Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I addressed a suitable word, I believe, of welcome and congratulations on behalf of all of us to the State President. I do not want to repeat what I said on that occasion. I just want to add—and I think I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members—that I think we in South Africa have been fortunate in the choice of presidents we have had since 1961. With regard to the occasion on Saturday, I also want to say that it was a dignified, yet very sincere and simple, ceremony which greatly impressed, not only our own people, but also the many very important visitors we had from elsewhere. I think it would not be out of place for me to express on behalf of all of us a special word of sincere thanks, appreciation and congratulations to all the Government departments which were responsible for these special arrangements.

Hear, hear!

It is no easy task to organize a function of this nature, and yet this function, in all its details, went off very smoothly indeed. If anything did go wrong anywhere I am certainly not aware of it. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express our special appreciation to Mr. Howard, Secretary for Public Works, who acted as chairman of the arrangements committee as well as to all the other Government departments—too many to mention—which were involved in it.

For the past 27 years our State President was a member of the House of Assembly. For nearly 17 years of that period he served as a Minister, inter alia, as Minister of Finance for the past eight years. He rendered meritorious service to South Africa here and overseas. I am speaking on behalf of all of us when I convey our congratulations to the State President and Mrs. Diederichs once again, and assure them of our devoted loyalty and support during their term of office.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to be associated with this motion. In seconding it, I should like to say particularly that we feel our sincere congratulations should go out to those responsible for the organization of the ceremony and particularly in respect of the part played by all races of the Army present and responsible to such a large extent for its success.

It is singularly fitting that this House in which the State President served perhaps for the best years of his life should be the House which sends him congratulations. I think that we can perhaps claim to know him better than any other body in South Africa. I believe that we who were responsible for his election feel that we have indeed made a wise and worthy choice. I second.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches take pleasure in associating ourselves with the motion which the hon. the Prime Minister has just moved as well as with the words he used and the congratulations he is to convey on behalf of this House to our new State President.

Mr. Speaker, we would also like to associate ourselves with this motion in order to pay tribute to a distinguished South African who has in fact attained this high office. It is significant that our new State President has indicated to us his concept that people have duties as well as rights in this world. Perhaps this is something which all of us should not forget. We hope that under his presidency all of South Africa’s people will have peace and prosperity and achieve spiritual fulfilment. We wish both the President and his good lady health and happiness in the future. We are sure that under his presidency South Africa will prosper.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to certain aspects which, have already come up for discussion under this specific Vote and to which there has been very little reaction from the Government side. I do so particularly in view of the new remarks of Presidents Kaunda and Nyerere which we read about in the newspaper this morning. Before I do that, I just want to say that on a previous occasion when we were discussing the Budget, I pointed out that at the meeting of African states, certain countries were unable to reconcile the Government’s new initiative in the field of detente with our Defence expenditure. For this I was attacked by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Welkom, who wanted to know where this information came from. I just want to say that The Argus of 7 April referred to this matter and specifically mentioned, inter alia, the radio service of Tanzania. The Argus refers to—

Since then, Sir, the Rand Daily Mail has given an account of what happened at that meeting. Their report on this includes the following:

I do not know what the hon. the Minister of Finance was trying to prove, but this is undoubtedly what was said at that meeting, and the Government also has information which is not available to us which could confirm this standpoint.

Sir, when we come to examine this period, it would seem to me that the events in Mozambique last year will be of the greatest importance, because it is now becoming clear to us that these have brought into being a completely new dimension which has shaken our existing ideas to their very foundations. It is since those events that it has become clear that there is a completely new perspective. These events have caused our borders to shrink. We cannot hide behind buffer states any longer. Suddenly we have been completely exposed to the cold winds of change which Macmillan referred to as long as a decade ago. Under those circumstances it was clear, of course, that the Government had to take the initiative, and this the hon. the Prime Minister did with the so-called attempts at détente. Sir, it is strange how such a concept, such a phrase, is used from time to time to typify the objectives of our time. In this way, for example we spoke at one stage of “dialogue”; after that it became “infrastructure”, and now the word which is used every day is “détente”. We can only hope that in due course it will lead to entente. It is clear that it had to be so, because the choice before South Africa is really quite simple: It is either war or peace, and that is an easy decision, especially for those who know war.

But it is also clear that there are great stumblingblocks in the way of these efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister on behalf of South Africa, and one of the most important stumblingblocks is the question of discrimination.

Sir, once again the Government instinctively sensed this, and our ambassador at the United Nations made a speech in this connection—an extremely important speech. We must remember that he did not speak for himself only; it was the Government which spoke there, and he clearly stated that one of the things that would happen in South Africa was that discrimination would be eliminated. Actually, this was a promise he made, and unless we put our words into action, we shall lose our credibility for ever. Sir, this is one of the arguments which have been advanced by this side, including my hon. Leader. What we fail to understand is why the Government is so reluctant to take the initiative in eliminating these discriminatory measures. We have been told over the years that there have to be separate entrances to Post Offices to eliminate friction. We ask this simple question: Why have banks never found it necessary to introduce the same type of measure? Why have shops never found it necessary? Sir, if we were to insist on shops installing separate sales facilities, they would have a fit, because it would cost millions and millions of rands. If Volkskas has no need for it, and if Pick ’n Pay does not ask for it, why should the Post Office have it? The argument has been advanced all these years that it is necessary for the survival of the Whites in this country. Nobody believes that story any more.

But now, Sir, we have another problem: Although much is said about eliminating discrimination, we can immediately see what is going to happen. We can immediately see who is resisting and who wants to confuse the issue by saying that what we have in South Africa at the moment is not discrimination, but differentiation. Sir, it is not only the Government which talks in this way; it is hon. members such, as the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Johannesburg West, which really does surprise one, because normally he has a balanced view of these matters. But surely we cannot deal with the matter in this way. There is a clear difference between differentiation and discrimination. Differentiation, I would say, is to distinguish. As such we accept it, because we are constantly distinguishing between men and women, for example. Let me take an easy example, that of sport. When they play golf or when they play tennis, and when they compete with one another on the highest levels, we make a distinction between them. Therefore that is differentiation. But it is of their own free will that they compete separately. There is no law compelling them to do so. In practice they are quite free to compete with one another, as they quite often do.

But discrimination is something quite different. Discrimination, I would say, is enforced separation where it is to the disadvantage of someone else. According to this we can easily find out Whether there is discrimination in South Africa or not. I am told that there are more than 80 laws today which apply exclusively to the Black man, with dozens and dozens of regulations relating to them. Surely we could appoint a commission representative of all the races in this country to take a look at those laws and to see whether or not they discriminate between our population groups. But I should say that when a man is in an urban area such as Soweto and he cannot have his family there with him, when he cannot own land, when job reservation is applied to him, when he cannot be a member of a registered trade union, when he has to carry a pass and is arrested when he does not have the pass with him, this is discrimination. Nobody can explain it away. If we tell people outside that we are going to eliminate discrimination, that is where we should begin. And it is not so very difficult. The hon. the Prime Minister has more power than any man in that bench has ever had. See how easy it was with the Nico Malan. Sir, for years we said that non-Whites could not go there, but then the Government realized that it was wrong and they changed it, and what did they lose? At most they lost a few thousand votes by it, but they have such enormous reserves that they can do without them. But on the other hand I want to say that we have gained by it. We have begun by recovering some of the goodwill we forfeited over the years.

Adjustments of this kind have to be made. If the hon. ex-Chief Whip says that the Government is not changing its policy and that these are simply adjustments, and if that satisfies the Government, we too are satisfied. But let the adjustments be made more rapidly, as is happening in the field of sport at the moment. You know, Sir, the adjustments in the field of sport are following one another so rapidly that when a Cabinet Minister—and I do not believe that it was the hon. the Minister of Agriculture—was recently asked at a meeting what the Government’s sport policy was, he said that he regretted not being able to say what it was because he had not yet had the opportunity that morning of talking to Piet Koornhof. Our point of view is clear, and this is also the undertaking given to U.N., that this type of discrimination must be eliminated, no matter how we look at it. Because you see, Sir, discrimination on a personal basis is one matter. One will always have that, but what we have here is that discriminatory measures have been incorporated in our legislation and entrenched in the statutes. What this is going to mean is that the whole theory, the whole approach of the Government, the whole relations policy, will have to be reviewed in this essence. I think this is where the hon. the Prime Minister can make his great contribution and where he will really be able to prove his statesmanship to all of us. You see, Sir, what is happening here is that we had a breathing space for years, and there was time. We could talk about blueprints; we could wax lyrical about all the things that would still be done. But now with this dimension, this new dimension, we are required to take these steps immediately. Today it is no longer the blueprints, the visions, which are important; what is vitally important for us is whether the policy of the Government can be applied immediately or not. What everybody is asking today is how this relations policy is going to be applied. Here, I think, we should immediately accept that the Government is running into difficulties. I have only to refer to one or two matters.

In the first place, I refer to the position in respect of the Coloureds. The Coloureds were recently asked to pass judgment and they did so in an unequivocal way. The legislation the Government had before this House a week or two ago is an admission of failure. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow merely used the few minutes at his disposal to make a number of broad statements, inter alia, that the policy of separate development or the situation as regards human relationships will have to be fundamentally revised. Listening to him, however, it immediately becomes clear that what the hon. member understands by revision and alteration of relationships only means a policy of integration as he sees it.

The hon. member also puts forward an excuse for the response which the remarks he made during the Budget debate concerning our defence expenditure met with. I should like to quote to the hon.member a few sentences from his speech (Hansard, 9 April 1975, col. 3725)—

The hon. member himself went on to say

Whenever the hon. the Prime Minister’s détente policy is in the foreground, the hon. member is continually pointing out that there is supposedly still such a lot of discrimination in South Africa. When the defence budget is in the foreground and the Government is doing its duty in regard to this task, the hon. member intimates that we should have done much better to have bought tractors rather than tank defence. Such a step would have been more productive. I should like to tell the hon. member that even that statement of his is very short-sighted and incorrect.

Looking at the defence expenditure, one cannot and may not see it merely as a negative and unproductive expenditure. I want to point out to the hon. member that the Department of Defence has no fewer than 200 contractors in South Africa that provide it with its requirements. Over the past year, 1974-’75, no fewer than 6 000 contracts were awarded. This means that thousands upon thousands of people are afforded employment, a living, by this department. In our economic set-up it is quite wrong to say, “This R1 000 million seems to us to be very unproductive. We should have liked to see you buying tractors.” We must bear in mind that our defence set-up today forms part of the development of our entire national economy. If the hon. member always wants to place a question mark over everything, then he is making absolutely no contribution except to tell the enemies of South Africa, “Look, our Government is aiming our country more effectively. You must make a point of that at the U.N.”

As regards discrimination, I want to point out to the hon. member that we recognize that there is discrimination in South Africa, but that it is chiefly because we are dealing here with peoples and population groups which are at entirely different stages of development. No Black man could take it amiss of the hon. member that he is driving a shiny black car while the Black man is still walking along the road. These are people who live in different worlds. We in South Africa are engaged in the development of a diversity of peoples, each in its own right and each with its own sovereignty. As these lagging or less developed peoples make progress, we eliminate discrimination. The hon. member referred to the Nico Malan Theatre. Our arguments in this regard have already been discussed here and the reasons mentioned —for example, that there is no alternative provided, etc. One of the reasons why it is practicable for the Government to do this is the fact that the Coloured population have progressed so far along their part of cultural and economic development. [Interjection.] The hon. member who is laughing there now does not know what he is talking about. In the Cape Peninsula alone there are literally thousands of people today who can make use of those facilities, who can not only afford it, but who have also reached and maintained that level of development which enables them to use it fruitfully.

The hon. member for Hillbrow would therefore do well to make a positive contribution here instead of questioning and undermining everything.

I should like to point out that according to the Economic Development Programme, South Africa will require the amount of R37 billion in development capital over the next five years, between 1974 to 1979. If we are to believe the hon. member’s story, he is a person who knows something about the world and the economy. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are responsible for this great vision in regard to the planning and the development of South Africa. This does not apply to Whites only, but also to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu. The question now is where the necessary capital is to come from. I can still remember how, in Mr. Havenga’s time, hon. members complained when savings were effected on the current account and these were utilized for capital requirements that the money should rather have been borrowed. However, these funds will be found by means of the thrift of the people of South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that they will be found in the next four or five years, too, precisely because the Government is engaged in the policy of détente and détente politics with regard to the outside world, with regard to Africa and with regard, too, to South Africa. This gives our own industrialists and developers confidence in the future. What is more, when we consider the outside world and the capital we require from the outside world, this also creates confidence in the financiers of the Western world in particular, but of those in the Middle East as well. We read in the newspapers that people from countries in the Middle East who possess a great deal of reserve capital today are coming to look at certain projects that are being submitted to hem. They are showing interest, at last. In other words, the Government’s policy is creating a basis of order, peace and friendly coexistence that encourages the investors of the outside world to invest in South Africa.

The economic development will not only attract money from abroad and encourage our own industrialists and bodies well provided with capital to spend money on the development of South Africa, but will also attract more skills to South Africa. I am sure that in these times of unemployment in Europe the Government will give serious attention to bringing additional top skills to South Africa with a view to the establishment of the next Sasol, a project that is included in that amount I have just mentioned and which will cost R1 000 million. However, in bringing in these skills, it will be ensured that our non-White workers, whether Coloureds or Bantu, are not expelled from their jobs, but on the contrary, that bodies and large industries will establish developments so that these people, who simply do not possess the skill, will be provided with employment opportunities. The world’s and our country’s potential must be made available to them. I want to take this opportunity today of conveying my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government on this major and positive programme of development. The hon. the Prime Minister is not only devoting himself to détente in regard to foreign situations and African States. Simultaneously with this whole process we are, at the same time, engaged in causing South Africa to develop in the economic sphere and in equipping South Africa and making it as prepared as possible. If, then, President Kaunda should speak abroad as he did again this weekend, then he should be aware that he will not catch South Africa defenceless. The same goes for any State that has always had in mind that South Africa would have to reckon with a military confrontation at some stage. South Africa is moving ahead, and it is not only we Whites who are moving ahead. In the process we are also guiding the Bantu peoples towards independence, towards self-government, in the fullest sense of the word. We are also giving the Coloured population control and a say over their own affairs to an increasing extent and at the same time we are securing the White population on South Africa because the future, security and progress of South Africa are equally, and to a very great extent, too, dependent on that.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not react to the hon. member’s argument about President Kaunda, because I should like to develop my own argument. However, I want to say to him that when he talks about “positive” and “negative” in this House, his criterion is wrong. Of course, the Government and hon. members on that side, always think one is being positive only when one agrees with them while one is being negative the moment one criticizes them. This is the type of criterion which is not going to help us much.

