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

1. (1) with effect from Wednesday, 4 February, the hours of sitting on Wednesdays shall be:
   • 14h15 to 18h30; and
   • 20h00 to 22h30;
2. (2) with effect from Monday, 16 February, the hours of sitting on Mondays and Thursdays shall be:
   • 14h15 to 18h30; and
   • 20h00 to 22h30.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I had outlined the attitude of the official Opposition to this Bill.

We support it in principle because we recognize the need for the existing legislation to be revised, and we must congratulate the department on a fine piece of work. We realize that such a measure is necessary because we recognize the need for touch emergency action when incidents of oil pollution do occur. I had also expressed my gratitude that in the Bill provision was made for organizations such as the S.A. National Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds and other similar organizations to have their cost underwritten in the event of it being found necessary to clean-up coastal birds. I should perhaps have mentioned that an hon. member of this House has been chairman of this organization for some time. That is the hon. member for Maitland. Although he might be very misguided in his political thoughts, certainly in this direction he and his organization do very, very good work indeed.

I also expressed a measure of disquiet on certain aspects when I said it was necessary that action should be tough. I think one also has to accept that it should be fair. I had referred specifically to the question of a presumption of guilt when it came to the discharge of oil from a ship or tanker, and I believe that the hon. the Minister should give us justification for introducing this particular provision in the Bill. Also, when it comes to the supply of goods and materials in order to fight pollution, the Minister has extremely wide powers to force manufacturers or suppliers to supply him with materials or equipment, and I think we should take a look at the machinery which is being given to him, and to the powers that are being given to him in this Bill to enforce such co-operation from both manufacturers and suppliers. I believe we have to go overboard in order to make absolutely certain that nobody is unfairly treated.

All in all we approve of this Bill and will be supporting it at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for his kind words about an organization with which I am involved, an organization which is also mentioned in the Bill before us. Before proceeding with my speech I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to his new portfolio. This is the first time I take part in a debate in which he is in charge of this particular portfolio. The fact that he was previously, as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, in charge of the National Parks Board is, I think, a very good background against which he can understand and move and deal sensibly with conservation measures as well. The measure now before the House is of course also a conservation measure.

Before going any further I should like to refer briefly to the few points made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He spoke about presumptions contained in this Bill. It is my contention, however, that he is entirely wrong. There are only two presumptions contained in this Bill. The first presumption we find in clause 2 and the second in clause 3(3). The one is a presumption against the existence of oil, not against the guilt of the skipper or the owner of the vessel in question. The presumption is simply that what is found is oil.

The other presumption—the one in clause 3(3)—is contained in the following words—

The presumption is that when damage takes place, if, for example, the bow of a ship is damaged, oil spillage can result from such damage. In such a case the master of that ship has to report it and in such a case the State can take whatever action it needs to take in order to prevent or combat such an eventuality. There have been many practical examples of this sort of thing. We have had ships lying in Table Bay which have been severely damaged in some way or other that could have resulted in severe oil spillage and where the matter was not reported. There was in fact a decided case in the Supreme Court of South Africa. I am referring to the matter of the State v. Peppas, and I want to quote from the S.A. Law Reports, June 1977(2). In this case the accused appealed to the Appellate Division in respect of his conviction for having discharged oil. I want to quote what Mr. Justice Miller had to say in this regard with Mr. Justice Trollip and Mr. Justice De Villiers concurring. On page 652 he had this to say—

Well, Sir, it has had the attention of the Legislature and this very fine Bill that is before the House today is the product of that attention. I know that one is instinctively opposed to presumptions in the law. However, when it comes to conservation, the hon. member, as an expert on environmental matters, should know that there are many presumptions in the law when it comes to the question of defending the defenceless such as plants and animals which cannot speak for themselves. The provincial ordinances are full of them. If, for example, a man is discovered driving along in his motorcar with a rifle beside him and a springbok in his boot and it is out of season and he does not have a licence, the presumption is that he has been hunting illegally out of season. The same thing is true in regard to the picking of flowers and the protection of a variety of plants and animals. So there are many presumptions. The presumption here in this Bill is simply there to try to defend the defenceless, in this case it is the marine environment. After all, there are no witnesses under the ocean to report the master of such a ship. In any event, in my opinion, in spite of the sound provisions contained in this Bill, they will still not prove adequate in preventing pollution of our coastline completely. In essence, this Bill can only prevent major cataclysms and problems at sea. The master of a ship who in the dark of night cleans out his bilges and spills a small quantity of oil which disperses very rapidly may be responsible for destroying a small colony of seabirds in that immediate vicinity. The impact of such action may not be such that it will ever be discovered by the authorities in the long term but it is in itself an insidious spoliation of the marine environment.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that ever since the conversion of heat into kinetic energy there has been a growing demand for those resources of the world that predate man, viz. coal and oil. This Bill deals with the question of oil in particular that is being transported around our coastline in various forms on the one hand and, on the other hand—and I believe it is very far-sighted in this—it deals with the looming problems that flow from the potential threat of an off-shore oil industry in our waters. When we look at the tests that have taken place recently with Sedco II we see that that possibility is a very real one.

As a matter of interest, up to World War II two-thirds of the world’s energy was generated from coal and by 1973, at the time of the first oil crisis, that percentage had risen to 46. Currently the world’s energy is generated from oil to the extent of 44%. It is interesting to note that the average United States citizen in 1974 used the equivalent energy of 500 slaves working 10 hours a day. This has resulted, of course, in the problems which this Bill attempts to circumvent. The fact that we He on this important sea lane between the Persian Gulf and Europe, a sea lane which carries large amounts of oil in ships of enormous capacities, has heightened the problem for us.

In respect of under sea oil it is also interesting to see that 15% of the world’s oil is currently drawn from sources under the sea. We know what cataclysm resulted for example in the Gulf of Mexico when there was that oil well which leaked. I think it happened last year.

The hon. the Minister sketched the background to this Bill and told us how it moves into line with the provisions of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. We joined that convention on 17 March 1976. He also illustrated to us—we can see it when we read the Bill— how much experience, also that of other people, we have at our disposal. He mentioned the wide consultations that had taken place in the drafting of the Bill. I should therefore like to congratulate the department for the fine work they had done.

Fundamentally the Bill does not seek to control shipping. Yet it can be termed a major marine conservation measure. One should read the Bill in conjunction with the Bill we dealt with last year in the House, a Bill in terms of which we joined the London Dumping Convention on Noxious Wastes. During the past year, especially over the last month or so, there was the proclamation of marine reserves on our coasts. I should also mention the work of the Fishing Commission. All these factors leads one to realize that the Government, also through the offices of this department, is very serious about marine conservation. It is proper that it is so. If one reads Thor Heyerdahl’s accounts on his floating trip across the Atlantic, one is struck by his remark that “We observed oil pollution during 43 of the 57 days at sea.” As far as our waters are concerned some 300 ships a day round our coasts. Furthermore, in 1948 throughout the world there were only 29 000 ships of over 100 gross tons registered; in the year 1975 there were in fact 64 000 such ships registered.

Another interesting point is that, contrary to what one would have expected with the new navigational aids and computerization, the number of collisions at sea remains steady. Therefore the threat is very much more with us than it has been before. I should like to give some examples to show how necessary this legislation is. In 1966 the S.A. Seafarer went aground off the Cape coast. In 1968 the World Glory was in trouble off Durban. The Wafra and the Heythrop experienced problems in 1971. The Texanita, the Santa Artemis and the Silver Castle sank in 1972. The Leader and the Neptune Saphire sank in 1973. The Oriental Pioneer, the S.A. Oranjeland and the Produce sank in 1974. The Antipolis and the Romelia sank in 1977. We also had that major disaster of the Venoil and the Venpet in 1977.

We should bear in mind that if a ship like the Venpet, or the Venoil, is doing 16 knots in a particular direction, it has to alter course more than 16 km before if it is to avoid a collision with something it sees ahead. One therefore sees how ponderous and vulnerable these great hulks are that carry oil. This enormous threat to marine life and our beautiful coasts is increasing year by year.

I should like to say something about a factor mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove. In this connection I refer to clause 9(2)(b)(ii), in which the S.A. National Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds is mentioned. I think it is a great compliment to this organization that its name is actually mentioned in legislation and that its work is recognized in that way.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister, however, that I am not entirely happy about that clause, although for the purposes for which it is designed it is in order. I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. He need not give me a hard and fast reply in this debate, but I wish to point out the problem. The problem is that this clause only makes provision for reimbursements for expenses on a proven case of oil spillage, and that in its very nature is usually a major spill. This organization is, however, every day of its life involved with the results of oil pollution. Not very far from here there are today, as we sit here, at least four or five ladies sitting cleaning birds that have been damaged by oil pollution. That goes on day after day, year in and year out, decade after decade. This damage is caused by minor spills due to the negligence of people who are never caught. Up to 50 birds a day are being treated by these people, and I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that perhaps he should consider the possibility of making a grant to this organization for its on-going work. In the very nature of its work it must continue indefinitely because, in the first place, the need for it exists and, secondly, when a major spill takes place they must be prepared to deal with it. For these reasons they must maintain the embryo of the organization.

The work of this organization has been recognized world-wide. It is interesting to note that a film they made on the rescue of birds, including jackass penguins damaged by oil, was made on a shoe string. This film was given to some environmental agency in Europe to show to their members, and to the amazement of the organization they discovered that it was shown at peak viewing time by the BBC, which was wonderful publicity for South Africa. It was also shown throughout the USA, and to the amazement of the organization the film was shown at peak viewing time even in the USSR. This proves how widely known the work of this organization actually is.

The vulnerability of the species along our coasts is best illustrated when one thinks of the jackass penguin. On Dassen Island, for example, in 1920 there were an estimated 1½ million birds. In 1978 there were fewer than 20 000 nesting birds on that island. We have a sea bird population which is in steep decline, in cataclysmic decline. The species is registered on the world wild life red data list and there is every sign that the populations are decreasing further. That is very obvious. The degradation taking place in regard to all the marine species is very alarming.

I want therefore to say to the hon. the Minister that I am grateful that he has brought this measure before the House. I want to congratulate the department on the drafting thereof. In my view this is one of the most important conservation measures, and certainly one of the most important marine conservation measures, that has been brought before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to listen to the hon. member for Maitland because he is a person who has had a lot of experience in combating the effects of pollution on marine birds along our coasts, particularly in regard to the jackass penguin. The hon. member says that he considers this Bill to be a major marine conservation measure. I agree with the hon. member, especially in view of the fact that it gives the hon. the Minister a big stick to hit those offenders who in the past dumped their oil in the sea off our shores as they sailed their ships around our coasts.

But it is not only oil that one has to be concerned about. I would like to tell that hon. member that we in these benches who represent coastal constituencies are of course very concerned about oil pollution. While I concede that what I am going to mention does not completely fall within the ambit of this Bill, I want to point out that we in South Africa are guilty of polluting the underwater areas of our off-shore zones, as we have found in Natal where large industrial concerns are dumping tons of effluent into the sea thereby damaging the underwater life in our off-shore tidal zones. I believe that it is up to every one of us to make sure that this type of pollution does not continue. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that in 1920 there were 1½ million jackass penguins around the Cape Peninsula, whilst in 1978 there were only 20 000. I sincerely hope that in another 50 years’ time we will not be saying: In 1981, off the shores of Natal, we had a certain species of marine life, but today we have none at all.

Are you talking about jackasses in the Opposition?

That hon. member will persist in making a jackass of himself.

I am talking about the jackasses in the Opposition.

These steps will result in the passing of a new Act, which is a highly desirable state of affairs because the existing Act has many deficiencies, and this is primarily due to the fact—as the hon. the Minister said—that at the present time the provisions of Tovalop, the Tanker Owners’ Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution, apply. The weakness, as has been pointed out, is that this is a voluntary organization and only relates to tankers. It is much more desirable to have the existing legislation brought into line with the CLC, the Civil Liabilities Convention, because this convention is far more comprehensive, as the hon. the Minister has stated. For that reason we shall support this Bill in all its stages.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister viz: Why has it taken so long for the Act to be amended in this way? After all, Tovalop was first initiated in 1968, the CLC in 1969 and the present Act was promulgated in 1971. That was ten years ago, but it is only now that the hon. the Minister sees fit to bring our legislation into line with the international convention. Perhaps there are valid reasons for this, and I should like to hear those reasons. As the hon. member for Maitland said, there are many people throughout this country—certainly throughout the world—who are most concerned about the damage to the environment, especially the damage that oil pollution, and other forms of pollution, does to the ecology of our marine areas. Some of the biggest disasters have been caused by giant super-tankers, and these tend to get the most publicity when they occur. It is not, however, only these large tankers that create the problems. We know that there are ships sailing around our coasts, pumping out their bilges and dumping their waste into our seas. This is also a problem. Then there are also the off-shore installations which are not, incidentally, covered by the CLC, as the hon. the Minister has said. These off-shore installations, such as the off-shore oil offloading bouy adacent to my constituency, at Reunion in Natal, have in the past, created many problems because of the oil spills.

The hon. the Minister’s predecessors will recall how often I raised this matter in the House when oil spills occurred, because the effects of these spills were considerable in a constituency such as my own, which is a premier holiday resort area on South Africa’s coastline, the upper south coast of Natal. The hon. member for Umhlanga also has a beautiful stretch of coastline which is very important to the tourist trade in South Africa. The hon. member for East London North will agree with me when I say that the stretch of land between the Keiskamma River and the Kei River incorporates some of the most beautiful coastline in the world. I therefore think that it behoves all of us to do everything in our power to ensure that this wonderful resource we have is not damaged by oil pollution. It is for that reason that I am so pleased that the provisions in this Bill will now cover installations such as off-shore oil offloading bouys. We also hope that the day will soon come when we strike oil off Mossel Bay in large quantities. We shall then have many oil derricks there bringing black gold into our economy. I sincerely hope that the provisions of this legislation will ensure that that beautiful stretch of coastline around Mossel Bay and elsewhere is not damaged.

Having spoken about the spills off Reunion, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate and thank the Department of Transport for the wonderful service they have provided as far as the Kuswag vessels are concerned. I do not know what we would have done without these vessels. They are quick off the mark and have saved South Africa from a number of major disasters by being able to get there quickly and clean up the mess resultant from the various oil spills.

