Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

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

This clause contains the definitions of the various words used in the Bill itself. On page 5 of the Bill one finds the definition of “mortgage bond”. That definition reads as follows—

If my amendment is accepted, the definition will read as follows—

As I said during the Second Reading, the purpose of the inclusion of these words is to attempt to provide a simple procedure for the people of Rehoboth in regard to the registration of bonds. The only provision for the registration of a bond against movable property is under the definition of “notarial bond”. In other words, in terms of the ordinary procedure which applies in the Republic of South Africa today under the Deeds Registries Act, if one wished to Bind movable property, one would have to register the bond notarially. As we know, and as the hon. the Minister knows, in terms of this Bill before us a registrar of deeds does in fact on various occasions act as a notary public. For instance, he acts as a notary public in regard to the attestation of ante-nuptial contracts, so that he could in fact, if he was allowed to, register a mortgage bond over movable property and attest that bond itself, and act in that capacity as a notary. We believe that if the regulations could perhaps be adjusted so that one bond document can be available for all persons to register a bond either over immovable property or over movable property, it will in fact be a simplification. The parties themselves in Rehoboth will still retain the right, if they so desire, to register a notarial bond over movable property. There will, however, be certain consequential amendments. Clause 27(1) will have to be amended by the deletion of the word “immovable”, clause 29(1)(a) will have to be deleted, clause 29(2) will have to have certain words inserted, and clause 29(3) will have to be deleted. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept that this is a reasonable suggestion, when we come to these various clauses I shall move the necessary consequential amendments. I believe that this amendment to the Bill will be an improvement and that it will follow the principle which I believe the Minister is aiming at, and that is that he wishes to obtain some form of simplified procedure for the people of Rehoboth.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London City.

Why?

If the hon. member will give me a chance, I shall tell him why. Something seems to be bothering the hon. member. He should exercise some patience. This matter has been discussed with the local Registrar of Deeds, and he is of the opinion that the insertion of the words “and movable property is generally or specially hypothecated”, will result in extensive further amendments to the Bill and in complicating this Bill, without this actually serving any useful purpose in practice. The hon. member himself admitted that it would give rise to a considerable number of further amendments. Therefore I am sorry to say that I am unable to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. the Minister is not an expert when it comes to things like these, but I want to point out to him that if one reads through this Bill very carefully, one will find that it is only in respect of those four small amendments, which I mentioned earlier on, which would he consequential as the result of the inclusion of these words in the amendment I moved. If, however, the Minister has any other information which could persuade us that it would mean very serious amendments to the Bill itself right throughout, I would be pleased to know. But certainly we on this side of the House have looked through the Bill very carefully and we find that only those four small consequential amendments will be necessary in order to give effect to the amendment I have moved.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Order! I do not think it is necessary to point out that the principle contained in this clause has been agreed to at Second Reading. In accordance with the practice of this House, I shall accordingly permit the hon. member for Sea Point and a member of the United Party to state their parties’ attitude to this clause, and the Minister to reply thereto, but I will not allow any other discussion, except on the details of the clause. However, there is very little detail in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, clause 2 deals with the kernel of this piece of legislation. It is important to note, in terms of clause 2, that it does not merely set up a deeds registration office; it is not merely appointing a Registrar of Deeds. It is in fact setting up a registry for the registration of deeds in the Rehoboth Gebiet. In other words, it is setting up a whole new system applicable, as was mentioned, to a community of no more than 19 000 people and to an area no larger than the size of a normal constituency in the Republic. It is inconceivable that there is a case for dismantling our very elaborate and our tested and tried system of registration of deeds merely to deal with certain practical problems which have arisen in respect of the registration of deeds in the Rehoboth Gebiet. Sir, the three reasons why we oppose this clause, the key clause of the Bill, are, first of all, that we believe that this clause emphasizes that this legislation is part of a whole pattern of separate development for South West Africa, and whatever the merit or the demerits of separate development for South West Africa may be, we believe that this House, against the background of the present time, against the background of constitutional discussions which are taking place, discussions which are delicate and sensitive and important not only to the people of South West Africa, but also to all of us who sit in this House and the people whom we represent, will be ill advised to pass this clause and to proceed with this particular piece of legislation because it merely seeks to emphasize that this Government is proceeding with its policy of separate development in spite of the discussions which are taking place in the Turnhalle. Secondly, we do not, from the purely practical point of view, believe that it is appropriate in view of the practical difficulties the hon. the Minister mentioned. He said there was the difficulty of distance; people had to travel 60 miles.

I never said that.

He said one of the difficulties was them having to go to Windhoek, which is a long way off. We asked him what the distance was and he said it was 60 miles.

You should have known that for yourself.

That may be, but then it is difficult to get from Garies to Springbok, it is difficult to get from Upington to Prieska, and it is difficult to get from De Aar to Victoria West. Therefore, we must set up not only a separate deeds registration office, but separate deeds registration systems to deal with the difficulty of distance. The second one is the question of expense. Sir, I think it is an old adage that you pay for what you get, and if you are going in for a cheap service, you will also get an inadequate service. I believe that with all the goodwill towards whoever is appointed as Registrar of Deeds, he has an impossible task because on the one hand he is the Registrar of Deeds and he is on the other hand acting as the conveyancer for the parties concerned. So we believe that the existence of practical problems, the problem of distance and the problem of expense, is no valid reason for fragmenting a system which has been tried and proved throughout the Republic and South West Africa. This, moreover, establishes a precedent. I consequently want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. If this is valid because the people of Rehoboth asked for a system of registration of deeds, is he prepared to concede that if the Coloured people of the Cape want a separate system of registration of deeds, they can have it because it is their desire and is part and parcel of their national aspirations? I think the hon. the Minister is establishing the precedent here that each racial group or national entity in South Africa is entitled, when it asks for it, to have its own system of registration of deeds.

For all these reasons we are totally unconvinced that at this time, with the Turnhalle talks in the delicate stage they are in, with a tried and proven system operating in South Africa and because of the precedent this legislation will establish, this measure should be accepted, and therefore we in these benches will oppose clause 2. After that we shall deal with matters of detail, but because we accept the fact that clause 2 is the critical clause of this legislation, we shall oppose it. Thereafter we shall go into matters of detail in respect of the other clauses.

Mr. Chairman, we are, in point of fact, covering the same ground now as that which we covered during the Second Reading debate yesterday. The hon. member for Sea Point has advanced the very same arguments. His reproach is that this legislation is of an ideological nature. I, in turn, however can accuse him of making a political football of a matter which has nothing to do with politics. He is doing so to the detriment of both South-Africa and South West Africa, as well as the people of Rehoboth. He is dragging a matter into the Turnhalle conference which has nothing to do with it whatsoever. If he continues in this vein, he will eventually have to argue that the development of a dam for the provision of water to Rehoboth, is a matter which first has to be cleared at the Turnhalle conference. Why does he shake his head? Surely this is the tenor of the argument he used yesterday.

The hon. member has made great play of my allegedly having said that distance was one of the problems. Surely he knows what the distance is, because he asked me yesterday. Distance, however, is a relative concept. For instance, deeds office could be situated just across the border in a neighbouring state, while one’s own nearest deeds office could be situated 500 miles away. Distance is, in fact, not relevant here. The hon. member should rather take a look at the historical context of the people of Rehoboth, the first settled group in South West Africa. If he has talks with them, he will come to realize that this is how they want to have things done. Mr. Chairman, you know that part of the world better than the hon. member for Sea Point does, and you know that these people do not go to Windhoek to attend to these transactions. If they never did this in the past, does the hon. member think they will do so now, with the present fuel prices? It has become customary for those people not to make use of attorneys in these transactions. In the meantime, however, a different state of affairs has developed. The development of their own farms, to the advantage of the people, and the loan facilities offered by the Rehoboth Development Corporation, have necessitated the establishment of a deeds office. It is for this reason that we have come forward with this measure. The hon. member is looking for evil where no evil exists. I almost feel inclined to say that he is making mischief by reacting to this legislation in the way he does.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven ft Hooft), R. J. Lorimer, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

This clause deals with the duties of the registrar. The registrar is given a number of duties, e.g. the registration of the transfer of land, the registration of mortgage bonds, the registration of cessions and so forth. However, to us there seems to be a certain omission which we feel is rather important. I refer to the lack of a provision in terms of which the registrar may register general powers of attorney. General powers of attorney are frequently registered in the deeds registries to enable persons acting under those powers to operate without the necessity for filing on each occasion a special power of attorney in respect of each transaction in which they participate. The Deeds Registries Act, 1937, which is applicable to the Republic of South Africa, contains a similar provision in section 3(1)(u) where it states that the power of the registrar is to—

The powers of attorney may grant certain other authorities as well, but we believe that the mere use of the words “register general powers of procuration” will be adequate to enable people to operate under general powers of attorney. As I understand the hon. the Minister may be prepared to accept this amendment, I am not going to say more about it.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister concerning subsection (2), which reads—

1. (a) any deed of transfer, certificate of registered title or other title deed has been transferred in accordance with subsection (1);

It is not clear whether the word “or”, the word “and” or both should occur after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (a) and before paragraph (b), which reads—

As I understand it, the difficulty is that despite what the title deeds in Windhoek say there have been transfers which have occurred without having been registered against the title by use of the “plaaspapier”. This means that the actual registered title may indicate one particular owner, while the “plaaspapier” may refer to another owner.

The other point is that, as regards the records or registers of the office of the Rehoboth Baster Community, the information conveyed to us is, rightly or wrongly, that those records are not in a very satisfactory state. The difficulty I have is whether the registrar will now really determine ownership of land. It appears that that is the function he is now going to exercise. He is to decide who the owner of a piece of land is. He will have to enter the realms of dispute as to whether the “plaaspapier” overrules the actual transfer deed and whether the records of the Community’s office are correct and up to date. Is it not an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the registrar will be required to act as an arbiter to determine issues of ownership?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has asked me a question. He has not moved an amendment. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that the proposed system will clear up the very problems which are being experienced at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, this is the most remarkable answer I have yet heard from a Minister. I put a question to him, but obviously he did not know what I was talking about. He simply said that he was satisfied that it was in order. Surely, if the procedure of Parliament is to work, if one asks a legitimate question, the hon. the Minister should be in a position to deal with it. He should not say that, since no amendment was moved, he was not going to deal with it. If this is his attitude to the Bill, what is the point of a Committee Stage? Surely, Sir, one is entitled to ask the sort of question I asked. Let me repeat it. I asked whether the registrar is not being placed in the position that he must determine ownership instead of just exercising his duties as an official who registers facts. Surely the hon. the Minister should be sufficiently equipped to be able to answer that kind of question when he is taking the Committee Stage of the Bill?

Mr. Chairman, I have replied to the hon. member. I cannot refer him to the particular clause at this stage but if he takes a look at the later clauses, he will see the procedures which are being provided for the appointment of an investigating officer who will have to deal with cases like those he has mentioned. I refer, inter alia, to clause 54, in which specific provision is being made for the appointment of an investigating officer. The hon. member can shake his head as much as he likes. He had more than a week in which to prepare an amendment, but now he is deliberately playing this game in order to waste the time of the Committee.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not allege that. He must therefore withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. However, it is very clear to me what is happening here. If the hon. member would take a look at the clause concerned, he would see that the necessary provision has been made for it. If his complaint is that there may be a difference between the “plaaspa-pier” at Rehoboth and the register at Windhoek, he should support this legislation, because it has been introduced to remove precisely such differences.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move that this clause be negatived. This clause deals with transfers and cessions of real rights following the sequence of the successive transactions, in other words, it deals with the question of the formalities of registration having to take place on each occasion on which a sale of land, for instance, takes place. If A sells to B, there must be a registered transfer, despite the fact that B might have, before having registered transfer, sold to C and C to D. All these separate transfers have to be registered and all the formalities connected with a transfer have to be gone through before, finally, the transferor will have transferred to the transferee the said property. The ultimate purchaser, in other words, is entitled, in terms of this Bill, to get the property registered in his name.

What we are attempting here, is to try to simplify the procedure. There are certain exceptions to the necessity for following the sequence, and they are set out in clause 8(b). They follow the exceptions which are laid down in our Deeds Registries Act itself. In fact, this clause is drafted in almost identical terms. However, there is a history behind this whole matter, and I believe that it is only right that we should know what the history is in order to give an objective judgment as to whether this is a reasonable request—the request for the clause to be negatived—or not.

Prior to 1937 by deeds office practice—not by law—the deeds registries insisted on transfers following the sequence of their transactions—in other words, exactly what I have just said: Following from A to B to C to D, each being a separate transaction. The Act prior to the existing Act of 1937, was Act No. 13 of 1918. In that Act there was no provision for the sequence of transfer. It was only brought into operation in 1937. It was brought into operation in 1937 in view of the fact that, in 1935, in a judgment in the Transvaal Provincial Division, in the matter ex parte Van Schoor, it was ruled that, as no law provided for such a sequence, it need not necessarily be followed. The Registrar of Deeds was in terms of that judgment ordered to register transfer direct from the original owner to the ultimate transferee. In 1937, of course, the Act was amended and section 14 was included, legally providing for such a sequence.

