with a cultural historical background from the provisions of the Rent Act, I have seen fit to consider placing the provision in respect of ordinary dwellings which are at least a 100 years old and which are repaired on a sounder basis. I may just mention that some of these older buildings, particularly those which were previously occupied by Coloureds, are being restored in an excellent manner. To-day these dwellings offer very attractive accommodation. In such cases I will probably make use of the powers granted me. However, we have found quite a number of cases where attempts have been made to exploit lessees.

In terms of clause 7 it is therefore proposed that the provision which exempt old buildings, under certain circumstances from rent control, should be amended so that the provision will only apply if I can be convinced that such a dwelling has in fact been faithfully restored according to tradition.

I am certain that this legislation will prove far less contentious than the previous.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. the Minister that, although we may wander to Stellenbosch for one or two observations in connection with this Bill as well, we propose to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Notwithstanding the hon. the Minister’s assurance.

At the outset I want to say that in considering any legislation affecting rent control or varying the application of rent control, one is always faced with the problem of striking a balance between the interests of the landlord and the interests of the tenant. It arises naturally because of the fact that rent control in itself upsets the normal processes of supply and demand as far as the provision of housing is concerned. For that reason one examines and must examine some of these provisions with a great deal of care. We support the Second Reading of this Bill. However, I believe it is essentially a Committee Stage Bill rather than one for Second Reading debate.

There are a few comments which I should like to raise and perhaps the department may have time to consider this before we come to the Committee Stage. Firstly, I wish to refer to clause I (c), which deals with the question of supplies of electric current through meters. The hon. the Minister has explained why this clause is necessary. I understand that there are certain areas in the country where gas is also supplied in this manner. The question therefore arises whether line 27 should not read “or supplies electric current or gas or fuel through a sub-meter”. I believe that does apply in certain areas of the country. It, therefore, seems that the same principle applicable in the case of electricity through a sub-meter should also be applicable in the cases mentioned. I now come to clause I (d). The proposed amendment here proposes the introduction of certain words to enable the board to have regard to any one or more or all of certain factors in determining a valuation. I think this arose last year when we discussed the Rents Act. The then Minister then indicated that he would instruct the boards to have particular regard to sworn appraisements or market values in determining the value of a property for rental purposes whereas in fact he was not empowered to give such an instruction. This now rectifies the matter. There is of course a printing error in the Bill before us in that line 20 to 23 are indicated by a marginal line as proposed additions to the existing Act. This particular marginal line should appear against lines 36 to 41 of clause 2.

Which clause is that?

On page 4. There is an indication of the introduction of new subject matter in clause I which is in effect a printing error. It should be lower down on the page. May I also refer the hon. the Minister to certain queries I have on clause 3. One agrees that it is a correct and wise provision that where the Rent Board is dealing with one particular dwelling in a complex that it should determine the factors upon which rental is based for the whole of the complex. In fact the board must do it in any event to determine the rental for the one dwelling unit in that complex. But should there not be provision, if the board is to make its determination binding on all tenants, that notice should be served on the tenants of that particular complex advising them of the fact that the board is going to consider the whole complex. I think it may arise that the particular tenant whose case is being considered may be the fortunate one which the landlord looks after in regard to internal renovations, the doing up of the flat, the type of furniture in the flat and that sort of thing. The other tenants may not be getting the same treatment. On the one instance it may be to the disadvantage of the other tenants. It does seem that there is no reason, when the board is going to consider the whole complex, that notice should not be given in the normal way to all the tenants within that complex that is going to be undertaken by the board. I certainly welcome the provisions contained in the proposed section 8 (2) (a) of clause 3. It obviates a trouble which existed for a long time, namely that where a landlord without justification asks for an increase in rental and the board finds that in fact the presently paid rental is too high, the board has not been able to do anything to bring relief to the tenant. This meant that the tenant or the board through an inspector has to cause a new inquiry to be held before that position could be rectified in so far as the tenant is concerned. We certainly welcome this provision which the hon. the Minister has included in the Bill. The right of the landlord to increase rental to cover increases in rates is referred to on page 8 of the Bill, namely in section 8 (3) (b). This refers to an increase in terms of section 3 (1) (b) (i) of the Act as it exists, an increase which can be passed to the tenant in instances where the landlord has to pay increased municipal rates. To this there is now the addition of any increased levies for workmen’s compensation and so forth. There is one problem which is arising in so far as landlords are concerned, one which I think offers justifiable grounds for complaint. This is happening in Cape Town at the present time. Rates have been increased, provisionally in so far as landlords are concerned due to the fact that the provincial valuations have not yet been finalized. As they are merely provisional increases in rates the landlords are unable to apply, even three months after the commencement of the year, for the increased rental to cover those increased rates which they will have to pay. It seems that it should be considered whether or not, when there is a delay within the calendar year in attaching this increase in rates to the tenants’ rent, that that increase should be spread equally over the remaining period of the calendar year. The intention is that the landlord should have the benefit of recouping himself. It has happened because of circumstances which are out of control of the municipality. They are certainly out of the control of the owner and that is that the provincial valuations for rates purposes have not been completed timeously for the rates to be fixed by the municipality, finally, at the commencement of this particular year.