To get back to the provisions of the Bill, it is mainly concerned with, firstly, placing the liability in the correct quarters. I think this is very important. Secondly, it enables the powers that be to recover the costs of the cleaning-up operation and any other damage which may have been caused in the process. I am very pleased to see all types of marine vessels or installations are being covered and not only tankers, as has been the case with Tovalop.

The two previous speakers referred to the cleaning of sea birds. I am not going to dwell on that, but I am pleased to see that there are provisions which will force those who are responsible for the pollution to pay for the cleaning-up of the birds. I think this is the right attitude we should take in South Africa. I do not want to talk at length about littering in South Africa because it is not covered by this Bill, but having travelled in Taiwan recently, I must say that although that country is not one which one could call very affluent, it is a country which is extremely clean. I know the Director-General of Transport and others, including a number of my Hon. colleagues, who were there will agree with me that in Taiwan we did not see the rubbish and fitter lying in the streets as we regrettably see in South Africa at times. Taiwan is an example to us, and I believe that people who make messes should be made to clean them up. I am pleased therefore to see that with regard to oil pollution at sea this Bill is providing the necessary stick for the hon. the Minister to sort these people out, if I may use that term.

Under the provisions of the CLC South Africa will also now be able to confer jurisdiction on our South African courts in the case of oil pollution and be able to claim directly from insurance companies rather than possibly having to fight the case in foreign courts should it be impossible to settle amicably with the insurer. We can now sort these problems out in South Africa without having to go and fight the case overseas. In other words, these provisions are now giving the department real teeth in dealing with those who pollute our off-shore waters. Therefore we support them.

There are many other provisions in the Bill which I should just like to refer to briefly. Clause 4(2)(c) now give the hon. the Minister powers over any salvor performing salvage operations in matters concerning possible oil pollution. I think this is a good thing. In the past the hon. the Minister had no power to prevent a salvor salvaging a vessel from messing up our coast-line. Clause 5(1) empowers the hon. the Minister to order the destruction of oil by burning if in his opinion the oil presents a danger of pollution. That is something which is not in the CLC; it is in this Bill, however, and I think it is a good measure. We know that some years ago, off the coast of the United Kingdom, the Royal Air Force was brought in to blow up a super-tanker which had run aground. There was a danger of its huge cargo of oil spilling onto the English coast, so they destroyed the vessel and her cargo by bombing it. The hon. the Minister will now have this power, and I think he will need it in certain circumstances to prevent oil pollution.

Clause 8 is a very interesting clause. I would have thought that in a sense it was unnecessary, but then again, understanding human nature, I was perhaps a bit naive in thinking so. It empowers the Minister to authorize those who are involved in the cleaning-up operation on shore to enter upon any property or land on their way to the coast without having to pay the owner of that property an exorbitant sum. When I studied the Bill, I queried this aspect with officials of the department. I was told that in the past when officials from the department had to cross certain people’s property in order to get to the coast to fight pollution, the owners of the property concerned demanded exorbitant fees from the Government before they would allow the officials to pass through their property. I would have thought that people would not have acted that way. After all, it is our national heritage that is at stake. I would have thought that the owners of the property concerned would have been only too pleased to allow the people who have to try to clean-up the mess access through their property. Because they did not, clause 8 now gives the hon. the Minister the power to allow his people to pass through such property.

Clause 21 serves to prohibit the transfer of oil at sea without the Minister’s permission. I think we all agree that the transfer of oil at sea can be a very risky operation. The Minister will now be allowed to prohibit this should he feel that the possibility of an oil spill would be great. I think this is also a good provision.

In conclusion, we in these benches believe that this is a good Bill and that these provisions are required in South Africa. We congratulate the department and the hon. the Minister for bringing it before the House and we shall support it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Maitland on an excellent, well-prepared speech. It is clear to me that he has a very good knowledge of the subject that he spoke about. Our sincere gratitude also goes to the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for their support of the legislation.

It is very clear to me that all of us in the House, and rightly too, are very concerned about oil pollution along the coast of South Africa. I believe it is in fact one of the matters that fills us with grave concern. I am aware of the fact that it is definitely not easy to solve this problem. I am convinced that other countries throughout the world are involved in research from day to day and are doing everything possible to try to prevent oil pollution of their coastal areas. Perhaps I could just take hon. members back for a moment to the serious disaster caused by oil pollution which took place a few years ago along the West coast of England, a disaster which in fact cost that country millions upon millions of rands. A year or so ago, a great disaster also occurred in the South of France. That disaster could also have had serious consequences for one of the most beautiful stretches of coastline in the world. I am referring to the French Riviera. In his introductory speech, the hon. the Minister said that he believed that he could sleep easily knowing that the Department of Transport and its staff—he also pointed out that there is a shortage of staff—and the coastal patrol boats are always ready to try to combat any disaster of this nature which might occur in South Africa.

Three years ago—the hon. member for Maitland also referred to this—a disaster occurred in South Africa when the Venoil and the Venpet collided. This could have had disastrous consequences for South Africa. Can you imagine, Sir, what would have happened if the beautiful coastallines of George, Plettenberg Bay, Little Brak and Great Brak had been swamped with oil? It could have had disastrous consequences for those areas as far as tourism is concerned, not to mention the marine life there. I want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister and say that with regard to that matter, we have the greatest appreciation for the speedy action of the Department of Transport.

Now I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister, and this is where my reservation lies. With our beautiful coastline in South Africa, from the West Coast right to the most northerly tip of the East Coast, does the hon. the Minister think that five coastal patrol boats are sufficient for combating this evil, if I may call it that? I think it is most probably easy to say that in the normal course of events they might be sufficient, but we must think of and accept the fact that as a result of the economic conditions in the world, as a result of the importance of oil as a commodity, as a result of the fact that ships are becoming larger and larger today and also as a result of the fact that they can no longer all pass through the Suez Canal, marine traffic around the southern tip of South Africa is going to show a great increase in the future. I think we must accept that, as a result of the increased marine traffic, disasters can once again occur, as in the case of the Venpet and the Venoil a few years ago. That is why my representation to the hon. the Minister today is to consider the possibility of becoming even more prepared with regard to this danger that may arise.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to pollution in general. I should like to associate myself with him this afternoon in his reference to Taiwan. It was my privilege too to be able to be there, together with other hon. members a few months ago. I want to refer briefly to what I noticed there. I know that I am perhaps moving away from the Bill a little now, but I shall come back to it at once after this. I believe the time has come for us in South Africa to try to remember something else apart from our coastal areas, because I think it is an absolute disgrace to see people pollute our beautiful country, South Africa, whether it is pollution at sea or on land. Now I come back to the sea again. I often go to Durban. My friends from Natal are sitting here next to me.

Hear, hear!

The hon. members say “hear, hear!” I have a flat in Durban Point—unfortunately the hon. member for Durban Point is not here now—and therefore I am a Durban rate-payer and I am going to keep an eye on the hon. member for Durban Point. It may be, since the NP is doing so well in Natal, that I might consider opposing him one day, and then I think that he might as well say “good-bye”.

Then it would be pollution of a different kind.

What bothers me about Durban in particular, if one thinks in terms of the south coast, the north coast, and even that part of the south coast near Amanzimtoti, is that that area is going to lose a great deal in terms of tourism for the simple reason that people are already saying that they are no longer going to Natal because it is quite impossible to visit the beaches as a result of the oil that is to be found there practically every day. Therefore they are no longer going to the north coast, they are no longer going to Umhlanga Rocks and they are no longer going to the south coast. The fact of the matter is that even in Durban there are 20, 30 or 40 ships lying outside the harbour on occasion. As a result of the dumping of oil, which to my mind has not been adequately controlled in the past, the beaches of that area are so unsavoury that I believe it is going to have a tremendous impact on tourism in Natal.

I conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister very much for this legislation. I hope and trust that this legislation will contribute towards the efficient combating of this tremendous evil about which we are all concerned. I do not have the least doubt, and I should like to state it here, that we here in this House have the greatest confidence in the Department of Transport, and I want to mention Mr. Eksteen, the Director-General by name, and his competent staff, in the knowledge that they will be prepared at all times to combat this evil if they have the necessary equipment to do so. We support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member for Welkom will forgive me if I do not react directly to what he said. However, I believe he realizes that it is the first time that I have to do my thing here today. I have been involved with firsts very often in the past. It seems to me as if the world punished me by giving me a number of firsts to deal with in my life. However, I am very proud of and pleased about the fact that I am able to rise to my feet to say something in this House for the first time today.

In my work as a professional man we do in fact stand most of the time—often for hours on end. However, for the past few days I have simply been sitting here all the time. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, it is very bad for the circulation to sit still so much. That is why it is a pleasure for me to be able to stand here for a while. But, standing here and looking at all the hon. members around me, I wish that I could rather sit down again!

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank you and all hon. members very heartily for the friendly attitude that you have shown towards me as a new member of this House. I also say thank you for the words of encouragement that I have received from all sides. I do not know how long this will carry on. In any event, it was very pleasant while it lasted.

Of course, I would very much have liked to talk about health today because naturally this is my first love. I should have liked to talk about the health of the people of our country, about hospitals and about our hospital services. Particularly in view of the coming election, I should have liked to talk about nurses and their salaries, their working conditions, etc. I should have liked to talk about diseases, for instance cholera, about medicines and such things, because I could see my way clear to doing so on an occasion of this nature. However, I have been granted the opportunity of talking about the pollution of our oceans today, oil pollution in particular. Now I wonder whether this is also not simply a health discussion after all. Are we not simply talking about the health of our sea? Are we not simply talking about the diseases which man causes by pumping and dumping everything he can into the sea? Are we not simply talking to the hon. the Minister about new legislation by means of which medicines can be prescribed in order to combat this disease of the ocean and to make this sea of ours healthy?

Today hon. members had a great deal to say about the pollution of the sea. There are many types of visible pollution. For instance, we see the black, soiled beaches of Mossel Bay and Little Brak River. We see the seagulls that have to be washed clean. We see the dead fish that wash up on the beaches. However, there is much more to it. Matters go much deeper and further than this. The health of the sea is being endangered by the poisonous, detrimental substances that people are dumping into the sea. It has been calculated that approximately 1 million tons of petroleum products are dumped into the sea every year. In addition, 200 000 tons of lead, as well as herbicides and insecticides etc, are dumped in the sea annually. We are all aware of this.

It may seem as if the sea is very vast and that it can endure. However, many important things occur in the food chain of the sea. The start of the food chain in the sea is, of course, the important floating food substances of a vast number of marine animals. This is plankton and plankton is not very fond of the oil that we dump in the sea, nor of the other poisons.

Allow me to go a little further and to try to explain what happens. We can take the dolphins of the Adriatic Sea as an example, a very small ocean where the effect of pollution is noticed very soon. The plankton absorbs the soluble particles of oil in the sea. The plankton is then eaten by the mackerel, the mackerel are eaten by the dolphin and those particles of oil ultimately kill the dolphin. Fortunately, man does not eat so much fish for those poisons in the fish to have an adverse effect upon him, but the signs are clear. Today it is the dolphin. Tomorrow it may be man.

Possibly the reason why we are not so concerned about the sea is the fact that we think that it is so very vast. If we look at the atlas, we see mostly oceans and very little land. Yesterday the hon. the Minister told us about the wonderful coastline of South Africa, the beautiful coastline extending 2 700 km, but the quantity of water involved there, is very little. If we were able to reduce the size of the world to that of a tennis ball, and we were to reduce the volume of the sea to the same extent and considered it as a drop of water, then in comparison with the earth mass represented by the tennis ball, all the oceans in the world are but a single drop of water. The sea is simply a planetary dam, and we are dumping everything into this little drop of water. But that little drop of water is still going to become very important to us, because in time that little drop must provide more food for man. We have marine life in the sea, fish and all the other sea creatures, and in future this will have to constitute an even greater portion of the protein that mankind must eat. The more the population of the world increases, the more important marine life as a source of protein for those people becomes.

Although I think that this legislation is a very fine piece of legislation, I must say that I wonder whether it goes far enough. We South Africans are very proud of our country. I can say frankly that I love my country. I can say that I will die for my country; our children learn this at school too. We simply have to listen to our national anthem. Our national anthem does not simply speak of our country, but of our sea too. Should we not speak about our sea more often? Should we not say: “I love my country and sea?” Should we not also say: “I shall die for my country and for my sea?” There is no doubt about the fact that we will have to do everything in our power to ensure that our sea continues to survive because that sea must live so that our people can live and survive.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Parktown most sincerely on his maiden speech. The hon. member and I have been friends for a number of years now and in his previous capacity as a professional medical practitioner, his previous profession, we got to know him as a person who could wield a scalpel very skilfully. He also showed us here today that not only was he successful in that profession, but that he has the potential to be very successful in this House, where he has now embarked on a second profession, particularly if he carries on in the way in which he began today. I believe that we shall take cognizance of him and that he has the opportunity of making a very great success of his parliamentary career. Of course I want to warn him that I think that the aspects he dealt with today are safer than the political aspects he may have to deal with in future and that the measure of success he may achieve with those may perhaps be less than in the case of a subject such as the one which he has just discussed, after having studied it very thoroughly. I congratulate the hon. member most sincerely. I think he has every opportunity of making a success of his career in this House and I want to wish him every success and happiness.

The legislation before us is legislation which has been very essential for a long time now and when one observes the unanimity which we have experienced up to now in this respect, it is no wonder that members are asking why we are spending so much time discussing the matter and why it is taking so long to have the Second Reading passed. I believe it is a very good thing that this subject should be thrashed out and that all facts should be placed on record so as to enable the hon. the Minister and his department to undertake this task in the light of all the available facts and viewpoints.

It is interesting to examine references to what is happening in the rest of the world. I refer in this regard to The Argus of Tuesday, 4 September 1979, in which an article was written on the beautiful, azure blue Mediterranean Sea. The article was written by The Argus correspondent in Rome and reads, inter alia—

Similarly one can visit various other parts of the world. You arrive at Knossos and they tell you that it was once a beautiful, Greek island with lovely indigenous trees, which was simply despoiled by pollution. Madeira used to be one of the most beautiful little islands but it is now becoming barren as a result of pollution.