The reason for the sequence, we believe, was twofold. Firstly, it would ensure that the whole history of that particular land was incorporated in the registry, and that one could follow the sequence of land transactions right through in respect of that particular land. Secondly, it was designed to protect the fiscus, the revenue, and to ensure that duties were paid in respect of each transaction. We maintain that this procedure is perhaps a cumbersome procedure, and sometimes it is a costly procedure. We felt that, if we were to truly simplifying this Bill, we would bring about a simplification if we omitted this cumbersome procedure. We believe that this Bill itself differs from the Deeds Registries Act, that we have in the Republic, in that the actual agreement, the contract between the parties, has to be produced to the Registrar in terms of clause 13(3) of this Bill, whereas in terms of our existing Deeds Registries Act in the Republic, no such agreement is ever tendered and kept by the deeds registry itself. We feel that if there have been intermediate transactions, the fact that such transactions have taken place could be included in the agreements, provided of course that regulations were made in terms of the Bill providing for this sort of situation and that these intermediate transactions would be endorsed on the title deeds. After all, that is the method of transfer in the Bill, viz. the endorsement of title deeds. There will therefore always be a history of transactions kept in the deeds registry at Rehoboth. Thus the history of the transactions itself will be kept there.

The revenue will be protected by the Registrar of Deeds, who will see to it that all the laws and customs of the Rehoboth people have been complied with. This is one of the provisions before transfer can be registered. He will therefore be able to protect the revenue as well. There will also be no necessity for the completion of all the documentation that is required in terms of the Bill by each of the parties in each of the individual transactions. We feel that in the regulations to be drawn up by the hon. the Minister in terms of the Bill, provision can be made for all these necessities so that these two requirements can be complied with. Because of the fact that this will simplify the procedures and that it will not be contrary to any law, this particular clause should be deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City made a good case of his proposal. However, I had my advisers investigate the matter at the Registrar of Deeds in Cape Town. It appears that if clause eight were to be deleted in its entirety, it would have tremendous effect on the rest of the Bill and that it would thereby be made far more complicated.

I was informed that it was regarded as essential to retain the clause, since it was inserted, not only with a view to fiscal considerations, but also, and in particular, to promote security of justice in regard to land transactions and so that there would be the necessary publicity for such transactions. As I said to the hon. member for Sea Point a moment ago, here again we should take the way of life and the thinking of the people of Rehoboth into consideration in putting at their disposal the necessary security, i.e. a conscious act of transfer. I am also informed that the same provisions in our own legislation, Act 47 of 1937, apply where transfer duties are not payable. Therefore I regret that I am not able to accept the amendment.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 10:

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

Clause 10(6) deals with the question of a woman who has property registered in her name and if she has subsequently, through marriage or through other circumstances, changed her name, she may now apply to get the property registrations and the registers changed into her new name. Our experience has been that this is used very rarely in the Republic. I have made inquiries through the Registrar of Deeds to find out how often this is used—exactly the same situation exists under our Deeds Registries Act—and have found that it is used very seldom, if ever. I believe it is really a redundancy and that at this stage of the proceedings it should be scrapped from the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, as I have already indicated, by way of an interjection when the hon. member for East London City spoke in the Second Reading debate, I am quite prepared to accept the amendment. I am with him all the way.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

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

Hon. members will see that this deals with the formalities when a party wishes to register transfer of immovable property in his name. It says—

That is very easy—

The one that we object to reads as follows—

We believe that it will be almost impossible for an uneducated person to establish these facts. I believe that even well-educated people do not know what a caveat or an interdict is. We believe that all these formalities should be watched by the registrar himself. He is there not only in order to protect the interests of the transferor and the transferee by preparing the documentation, but also to act as a scrutineer to see that the documentation is in order. It should be his function to see that no interdict, caveat or other notice applies in respect of the land in question. This should be deleted from the obligation cast upon the two parties.

Subparagraph (iv) states—

We cannot understand what these prescribed requirements are. We believe that the prescribed requirements will also be beyond the kith and ken of the transferor and the transferee, who are, in many cases, laymen. I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 55 of the Bill which states—

Therefore, there is already a protection, and I believe that the inclusion of subparagraph (iv) here is really redundant and that the function will be carried out by the registrar himself in any event.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, during the Second Reading debate, I raised a point with the hon. the Minister in regard to clause 13(2)(b)(i). The hon. the Minister however, did not reply to the point in his reply. Therefore, I raise it again, and move as an amendment—

The effect of this is, as I put it yesterday, that here is a provision that you cannot transfer property unless your certificate is accompanied by a document issued by the office of the Rehoboth Baster Community. It does not say by a particular official, a council or a body. It says “by the office of the Rehoboth Baster Community stating that the legal provisions and customs applying to the transfer have been complied with”. The effect of this, as I indicated yesterday, is that instead of a transfer of property being a purely economic decision based on what the legal requirements were—in other words, if you had a man who owned the property and who agreed to transfer it to someone else—here one could possibly have a political implication in regard to the transfer of immovable property. I also indicated that this had nothing to do with the clearance certificate which is a matter of practice in other communities. This is something quite different and divorced from that. One cannot open the door to a possible political implication where in fact a transfer of property can be withheld by reason of what may well be a political decision by a particular council. It does not say “the council” here, nor does it say “the official”. It says “the office of the Rehoboth Baster Community”. One presumes that what is meant here is that the office will be the body acting on behalf of the council. In those circumstances I cannot agree with this, and that is why I have named the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think this Committee would be helped if the hon. the Minister could tell us precisely what is meant by the phrase “issued by the office of the Rehoboth Raster Community”. We have looked through the definitions and we cannot see the phrase “the office of the Rehoboth Raster Community”. There is reference to the function of the “Kaptein’s” council and to the legislative council, the two together constituting the legislative authority, and it says that the executive authority is vested in the “Kaptein’s” council. We have, however, not yet been able to find out what is meant precisely by the term “the office of the Rehoboth Raster Community”. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can say what that is intended to mean and, if it is not covered by a definition, whether it should not in fact be covered by a definition by way of amendment to this piece of legislation.

Secondly, Sir, it is one thing to have a document issued by an office, but what is meant by “an office”? Surely it should be issued by an officer, for instance by the secretary or by somebody delegated to act on his behalf. To say that a document must be issued by an office I do not believe is adequate. It must be issued by a person, a person acting under authority or under delegated authority. I think it would help us in the consideration of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville if the hon. the Minister could tell us where in this legislation “the office of the Rehoboth Raster Community” is set up, and whether reference should not be made to an officer rather than an office when it comes to the issuing of this important declaration.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City in respect of the deletion of subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2). I am prepared to accept that part of his amendment, because what the hon. member said made sense. However, I am unfortunately unable to accept the deletion of subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2). The system of registration which is being envisaged in the Rill will, when it is implemented, really be in a transitional stage. Hon. members are aware of the circumstances which will prevail with effect from the implementation of this legislation until the Rehoboth Self-government Act comes into operation. In other words, this is a transitional stage, also as far as the transfer of the office from Windhoek is concerned. It may prove necessary at a later stage, in addition to complying with the requirements mentioned in this subparagraph, also to prescribe other requirements by way of regulation. In other words, we shall have to have the protection of subparagraph (iv) if it is found necessary to prescribe other requirements by way of regulation. For that reason I am therefore unable to accept the deletion of subparagraph (iv) at this stage. I want to apologize to the hon. member for Yeoville. Afterwards I was a little concerned because I did not deal with the points he had raised during the Second Reading. Unfortunately, however, we are working under pressure of time, and for that reason I was unable to reply to all the questions. I am replying to them now by informing the hon. member that it is still the practice in Rehoboth today—even now when the advisory council is operating; therefore, not even at the advanced stage we are going to have shortly, the legislative council—that all transactions of this nature are submitted to the Raster Council, the advisory council as it is called now, and I do not think that the deduction can be made that politics apply there. Various political parties are represented in the advisory council. However, because it is a relatively small community and because the people attach great value to the thorough control over, inter alia, their own people, over citizenship—it is irrelevant here—but the people attach just as much value to citizenship and applications for citizenship. These matters are considered by that council as are also other transactions. What we are doing here, is to give expression to local practice.

The hon. member for Sea Point raised the question of the term “the office of the Raster Gemeinte”. This is not defined in the definitions. The hon. member said quite rightly that it is not being covered in the definition. This is a concept which is well-known locally in Rehoboth. The office of the Baster Gemeinte is the administrative office of Rehoboth, the administrative office of the Council. This is the office where the chief officer concerned keeps these records, and therefore I do not see any reason why this should not be the name of the office which issues the documents.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the explanation of the hon. the Minister, but it is now quite clear to me that the decision to effect a transfer is no longer the technical decision which it is in accordance with the concept which we accept in respect of the transfer of property. He says very clearly that the whole matter goes not to the office for some official to sign a formality, he says that what is intended to be done here is that in fact the whole issue comes before the advisory council, or before the Volksraad once that is established, and there a decision has to be made as to whether a property should be transferred or not. That, to my mind, has very serious implications, because that decision can now be a political decision. If a person is not acceptable, there may well one day be a resolution which says that they are not agreeing to the transfer, and there is nothing that can be done about it, because there is no appeal provided for here, and if a certificate is not furnished, the transfer of the property cannot be effected. We cannot have a purely economic decision where a property has been bought and sold and the legal formalities have been complied with, we cannot have that tampered by political considerations. It is like coming to this House, Sir, and saying that if you, Mr. Chairman, have bought a property or a farm it needs a resolution of this House in order to approve the transfer. It is ludicrous, and obviously has political implications.

The point that was made by the hon. member for Sea Point in respect of the office—it is quite clear that if this is intended to be a decision, as the hon. the Minister says, of the advisory council or of the Volksraad, then it is not the decision of the office. Then it is in fact a resolution of that body, which is what the hon. the Minister had in mind if his reply was intended to convey what it did convey. With great respect, in the light of what the hon. the Minister has said now, I could not possibly vote for this because it quite clearly introduces in an ordinary property transaction considerations which have nothing whatsoever to do with the transfer of property.

Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the Committee I should like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I now move the following amendments—

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that he will go into this matter further, and here I am referring to the question of what the office of the Rehoboth Raster Community is. I can understand that in the past there has been an informal approach to this. It has been accepted that in practice a certain office is the office of the Rehoboth Baster Community, and it may well be that the secretary of that office or the chief official of that office has been accepted as being the officer in charge. What the hon. the Minister is trying to do in this piece of legislation, however, is to take an informal, traditional situation, which has existed in the past, and to try to cast it into formal, legislative terms. The question of the transfer of land is in future going to hinge upon whether there is a certificate accompanied by a document issued by the office of the Rehoboth Raster Community. Therefore I believe that people are entitled to know what the office of the Rehoboth Raster Community is. Is it the office of the Kaptein’s council or is it the office of the Legislative Assembly? At the moment the hon. the Minister says the people of the area know what it is because it has always been there, but we are now not merely dealing with a tradition. We are not just dealing with a custom. It is the hon. the Minister who is seeking to translate custom into formal legislative terms.

I therefore believe that it is quite essential for the hon. the Minister to seek to give a definition so that people know—not only in terms of custom or tradition, but also in terms of the law—to which office they must go. They must also know to what officer they must go. It is no use saying “the officer”. It could be the clerk at the counter. It must be stated that the officer is the official or the secretary of the “Kaptein’s” council, the man who is formally in charge of the statutory body, i.e. the Rehoboth Baster Community’s office. It is quite impossible to have the question of the transfer of land left vague and woolly by saying that the people know what is meant. In the absence of the required document, the transfer of land cannot be registered, and therefore it is absolutely imperative for the hon. the Minister to seek some means of defining in legislative terms the meaning of the words “the Rehoboth Baster Community’s office”. He must also appoint an official who is responsible. Is it the clerk, the typist, the man who makes the tea or the man who merely puts the stamp on the document, or is it a particular official like the secretary of the “Kaptein’s” council? We asked the Minister. We did not want to make a song and dance about this issue. We said what is meant by “the office”? In reply, he said “the office” was not defined, but the people know what it is. We asked him what is meant by “the officer”? His reply was that people know who the officer is.

I never said that.