I have tried to indicate that as far as we understand the matter, the Government’s policy in respect of the Coloureds in this country is all to pieces. What happened recently is an indication of this. Who on earth could claim that if one’s policy were working, one would pass the kind of measure the Government has passed in this House? They say that if the Coloured Representative Council does not go along with them any more, the Government will take back and take over everything from them. Under these circumstances, if any member sees this as an indication of the success of the Government’s policy, we really do have different points of view. Under these circumstances, one would have expected the Government to have taken a new initiative, to have produced something to serve as an alternative. However, all we have heard up to now is that liaison is going to take place at Cabinet level. We are told—and the hon. member for Johannesburg West endorses it—that it is important to be able to work at Cabinet level because that is where all matters of importance are dealt with. Apparently what we do here is of little importance. If one follows that argument through to its conclusion, one could just as well do away with Parliament altogether, because what are we then doing here?

What are you doing here in any case?

If the argument is now advanced that this liaison has to be handled only by the Cabinet, and this has to be seen as the alternative for the representation of these people in a legislative authority, surely it is a constitutional monstrosity. Surely such a thing could never exist. I say that this is only a further indication of the fact that the Government does not know how to handle the matter.

Let us look at a second problem. The Government’s whole relations policy is aimed at the homelands’ becoming independent, notwithstanding the fact that many of them are impoverished. If I may now refer here to what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister the other day, I want to say that I think that although his argument was relevant, we really should be careful not to take it too far. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the Budget in Lesotho which amounts to only R17 million. He compared this with that of KwaZulu, which amounts to approximately R92 million. It is true that it is very small. I just want to mention in passing that the part KwaZulu itself contributes is also only R17 million. The rest of the R92 million comes from us. But even this is nothing extraordinary, because with a population of 4 million people, as there is in KwaZulu, it means that that Budget is, in any case, only R25 per capita annually. Just to get the perspective right, I may mention that the per capita amount in the Budget of the Republic of South Africa itself is nearly ten times as much. If we were to take only the Whites in South Africa into account, we could raise that figure of ten times even higher. The fact is that we do have Bantu homelands that we know to be impoverished. We have Bantu homelands consisting of fragments like Humpty Dumpty so that they can never be put together. We have Bantu homelands that can scarcely offer a livelihood to a third of their population. Yet the basis of the Government’s policy is that those areas have to become independent. The theory sounds fine, but what do we find in practice? Apart from one or two of them, they do not want to become independent. What then becomes of the Government’s policy? How can independence be pushed down the throats of people who do not want it? If they do not become independent, surely the whole policy is a farce. The hon. the Prime Minister told us furthermore that if they do not become independent, they will remain as they are. That, too, we know cannot continue. Surely nobody is satisfied with the status quo as it exists at the moment under the Government’s policy. Nobody wants them to remain as they are. How can one say that a policy is successful if one has a policy which is heading for a certain target …

Japie is cleverer than that.

I am not talking about somebody else. The hon. the Minister can reply to the argument. We should like to hear what he has to say. He should tell us how a policy can be successful if it is going to be applied to a group of people who do not want it. Why do they not want it? Have hon. members on the other side ever asked themselves why the Black leaders in South Africa act so strangely as to say they do not want independence? Has anyone asked himself what the reasons are? When one talks to the Black leaders, one should sit around a table with them and one has truly to consult with them—man to man—and not in the way the hon. the Minister consults with them.

When have you seen me talking to them?

We often talk to them, after all.

When have you seen me talking to them?

After all, we hear the way in which the hon. the Minister talks to them and we know how you talk here. When one talks to these Black leaders and one refers to the Government’s policy of independence, and one asks why they do not want to accept it, their reasons—whether hon. members opposite or I want to accept it or not—are very clear. In the first place they say that they were never consulted about it, that it is the policy of the White man in which they were never consulted.

Who said that?

All of them. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member really mean to tell us that the Black leaders do not say so?

Who said so?

This has been said by Chief Buthelezi as well as by some of the others.

Mention just another one.

Chief Mangope has said the same thing. They all say this, except Chief Kaiser Matanzima. [Interjections.] It would seem to me as though hon. members do not want to accept this. I can assure them that this is so. They say that they were not consulted when that policy was formulated. In the second place they say that when one looks at South Africa, one sees large cities with beautiful buildings and factories. That is where 90% of South Africa’s economic activity takes place. They say what we want to do is to eliminate them. They say that with this policy of independence we want to give them those parts that are impoverished, parts which in many cases have not yet been consolidated. They say that we in South Africa have an economic cake and that we only want to give them a small slice. This, they say, they are not going to accept. If I were wrong and hon. members right, surely homeland leaders would be queueing for independence. Surely everybody would then be insisting on it. Hon. members opposite should show me who is now insisting on it. In the third place they say that if they have to accept independence, they will insist on receiving a much larger part of South Africa’s territory than is allocated to them at the moment. Here we have a position where the Government is setting certain targets for the Black countries while they, with one or two exceptions, do not accept it.

I should say that this is a complete failure of the Government’s relations policy. This is an indication, once again, that the whole essence of this matter should be reviewed. It is clear, too, that this is what is going to happen. The Government will have to accept in principle that there should be the greatest possible decentralization of political decision-making in this country, and when they have accepted that principle, they will also have to accept that there should be co-ordination and synthesis between and a joining of all these groups on matters which affect everyone. In whatever way one wants to approach this, in the final analysis it boils down to a federal approach. This Government will undoubtedly have to move in that direction. Already we read in the weekend newspapers that they are now talking about a council of nationalities which should be created. I want to say that a political organ will have to be created at some stage which would represent all these different political groups in South Africa. There is no way of escaping this. Therefore, the sooner we accept the principles of a federal approach, the easier it will be for all of us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made a number of general statements but I should like to reply to him in regard to the homelands and their viability as future economically autonomous and independent entities. To start with, I just want to point out that he acknowledged the distinction between differentiation and discrimination, in contrast to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who said in the no-confidence debate that the two words meant precisely the same. However, this hon. member followed the leadership of his leader, in that his leader did admit this towards the end of the no-confidence debate. He said that differentiation meant to distinguish voluntarily whereas it constituted discrimination when there was compulsory separation. Under the United Party’s policy of federation there would be a federation of nations, and consequently there would have to be separate voters’ rolls for the people who vote for the Coloureds’ councils, for the Whites’ councils, for the Indians’ council and for those of the Bantu. I want to ask the hon. member whether it would, then, be the right of every voter to choose the voters’ roll he wanted to be on and whether that could be termed differentiation because it was voluntary. Or would there be race classification as a result of which every man, irrespective of his own free choice, would be obliged to vote on the voters’ roll where he belonged and where he was classified? Would that, then, be discrimination? Is the policy of that hon. member and his party, then, based on discrimination? The United Party will have to admit that there is a real difference between differentiation, defined as positive measures of differentiation even though they contain an element of compulsion, and discrimination, in the usual sense of being insulting and humiliating. We shall do away with measures of that kind.

When?

… but what is necessary in order to maintain our identity and give the other peoples in South Africa the opportunity to maintain their identity, too, and allow it to develop, we shall do by way of differentiation. The United Party is similarly based on differentiation. They are simply playing with words when they come up with this insubstantial definition I have just exposed, and to which that party is unable to furnish an answer.

The hon. member made mention, inter alia, of the fact that the homelands will be inferior by implication as if we are offering them a dummy when we want to give them their independence.

That is precisely what they say.

I want to begin by asking the hon. member whether the independence of Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana is an inferior independence. Is Lesotho an inferior little state whose independence is insignificant, the same Lesotho which, as the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated, has a smaller Budget than all but one of our homelands? The hon. member cannot reply to me on that score because all he is interested in is that the policy of the National Party should fare badly because he sees that we are on the point of reaching the stage of realization in regard to this aspect. We are on the point of making a breakthrough in regard to the independence of homelands, and Africa is perceiving this concept and accepting it. This is what we are telling them through the hon. the Prime Minister; and they believe what he says.

In fact, our homelands are more viable than many other African states. I shall tell you why. In the first instance the concept “viable” is not a concept one should apply to a developed country. It is a concept which applies in particular to an under-developed or developing country and which is used in respect of such a country. Viable means that it is not alive yet, but that it is capable of life. It means, therefore, that it has an inherent potential and not that it has already been born and has already developed that potential. Consequently, when we say the homelands are viable, then we have good ground for saying so, because even though the homelands may not have a flourishing or attractive economy, a number of the homelands do have potential in the form of raw materials and minerals. They have the potential in the sense that they have the finest agricultural land in South Africa, and in that they possess an outstanding and large potential manpower that is waiting to be utilized under the leadership of the homeland governments themselves and not for the sake of our economy, but for the sake of their economy. Hon. members opposite want to misuse that manpower for the benefit of their economy, for the benefit of the White economy, for the benefit of those who are financially powerful today.

Apart from this major potential, there is pre-eminently another cardinal factor which makes our homelands viable, and more viable than virtually any other under-developed or developing country in the world. I refer to the factor that our homelands have a neighbour in the form of the Republic of South Africa, a neighbour that extends its hand to these homelands and says, “I shall help you before you become independent, when you become independent and after you have become independent.” It is a neighbour with a powerful economy, with the means and the knowledge to assist in the development of the viability of the homelands and, by applying its knowledge and utilizing the means at its disposal, to assist in developing an economy for each that will be comparable with the best of the smaller states in Africa. We want to assist them by means of sureties for loans and by means of technical advice and by means of guidance as long as this is requested. We also want to assist them by recognizing their contribution to the indirect taxes we collect.

On 2 October 1974, the hon. the Prime Minister said before the South African Federated Chamber of Industries—

After he had indicated the various ways in which we wished to assist them, he went on to point out too, that there was a new formula that had been proposed to stabilize their income, a formula which, although it would not directly affect the extent of their income, would enable the homelands to continue in the secure knowledge of what their income would be. Such neighbour not only wishes to offer assistance in regard to these homelands, but also wants to forge a link in regard to economic interdependence so that the homelands will benefit in this way, too. As far as the contribution at the level of economic taxation is concerned, the homelands are eminently viable. They are not being left to their own devices by colonial powers that left them as rats leave a sinking ship. No, Sir. They are being taken by the hand by a Government which states that although it wants to protect what belongs to it, it also desires, through fairness and justice, to create a future for every other national group in the area which is at present under its control.

Then, to conclude, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said that if our policy were to succeed, we should have to form a co-ordinating body. Where is the really authoritative co-ordinating body in Europe? After all, independent states can exist side by side, can co-exist peacefully and co-ordinate by way of agreement and discussion without having an umbrella authoritative body, such as a federal structure, in charge. Surely they can form a power bloc like the European Economic Community without integrating and acquiring a joint say in the affairs of the various national groups. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately unable to be here on Thursday and Friday, and for that reason I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to add a few thoughts to what has been said here on the question of South West Africa. Sir, anyone who has been watching the climate in Africa over the past few weeks and who has also been watching the developments in Dar-es-Salaam, as explained here on Friday morning by the hon. the Prime Minister, inter alia, will realize that from now on attention will be sharply focused on two questions: The one is South West Africa and the other is Rhodesia. Sir, I can think of nothing more dangerous for a country to do than to allow its actions to be determined by outside pressure or by outside events, or to display such a lack of initiative as to play into the hands of those of its opponents who are in favour of using violence. If we were to allow the impression to be created abroad that in respect of South West Africa we only act in so far as pressure is brought to bear on us, it would cause the pressure to be intensified, and this in turn would have an adverse effect on the relations between the various peoples within South West, for it would create expectations on the part of certain groups in South West, who would then be less inclined to help find a solution internally. There are many other reasons, but from every point of view it would be in the best interests of the Republic as well as South West Africa for the Government itself to take a strong and a clear initiative which will lead to a speedy and final solution to the problem of South West Africa. Sir, as the matter stands at the moment, the Government has already committed South Africa to certain views. The first is recognition of the fact that South. West Africa is a territory which has an international status as a whole, and the second is acceptance of the principle that it will be lead the territory to self-determination and independence. Consequently no doubt exists as to the Government’s broad policy in respect of South West, but since it has now decided on this course, the Republic as well as the people in South West are entitled to learn from the Government how it is going to apply its declared policy of self-determination and independence in South West. Particularly the people who are living in South West Africa are entitled to know in practical terms what the future holds for them. Sir, compare with this the Government’s handling of the homeland question. Take the case of the Transkei. The Government’s declared policy in respect of the Transkei is political independence for the territory. It has declared that this may happen as early as next year, and the 1½ million Xhosas living there, the approximately 10 000 Whites living there, the 8 000 Coloured people and the 83 000 members of other population groups living there, know exactly what is being planned and what is at stake for them. Furthermore, Sir, no session of Parliament passes without preparatory steps being taken here in Parliament and powers being transferred to the Transkei. We have just learnt that the Transkei is to have its own defence force, and overseas and at the U.N. all this is spelt out to the world down to the last detail. In fact, the Government is using the Transkei and the way in which it is actually leading the territory to independence as positive propaganda abroad, and it is one of the means it is using in an attempt to achieve better international relations for South Africa; but strangely enough it is not doing the same in respect of South West, which, after all, is a territory which is attracting much more attention in the outside world and which has the status of an international territory.