In South Africa we are at present encountering problems as a result of pollution which is continuing from day to day, not only unintentionally, but often deliberately. That is why it is perhaps interesting to take note of the trends and statistics concerning collisions at sea, particularly along the South African coastline. In The Argus of 9 August 1979 an interesting article appeared in this regard. I may just point out in passing that up to now approximately 400 ships have been wrecked off the South African coast. It is interesting to note that most of the ships which experienced problems with their hull, experienced them specifically off our East Coast. It is also interesting that most of the accidents occurred near harbours. Our coast, with its Cape rollers as they are known, is known for its tempestuousness. Consequently it is known as one of the most dangerous coasts in the world.

In view of this and with the increase in shipping activities along our coast, we shall probably have to accept that we shall have to deal with this problem to an increasing extent in the years to come. Consequently we shall have to take an increasing number of precautionary measures. In order to be able to do this the Minister and his department will have to be accorded greater and wider powers so that they are in a position to take the necessary steps to prevent our beautiful coast from being harmed. In some respects, particularly as far as its animal, bird and plant life are concerned, our coast is unique in the world.

We are perhaps too inclined to accord priority or prominence to birds, but if one looks at our South African coastline one realizes that we have unique things here which occur nowhere else in the world. I am thinking in this regard of the nature reserve at Cape Point. A few years ago an American insurance company, the Insurance Company of Omaha, made a special trip to South Africa to make a film about a species of baboon unique to Cape Point. That film was to have been shown in America so that the people there could see how such a species sought to protect itself. Every time the troupe moves the females and little ones are encircled by the males, old and young. We are dealing here with a species which most South Africans are not even aware of, but precisely as a result of pollution this species may be lost to our youth.

If we consider that and all the other unique scenic attractions along our East and West coasts, our fauna and flora which may be lost to posterity, we realize that measures of this nature are essential. From the point of view of tourist potential as well we cannot allow these assets of our country to be lost.

Let us imagine for a moment what would happen if Durban’s beautiful beaches were to be polluted by oil at the height of the holiday season. It would create a chaotic situation. The white beaches of the West Coast are not only unique in the world, but also in South Africa, and can hon. members imagine what would happen if they were to be polluted? How many years would it not take before they were completely clean again? In fact, would they ever really be clean again?

But perhaps we are too inclined to think only of the conservation aspect. As I have already indicated, we must consider not only the tourist potential which may be lost, but the commercial aspect as well. The South African coastal waters are known as the best fishing waters in the world. Yet as a result of the pollution which has taken place over the past years, we are allowing this commercial asset of ours to go to waste.

Let me go on to indicate a specific danger, and here I am referring to the population explosion which the whole world is at present experiencing. I maintain that the ocean is the only source of food which has up to now not yet been developed to its full potential. It is the only source which may be able to feed the ever-growing populations of the world in future years. Consequently we must ensure that this source of food is not lost as a result of pollution. The hon. member for Parktown said that this was a slow process which could tend to the positive or the negative side, and that if we did not take precautionary measures that alternative source of vital foodstuffs could be lost to the future.

For these reasons I believe it is desirable for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book, for it will, inter alia, contribute to preventing pollution. In addition I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department ought to receive positive powers to enable them to implement these conservation measures.

As far as this legislation is concerned, it is in my opinion very positive and expressive. I think the hon. the Minister is now being accorded far greater powers and authority than was previously the case. This puts him in a position to perform his task far more effectively and it is no longer necessary for us to watch him in a few years time, but to watch him from the very outset.

On examining the legislation I want to say in the first place that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove. He experienced problems with the two presumptions incorporated in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. member for Orange Grove is not reading the Bill in the context in which it was drafted. In my opinion those presumptions are neither final or absolute. Nor are they expressly aimed at the captain of the ship, but what is stated here is merely a subjective presumption to prepare the ground in the first place for a prosecution and secondly, for a conviction. Consequently I do not have the same problem as the hon. member for Orange Grove. I think those presumptions are quite in order and in fact I welcome them.

The second aspect to which I want to refer concerns clauses 24 and 26. I believe that clause 24 is very important and in my opinion a clause of this nature ought to have appeared in the legislation years ago. Consequently I specifically want to welcome it as well as clause 26. However, I note in subsections (6) to (8) of clause 26 that any moneys in the Fund which are not required for immediate use shall be invested with the Public Debt Commissioners. The unexpended balance shall then be carried forward to the ensuing financial year. I should like to point out the danger involved in this. So many present-day institutions are required to invest unexpended sums with the Public Debt Commissioners. I can accept the rationale behind that and also understand the argument. But I want to point out that we are taking this trend so far that we are restricting the Fund we are creating to such an extent that it has a negative effect. The application of the Fund can to a certain extent be forced injudiciously in a certain direction in order not to have unexpended amounts at the end of the year. I am not saying this with any ulterior motives or in the belief that this will be done deliberately. But there is going to be pressure on the part of private enterprise on the Fund to do so. Furthermore if the Fund were not absolutely restricted and the unexpended portion of the money were to be invested most beneficially, the Fund would be in a position to invest at the best interest rates. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is not prepared to consider this. I am specifically asking for this to be done in this case, because this is a channeling of money from private enterprise to a State Fund, other than in the case of some other Funds, where there is a channeling of public money to another State source. It is against this background that I request the hon. the Minister to consider whether it is not possible to regulate the Fund’s money in such a way that it may be invested in the best possible way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Vasco that the reply to his last request is unfortunately “no”. At a later stage I shall go into the allocation of funds in greater detail.

The hon. member for Parktown elaborated on marine life without any notes and I should like to congratulate him on that. We are inclined to regard the ocean as a commercial undertaking. But we forget the marine life in the ocean. If he is concerned about the marine life in the ocean he is also concerned about human life, for we are dependant on the sea. Even the agriculturist cannot expect rain without the ocean. Consequently I am glad that he made his maiden speech in this spirit. I am glad to receive the support of the Opposition parties for this legislation so that all of us here today can do everything in our ability to protect the ocean. I think the hon. member for Parktown will have a happy time in this House. I judge people by their faces. He is the kind of person who may differ from me politically, but judging from his appearance I see he is not a person who will ever become embittered. If one is a politician who does not become embittered, one is happy in this House. I see him as such a person and although he and I are at times going to cross swords, we will always have a kind word for each other when we pass each other in the lobby. The same can be said of the hon. member for Orange Grove and myself.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove congratulated the department and the Director-General on this piece of legislation. In the short time I have known the Director-General, I have discovered that he is the kind of person I could work with in a spirit of co-operation. He does things fast, and he and his department actually initiated this piece of legislation. I thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for those words. He also referred to the presumption of guilt, as embodied in clause 2(3). The hon. member for Maitland also referred to it. The hon. member for Maitland made a good study of the whole Act. He referred to a previous appeal court case, Peppas v. the State. I quote from the Appeal Court’s decision—

That is exactly what we are doing now.

*One cannot go and scoop up a pail of sea water near a ship and then institute legal proceedings in the Supreme Court. As a result of the decision in the Supreme Court case we have now introduced these amendments.

This is all being done in accordance with the proposals of the CLC. Other countries in the world also have these provisions.

For three years the hon. member for Maitland was president of Sancob, the association for the protection of our sea birds, for three years. I want to thank him for his interest in this matter. He referred to certain problems with regard to ships which navigate in areas which are of great value to us from the point of view of the protection of sea birds. I am prepared to ask the department to notify seamen by way of a “Notice to Mariners” that they should avoid such sensitive areas of our sea and should respect these areas where there are bird species which are diminishing in numbers.

Another matter of concern to the hon. member is the birds which are polluted by oil. I have sympathy for that and that is why I am going to ask the department to investigate and if possible give favourable consideration to his request, that Sancob be given a fixed contribution. As he said there are at present three women who are cleaning the oil polluted seabirds. He knows all about these matters because he was president of this commendable undertaking for three years. But those people cannot keep on doing the work without compensation. We have a system of levies and I shall ask the department to see whether it cannot under these circumstances make a contribution to the people of Sancob according to our financial means.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about dumping at sea. I want to refer him to the Water Act. In this Act there are provisions which will help him to protect certain parts of the Natal coast-line. There is also the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act. Both these measures contain certain provisions aimed at protecting the coast-line. Then there are also certain provisions in the Water Act which must be complied with. People cannot do whatever they want. He also said that the work on this legislation started in 1977 and wanted to know why it took so long. The reason is that we have had to consult with people overseas, with the CLC, with shipowners and insurance companies. We have had to get the co-operation of all the people concerned. That is the reason why we have a very good Bill here today, with the blessing of all the people concerned. That is why it took since 1977 to come up with this Bill.

He also referred to clause 8, which deals with entry upon a person’s property. This provision is exactly the same as similar provisions in the Forestry Act and the Water Act. Similar provisions are also in those two Acts to empower people from our department to enter someone’s property to investigate certain problems.

*The hon. member for Welkom referred to the sound features of this Bill in his usual loud, clear voice—I always wished I had such a voice. He, too, asked whether five Coast Guard patrol boats would be adequate. We cannot increase the number. There are also two tuggs which have to protect this tremendously long coastline. It costs millions of rands to keep these boats functional. As I said in my introductory speech we have the two most powerful tugs in the world. Other countries admit that as far as horsepower is concerned they are the most powerful. It would be a good thing to have more ships available, but we also have to bear the economy in mind. It is essential for us to protect a valuable asset like the ocean. In any event I can assure the hon. member that we shall not reduce the number of ships and will instead seek to increase them.

The hon. member for Vasco knows the sea. He is a child of the sea. He grew up in this part of the world. I thank him for his contribution. I believe that in view of the spirit prevailing here we shall be able to implement this legislation with a good heart and shall be able to achieve more in this sphere than in the past.

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

Mr. Chairman, in this clause is included the one presumption of guilt I was a little nervous about and concerning which I listened with interest to hon. members on the other side of the House. In certain circumstances the onus is on the accused to prove that he is innocent. The skipper or owner of a ship has to prove that he took the necessary steps to stop unavoidable leaks or he has to prove that oil was discharged specifically to secure the safety of the ship. It probably is reasonable that there should be a presumption of guilt in this case, because it will be very difficult to get a conviction otherwise. The hon. member for Maitland quite correctly said, as I myself did in my Second Reading speech, that there are presumptions of guilt in the law. I think that in these circumstances we can go along with it on this occasion. I would however say to the hon. the Minister that we do so a little reluctantly. We would hope that, in drafting measures of this nature, sometimes better results can be produced than this sort of provision.

Mr. Chairman, I can see the hon. member’s problem. I must say that I did not read the whole judgment in the court case I referred to. If it is found that there is oil in the sea, it is the duty of the owner of the ship involved to prove that in fact it is not oil. It is not our duty to prove that. That is in accordance with what the Appeal Court recommended to us.

Mr. Chairman, in this clause wide powers are given to the hon. the Minister to force a manufacturer, the provider of a service or a supplier to make available his services or goods for the purposes of combating oil pollution. One can imagine the sort of emergency situation that could arise with a major case of oil pollution. One realizes that the Minister has to have these powers. However, we also believe that one must make absolutely certain that people who are approached in this manner get very fair treatment. In clause 5(6), as the clause reads at present, provision is made that—

In other words, a supplier will put in an invoice and show what it cost him and in terms of the clause as it stands at the moment, the Minister may designate any person at all to go into that costing and see whether it is fair or not. We believe this is a professional matter and that it should not necessarily be somebody in the hon. the Minister’s department who, not being an expert in that matter, might say that it is an unreasonable charge. We believe that a supplier should be given a little more protection than that, and if the Minister wants to institute a cost inquiry of this nature he should do so through an independent professional. Therefore I should like to move as an amendment—

This, we believe, will enable suppliers to be fairly treated.

Mr. Chairman, I do not really like this amendment, but for the sake of goodwill and because of the co-operation which I have received from the Opposition so far, I shall accept the hon. member’s amendment and satisfy him in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, having got that matter out of the way, I now wish to deal with clause 5(8). Line 34 contains the relevant words. This deals with the money that may be paid for the provision of services, compensation on a basis of an amount of the cost to the supplier or to the supplier of services in question, or of the goods in question, or of the manufacture, production, processing or treatment thereof—and the operative words—“plus a percentage of such costs or an amount fixed in the notice in question”. This means that a supplier is entitled to receive what it cost him, plus a certain percentage. But no percentage is specified. Obviously there is always an overhead cost involved which presumably would come under the definition of “cost”. But I believe that in circumstances like these the supplier is entitled to a fair profit. I should just like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that when he talks about a percentage, what he has in mind— and this can be prescribed in the notice—will be a reasonable profit margin.

Mr. Chairman, that is an amount that can be fixed later after we have had an evaluation of the whole situation. In some cases the State has to pay; it is not always the owner of a ship. One might find that the State is in the same position. However, it will be a reasonable amount after we have assessed the full cost of the damage and the cleaning-up, all work having been done. Then we can come to a reasonable agreement. Now, since I have accepted the hon. member’s amendment, it will be a professional man who will help us to fix an amount that is reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this clause, which relates to the prevention of pollution that exists, in other words, oil that is already on the water, I wonder if I may put two points to the hon. the Minister, points which I believe we should consider at this stage and should look at particularly for the future. Firstly, it is a well-known fact that the dispersants or emulsifiers that are used when spraying an oil slick that is widely dispersed often themselves cause more damage to the ecology of the sea than the crude oil itself. In any event, one has to use very large quantities of these dispersants or emulsifiers, I think very often in the proportion of one ton of emulsifier to 20 tons of oil. If one is using an emulsifier that does in itself have a deleterious effect on the sea and on marine life, one can end up with a problem that is worse than the oil itself poses. I wonder whether, with the research facilities that this country has and its experience of producing firsts in the world, this is not something that we can look at with some of our research personnel in order to find dispersants and emulsifiers that are an improvement on those already existing in the world and which would not have a harmful effect on marine life.

Secondly, it is well-known that if one can get to the site of an oil spill reasonably quickly, before the area involved becomes very large and while the oil is still confined to a fairly small area—there is a school of thought throughout the world where this is believed—the mechanical removal of the oil on the surface is a distinct possibility if the conditions of sea are such that one is not dealing with enormous swells and wild waters. In other words, if one has reasonably calm water it is possible with certain dredging type of equipment—one might even call it a vacuum cleaner type of equipment—and specially constructed vessels to approach close to the slick and, with a boom and a suction hose, physically remove the oil on the surface, which would obviously come away with a fairly large quantity of water.