A further matter to which I wish to refer, a matter which it seems to me is likely to cause some concern and some difficulty unless it is clarified, is referred to in clause 5 (b) (a) (ii), line 42, where it is provided that where a person lets premises which are furnished, he may not, if such furniture has been installed subsequent to the date on which the rent of the premises was fixed, charge a higher rental unless such rental has first been determined or authorized by the Rent Board. It seems to me that there might well be difficulty in the first letting of the property as a furnished property. There must be a certain amount of delay before the Rent Board fixes the rental. If my house is furnished now and I have let it from, say, the 1st of this month, then if I apply immediately to the Rent Board to fix the rental that I may charge my tenant for the furniture, a month or more will elapse before the rent is determined, because the Rent Board are busy. Therefore it seems to me that there should be some provision here whereby this control which is now to be imposed can be retrospectively applied so that the rental for that furniture would apply from the date of the commencement of the letting of the furnished premises. Sir, I fully appreciate the motivation behind clause 7 of the Bill, referring to restored dwellings which are of historical value and historical interest. This is where I wish to travel to Stellenbosch for one moment. I do not know whether the Minister has fully covered the position which has arisen in Stellenbosch. I have seen a number of buildings there which have been very well and faithfully restored, externally, to their original state, but obviously they are unsuitable internally for use as a single dwelling, as they were in the more spacious days of the past. Many of these buildings which have been restored have been altered internally to provide two or three flats in a building which was originally a single dwelling. The Bill uses the words, “the dwelling has been restored faithfully according to tradition”. This may well apply to the external restoration, but it would certainly not apply to the internal re-arrangements. I am sure that the Minister is more concerned with the general appearance of the building externally and the use to which it was put rather than with changes of walls and partitioning inside the building. I do not know whether the Minister has seen some of the properties which have been restored at Stellenbosch. They are a great attraction; they represent a great improvement and they are of great value to the country and it seems that one is entitled to ask for their inclusion under this particular clause.

Finally there is another matter which I brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister prior to the introduction of this Bill and that is the great difficulty which faces some statutory tenants as a result of the unreasonable actions by landlords. One finds that a statutory tenant, who is not allowed to sublet his property for a short period, proceeds overseas on business and then applies to the landlord for leave to sublet for two, three or four months. Under the Act, as it now stands, particularly section 23, the landlord, purely out of pique, can refuse to allow the tenant to sublet. It seems to me that it might well be considered by the Minister whether there should not be some relief for that type of statutory tenant.

Is there a clause in this Bill dealing with that matter?

If provision is to be made for this point in the Bill, it will obviously have to be done by way of an instruction and perhaps the hon. the Minister might move it himself at a later stage.

You sent me an amendment in this regard.

I sent a suggestion to the hon. the Minister.

To us this amending Bill is of the utmost importance. The public outside is very grateful that these protective measures are being taken to protect particularly the lessees against exploitation. In a country such as the Republic where development is taking place extremely rapidly and where growth points sometimes arise, growth points which could not be foreseen, a shortage of housing may be experienced particularly in the major centres, and it is vitally important to us that this section of the public should be protected. We dare not allow those people to be exploited as a result of the shortage of housing. It would really be a crime if the Government should fail to do anything and not see to it that the necessary safeguards are taken for their protection. It is clearly laid down in this Bill what rent may be charged for dwellings and flats. There can be no doubt about this matter any more, and there can no longer be any doubt in the minds of lessees as to what rent they have to pay. We are dealing here with the two parties, namely the lessee and the lessor, and it is important that the powers of each of them should be clearly defined, and to my mind this Bill complies entirely to that requirement. It is clearly laid down what additional expenses, for example premiums paid by the lessor in respect of insurance against special perils, riots and strikes, may be added to the rent. The lessor may also add to the rent any amount he pays in respect of gas, water and drainage as well as collection fees. This will eliminate the uncertainty which existed in the past. The Bill also clarifies the position as regards the deposits which may be required. This system of deposits was open to a great deal of abuse in the past. I know of cases where as much as R500 was required as a deposit on furniture and where the normal wear on the furniture was often considered as damage done to the furniture when the lessee demanded his deposit back on the expiry of the term of lease, and where the lessee found it difficult to get his deposit back. It is clearly laid down in the Bill now that the equivalent of only one month’s rent may be required as deposit. The Bill also prescribes the manner in which the refund should be made. To me this is a very important provision in this Bill. The lessee will now have the assurance that he will not lose the deposit he has paid. Another important provision in the Bill as far as I am concerned, is the one which lays down that families with children should not be discriminated against. I want to express my personal gratitude towards the hon. the Minister for the agreement he has reached with the newspapers and particularly for the steps he has taken to rectify this matter. Another important provision in this Bill is that in case a complaint is lodged by one lessee in a complex, the position of the other tenants may also be investigated without it being necessary for each lessee to lodge a complaint. All these provisions will contribute greatly towards the protection of lessees, and we are deeply grateful for the Minister to have introduced this measure in order to solve all the possible problems in regard to this matter.