Well, who is the officer then? I put it to the hon. the Minister: Who is the officer who will issue this document? As the hon. member for Yeoville said—following the hon. the Minister’s involvement in this debate when he said the matter would have to be put before the Kaptein’s council—if it is to be a decision of that council, surely it should be the secretary, chairman or official of that council who must be the formal officer issuing these certificates. It is quite intolerable that the question of the transfer of land and the registration of deeds should be linked to an office which has no statutory definition, which is not recognized in law and which is merely, according to the hon. the Minister, known by the people of the area to exist

Mr. Chairman, I am really surprised at the unwillingness of the hon. members of the Progressive Party to accept customs of people they do not know. I want to start with the hon. member for Yeoville. I pointed out to him that, in the past, under the existing regulations it was even impossible for a farm property to be let without the approval of the advisory council. It is merely the continuation of an existing practice for which provision is being made here. The hon. member says he cannot vote in favour of this, because such transactions are made subject to politics. I repeat: This is the practice of the people there. Let the hon. member join me in considering the set-up of the present advisory council and later the Kaptein’s Council and Legislative Assembly. If it were possible to level the accusation that people are influenced politically as far as the decision is concerned as to whether or not it is possible for land to be transferred, the leader of the minority party or even any other party would not leave the matter at that. Surely, he has the opportunity to raise a hue and cry about the matter. Therefore, it would be foolish to allow politics to play a role in this connection. What is more: The hon. member who is a lawyer, knows that an aggrieved person will be able to appeal to the court in a case of this nature. I notice the hon. member is shaking his head. I do not know why he is doing it. [Interjections.] A person who feels himself aggrieved, will be able to appeal to the court.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Sea Point that the office of the Raster Gemeinte in Rehoboth is the administrative office of the Raster Council, or rather the advisory council as it is known at present. In future it will be the administrative office of the Kaptein’s Council. It really does not matter whether an appropriate definition of the office is included in the Rill, because the hon. member can ask anyone in Rehoboth where the office of the Raster Gemeinte is and he will be told exactly where it is situated. The hon. member can ask anyone there with whom he has to discuss a transaction such as this, and the hon. member will be told who the person is he has to see. Those people are not so dense as the hon. member wanted to imply. If he were to ask anybody this question there, he would not be referred to the person making the tea, as had been suggested by the hon. member. The hon. member would be referred to the head of the office, who is the responsible official on behalf of the Kaptein’s Council, or, at the present time, the advisory council. I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz,

Question put: That the paragraph stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—93: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Mai an, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, W. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft) R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, clause 14 of the Bill deals with the question of transfer of land from a joint estate and relates to the question of joining of a surviving spouse with the executor when the property is being dealt with by the executor and the parties had been married in community of property. The clause in the Bill follows almost word for word the provisions of section 21 of the Deeds Registries Act. The history of this section, I believe, is also of interest to this Committee in order to make a decision as to whether this is a reasonable amendment or not. I would like to quote an authority on the Deeds Registries Act in support of my contention that it is possible to delete this clause from the Bill without disturbing the general legal provisions which, we believe, this Bill is aiming at, and to keep the registration of deeds following the proper legal requirements of our land. I am quoting from the second edition of a book by Newell: The law and practice of deeds registrations, on page 183, where the author states as follows—

Which is what we are asking for in our amendment. The deletion of this clause will mean that the executor only will be able to pass transfer—

Section 21 of our Deeds Registries Act was included for the purpose of obtaining uniformity of practice. This is what Newell has to say—

That is elsewhere in this volume—

In other words, it appears that the people who deal with deeds registries, favour the old Transvaal practice, where the executor alone dealt with the properties. I believe that the inclusion in 1937 of section 21 in the Deeds Registries Act, was in order to bring about uniformity of practice among the various provinces. As the hon. the Minister knows, following the stare decisis rule, we have to follow the decisions made in each province, if we possibly can. In order to bring about uniformity, this section 21 was included in our Act. However, in this Bill we now deal only with the Rehoboth Gebiet, and I believe that this is going to simplify the procedures again, because, as a practising conveyancer, I know that it is difficult at times to obtain the signature to all the documentation that has to take place in regard to a transfer where a surviving spouse has to be joined with the executor. The executor is the one who normally functions in order to obtain a transfer from the estate to whoever is entitled to the particular land. He is the one who does all the work connected with it in conjunction, of course, with the conveyancer dealing with the matter, and to have to bring in a further party, also creates some difficulties. I believe that, if we want to simplify this Bill, we can simplify it by deleting this clause altogether and by allowing only the executor to sign documentation in regard to transfers from joint estates.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment. The hon. member for East London City made a thorough study of the clause concerned, as is evident from his research on the origin of section 21 of the existing Deeds Registries Act. Although the hon. member appeals to the fact that we have a unique situation as far as deeds in Rehoboth is concerned, a situation which is divorced from the uniform system in the provinces of the Republic and in South West Africa, it nevertheless seems to me as though the hon. member will have to advance his plea at a different level before it will be possible to accept his plea. The information I obtained from the Registrar of Deeds in Cape Town is to the effect that it is impossible for the clause to be withdrawn since what is being envisaged is the protection of the rights of the surviving spouse where he is joint owner of the property. As has quite rightly been said by the hon. member, a similar provision exists in our Deeds Registries Act. What we are dealing with here, is that the interests of the surviving spouse, as joint owner, have to be protected. For that reason I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to hear from the hon. the Minister that the local Registrar of Deeds in Cape Town has furnished the hon. the Minister with that information. After the legislation had been read a First Time, I took the liberty to discuss the matter with the Registrar of Deeds in Cape Town and to ask him for his advice in this connection. I find it very strange that the advice which the hon. the Minister says has been furnished to him does not tally with the advice I obtained.

You are of minor importance.

The hon. member for Carletonville says the reason why the advice I obtained differs from that of the hon. the Minister’s is because I am of minor importance. I do not think that is the reason.

You should not take me too seriously.

To my mind the reason is that we are dealing here with a population of approximately 19 000 souls. Suppose the families consist of an average of seven or eight members. That would mean that there could be approximately 2 000 landowners in the territory at the most. If that is the case, it is impossible for more than one or two land transactions to take place per month. It is ridiculous to introduce intricate legislation and to apply it to a territory in which there may possibly be one or two transactions per month. This is the reason I obtained from the Registrar of Deeds as to why such intricate legislation is unnecessary.

Are you still discussing this clause?

Yes, I am still discussing this clause. Because of the information I obtained, the hon. member for East London City and I went into the matter further. The result of these further investigations was the speech made by the hon. member this afternoon. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he had asked the Registrar of Deeds what he would have liked to have done in his deeds office in Cape Town, he would most certainly have replied that he would like to see section 21 retained. However, if one were to ask him what he would have preferred doing in Rehoboth, he would have given the same advice he had given to me. It seems to me as though the questions which were put to the Registrar of Deeds were probably put in a somewhat different form from the questions I had put to him. I asked him pertinently about the legislation and the application thereof in Rehoboth. I think the hon. the Minister should consider the matter again. At this stage it may possibly be a little difficult for the hon. the Minister to consider the matter, but I nevertheless think that the hon. the Minister will be able to consider the matter at a later stage and, upon reflection, may leave out the clause when taking the legislation to the Other Place.

Order! I do not think the hon. the Minister need reply to this point, otherwise the Registrar of Deeds in Cape Town might become involved in the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is only fair to say that my advisers—I did not contact the Registrar of Deeds myself—were in contact with the office of the Registrar of Deeds. Apparently the hon. member for Wynberg and my advisers spoke to different people, but I furnished the advice which I had obtained. What I said here was obtained in the form of advice from the office of the Registrar of Deeds and it was not an attempt to mislead the hon. member.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reiterate the reasons why we are supporting this Bill. In the first place we are doing it because it was asked for by the people of Rehoboth themselves. We believe this is a very cogent circumstance for us in Parliament when we deal with a group of people in respect of whom we have already passed— whether we agree with it or not, it is going to be law—a Self-Government Bill which will become a Self-Government Act. We believe that in the light of circumstances, of practicalities, and if the people of that particular area come to this Parliament and ask us to pass a Bill dealing with deeds registration, then, providing that there are no basic cause for us to stop and wonder why it should be done, I believe we should support the introduction of a system of deeds registry. This is the approach the official Opposition had, namely that we should support this Bill because the people of Rehoboth have asked for it.

The second reason is that, having accepted that it was in fact required, we felt it should be a simplified form of procedure. The mere implementation of the existing Deeds Registries Act of the Republic in the Rehoboth Gebiet will, so we believe, create a considerable amount of difficulty. The pure practicalities of the situation are that, there are at the moment no conveyancers practising in Rehoboth. Any conveyancer who wishes to execute deeds in the Rehoboth registry—if it was included as a registry under the existing Act—would have to proceed 60 miles from Windhoek across to Rehoboth in order to execute the deeds. Consequently it would be impracticable to introduce a similar form of registration to the one we have here in the Republic. We felt therefore it should be a simplified procedure. When the Bill was introduced, we found that it in fact contained a simplified form of procedure, and we were prepared to accept that this was the feeling behind it, because after all, the Transkei had had a similar simplified form of procedure since 1921. By proclamation, certain land allocations were registered in a special deeds registry in the Transkei long before this Government had ever thought of granting independence to the Transkei. We therefore had a practical example of a system of land registration which had operated very well in the Transkei. Therefore we believed that it would be possible to introduce a simplified form of land registration in the Rehoboth area in terms of this Bill.

The third reason why we were prepared to support this Bill was that we were informed—and we had no reason whatsoever for doubting this—that a proper registration system in the area was urgently required. We were told that it was urgently required by the people themselves because, in order to obtain funds to improve their position, they would require a proper registration of their title deeds. We were told that it was therefore necessary to pass this legislation during this session of Parliament.

For those three reasons we decided to support this Bill. We cannot agree with the reasoning of the hon. member for Sea Point. We believe that he is making a political football of this matter. He obviously has to take the same line that that party took when they objected to the Rehoboth Self-Government Bill. He is being consistent, I suppose, and that is reasonable, but I believe that if he was really practical, he would accept our viewpoint, and that is that this Bill is necessary, and that with us he should be prepared to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. Nothing was said by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate or in his reply to the particular points raised during the Committee Stage, particularly in regard to clause 2, to persuade us to support this Bill at Third Reading. The hon. member for East London City says that we are being consistent in our approach. Sir, we are being consistent in our approach and the Minister has made it quite clear that this Bill goes hand in hand with the Rehoboth Self-Government Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria West went further and said that this was the expression of opinion of a people who want independence for themselves. And so, Sir, because we do not believe that this is the appropriate time to proceed in this manner within the philosophy of separate development, we are not prepared to support this Bill. It is a time when the peoples of South West Africa are deciding on the future for themselves, either collectively or separately, and we do not believe that it is appropriate to anticipate a situation or to prejudice the talks which are taking place.

Secondly, the hon. member for East London City has once again mentioned the distance of 60 miles. Sir, we are totally unimpressed by the fact that attorneys might have to travel 60 miles. In the Transvaal the same kind of thing has to happen between places like Pietersburg and Johannesburg or Pretoria.

No; they have resident conveyancers.

Well, then, what is the problem? They have to find respondents acting in Pretoria or Johannesburg. Sir, we do not argue that there are practical administrative problems, but we do not believe that the practical administrative problems warrant the exclusion of 19 000 people in South West Africa from the ambit of the general registration of deeds system which applies in South West Africa and in South Africa.

Thirdly, the hon. the Minister himself must be consistent. If it is valid that 19 000 Rehoboth people in a group area are entitled to demand or to request a separate deeds registration system and deeds registration office, then this whole principle must be applied throughout South Africa. If the Coloured people or the Indian people or the various Bantu communities ask for a separate system of deeds registration, the precedent has now been created as a result of this legislation. For these reasons we will not be able to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for East London City for his remarks and for his support for the Bill. I must say, Sir, that I have taken notice of the fact that the hon. member for East London City has put in quite a lot of work concerning this piece of legislation and I am especially grateful to the hon. member for that, because he assisted us in bringing forward the best possible legislation. I wish to thank him for his support.

*The hon. member mentioned three reasons why his side of the House was supporting the legislation, and they are not only acceptable reasons, but valid reasons as well, reasons in which this side of the House also believes, namely that it is the task of a Government to give effect to the wishes of a particular group of people such as this one, that it should also make the system as convenient as possible for them—this is what this legislation is aimed at, although the hon. member for Sea Point did not seem to realize it—and, finally, that there is some urgency in this matter in the sense that especially the farming community of Rehoboth has reached a stage where the farmers wish to develop their farms, and in order to do so, they have to obtain funds, for which they need bonds as well as facilities for transferring their land.

Now I come to the hon. member for Sea Point. This hon. member, unlike the hon. member for East London City, surprised me again today by the disrespect which he and his party show for the desires of people he does not even understand. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member that he has created a strange impression by the speech he has just made as well as his earlier one. That is a party which is always emphasizing the positive aspects of democracy, and its members give themselves out to be the only democrats, but here they are disregarding the wishes of other people and they want the authorities to decide for them. Forget about the desires and the wishes of those people. What does it matter whether there are 19 000 or 19 million of them? This is a population group with characteristics of its own and with views of its own. The hon. member should go there and get to know the people. Then he will be able to speak here authoritatively. The people of Rehoboth are proud of their own customs and they will not accept just any system or dispensation from elsewhere. They do not want things to be forced upon them. Here they are being given what they have asked for. The hon. member criticized me because the office of the Baster Community was not being defined. The hon. member wants to make a debating point out of this. But let me ask him whether he can give me a definition of the office of the Baster Community, or even a definition of a magistrate’s office. These concepts are self-explanatory, after all. Can the hon. member give me a definition of the office of the Baster community?

No. But this is your Bill.

Sir, if the hon. member is still unable to understand this, I want to bring home to him the fact that this is one of those concepts where an attempt to define it will simply bring you back to the same wording that is contained here. Then the hon. member alleged again that this was just another piece of ideological legislation—a part of separate development, as he puts it—but then he blames me on the other hand for not being consistent by introducing legislation which would establish separate deeds offices for all the other population groups in the country. But they have not asked for it, as these people have. Therefore the hon. member’s arguments are contradictory. He now wants me to do this, i.e. to introduce ideological legislation, and because I refrain from doing so, he is angry.