The theory is that if one has large settlement tanks in such a vessel, obviously the oil will float to the surface and one will be able to drain off the sea water underneath in a fairly pure form. While this does not remove 100% of oil that may have spilt, it certainly makes it very much easier for follow-up crafts to disperse the very much lessened slick left on the surface.

I am just wondering whether, instead of using old craft for target practise and sinking them in strategic spots, it would not be possible to consider that when we have an old vessel which is no longer of any great use—regardless of the purpose for which it may originally have been used—it might not be worth considering, at small cost, to experiment on the lines of this particular suggestion which I have outlined. I do not think it need necessarily be a very expensive method of physical removal of oil from the sea. Engineers around the world who have discussed this possibility feel that it can be done if conditions at sea are favourable, and I believe we should therefore look at it. The cost, in any event, of treating an oil slick of whatever size is disproportionate to the actual surface of water that is covered, but we are talking about a vast amount of money in any event, and I have already mentioned the problems which exist in connection with the use of dispersants.

It might be possible at one of our major ports to have a vessel such as I have described. If necessary, it can even be planned ab initio, right from scratch, to provide several small vessels of this nature that could head quickly for a slick and attempt to treat it in this way if weather conditions are favourable. I believe, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has also pointed out, that one recovers a certain amount of crude in the process. If the spill is a large one and one is able to recover a fair amount of crude in the settlement tank, this in itself would serve partially to off-set some of the costs which have been incurred. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister thinks of this suggestion, because I feel it is something which this country, with its enormous stretches of coast line, could well afford to spend some money on; and if not money, then certainly research into this possibility with a view to something being done in future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea made certain suggestions to which I will pay attention. As he has said, it is quite possible to have an emulsifier which causes more damage than the oil itself, especially if one thinks of a 20:1 ratio. It could perhaps be desirable to make a weaker solution of the emulsifier. The Americans are undertaking certain research work in this respect and we are co-operating very closely with them. The Department of Sea Fisheries and the Department of Transport are also working on this. They never fail to take note of research work done overseas, and also devote the fullest attention to their own research work. To remove oil slicks from the water surface is possible. According to my information, however, it is not a practical possibility when the swell is very high and the waves rough. This depends also, of course, on climatic conditions and on other factors which might cause problems. We will, however, pay attention to all these suggestions. What is of vital importance is, of course, to get to the site of the pollution very quickly.

I thank the hon. member for Berea for his suggestions. I can assure him that the Department is paying attention to these proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all concerned about pollution and that we all want to make some contribution in this respect. I therefore wish to refer to the Minister a television programme which is televised on either Monday or Tuesday evenings. I think the title of the programme is “The World in which we live Today”, or something to that effect.

Are you sure it is not “Dallas”?

No, I am sure it is not “Dallas”. In the programme I am referring to, one can see many very interesting inventions and ideas.

There was one a few weeks ago on this very subject of oil pollution about a man in Britain who was working on a substance— and he demonstrated it—which is spread on the water and which soaks up the oil. This substance has very high absorbent qualities and it absorbs the oil. The idea is then to gather up the substance which floats thus overcoming the problem of rough seas. In fact, one could fly it in by means of heavy helicopters. One could drop the substance on the oil slick which would then be absorbed and, as the substance floats, one could recover that floating material, put it through presses and recover the oil. There was a note at the end of this programme which stated that if anyone wanted any further information in this regard he should write to a certain box number in London. Sir, my colleague, the hon. member for Umhlanga, has just informed me that the name of the programme is “Tomorrow’s World” and it appears on Sundays. The programme I am referring to was telecast two or three weeks ago. I put this idea to the hon. the Minister for his consideration.

Thank you for the information.

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

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. Subsection (1)(c) of this clause provides that—

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, if such measures are stupid or ill-advised why the owner—who would in the normal course of events be responsible for the damage caused by any such pollution—should be held liable in the light of such stupid or ill-advised measures? I realize, of course, that all sorts of experimental action might have to be taken and that this could be vastly expensive. However, I do believe that there should be an onus on the State to prove that the measures they have taken to combat the oil pollution were reasonable before they make an owner liable for the expense connected with such measures. I hope that the hon. the Minister understands me. There could be occasions when totally unreasonable action is taken by some panicky official and I do not believe that under those circumstances the cost of that action should be charged to the person who is liable in terms of this provision.

Mr. Chairman, in practice, in terms of the CLC Agreement, all the owners of ships must have insurance. In terms of that agreement no owner of a ship is permitted to allow his vessel to transport in access of 2000 tons of oil without insurance. Let us say, for instance, that the owner of a house at Blouberg finds that the white walls of his house are splattered with oil and he wants to claim. He will have a claim against the insurance company that insured that vessel and they will investigate the whole matter. That is how it will operate in practice. Such a person would also have a claim against the company owning the ship, but his claim would normally have to be handled through the insurance company and the company would have to investigate the claim thoroughly.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point that the hon. the Minister is making. What he is saying in effect is that he does not care about the insurance company. They can be taken for a ride even if the individual cannot. Let me explain the point I wish to make by using the hon. the Minister’s example. Let us take the case of a person whose white-walled cottage is blackened by an oil slick. Say that man says, “Well, this oil is most unpleasant and I do not like the wall.” He then chops down the wall completely and builds a new one. Normally such action will be regarded as totally ridiculous, but in terms of this clause the man has taken a measure. Any measure is good in terms of the clause, and it must be paid for by the person who is liable.

I should like to suggest that the word “reasonable” be inserted before “measures”. I think such an insertion will answer the case. If the hon. the Minister agrees that that is a possibility, I shall ask him to accept an amendment of that nature. Perhaps I can have his reaction while I write the amendment out.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any problem in having the word “reasonable” inserted. In certain other clauses the situation is completely covered and also in agreement with the CLC who made a very thorough study of this. The man who caused the damage should actually pay to have it repaired, but one cannot expect that if the owner builds a new cottage because there have been spots on one wall, he ought to be compensated in full for the building costs incurred. I think it will be unreasonable.

Well, insert the word “reasonable”.

All right, let us insert it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. We have been talking about a court case and I should therefore like to know whether he insinuates that the court will not be reasonable. Is this amendment really necessary in view of all the precautions we have taken?

Are you now changing your mind?

Should we now tell the judge that he has to be reasonable?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. the Minister’s question. The court interprets the law. If the law says that any measure whatsoever shall be considered as reasonable—this is the way the clause reads at the moment—then the court has no option but to allow a claim of such nature. If we insert the word “reasonable”, however, the court can interpret it in a reasonable manner.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be difficult . . .

Just be reasonable.

But I am reasonable. I think the judge will be reasonable and therefore I do not consider it necessary to have the word “reasonable” inserted. We have taken all kinds of precautions; why should we now water the legislation down? I really think it is totally unnecessary to tell a judge that he ought to be reasonable.

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

1. (1) On page 18, in line 41, to omit “The State, any person in the service of the State,” and to substitute:
   • Any person in the service of the State or
2. (2) on page 18, in lines 44 and 45, to omit “or the Minister,”;
3. (3) on page 18, in line 53, to omit “the State,”;
4. (4) on page 18, in line 56, after “member,” to insert “or”;
5. (5) on page 18, in lines 56 and 57, to omit “or the Minister,”;
6. (6) on page 20, in line 3, to omit “The State, any person in the service of the State,” and to substitute:
   • Any person in the service of the State or
7. (7) on page 20, in lines 6 and 7, to omit “or the Minister,”.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches accept those amendments.

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

1. (1) On page 28, in line 41, after “be” to insert:
   • : Provided that such detention shall not exceed a period of seven days or such further period as the division of the Supreme Court of South Africa having jurisdiction may authorize
2. (2) on page 28, in line 42, to omit “if he deems it necessary” and to substitute:
   • on the authority of the said division of the Supreme Court of South Africa and subject to its directions
3. (3) on page 28, in line 57, after “(b)” to insert:
   • on the authority of the said division of the Supreme Court of South Africa and subject to its directions,

I move the amendments specifically with a view to fairness and reasonableness.

†We insert this clause because we want to be reasonable as the hon. member for Orange Grove yesterday and also today asked us to be.

Mr. Chairman, we will agree to those amendments. Here we have an example of a liberal Minister giving power to the courts, powers which would have been ministerial powers had he not introduced these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. the Minister to enlighten me as to the meaning of clause 21(1)(a), which provides that—

in certain areas . . .

I would like to have an explanation of this.

Mr. Chairman, we had this experience when an oil rig which was drilling for oil in the sea was towed to the entrance of a harbour. The tow line was dropped and the ship towing it went into the harbour while the oil rig was drifting towards another boat. This measure is to protect us should certain people leave vessels drifting at sea. It will protect us in the event of accidents at sea.

Mr. Chairman, when the Second Reading debate took place yesterday, we stated our problems in regard to clause 1, which adds to the instances of misconduct the fact that a person might contravene the provisions of a medical aid scheme. We stated that we did not believe it was appropriate for this to be added to the instances of misconduct set out in the principal Act. We still adhere to that view. We also feel that it is totally inappropriate, in any case, to come along with an amendment in anticipation of a situation that might occur in the future, and the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that it was intended, at some stage in the future, to introduce compulsory medical aid facilities which would apply to the Indian teaching profession. So we maintain our position. We do not like this clause. We think it is too far-reaching in its implications, and we shall therefore vote against the clause.

I just want to comment on the reply the hon. the Deputy Minister gave to the hon. member Prof. Olivier yesterday. Prof. Olivier said that the same provision did not apply to members of the White teaching profession and the Coloured teaching profession. There was then some debate across the floor of the House when the hon. the Deputy Minister said it certainly applied to the Public Service. As a matter of interest, and for the record, the hon. the Deputy Minister is correct. There is a similar provision in the Public Service, a provision that was added in 1967 I think. If my memory serves me correctly, however, unless there has been a recent amendment to provincial ordinances relating to White teachers, there is no similar provision applying to the White teaching profession in any of the four provinces. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated yesterday that it did apply in the Public Service, but as far as I can see— unless, as I say, there has been a recent amendment to the ordinances of the four provinces—the ordinances governing teachers, and setting out the terms of misconduct, do not contain a similar provision, neither does the Act dealing with the Coloured teaching profession. So I think the point made by Prof. Olivier is correct. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could research that aspect in order to remove any misunderstanding or misinterpretation. We still do not like this clause and we are going to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member for Musgrave could have harboured some doubts, but I want to give him the assurance that it is by no means the intention in moving this clause to act unreasonably. The aim is solely to bring the situation into line with the provisions of section 17 of the Public Service Act, Act 54 of 1957. There it is also the case that action can be taken against a teacher who is a member of a medical fund or aid association and who infringes the rules of the constitution of that fund or aid association. At present, an Indian teacher who is guilty of a contravention in this regard cannot be charged with misconduct. I want to emphasize very strongly the fact that it is not the intention to act unreasonably or unfairly. However, where contraventions take place it is surely very clear that action must be taken.

I should now like to reply to a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The Coloured teachers and officials belong to the Prosano medical fund. It is not yet compulsory for them to become members of the fund when entering the service. However, this matter is being considered and similar legislation will follow later. As far as I know—and I shall go into this matter again—White teachers and nursing staff throughout the country are obliged to become members of a medical fund on entry.

If we look at the history of medical funds in the public sector—and here I refer to the PSMAA, the Public Service Medical Aid Association—then we see that in essence it originated and developed as a private fund. Gradually the State began to contribute to the fund, until the point was reached when the State recognized aid with regard to medical costs as a fixed obligation and condition of service. However, it was decided at that stage not to do away with the management and the involvement of the members by including the funds as part of the departmental components. It was accepted in principle that a body would be recognized which would administer the conditions of service on the basis of specific guidelines. Apart from the financial contributions, the State is also represented on the board of directors as an employer, together with the representatives of the members. No rules or regulations made by any fund concerning which the State and member representatives take joint decisions can be applied without having been approved by the Commission for Administration or the employing department. It is therefore clear that in this way it is ensured that members, as officials, are not exposed to regulations which would not in any event have been acceptable if the fund had not formed part of the departmental structure. Therefore there is proper control and coordination, and uniform rules will apply for these purposes.

That is why we are now bringing this into line with regard to Indian education too, and I again give the assurance that there need be no fear of unreasonable and unfair action.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will appreciate, we regard it as desirable to bring obsolete terminology in legislation up to date when such legislation is subjected to amendment for other reasons. The rationalized Public Service resulted in a great deal of this. Clauses 1 to 5 of this Bill are proposed in order to re-define the expression “Minister” and to replace certain official titles and names of State departments appearing in the Atomic Energy Act, by the appropriate new designations and names.

†Mr. Speaker, provision is made in section 15 of the principal Act for the delegation of powers by the Atomic Energy Board to a committee, a member or an officer of the board. As hon. members will appreciate, the board itself—as the first person in legal terms—is a statutory body consisting of several members. It follows as a matter of course that the board is dependent upon its president or certain individual members or officers as far as its executive functions are concerned. The board will therefore delegate certain powers in terms of the said section 15 to such person or, in some other cases, to a committee of the board. Up to this point, Mr. Speaker, there has been no hitch in the delegation procedure provided for in the Act. A problem arises, however, when it becomes necessary to delegate the board’s powers into the second phase, e.g. from the president to an officer of the board. In this connection I wish to draw attention to the rule of law expressed in the maxim delegatus delegare non potest, which has the effect that, where the legislature has conferred a power upon a person—which includes the Atomic Energy Board in the present context—in the exercise of which a discretion or a sound judgement is of importance, or is regarded by the legislature in the light of the relevant legislation as being of importance, the person appointed by the legislature cannot without express authority in the relevant Act delegate such power. The sole purpose of the new section 15, which is contained in clause 6 of the Bill, is to create such express authority and to regulate afresh the delegation of powers, duties and functions of the Atomic Energy Board.

*The few words to be deleted in terms of the proposals in clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the amending Bill, serve no purpose whatsoever in the principal Act. Consultation by the Atomic Energy Board or its delegate with the Minister—when the board or a delegate regards it as necessary—is a purely domestic matter that does not belong in the Act. The board or delegate can in any event consult the Minister in his discretion whenever necessary.