Sir, for the economic development which is taking place there and for the honest attempts of Messrs. Mudge and Van Zyl to bring together representatives of all the population groups around a table for dialogue, they deserve encouragement and they do in fact receive encouragement from us. Credit is due for these things, but we believe that the Government is making a mistake by not beginning with the existing political parties. The final decisions will be taken by legislative bodies; this we all know, and even this Parliament will have a part to play when the time comes, but in any country—and this applies to South West as well—the really politically aware, the politically active people are concentrated in the political parties, and this is especially the case in South West, where as yet there are only two population groups, the Whites and the Rehobothers, who have fully representative political institutions. Six population groups do not have any generally representative bodies as yet. As against this, there are more than 20 political groupings and parties in the country. Some of them are making ridiculous claims and we fully agree with the hon. the Prime Minister when he says that Swapo and its leader have no right to give themselves out to be the sole representatives of the whole South West Africa. But the mistake that the Government is making lies in the fact that one would simply be looking for trouble and opposition by ignoring the existing political parties in the preliminary political processes which are being planned. It seems to me that it would have been sensible to begin by giving all political parties an opportunity to declare themselves openly as to the support or membership they have, who is represented by each one and what each one’s constitutional policy is in respect of the various population groups and the future of South West Africa. Conflicting and exaggerated claims would very soon be sorted out between them, but on the positive side it would soon appear whether there are certain lines of thought which are fairly generally acceptable and which could serve as a basis for discussion at the constitutional conference. But to exclude political parties as a matter of Government policy, even from the preliminary processes, as the Government wants to do, would only bring grist to the mill of the more militant political groups, and all those excluded would tend to offer opposition. This would apply particularly in the case of political parties such as Swapo.

The hon. the Prime Minister has advanced the argument here that it would cause a Babel of confusion if all the political parties were to take part in the process, but that argument does not hold water. So far, only three groups have designated representatives. The Coloured people have designated six, representing all the political parties to which the Coloured people belong. The Namas have designated ten, representing all the political parties to which the Namas belong. The Whites have designated only two, representing only the National Party. Now I say that if the hon. the Prime Minister expects a Babel of confusion to arise from the participation of political parties, then the foundation for this has already been laid. In any case I should like to know how anyone is going to determine what the majority party is in the case of a non-White group which does not yet have an elected political institution. Unfortunately the South West question is one in which time is on no one’s side and no one will benefit by a leisurely approach. Apart from the reasons I have mentioned why we should take a strong initiative in regard to the South West question, it should be clear to all that until such time as the South West question has been settled, it will remain a serious source of tension between us and the rest of the world. Normal relations between us and the major part of Africa will be prevented as long as this problem remains unsolved. As far as we are concerned, what happens to South West Africa is much more important than what happens to Rhodesia, and for this reason the South West question deserves our first and most urgent attention. If a final settlement is delayed too long, we must expect uncertainty within the territory to increase, with bad economic consequences for all. The most vexing problem, however, is the fact that the nucleus of a so-called “liberation army”—and I use these words in quotation marks—is already taking shape around Swapo in nearby African states, with its headquarters in Dar-es-Salaam. It has already been reported by a researcher such as Dr. Gerhardt Tötemeyer that Sam Nujoma has been followed by anything up to a thousand people and that approximately 3 000 Owambos crossed the border to Zambia last year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said about South West is really nothing new, after all he has said here in the past. The only new standpoint which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, too, have adopted in regard to South West up to now, is the fact that they too have now climbed on to the bandwagon and rejected Swapo. There was a time when hon. members on that side of the House made use of the leaders of Swapo to prove what tensions had been created in South West. They also devoted a great deal of attention to the attitude of Swapo and to the Swapo leaders.

Up to now the debate has, for the most part, hinged on two matters. The first has been the domestic relations policy of South Africa and the second has been the attitude of South Africa to the rest of the world, and to Africa in particular. In discussing this, it also became very clear that there is a major difference of approach between the National Party and the joint opposition. This difference in approach lies in the fact that these two aspects are viewed from different angles by the two sides of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister defined the standpoint of this side of the House very clearly when he said, “South Africa extends its hand of friendship to Africa as we are.” That is a very important statement made by the Prime Minister, in order to lay down the basis on which South Africa holds discussions with other countries beyond the borders of South Africa. It is a basis laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister, not only in this House, but also at various other places. This is the basis he lays down as a condition when he talks to African leaders and the hon. the Prime Minister does not hesitate to make known to South Africa the basis on which détente is conducted. To me, this basis implies two extremely important things. In the first place—as the hon. the Prime Minister has also said—South Africa does not force itself upon any other country in the world. This means that South Africa is not grovelling, nor is it prepared to grovel. If a country is prepared to grovel for the sake of friendship, then it means that such a country is forfeiting its self-respect and when a country has forfeited its self-respect, then it is no longer capable of conducting dialogue on equal terms. When one begins to grovel, then this simply means that one is not the equal of the State with which one is conducting dialogue. But to me there is a second meaning, too, arising from this basis, namely that in conducting détente and dialogue with whatever country in the world, South Africa is not prepared to do so on the condition that that country will interfere with the domestic policy of South Africa. We do not permit this, because South Africa alone is responsible for establishing lasting peace on the basis of peaceful coexistence, on which stability in South Africa must be built.

We have also taken cognizance of the fact that certain members of the Opposition, too, have conducted dialogue beyond the borders of South Africa. We have taken cognizance of the fact that people from all the groups sitting here have crossed our borders and held discussions with African leaders. By implication they requested the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister for this in this debate. The Prime Minister does not restrict them from doing so, although he has issued words of warning. On each occasion, in this process of conducting dialogue with other African leaders, they have come and told us that certain things would have to be done in South Africa. Not a single person in the ranks of the Opposition has come back and told us that he held discussions on this or that basis. The question I vant to put to hon. members opposite is this: When do they want to take this House and the country into their confidence and tell us on what basis they conduct discussions with leaders of other African States? We are not interested when they come back and tell us about everything that must be done to bring about peace in Africa. We want to know what conditions they laid down in conducting détente discussions. The fact is that the Opposition has remained silent as to the basis on which they conducted discussions. It became clear from the speeches made here that when reference is made to the relations between South Africa and Africa, this is immediately linked to our domestic policy; it is our domestic policy that is a stumbling block to good relations with the rest of the world. From this is evident the clear difference between our side of the House and that side of the House. The approach of the United Party and the other two groups sitting here is that the domestic relations policy of South Africa must be cast on a mould that will make it acceptable to the rest of the world. All the formulas the United Party, the Progressive Party and the Reform Party have sought up to now are cast in the mould of acceptability to the rest of Africa and the rest of the world. That is the difference in viewpoint between our side of the House and that side of the House. In adopting this premise, the United Party and the other parties are forgetting that there are countries in Africa that desire friendship with South Africa without interference in the policy of South Africa. They are also forgetting the extensive penetration of Communism into Africa. They are forgetting the campaign of penetration being conducted by Communism in Africa. In this Communist campaign, that is conducted under the cloak of human rights and human freedoms, South Africa is a target, not for the sake of human rights and the freeing of people, but for the sake of South Africa, for the strategic value of South Africa and for the developed riches of South Africa. At this period of our history I want to maintain that the United Party and other Opposition parties have deprived themselves of a meaningful role in the solution of the problems of South Africa. In fact, the Opposition has become a burden on South African politics at this juncture. They have become a burden because their search for formulas that might be acceptable to the world have resulted in the dividedness they are experiencing at present. [Time expired.]

What does Water-berg say?

Mr. Chairman, what I found particularly interesting this afternoon was the two occasions the hon. member for Hillbrow participated in the debate. If this was a practice run for the new leadership, I do not think it was very successful. Consequently I want to tell the hon. the Leader that he should please remain as long as he possibly can. The hon. member for Hillbrow revived a rather hackneyed argument here, an argument which was raised in former years by my friend, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but which he never uses any more. He said our policy was lying in pieces all around us. That is what he said here this afternoon. Of course, that is not true. Our policy is not lying in pieces all around us, but the United Party is in a state of chaos, and the hon. member for Hillbrow would do well to ask himself to what extent he contributed to causing that chaos. To judge from newspaper reports, and from what one hears in this place, it was not inconsiderable. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow was once again unable to resist the temptation to speak rather disparagingly of the Bantu homelands. The hon. member will recall that a year or two or three ago, in a very uncalled for manner, he spoke very disparagingly in this House of Malawi, and do you know, Sir, that this is still being used against South Africa today.

What about your remarks about Kaunda?

If the hon. member does not want to believe me, I can bring him the names of people, people who are entirely removed from my party context, who will in fact tell him this.

I furnished an explanation in that regard.

No, there was nothing to explain. It was an uncalled for disparagement, not of a person or a system, but of a country, viz. Malawi. It did not go unnoticed by the inhabitants of that country. I have reason to know this. Certain employers in this country also have reason to know this, and they can tell the hon. member so. I want to tell the hon. member, and this is an argument which one ought to use when speaking to other people, that our homelands are not inferior. They merely have a backlog in respect of development. Nor are they the only areas in Africa which have a backlog in respect of development. This applies to the whole of Africa. Their problem is in fact Africa’s problem.

At the outset of his speech the hon. member attacked us on discrimination. The hon. member simply made the statement, and I wrote it down at the time, “Discrimination is compulsory separation.”

Which is to the detriment of the other … [Interjections.]

No, the hon. member did not add that. The hon. member said: “Discrimination is compulsory separation.”

Which, is to the detriment of the other individual.

Very well then. As far as I can remember, the hon. member did not add that, but if it should appear that I am wrong, I shall apologize. However, I am prepared to argue both these possibilities with him. Therefore the hon. member may add the little tailpiece to it if he wishes. If one says that under law and ordinance White children have to attend one school, Coloured children another, Indian children another and Black children still another, is it discrimination, or is it differentiation?

If I spend twenty times as much on school education for Whites as I spend on that for non-Whites, it is discrimination.

Let us forget now how much is spent on the one or on the other. I am now dealing with the principle. Is it discrimination if one says that Coloured children have to attend the one school, Indian children another and White children still another?

Tell us about the discrimination that you want to do away with.

I am now dealing with an argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow. I would say that it is to the own advantage of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that I deal with that hon. member. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow raised that argument. I mentioned the case of the schools to him, and now I want to go a step further with him. If one now maintains, as the United Party apparently still does at the moment, that there will be different voters’ lists—which will be determined by an Act of this Parliament—for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, is that differentiation or is it discrimination? We will get no reply at all to that, but without rhyme or reason the hon. member advances this kind of argument here to cast suspicion on this Government outside, without giving any thought to the fact that it is their own policy that there should be different schools which should be determined by ordinance, and that there should be different voters’ lists which would be determined by an Act of Parliament.

Each community will have its own legislative council.

If one does not want to allow these people to become independent, but wants to allow them all to live within one country, surely you are discriminating by not giving them representation in one and the same council. Then surely that is discrimination! Why be pious about this now?

I want to deal with points raised by various hon. members in this debate. The hon. member for Durban Point asked me whether an agreement had been concluded with the Transkeian Government in respect of defence. The reply is: No, no agreement has been concluded between the Government of South Africa and the present Government of the Transkei. Nor can such an agreement, of course, be concluded at this stage. The Transkei is not an independent state and consequently such an agreement cannot be concluded with it. A time will come when all agreements concluded with the Transkei, or to be concluded with them, will be debated in this Parliament. The matter of the Transkei becoming independent will be discussed fully in this Parliament, and then it will be possible to discuss matters such as these as well. What is being done now is that the Transkei is being advised in regard to a nucleus which has to be built up and which does not yet exist in the Transkei. To speak at this stage of Nato and matters of that kind, is simply inapplicable. We are not remotely dealing with such a situation and we are not remotely, at this stage, dealing with such a development.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? When telecommunications, for example, are handed over, the matter is not discussed, nor is an agreement concluded on the use of those facilities by the rest of South Africa. So why does it happen in the case of defence that, if responsibilities in this regard are being transferred or forces are being established, the matter is not discussed?

There is no agreement on postal matters between this Government and the Government of the Transkei. It is merely a question of services which have up to now been rendered by the Post Office here, and which are now being transferred to that Government. In respect of police stations, there is no agreement between the Minister of Police and the Transkeian Government either. It is a question of the police stations which were previously controlled and manned by this Government, being transferred to that Government to administer. No formal agreements in that regard were concluded. Formal agreements are only concluded between independent countries. If agreements have to be concluded, and this will in fact have to be done in respect of many matters, this only happens as and when the Transkei becomes independent.

The hon. member for Sea Point made a plea here, one which has already been made from other quarters, and which I am compelled to deal with again, namely a plea for the release of, or reduced sentences for, Mandela and others who were sentenced with him. I want to make it very clear for the record that one is not dealing here with political detainees, as so many people abroad think, but with people who were sentenced by a competent court to imprisonment for a number of years. Please note, these are not people who fought for the rights of Black people; these are not people who ostensibly rebelled against the policy of separate development or apartheid; these are not people who wanted to obtain majority privileges for Black people, or anyone else for that matter, in South Africa, but self-acknowledged, card-carrying communists, who did not in any way have the interests of White, Black or Brown people in mind, but who wanted to establish a communist state here, not in the interests of any of South Africa’s peoples, but in the interests of the Kremlin and those gathered around the Kremlin. That is what they wanted to do. I also want to make it very clear that what was at issue here was not simply certain ideologies which these people cherished to, but substantive acts of murder, arson, and so on which these people committed.