I want to conclude that I was surprised once again by the standpoint adopted here by the PRP, a standpoint which disregards the desires of the people of Rehoboth.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lengthy and, I think, full discussion of this measure which was only some five clauses in length. It was a lengthy and interesting discussion because of the implications of the Bill and the problem upon which it has focused attention. One reminds oneself that the principal Act was introduced in 1951. It was introduced to define certain offences— mainly the offence of trespassing which at the time the then hon. Minister of Justice, Mr. Swart, said differed from province to province, and therefore it was necessary to have such a definition in the main Act. It was also to deal with what was termed “pondok” farming and to prohibit fees being charged by people who allowed squatters to use their ground. Finally it was to define the function and the discretion which was to vest in the courts in dealing with matters that came before them as a result of the penal provisions. In the Act, as it stands, the courts were given the power to order ejectment and effect the transfer of the squatters concerned and their families to other accommodation, and also to make orders for the demolition and removal of unauthorized structures. During the 20 to 30 years this Act has been in force incredibly bad slum conditions, equal if not worse than those existing today—but certainly as extensive—have been eliminated. They have been eliminated without the legislation having to be amended and, in fact, without the matter even having to come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry responsible for housing.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to those in a moment. No one denies that the Department of Community Development, and its predecessor responsible for housing, has had officials motivated by great dedication. No wonder the most commendable results were achieved over the years. They were also able to secure the full and enthusiastic co-operation of local authorities throughout the country. The hon. the Minister referred, in particular, to Sophiatown, Martindale on the Rand, Cato Manor in Natal and Windermere and Elsies River in the Cape, to mention but a few. In all these cases, however, the problem was resolved without the need for applying the Act or asking for an amendment such as we are now being asked to approve. Surely this is sufficient proof that this Bill is unnecessary in the existing circumstances. There is, after all, a public awareness of the evils, degradation and health hazards of squatter camps, and there is an awareness of the urgent necessity, repeated over and over again by the hon. the Minister during this debate, for adequate housing and health services. There is an awareness on the part of local authorities, and a dedicated endeavour by them to eliminate squatter conditions. There is certainly tangible evidence that commerce and industry are quite willing to play their part in meeting this problem of housing on a purely voluntary basis, without any compulsion.

I must remind the hon. the Minister that the present-day situation has unfortunately been aggravated by two decisions of this Government. The first was the inexplicable step taken to prevent non-profit organizations such as the Citizens’ Housing League in Cape Town and the Pinelands Development Company for a period of some eight years to continue to build houses for sale to Coloured people because they were White organizations. The effect of that on the housing shortage cannot be overstressed. That went on for eight years. Fortunately that policy has been reversed and arrangements can now be made to allow these companies to undertake building operations jointly with Coloured persons.

I now come to the second aspect on which there was a change in policy announced by the hon. the Minister, a change which we welcome. Over the years 50% of all houses built for Coloureds in the areas of the Cape and elsewhere by local authorities with Government financial aid had to be used for the rehousing of Coloureds who had to be moved in terms of the Group Areas Act. I accept that a considerable percentage of those Coloureds had to be moved because of slum conditions. Let us assume that 50% of those who received this priority, received it because of slum conditions. In the Cape Peninsula alone 3 642 Coloured families were moved in 1975 because of requirements under the Group Areas Act. If we assume that 50% of them were moved because they were living in slum conditions, then 1 800 dwellings could have been used for the benefit of housing squatters in order to relieve the squatting situation. Fortunately, as I say, the hon. the Minister has now agreed that this provision will now be reduced to a 25% call on those houses.

We cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill and we will vote against it really because of three basic consequences of the Bill. I want to emphasize that the first is that while the provision in the principal Act of access to the courts is not repealed, there is now added to it in terms of this Bill the authority of the executive to act without going to the court in circumstances set out in the Bill. I want to remind the House that when this Bill was introduced by the then Minister, Mr. C. R. Swart, in 1951 it was to replace a war-time regulation which did not provide for access to the courts. Mr. Swart said in his speech that because a war measure was to be enshrined by statute, it was necessary to provide for the surveillance of the courts. That is the reason why it was introduced. May I remind the hon. the Minister that he himself expressed views in regard to action being taken outside the surveillance of the courts? I remind him of an article which he wrote not so long ago in which he said, and I have always admired his eloquence—

I want the hon. the Minister to adopt that same attitude today and not give his support to provisions in this Bill which really will mean that administrative action can be taken without any reference to our courts.

Our second objection to this measure is that the autonomy of local authorities is now to be curtailed because of the directive powers which will be vested in the Ministers of Community Development and of Bantu Administration and Development. We attempted to amend those provisions in the Committee Stage, but our amendments were rejected by the hon. the Minister. He was supported by the House in his decision to reject them.

The third objection which we have is the insertion of the proposed section 3C which we have referred to as an influx control measure. The hon. the Minister, however, finding the most suitable words to meet the situation, said it was merely a control of mobility of the Coloured people.

I used those words in reply to the hon. member for Houghton.

Well, it is influx control, put in other words. It boils down to differentiation or discrimination, words over which we can argue for a long time. However, whether it is control of mobility or influx control, the provision is totally unacceptable in so far as we on this side of the House are concerned. We regard it as a retrogressive step affecting the existing rights of citizens of this country.

In conclusion I want to make it quite clear that this Bill, which vests extended powers in the Bantu Administration Boards and in the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, has been handled by the Minister of Community Development who, quite correctly, said that he could give no explanations of possible policy applications in so far as Bantu Administration is concerned. Despite repeated requests from this side of the House that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development or one of his deputies—after all, he has three of them, who have sat in silence— should participate in this debate, they have not done so. There has only been absolute silence as to what the intention of the Department of Bantu Administration is in dealing with the Bantu squatting, legally or illegally, at Crossroads. The people living there at the present moment are persons, they are individuals. Yet we have not had one word, not one single sentence, from the Minister concerned or from one of his deputies. I want to say that we on this side of the House can only regard this as a grave neglect of their responsibilities when this Bill, which we are asked to support, was being motivated. That is another reason why we shall not support this Bill, but vote against it at the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react to what the hon. member for Green Point said today, but I should like to refer to what the hon. member said yesterday during the Committee Stage of this Bill. Yesterday he said, inter alia, (19 May, page V.3)—

In the television film which was shown on Tuesday night, the skeletons of the German past were dug up and the gas chambers and Belsen camp were referred to. Is it necessary for the hon. member for Green Point to compare the actions of this side of the House with those crimes? [Interjections.] If the hon. member is so keen on digging up old skeletons, if he is so keen on digging up the past, surely he need not do his digging in Germany. After all he can do his digging here in South Africa. If he does so, he will dig open the graves of 26 000 women and children. Does he want to return to those days now, when hundreds of women and children died in concentration camps in South Africa?

Order! The hon. member must discuss the Bill.

The hon. member knows that in South Africa today an attempt is being made to bring English-and Afrikaans-speaking people together. But the hon. member draws a comparison here between us on this side of the House and the Nazis with their gas chambers and everything which is unsavoury. [Interjections.] This is what he insinuated. [Interjections.] Yesterday the hon. member for Green Point revealed himself to be a putrid, reprehensible and irresponsible politician when he made that statement.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “putrid” and “reprehensible”.

I withdraw those words, Sir.

But the hon. member for Green Point still remains a rotten politician.

I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that the freedom which he enjoys here in South Africa today has been obtained by the NP. The free and independent Republic in which he can move about freely today—there are no restrictions on him—and in which he feels so happy, his own citizenship, his national identity are all things which the NP Government provided him with. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that we are now dealing with a Bill on squatting. [Interjections.] Order! I want to request hon. members please not to make so many interjections.

Mr. Speaker, I am coming to that. I should first like to say that this Bill on the prevention of illegal squatting is something which we should all welcome. Surely any measure which prevents an unlawful deed from being committed should be welcomed. After all, this proposed legislation is not being created in order to create misery. On the contrary. It is aimed at the prevention of misery. Now that hon. member and his party are alleging that the Government is oppressing people; that the Government is persecuting people. On the other hand, the Government is already recreating conditions, in order to transform conditions of misery and poverty, such as those on the Cape Flats. This legislation does not refer to a single population group alone. Nowhere is any mention made of the Coloured, the Black man or the White man. It is aimed at all illegal squatters. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central alleged the other day that there were no restrictions. There are restrictions. Those restrictions are only applied by certain city councils, and they are applied to Whites. I challenge him to prove that any White person in the municipal area of Port Elizabeth may erect a structure without an approved building plan. The same applies to Uitenhage and any other large town. As soon as a White person erects a building or any structure without the permission or the approval of the municipality, it is immediately demolished. [Interjections.] The Coloureds or non-Whites, or whoever they may be—all those squatters—are privileged. The Whites are discriminated against, but they are not. [Interjections.] Because this Government is taking precautionary measures by means of which the influx of squatters will be curbed and by means of which an end will be made to those shanty conditions, the Opposition are up in arms against us. Hon. members even held protest meetings. I shall turn to the hon. member for Rondebosch later. I shall also direct my arguments at other hon. members of the PRP.

When the Government tries to clear up those shanty conditions, to accommodate those people properly, they are the people who set the world on fire and allege that the Government is persecuting people and driving them from their homes and residential areas. This comes from the PRP. In addition, however, they are always the first people to exploit the existence of shanty conditions, who send photographs and newspaper reports abroad to show everyone what conditions are prevailing in South Africa.

Please do not confuse the two matters!

Man, you are confused!

Your party is confused!

When we take note of the uncontrolled influx of Coloureds from the rural areas, we realize that it is not the decent and hard-working Coloured who is coming here. A great number of them are the layabouts, people who do not want to work and come here from up-country. I shall refer to this again later. We have heard of this before in history. It is those who are work-shy, the birds of passage, the no-goods who are involved here. I shall indicate to hon. members that it is the no-goods who move from the rural areas. On the farms they steal from one farm after another until they are no longer welcome anywhere. Then they move to the city. No one can deny that criminals of that type move away from the rural areas and become squatters in the urban areas. One simply has to look at the crime rate on the Cape Flats. Recently 69 houses and shops were broken into in one week. Is it not the no-goods who do such things? Or are people like this little angels? [Interjections.] There are even murderers among them. Murders are even committed in Constantia, a White residential area. The hon. member for Houghton must not pull such a face. Does she also pull a face when murders are committed?

You should not talk such nonsense.

Who does one find in the squatters’ camps, people who, according to these hon. members should not be touched? They are the super skollies, agitators, dagga smugglers and alcoholics. These are the type of people which are found there. How do they get there? As I have already said, they are the people who do not want to work in the rural areas and who are brought by contractors with lorries to Cape Town and other cities where they squat.

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

No. [Interjections.] One even finds contractors who fetch these people from as far away as Graaff-Reinet. After a time, however, it becomes apparent that there is not enough work for all the people and then they are off-loaded on the Cape Flats.

There are also developers who purchased large pieces of land over which there is no control. This land is often used as a site for squatter camps. What conditions prevail in the squatter camps? It is very unhygienic there. Almost no facilities such as sewage and health services are provided there. How are educational facilities to be provided in such squatter camps? In my opinion influx control must be applied in order to solve the problem, and in this connection no distinction must be made between White, Black or Coloured. Illegal squatting must be forbidden everywhere, no matter whether the people who are guilty of squatting are White, Black or Coloured. Even the hon. member for Houghton should be punished if she becomes a squatter. [Interjections.] Punitive measures must be applied to contractors who bring these people here without providing them with accommodation. This is an evil.

Today a combined effort is being made by the Department of Community Development and the Cape Town City Council as well as by the Divisional Council to provide squatters with accommodation. Instead of welcoming this attempt, hon. members on the other side are kicking up a great cloud of dust in Parliament because precautionary measures are being taken against illegal squatters. After all, we cannot allow more shanties to be erected on the Cape Flats. Why cannot the problem be solved in an orderly way?

Where must they go to?

Where do they come from? They had houses in the rural areas. At the moment there are 21 000 squatter families on the Cape Flats. The hon. the Minister said a few days ago that many major contracts had been concluded for housing development at Mitchell’s Plain and other places. By the end of this year 12 000 houses will already be allotted to Coloureds, unless something should happen to prevent it. Is this not something positive which is being done to combat the squatting problem? A few days ago the hon. the Minister said in this House that R60 million of the R112 million which was made available to the National Housing Fund for the financial year 1976-’77 is going to be used for Coloured housing. Is the hon. member for Rondebosch, who arranged protest gatherings on the Cape Flats, going to tell this to those people? Of this R60 million, R50 million is going to be used for erecting houses at Cape Town and Stellenbosch. From 1 January 1972 to 31 December 1975, that is to say, over the past four years, 43 694 houses were built for Coloureds alone with the money which was made available by the Department of Community Development.

Where was this done?

Throughout the entire country, wherever Coloureds live. Those houses cost R163 536 000. A total of 9 981 houses at a cost of R53 401 400 were built for the Asians, and 33 373 houses at a cost of R27 207 000 were built for the Bantu. In other words, over those four years altogether 86 048 houses were built for non-Whites for a total amount of R244 144 000. Then there are still people who want to compare us on this side of the House with the Belsen camp. [Interjections.]