Mr. Speaker, we have no particular fault to find with this amendment Bill and we shall support its Second Reading. Looking at the Bill, we of course agree with the hon. the Minister that the amendments to sections 1, 5, 8, etc., of the principal Act are necessary in view of the changed designations within the Civil Service and, of course, in view of the changed designation of the post held by the hon. the Minister himself.

As regards the question of delegation, we would agree with the hon. the Minister that a person appointed by Parliament to carry out certain functions or responsibilities cannot himself delegate those delegated powers unless he is specifically authorized to do so. The question arises whether that delegation of authority, having passed to the second level, absolves the holder of the power at the first level of responsibility towards Parliament. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that, even though he has the authority to delegate a power or a function, the Minister, if it is the Minister, or the chairman, if it is the chairman, is still responsible for the exercising of that power and for any failure to exercise that power properly. I believe the responsibility remains at the first level even though at the first level there is authority to delegate the power to a second level. If that is so, one wonders why in terms of clause 6, which contains the proposed new section 15, subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b) are retained, where it is provided that—

This confirms my contention, which I think is upheld by common law, that if a person delegates power, he retains responsibility for the proper performance of the actions he has delegated to another person. I want to make this point here. I make the point that I have no quarrel with this, but if these two subparagraphs are really necessary, then, when we presently come to another Bill— which I shall not anticipate; I merely draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this matter at this stage—we shall find a kind of anomaly or inconsistency. Meanwhile we have no particular objection to anything in this Bill. We agree with the hon. the Minister as to the position regarding clauses 7, 8 and 9, and as we have no further objections we shall vote for the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia raised certain points here and I am sure that the hon. Minister will reply to him on those points. The fact is that clauses 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 of the Bill merely involve technical amendments of terminology and designations and the deletion of superfluous phrases from the principal Act. Clause 6 of the Bill, which concerns the transfer of powers, duties and functions, contains the only substantive amendment. Under the existing section 15 of the Atomic Energy Act, the Atomic Energy Board had the right to delegate functions as it sees fit to members of the board, officers or committees appointed by the board. The principle of transfer or delegation of powers is therefore not being created in the legislation before us at present, nor is it being violated. It already exists in the principal Act, and it works well. All the Bill now does is to extend that principle so that the president of the Atomic Energy Board may further delegate powers delegated to him, subject to the same conditions, and what this chiefly amounts to is that the president may at any time amend or rescind the decision or actions of the person to whom powers are transferred. No extensive organization can function properly without delegation of powers. The question is merely whether this principle is not taken too far in the second phase of delegation, something to which the hon. member for Constantia also referred. I do not think so. As the Bill reads at present, the Atomic Energy Board has effective control of this second phase of delegation too. Naturally there is no danger in the process of delegation. It is the quality of those to whom these powers are delegated that is decisive. In this regard the Atomic Energy Board has a particularly sound record and for that reason I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches have no problem with the particular amendment to the Act contained in the Bill now before the House. We shall be supporting the Bill at all stages.

I should however, like to take the opportunity of commenting on one aspect which I think we should be looking at at this time because this particular piece of legislation has now been on our Statute Book for 15 years. If one considers the advances made in the whole field of atomic energy during the last 15 years, one section of the Act which we are amending in a technical way, becomes of increasing importance. It is something which I believe could well be discussed briefly here today. That is that at the time when this particular Act was passed—this seems to be very likely—the prospect of the nuclear power plant at Koeberg was not yet in sight. The use of nuclear power in South Africa was then not yet imminent. The situation in which we find ourselves today— 15 years later—is that the nuclear plant at Koeberg will shortly be in production, as it were, producing nuclear power. Of course, as a corollary to that, there will be the production of radio-active waste, because this will follow fairly soon after the plant becomes operational.

Clause 3 of the Bill relates to the transfer to the Department of Health, at a suitable time, of control and regulation of the radioactive waste which could result in the process. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate to us whether any progress has been made and whether any decisions have been taken in connection with the processes that are going to be used in disposing safely of those nuclear wastes. It is going to become a question of controversy in this country. There is no doubt about that. It is an emotional question. The ordinary public, having a limited understanding of the—shall one say—dreadful consequences of possible radio-active poisoning on the population, will certainly ask certain questions. Being aware of the accidents that have occurred, and which are well documented—I shall not go into them now—and of which, I am sure, the hon. the Minister and the department are well aware, I should just like to draw the attention of hon. members to the accumulation, through careless disposal, of radio-active waste throughout the world. I think this might be an occasion for the hon. the Minister to indicate to us how far his department has progressed with the planning of sites or methods for the disposal of such wastes in a way in which they will pose no threat to future generations.

We are not talking of wastes which will break down in six months or a year, or even five years. As is well known, however, some of the wastes, such as plutonium and caesium, have a half-life, in some cases, of 30 000 years. We are therefore talking about substances that have incredible powers of destruction, and that can also have very serious effects on the health of vast numbers of people.

There have been advances in recent years in the development of methods for the safer disposal of radio-active wastes, but I believe that the main concern of people throughout the world who are involved in any way in the nuclear industry is that the volume of these wastes is increasing at an alarming rate. That is the first concern. Secondly, we do not really have sufficient knowledge, and sufficient research has not yet been done, in order to establish exactly what types of container or containers are suitable and what types of areas of this earth are suitable for the long-term containment of the radio activity which these wastes can release. I believe we should be addressing ourselves to the fact that these wastes will soon be produced at Koeberg. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to the country to tell us what progress has been made in establishing safe places for the disposal of these wastes and to indicate to us when the Department of Health will be taking over the functions which are envisaged in terms of clause 3 of the Bill.

I have no problems in connection with the later clauses of the Bill such as the one dealing with the delegation of powers. I believe those clauses have been discussed fully. With these few comments I conclude by stating that we in the NRP shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to thank all the hon. members who have participated in this debate for their support of this legislation. Let me say that I am pleased that it is not necessary for us to debate the measure at length.

The hon. member for Constantia dealt with two aspects in regard to the clauses in the Bill dealing with the powers of delegation. He wanted to know firstly whether he was correct in assuming that delegation did not absolve the Minister or Director-General or whoever the person involved might be who was primarily appointed in the Bill from his responsibilities should he delegate them to some other person. The answer to that is that the hon. member is quite correct. The Minister or the person delegating the powers is not absolved from his responsibilities. The Minister remains responsible for the decisions of the person to whom he has delegated these powers. Basically, I regard it as the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that he delegates in such a way as to retain overall control in regard to the decisions of the person to whom he has delegated the powers. This is usually done by framing a basic general policy to cover the ordinary run of the mill case and by issuing a specific instruction to the effect that should any matter arise where deviation from the basic general policy would appear to be necessary there should then be reference to the Minister or the Director-General, as the case may be. However, there is no absolution from responsibility through delegation.

Why then the amendment in paragraph (b)?

I shall come to that. Secondly, the hon. member pointed out that from the inclusion of the two paragraphs (b) it would appear that there was a difference in between the delegation contained in this legislation and that contained in other legislation, as well as that contained in another Bill which we shall be discussing later this afternoon. In preparing for this debate, I also became aware of the fact that the delegation of powers is described differently in various pieces of legislation. I approached the Government law advisers in this regard and I asked them why this was so. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that he should consider this difference from a historical point of view because in essence there is no real difference. Whether one does it one way or the other, the effect is still the same. This is in line with my own personal opinion and I should therefore like to put his mind at rest and assure him that there is nothing sinister in the fact that there is this difference. As I say, it can be explained historically and I think that is the only reason for it. When it comes to the question of a general rationalization of our statutes, it might be a good idea to try to solve this problem by adhering, in a rationalization programme, to one way of defining the delegation of powers.

The hon. member for Berea referred to the disposal of radioactive wastes and problems in this regard. I want to say in the first instance that I really do not think that the Bill before the House should give rise to a general discussion of aspects which are in no way at all affected by the Bill itself. In passing, then, I should just like to say to him that he and the public can rest assured that extremely strict guidelines are adhered to in regard to the disposal of radioactive waste material. It is true that the long-term disposal of radioactive waste material does pose certain problems, but this matter is receiving the constant attention not only of our own experts but also of international experts throughout the world. Many, many excellent minds are being kept fully active in concentrating on trying to find what I may call final solutions to these problems. I want to say, however, that the interim solutions are supremely safe and the public can rest assured that the Atomic Energy Board is extremely strict in this regard.

*The hon. member for Namaqualand gave an interesting but brief description of the necessity for delegation. He also put in perspective the real nature and meaning of delegation. I should like to associate myself with his description. I think he formulated it neatly.

With these few words I thank the hon. members for their support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise not to raise any particular objection, but to thank the hon. the Minister for going into the question of these two clauses, ex abundante cautela as they are. Apparently we are hitching the braces to the trousers because historically there was doubt whether the trousers would stand up by themselves. I think this is bad legislation because, as we shall discover later this afternoon, the trousers can hang by themselves without the braces. It is the introduction of this sort of cautionary clause which casts doubt on the principle rather than strengthens it.

I do not ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw these clauses, because I think, as he himself believes, it does not make all that much difference. I should like to say, however, as a general principle, that if in one case one states a situation plainly, clearly and without qualification and it stands up in terms of legal principle, then by doing the same thing in another case, but with the addition of safeguarding clauses, one begins to cast a doubt on the first case. This is my only comment and I think that when the time comes to revise and streamline these laws to make them more consistent with one another, this kind of thing may well be looked at. That is all I have to say. We do not have any objection to the clause.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The few amendments proposed by this Bill are not contentious and do not affect any existing principles in the Tiger’s Eye Control Act of 1977. As in the case of the former Bill, it concerns the rationalization of the central Public Service and is therefore of a merely organizatory nature.

In fact, the entire Bill comprises only three very simple clauses. Two of them concern the replacement of the term “Mines” by the term “Mineral and Energy Affairs” in the title of the responsible political officeholder, the Minister, and the replacement of the title “Secretary of Mines” by the title “Director-General: Mineral and Energy Affairs.”

The remaining clause aims to enable the Minister to transfer to the Director-General or to another officer in the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, certain duties and powers vested in him in terms of the Tiger’s Eye Control Act. The motivation for the latter amendment is on the one hand the substantial concentration of duties and powers at the top of the departmental hierarchy, due to the wide variety of statutory measures passed over the years relating to the mineral industry and, on the other hand, the additional duties and responsibilities imposed upon the Minister by the larger department. Too many tasks of a purely routine nature are still carried out at the highest level of authority in the department, with the logical consequence that time and attention have to be devoted to these matters by the Minister, attention which could otherwise be far better utilized. A typical example is that of decisions having to be taken by the Minister concerning the way in which tiger’s eye is to be transported if, due to circumstances, it cannot be transported via the nearest railway station in terms of legal prescriptions. The transfer of powers is a matter of trust between a Minister and his department because according to the democratic concept the Minister cannot dissociate himself from responsibility for the due implementation of the laws entrusted to him. The clause proposed in this connection will enable the Minister to take his own decisions with regard to the transfer of powers and division of functions and is similar to amendments that are also envisaged with regard to the Mining Rights Act and other mineral acts.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, which was taken over by my department during the second half of 1980, makes it possible to obtain ownership of parts of buildings and land which cannot normally be subdivided and separately registered in conventional ways. In contrast to the situation which existed before the commencement of the Act, it has been possible since March 1973, in terms of a sectional plan, to divide a block of flats, for example, into units which can be sold and registered separately. The Act applies to new as well as old buildings, and this is perhaps where our problem began, because it is chiefly the often injudicious conversion of existing rented units into sectional title units and the unfortunate exploitation of some people which have forced us to intervene in order that this matter may be better regulated. Dwelling units in development schemes, which are planned and executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act offer prospective home owners a practical and acceptable alternative, and as long as new buildings are divided into sectional title units and the opportunity afforded by the Act of converting existing buildings is used responsibly, it offers the opportunity of home ownership to a large group of South Africans who could not otherwise have achieved this.

After a cautious beginning, this new dimension of private home ownership has become an established part of the South African economy, but changing circumstances and attempts at abuse have revealed shortcomings in the Sectional Titles Act which urgently need to be rectified.

The economic revival, together with conditions of ample liquidity, has brought about a turn-around in the private property market, as always happens and as the Fouche Commission of Inquiry in fact predicted in paragraph 135 and 143(c) on pages 85 and 88 of its report. Unfavourable conditions have disturbed the interaction between supply and demand with regard to accommodation in the letting as well as the selling market. During the recession, when the demand for housing was at its lowest ebb, a modest surplus of dwelling units arose in most cities, but at the moment, the tendency is in the opposite direction. Amid rising prices, the demand for housing, for people in the lower income groups as well, is rapidly increasing. Not only is housing becoming more and more expensive and difficult to obtain; the tenure of tenants is also being endangered by the large-scale marketing under sectional title of dwelling units in old blocks of flats, and this is the factor which is causing the greatest problems and is giving rise to abuse.

Mr. Speaker, the great increase in the number of flats that are being sold is not due to the fact that flats have become a preferential field of investment to prospective home owners and others. On the contrary, many buy because they have no other choice, as I shall indicate in a moment.

†Although the sale of flats is a healthy development in so far as it promotes homeownership, the letting market cannot be permitted to bt disrupted by the withdrawal from the market, of letting units in large numbers which are occupied by tenants who cannot afford to buy their own homes and for whom alternative housing is not available on demand. In the present climate there is the very real danger that the situation may be exploited for personal gain by the unscrupulous. In actual fact, information received from numerous sources confirms this to be taking place on an increasing scale. Unwarranted pressure is being exerted on tenants to compel them into either buy the flat they occupy or, if they do not succumb, to vacate. Because alternative accommodation is expensive and not in abundant supply and tenants are not keen to suffer the disruption of having to move elsewhere, they are susceptible to pressure and sometimes buy at unrealistic prices and on terms which are all but reasonable. Cases have been brought to my notice where tenants were afforded as few as two days to decide whether to buy the dwelling units occupied by them. If tenants are hesitant to buy, they are threatened with eviction.