As the hon. member for Green Point has already indicated, we are going to support this Bill. I think both sides of the House will regret the necessity for having to introduce an amendment to the Rents Act once more. This Bill aims at closing loopholes which have been found and at amending certain existing provisions. What we hoped for was that we would have a Rents Bill which would do away with some of the provisions of the Rents Act. You will remember, Sir, some two years ago when he introduced one of the amending Bills, the Minister said that he hoped that in the following year he would be able to reduce the incidence and the impact of rent control. We know that that is not possible at the moment. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) has already pointed out that the tenant has to be protected, and we entirely subscribe to that, but it seems that the position is getting worse and not better. Now that the hon. the Minister has taken charge of a new and a full portfolio, we wonder whether he does not consider that the time has now come for a proper investigation to be made into the whole question of the supply of houses. You see, Sir, somebody has to break the cycle. We have a situation where control is impeding building and where because of lack of building we have to have control. I really believe that the hon. the Minister would do a service to the country if he had the whole problem properly examined to see if we cannot break this cycle.

Order! That is not germane to this Bill.

Regarding the Bill itself, there are two points that I want to raise. The first is the question of deposits. Here the Bill introduces two new principles, the first being that a deposit of a month’s rental can be requested or accepted in respect of furnished premises and, secondly, that the deposit will now bear interest at the same rates as that paid by the Post Office Savings Bank. The tenant, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned, can now demand a receipt. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could not have taken the matter a little further and perhaps given some help to his colleague, the Minister of Finance. These deposits will be paid to the landlords. The landlord has to do two things only, (a) to give a receipt and (b) to pay interest when he refunds the deposit. What happens to the deposit in the meantime is the landlord’s concern. If the Minister were to write into this clause a very simple proviso, that these deposits should be put into a building society, he will kill two birds with one stone. He would protect the deposit of the tenant and he would help his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, by probably diverting some millions of rands into the building societies. Sir, it is one month’s rent, and if you add up all the rent for a month in the whole of the Republic it must amount to millions of rands which could be usefully utilized to help to solve the Minister’s problem, which is to build new dwelling-houses. The building societies will have more money and we will get more dwelling-houses.

I am glad the Minister has put a provision in the Bill that where there is a dispute between the tenant and the landlord in regard to damage done to the dwelling, and I presume to furniture as well in the case of a furnished dwelling—I hope the hon. the Minister will confirm that—or the loss of keys, then the Rent Board will have to settle the dispute.

That is if they cannot agree between them.

Well, I hope the rent boards will have the time to settle these disputes. It is going to be quite a business if every time the tenant leaves and he has lost two keys, the matter must go to the rent board, or it must go to the rent board if just a little damage is done to furniture.

If it is a small amount they will agree amongst them.

I hope the Minister’s organization will be able to cope with the demands that are going to be made on the rent boards.

The other matter I want to deal with has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Green Point, and that is clause 7 which amends section 33. Section 33, as the Minister has told us, provides for the exemption from the Act of buildings deemed to be over 100 years old. Now we know that a lot of people have been taking advantage of this situation. They have been so-called restoring buildings. I prefer to use the word “renovating” buildings, and what has come out at the end of the line is something quite different from what it was 100 years ago. But on the other hand, as has rightly been said, there is a lot of good work being done in genuine restoration. It is in the Minister’s hands. He can decide, because what the hon. member for Green Point said was quite correct. I have here the annual report of the Historic Homes of South Africa Limited. This is the organization to which the hon. member for Green Point referred when he spoke about restoration in Stellenbosch. Some wonderful restoration work is being done, and many buildings are now being left to posterity in South Africa. But if you look at the description of these buildings and what has happened to them, it is very interesting. For example, there is Stretch Place in Graaff-Reinet—not in Stellenbosch—which was built originally in 1834 by a Mr. Stretch, owner of the Drostdy Hotel, for his nine slave families after the abolition of slavery in that year. It consists of nine cottages, of which so far five have been purchased, and the idea is to convert these into economical maisonettes for elderly people. There is no comparison between a maisonette and quarters built for exslaves, but nevertheless that building has been restored as you and I, Sir, would want it to be restored. One cannot restore it exactly as it was, because financially it would be impossible. There is the original Victoria College building built in 1866 in Dorp Street, Stellenbosch. This has been converted into five select flats. Well, it is probably a far cry from the original Victoria College to turn it into select flats, but the restoration which has been done will retain that property for all time. What is interesting is that this organization, the Historic Homes of South Africa Limited, is doing the job and making a profit. In other words, it will have funds to continue its work. I gather from what the hon. the Minister said that he is going to protect this type of organization and I would like an assurance from him that he is wholeheartedly behind this type of work. There is no profit motive. What he is looking for is those people who are making profits out of renovation. I hope that his views of what the Bill calls “restored faithfully according to tradition” will be wide enough to take care of what is being done as a public service.