I just want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Rondebosch. I heard that a certain MP appeared in court over a permit, but I do not want to refer to this. I want to refer to what the hon. member said here in the House. The standpoint that hon. member adopted was very definitely opposed to the attempts which we are making to combat the influx of squatters. The hon. member for Boksburg said that no responsible family would take to the road without knowing whether they are going to obtain accommodation. The hon. member for Rondebosch then referred to Van Bruggen’s book, Ampie. The hon. member also referred to the book The Disinherited. This is a cheap story book, provocative rubbish and I do not even read it. The hon. member also said that there had been a migration of Whites to the cities, but I want to challenge the hon. member to prove to me where Whites practised illegal squatting. The Whites came to the cities in an orderly way and they were incorporated into the community in an orderly way. That is not all. They did not become criminals, dagga smokers, no-goods and skollies. They preserved their moral standards, kept their traditions, upheld their religion and loved their church. That is not all. The Afrikaner helped to build up the city and bring it where it is today. Who are the people who keep the wheels turning in factories today? They are the Whites of the rural areas. The hon. member referred to Ampie, but he must remember that Ampie was perhaps an outcast as a result of a combination of factors beyond his control. He was retarded and quite possibly irresponsible. Ampie may be forgiven. But what about the hon. member for Rondebosch? He had all the opportunities to distinguish himself. Where is he today? What company does he keep? In what relationship does he stand towards his country and his nation?

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

Sir, I shall return to the Bill in a moment. I have not once read or heard that he told the non-Whites and the world how much money the State is spending annually on non-White housing. I have not once heard him speaking of the millions of rands which we are spending on education, for example in the form of building schools, colleges and universities. I have not once heard him tell the non-Whites of the medical services, health services, hospitals, etc., which we make available to them. Has he never heard about the welfare services, the care of the aged, the disability grants and the old-age homes which we provide to the non-Whites? I have never yet heard him talk about the provision of labour to non-Whites in all spheres. I have never yet heard him talk about the sport facilities which are being given to them. Then there is also the question of the purchase of land. A total of 7½ million morgen of land is being purchased for the Blacks. Then there is the development of the homelands. Millions of rands are being spent to give these people higher wages and salaries. This afternoon I want to say this to the hon. member: Do not refer to Ampie. Do not refer to the Afrikaner who came to the city. Those people rehabilitated themselves and were not a burden upon the State. He must not hold meetings and break up the good relations between the White and the Black in South Africa. He and his party must go and tell the Blacks what the White man is doing to uplift the Black in South Africa. If he does this, he will be performing a Christian task for the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North tilted at so many windmills at the same time that I do not know where to guard or to stop him. When listening to him I almost have the feeling that he does not like me, Sir! [Interjections.] We have now come to the Third Reading of this Bill, and one of the most outstanding aspects of the whole Bill, as it has been discussed in the various stages, is the complete silence of the Department of Bantu Administration. In this connection I just want to point out that the hon. the Deputy Minister wrote a letter to me this afternoon in which he said that he would like to participate, but that circumstances beyond his control made it impossible. Nevertheless I find it rather strange, Sir. There are only six clauses in this Bill, one of which contains the short title. Three of the remaining five clauses are intimately concerned with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development when it comes to the implementation of this Bill.

On various occasions, during the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister said that it fell outside the purview of his department. The dilemma with which we are faced is, however, that the problems which we are discussing are not outside the purview of the Bill. This is one of the aspects about which I really thought we would be able to conduct a responsible debate. The hon. the Minister also asked repeatedly that this Bill should not be seen in isolation, and that this Bill should be viewed against the background of a wider plan. He sketched this plan for us to the best of his ability, especially with respect to Coloured squatting and Coloured housing. The most important characteristic of this plan is that an attempt must be made, with the aid of a reasonably spectacular housing plan to provide houses, while at the same time it must be attempted to limit the mobility of Coloureds to the urban areas and to freeze the existing squatter camps, where temporary housing may then be provided. In this way the hon. the Minister hopes that this Bill, within the context of that broader plan, will solve the problem of squatting among the Coloured population. If I understood him correctly, these were the essential points of his argument in this connection. To a certain degree one can understand this plan, even if one does not necessarily agree with certain aspects thereof. One of the shortcomings or problems—and this is a problem which confronts everyone in South Africa—however, is what one should do to combat those factors which are responsible for Coloureds moving to the city. For instance one can think of decentralized development in rural areas. One will have to consider the whole problem of farm labour where, as a result of increasing production costs …

Is this not exactly what we are doing in the case of Atlantis?

Yes, granted; it also constitutes part of it, but the fact is that the question with which one is faced, is to what degree it can control the influx. This is one of the problems one has to deal with. The hon. the Minister speaks of a broad plan, but if we look at this Bill with respect to the Bantu, I think it is just as much the responsibility of the Government to give us a broad plan in that respect too and to tell us what it is all about. Therefore I repeatedly asked during the Committee Stage and the Second Reading where these people should go to. I return to this question once again and would like to illustrate the complexity of the problem a little with one or two examples from my own practical experience.

Just do not quote Ampie again.

No, I shall not quote Ampie. I want to mention an example, a real case, just to explain the complexity of the probgem. I do not want to say that it is good or bad; it just points out to us how complex the problem is. In one of the squatter camps a Black man, a Bantu, spoke to me and asked me to go to his squatters home with him. It was in Nyanga. I saw there on the wall of his small lounge a certificate he had received for 15 years’ loyal service. He said he had been working for 23 years. He received that certificate after he had worked for 15 years. He is entitled to be here in terms of the Bantu (Urban) Consolidation Act, but only as a single man; he is not allowed to bring his family in. He had been living in Langa in the single quarters for many years, but now the problem is that with inflation and this kind of problem, he was unable to support himself here and his family in the country. He has six children. He is married according to the Christian custom and has six children. They came to live with him and now they squat together. But two years ago his wife fell ill and is completely paralysed. Then he married another wife, according to tribal tradition, to look after the first wife. [Interjections.] Sir, I am just giving an illustration of the problem. There are many of these people, and the question which is the whole issue, is where they should go to. What is going to happen to them? If one asks why they are here, the one reason which they give is because they want to remain together as a family and the second reason is that there is not enough work where they came from and therefore they cannot make a living there. These are the two reasons. This is the real dilemma, and seen in this context, this Bill provides absolutely no answer. This is the point. The Government can now clear the camps and chase them back to the rural areas, but the point is that they originally came from there precisely because of the fact that they want to live together as a family and because they are looking for work. Our problems are not going to be solved by clearing these camps. The hon. member for Edenvale said that one cannot combat social and economic powers with legislation of this nature, and I agree with this completely.

There is another example which I want to mention. I was at Crossroads by chance that day when the officials tried to catch people and take them to court. They tried to trace the people in the veld with Landrovers. Sir, I can understand the frustration of the official who has been given the assignment that these people must leave, but there are 10 000 of them. It is hot, he has a hard time of it because the people run away from him, and now he goes after them to catch them and sometimes he also manhandles them. I stood there watching and there were also other people present. While I was standing there, I asked one of a group of women why she was not running away. She answered that she was not going to run anymore; she was tired of it; she had already run three times and had been caught three times. I asked her why she was there and she said she was there to stay with her husband and to look for work. [Interjections.] I made an appointment with the chairman of the Bantu Administration Board here in Parow, Brig. Van der Westhuizen. I spoke with him and explained to him what I saw there and the problems with which the people there are faced, and I said that I felt it was absolutely necessary that he as chairman should talk to those people and try and explain what the large plan is and why it is essential that what is happening at the moment, has to happen. If those people in their simplicity do not understand it, I return to the old point, namely that this Bill is not going to solve those problems. These are the examples—which I have illustrated—around the so-called broader plan for the Coloureds, a plan to which the hon. the Minister referred. However, if there is not also a broader plan which makes provision for housing …

That is clear.

No, that plan is not clear to anybody because where are the houses for the people, even the people who are here legally? Is there the same spectacular building programme for the urban Black? I am afraid that I am not aware of it. Therefore the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North may go ahead and disparage my arguments—after all it is a pleasant political game—but I shall protest against this to the last I am not only protesting on moral grounds. I am protesting against this because this kind of legislation is a threat to stability and order. [Interjections.] If it has to be applied with respect to the urban Black, without clear alternatives being expounded, greater disorder is going to be created than what exists at present. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister can go ahead and shout at us. After all he said that we want them to remain in the filth there, we want them to remain in those camps. This is not the point we made. The point we made was that those people are living there at the moment because there is no other place for them to live. What are we going to do to meet that problem, and now I am specifically referring to Bantu squatting? However, no answer has yet been furnished to this. It has only been said that they are not allowed to go to court; they have to leave. [Interjections.] In the Second Reading debate I said there were certain guidelines we could apply to try and deal with this problem. Those guidelines must not be aimed at creating conflict or disorder, nor at chasing those people away. It must be aimed at stabilizing the urban communities. If we do not apply those guidelines, we may just as well forget about a solution. In that case we will be faced with this problem for a very long time. Therefore in this Third Reading we cannot support this Bill at all, even with the idea of a broader plan which the hon. the Minister of Community Development sketched with respect to the Coloureds. We can understand it and see that there is a certain degree of sense in it. However, we are completely opposed to the proposed limitations on their mobility. We think that it is simply contra-productive. We can see that the hon. the Minister consistently links the broad plan with this measure, and in this respect he is trying to ameliorate the punitive nature of this measure a little. We can see that it forms part of the plan he has in mind, but throughout all the stages of this Bill we have not heard a single word about the Bantu.

May I just conclude by indicating that the first department which is going to apply this legislation will not be the Department of Community Development. It will be the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and in respect of those very two camps to which I referred to. We did not debate the implications and consequences of that point at any stage at all during the discussion of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rondebosch devoted almost his entire speech to the alleged lack of a proper or greater plan for the housing of the Bantu in the urban complexes. While he may have the right to ask for this in respect of those who are here legally, he certainly does not have the right to ask for it in respect of those large numbers of Black people who are here illegally, the large numbers of Black women who have come here illegally to join their so-called husbands. Among those who are here legally, there are only about 1 000 Black families who do not have accommodation, as against the approximately 21 000 Coloured families who do not have accommodation either. Although no specific plan has been drawn up for the provision of housing for Blacks, I may just point out to the hon. member that no fewer than 221 of the approximately 1 000 Black families who are here legally were in fact helped to obtain housing in Guguletu, Nyanga and Langa in 1975. I do believe that this is concerned in the first place with the Coloured people, the housing of Coloured people as well as the elimination of squatting. The parties on the other side have been expressing the strongest and the sharpest criticism against the legislation through all the stages of the Bill, but I want to suggest that there is actually only one point on which criticism could be expressed, and that would be if it could be proved that this side of the House has failed to provide enough housing.

I do not want to dwell on the giant project of Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis at this stage, but I do want to devote a few moments to the Government’s goodwill and its willingness to meet the housing need. I want to refer to only two aspects, the first of which is the splendid gesture on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that in consequence of special representations from the chairman of the Executive of the CRC, the Government was prepared to make additional funds available for the erection of 4 700 additional dwelling units at Mitchell’s Plain, precisely to meet the need of people who are seeking accommodation. In file second place, I should like to indicate the Government’s willingness to help by pointing out that in 1974, a record number of homes were built from National Housing funds for White, Brown and Black people. But then came 1975, and the record that had been set up in 1974 was exceeded by almost 7 000 dwelling units. This happened within a matter of twelve months, because more than 20 000 dwelling units were built in 1975. It is noteworthy that two-thirds of the 20 402 dwelling units were allocated for occupation by Coloured people and Asiatics. Surely this shows us that the Government is doing everything in its power to meet the housing needs of Coloured families.

I also want to point out that the Opposition parties would be entitled to criticize us if they could prove that we were making no attempt to house the squatter families living here already. In the course of the discussions on this Bill, the hon. the Minister announced that 37½% of all available houses built from National Housing funds would be utilized specifically for housing squatters. We are not only concerned with the squatters living in the vicinity of the Cape Peninsula and we are not concerned with quantity alone, but with quality as well. The important thing is not only to provide a large number of houses, but also to provide a number of houses of a particularly high quality. In this connection I should like to quote from a letter concerning South Africa which was written to the UNO about two years ago by Prof. Cowan, a world authority on the subject of low-cost housing—

He goes on to say that no other country has been able to do this at twice the cost. He also says in his letter that it seems that South Africa has found the solution for providing low-cost housing to its people.

Members of the hon. Opposition base their arguments on humanitarian grounds. They argue that one should not remove a poor squatter who is living here illegally. They say that it would be disgraceful to penalize the poor squatter who has been squatting here illegally by demolishing his shack merely because he is peacefully looking for work. But surely that is a fallacious way of reasoning. Surely one cannot reserve one’s criticism for the punitive measures while condoning the squatter’s offences. One cannot shut one’s eyes to his offences.

This measure is not intended to exercise influx control; it is intended to regulate and to discipline influx. To discipline influx is all we intend to do, but if one should fail to do so, one would be faced with endless chaos as far as housing is concerned. One would then have no choice, and therefore one must make one’s choice now. In this connection there is only one possibility, and that is discipline. There must be the strongest possible discipline in order to counter the constant moving about of labourers. There must also be discipline to combat the constant creation of slum conditions, illegal slum conditions, on other people’s land. This is what is caused by these labourers who are always on the move. There must also be discipline to combat the violation by the illegal squatter of the rights of ownership of the law-abiding owner. If one does not take up this attitude, one is playing into the hands of the squatter farmer who simply exploits the situation for this own financial gain by giving accommodation to people who are here illegally and who then occupy themselves in an illegal manner by doing things they should not be doing at all. However, by taking action along the lines proposed here, one would also be eliminating the danger that a political agitator might venture into these settlements of Black and Brown people and incite those people to rebellion against the rules, regulations and laws in this country, laws which prescribe penalities for illegal squatting by people who are living at a certain place and who should not be there.