Owing to the current imbalance in the housing accommodation market, it is not only those in the lower income groups who are detrimentally affected. On the contrary, even those who possess the financial means to buy their own homes are at a disadvantage on account of escalating building costs and the limited range of alternatives available from which to choose. They, too, find themselves in the position that, in order to protect their occupancy, they are pressured into acting uncautiously and entering into injudicious deeds of sale by over-zealous selling agents.

*Although the obvious and perfect solution would be an adequate supply of housing to meet the needs of persons in all income groups, the present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue unchecked in the idle hope that the rush to sell flats will eventually spend itself. On the contrary, if stabilizing measures are not taken, the danger exists that matters may get out of hand.

Because virtually no new dwelling units are being erected for letting, and since new units that are being offered for sale are expensive and insufficient in number, any measures aimed at combating the problem should be of a twofold nature. In the first place, every attempt must be made to stimulate the building of new dwelling units. The department should be provided with the necessary funds in order to deal with shortages in the field of low-cost housing. This was also recommended by the Fouché Commission. Factors which impede the provision of housing by the private sector should be removed and consideration should be given to positive incentives. The latter aspect is receiving the positive attention of the Housing Affairs Advisory Committee. In addition to measures aimed at stimulating the provision of housing, it is essential that measures be taken to place the sale of sectional title units on an orderly basis and to ensure that tenants suffer the least possible disruption. With this end in view I am submitting to this House the Sectional Titles Amendment Act, 1981.

The measures contained in the amending Bill are intended, firstly, to afford tenants of rent-controlled dwelling units continued protection against eviction by postponing the deletion of section 39(1) of the Act to a date to be fixed by the State President.

Secondly, to protect the public by prohibiting the sale of units until a sectional title register has been opened, i.e. until such time as it has been established that buyers will in fact be able to obtain transfer; and, thirdly, to prevent the sale of dwelling units in a building in cases where any of the units are still subject to the provisions of the Rent Control Act, 1976, in order to prevent the possible intimidation of protected tenants.

The proposed measures are expected to discourage unhealthy speculation, which has given rise to a climate of near-hysteria among tenants. The fact that sales will not be effected as readily as before will serve to discourage those who are exploiting the imbalance in market conditions by purchasing blocks of flats, not as an investment or for purposes a rebuilding project, but purely in order to sell flat units immediately at enormous profits. In this way, quick profits are being made without any productive contribution having been made, and buyers of individual units often find themselves in the dark as to when the sectional title register will be opened so that they may take transfer—whether, in fact, they will ever be able to take transfer. In the meantime they have to pay high interest to the seller, while no capital redemption is taking place.

There is no doubt in my mind that the proposed measures will be in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to take this opportunity to wish the hon. the Minister well in his new post. I wish him success with the heavy responsibilities he bears in his new post. That goes for the new hon. Deputy Minister as well.

I naturally listened with great interest to what the hon. the Minister said here today. While this hon. Minister does not bear all the blame for that to which I am about to refer—although he does bear part of the blame—I think we can be forgiven for saying to him, and it will not be out of place for us to say at this stage: “We told you so; we warned you”. Indeed, that must be the understatement of the year. In dealing with this, we pleaded with the hon. the Minister and with the House; we begged; we argued; we placed facts before the House; we placed a petition before the House and before the Minister . . .

Do not overdo it.

… we sent letters; we sent memoranda—but we were ignored. We were ignored by the previous Minister of Community Development and we were ignored in this House by the then Minister of Justice under whose portfolio sectional titles fell at that stage. Even the present hon. Minister as then hon. Deputy Minister did not know very much about what was happening in South Africa at that time. I am pleased to see that he has now seen the light.

The result of it all was that thousands of people suffered month after month of anguish and insecurity over the intransigent attitude of the Government. The people said: “Nobody cares for us”. Some people said they wanted to commit suicide. Is there anything worse, I ask, than not to have a roof over one’s head, a place to live? When people are lonely, when they are poor and when they have no security, can we blame them if they want to commit suicide? When people are driven to such desperate action by the intransigent attitude of the Government—and for this the Government must take full responsibility—then as regards sectional titles one can apply to the Government the title of “Flat fat cat Nats”.

Let me now substantiate the statements and allegations I have made. An amendment was proposed to section 39(1). We pointed out the difficulties the relevant amendment presented. We felt so strongly about the matter that through the hon. member for Sea Point we actually moved the following amendment during the Second Reading debate (Hansard, 20 February 1980, col. 1065)—

1. (1) it constitutes a flagrant breach of faith on the part of the Government with many thousands of tenants who have repeatedly been assured by Government spokesmen that they will continue to have protection under the Rent Control Act; and
2. (2) it will result in insecurity and hardship among many older people, pensioners and others who deserve protection and assistance in respect of their housing.”

What did the Government do? We argued with them and after a lengthy debate the House divided. What was the result of the division? With 115 votes from the Government side against 23 this amendment was dismissed as being irrelevant. It was dismissed for whatever reasons they advanced at the time. They did not have the interests of these people at heart.

If one takes a brief look at the relevant debate, it is significant, to begin with, that the very amendment the hon. the Minister is now proposing with regard to section 39(1) formed the subject of an amendment moved in the House at the time. I refer hon. members to page 58 of last year’s Order Paper. There they will see that I myself on behalf of the PFP moved an amendment to clause 4, as follows—

It is ironical now that neither the hon. the Minister nor Opposition speakers would accept this amendment. In fact they did not even want to grant us 1 April 1981. So instransigent was their attitude that they wanted it to be done there and then. Only after some pleading to try to put it across to them that there had been a change in the situation and that we had to look at the situation did they actually concede, but then not after 1 April 1981. Now the Government has introduced the very amendment we begged for, the very amendment that stands on the Order Paper, as one can see.

They are slow thinkers, that is their trouble.

In column 1087 of Hansard of 20 February 1980 I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that when decontrol was backdated, on 6 April 1978 the then hon. Minister of Community Development, Mr. Marais Steyn, said—

That was the fact this House was reminded of so that the matter could be looked at again. The present hon. Minister, who was then the Deputy Minister of the Interior, then interjected (column 1089)—

I should like to know where he saw so many flats vacant in Johannesburg on 20 February 1980? I wonder where he got that information from. We then listened to what further hon. members had to say and we see, in column 1098 that the hon. member for Maitland—I do not see him here at the moment—said—

I hope that he will tell the voters in Maitland what the position is. In column 1119 the hon. member for False Bay said—

I want to know if they have the sole right to protect the poor and the aged. [Interjections.] The then hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said in column 1128—

[Interjections.] Then in column 1131 the hon. the Minister of Justice replying to the hon. member for Sea Point, said—

That is the attitude of the Government. Then in column 1135 the hon. the Minister replied finally by saying—

That is its proud record over the past year in regard to its attitude towards pensioners and the poor! That is its attitude—the ejectment of all these people.

Ask the widows now.

Notwithstanding the debate which took place in this House we were obviously not satisfied and we kept on making representations, as we had to do. We continued to do so in our striving to assist the people in these situations in which they found themselves. In reply to a letter which I wrote to Mr. Marais Steyn, the then Minister of Community Development, on 16 June 1980, notwithstanding the representations that had been made—hon. members will remember that at that stage there were petitions which I shall deal with in a moment—the Minister wrote as follows—

Then he goes on to say—

Then, and this takes the cake—

Now I want to know how au fait the hon. the Minister was with the situation as it then existed. We continued our struggle, however, and next we submitted petitions. A petition was circulated throughout South Africa. It was signed by approximately 9 400 people. Subsequently that petition was submitted to Parliament. I sent a copy of the petition to the hon. the Minister. Nothing more was heard of it. Subsequently individual petitions were received from people who approached us with their problems. The hon. the Minister knows about this because I sent him a memorandum with which I shall deal in a moment. In that memorandum I quoted some typical examples of the sort of problems people had mentioned in the petitions they had submitted. I quote from one of them—

1. (1) We cannot afford the deposits required.
2. (2) Most of the residents are pensioners or people whose income does not exceed R600 per month.
3. (3) Cannot find alternative accommodation.
4. (4) We are living in fear as we now do not have security of tenure.
5. (5) 50% of the tenants are in the age group between 60 and 80 years old.

These were the problems experienced by these people. The petition, however, was not received favourably by the hon. the Minister. He did not come to their assistance by imposing rent control. He ignored the petition completely. I quote now from yet another petition—

1. (1) Nearly all the tenants of this building have been given notice to vacate by 30 November 1980.
2. (2) This building was phased out of rent control this year (1980).
3. (3) Some of the flats have been sold pending conversion to sectional title.
4. (4) We have searched without success for alternative accommodation and we are now desperate.
5. (5) This building is approximately 31 years old and in a poor condition. More specifically—
   1. (i) the lift is old, frequently breaks down and needs replacing;
   2. (ii) the plumbing causes constant problems and a bad smell often permeates some of the flats;
   3. (iii) the electrical wiring of the building is dangerous and faulty;
   4. (iv) the gas stoves are old, they leak and often cause minor explosions;
   5. (v) the boiler supplying hot water often breaks down and is incapable of supplying sufficient hot water for bathing and washing;
   6. (vi) the roof is in a bad state of repair and water leaks into the ceilings of the flats below;
6. (6) There are several aged people living in some of the flats, some of whom are invalids and in poor state of health. Some are pensioners falling within the economic limits.
7. (7) We intend drawing attention of the Local Authority to the provisions of the by laws before granting or considering conversion to sectional title.

I have mentioned only some of the hardships suffered by these people and to which we have tried to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. Apart from the petitions I also handed a memorandum to the hon. the Minister, a memorandum consisting of 24 pages and 56 paragraphs, in which I had set out the whole situation showing how the position had changed, what the availability of accommodation was and the lack of availability of accommodation; in fact, the very factors mentioned by the hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill today as being the reasons for introducing this piece of legislation which we have before us now. In that memorandum was set out in detail exactly what needed to be done. I believe it is imperative that in the first instance rent control should not continue to be phased out and, in the second place, that we should not proceed with the repeal of section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act on 1 April 1981, but that legislation should be introduced extending the period for at least two years.

Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister have copies of this memorandum. It merits their attention. We have had to feed them with this information. The hon. the Minister was kind enough to grant me an interview for over an hour at his office at which meeting were present the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Director-General and his assistant as well. We discussed the memorandum and the various problems in this regard at that meeting and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the courtesy he afforded me at that stage by permitting me to put my case to him. And I have kept up this pressure. A few weeks after my interview, the hon. member for Sea Point was also granted an interview by the hon. the Minister at which the hon. member was able to give the hon. the Minister a complete picture in relation to the position on the Witwatersrand and in the Cape Peninsula to enable him to arrive at a fairer appreciation of what was happening in South Africa in order to be able to introduce this sort of legislation. Had we not kept up this pressure and had a general election not been announced at this stage I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we would have had this legislation. Would he not still have adopted the same intransigent attitude that that side of the House has adopted for so long, influenced by Sapoa and influenced by statements of landlords to the effect that they had to go ahead and impose the provisions of the legislation on everyone? I had to convince the hon. the Minister not only that there had been a change in the situation since the time that the Fouché Commission had made its recommendations in 1978 but also that at that stage, in 1978, when those recommendations were made, the climate was totally different. Those recommendations were made during a time of economic depression. They were made at a time when thousands of flats and apartments were standing vacant in South Africa. They were made at a time when accommodation was available. In fact, the figures will show that in 1978 on the Witwatersrand alone there were 10 000 vacant flats. In 1979 that figure had dropped to 6 000 and in 1980, to 600. Now, in 1981, I do not know whether I can count 100 flats on the Witwatersrand that are vacant today. The hon. the Minister knows of representations made in Benoni and in other parts of the Witwatersrand in this regard. One cannot obtain this sort of accommodation for love or money today. People are being forced out of their flats with no money and with no security, and they object to this. We also object on their behalf when they are told that they can approach certain institutions including charitable institutions or obtain economic or subeconomic housing. However, the facts show that all the institutions of this nature on the Witwatersrand as well as these institutions in the Cape Peninsula—and I have visited a number of them—have waiting-lists for accommodation. People cannot obtain accommodation at these institutions for love or money. We know that there is no other accommodation available for them and, according to the latest figures that I obtained from the Johannesburg City Council, there is a waiting-list for economic and subeconomic housing today for White people who require accommodation through the Department of Community Development. The whole situation has changed and we have had to convince the hon. the Minister that the situation has in fact changed.

The hon. the Minister took me to task because I had said that there was a crisis in regard to housing and because I had compared that crisis with the position as it existed just after the Second World War. He asked me whether I knew what the position was. I know what the position was that obtained then because I got married in 1948 and I first had to be married in order to obtain a permit to occupy a flat. I know what the situation was. The hon. the Minister must not ask me whether I know what the situation was. I know very well what it was. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention today to attack the recommendations of the Fouché Commission on a broad front although I think one could take it to task very largely because I believe that it did not foresee a change in the situation. It only considered the situation as it existed at that stage between 1974 and 1978 when it made its recommendations. It seemed to have been spell-bound by the recommendations of the Property Owners’ Association who brought tremendous pressure to bear upon the commission to abolish rent control immediately or to phase it out because it was entirely a bad thing. Mr. Speaker, rent control was introduced in 1921 after the First World War—obviously I was not an applicant for accommodation at that stage! There was a crisis existing at that time and so rent control was introduced for a period of two years. It was lifted in 1923 and again imposed in 1940 just after the war had broken out because there was also an accommodation crisis at that stage. From 1940 until 1980, a period of 40 years, we had the Rent Control Act as amended from time to time. In 1965 this Act was consolidated, but in the meantime we have always had rent control.

The arguments with regard to the interests of the landlord and those of the tenant can go on indefinitely and the Fouché Commission’s report also refers to this. Ministers and Governments have tried to balance the two, but at some time or another one has to come to a decision. If it was wrong to introduce rent control in the first place, it is doubly wrong simply to abolish it now. The free enterprise system is in operation and it is discussed in many circles. That is all very well. The free enterprise system is laudable when there is normal demand and supply. But when demand or supply becomes abnormal, then it is the duty of the Government to step in and rectify that abnormality.

During my recent visit to the USA I opened the New York Times and noticed the same type of argument being raised in that newspaper. I opened the Los Angeles Times and the same argument was raised there. I gather that in the USA rent control can be imposed by each individual local authority. They have the right to do so. If rent control were to be abolished in one full scoop in New York or Los Angeles, there would be complete chaos because of the lack of accommodation in both of those two cities.