I want to give the Opposition the assurance that we on this side of the House are highly appreciative of the fact that they are not opposing this important measure. I should just like to say something arising out of what the hon. member for Parktown said, i.e. his reference to the fact that he found it a pity that this Government should come forward with a further amendment Bill in regard to the Rents Act, and that it could have been prevented if the Department of Community Development would, once and for all, have a proper investigation and survey made of the housing shortage in South Africa. But does he not know that the Department of Community Development is continually engaged in making surveys, and that the Department does not concern itself with the general housing of South Africans, but with the lower and middle income groups? That is what the Department has to cope with, and they are constantly keeping abreast of developments there, and wonderful progress is in fact being made in that connection.

We who represent constituencies in which there are hundreds of flat dwellers and lessees, want to say to the hon. the Minister that we sincerely welcome this Bill. I think that flat dwellers and lessees throughout the country will also welcome it. But I want to state this at the outset. Attention to the interests of flat dwellers and tenants of houses has become of the utmost importance to-day. Flats and rented houses play an extremely important role in the housing of our nation, and because building sites in our metropolitan areas are at present becoming scarcer and more expensive to-day …

Order! This has nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. member must return to the clauses which are being amended here.

With all due respect, Sir, I am simply motivating the importance of the Bill.

The hon. member need not motivate it. That was done when the Act was originally passed.

As I see it, the first decisive step forward in the Bill is clause 3, which amends section 8 of the principal Act. As the position stood on 31st May, 1966, in regard to the freezing of rents, rent boards could not reduce the rent of flats, even if they were to come to the conclusion that the rent of a particular flat was too high. The rent, as it stood at 31st May, 1966, simply had to remain. But now the rent boards are being granted the right to decrease rents, and if they should find after an investigation that they are too high, they can investigate all the other flats as well and determine whether those rents are also too high. This is a very important point because many of the flat occupants are too afraid to discuss matters with the flat owner. They are afraid that they may perhaps be victimized and evicted. That is why they omit to do so. But if one of them has the courage to go, the others know that all the other flats will be investigated, and I think this is a major step forward. I was in a flat here in Cape Town with only two bedrooms, a lounge and a kitchen, in which there was scarcely room to swing a cat, and for that they were paying R80 per month. It has therefore become quite essential that all the flats in an entire block be investigated if an objection is made.

The second point is in regard to clause 5, dealing with the deposits on furnished flats. For a so-called furnished flat, the owner could up to now demand an unlimited deposit, which is also what happens in most cases.

Order! All the speakers so far have made that point, and the hon. member must not repeat it.

I just wanted to say that exploitation is taking place on a large scale.

If the hon. member were to read the rules he would see that repetition is not allowed.

Then in conclusion I just want to say that this Bill is not only a Bill which protects the rights of the flat lessee, but also those of the flat owner. For that reason nobody can say to-day that the Government is only protecting the lessees, because it is also protecting the owners. For that reason we on this side of the House welcome this Bill.

I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that this is really a measure which can more effectively be dealt with in the Committee Stage, and therefore I do not intend replying to all the points raised.

*I just want to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) for the kind words he expressed towards the Department. I am sure we appreciate it greatly.

He did not say anything in praise of you.

Yes, he said I was a good Minister.

†In reply to the hon. member for Parktown, I cannot discuss the question of investigating the supply of housing because Mr. Speaker has ruled it out of order, but we can have a word about that under my Vote. As far as his suggestion is concerned about putting the deposits in the building societies, I will definitely go into that, because I think it is a useful suggestion. I will see whether we can put that into the Bill. In regard to the restoration of those old buildings, I only want to prevent misuse made of that for profit purposes. I will give close attention to these examples mentioned by the hon. members for Green Point and Parktown. They need have no fear that I will not deal with that in a very fair and equitable way. Under these circumstances I think we can deal with this Bill much better in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

It is unavoidable that with the increase in the activities of a vital Department and with the extension of national interests, Acts constantly have to be adjusted and supplemented in order to meet the requirements of the times and circumstances.

However, the three clauses of the Housing Amendment Bill, 1969, contain no drastic measures and are solely in the interests of the administration of the Department and to adjust to new development. For the information of this House, I shall deal with the clauses in numerical order.