If one pauses for a moment at Werkgenot, one asks oneself how it is possible that more than 200 families can move into a particular place and settle down there within the space of two months. If one pauses for a moment at Crossroads, one asks oneself how it is possible that within the space of a week, or an Easter weekend and the following few days—as happened in 1975—no fewer than 600 families settled down at this specific place. And during the next few months, they were joined by hundreds of other families, with the result that there are between 10 000 and 12 000 people living there today, of whom approximately five-sixths are there illegally. How does it come about that within the space of 10 days, all these people meet at one specific place to squat there, while they come from all over the Cape Peninsula, from Kuils River to Fish Hoek? How does it come about that they all arrive there at the same time to squat there? Where do they get the information which causes them to do so? How does it come about that these people, who do not know one another and who come from different towns in their homelands, end up among the Port Jackson bushes of Crossroads, where they erect their shacks in rows as if it were a properly planned area in which they were coming to live, they and their illegal wives, their children, dogs and chickens, a place where milk is delivered regularly? How do these things happen and are no steps to be taken to combat it? When the inspectors go there to do their duty, these people withdraw behind the sand dunes and mock the inspectors from a distance. In this way the law is provoked and tried to the utmost. If one takes cognizance of the mere fact that according to statistics, no less than 25% to 35% of the squatters who have come to live here during the past two years have come from the rural areas, if one takes cognizance of the fact that approximately 60% of them used to be housed in regulated schemes, schemes which they left to go and live in the bush, and if one bears in mind that approximately 80% of the squatters in certain areas comply with the income limits and requirements that have to be complied with to qualify for housing, one realizes that we are faced here with a form of disorder of which I want to say that the sooner it can be combated, the better it will be for the community.

A great deal have been said during this debate about the fact that action can be taken against a legal landowner and that he can be forced to remove the illegal structures on his property. We know the problems entailed by court cases. We know how time-consuming they are and how often such cases are postponed. We also know that witnesses often have to be tracked down and that such court cases involve a great deal of trouble. Let us look at the position of the Peninsula Bantu Administration Board. In the more than 50 cases in which it has been involved during the past few months’ attempts have been made to obtain authorization in terms of the Act to remove the squatters and to demolish their shacks. With the exception of one case, all the others were summarily dismissed by the court. The exception was the case of the State v. Peters of 1976 (2 SA, page 513). I should like to refer to this, because I went to the trouble of looking it up. In that case, which was also decided against the Board, the grounds are set out which an owner or applicant must prove so as to obtain an order from the court authorizing him to demolish the structures. In the first place he must prove that he is either the owner or the occupant of the land. In the second place he must prove that the squatter has erected an unauthorized structure there. In the third place he must prove that the property concerned was entered illegally by the squatter. In the fourth place he must prove that that squatter is still residing there. In the fifth place he must prove that that squatter has been warned to leave, but that he has failed to do so in spite of the warning. An almost impossible onus of proof. What else is one to do than to place specific measures on the Statute Book, measures which can be used to demolish and to remove structures which have been erected on land without the permission of the owner? Surely this whole problem must be attacked at its root. That root is the phenomenon of illegal squatting. I believe that in this whole situation, our greatest need has now been met, i.e. we have been given a Bill, a Bill with teeth, a Bill which does not provide for the removal of squatters’ huts in an inhuman way, which does not provide for inhuman action to be taken, but a Bill which can be used to wipe out squatting as such, to eradicate it along with all the crimes with which it is associated.

The squatter must be made to realize that he cannot simply turn up in the Cape Peninsula or elsewhere and then settle down there in a situation of uncontrolled lawlessness and without proper accommodation. It is quite understandable that squatters are under the impression at the moment that they can go and live wherever they like, that they can put up their squatter’s shacks anywhere and that as soon as these have been put up, they will automatically qualify as candidates for housing by the authorities. What happens, therefore, is that the onus is shifted from the squatter to the State, and that the State has to provide for those squatters at great cost and at the taxpayer’s expense.

It is of the utmost importance that this Bill should not be regarded as a purely negative measure. It is a positive measure by means of which housing can be organized in a proper manner. If we think what the effects of this legislation will be, it is clear that in addition to the penalty provisions in the Bill, owners are being prohibited from allowing people to squat on their land. This proposed legislation imposes the obligation upon landowners to ensure that there is no squatting on their land. For this reason it is necessary, to ensure an orderly community, for an owner to have the right to demolish unauthorized structures on his own land. If he does not have that right, he does not have control over his own land. Only in this way will the Government be able to put a check upon the activities of mischievous employers who encourage employees to squat. Only in this way will the Government obtain the co-operation of local authorities and will local authorities come to realize that the Government views the matter in a serious light, that the Government will gladly make the necessary money available, but that they must make the necessary land, services and facilities available in order to put a stop to squatting.

Finally, the Government also wants to use this measure to bring home to the Coloured people the realization that the head of a family has an important responsibility, a responsibility towards his family, a responsibility to provide in the basic needs of his family, firstly by ensuring that his family is properly housed. This will enable his family to enjoy the advantages of education and upliftment, and this will cause the Coloured man to develop a sense of duty and to realize that as a useful citizen, he too must make a financial and a productive contribution to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I shall react later to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Durbanville. At this stage I just want to point out that this premise, namely that we are dealing here with people who seek work, does not appear to be correct. Most of these people, particularly the Bantu, are in fact employed. On those grounds alone I believe that many of his statements do not hold water. Later I shall deal in greater detail with some of the points he made. I just want to dwell briefly on what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North said. Unfortunately the hon. member is not in the House at the moment. I want to dissociate myself entirely from the impression created by the hon. member that all Coloureds who come to the Peninsula necessarily fall into the category of criminals and people of that kind. Perhaps the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North did not mean it in that sense, but that is the impression he created. I want to dissociate myself completely from the impression created.

And the party.

Yes, the party too.

We now come to the end of a debate which has not been very fruitful. However, I want to say at once that I am of the opinion that not one of us realizes the extent and the serious nature of the problem. The difference of opinion between this side of the House lies in the fact that we on this side regard the measure as being not only unnecessary, but undesirable as well. Not only is it not going to solve the problem, but in the process it is also going to cause exacerbated feelings unnecessarily. I want to repeat that we regard the measure as being unnecessary. The hon. member for Green Point indicated that there were other measures under which action was taken and could be taken. He referred to the building regulations of local managements, and in particular, to section 5 of the existing Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. Then, too, there is the Trespass Act of 1959 and, as far as the Bantu are concerned, there are the provisions of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. We believe that those measures are adequate to control the problem—as long as they are accompanied by the serious intention of providing the people with the necessary housing.

I have already said that in my opinion it is undeniable that the measure will exacerbate race feelings. Naturally I do not refer solely to the possible implication of steps which could arise out of the implementation of the measure, but in this section I also have in mind in particular the effect of the proposed section 3C. The measure will constitute a so-called influx control measure for Coloureds,

It does not constitute influx control.

It has been said that this does not constitute influx control.

I am pleased you say so-called influx control of Coloureds.

I want to say at once that remarkable terms have been used this afternoon. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North referred to influx control.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North said that this legislation would prevent influx control.

The hon. the Minister himself referred to the control of the mobility of these people. The hon. member for Durbanville referred to the regulating of influx control.

I referred to the regulating of influx.

What does the regulating of influx mean, if not influx control. We are now arguing about terms. Whether one calls it control of influx, regulating of influx or control of mobility does not matter. What is it but influx control? Why evade the facts? That is what it is.

Are you opposed to it?

Yes, I am opposed to it. I want to state very clearly that I am opposed to it. The hon. member for Green Point indicated very clearly yesterday why we were opposed to it. I want to say at once that we shall solve nothing by shouting back and forth at each other. I am not interested in scoring petty party-political points in the House.

What do you propose?

I want to refer to one of the things I would have proposed if there had been a Select Committee. In the ’forties, Bantu squatting took place in the Western Cape on a large scale owing to the Second World War and the industrial development which took place. My then colleagues and some of our students carried out a special investigation into the squatting conditions of 1947. The conditions there were more desperate than they are at present at Crossroads and other places.

How were they solved?

I shall tell hon. members how they were solved. One of my own students was appointed as manager of Bantu Affairs in the municipality of Wellington at that time. After land had been proclaimed as a Bantu location he simply …

By which Government?

After land had been proclaimed as a Bantu location in terms of the Urban Areas Act—this is a normal procedure and still takes place—he laid out a town without the aid of a surveyor and divided it into streets and erfs. He allocated an erf in advance to every Bantu squatting in that vicinity and they had to move their shanties to that erf. The shanties had to stand on the back portion of the erf while the municipality was acquiring the finance to build a house for that family on the front portion of the erf. He moved them all there, and provided them with water and proper sanitation. He arranged them properly there and exercised control over them. This is only one of the possibilities and there are innumerable others. That problem was solved as money was made available by the department. Within a few years the squatter problem in that district was eliminated entirely in this way. This is what we should like to have had and what we would have discussed in a Select Committee. However, I leave it at that.

The same thing happened at Elsies River.

Please, hon. members asked what my proposals were. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Green Point and Rondebosch and say that I find it a very great pity that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Deputy Ministers did not also take part in this debate. Although we were told here that the Bantu problem was not under consideration as far as this legislation was concerned, it was interpreted as such and there is not only a fear, but also the possibility that this legislation may be utilized in regard to a Bantu situation such as that at Crossroads. This is the sober fact. It is pointless for us to say that this does not exist.

I now want to speak frankly to our hon. colleagues on the other side of the House in connection with the Bantu squatting in the Western Cape and elsewhere. I want us to take a sober look at this position, because often emotion is aroused in this regard with the result that in effect, we fail to perceive the reality, and occupy our minds with arguments which are not, in my opinion, based on logic, facts and morality. Looking at the attitude displayed here in the House by, for example, the hon. member for False Bay, the hon. member for Durbanville and others, it is clear that the problem relating to those Bantu exists because we are unwilling to accept them as residents of the Western Cape. We are unwilling—in spite of the figures quoted by the hon. member for False Bay and the hon. member for Durbanville—to provide proper housing for those who are here legally.

Surely they have been given the necessary housing.

No, there were many of them who are at Crossroads legally who have to squat.

Where do they come from?

They come from the Bantu areas, the homelands and various other places. In my Second Reading speech I dealt with the factors causing people to flock to a certain area. As far as the Bantu in the Western Cape—and the squatters in particular—are concerned, surely the Government’s policy is very clearly based on three principles. In the first place, the Western Cape is regarded as an area in which the Coloured population takes precedence. In the second place, most of those Bantu squatters are here illegally. In the third place they have concluded a contract to be here only temporarily. For this reason it is stated that there is no moral or legal obligation on us to accommodate them here and to permit them to have their families here too.

Of course we have legal and moral obligations towards them.

I shall come to that later. At this stage I first want to deal with these arguments. As far as the first argument is concerned, I want to ask those who adopt a sympathetic approach in regard to the principle, what exactly it means. Let us now get away from the clichés. Does it mean that the Western Cape is an area in which a Coloured must enjoy economic precedence in terms of employment opportunities? If this is so, hon. members must now indicate to us whether there have in fact been cases, in comparison with the total Bantu population, in which Bantu have supplanted Coloureds in their jobs.

I want to tell you, Sir, as any student of the economy of the Western Cape would tell you, that the presence of the Bantu here has caused the Coloureds to move up into better posts. The presence of the Bantu here does not pose an economic threat to the Coloured. It has not done so in the past and it does not do so now. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to go further. In other words there is an increase in employment opportunities in the Western Cape, and the Coloured population is not large enough to take up all those employment opportunities. I need not take this further; I want to refer the hon. House to the drastic attempts made by the previous Minister, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape. Hon. members all know what happened. In spite of all possible efforts made to check the influx of Bantu to this area and to remove them—efforts such as the introduction of a quota system and a 5% per annum reduction, which were initiated in the sixties—those efforts failed entirely.

That is untrue.

They failed entirely, and why? They failed because the Bantu labour was needed here. It is as simple as that. When we talk about an area of precedence for the Coloureds, the consideration that moves us is the fear of social mixing and the fear that another kind of race or group may develop. If this is the case, and if we want to protect the Coloured against possible mixing with the Bantu, then we are doing so in exactly the wrong way by preventing the Bantu man from having his family with him. That is very clear. What is more, Sir, if it is true that as far as housing is concerned, the Coloured must enjoy preference, then this cannot be merely on the basis of whether the man is a Coloured or whether he is a Black man, but rather on the basis of whether the labour of the Black man is needed here in the Western Cape. If his labour is needed here, then he must be provided with housing.

I want to refer again to the abortive efforts made in the sixties to reduce the Black population of the Western Cape. The argument is also advanced that they are here illegally and that because they are here illegally and are breaking the law, we have the right, the moral right and the legal right, to remove them. It is true, Sir, that many of them are here illegally, but they do not regard their presence here as illegal. In other words, we must not think that because we, you and I, made the law, that they have the same respect for that law as you and I have for it, because they did not assist in making that law. [Interjections.] The sanctity with which we invest that law—and rightly so, because you and I made it—cannot be expected of them.