If rent control was never at any time in operation, that is one thing, but having introduced rent control, to abolish it now would be unthinkable. This is the view taken by a prominent New York statesman and legislator. One simply cannot abolish it now. That is, however, the situation in which we find ourselves today, I hope that we have brought home to the hon. the Minister the fact that the situation has changed and that there is, in fact, a crisis in housing. Whether or not he wants to look upon it as a crisis, the fact remains that when sectional title is invoked and tenants are given 48 hours— that is the example I gave the hon. the Minister—to vacate a flat and they have nowhere to go, then a crisis exists. If that is not a crisis when it comes to housing, will the hon. the Minister then please tell the House what a crisis is?

I now wish to turn more specifically to the Bill before us. The Bill involves three principles. If you do not mind, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with them in reverse order because the principle referred to in section 39(1) of the Act is the one about which I am most concerned. As a result of all our representations the hon. the Minister has now rectified the position so that people who live in rent-controlled flats that have been sold, will be protected. They can now breathe a sigh of relief because they cannot be ejected, and for this we thank the hon. the Minister. I would however appeal to the hon. the Minister to provide a more secure and permanent future for these tenants because technically there is nothing to stop him recommending to the State President tomorrow, next week or next month that this provision in the Act should be enforced.

So the sword of Damocles hangs over their heads, and although they have this relief, they do not know when that sword is going to fall. So let us try to look for a more permanent solution in granting this relief.

Now I come to the second principle. In terms of section 4 of the Sectional Titles Act, as everybody knows, an applicant for sectional title must first have a land surveyor or architect draw up a diagram of the premises in question and submit it to the local authority. It must then be examined from a town planning point of view to ensure that all bye-laws etc., have been complied with. The local authority must then decide whether or not to agree to it. The amendment now before us—and I refer to subsection (6)(c)—will freeze the situation. If a building or any part of a building, is subject to rent control, the local authority cannot consider an application for sectional title. I think we agree—the case has been pleaded at length—that this sort of protection should be given to those people, but I think there is a slight difficulty to overcome. There are people who have been forced out of flats in one building and been compelled to buy a sectional title unit in another building. Such people will now be waiting for that accommodation. We might have to look at their positions.

Let me illustrate the next point by way of an example. Let us assume that we have a block containing 75 flats. If only one tenant falls within the financial limits entitling him to protection in terms of rent control, can we allow that one person to prevent a sectional title register being opened in that building for the other 74 tenants who want sectional title? Let me say immediately that none of us is opposed to sectional title. Sectional title is a very good thing. It gives rise to a stable community and it gives people property ownership. It also allows building societies to grant bonds. I am not opposed to sectional title; I am merely dealing with the difficulties arising out of sectional title. I think we must try to put our heads together and formulate a policy that will satisfy the people concerned while at the same time giving protection to people who are entitled to rent control so that their rights are not diminished in any way.

This brings me to the third principle. This is a principle in regard to which representations have been made. This is unfortunately an area in which there has been a great deal of abuse by unscrupulous landlords. The landlords concerned often do not even apply formally for sectional title. They simply give a tenant notice, announcing that they are converting to sectional title. The tenant is told that he must either buy within 48 hours or get out within one month and, since rent control has been removed, the landlords are unfortunately entitled to tell those people to get out within one month. The people concerned then find themselves in a desperate situation. They have to decide, at short notice, whether to buy. The person concerned may perhaps be a widow whose children are married. Perhaps she has a small nest-egg of R10 000 or R15 000 which she has spent her whole life saving up. Perhaps she lives on the interest. That nest egg may be her only security in life. She may be forced to take that nest-egg to purchase a flat, even though she may not want to buy at that stage. She may have been living there all her life but she does not want to commit the last of her savings and thus deprive herself of the security she has. In the circumstances I think there must be that protection for such people. Often, before opening a sectional title register, the landlords have taken the deposits and put them in their own pockets without paying them in trust to an attorney or an estate agent.

In certain cases there is even the strong suspicion that the money collected has been used by landlords to pay off the building or to pay for the purchase of another building. There is nothing to stop them from decamping with that money because there would be nothing but a concurrent claim against them if they were to become insolvent. The money would then be lost. It is therefore important that no money changes hands until such time as the sectional title register opened. There is a shortcoming as far as that is concerned. I can understand the hon. the Minister’s difficulty. I know he cannot allow anyone to enter into a deed of sale until such time as the sectional title register has been opened. Once the sectional title register has been opened, perhaps the problem can be alleviated to a certain extent. I still feel, however, that there should be pending transfer. I feel there should be that protection for the tenant. We in the official Opposition are happy to support the Bill as it stands but we shall still have much to say about its provisions in the Committee Stage.

I now want to mention a fourth point. This fourth principle I call the silent principle. This refers to provisions not actually printed in the legislation before us today. I am sure the hon. the Minister will confirm the fact that existing rent control, in respect of premises occupied up to 20 October 1949, remains intact. The hon. the Minister’s predecessors are on record as having said that they would extend the rent control provisions this year. That cannot, however, be done by proclamation. It can only be done by legislation. The silent principle involves the fact—I think the hon. the Minister will confirm this—that there will be no further legislation before this House this year, certainly not in regard to making the provisions retrospective to a date prior to 20 October 1949. I think that is the fourth principle.

If you will forgive me, Sir, I must dispose of one last thing before I sit down and that is an accusation with regard to occupation under sectional title. The hon. the Minister made this accusation against me when he spoke in this House. I quote from the . . .

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

Mr. Speaker, as the first speaker on this side I am entitled to an hour in terms of Standing Order No. 138.

Oh man, it is a blessing that your time has expired!

You just cannot understand!

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I shall not take up much time. I just want to dispose of one thing. This is a serious matter because it reflects on my credibility as far as sectional titles and rent control are concerned. The hon. the Minister said the following—and I quote from his unrevised Hansard of 29 January 1981—

That is true!

I want the hon. the Minister to be honest. I want to quote from the hon. the Minister’s letter to me of 25 November 1980—

The letter continues—

What was my request, Sir? My request in my letter of 29 September 1980 was—

Sir, the hon. the Minister now accuses me . . .

Read the first sentence of your letter!

Very well. It reads—

A block of flats!

Yes, a block of flats! But the hon. the Minister inspected it. He said that he had inspected it personally.

Yes, I did.

Then why did the hon. the Minister not say so in his letter? He said his officials had done so. He said—

Why did the hon. the Minister not say that he had carried out the inspection?

I did.

The hon. the Minister did not say so in the letter. [Interjections.] If he did carry out the inspection, when this woman asked to be allowed to offer 20 rooms which were standing vacant to tenants and he said that 60 rooms were occupied, why did he tell the House that I tried to eject pensioners and old people from the building in which they were living? [Interjections.] He knew very well that 20 rooms were empty. Why did he tell the House that I had acted disgracefully in wanting to do this? [Interjections.] That is in effect what the hon. the Minister said.

I make no apologies for this at all. The Coloureds are people. They are people like us here and they are also entitled to be accommodated. I am not a racist. If other people laugh because they are racists, I take no responsibility for that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister on the first piece of legislation he has introduced here in his new capacity.

By means of this legislation the hon. the Minister shows that he fully understands the problem of people who five in flats. The hon. the Minister has now been charged with having introduced this legislation specifically with a view to the general election. I think it is outrageous that the hon. member for Hillbrow should have said that. He knows full well that the hon. the Minister issued two Press statements, in November and December, in which he intimated that he was going to deal with certain aspects because he had compassion for people who were being evicted and whose flats were being sold without their ever having the right to own their flats themselves. It seems to me that the hon. member has elections on the brain. Indeed, he speaks as if he is responsible for all the wonderful things that are going to happen now. I challenge him to point to any proposal the PFP made which could have given rise to this legislation.

Look at my memorandum.

No, Sir.

Ask the Minister.

Taking into account the wording of the legislation I know of no proposal whatsoever made by that side of the House in this connection.

Then you are very ignorant.

What I do know is that MPs of the NP met in Pretoria to discuss this matter and subsequently made representations, as did other MPs of the NP.

I go further. I expect every speaker opposite to stand up and say: “It is the PFP that caused the Act to be changed.” However, they will not be the only ones who will say that. The NRP members will also do so. We shall see that everyone will say it. It is ridiculous. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister who is responsible for this.

The hon. member for Hillbrow says that he has no objection to sectional titles. I, too, have no objection to them. However, the hon. member says that if out of a total of 75 flats, there is one flat in which there is a protected tenant, the matter must be reconsidered, because one person can stand in the way of 74. I want to put a question to the hon. member. If there is not just one such protected tenant but ten of them, what would his attitude be then? If it were not 10, but 20, as against 55, what would his attitude be? If his attitude is as he stated it here in principle, I want to put it clearly that he wants to cast our poor people and pensioners out into the street. The PFP wants to cast our poor people and pensioners out into the street. He does not tell us where he is going to draw the line.

Something important was said today: The hon. member for Hillbrow asked that Coloured people should share a block of flats with Whites.

When it was already fully occupied by Whites.

Precisely. It is White accommodation, but the PFP say their policy is that Whites and Coloureds can share the same block of flats.

We must now evict the pensioners for their sakes.

I think that the country’s voters and particularly those in PFP constituencies are entitled to know that it is the policy of the PFP that Coloureds and Whites should share the same block of flats. [Interjections.]

Do you say that Coloureds are lepers?

I now want to ask: Do they say that the Blacks should also be able to share them? Now they are dead quiet, Sir.

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

Wait a moment.

You are frightened to answer a question.

I ask again: Can the Black people also share the blocks of flats?

And what is more, they have communal bathrooms. [Interjections.]

I want to say that this statement by the hon. member is going to cost the PFP Sea Point as well. Sea Point must know that.

The Black people can come in too, now.

That is correct. They can swim there already. It is going to cost the PFP Hillbrow as well.

That is naked racism.

I want to go further. The Government is not playing election tricks. The hon. the Minister became aware of this matter months ago and promised to introduce legislation. As I stand here, I am glad to be a Nationalist and I am glad, too, that the hon. the Minister is introducing the legislation. It is true that the prices of all commodities have risen, but it is also true that salaries have risen tremendously at the same time. It has become more expensive to build houses, but we have also had a revival in the economy. Exploiters saw their chance to do two things: Firstly, to circumvent the Rents Act and secondly, to circumvent the Sectional Titles Act. Last year, when we discussed the matter in this House, the principle of sectional titles was never at issue; nor was that of rent control. In fact, the issue was section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act. The hon. member for Hillbrow has discussed a number of things here which, with great respect, were totally irrelevant, last year and this year. The Government is still protecting tenants, even in flats, and that is important. Do hon. members know what the limit of protection is for tenants? If the bread-winner of a family earns R650 per month, he is a protected person, and lower than that too. If his wife also earns a salary, that is not taken into account. The Government has compassion towards people earning a low income. R650 per month is by no means a low income, as I see it. Many of these problems arose, not because the legislation introduced by the Government was not right, but because people were unaware of their rights. Tenants must please not give way if they are threatened. Nor must they permit themselves to be bamboozled. They are afforded very strong protection by the Housing Act and other Acts as well.

What is the situation at present? At present the purchaser of a sectional title flat cannot evict a tenant. That is the situation as it stands today. However, what happens in practice? There are, for example, developers who are aware of the protection enjoyed by various tenants, and they say to the purchaser: “Listen, please come and buy; we shall in fact be able to evict that tenant.” Subsequently, because he knows he cannot do so, the developer has to try all kinds of dodges and victimize the poor tenant to get him out of the flat so that he can keep his word to the buyer. What is the effect of this? The effect is that the developer tricks the purchaser and victimizes the tenant. In this connection it is an evil, and here the hon. the Minister must take direct action. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department on having identified these two problems. I do not think the PFP said a word about this last year. I do not think they identified the problem. The hon. member for Hillbrow was instructed to speak, and he merely spoke. Not once did they say what the problems were, that they had identified them, or how they were to be dealt with. I therefore do not think it is fitting that they should come along now and make out as if it was in fact due to their brilliance that this legislation was introduced here. They had nothing to do with it. To this day they do not understand it. That is the situation we have today. The Government is very accommodating towards our tenants.

When I have said this, I must of course admit at once that we live in a capitalist system and we must help the free entrepreneur to build houses. We understand that entrepreneurs must build houses and flats and also make a reasonable profit. That we all believe. However, we cannot permit our pensioners and our less well-off people to be exploited in this process. Throughout the process the hon. the Minister, a person in whom hon. members on this side of the House have the fullest confidence, must balance the scale. Indeed, I believe that it is his intention to balance the scale perfectly. I can say to the voters and to tenants of flats that we are their people and they are our people. We shall protect their interests as long as it is within our power to do so.

I now wish to come back to the Bill. What does this Bill in fact provide? It is true that there are a few problems. The first problem, of course, is that the developer, for example, sells a flat without having the right to do so. The second problem is that he can open a sectional titles register with regard to a block of flats which is still subject to rent control. Those are the two evils. How, then, are we combating these two evils? Let us see what the Bill provides. The envisaged new section 4(6)(b) reads as follows—

If that is the case, the local authority in question will not even consider the application. If rent control still applies, the application will not even be considered. It will be irrelevant whether it is a good or a bad application. Nor does it matter if it is a medium application. Such an application is simply not considered.

This is the strongest protection the Government can afford the tenants. However, we have a problem. It is that there are well-off people, people with a very high monthly income, who still live in flats to which the protection of rent control applies. This is a problem. Those people with their high incomes keep our less well-off people out of flats which they can afford. I should like to request the hon. the Minister and the Department of Community Development to give attention to this matter. We must afford our elderly people, our pensioners, our less well-off people, the opportunity to obtain places to live. Well-off people have no right whatsoever to the protection of rent control. It is indeed strange, I must say, that not a single hon. member on the other side of the House has said a word about this. They have not said anything at all about this. Do they really have the interests of our people at heart? I doubt it.