Clause 1:

In addition to this, all funds spent on the provision of government housing to all government departments, including the South African Defence Force and the South African Police, are also controlled by the Secretary. Over and above the expenditure of funds, the head of the Department has to attend to extensive duties which flow from the seven Acts which the Department administers. In an attempt to meet the situation, powers have freely been delegated to subordinates, but as a result of the fact that he alone is the accounting officer, it is inevitable that he himself has to attend to a task which has become virtually impossible.

The only solution is the delegation of certain accounting responsibility as well to another high-ranking officer in the Department. I am satisfied that the proposed amendment of section 9 of the Act is in the interests of the Department, and that effective control over the Fund will be maintained, as in the past.

Clause 2:

Now, it is obvious that the South African Bantu Trust should upon taking over such a housing scheme, relieve the local authority concerned of its financial obligations in respect of the scheme. But there is no provision in the Act under which the South African Bantu Trust may take over the assets and liabilities of such a scheme carried out by a local authority with housing funds, and consequently the insertion of section 70A, as contained in clause 6, is essential. As you will notice, Mr. Speaker, the take-over will take place by agreement with the local authority concerned, and the repayment of the money spent on the scheme, as well as interest on outstanding amounts, will be regulated properly and effectively.

Clause 3:

Section 87 of the Act grants exemption to the National Housing Commission in respect of—

1. (a) transfer duty on property acquired by it;
2. (b) stamp duty or registration fees payable in connection with the transfer of any property sold by it;
3. (c) fees payable in connection with any endorsements, etc., which have to be effected in the Deeds Office;
4. (d) stamp duty on the cession of bonds to the Commission;
5. (e) taxes, under certain circumstances, levied by local authorities.

As you will therefore notice, Mr. Speaker, the Act makes no provision at present for exemption to the commission in respect of summonses. As the commission enjoys exemption from stamp duty in a wide field, as indicated above, it is no new idea that it should also be exempted from stamps on summonses, as envisaged in clause 3. In any event, the clause does make provision for the recovery of the amount of the stamp duty from the tenant by the commission when judgment has been obtained against the tenant, and for such an amount to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This exemption from stamp duty on summonses is already applicable in respect of the Community Development Board, the other statutory body acting under the wings of the Department. This board also lets accommodation and at times it is also necessary for it to make use of summonses to collect debts. In terms of the provisions of section 2 (2) of the Community Development Act, 1966, the Board does, however, enjoy exemption from the required stamp duty, Clause 3 of this Bill therefore grants the National Housing Commission the same exemption which the Community Development Board already enjoys.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support this Bill in the Second Reading. How ever, in doing so I wish to raise some questions which I trust the hon. the Minister will reply to and clarify some matters which are not entirely clear as to the intentions and possible operations of this particular Bill. This is a case where again there has not been an explanatory memorandum. For that reason, despite the very lucid speech of the hon. the Minister, there are still some matters on which we would like a little more information. First of all, I want to say that one welcomes immediately the approach which is contained in this Bill. That is that what the commission wishes to achieve will now be done by agreement of everybody concerned, including the local authorities who will have opportunities of refusing to agree, if they so wish. We welcome a provision of this sort coming from this particular hon. Minister after what we have heard of his attitude towards local authorities.

They had better not refuse too often.

That is a most interesting remark from the hon. the Minister.

As the hon. the Minister has said, this Bill, in broad outline, envisages that Bantu housing schemes may now become the responsibility of the Bantu Trust. Once the Bantu Trust takes over the responsibility for any established housing scheme for Bantu, it will also take over the responsibility of the commission and of the local authority in agreement with those two bodies.

The questions which arise are really matters more applicable to the Bantu Trust than to the department, of which the hon. the Minister is now in charge. However, fortunately we have an hon. Minister who has just recently walked out of the door of the other department to this particular Department of Community Development. I am sure that he will be able to elaborate on one or two questions which do arise.

The first question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is whether this Bill is subject to the powers of the Bantu Trust Act, or is it complementary to it? In other words, does this Bill intend giving further powers of taking over control of housing schemes for Bantu, beyond those powers which exist in the Bantu Trust Act? I notice that the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration is also present. I wonder whether he could be interrupted for one moment, because on this particular provision of the Housing Act I am asking the hon. the Minister of Community Development a question on a matter which is rather the concern of the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration. That is that it is envisaged that the Bantu Trust will take over the control of established housing schemes. These have been financed by the Housing Commission in collaboration with a local authority.

It cannot be done anywhere, only in certain places adjoining Bantu areas.

That is the point which I want to get at. So, this Bill is only a complementary provision to the Bantu Trust Act. In other words, the power to take over or to bring under the control of the Bantu Trust, is not extended by this Bill, but is restricted to the powers of the Bantu Trust Act.

We will amend the Trust Act to make similar provisions.

I thank the hon. the Minister.

The second point to which, I think, the hon. the Minister has already answered by way of interjection, is that this provision will become operative only in regard to areas which are bordering on scheduled areas. In other words, it is not intended that this provision can have application to, shall I say, Langa or Guguletu in Cape Town.