I want to point out farther that, before they committed those acts, I personally issued the warning that there were people who were playing with fire in South Africa and that the persons concerned would serve out the sentences which the courts would impose if they were in fact to commit those acts. As far as I am concerned, I have a clear conscience about this matter. It did not involve young children. I dealt differently with them. Hon. members know that the young children who were misled, were released after a year or two, in my time as Minister of Justice, and I accept full responsibility for that. But we are dealing here with adults who, with a firm purpose and without having been influenced by other people, wanted to overthrow the State. And I reiterate that this was not done to achieve any benefit for the Black people, or any other people, but to establish a communist state here at the southernmost point of Africa. Those people are not entitled to anything in this regard. And because there are states in Africa and in the world that recognize these people as the leaders of the Black people of Africa instead of the elected, lawful leaders of the Black people, the hon. member cannot under any circumstances expect me to do anything in that regard. Consequently I shall simply leave the matter at that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for the umpteenth time now in the course of the years this matter has been discussed, has again advanced the following argument: “Détente abroad depends upon détente at home.” Now I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in all fairness: Who has done more to hold talks with Black, Brown and Indian leaders in South Africa than I? I have no qualms of conscience about this particular matter. I know that I went out of my way to reach an understanding with these people, and to hold man-to-man talks with them as leaders in their own right, and even if they differ with me, they appreciate this. Not only do they appreciate the fact that I am holding talks with them. They also appreciate the manner and the spirit in which these talks are being held with them. But what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and naturally the hon. member for Hillbrow, have in mind, is not that we are holding talks with these people. Their argument is that it is useless to hold talks with these people if we do not do so on the basis of the policy of the United Party. That is in fact the argument. However, it is no new argument. He advanced this argument five or six years ago. And now I want to be fair to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He advanced this argument in those years when it was still his policy to bring six Coloured, two Indian and eight Bantu representatives into this Parliament. He said that those people should be given representation in this Parliament, for that would then be the solution to all our problems. At the time he levelled the same reproach at me. Suppose I had listened to him and I had gone to the Black people, the Indians and the Coloureds and had persuaded them to accept this. Surely I would then have appeared terribly ridiculous after he had changed his policy, for then I would have had to go to them again and say to them: “I am terribly sorry. A few years ago the Leader of the Opposition persuaded me to conduct détente with you on the basis of six/two/eight representatives here in this Parliament You accepted that. At the time it was the solution to all our problems, but now the Leader of the Opposition and his party have changed their standpoint, and now I want you to join me in changing standpoints once again.” Sir, I maintain that this would surely have been a little absurd. Whether or not the hon. member agrees with my policy, this party has been elected to govern this country in accordance with a certain policy, and as long as the people entrust this party with the implementation of that policy, it will be the policy of this party which will be applied.

What is your Coloured policy now?

The hon. member is now advancing the nonsensical argument that we change our policy at frequent intervals. That is not true, but even if il were, it is I who change it, but now the hon. member wants me to change it as he wants to change it. That is even more foolish. Sir, on the one hand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member behind him say that we are changing our policy, but in the same breath they attack us here, saying that détente at home will fail because we are conducting it on the basis of the policy of separate development. They say in the same breath that it will fail because we are conducting it on the basis of apartheid. What becomes of the argument that we have changed it now? [Interjection.] I agree with the hon. member; it was rediculous to have advanced this argument.

Sir, as I have said, I am prepared at all times to hold a discussion, but on the basis of the policy of the National Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition returned again, as hon. members on that side do every time one has them in a corner, to the question of the urban Bantu and influx control. But surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that there is co-operation between the homeland leaders and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development precisely in respect of that problem. Surely he knows that at the beginning of this year we agreed that three homeland leaders, together with competent officials of the department, would look at influx control. I spelt out here what gave rise to that, and I reported here in this House that the homeland leaders were prepared to co-operate, if they are able to establish a better system to achieve the object which they agree with us should be achieved. What is in that entire argument then?

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the Rhodesian issue, to which I want to refer. In that regard he also put certain questions to me. I want to say at once to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have no knowledge of the time limit of six months to which he referred. I do not know where it comes from. I also want to tell him, in regard to the report which appeared in the Press of a referendum which Dr. Kissinger had allegedly advocated, that I have no knowledge of that either, except for what I read in the Press. Sir, the Rhodesian issue is, from the nature of the case and particularly at this stage, a particularly delicate one. In the past, by way of Press conferences and in this House, I said everything which one could and should say in that regard.

But it would perhaps be a good thing if we were simply to summarize a few of these matters briefly. Then I want to state, as my first argument, that South Africa’s conduct in respect of Rhodesia has at all times been irreproachable. As a Government we have throughout, over the years, discussed matters openly with the Rhodesian Government, and once again I want to make it very clear that we have never taken any decisions for them or given them any instructions. I find it necessary, and I am not laying this at the door of hon. members opposite, but of other people, to say that it is not necessary for uninformed or malicious persons to tell Rhodesia what our policy in regard to it is. We ourselves tell them what it is, and they are fully aware of precisely what it entails. But for the purposes of this debate, I want to make it clear that we are, together with Rhodesia, together with certain Black states, including Zambia, Botswana and Tanzania, seeking a peaceful solution, if possible, to this question. In that regard we will, from the nature of the case, not have the co-operation of the communists, nor of the extremists in Africa, and we will not have the co-operation of certain groups in South Africa itself. It may on a subsequent occasion be necessary for me to say more about these matters.

But, secondly, South Africa has made contacts with Zambia, because any person who knows anything about this entire Southern African set-up, will of course know that South Africa and Zambia have played a key role in this regard. After contact had been made, talks were held in October last year, towards the end of the parliamentary session, in Cape Town with envoys representing the presidents of Zambia, Botswana and Tanzania. They also spoke on behalf of Mr. Samora Machel. This contact, which was established in the first place between South Africa and those representatives, led to contact between Rhodesia and those same representatives in Pretoria, in Salisbury and in Lusaka. From that, in turn, resulted, inter alia, the release from detention of Zanu and Zapu leaders, and to the consent of the Rhodesian Government to their going to Lusaka for talks with the presidents and/or their representatives there on more than one occasion. It was Rhodesia’s decision that they should go there, and not South Africa that decided for Rhodesia or that forced a decision upon them. South Africa, as it was requested to do, was of assistance in bringing these persons to where the meeting was held. Over the months many meetings were held, and many meetings are still going to be held. Naturally there is a great deal one can say about this, but I do not think that the matter is advanced by saying too much about it. But if it is asked what the essential decisions which have now been arrived at in fact are, I want to say, firstly, that there will be negotiations between White Rhodesians, viz. Mr. Smith and his colleagues, on the one hand, and Black Rhodesians, viz. Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues on the other. Secondly, it has been agreed in principle among all the interested parties—and there can be no misunderstanding whatsoever concerning this matter—that White and Black leaders in Rhodesia will negotiate without any outside interference from any persons or bodies. White and Black leaders will negotiate and agree on the qualification which voters, regardless of race or colour, should possess for the election of a future Rhodesian Government.

What remains now is that such a discussion between Mr. Smith and his colleagues, on the one hand, and Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues on the other, should take place. I am aware that Mr. Smith is prepared to hold talks with the Black leaders. It is not fair to charge Mr. Smith with not wanting to speak to the Black people and that South Africa forced him to do so. It may be good for South Africa that this is now being said in the outside world, but it is not true. The fact of the matter is that even before South Africa and Zambia appeared on the scene, Mr. Smith had held talks with Bishop Muzorewa and his people and that they had arrived at certain agreements which unfortunately, as a result of subsequent events, disappeared into the sand.

Fourthly, since Mr. Smith and his people are prepared to hold talks, Bishop Muzorewa should be similarly prepared, and should agree to speak to Mr. Smith and his people. In other words, the parties should agree on a date on which they are not going to discuss this matter or that matter, but on which they will discuss this issue, which they have agreed in principle to discuss, and this issue only. If one reaches an agreement in respect of that issue, it automatically follows that one is also going to reach an agreement on all the minor points which may then still be outstanding.

But on the other hand, if one cannot reach an agreement on this cardinal issue, it goes without saying that an agreement between the parties cannot be achieved. I believe that if the necessary goodwill exists, and since this is the one thing which is outstanding, White and Black Rhodesians can find one another without interference on the part of any other State or any other person. This might not happen immediately, at the first or the second meeting, but if Whites and non-Whites, if Black and White Rhodesians value the future of their country—it cannot come from one side only—they will hold talks with one another assiduously to try in this way to reach an agreement with one another. In the weekend and in this morning’s Press there were certain reports on speeches and statements made by President Kaunda in the U.S.A. I should not like—this experience has taught me in the past—to comment conclusively on Press reports which I have not had time to verify. In the second place, I realize that President Kaunda and his colleagues are at present under very heavy pressure. I dealt with this matter last week. Having made that allowance and having said what I have said above, I believe that President Kaunda should guard against overstraining the bowstring. If one does this, one cannot further the cause of peace in Southern Africa, or do it any good. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, even if criticism because of this is levelled at this stage, I want to refrain from commenting, because I do not, on my part, in any way want to be the cause of the peace offensive in Southern Africa failing. My standpoint in respect of all the matters to which reference was made in this morning’s reports has been stated in full to the Presidents. I also want to state here that my standpoint on peace, as well as on the alternative and its consequences if it should fail, has also been stated in full. I think that people who are so ready to talk about these matters should bear in mind that South Africa initiated a peace offensive because it considered this to be in the supreme interest of Southern Africa, and that South Africa did not initiate a peace offensive out of fear, and that South Africa did not, least of all, initiate a peace offensive out of weakness. I trust that this will be borne in mind.

With reference to the report, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the withdrawal of the South African Police. My reply to that is as follows: The cryptic reference of Mr. Mwaanga in his speech in Dar-es-Salaam to the withdrawal of the South African Police from Rhodesia does not give the full story or background. In this regard I want to refer, firstly, to my previous statement on this matter, as well as to paragraph 5 of the communique which was issued after the visit by Mr. Smith to Cape Town on 19 March 1975. This interprets a standpoint which I have stated repeatedly to the envoys of the Presidents. I want to emphasize that the issue as far as we were concerned was never any actions within Rhodesia against any Rhodesian. In other words, we have never been, and never want to become, involved in the maintenance of the internal order of any State. The issue as far as we were concerned was the infiltration into Rhodesia of terrorists from elsewhere, with South Africa, too, as their target. We believe moreover that in order to afford Rhodesians themselves the opportunity of finding a solution among themselves, the negotiations between them should take place without outside interference from any source whatsoever. Obviously such a situation will not be created if organized, armed terrorists were to enter Rhodesia from adjoining countries. Our efforts have been directed at putting a stop to this. In precisely the same way we also did not want the presence of the S.A. Police to become a disturbing factor. Consequently the withdrawal of the S.A. Police from Rhodesia depends on the practical realization of this fundamental object, and in that regard certain things have already happened and we have also received certain assurances. Future action takes such assurances into account. I believe that this, for the moment, adequately disposes of that aspect.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with the question of détente abroad being dependent upon détente at home, and has sought once again to draw a distinction between differentiation and discrimination. I do not think there is any point in trying to define either differentiation or discrimination for the hon. gentleman. It has been done before in this House. I do want to suggest, however, to the hon. the Prime Minister that he has an ambassador who attended a meeting at the United Nations and who gave an assurance that South Africa was moving in the direction of doing away with all discrimination on the grounds of race or colour alone. Now, obviously, the hon. gentleman must have meant something when he spoke of that discrimination.

We dealt with that in a debate in this Parliament this year.

The hon. Prime Minister says that we dealt with that this year. What I want to come to is that that ambassador must have known what discrimination meant, and the hon. the Prime Minister in authorizing him to make that statement must have known what he meant by discrimination. If the hon. the Prime Minister does not know what discrimination is, let me tell him that he only has to talk to any Black man in South Africa in order to be told what hurtful discrimination is and what it means. I think that as far as this situation is concerned, one accepts that there has been a long historical pattern which it is not possible to remove overnight. What we want to see from this Government, however, is steps in the right direction. We want to see them making a start. We believe that only by making a start is our bona fides going to be accepted abroad and is the opportunity for détente abroad going to be strengthened.

The hon. the Prime Minister has sought to indicate that when we speak about détente at home we believe that détente at home can only be achieved in accordance with our policy. I believe that the policy of this side of the House is the best policy. That it is borne out by the persistence with which the Government takes over our policies. After all, they took over our policy on immigration; they took over our policy in respect of the Orange River scheme; —in respect of subsidies to smallholders and in respect of tax relief for married women. So I could go on. There are about 20 examples of, shall I say, daylight robbery by the hon. the Prime Minister of United Party policy. In case the hon. the Prime Minister has forgotten, let me remind him that I have told him before that if he takes any step which will lead to more satisfactory race relations in South Africa, to the removal of discrimination or to the advancement of the security of South Africa—even if it does not coincide with our policy—we on this side of the House will try to assist him. Therefore it seems to me that what we want is clarity on the sort of steps that should be taken. I suggested before to the hon. gentleman that what we required in South Africa was something like a council of State, a multi-racial advisory council where these things could be discussed and steps be taken to remove hurtful discrimination which was harming race relations to such an extent in South Africa.

We have dealt with that on ever so many occasions.

The hon. the Prime Minister says we have talked about that on many occasions. It is true, but what is that hon. gentleman doing? The hon. gentleman spoke here today about influx control and the urban Bantu and said these were matters that had been discussed before. Of course they have, but I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that if one takes the figure which was spent over the last ten years by the Department of Community Development on housing for all races in South Africa, it amounts to a sum of R592 million. Does the hon. gentleman know how much was spent on housing for Blacks, on the provisions of dwellings for Black people during that period? I believe the figure given in reply to a question in this House was R72 million. This means that roughly 12% of the amount spent on the provision of dwellings by the Department of Community development was spent on the Black people, who are far and away the biggest racial group in South Africa. I am not talking about private enterprise, and I am not talking about municipalities, but about what was spent by the Department of Community Development on the provision of dwellings. That is where the problem comes from and that is why there is a shortage of housing for the urban Bantu. That is why there are more jobs than there are houses for the urban Bantu in the urban areas. That is the problem to which I want to direct the attention of this Government. It is a vitally important problem.