That is nonsense.

We cannot expect it of them. They do not regard themselves as bound to the law. They are compelled by socio-economic circumstances to come and seek employment. It is as simple as that. Then it is said that because they have concluded a contract, they do not have the right to have their families here with them. Now I want to put a very simple question: What is expected of that man, when his wife and children arrive, whether or not he has brought them? Do we expect of that father to turn his back and say: “Because there is a law which the White man has made, in terms of which you may not be here, you must take your things and return?” I can give you the assurance, Sir, that many of those women come because they know what goes on here with their husbands and because they no longer want the situation in which the loyalty of their husbands is undermined as a result of the association of the single men with unattached Coloured women. Sir, we can make as many laws as we want to …

But surely you are now advocating squatting.

No. All I am saying is: Accept those people and provide them with proper housing. Do not tell me that I accept squatting. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must now give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

It is said that this is an area of precedence for the Coloureds and I asked that it be spelt out to us what this means. Because we refuse to accept those people, we are really not prepared to treat those people as we ought to treat other people, and hon. members know that as well as I do. I just want to say this: If, then, we refer to an area of precedence for the Coloureds, let us spell it out, so that we may know exactly what is meant by that.

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

Sir, I really regret that I cannot answer a question at this point; my time is almost up. I want to say that this measure is not going to bring the problems of either the Coloureds or the Bantu any closer to a solution. In conclusion, I want to say in respect of the new section 3C, that that measure is going to cause endless trouble. I have already said in this House that if, in spite of all the influx control measures in existence for the Bantu, we have been unable to check that influx of Bantu, we shall not be able to check the influx of Coloureds to the Western Cape by means of these provisions in section 3C, either. If those measures are not going to work, there is a danger that one of two things will happen. Either the Minister will have to come back to Parliament next year to introduce additional legislation in this connection to provide for stricter control, or, if he does not do so, it will have to be admitted that this measure is a dead letter on the Statute Book and that we have placed something on the Statute Book which has entailed nothing good, positive or constructive for us, but only a great deal of harm.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Edenvale made the statement that we were engaged in an unfruitful debate. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member because it is virtually impossible to conduct a fruitful debate with hon. members of the Opposition who have displayed such wilfulness as has been displayed by hon. members opposite in the course of this debate, and during the Committee Stage as well. I want to mention just one example of this wilfulness. An amendment on a technical point was moved by the hon. member for Edenvale during the Committee Stage. After the hon. the Minister has assured him that he would have the matter investigated and that if the amendment had merit, he would rectify the matter, the Whip of the Official Opposition actually asked for a division of the House on that point. Surely, Sir, these are not people who adopt a realistic approach to this matter. Surely these are people who only want to be wilful. How can one conduct a fruitful debate with such people?

The hon. member for Edenvale once again referred to influx control. I shall come back to that later, and to some of his other unfounded statements and arguments, too.

I want to repeat what I said yesterday during the Committee Stage of this Bill, viz. that in his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister made a serious and, in my opinion, convincing case for the combating of the evil of squatting. During the Second Reading debate it was repeatedly stressed by this side of the House that this Bill must not be seen in isolation, but that this legislation only represents one side—even though it is the negative side, if the hon. members of the Opposition want to see it in that way—of the steps taken by the authorities against squatting. The other side, the positive side, is the provision of housing on an unprecedented scale and at a virtually incredible rate, as has been emphasized once again in this debate this afternoon. In these circumstances I was really under the impression that hon. members on the other side of the House were in agreement with us that squatting should be combatted. In fact, the hon. member for Green Point, who is apparently not present at the moment, made, inter alia, the following remark which confirmed this impression—

I was also under the impression that the hon. members of the Opposition were aware of what has been and is still being achieved in the sphere of the provision of housing. After all, they have at their disposal the same information as that which is made available to members on this side of the House, and I take it that they are also interested in positive facts relating to this problem. Let me quote the hon. member for Green Point again to support this impression. He states, with reference to the hon. the Minister—

This was by means of the provision of proper housing.

But in spite of all this, throughout the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage, and now again during the Third Reading debate, hon. members of the Opposition persisted in advancing the argument that the envisaged action to be taken against squatters and those who encouraged, caused or permitted squatting was not the right way to combat squatting, but that squatting should only be combated by means of the provision of accommodation. Sir, I say that this is a wilful argument.

In view of this I think I am entitled to ask the hon. member of the Official Opposition two questions. It is a pity that the hon. member for Green Point, who is their official spokesman, is not present now, but one of the other hon. gentleman may as well give me an answer. The first question is: Do they regard squatting as an evil which must be combated, yes or no?

One cannot replace one evil with another.

Secondly: Do they recognize and accept that the authorities, viz. the central authority and the local authorities, have been and are making available as much accommodation as can reasonably be expected of them?

No.

Why not, Boetielezi?

If their reply to the first question is in the affirmative, I want to ask them in a friendly way: Help us with this difficult task and stop creating the wrong impression by way of wilful arguments, and by so doing hampering the task of the authorities. If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative, I want to ask them: Say so for once, and give the department credit for what has been achieved. Such an acknowledgement would not only be an encouragement for the hon. the Minister and his officials in their enormous task of providing adequate accommodation but would also serve to improve South Africa’s image abroad and promote an improved understanding of the problems with which we are faced.

But now the hon. member at the back over there who was so quick to say “no” states that as much housing as could reasonably be expected is not being provided. I now challenge him—and I expect him to speak just after me—to support his statement with facts, and not merely to come along with generalities and state that there are still people for whom housing has not yet been provided. He must come and tell us that it was within the power of the bodies concerned, with the means at their disposal and the potential available to them, to have already provided adequate housing for those people, and that despite this they have failed to do so. Only if he can prove this can he be justified in maintaining that it could reasonably have been expected that more houses should have been made available. It is pointless to come and make vague statements here. Instead of making a positive contribution, hon. members of the Opposition come along with the unfounded statement that this legislation is aimed at, or has the effect of, limiting the freedom of movement of the Coloureds. Sir, I quote from what the hon. member for Green Point said in this connection—

In the first instance I say that the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of Community Development is not limited solely to Coloureds in this connection. It includes Whites, too, and on the basis of that I ask the hon. member how he justifies giving this legislation a racial connotation? Surely this is once again an argument which can only incite race feelings about this matter.

But what is more, what gives the impression that this is an influx control measure? I want to maintain that this legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with influx control or freedom of movement, but only concerns housing. This legislation in no way restricts any number of people, of whatever race or group, from establishing themselves within the area of a specific local authority, just as long as they do not squat there or live there under circumstances of squatting. Sir, there is no restriction of freedom of movement in this Bill. The only requirement imposed is that the people should not squat here. If this results in specific people not being able to establish themselves in the area of a specific local authority, then that is only a side-effect of the legislation, but is by no means the aim or the motive behind the legislation. I say that possibly this is a side-effect of this legislation, just as there are many other legislative measures and factors which may have the same effect. For example, there are town planning measures which require houses of a specific standard, distance from place of employment and similar considerations which often determine the place where a person lives. In the same way this legislation, too, could have the side-effect that people would not be able to come to a specific urban area. However, this is not the aim, any more than it is the aim of town planning.

The hon. member for Green Point goes on to say—

Sir, I agree with him, as he himself assumed in his speech, too, but what the hon. member fails to perceive is the fact that the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act has been on the Statute Book since 1951. My submission is that no new principle is being introduced here.

There is no reason not to support this legislation and I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to reply to that challenge. If the hon. member for Mossel Bay believes that R70 million over a period of one year, spread over the whole of South Africa, is enough to house the Black population, he should, in my opinion, have another look at the figures. I think he should take another look at the population increase, at the level of industrialization and also at the number of Black squatters around all our urban areas, for example Veekraal, St. Wendolins, Winterveld and Crossroads. In practically every city in South Africa there is a Black squatter area, and those people are not housed. It would appear that the hon. the Minister and his department are in fact engaged in improving the housing situation for the Coloureds and Indians, but not nearly enough is being done for Black housing, and I therefore reject his challenge.

†Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you on a point of order. This Bill, with which we are now dealing, directly mentions the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but for the last 40 minutes we have not had any Minister representing that department in this House. Is that an acceptable state of affairs?

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that one of the representatives of that department has now arrived.

Order! There is nothing in the Standing Rules and Orders to cover that issue.

We have heard a great deal about a Bill of Rights from the Government. It is in point of fact my conviction that this Bill has a great deal to do with the question of the Bill of Rights. I personally am not in favour of a Bill of Rights, because I believe that if one has a party as does mine and the one opposite that acknowledges the sovereignty of God and seeks to govern and administer the country in a Christian spirit, one does not need a Bill of Rights. That in itself is the strongest possible Bill of Rights one can have.

What, however, is the effect of this Bill going to be? First I want to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. Let him answer “yes” or “no”. Does he want to make all the Blacks in the Vaal Triangle commuters who live in Witzieshoek?

I do not reply to children.

Well, if that is the way he answers a member of Parliament I shall remember to inform my voters of the fact. I now want to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. Does he want to enforce the principles behind the Eiselen line? Let him answer “yes” or “no”.

Make your own speech.

Those two hon. Ministers are going to be able to use this Bill to infringe on everything that a Christian national government should stand for, breaking down family life and attacking the freedom of a man to live with his wife and family. It is furthermore to be based on a blatant racial discrimination. Simply because the man is Black he may not sell his labour and bring his family to the area where he can get the best deal.

I should like to have an assurance from the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development—unfortunately we only have two of the leaders of the Empire here and not those dealing with housing—that this Bill, which is shortly to become an Act, will not be applied in areas such as St. Wendolins, Malakazi, New Farm, Dassenhoek and Clermont, until such time as alternative housing has been supplied. We have, of course, had an eloquent description, by the hon. the Minister, of what happened in Cato Manor. I want to tell him that if he allows his colleague to implement this Bill without providing alternative housing, because he refused to accept an amendment which sought to include that very important principle in the Bill, he is going to have not one but many Cato Manors on his hands in Natal.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about the Indian squatters in Natal. On the north coast squatter conditions are developing at Buffelsdraai, Etete Bridge and Shaka’s Head. We also have Stockville which has just been declared an area for Coloured occupation and therefore the Indians who are living there at present will have to be moved. Where are they going to live? In Marianhill we have the beginning of a Coloured township but since enough houses have not yet been built, we have Coloureds and Indians squatting in the area. As a matter of fact, many Coloureds are moving in to squat close to Marianhill. They have no adequate homes and as has been shown in replies to questions raised in Parliament during this session, there are not nearly enough houses being built in Natal in which the Coloureds of Natal can be accommodated, let alone the squatters. I want to know whether the effect of this Bill will be to inflame race relations in Natal and to this question we should have replies from both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members on both sides of this House who participated in this closing stage of the discussion, for their positive contributions. I should like to begin at once by replying to the speech made by my good, hon. young friend, the member for Pinetown. I want to congratulate him on the change which is already discernible in his approach to the activities of this House. It is very refreshing, and I think that if he keeps on like this, there is a fine future awaiting him in this House.

I am not softened up so easily.

The hon. member referred to a “bill of rights” and appended certain religious considerations to it. I think it would be a good thing if he became acquainted with the Constitution of his own country and read the preamble to it, for then he would see what we—and by that I mean all parties in this House—unanimously affirmed. I have a very deep respect for his religious feelings but I think I can ask him to display the same attitude towards hon. members on this side of the House. To assume that we are not also, in all sincerity, striving to live Christian lives and apply Christian norms, is very presumptuous of him. If we have to talk about religion, I want to point out to him that it is a commandment from his Master: “Judge not that ye be not judged”. I am once again asking what I also asked the other night: Let us differ and as strongly as we like, but let us not question one another’s motives, for human motives are very complicated. It is only very arrogant and presumptions people who arrogate to themselves the right to analyse other people’s motives and to condemn them as base and sordid. I hope he will try to avoid these things.

Migrant labour is against God’s law.

Now you are really being presumptuous. I think you are absolutely presumptuous.

Why?

Sir, I am finished with that hon. member. I should now like to discuss a very important matter with my good friend, the hon. member for Green Point. He and I understand each other. I think the hon. member is aware of the very high regard which I have for him. He is aware that when he referred in his speech on the squatter problem to the film “Genocide” which was shown on television the other evening, it really hurt and provoked a vehement reaction from hon. members on this side of the House and from our people in general.

I only referred to it in general.

I think the hon. member is aware that it hurt and provoked a vehement reaction. He also knows that there are many people today who are looking for weapons with which they can attack South Africa. I could refer to the fact that attempts are at present being made by certain circles of the British Press, the London counterpart of The Cape Times, to bring our country into discredit on the basis of evidence from people who are self-confessed lunatics, mendicants and fugitives from Borstal—the largest house of correction in Britain—or convicted hijackers. I think my hon. friend will realize that it is inevitable that when reference is made, in the discussion of the squatter problem, to the film instalment entitled “Genocide”, coupled with the warning that with our removal of people—in truth it is a question of rehousing—we will expose ourselves to the criticism …

I did not mean that and I did not say it either. [Interjections.]