No!

That answers that question which I have posed to the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

There is a further question which I should like to ask. It is really a matter of interpretation and intention as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned. Before I ask the question I should like to read part of clause 2 of the Bill which says:

The Afrikaans for that is “die belange en verpligtinge van so ’n plaaslike bestuur”.

Does that include the interest in the scheme only? Does it include the ownership as well? In other words, does it mean that total control of this area, the ownership of the ground as well as the obligations that are connected with the housing scheme itself, will pass to the Bantu Trust? Does it mean that the ground in fact will be taken over? I am wondering whether the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development could not perhaps brief the hon. the Minister who is handling this Bill. Is it the intention that clause 2, especially the words that the Trust will “take over the interest and liabilities of such local authority”—in Afrikaans “die belange en verpligtings van so ’n plaaslike bestuur”—shall include ownership of the ground on which the scheme is established, in addition to the actual responsibilities of the scheme itself?

When the township is incorporated into the Bantu area, they will be able to get ownership of land and houses.

No. The position is that the Trust takes over the ownership from the local authority when it takes over ownership of the land and when it has so done then of course the Bantu individually becomes entitled to land ownership.

Which they do not have now.

Which they do not have now in areas controlled by municipalities. I want to say immediately that we welcome this improvement. We welcome this move by the Department, and that there are now to be, in terms of this Bill, an opportunity for more areas, which are no doubt presently occupied on a tenant basis under local authority control, where Bantu can acquire home ownership of the properties in which they reside. We will therefore support this Bill at the Second Reading stage.

I am rather surprised at the hon. the Minister. He has been very cock a hoop this afternoon.

What has that got to do with the Bill? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has just come over from the Department of Bantu Administration into this new Department. When I put a question to him just now about what is going to happen under this Bill he indicated that I should ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration.

He is also coming with a Bill.

Yes, just give me a chance to get to that Bill. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has unfortunately now left the Chamber. He cannot therefore reply to questions I intend asking. The point which was made was this. In terms of the amendment to this Housing Bill the Bantu Trust will take over the interest and liabilities of the local authorities in respect of housing schemes. One of the things which appear under the definition of a scheme in the Act is the acquisition of land. Now, I understood from the Minister of Bantu Administration when he interjected that the Bantu Trust would be able to take over the interest which includes land. Therefore the Bantu Trust will now be able to acquire land in an urban area not adjacent to a reserve. This Bill gives the Bantu Trust now power to take over the interest and liabilities of a local authority in respect of any housing scheme. And, surely, if it is going to take over the land, it is going to acquire the land. The Bantu Trust is going to acquire the land.

Yes.

The Minister says “yes”. In terms of the Bantu Trust Act the Trust can only acquire land which is scheduled land, released land or land adjacent to scheduled or released areas. It seems to me now that this is a departure. We are giving the Trust here now power to acquire land which does not fall under the terms of section 10 (2). It is on this point that we want to get clarity from the hon. the Minister. He should make it quite clear that the Bantu Trust will now be able to acquire land in any housing scheme, away from the reserves, in any white area.

No.

But that is what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said.

He did not say that.

Yes, he did.

We asked him whether it meant the acquisition of land. That is why we asked the Minister to stay. It means the acquisition of land. What is interest? Does interest not mean land? The commission can start a housing scheme and one of the things it can do is that it can acquire land. It can take over the land, for instance from the Johannesburg Municipality at Soweto. Who then is then going to take over the land? I shall be glad if this hon. Minister will then explain to us very fully exactly what is meant by taking over the interest, the real interest, in terms of this clause. I say, again, that it is unfortunate that we cannot get a further reply from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration because he is not here now. When the hon. the Minister of Community Development replies, it of course means that the discussion will be closed. But when he does reply I want him to deal with that very fully as to what exactly is meant and what exactly the Trust will be able to do.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is going to introduce a Bill in which certain …

I am not speaking of his Act.

No, that Bill is linked with this one. The hon. member for Transkei will now simply have to wait until the introduction of that Bill. Then he can put his questions. The object of this Bill is the annexation of areas, such as Kwa Mashu, which are adjacent to the Bantu areas …

Where does that appear in this Bill?

The hon. member may ask that during the Committee Stage and I shall tell him. The idea is to annex areas such as Kwa Mashu to the homelands whereupon the Bantu Trust will take over. This Bill only deals with land which is going to be acquired from the local authorities. That is what we are dealing with here. How it is going to be handled by the Bantu Trust, will be explained and will be laid down in the Bill which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration will introduce.

Where is that stated in this Bill?