The hon. gentleman has dealt with a number of questions but there are a number which have not yet been cleared up. One is whether the time limit of 30 May as set by the United Nations still stands or whether there has been a variation in respect of South West Africa. The second is in connection with, the time factor of ten years for freedom for South West Africa. That was some years ago. His ambassador since then has said that it may even happen sooner than that. I think we should have an indication by the hon. the Prime Minister of what time period he has in mind at the present time. I think the third thing we should like to know about South West Africa has reference to the question of a constitutional conference. Is the idea first of all to hold an exploratory conference and then a constitutional conference, or is the idea to hold a constitutional conference straight away which will deal with these matters? Then there is one other issue in respect of South West Africa which I think is vitally important. That is the question of the maintenance of the public confidence in respect of the economic development of the territory. The hon. gentleman knows that confidence has been shaken because of what has happened in Angola and because of what has happened in Mozambique. I think the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to make the position absolutely clear because the one vital thing that is necessary is the maintenance of the economic development and the maintenance of the confidence of the people who have money and capital invested in the territory.

The hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with the position of the S.A. Police and their withdrawal from the front line in Rhodesia. But I think there is another issue which we would like to have some information on, and that concerns the availability at the present time of camps for terrorists in Mozambique. It seems from Press reports that the terrorists at present operating in Rhodesia and ignoring the cease-fire, are operating from Mozambique if not from Zambia. We would like to know whether there has been any indication at all that there will be co-operation from the new authorities in Mozambique in respect of the denial of facilities to these terrorists for training camps or anything of that nature. I think that that is a vitally important question, one on which we have a right to hear from the hon. gentleman.

Lastly, the hon. the Prime Minister has said that he had no knowledge of a six-month period in respect of which there was to be a cease-fire. Was any period set? What is the basis for the cease-fire at the present time? How long will it continue?

There is no definite period.

I take it, then, that the cease-fire will continue so long as they believe that constitutional progress is being made as a result of the talks. I asked this question specifically because, according to the week-end newspapers, Bishop Muzorewa has refused to meet Mr. Smith for further talks. If he is refusing to meet him, it seems to me that the question is how long the cease-fire will continue. I think these are points on which the hon. the Prime Minister owes us further explanations.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with, great interest to the speeches by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the leader of the Progressive Party. They sang the praises of the hon. the Prime Minister. I listened with pleasure to the expressions of praise with regard to the major role played by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to détente. Nor could this be otherwise. It brought to mind an old Dutch expression “Ere wie ere toekomt”. (Honour where honour is due). Whereas the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has discussed détente in these terms and sung the praises of the hon. the Prime Minister, I immediately want to ask:“What other Prime Minister in South Africa has been instrumental in reducing tensions in and against South Africa to the same extent as the present Prime Minister has done? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition uttered words here today which, he also used in his first speech, viz.—

In other words, he states that détente outside South Africa is inseparably linked to détente within South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Where is there to be found another party, Government and policy with more power to reduce tensions than this very National Party Government, and the policy of autonomous development? [Interjections.] I see that hon. members of the Opposition do not agree with me. Let me then put a different question to them. Where is there to be found an Opposition and a party that were once in power—that is far back in the history of South Africa —and had a policy that contributed more towards the building up and damming up of tensions in South Africa, than this very Opposition that is now sitting opposite us?

Tell us about the third phase.

In a moment I am going to get a perambulator to wheel that child out of the House if you would allow me, Mr. Chairman. I can still remember the years 1943 to 1948 very clearly and I want to ask what that party opposite was doing at the time to reduce tensions. They were converting South Africa into a vast mixed territory. They set in motion a process, a process of integration, that has contributed towards the intertwining and interlocking of races in South Africa. It was then that we had the nests of iniquity, the fertile soil and the breeding ground for tension in South Africa. This was one of the reasons why we removed the Government of the time from office in 1948. They had a policy of laissez-faire. All they did in those days was to guide these people along the road of tension and friction and racial conflict. If we had not come into power, this would have developed into race violence, into bloodshed and into anarchy in South Africa. That is why, when we came to power in 1948, it was almost an act of Providence, a turning point in the political history of the country, that we should have come to the fore with a policy that reduced tensions, a policy of détente. The National Party policy is a policy whose aim it is to bring about peace in the country. It is a policy to guide the other peoples, whether they be the Coloureds, the Indians or the Black people in this country, but particularly the Black nations, to develop a pattern of their own through our policy of autonomous development that fits in with this very pattern of independent states in the whole of Africa today. What is wrong with this policy? It is a good policy. It is a policy of a Christian Government, of a Christian state, a policy infused with Christian justice. The aim of this policy is to guide these people towards maturity in their thinking, towards political autonomy and political independence. In other words, we are guiding these people towards self-determination and towards self-realization, even though they are people of different kinds. We are guiding them towards maturity in order that they may take their place among the peoples of the world one day. What is wrong with that? I say that this is a policy that has been established with the very aim of easing tensions. Hon. members opposite take it amiss of us. They say that we are engaged in détente here in our country and that this détente is not right. What is one of the things that contribute towards furthering the cause of détente? One must have dialogue. With whom must one have dialogue? One must have dialogue with the natural leaders of those separate peoples in South Africa. What did the old United Party Government do? They had only one policy and that was equal political rights for all civilized persons irrespective of race and colour. It was an unsatisfactory, inflated, unnatural political position which had a deprivative and degenerative effect on those separate communities they are referring to today. Those communities longed to have natural leaders, but the unsatisfactory political position of the United Party deprived these communities of their natural leaders. The leaders that came to the fore eventually suffered, so much frustration, owing to the unequal political competition, that eventually they fell into the hands of the agitators. They fell into the hands of the Communists and the ultra-liberalists and later we had them acting as co-instigators and agitators here on the Parade. That occurred during the war years in particular. There they injected mental poison into the receptive state of mind of White and Black in order to incite White and Black against each other. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister said that Swapo’s leader was the offspring of Fred Carneson and others. Those people were deprived of their natural leaders, but we succeeded in seeing to it that these communities came into their own again. Now they are producing leaders at all levels of national life. I think that it is a wonderful anchor in regard to the upholding of a nation that one should be represented by people of one’s own flesh and blood at the higher levels of one’s political life. It is with these natural leaders that the Prime Minister is conducting dialogue today in order to bring about détente so that there may be a relaxation of tensions and so that we can co-operate here peacefully as friends.

I also want to deal with another idea. I want to deal with the hon. member for Mooi River. I think that the hon. member for Mooi River has a very good constituency, and he made a good speech, but he ended his speech in a very ugly way. In fact he came along with the same theme as did his leader, namely that détente at home must take account of détente abroad. To begin with he made an excellent speech. I thought that if he were to continue like that, he would cross over to the National Party, but right at the end of his speech he said that we should be very careful. After having made this fine speech, he destroyed everything he had said, just like a cow in the beautiful grasslands of Natal that gives a beautiful bucket of milk and then kicks it over, by saying—

Sir, this is what is at the bottom of that: To begin with they come along with praise for the hon. the Prime Minister’s efforts to bring about détente, but before long they condemn the instrument he has to use to bring about détente. The hon. member goes on—

Sir, our policy is not “antediluvian”. It is a policy that has resulted from the experience we have had with the non-White peoples here. We developed a philosophy here, and this policy of autonomous development arose from that philosophy. This policy has been modernized in this modern world and it is the only policy capable of bringing about a relaxation of the tension in our fatherland. The hon. member goes on—

Sir, how can the hon. member compare the policy of autonomous development with an albatross? Surely that is not true. This policy is a dove of peace; it is a policy of détente. It is a policy that is aimed at effecting a reconciliation, to a large extent, between the aspirations of the non-Whites and the aspirations of the Whites. Our policy is not an albatross policy.

It is an ostrich policy.

I think that hon. member, the Chief Whip, is something of an ostrich. The hon. member is no longer a Whip. He has degenerated into a butcher-bird, a political cannibal. [Time expired.]

Sir in conclusion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put a few questions to me once again. In regard to housing, I want to point out to him that the Department of Community Development does not build houses for Black people. It does not fall under them. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I am inclined to disagree with him in respect of the percentage he mentioned. But this is a matter which could be discussed under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and the necessary figures could be furnished on that occasion.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether the date 30 May still stands. The only reply I can give him in this regard is that the Security Council decided on this date last year, and that the Security Council has not, since then, adopted any further resolutions on this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the ten-year period mentioned inter alia in the Escher report. The hon. the Leader is aware that Mr. Pik Botha said inter alia that with the development which was taking place among the peoples of South West Africa themselves, it could be assumed that that period would not be so long. I want to agree with him, but I want to reiterate that since we are dealing here with peoples who have to go through a certain development process and who have to designate their leaders, no one will be able to say precisely how long this will take. But I believe that with the impetus which this matter has gained among the peoples themselves, as a result of the fact that more and more peoples have designated their representatives, and with the new development which has come about and which I announced last week in regard to the establishment of a new division within the South West African Administration, this matter will indisputably be advanced. If the hon. the Leader were now to ask me whether their first meeting will be a full conference or whether it will be an exploratory conference, I would not of course be able to tell him now. All I can tell him is that exploratory conferences are taking place at this moment. These peoples are finding one another and are discussing matters with one another to an increasing extent, and if this continues, I could well imagine that by the time all the representatives have been designated, they will all be ready to hold a full-fledged conference in this regard. But I want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again that to my way of thinking, the moment South Africa intervenes in any respect in this matter, except to encourage it as we are doing under all circumstances, it is simply going to be said, again in the outside world that this is an action on the part of South Africa, and not a spontaneous and voluntary action on the part of those people themselves. As far as confidence in South West Africa is concerned—and I am glad the hon. the Leader drew my attention to this once again—hon. members will recall that after Sharpeville many people lost confidence in South Africa. Many people sold their properties here for a song and cleared out. Many of those people returned shamefacedly, to their own detriment no longer in possession of their properties. I just want to make it very clear here that as far as I am concerned I have every confidence in the world in the future of South West Africa. I think that any person who disposes of his property there because he is afraid of the future of South West Africa, is harming not only himself, but the territory as well. Consequently I want to express the hope and the confidence that people will not be too quick to take fright but will now more than ever before do everything to develop the Territory and its people, that people, instead of getting out of South West Africa, will in fact entrench themselves more firmly there, because the Territory and its people have a future. But what is making people afraid, is the story that South West Africa will be handed over to Sam Nujoma and his people, the story that it is stated in the constitution of Swapo that people will be deprived of their properties if they are not supporters of Swapo or oppose Swapo. But I believe that in view of the clear standpoint of South Africa in respect of Swapo and in respect of Sam Nujoma there is no need at all for people to be panick-stricken over that aspect of the matter, particularly when seen from the position that South West Africa can never mean anything in the world without the co-operation of South Africa—for the simple reason that the entire transportation system, which is of cardinal importance to South West Africa, depends on the goodwill of South Africa. Without the goodwill of South Africa there can be simply no development in South West Africa. Without the goodwill of South Africa there can be no economic growth, and without the goodwill of South Africa the peoples cannot, under any circumstances, prosper, purely as a result of geographic factors.

The last question was in regard to the terrorist camps in Mozambique. I want to point out to the hon. Leader that the representatives who held talks, not only with South Africa, but also with Rhodesia, spoke not only on behalf of Zambia, but on behalf of the future leaders of Zambia, Botswana, Tanzania and Mozambique. Therefore, what applies here in respect of Zambia, also applies in respect of Mozambique. I am pointing out, therefore, that there is contact between Rhodesia and Mozambique and that these matters are being discussed among themselves, can be discussed, and have in fact already been discussed in the past.

I made inquiries in regard to the first matter which my hon. friend raised, and the information I was able to obtain is that the R72 million of Community Development for the past ten years, was only for housing in the White areas. In the homelands, and also in the border areas, an amount of R120 million was spent, and in the two years 1973-’74 and 1974-75 alone, no less than R65 million was spent in this regard. In other words, it is clearly apparent from the short elucidation which I received, that the figures of my hon. friend in this regard where not correct.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The debate now moves from the emotion-charged atmosphere of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote to more mundane fields, but just as in the case of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, where we were discussing the present and future destiny of our people, the Bill which is now under discussion, has to do with the ownership of land in South Africa. I believe that in view of the lengthy Second Reading speech by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, it would only be a matter of courtesy for me to thank him for having given the Opposition a weekend to discuss the many aspects involved in the amendments as they are here in the Bill itself.

We should realize that the Bill amends a 1971 Act, the Sale of Land on Instalments Act, an Act which evoked tremendous interests in the legal world, the world of estate agents and the world of property-owners at that time. I think that we should realize that the government had in all fairness, prior to the 1971 Bill, prepared a draft Bill which was gazetted in the Government Gazette in December 1969 and an opportunity was given to all the parties concerned to study the implications of that Bill. I think that because of those implications we should refresh our memories on the principles which the then hon. Minister asked should be kept in the forefront of our consideration when drafting the Act and also in drafting the present amendments. The principles involved at the time were firstly, that all parties who had an interest in juristic acts in regard to the sale of land on instalments, had to receive full notification of such acts and, where necessary agree to them. Secondly, the rights and obligations of parties in terms of existing contracts must not be unfavourably affected by the proposed legislation or by any amendment now considered. Thirdly, the preferential rights of insured creditors must not be prejudiced by the envisaged legislation or the presently envisaged amendments to such legislation. Fourthly, the rights of any persons to mortgage or to pledge their assets must not be affected by any amendments which we may consider. Fifthly and finally the settlement of insolvent estates must not be delayed indefinitely. With these principles in front of us we will consider the amendments which have been incorporated in the Bill.

I think it is clear that we must also recognize that in the original Act the definition of “contract” made it clear that the legislation referred only to contracts of the purchase and sale of land in which the purchase price was payable in instalments over a period in excess of one year. This is a very important point. At all stages of the discussion of the principal Act the United Party welcomed the principles involved. We supported the Second Reading of the then Bill, because we believed that the Bill did much to provide the protection which was so necessary to the parties concerned in these contracts where the purchase and sale of land on instalments was involved. Let it be said that where the Englishman’s home is his castle, every South African dreams about the ownership of land. There is no doubt that we South Africans are deeply rooted in the soil of our country and that our people probably attach more value to land than any other nation on earth. There is a deep-rooted desire in every South African to own a piece of South Africa.