Against the South African background, knowing the position South Africa finds itself in, with enemies in and outside the country, the hon. member says that, when we have a debate in this House referring to removals and resettlement, we are looking for criticism and we stir up tremendous feeling. That is more or less what he said. Sir, I do not think my hon. friend will ever intend to harm South Africa. To that I shall testify at all times. I want to ask him whether we could get it on record here and now that, when he made that statement, he did not intend it to be taken as any kind of suggestion that this side of the House is guilty of anything similar to what we saw in that film.

My attitude was that the actual procedure of resettlement and removal is obnoxious to the whole world. I certainly did not intend that the treatment regarding the resettlement and removal of South Africans was equivalent to …

Well, why did you refer to it then?

Now we have it on record. Will my hon. friend agree with me that any person who tries to abuse his statement in order to indicate that we in our behaviour act similarly to the Nazis, would be wrong and would be unjustified?

I have always said so.

Good. I am glad that we have that on record. It clears the air. Now I want to say to my hon. friend that I think that any person who talks of resettlement in that way, must read the concluding sentence of an article by Louis Louw appearing in Die Burger this morning. In effect, Louis Louw says that the difference between Germany during the war and South Africa today is that Germany built gas chambers for the people it “resettled” while South Africa builds decent homes in decent circumstances for the people it resettles. I think that that is crucial. Let us have that on record too.

I have actually not used the language about this Government that you have used.

Sir, where we are dealing with something so tremendously emotional as this in the present situation in which South Africa finds itself, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that this matter has been cleared up now, and, as far as I am concerned, it is something of the past. I hope other hon. members on this side of the House will forget it now, too. The matter has been clarified.

*What I found very interesting was that the Opposition underwent a complete change of standpoint and approach in this debate. They began the debate with a grandiloquent gesture. I received a message from certain members on the opposite side that this would be the debate of the year. They commenced with the Second Reading debate, they struggled in the Committee Stage and during the Third Reading debate they decided to change their front completely and to abandon their grandiloquent attempt to make this the debate of the year. In the Third Reading they came forward with a new idea, viz. that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his Deputy Minister had not been present, nor had they made a contribution. For that reason they tried to steer the debate solely in the direction of Bantu Administration. But I stated very clearly at the outset that this Bill was intended to deal with a specific problem, that of the Coloured squatters of the Western Cape.

Surely we could not, in our discussion of this Bill, broach the entire question of Bantu policy in South Africa again, as the hon. member for Rondebosch requested. Surely this was not the occasion to do that. The hon. member asked me what we intended doing to solve the problem of Bantu squatters in the Western Cape. Surely the basic framework in this regard is the policy of autonomous development itself; surely that is the fundamental principle of the school of thought of this side of the House. This is not the occasion to discuss it. Let me just say that, according to the information I received from the Department of Bantu Administration, no Bantu in any urban area in South Africa, including the Western Cape, may obtain work before he has obtained accommodation in the area in question. This is influx control. He may not accept or be given any work at all, unless he has accommodation. From that one has to deduce that the squatters in the Western Cape are, for the most part, here illegally, or, if they are not here illegally, that they have people with them who are here illegally. Then, surely, the Department of Bantu Administration has no choice: It has to enforce the Act. Surely it has to take steps against these people and it has to take steps in particular when certain things happen, as did in the case of Crossroads. Within the space of a single year more than 1 000 families suddenly formed a squatter settlement there. This happened under circumstances which justifiably caused one to believe that there was someone behind that squatting.

Other squatter areas in the Western Cape originated quite haphazardly. At Crossroads an entire squatter township with planned streets suddenly appeared and also with the clear signs of having been planned in advance. Legal proceedings are being instituted, also with the clear evidence that there were people behind it all, people who were providing attorneys and advancing money for the conducting of court cases. Surely there is more to this than meets the eye. Therefore I repeat— and my hon. friend may take my word for it—that Bantu who find work legally in Cape Town, or in any city in South Africa, are only allowed into the urban area in question if there is accommodation available for them. That is the law. That is the practical situation. Those are the facts. If I am making a mistake, my hon. Deputy Ministers, who are sitting next to me here, must please correct me.

You are entirely correct.

Hopefully this is, then, the end of this attempt to run away and to take up other positions. In so far as it still has a bearing on this debate, I want us please to go into what happened. My friend the hon. member for Green Point suggested that this Bill was unnecessary. Several other members made similar statements during other stages of the debate. According to him the Government had been able to accomplish such good things with the Bantu, for example in Johannesburg and at Cato Manor and without this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, surely it was only yesterday that I pointed out that matters with regard to the Bantu in this respect differed from the present case in so far that measures exist in terms of which the influx of Bantu may be controlled. In terms of those measures matters could be checked, and it was possible to prevent the squatting from continuing and increasing while the evils were being cleared up. In the case of the Coloureds, however, there is no influx control, and the Government does not want influx control. Hon. members who allege that the provisions of this Bill amount to influx control are being wilful. Their minds are as closed as “Tupperware”! They do not want to open their minds to the truth. [Interjections.] I pointed out yesterday afternoon that Coloureds were in fact allowed to come to the Cape Peninsula to look for work. All that is expected of such a Coloured is that he should have a roof over his head, a proper roof. He need not have a separate house. He is free to come here, but all the Government wishes to prevent is people from streaming into the Peninsula and being brought here by unscrupulous employers, employers by whom they are told to become squatters, employers who employ them at a too low wage. What the Government wants to prevent is the misery, the dirt and the bleak conditions under which those people have to live. That is the object of this Bill. Therefore it is a pity that the hon. member for Green Point—he ought to know better—kept on doing this kind of thing.

But then my hon. friend did a very interesting thing. He is always very interesting in debate. He referred to the debate of 1951, and I am very grateful to him, for I also looked up the 1951 debate.

I am pleased I was helpful.

And I received a surprise! [Interjections.] I received a very pleasant surprise. The UP regime of the time—for which my hon. friend and I have to accept the responsibility—saw this problem arising for good reasons, explainable reasons. And what did they do? They promulgated a war measure, a measure empowering a magistrate to do anything to combat the problem, provided he was satisfied by the authorities that undesirable circumstances had arisen. Then the NP Government came forward in 1951—I had already forgotten about this a little—and repealed that war measure after it had been investigated by a Select Committee. As the hon. member rightly stated, the NP Government, when that measure was repealed, stated that it was moving away from the standpoint of the United Party that the courts should not be consulted in matters of this nature, that the courts could not be consulted. [Interjections.] Wait a minute! [Interjections.] The NP came forward with legislation in terms of which seven days’ notice had to be given, the other parties in the case had to be heard, etc. The NP therefore reinstated the “rule of law”.

Now you intend rejecting it. [Interjections.]

Yes, but wait a minute! Wait a minute! [Interjections.]

I referred to this fact.

That I did not remember.

But I told you!

Yes, but I did not remember it. I am grateful to the hon. member that I am also aware of that now. Mr. Speaker, the more I read these things, the more I realize that I acted correctly when I joined this side. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that this Government, with all this legislation, had less powers than the UP Government had at that time, and yet the Government cleaned up the slum areas and squatter towns. That is the point which the hon. member as well as the other hon. members made.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why, in the light of that fact, it is then necessary to depart from the very good principle which the hon. Minister introduced?

That is a question I answered five minutes ago. I also replied to that question last night and also in reply to the Second Reading debate. I will now answer it for the fourth time. The reason is that the Government now has testimonials. Nobody can argue against the testimonials of Moroka, Windermere and Cato Manor. These are achievements, facts. However, when, with the same methods, power and the same enthusiasm we started to tackle the problem of the squatters in the Cape Peninsula, we found that we could not succeed with the powers we had under the Act of 1951. The simple reason is that as we build homes at a rate never achieved before in South Africa, new squatters settle in and new camps develop. Because of the restrictions upon our ability to act administratively, we cannot cope with the situation. As fast as we build houses, the numbers of squatters increase and escalate. That is what is happening. For that reason we come with this Bill. I should like the hon. member for Green Point to answer this question: If that were not so, why do we say that we will only act under this legislation in the case of squatter structures erected after 21 November 1975? If the hon. member’s attitude is right and we have no problem, the hon. member will not have to worry about this law.

But the divisional council pegged the position in April.

We have had discussions with the divisional council. They need this law and they told us so. They are ready to apply it. They are willing to co-operate with us in applying it.

Why are they going to court over Crossroads?

They have to go to court over Crossroads because this Bill has not yet become an Act.

They are doing it so that they can apply the law.

Wilful!

Of course the hon. member is “wilful” The hon. member must answer me this: If he thinks there is no danger of squatting continuing and escalating, why is he worried and concerned about the Bill, which limits its application to the period after 15 November 1975? Until I get an answer to that the hon. member’s whole case collapses.

I must get on with my speech. The hon. member for Rondebosch was the man who came with a smokescreen and tried to divert the whole discussion to Bantu Administration. I want to put something on record as well. From the discussions we have had for many hours in the House, it becomes clear that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the PRP and the Government as far as our approach to the whole problem is concerned. The gulf is this: With the most beautiful words and with the most unctuous arguments—I think the expression is parliamentary—the hon. member wants to maintain a situation we find as so deplorable that we cannot tolerate it. I know I am using a strong word, but the arguments of the members of the PRP are unctuous. They use beautiful phrases and they display beautiful sentiments to maintain an evil. With my little knowledge of history my mind goes back to 19th century Britain when Lord Shaftesbury introduced laws in the House of Commons to end the employment of little children of 11 years of age for 12 hours a day in the mines of Britain. [Interjections.] No, I am really serious. From the Hansard of those debates it can be seen that the same arguments were used. It was said that these young people were deprived by these laws of an opportunity to earn a living and to contribute to the standard of living of their families. It was said that Lord Shaftesbury was cruel and heartless towards these poor families. I want to say this, because it is quite true: I cannot believe that in the interests of the people concerned—and I mean this sincerely—a political party can plead for the continuation of these circumstances.

Nobody did that.

But of course. I am referring to the speech of the hon. member for Rondebosch.

How much longer is the hon. the Minister going to evade my questions?

More than 100 of us were witnesses when hon. members on the opposite side were speaking and when they made the point that we should ameliorate the circumstances slightly, with a tap here and something else there, but that we must allow these people to continue to live in shack towns as squatters in the circumstances of squatters. That is the difference between hon. members of that party and us. Those hon. members should look at their own consciences and at their own Hansards. Their entire plea was that we must not abolish and destroy squatter camps through legislation but that we should try to ameliorate the situation a little. But we have tried this already and it did not work at Cato Manor, nor at Elsies River. Therefore they must have some other motive. It cannot be in the interests of the poor people concerned.

Having said that, I want to reply to the hon. member for Edenvale.

*That hon. member alleged that the Bill made provision for influx control. He tried to be derisive with the idea that although we say it is not influx control we are nevertheless restricting the mobility of these people. Influx control is a very strict measure. Under it a person may not come to the city for more than a few hours, unless he has accommodation and unless he has permanent employment. In terms of this Act an unemployed person may come to the city and remain there as long as is necessary to find work. However, he may not bring his family along and put up three corrugated iron sheets in the marshy winter areas of the Cape Peninsula, move in there, and expect to remain there permanently. That is the difference. How any person with the academic background of the hon. member for Edenvale can draw a comparison between influx control and measures which require a person to have a decent place to stay in the city or a certificate to indicate that he has lodgings or relatives in the city where or with whom he can stay, is beyond my comprehension. I must leave the hon. member at that, because he and I cannot find one another on the intellectual plane in this regard. The hon. member was proclaiming something which was indefensible, unjustifiable and ex definitio false. Consequently I shall not go into it any further.

I think we should rather reflect quickly on what we have before us, which we are going to vote on in five minutes time. We are going to vote on a measure which, within the administration of the Government, seeks to create powers to prevent the perpetuation of an abhorrent evil, an indefensible situation of misery and dirt on South African soil. Unfortunately we are not immediately able to do anything in regard to its perpetuation, but we can use the powers to prevent the problem from becoming graver. And while we are doing this we are providing housing on a scale which is unequalled in the history of South Africa. I could almost go so far as to say that it is unequalled in the history of any country of the same size and of the same resources as South Africa. We are during the next ensuing year going to build 20 000 houses in the Western Cape, if nothing unforeseen happens. That is the background against which we should see this measure.

You are proving our point that this law is not necessary.

Of course it is necessary. Of these 20 000 houses 7 500 will go to accommodate people who are at present living in squatter camps properly. Only then will their squatter shacks be destroyed. These are the people who arrived here prior to 15 November. If we are going to reach our target—it seems as if we are going to—then it is going to be possible to remove 7 500 families from existing squatter shacks. Another 7 500 houses will be made available for the population increase and for those people who are bona fide workers. Five thousand houses will be used for the accommodation of people who, in terms of the Group Areas Act, have to be removed from undesirable conditions. Such people are being established in new areas where they can create decent communities and circumstances, and where it is being made possible for them to realize themselves as communities and individuals. That is what we are going to vote on and that is the reason why we will win this coming division and also why we will win the election every time we go to the country, for these are the merits of the case, and not the obscure and illegitimate case which the Opposition made out as being their interpretation of the Bill which, in reality, is part of a powerful, positive initiative on the part of the South African people to do away with an evil.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botma, M. C.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. G; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. G; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. G; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Simkin, G H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, P. C. Roux, N. F. Treurnicht and A. van Breda.

NOES—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.