And that clever advocate must not think that he will corner me by his questioning. He will not corner me by asking me where this appears in the Bill. If he wants to know that, we shall discuss it during the Committee Stage. Therefore the position very clearly is as I stated it in my Second Reading speech.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main objective of this measure is to detach the Post Office, as regards the remuneration and conditions of service of its staff, completely from the rest of the Public Service. The Post Office Re-adjustment Act, which was passed last year to make the Post Office independent financially so as to allow of its being run on business principles, also gave the Post Office a large measure of autonomy with regard to its staff matters. That Act replaced the Staff Board, which has been established in 1963 and had acted under delegated authority of the Public Service Commission, with a new independent body. The earlier Staff Board consisted of two officers of the Post Office, with a member of the Public Service Commission as chairman. It was competent to deal only with matters of the kind delegated to the Board by the Public Service Commission, and any particular matter about which the Board was not unanimous, had to be referred to Public Service Commission to be dealt with. The establishment of that earlier Board ensured that most matters affecting the Post Office could be given careful consideration by experts on Post Office matters, and with the good co-operation of the Public Service Commission that Board was of great value to the Post Office. From the nature of the case, however, it could not introduce arrangements for the Post Office which differed from the arrangements for the rest of the Public Service to the extent which was desirable in view of the individual character of the Post Office.

The Post Office Staff Board established by the Post Office Re-adjustment Act is a completely independent body. All members of this Board are appointed from among the officers of the Post Office, and the Board is completely independent of the Public Service Commission. With one reservation the Board has, in respect of the Post Office, all the powers which the Public Service Commission has in respect of the rest of the Public Service. It may make recommendations on all matters, and in many important respects it may introduce for the Post Office those arrangements it requires as a business undertaking.

The reservation to which I referred is that recommendations of the Post Office Staff Board on the remuneration of Post Office staff and the terms of the regulations, which consist for the most part of conditions of service applicable to them, have no force unless they have been approved by the Minister of the Interior. When this involves additional expenditure from the Post Office Fund, such recommendations are also subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance. These provisions are contained in section 12 of the Act, which are now being repealed by clause 3 of this measure.

In practice the provision that the Minister of the Interior has to approve such recommendations means that these matters must be dealt with in consultation with the Public Service Commission and that there has to be agreement on them between the Post Office Staff Board and the Public Service Commission. Where agreement cannot be reached the Minister or the Cabinet has to give the decisive answer. If major matters are involved, such as general salary increases or far-reaching new conditions of service, it is no disadvantage or handicap, of course, that the Cabinet has to take a joint decision on such matters; the introduction of new salary scales or general conditions of service is, in any event, matters in regard to which the Post Office will never be able to act unilaterally. Such proposals always have to be considered by the Cabinet, and the Cabinet bears joint responsibility for the decisions taken in this regard. But in minor matters which may affect individuals or small groups of officers only, we have found that these arrangements are not the most effective, and once an individual structure of salaries and posts and general conditions of service has been introduced for the Post Office which differs from the rest of the Public Service, it will bring about practical problems if agreement has to be reached with the Public Service Commission on all adjustments, even minor ones.

As regards the provision that any recommendation involving additional expenditure out of the Post Office Fund has to be approved by the Minister of Finance, it is mostly on minor matters, too, that some obstruction does arise in practice. The object of the provision was to ensure that the overall fiscal policy of the country would be taken into account in, for instance, new general salary improvements being granted by the Post Office. The Post Office is a large undertaking and what it does in this field has, and understandably so, an influence on other sectors of the national economy. But in this respect too the Post Office will not be able to act unilaterally. The proposals by the Post Office for general salary adjustments and its Estimates in which provision will have to be made for the expenditure which such adjustments will entail, have to be submitted to the Minister of Finance and the other members of the Cabinet in any event, and in this respeot as well the Cabinet accepts joint responsibility.

Is this also done in the case of the Railways?

Yes. Section 12 of the Act also provides that recommendations made by the Public Service Commission on remuneration and the terms of regulations shall not be applicable to the Post Office unless approved by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. In view of the fact that the Post Office will have to have a salary and post structure as well as regulations which differ from those of the rest of the Public Service, recommendations by the Public Service Commission will in due course no longer be able to relate adequately to the position in the Post Office. There is no longer any real need for this provision either.

When the Post Office Re-adjustment Act was introduced last year, hon. members on both sides of this House touched on the provisions of section 12, and questions in regard to its necessity were raised. I told hon. members that at that stage I should like to see the Act first being tested in practice before introducing any change, but I also gave hon. members the assurance that that was a matter I would consider and that changes would be introduced if it became apparent after the Act had been properly tested in practice that changes were required. The Act has now been tested in practice, and it has been found that the object of overall control and a measure of uniformity with comparable establishments which formed the basis of the provisions of section 12, can be effectively achieved by means of, say, the Cabinet has in the affairs of the Post Office, without it being necessary to retain the provisions of section 12 of the Act. With the repeal of these provisions the final step in detaching the Post Office from the rest of the Public Service is now being taken, placing the Post Office, also as far as its staff matters are concerned, in a completely independent position.