There is another factor which We must consider in the amending legislation now before the House, namely that our system of deeds registration is probably one of the finest systems of deeds registration in the civilized world. None of us would want to see any hasty legislation passed through this House at this time which would in any way act to the detriment of the present system of deeds registration as we know it in our country. The hon. the Minister in his marathon Second Reading speech, dealt at great length with the principles involved in the amendments which are now proposed. Those of us who have studied these amendments as well as the hon. the Minister’s speech in depth over the past few days, have at times wondered whether the situation has not become worse confounded than in the original Act. Mr. Bumble once commented that the law was an ass. I wonder whether this case does not give us food for thought in this regard. There is no doubt that all parties in this House are solemnly and calmly ad idem on what we want to achieve. The hon. the Minister knows that he will have the full support of this side of the House with the amending legislation. We want to achieve the maximum possible protection for all parties concerned where there is a contract for the purchase or sale of land on instalments. Yet, only three years after the principal Act was passed, an Act which, may I say, at the time was described by all those who contributed to the debate as a good and a sound Act, we find that we now have the Minister bringing before this House a Bill which contains nine pages of amendments to the principal Act. It also took the hon. the Minister more than one and a quarter hours to address the House in his Second Reading speech on the defects which this Bill now seeks to eliminate. It is no secret that in practice the interpretation of the principal Act has resulted in many legal difficulties. These were even anticipated by the hon. member for Bellville in his Second Reading speech in 1971 when he said, inter alia, (Hansard, Vol 9, col. 3847):

On this side of the House, too, the hon. member for Jeppe appealed to the hon. the Minister to warn the public that it would be in their interests to consult a legal representative when selling or purchasing land so as to avoid the pitfalls which were highlighted in the Act at the time. Now the Bill that we have before us seeks to rectify some of the more glaring areas of confusion which have come to light in the application of the Act. We immediately want to identify ourselves on this side of the House with the efforts of the legal profession, the hon. the Minister himself, his own law advisers, members of Sapoa and other interested parties in giving effect to such amendments as will achieve this purpose. We will support the Second Reading of this Bill to the hilt and we want to record our appreciation for the courtesy extended to us by the hon. the Minister, the Secretary for Commerce and their legal draftsmen in clarifying the many problems with which we have found ourselves confronted. It is in this spirit of achieving the common goal of a good Bill that we have spent many hours in consultation with those most concerned in its implementation. I do say that the Bill is a highly technical one. Although it has been introduced by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, I think those persons most qualified to take part in the discussions from now on will be the members of our honoured legal fraternity. It is certainly no Bill which allows much scope for the layman. Although we shall submit a number of amendments at the Committee Stage, we shall do so in all earnestness in a general endeavour to assist the hon. the Minister in bringing onto the Statute Book legislation which finally recognizes the original intention of the Act, i.e. the optimum protection of all concerned in those contracts where the purchase and sale of land take place and when payment is provided for by instalments. We shall therefore submit in the Committee Stage a considerable number of amendments which we sincerely hope will receive the considered and sympathetic consideration of the Minister. If we can have these amendments recorded in the Bill itself, I believe that South Africa will have a greatly improved Act in due course. I will believe that because the law is as complicated as it is, even with the assistance the hon. the Minister has received from the members of the legal fraternity, we may find that it will not be many years, perhaps not even more than a year, before the hon. the Minister has to come to Parliament with a further amending Bill. Let us ensure that we are not criticized for having considered this Bill too peremptorily. Let us be quite certain that the amendments that are put before the House are those which will benefit South Africa in general. Mr. Speaker, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to the time it took the hon. the Minister to make his Second Reading speech, and to the fact that this amending Bill follows on the heels of the principal Act, which was passed three or four years ago. That is indeed the case. However, I want to put it to the House that this amending Bill is probably one of those which is of the utmost importance to the ordinary citizen, especially for people whose normal monthly income or financial position is not such that they can simply acquire fixed property for themselves. For the person who has to acquire property on the long term and has to pay for it in instalments, this legislation is of cardinal importance. Therefore, I want to put it to the Opposition at this stage that this amending Bill may perhaps not be the last amending Bill in connection with this matter. I think we shall again have to effect some amendment or other, because this is legislation which affects one’s pocket, and therefore we want to tighten up this legislation so that it is possibly one of our best statutory measures, especially in these times of inflation in which we are living. Hon. members will remember that before the principal Act was passed in 1971, an inter-departmental committee had been appointed to go into the principles of this legislation and to do the necessary research. This inter-departmental committee the published a very positive report. The Bill which they suggested at that time was published and elicited wide reaction, enjoyed wide publicity and invited much comment as well. The principle of the 1971 Act was subsequently discussed in great detail in this House. The result was that we thought we had enacted very sound legislation in 1971, although it was expected at that time that some amendments would have to be effected to the Act at some time or other. These amendments are embodied in this Bill which is serving before the House now, and as I have said, further amendments may have to be effected at some time or other. Experience will show what these amendments should be, although I think it will happen sooner than most people expect. I have to put it to all hon. members even now that the people who are actively concerned with the Act and the Bill which is now before the House are attorneys. Attorneys probably have more practical experience of the implementation of legislation of this nature than anyone else. This legislation is really a matter for the legal profession and for that reason it is one of the most important statutory measures affecting the man in the street.

I want to refer to the principles of this Bill. I think there are a few basic principles to which we could probably pay the necessary attention. As far as I am concerned, the basic principle of both this Bill and the principal Act of 1971 is that protective measures are established for the honest seller as well as the honest purchaser of fixed property. Such protective measures are contained in the principal Act and are now again being extended and improved in this Bill. In the second instance, this Bill makes it possible for the ordinary buyer of fixed property to acquire fixed property for himself with more confidence and without any fear. He need no longer fear that he might possible lose his property if he pays it off over a long period. In this Bill protection is built in for him, which gives him that confidence to enter into a long term deed of sale to acquire fixed property. In the third place, this Bill eliminates to a large extent the risk factor for the honest purchaser. The purchaser used to run some risks and he feared that the seller might become insolvent or that some problem or other would arise—for instance, that the land might be confiscated or that it could be over-hypothecated before he obtained transfer. All those risks are to a very large extent eliminated by this Bill.

As I have said, this Bill is basically a legal Bill and therefore the basic elements of our law in regard to the buying and selling of fixed property are for the most part contained in this Bill. I think this Bill generally also takes into account the times in which we are living, times of world inflation and times in which every citizen wants to save and invest while it is not always possible to do so. I think this Bill contributes to a large degree to making this possible for him again. We know that everyone has a strong desire to make money. Similarly, there are the unscrupulous moneymakers and exploiters who very badly want to make money. I think however, that this Bill makes it possible for the honest man to acquire fixed property with greater confidence, while it restricts the exploiters. I believe this Bill provides for ordinary times, but possibly also for extraordinary circumstances which may still arise, for instance, for a boom period as well as for a period in which there is not so much of a boom. What is of very great importance is that this Bill eliminates unnecessary litigation to a large extent. I think it is one of the basic principles of this Bill, i.e. that we want to limit litigation to a minimum to bring about a saving for any purchaser of fixed property. It is a fact that this Bill makes provision for the ordinary purchaser to acquire a house in the long term, or perhaps a plot on which a house may be built later. But there are also many people who are very keen to acquire a few morgen of land or a smallholding, and not just a plot as such. This Bill makes it possible for those people to acquire a few morgen of land. We know that many of our people do not have the means to buy themselves a large farm. Perhaps they can only afford a small piece of land. Now protection is also being afforded them in this legislation to acquire that small piece of land. We also know that there is not sufficient provision for the purchasers of smallholdings to obtain loans from the Land Bank or from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to acquire such land and to take transfer thereof immediately. It is not even possible to obtain a loan from a building society on a property which does not exceed ten morgen in extent. I think this Bill makes it possible for such people to acquire such property. These people must receive the maximum amount of protection possible, and I think they receive it in this Bill.

When we come to the various clauses in this Bill I think we will be able to discuss the various clauses of this Bill in the Committee Stage more fruitfully. One may possibly deal with a few of these clauses at this stage. In passing, it has just occurred to me that it will now be possible for a person to pre-pay instalments which he has to make in terms of the deed of sale. It is even possible for him to make increased payments over and above those provided for in the contract. It is in fact already embodied in the principal Act, but this Bill adds a further provision, i.e. that any purchaser can now claim transfer of land immediately when he offers to pay the balance of the purchase price. In this way everybody can try to make increased payments on his own initiative in order to pay off that property as soon as possible, or to raise a loan, be it a private loan or whatever kind of Joan it may be, at a later stage and offer to pay the balance of the purchase price and to take transfer of that property immediately. I think this is a very important incentive which is embodied in this Bill. It is also an economizing measure for the purchaser of fixed property.

Where I said that further amendments of this Act may possibly be affected, I have in mind particularly the final part of the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister. The Association of Law Societies pointed out that this Bill does not make any provision for penalties. I personally think that penalties, in a Bill of this nature, are very essential. I know for a fact that clause 13, I think, makes provision that a purchaser may go to court and obtain legal assistance from the court. That, however, entails civil litigation. I think that if we could consider including some penalty provision or other in this Bill it would only be to the advantage of the person who purchased fixed property on the instalment system.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my wholehearted support to this Bill, as I did in 1971. I am grateful that the Opposition also associated itself with this measure and that they also have in mind certain amendments which we may discuss during the Committee Stage to make the principal Act even more sound.

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member for Potgietersrus that this is an important Bill dealing with very important series of transactions in regard to the purchase and sale of land. The original Act sought to afford a measure of protection primarily to purchasers who in the past were exposed to a number of risks, namely that the owner or seller might become insolvent or indeed that the property might be sold in execution to recover some of his debts. As the hon. the Minister has made clear to us, the nature of this present Bill is to rectify the position, to take remedial action where faults or loopholes have been found to exist in the original Act. We on these benches will therefore support this measure. I should just like to run through the Bill as we see it and to pass certain comments on the clauses as they now stand.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, we would just like to say to the hon. the Minister that we welcome this provision in that it puts the position more or less on an analogous footing with the Hire-purchase Act. It now provides and makes mandatory what the minimum contents and substance of a contract shall be. This is clearly to be welcomed. The broad directions given in the proposed new paragraphs (iA), (iB) and (iC) inserted by clause 3(b) will clearly provide an additional measure of protection.

I come now to clause 5. As we understand the position it was previously a condition of the principal Act that no seller could stipulate a rate of interest higher than that obtainable from a building society on a first mortgage bond. The proposed new section 6(2) inserted by clause 5 reads as follows—

1. (2) No seller shall in connection with a contract stipulate for, demand or receive interest at a rate which is higher than the rate prescribed by the Minister of Economic Affairs by regulation from time to time for the purposes of this subsection.

I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that the reason why he should be in a position to stipulate a higher rate of interest presumably arises because of the different rates of interest which, are being charged as between different building societies and indeed in the case of some building societies as between different mortgages. One would have thought that the purpose of the Bill would obviously be to strike a balance between sellers and purchasers as far as protection is concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an assurance that what he has in mind is to try to establish some sort of average rate between one building society and another or in relation to four or five building societies in a particular area. One presumes that he obviously does not have it in mind—and will give us an assurance in this regard—to fix an arbitrary rate of interest. Obviously the seller is selling an asset in return for a sum of money with interest and there is therefore no possibility of appreciation during the interim period.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why he is adding the proposed new subsection (4) in terms of clause 5(b). This proposed new subsection (4) states—

1. (4) When the purchaser has paid in full the amount referred to in section 4 (1)(g), no interest shall be payable …

As I understand the provisions of section 4(1)(g), unless I have it wrong, once the purchaser has paid the total outstanding balance there will obviously be no further interest to be paid. I just wondered whether there was something we had missed or different here.

I come now to clause 6. As I understand the position, the provisions of the proposed new section 7(1) will only come into force on the date of the passing of this Bill. This subsection refers to a contract entered into after the commencement of the Sale of Land on Instalments Amendment Act, 1975. Is it not necessary to include a provision whereby the illegalities formerly detailed in the original section in respect of contracts entered into prior to the passage of this Bill will remain in force? I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us an answer in this regard.

The proposed new section 7(1) and 7(2) refers to rates of interest and redemption which are more onerous than the terms upon which at the time when transfer is to be taken, a loan secured by a first mortgage bond over land is granted by a building society. As we understand the position this is intended to cover circumstances where the building society would not in fact grant a bond but that it would be made available by the seller. If that is so, would it not better convey the gist of what is intended to refer more to terms applicable to a bond granted by a building society? In our mind there is a small element of confusion which we hope the hon. the Minister will clear up for us.

In regard to the proposed section 11 (2)(a) and (b) inserted by clause 8, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether these are alternatives. I think they are meant to be two separate categories in regard to a loan which, is covered by the previous wording. If we are correct in our understanding then we feel that the word “and” at the end of paragraph (a) should be changed to “or”. Our understanding is that paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) provide for two separate sets of circumstances.

In regard to clause 10 which amends section 13(1) of the principal Act, the right of the seller to enforce acceleration of payment or to terminate or sue for damages is limited. Obviously, one understands why this provision has been drafted in this way. I wonder whether it is not possible to provide for more protection for the seller in the proposed new subsection (1), which provides that where the purchaser has failed to fulfil an obligation under the contract, the seller must send him a letter of demand to carry out the obligation within a period which shall not be less than 30 days. The purchaser could, in certain circumstances, fail to pay the instalments for a series of 29 days throughout the term of the contract, and as I understand it the seller in those circumstances would have no redress. I do not know whether it is possible to cover those circumstances. I would have thought that some protection ought to be given to the seller against a purchaser who persistently breaches the contract for periods of 29 days.

Sir, the last two comments that we have on these benches relate to clauses 12 and 13. Clause 12 is obviously welcomed, and indeed I should have thought it is extremely necessary in practice to be able to change one’s address for the purpose of the contract by giving notice of such change of address. Finally, clause 13 is, of course, welcomed too in two respects, one being that the proceedings are no longer restricted, as the case was previously, to a magistrate’s court, and secondly it enlarges the ambit of appropriate relief to include a reduction of the rate of interest payable and an order for rectification. We welcome both of these provisions and, as I have said, we on these benches will support the measure.