The other provisions of this Bill more specifically affect domestic matters, i.e. the filling of casual vacancies in the Staff Board and the re-appointment of members of the Staff Board in the Department. Clauses I and 2 deal with this.

A casual vacancy in the Board arises virtually only in the case of the death of a member of the Board. As the Act reads at present, the acts of the Board are invalid from the time of the death of a member until a new member has been appointed in his stead, as the Act provides that the Board has to consist of three members and this, of course, is not the case as long as a vacancy exists on the Board. The Act does not make any provision either for the designation of a person to act as a member of the Board against such a vacancy; only in the case of a member being absent temporarily and without there being any vacancy on the Board may another person act in the stead of such an absent member. It takes time, and unavoidably so, to make a new appointment to the Board and it may be necessary to arrange that a person acts against a casual vacancy until a new appointment has been made.

Last year a casual vacancy arose on the Board when we learned with deep regret of the death on 25th October of Mr. M. A. Buys, who had served as a member of the Board since the establishment of the new Board on 1st July. Some time had to expire during which the Board could not act validly. The adjustment in this measure provides for the acts of the Board to remain valid for two months if such a vacancy arises. Therefore it allows two months for the making of the new appointment, and it also makes provision for an officer to be designated to act against the vacancy until it is filled.

Circumstances may also arise which may necessitate the appointment, because of this experience, background and ability, of a member of the Post Office Staff Board to the management of the Department on the expiration of his period of office rather than his re-appointment to the Board for a further period of office. Legally an appointment in the Department cannot be made without a recommendation by the Staff Board, and for understandable reasons it would not be desirable to arrange the re-appointment in the Department of one of the serving members—or even of a member who has already retired —by means of such a recommendation. Consequently this measure makes provision for such an appointment to be made without a recommendation by the Board.

This, in my opinion, is all that need be said in connection with this Bill. I believe that this measure will be given a good reception by all and I trust that it will meet with the approval of both sides of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we owe the hon. the Minister a debt of gratitude for the short and concise explanation of the objects of this legislation. This Bill consists of three clauses only. The first two he explained to us in the final part of his speech. I think they can be dealt with more effectively during the Committee Stage, although there may be one or two remarks on them by another hon. member on this side of the House.

The most important part of this legislation is contained in clause 3, which reads as follows, “Section 12 of the principal Act is hereby repealed”. This is the basic principle in this Bill, and this particular repeal, as the hon. the Minister explained, means that many of the bonds which this side of the House regarded as oppressive—perhaps he himself regarded them as such, although he would perhaps not use the same word—are now being severed. The Post Office will now be granted a larger measure of autonomy. That is the basic principle of this Bill, i.e. that the Post Office will no longer be dependent on the Public Service Commission.

As you know. Mr. Speaker, we on this side have been advocating this for many years. It is recorded in Hansard. [Interjections.] I may quote this to hon. members opposite if I have an opportunity later on to do so. I do not want there to be any doubt about the fact that this side of the House came to realize, as the Post Office developed, that it was in fact necessary to introduce a measure which would sever the ties between the Post Office and the Public Service. Consequently this Bill is in fact the culmination of a whole number of steps which have been taken and which ought really to have been taken.

Order! I hope the hon. member has read the Long Title of this Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have done so.

Then the hon. member will know how to make his speech.

But surely it is an amendment of the Post Office Re-adjustment Act …

It is very limited.

Yes, Sir, and the major point of this measure is, of course, the repeal of section 12 of the principal Act. The hon. the Minister elaborated first on the history which had given rise to this, on the steps which had been taken, and on the reasons why it should in fact be repealed, and I want to confine myself to replies to those things the hon. the Minister mentioned in this connection. On behalf of this side of the House I want to express our concurrence in this Bill. It is always something beautiful when an unconverted person sees the light, when we see hon. members opposite taking over the policy of this side after so many years …

Order! The hon. member is again going off the rails now.

May I not praise the hon. the Minister for in fact having accepted the policy of this side of the House?

No, it is not necessary to do so.

It may not be necessary to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I feel like saying to the hon. the Minister, perhaps only once in my lifetime, “I thank the Minister”. This Bill is the result not only of steps envisaged by that side of this House; not only of requests which came from the staff associations, not only of circumstances in the Post Office itself, but also of constant pressure and appeals from this side of the House. Then it pleases us if there is somebody who slowly directs his stumbling steps in the dark of the past to the right road, as in this Bill, as by means of the repeal of section 12 of the principal Act. Then perhaps one may congratulate the hon. the Minister. This is a typical example of the fact that when the Government does anything good, it is because it is accepting the policy of this side of the House. Not when they want to do so, but when we have pointed out to them that they have to do so, when circumstances force them to do so, as in this case …

Order! I hope the hon. member can come back to the Bill now.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The repeal of section 12 only means that the hon. the Minister has listened to our appeals.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.