Sir, as has been said by previous speakers, this is a legal-technical Bill. As has also been said by previous speakers, it was anticipated that certain amendments would be affected. When one considers this Bill, one should keep in mind that an important purpose of this Bill is really to protect the purchaser when he purchases land. From the nature of the case, the purchaser is a person with, little capital but with the desire on the one hand, to purchase some land and, on the other hand, to combat inflation by investing his money in land. But this measure is also of great interest to the seller, for it now enables purchasers to purchase more freely. That means that there will be a better market for the seller, and because there will be more purchasers, he will also be in a position to bargain for a reasonable price. It is, therefore, in the interest of both the seller and the purchaser that this Bill be accepted. The purpose of this amending Bill is to regulate the relationships between the purchaser and the seller in a more accurate and more satisfactory manner. Contracts in connection with land do not give the purchaser any real right but only a right to claim the transfer of the land, a personal right, to enable him to claim transfer after he has fulfilled his obligations. In other words, prior to registration in his name the purchaser has very little protection, and it is really the purpose of this Bill, i.e. to render him the necessary protection. As soon as registration has been obtained, the purchaser has a real right, and then the importance of and the need for this Bill fall away. As has been said, Sir, the idea basically is to protect the purchaser in land transactions. When one considers the Bill, one notices that the purchaser is being protected in a few respects —I want to deal with five aspects. I just want to point them out briefly. In the first place, section 3 of the principal Act is very important. It lays down that the purchaser has the right to indicate in which language he wants his contract to be drawn up. I want to suggest, Sir, that purchasers should make greater use of this. I do not think all purchasers are aware of the provision. It often happens that the purchaser just signs the contract without looking whether he is able to understand the language in which the contract was drawn up. That is something for which provision has already been made in the principal Act, but I just want to draw the attention of purchasers to that aspect. In the second place: the basic purpose of the purchase of land by a person living in a city is normally to build something on it; to affect improvements and to go and live there eventually. This Bill now provides this very important protection to the purchaser, i.e. that where he incurs essential expenditure and effects improvements which enhance the market value of the property, the purchaser may be compensated for it if the contract should become null and void for some reason or another.

I can foresee that this will mean that the purchaser will improve the property more readily, and I can also foresee that it will enhance the provision of housing. The third point I want to mention, is that the purchaser often is not aware of the rights he has, and therefore it is so important that the particular rights which he may claim, should be set out in the contract. From what previous speakers have said, it seems that they are also pleased that clause 3 affects further amendments to section 4 of the principal Act. I think it is a good thing that purchasers will know that it is now laid down, among other things, that when a purchaser has paid 50% of the purchase price, he has the right to take transfer on registration of a bond. I think this is an aspect which should be brought to the attention of purchasers. It affords them a great deal of protection, and this will now be written into the contract. A fourth aspect I want to mention here, is that the purchaser will now be afforded far more protection when the registered owner of the land becomes insolvent. He will now be afforded protection in this sense that the curator will be obliged to notify the purchaser of the insolvency of the registered owner, in cases where his address is known to the curator so that he can take the necessary precautions to have the land registered in his name. Where the purchaser has fulfilled the obligations of other parties, he will be able to recover this money.

In my opinion, this is a very important and sound provision. Sir, the fifth aspect is that the rate of interest will now be fixed by the Minister and will not, as in the past, have a bearing on the rates of interest of the building societies. This is a very essential amendment because it will bring about greater legal certainty. I do not think this is the purpose of the Bill, but it may be used to combat excessive speculation in land if a fair and a reasonable rate of interest could be laid down.

Sir, these five provisions I mentioned here are aimed at protecting the purchaser. A further very important amendment which, is being made here, we find in the proposed section 11(3), in terms of which conveyancers are now entrusted with great responsibility. When they certify that the position is of such and such a nature, it is accepted that this is indeed the position until the opposite is proved. I think that this concept is quite rightly being introduced here, for I believe that if there is one branch of the legal profession which, has very high ethics it is, indeed, in the case of conveyancers. I believe that the confidence which is being placed in the legal profession here, is not misplaced.

Sir, another aspect I want to mention is the sanctions mentioned in clause 13 of the Bill It is essential to point out that the purchaser will now have to institute proper proceedings within two years. That is, in fact, a diminishing of his rights under the Prescription Act, in terms of which he would normally have had six years to institute such proceedings. It is essential that purchasers should now take note of this aspect. I am in favour of this, because legal security has to be brought about and it is also only fair that the purchaser should know what his position is in this whole matter. Generally speaking, when one deals with land for residential purposes, there is no reason in principle why the measure could not also be applied to larger residential units, larger pieces of land, and therefore the idea that land up to 23 ha in extent will be regarded as essential for residential purposes is to my mind a very sound idea. Furthermore, I also believe that the fact that this Act will be applicable to undivided shares in land, is in principle quite in line with the basic idea of this measure. Therefore I also am quite in favour of the Bill which now serves before the House.

The hon. member for Pretoria West dealt at length with the protection which is to be afforded to buyers under this Bill. I want to tell him that we on this side of the House share his sentiments and believe that there should be the utmost protection for buyers who buy in terms of this particular Bill. I would like to point out that the property industry is a very vast industry and that there are many vested interests in this industry. In those circumstances we in this House must try to strike a balance between these various vested interests. I can assure the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House have gone into this matter very carefully. We have certainly endeavoured, and will endeavour later in this debate, in the Committee Stage, to show him that we have struck a very reasonable balance between the various Vested interests.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus has told us that this Bill is vital to the man in the street and is of the utmost importance to him. It is for this reason, because the Opposition agreed with, the statement of the hon. member for Potgietersrus that we asked the hon. the Minister at the end of his Second Reading speech last week to postpone this debate in order that we could analyse this Bill and the Minister’s speech in depth. I think the hon. member for Potgietersrus will be satisfied, when he has heard all the speakers from this side of the House, that they have in fact analysed the Bill in depth. I may just mention in passing that although the hon. the Minister is the Minister of Economic Affairs, I think his past legal training should stand him in good stead when he replies to the debate on this particular Bill. Somebody here says that he has perhaps forgotten about the legal profession, but I do not think so. We will see what the position is as we go further. The hon. member for Potgietersrus welcomed the fact that purchasers can accelerate payment under certain circumstances. I want to tell this hon. member that I also welcome the fact that purchasers can accelerate payments under certain circumstances, but I want to point out to him—and I will deal with that later in depth—that there are many instances where even if a purchaser pays the balance of the purchase price in full, he cannot get transfer. As I say, I will deal with that later, but I agree with him that where one can encourage a purchaser to accelerate his payments one should do so that he can obtain transfer sooner. The hon. the Minister knows of many instances where the purchaser is not able to obtain transfer. The one example is where the township owner has not got proclamation. Even if the purchaser has paid the balance of the purchase price, the seller cannot give him physical transfer. But I will come back to that a little later on.

This amending legislation together with the principal Act is part of an effort to encourage South Africans to invest in land with a measure of protection. It is essential that purchasers who use their hard-earned savings to purchase property on the instalment basis should be given the utmost protection. It is obvious that the Government and the Opposition are anxious in this Bill to ensure that the sale of property on the instalment basis proceeds in an orderly fashion. Sir, I do not want to be ungrateful, but I think it would be unfair if we did not at this stage mention that we had the utmost co-operation from the Department of Economic Affairs in regard to this Bill, and I want to thank the officials who gave us this assistance and who fully co-operated with us in our discussions in relation to this Bill.

This amending legislation recognizes that investment in property is an important hedge against inflation, and for that reason this legislation endeavours to assist South Africans who reflect their confidence in South Africa by investing their money in ground in South Africa. That is why we are all most concerned to ensure that this Bill is passed in the best possible form. This amending legislation attempts to prevent property investors from burning their fingers, either through ignorance or though lack of guidance or through gullibility. The Bill further attempts to put a spoke in the wheel of the unscrupulous property developer who wishes to take advantage of the less informed buyer. This Bill mentions the Insolvency Act, section 72, of 1916, and also refers to the amending Act, No. 29 of 1926. I would like the hon: the Minister seriously to consider repealing the Insolvency Act and to consider the inclusion of the provisions of section 72 in this particular Bill that we are dealing with now. I am aware of the fact that the repeal of the 1916 legislation cannot take place in this amending Bill today. Even the hon. the Minister does not have the power to do so unless of course he withdraws this legislation and introduces new legislation. But when he considers the possibility of repealing the 1916 Act in the future, I would like to ask him to take into account …

Do you mean in respect of this particular aspect?

Sir, I will come to that and I will deal with section 72 as well. I should like the Minister, when he considers the question of repealing the 1916 Act, to bear in mind the existing vested interests to ensure that they are not adversely affected by the repeal of that legislation. In order to assist property developers and to assist buyers, we will move an amendment in the Committee Stage to include the provisions of section 72 in this Bill. The hon. the Minister will appreciate that the provisions of the 1916 Act, as amended by the 1926 Act, are not known to the average seller or to the average buyer. Therefore we feel it is important that the provisions of section 72 should be incorporated in this particular Bill. By incorporating the provisions of section 72 in this Bill you would be pertinently drawing the seller’s attention and the buyer’s attention to the fact that the purchaser, after paying 50% of the purchase price has the legal right to take transfer. Sir, it would have the further effect of making both parties aware of the fact that if the purchaser has complied with section 72 of the Act and if the seller is unable or refuses to pass transfer within three months after receiving the demand, the purchaser has certain legal remedies. This is a matter which I would like the hon. the Minister to consider very seriously.

There is another matter I should like the hon. the Minister to consider equally seriously, and that is where a purchaser purchases a plot and the conditions of establishment provide that a purchaser, say in Phase 8 of the township, cannot get transfer until 40% of the people in the other previous seven phases have received transfer. This means that in terms of this legislation the event has been specified, that is to say, after 40% of the people in the previous seven phases have received transfer. I know specifically of cases like this where it may take 10, 15, 20 years or longer before a purchaser can get transfer. In the meantime the man who owns the plot in, for example, phase eight, has taken out compulsory insurance and, in certain cases, has ceded the life insurance to the seller to aver the payment of the balance of the purchase price. Look at the position of the purchaser who dies after one year, for example. We find that the balance of the purchase price is covered by the life insurance policy. It is paid over to the seller. The purchaser’s estate cannot take transfer while the widow and dependants are left in a most invidious position in this particular regard.

On can even look at the position of a purchaser who does not pass away and who pays off the balance of the purchase price after five years. At this stage he still cannot take transfer, He has to wait 15 years or longer until the people in the other seven phases have taken transfer. The hon. the Minister will appreciate that the dependants and also the purchaser, if he is alive, cannot carry on with a situation of this kind; they have an asset which they cannot use. The only way they can utilize this particular asset is if they sell it once again under a deed of sale on instalments. They too, however, cannot give transfer to their purchaser. It is obvious that a purchaser in this particular position is in an untenable position and in a locked in situation. Unbelievable financial hardships are suffered and the hon. the Minister would be well advised to consider an amendment we intend moving to clause 7 in the Committee Stage in order to alleviate this very difficult position.

The 1971 Act and the amending legislation we are dealing with today as well as the terrific shortage of bonds and loan facilities will increase the sales under this particular provision. We will find an increase in sales as a result of the present legislation and this amending Bill which has been introduced today. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that persons buying under the forceful Act and this amending Bill cannot get the Government subsidy of 2%. Even though they qualify in terms of income and even though the amount they owe in terms of the deed of sale also qualifies, they still do not qualify for the 2% subsidy which a person who has taken transfer and who has a bond registered in his name qualifies for. This means that, where the seller takes the place of the building society and the seller gives credit to the buyer, the poor buyer is in the unfortunate position that he cannot get the 2% subsidy he would normally have received, had he been in a position to take transfer. Often it is simply because the building societies do not have the finance to give the buyer a bond that the seller carries his own buyer. This absolute disqualification for the 2% subsidy also applies where a seller sells a plot and the buyer starts building before the plot is in his own name. He cannot get a bond from a building society so he gets a bank overdraft at 14% interest and builds his house. That buyer, however, cannot, qualify for the 2% subsidy. I can bring the hon. the Minister concrete examples, if he would like to see them, where this has happened. It has even happened where the Government sold land in Port Elizabeth where it did not gain proclamation soon enough. Particular buyers built their houses on bank overdrafts with the result that the 2% subsidy was not made available to them because they had not taken a building society bond. In this regard I would like to ask the hon. the Minister—I know that it is not his particular responsibility but he is responsible for this amending legislation— to make representations to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, to amend the Finance Act as urgently as possible in order to make allowances for those people who cannot get the 2% subsidy. After all, the hon. the Minister has introduced legislation to enable people to buy. If they buy under this legislation I think it is only equitable and fair that they should be entitled to the necessary subsidy.

There is another patent flaw to which I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention, namely that there must be protection for the purchaser when the seller over-bonds his property. I want to give the hon. the Minister a practical example because that is the easiest way of dealing with the matter. Let us say that A has a first bond of R10 000 and he sells the property to B for R15 000. B then deposits R5 000 leaving a balance owing on the purchase price of R10 000. A then goes to the Building Society, because he is still the registered owner, and obtains a second bond for a further R2 000. This means that A has total bonds of R12 000 while B as the purchaser only owes a balance of R10 000. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that this purchaser is placed in a most unenviable and vulnerable position, because he Owes the seller less than the total bonds over the property. As the hon. the Minister knows the bond-holder has certain preferences if, for example, the seller should go insolvent. I feel something should be done where the purchaser is left in an overexposed and over-bonded situation as I have just illustrated with this particular example. I also feel that the time has come for the recognition of guarantees Other than, bankers’ guarantees. That is why we shall move ah amendment in the Committee Stage that building society guarantees will also be recognized. I hope, as the years progress, that we will also recognize other types of guarantees from other financial institutions. I realize that at this point in time it would be appropriate to move in the Committee Stage, only that building society guarantees be recognized in addition to bank guarantees.

Clause 7 does riot clearly set out the total obligations of the purchaser and we intend clarifying this aspect as well during the Committee Stage by moving an amendment. The hon. the Minister quite correctly referred to the fact that various building societies have varying interest rates. At present many sellers stipulate that the purchaser must pay whatever the building society rate is that the seller himself is compelled to pay. It would be grossly inequitable for a seller to pay a higher rate than he is receiving from the purchaser or vice versa. If the Minister by regulation should change the rate so that the seller receives a lower rate from the purchaser than the seller is paying to the building society it may mean that certain housing companies may have to close down completely. There are certain housing companies who have book debts amounting to, or purchasers owing them, millions of rands. Some of these housing companies pay 12% interest on their money to the building society because their loans are treated as commercial loans. If the hon. the Minister should stipulate that the maximum be 10% it means that the seller loses 2% on the total amount outstanding because he himself is paying 12%. In regard to this particular provision I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he stipulated an interest rate of 10% where the housing company was in fact paying 12%, he would be cutting off the life blood of these particular development companies. I would like him to consider this matter seriously. I might mention that we will also move an amendment during the Committee Stage in this regard.

In regard to the legal expenses and the delays that occur in many instances in terms of this legislation we on this side of the House feel that we must expedite matters as far as possible and try to involve the parties in the minimum amount of legal expenses. One would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would urge as far as possible that the magistrate’s court have jurisdiction in matters appertaining to this particular legislation. We all realize that this legislation is far from perfect. I think the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that if we come across difficulties after this legislation has been enacted, we will be entitled to come forward with further amending legislation: in this regard at a later stage. I feel that one must also sound a note of caution in respect of purchasers. This legislation makes it easy for them to purchase a plot or property because the deposit is small and they are given extended credit. We would like to ensure that no purchaser buys a plot of land just because of a pretty picture with a bathing beauty on it. The purchaser must inspect the plot. It must be identified by a surveyor’s certificate or an identity certificate. The contract must be carefully checked by a professional man and the purchaser must have sufficient assurance that the seller has the finance to lay out the money for services which may run into hundreds of thousands of rands. I think that is where they came a cropper in the past. Many sellers do not have the financial backing to lay out services costing hundreds of thousands of rands in a particular township. I am pleased that the hon. member for Caledon is present here now. One should be very careful where a provincial administration lays down their conditions of establishment in respect of a township. The purchaser should be protected in such circumstances. One should make sure that they are protected. The provincial administrations have a special onus on them and a duty in this regard. A purchaser who purchases in haste, without seeing those conditions of establishment, will certainly suffer at leisure. Property developers, like all other commercial enterprises, must have a profit motive. They are not charitable institutions and they seek and can afford the best legal advice that money can buy. Many purchasers, on the other hand, first buy a property, sign the deed of sale and afterwards, when they are in trouble, go and seek professional advice. Obviously at that point in time it is often too late to do anything to remedy the situation. In other words, no matter how hard we may endeavour to protect the purchaser against his own foolishness. If a prospective purchaser does not adopt the elementary safeguards that I mentioned earlier, he could very well burn his fingers very badly. The principal Act and this amending legislation should have certain safeguards. We believe, on this side of the House, that to the deed of sale there should be attached the sale plan. The hon. the Minister is looking at me very quizzically.

Sale plan?

A sale plan of the subdivision is normally available.

You are talking about new townships?

Yes, new townships. We believe that the sale plan of the subdivision should be attached to the deed of sale in order that the purchaser can see where his plot is in relation to the other plots that have been sold and in order to give the purchaser greater certainty. We believe that this is essential, and to endorse this, I want to quote to the hon. the Minister from a deed of sale in terms of which thousands of purchasers concluded transactions. One particular clause in that deed of sale reads as follows:

A sale plan of subdivision of the township has been prepared by the seller’s town-planners, with which plan the purchaser declares himself to be acquainted.

Now, in most cases, as the hon. the Minister knows, the purchaser never sees the sale plan. That is why I am suggesting that it should be attached to the deed of sale. I should also like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the conditions of establishment of a township be attached to the deed of sale, because in the average deed of sale the conditions of establishment are merely referred to, the purchaser acknowledging that he accepts all the conditions of establishment that are imposed by the various authorities. He accepts the conditions of establishment without even having seen them. I believe that the conditions of establishment should be attached to the deed of sale, and I do not think that this is an expensive process. Such conditions would cover perhaps five or six pages. One could even have a truncated version of the conditions of establishment attached to the deed of sale. That would assist purchasers in knowing what their rights are. Merely to sign a blanket provision accepting the conditions of establishment without even having seen them, does not afford the purchasers any rights whatsoever. I raise this matter pertinently because I know that hundreds and even thousands of purchasers have signed blanket provisions accepting conditions of establishment. In one particular deed of sale such a blanket provision was in fact signed by hundreds if not thousands of people. In terms of the conditions of establishment, those persons have to wait a lifetime before they can take transfer, in many cases 20 years or longer. In other words, if they bought a plot for R10 000 at 8½% interest, over the 20 years they have to wait to take transfer the interest would amount to R17 000, even if not compounded. At compound interest, the figure would be far more than R17 000. In other words, by the time the purchaser takes transfer, the stand has cost him R27 000. I am sure this is not the intention of the hon. the Minister. During the Committee Stage we are going to introduce an amendment to try to cover this particular contingency. We believe that the deed of sale should give the purchaser the utmost protection, and I hope the hon. the Minister will bear with us when we come forward with particular provisions in that regard. We shall be doing this in order to protect purchasers and at the same time to regulate the relationship between seller and buyer. I think that in this particular case which I have just mentioned the hon. the Minister has three remedies. One of the possible remedies is that this amending Bill provides for the right of cancellation by the purchaser if after a period of, say, five years from the date of sale, he tenders the balance of the purchase price and the seller cannot give him transfer. Secondly, the hon. the Minister must advise the provincial authorities to seek to protect prospective buyers to the utmost in their conditions of establishment. Thirdly, this Bill should be amended to provide for the conditions of establishment to be attached to the deed of sale, as I mentioned earlier.

The vast majority of developers are honourable, honest and decent people who even though they may make a profit are interested in the welfare of their purchasers. Unfortunately, with legislation of this nature one also has to look at land scavangers and at racketeers whose methods and techniques leave a lot to be desired. I want to take this opportunity to appeal to purchasers under this Act who have had unfortunate experiences to advise the hon. the Minister’s department of those experiences.

After speaking to officials of the hon. the Minister’s department I have come to the conclusion that they would like to hear of these experiences. I have also come to the conclusion that if they hear of these experiences they are prepared to rectify these matters. My appeal to purchasers is: If you have had unfortunate experiences under the principal Act in the past or if you have such experiences under this amending legislation, do not hesitate to go to the hon. the Minister’s department because the only way in which we can perfect this legislation is to know what difficulties people are encountering.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer referred to a large number of problems he had probably encountered in practice. It seems to me as though the hon. member has already prepared further legislation on his own which he wants the hon. the Minister to implement here. The hon. member will concede at once that one may write whatever one pleases into a contract, but if the man who is to sign that document has not read it, it is no use including a clause affording him further protection in the sense which the hon. member means. As I understand him, he is of the opinion that conditions of establishment should be incorporated in a deed of sale. What would the position be if we had included all those conditions and the purchaser still failed to read the deed of sale? The hon. member for Walmer touched on a considerable number of matters upon which he will certainly receive answers. What I also want to say to him this afternoon, is that he was exceptionally positive, especially at the beginning of his speech. One is grateful for his being able to act also positively in this House occasionally.

The Bill which we now have in front of us, is aimed at providing more clarity and at affording further protection to the individual purchaser. The individual purchaser is the ordinary man who actually buys a property once in his lifetime on which he wants to build himself a house. That is the man who acquires a property by means of savings. To him this is definitely a major transaction. To a man who buys a property once in his lifetime, it is definitely a major transaction and a special occasion. He can also invest his money in this way. Therefore it is necessary that he be afforded protection by means of this further legislation as he is the person who actually needs the protection. These are people who simply cannot afford to buy a property for a second time or to lose a property. They are the people who have to pay off the land by means of monthly instalments over a reasonably long period. I want to say that this applies to people who can acquire a property in this way and in no other way. For this very reason this legislation contains no reference to people who are in a position to pay cash for a property. So where any confusion does exist with regard to existing legislation or any loopholes occur in such legislation, it is in the interest of the public for such legislation to be rectified in good time.

It is my submission that this legislation which is now being considered by this House, is a definite attempt in this direction. It is especially an attempt to obtain greater legal security between parties. This legislation wants to create a greater discipline and this is understandable, because, where a purchaser pays off the purchase sum over an exceptionally long period, and in certain cases nearly breaks himself, it is not only undesirable, but also extremely unfair if, after a long period, he should suffer a loss or feel aggrieved, or should find that he is embarrassed as a result of an obscurity or an uncertainty with regard to his legal position. In the vast majority of cases such a purchaser does not see his way clear to have his case tested. For financial or other reasons, he cannot afford becoming involved in a lawsuit. Consequently he cannot get finality about his position either. For that reason an additional attempt is being made by means of this legislation to have the rights and obligations of the parties to an agreement in terms of which property is purchased on instalments, and particularly the rights and obligations of the purchaser, stated as fully possible so that the purchaser will be aware of his rights and obligations when concluding such an agreement.

It is true, however, that some of the provisions are exceptionally complicated. Even when the provisions are incorporated in the agreement of purchase and sale of land, and in terms of this Bill, they will have to be incorporated in the agreement, I believe that it will not always be clear to the purchaser of the property without his going into the matter more fully, what measures exist and what they mean. Therefore I think it is all the more important that the purchaser not only study such an agreement carefully, but also submit it to his legal representative. This matter, too, has been stressed here this afternoon, but I think it need to be stressed repeatedly that in too many cases purchasers do not use legal representatives when they sign agreements of purchase and sale of land, which is an important document and imposes heavy obligations on the purchaser. A purchaser very seldom submits it to his legal representative. I use the word “seldom” especially because people often buy a property very easily, sometimes simply as the result of a sudden fancy. An important aspect is that every person is entitled to submit an agreement to his attorney before he signs it. The attorney can check it for him and advise him accordingly. I believe the public should make much more use of this right. After all, it is worth his while to spend a few rand on attorney’s fees in view of the obligations he is undertaking. The purchaser is undertaking a heavy obligation and is binding himself for a very long period. After all, the onus is on him to make sure of his rights and obligations, because he is the man who will eventually have to pay.

Clause 4 of the Bill improves the existing section 5 of the Act, as far as the matter of the purchaser obtaining a copy of the contract, of purchase and sale is concerned, especially since the purchaser is now entitled to a copy without the seller being entitled to make a charge. In the past there was uncertainty as regards supplying a purchaser with a copy of the contract of purchase and sale free of charge. Now, as a result of this, it is possible for the purchaser to remain fully informed at all times of the provisions of his agreement. However, it remains for the purchaser to acquaint himself fully of these even before signing. I am convinced that many problems that were mentioned, amongst others by the hon. member for Walmer, will be eliminated if the purchaser makes use of this procedures to acquaint himself of these provisions first. Sometimes one finds that people want to buy properties over weekends. In fact, this is so easy that one gains the impression at times that people buy a house with the same ease as buying a hotdog at a roadhouse.

With their eyes closed.

I should like to refer to a few matters which can simplify the position of the parties. I have already referred to clause 4, in terms of which the purchaser is entitled to a copy. This I think simplifies the matter considerably for the purchaser.

An important aspect to which I also want to refer, is the question of determining uniform rates of interest. I think this is an aspect which will be welcomed everywhere by the purchasers and the public. I do not have the fear which the hon. member for Walmer has, i.e. that problems may arise in this regard. Section 9 of the Act already provides for annual statements of account to be sent to purchasers by sellers. Whereas it was an objection in the past that the absence of uniform building society rates of interests made it difficult in practice to comply with all the provisions, I now think that the Bill simplifies the matter considerably. I want to point out further that it is also in the interest of the purchaser that he is entitled to advance instalments, as has already been indicated by other speakers.

Another particularly important aspect here is the protection which the purchasers enjoy in the case of land being sold in execution, land which has been bought under a contract and in respect of which the registered owner is experiencing problems. I have made a calculation in terms of clause 11(1) that if a person has bought a property on the instalment system and the registered owner’s land is sold in execution by his creditors in terms of the provisions as they appear here, the purchaser is entitled to claim interest at 5% per annum in respect of the period of the purchase on the amount which he has already paid off. On the surface 5% appears to be low, but if he has paid off a sum of R5 000 on the purchase price over a period of ten years then, according to my calculations, he may claim R2 500 in interest on the amount of R5 000 he has already paid in capital. This is a considerable advantage to the purchaser. I hope, of course, that my calculations are correct and that my method of calculation is correct.

In conclusion I should like to say that I believe the legislation is introducing discipline into the matter with which this Bill deals, and although it is possible that we shall have to look at it again in future, proper discipline will, however, come about in due course, which can only be in the interest of the buying public. Therefore I gladly support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the speakers on this side of the House have indicated that we support the principle of this Bill and therefore I do not propose spending time in discussing the clauses in detail. There are a number of amendments which speakers on this side of the House propose to move in the Committee Stage and we will have quite a lot to say about the details of a number of clauses of this Bill.

I do want to discuss two matters of principle at this stage of the debate. Before dealing with the first, I would like to introduce it by saying that it is the intention of both sides of this House by this legislation not only to protect purchasers but also to assist them. I believe that it also means to assist them financially where possible. It has been the intention in a number of measures which have been before this House to try to bring down the cost of housing for purchasers. A practice has occurred which is unfortunately having the reverse effect, the effect of increasing the cost of housing I would appreciate it if the hon. the Chief Whip would allow the hon. the Minister to give me his attention because I do consider it a matter of importance.