The second aspect to which I want to refer arises out of clause 2 of the Bill. In terms of the envisaged new section 8A, all existing flats are affected. It is provided that one can now no longer sell a flat unless one has a sectional plan and has opened a sectional title register. What has happened thus far? For example, a man approaches a poor pensioner or widow alleging that he is going to develop and sell the block of flats in question in terms of the sectional title scheme. He puts it to them that they should buy immediately. They are given two days to decide. However his intention is merely to get hold of the money. He never intended drawing up a sectional plan or opening a sectional title register. That is an evil which must be eradicated root and branch. This evil can only be eradicated root and branch by providing, by way of legislation, that a flat can no longer even be sold if a sectional title register has not been opened. There is a strong sanction, namely that the contract of purchase and sale will be void if these conditions are not complied with. I want to state clearly once again that the Government cannot take stronger action than to say that such an anomalous contract will be void. This constitutes strong protection.

Then there is another problem that I foresee. In the proposed new section 8A(3) we see that a developer and a purchaser who have performed partly or wholly must do certain things because the contract is void. We note that a developer, besides the above, can still do two more things. One is that he can receive compensation for any damage which he, the developer, has suffered. However, when we look at the protection enjoyed by the purchaser, we note that apart from that, the purchaser may in the first place claim interest from the developer and, in the second place, may claim compensation for expenditure incurred. It is my intention to move an amendment in the Committee Stage which will mean that the purchaser will also be entitled to recovery of damages he has suffered due to the contract entered into being declared void. I shall move such a motion in the Committee Stage. It is true that there are certain expenses which a purchaser must incur. There are also certain expenses which a tenant must incur, for example he has to pay his removal expenses and various other expenses. There is a built-in advantage enjoyed by our tenants today. It is a fact that there has been a rationalization of the Public Service, with the result that two matters now fall under the hon. the Minister: Rent control and sectional titles. This is a tremendous advantage, since due to the fact that formerly the two matters were separated from one another, people did not always know what fell under whom. However, the new dispensation entails an inherent advantage for our tenants, precisely because the same Minister will control both matters.

A problem has arisen because abuses have taken place with regard to the conversion of leased units to sectional title units. I believe that as a result of this legislation it will be possible to control fully the two problems that have been identified. Two things will now happen. In the first place, rent control is now also being applied de facto to certain blocks of flats. This de facto application entails an important advantage. In the second place there is now greater security as regards tenure, because now a flat can now longer be sold from under a tenant. Our tenants are now getting greater security of tenure due to the legislation and that is exactly what our people at large want. Accordingly I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having made this possible at this point.

I asked for it last year.

No, last year not a word was said about it.

In conclusion, it is a great privilege for me to thank the hon. the Minister for this sound legislation. I believe that the legislation is the fruit of what we as NP MP’s submitted to him as a group. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said, inter alia, that accusations were being levelled at the hon. the Minister to the effect that the legislation was an election ploy.

I observe from clause 3 that 1 April 1980 is being deleted as the date on which the original amendment comes into effect and that the new date of commencement will be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. As far as that is concerned I must point out to the hon. the Minister that it is not quite clear to people how long after the election the State President will determine the date of commencement.

What has that got to do with it?

An hon. member has asked what that has got to do with it and in reply I want to point out to him that the hon. member for Pretoria West said that the hon. the Minister had made a statement as far back as November, long before there was any mention of an election. I see the hon. Minister is shaking his head. Am I not correct? When the hon. the Prime Minister announced the election he said, inter alia, that the decision to call an election now was influenced by the large number of vacancies which existed and by the new delimitation. Surely all those facts were already known in November. In view of that, it is not quite clear to me whether this amendment will not, when all is said and done, simply be an election ploy.

There is something we need not argue about, as it is recorded very clearly in Hansard that when the amending Bill was before this House last year members of both the NRP and the official Opposition did advance arguments as to why we were opposed to this legislation. Personally I am very glad that I was able to participate in the no-confidence debate last week, because I find many of the sentences which I used in the course of my speech unchanged in the introductory speech made by the hon. the Minister today. I feel very honoured about that.

Clever boy!

There must be clever boys in the ranks of the Opposition, because if everything had to depend on the Government, this country would go one way.

†I used words such as: What is wrong with sectional titles? And I said: The indiscriminate conversion of existing or old units “which should not be converted”. Those are the words I used.

*And here at the very beginning the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, col. 599)—

†Mr. Speaker, these are things that we said last year as well.

What is wrong with it?

I am pleased to note that the hon. the Minister has at last become more reasonable and has realized that that is basically what is wrong. Now and again, throughout the hon. the Minister’s speech, he grabs at an anchor, and in each instance that anchor is a recommendation of the Fouché Commission. If one should refer to the report of that commission, I think one would find that basically in many respects they wrongly interpreted the facts they collated. For instance, they naively believed that it was virtually only due to the existence of rent control that prevented new developments taking place. But other factors were also involved in this regard.

I want to come back to one other matter raised by the hon. the Minister where he said (Hansard, col. 601)—

*In my opinion matters have already got out of hand in some cases. Consequently it is not a question that matters may get out of hand.

I agree with you.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister agrees with me, because in the final analysis we must, I believe, determine whether this legislation is going to be adequate in solving the problem which has already got out of hand.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister also mentioned the problem which arises in the case where one or more persons five in a flat unit, persons who are protected by rent control. He said, inter alia, that tremendous pressure was being exerted on these people and (Hansard, col. 602)—

This is one of the most serious problems we are facing, even in terms of the proposed amendments those one or 10 persons will continue to be intimidated. I believe the hon. member was correct in saying that one cannot refer to one person only, but whether it is one or 10 persons, is immaterial; it is the principle which is at issue here.

That one person in a block?

Yes, the one person which stays on in the block.

That is why we keep the entire block under control.

The Minister retains the whole block, but there may be one person who is not willing, whereas all the others—there might be 75 of them—are willing to buy. I only hope that it is not going to be used as a means of forcing people to give up in the end, and then be saddled with the same problems. I am merely mentioning the problem.

†I now want to come to the question of 1 April and the relevant period. I must say I really think the hon. the Minister wants the best of both worlds. He really still wants to tell the developers the stage will ultimately be reached, some time in the future, when they will, if a property is sold under sectional title, be able to get rid of a tenant, irrespective of whether he is a protected tenant or not. This is the sort of carrot that is dangled in front of them. On the other hand, he also wants to accommodate the people who are so very concerned about this whole question, the people who are living in constant anxiety. As I pointed out last week, some of them are elderly people. I think all hon. members of Parliament living in flat areas are aware of such situations that do arise. I really do believe the hon. the Minister must make up his mind. It will not be easy, but why not get together and say: Let us forget it all and not have the sword of Damocles continually hanging over their heads. Let us go back and restore the situation to what it was before the amendment was introduced last year.

I do sympathize with the hon. the Minister’s attempts to undo all the harm that was done and deal with the disruption that was caused. My actual problem is the fact that all this disruption has been caused. How are we ever going to unscramble the egg? Let me refer to the relevant clause, clause 2, where it is stated that any sale shall be declared void if the developer has sold a unit before a sectional plan was prepared or before the opening of a sectional title register. What I am going to advance now, I am merely advancing by way of an idea. I am not saying I am going to move an amendment in this regard. I am merely putting it forward as an idea in order to hear the views of the hon. the Minister. I think one must try to be as fair as possible to all parties concerned, because it is not the fault of the individuals who sold the flats or those who purchased them. I think the situation was allowed to develop as the result of inadequate legislation in the first place. That is basically the problem. There are two parties involved in the issue. As indicated in clause 2, there is the developer and the purchaser, and an attempt is made in this clause to be fair to both of them in the sense that the developer may claim compensation from the purchaser.

It is not retrospective.

Oh, it is not retrospective.

No, it cannot be. You cannot unscramble the egg.

The hon. the Minister says one cannot unscramble the egg. If it is not retrospective, how is one going to solve the problem of people having lost all their money?

One has to unscramble this egg.

Yes, one has to unscramble this egg. One should at least make an attempt. What I am basically concerned about, however, is the fact that there should have been an option as far as the purchaser is concerned. In other words, the deal should have been voidable at the discretion of the purchaser.

It cuts both ways.

It may cut both ways, but I think there are some sellers who would hope that the agreements could be declared void so that they would later be in a position, with rising prices, to sell at an even higher price. That is basically what I am concerned about. [Interjections.] I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to me how that can be overcome.

That is why I do not want to make it retrospective.

I wish to conclude by merely saying that we shall support this Bill. We believe that it has, in fact, been welcomed by many people, but I also want to add that I do not believe that this is the final answer to the problem that we are faced with in South Africa. The problem with the phasing out of rent control, whether by way of the purchasing of sectional title or by merely lifting rent control, is that there is no adequate alternative accommodation. From time to time people mention sub-economic housing. I think this was also mentioned by the hon. the Minister. I think he said that provision is made for economic and sub-economic housing. In regard to the scheme of the hon. the Minister, I can only discuss the area which I know well, which is Durban. There one finds the city council administering certain buildings on behalf of the Government. With the exception of one or two buildings where conditions are terrible, where people do not want to live, for instance elderly people who find it impossible to live there because of other social evils, there are long waiting lists. There is simply no accommodation of the type the hon. the Minister spoke about. It may be available in some other places, but in the city where I come from, Durban, it is simply not available. I want to repeat that in a private enterprise situation the State still has a tremendous social responsibility. It cannot just rely on private entrepreneurs to end up with a situation where they either lose a lot of money or subsidize accommodation. I see this Bill as merely a straw that we are grasping at at the moment. The problem remains unsolved. There is a responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Government, and of all of us, to try to find a solution. I am not going to say a permanent or ultimate solution. I do not believe that we will ever be able to find a permanent solution to this type of problem. All I say is that whatever is done must not create further or more complicated problems. I want to conclude by saying that I am afraid that the amendments to the Act last year resulted in the creation of very complicated problems, problems which cannot be solved properly by this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central made a very constructive contribution towards the debate in an extremely levelheaded manner. He raised a few matters which I feel have merit and deserve consideration, matters which could improve the legislation and which could be debated to good effect during the Committee Stage. In contrast to that, the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow . . .

Yes, oh heavens . . .

It was a very good speech!

That hon. member came to the house this afternoon and treated it to exceptional language. His language was aimed at inciting emotions, but not the emotions of the hon. members here in the House. His language was aimed at a date.

29 April!

That date is 29 April this year. I shall come back to that later. First of all, I want to raise two other matters.

Firstly, I cannot overlook thanking the hon. the Minister. The members of Parliament from the Cape Peninsula met in October last year, as we often do, to discuss matters affecting the residents of the Peninsula. On that occasion the hon. member for False Bay, the hon. member for Tygervallei, the hon. member for Vasco and the hon. member for Maitland realized that there were shortcomings in the Sectional Titles Act. We realized that there are certain tenants of flat units who have expectations, to put it as euphemistically as that. We then went to the hon. the Minister and said: “This matter must be investigated.” There are certain malpractices in the leasing sector of the economy and these must be investigated. The hon. the Minister told us that he had taken note of these malpractices, but that he was giving the estate agents, the developers and the opportunistic converters the opportunity to put their own house in order. He said that he did not want Government intervention in the normal market mechanism at that stage. We then told the hon. the Minister that, whilst we understood the position, this matter was beginning to gain momentum and that it was beginning to affect the voters, regardless of the party to which they belonged, not because of the reaction of the Minister—and this is a point to which I shall come back later—but because of the fact that the Minister gave certain undertakings. The hon. the Minister gave two undertakings and these undertakings were being exploited by opportunistic entrepreneurs and converters who reasoned as follows: Here we have an opportunity of making money quickly; we have the money and the Government has the problems. We as members then told the hon. the Minister that this matter could not continue in this way but that it had to be brought under control. As a result of these discussions— and the Minister was witness to them—the Minister released a statement to the effect that this matter would definitely be brought under control. This was the Minister’s statement on 5 December 1980.

This debate took a very interesting turn. The hon. member for Hillbrow—and I do not hold it against him, because it is his right—admitted openly that in terms of his party’s policy it would not be unusual for Coloureds to live in the same block of flats as Whites.

Here comes the Black peril.

As I said, I do not hold this against the hon. member. It is his policy and I grant him the right to put it to the House as well as to the voters of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member whether he stands by the fact that this is implicit in his policy. I do not see anything of him or hear anything from him, but I assume that a negative reply is an indication of the positive. Now I just want to ask the hon. members for Green Point and Wynberg whether it is their standpoint too that Coloureds should share the same blocks of flats with Whites, should share the same facilities and attend the same schools.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that this has nothing to do with the Bill.

Yes, Sir, but . . .

Order! The hon. member may proceed. I have been informed that the hon. member is reacting to something that was said here earlier on. Therefore, the hon. member may react to it.

I want to put another question to the hon. member for Hillbrow. Apart from the Coloureds, would he also agree to Black people moving into the flats?

They are there already. There are Black people in every block of flats. [Interjections.]

What is the standpoint of the hon. members for Green Point and Wynberg with regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Hillbrow? [Interjections.]

They say “yes”.

I shall reply to that in a moment. It will be my turn to speak in a moment. [Interjections.]

I assume the hon. member is saying “yes”. I assume that it is the standpoint of the hon. members for Green Point and Wynberg . . .

Where do your servants live?

. . . that Coloureds and Black people can be accommodated together with Whites in one block of flats. I shall not take this point further. I should just like to learn from the hon. member for Durban Central what his party’s standpoint is with regard to this matter, and hon. members who are going to participate in the debate later on, can reply to this.

I must put the whole debate into perspective a little. As far as the Sectional Titles Amendment Bill is concerned, I should like to remind the House that the hon. the Minister assured the private sector and the country as a whole of two things, and what were they? They form the entire basis of the legislation before the House. Firstly, the hon. the Minister said that rent control would be phased out gradually, but in an orderly manner and in the second place, that sales under sectional title would be encouraged because there is a discrepancy in the sense that the owner of an ordinary dwelling house has the right to sell his property, whereas the owner of a block of flats does not have the right to sell a unit. The hon. the Minister and the Government are committed with regard to these two matters.

After the hon. the Minister had given these assurances, assurances with regard to which the hon. the Minister will not go back on his word, because he stands by them, drastic changes took place. There was a boom in the economy, there was a greater demand for houses and we experienced a situation where the demand for housing exceeded the supply. Exploitation began to take place in this leasing section of the economy on a very short term basis and this is the whole crux of the matter. This exploitation that took place, is not the result of the action of the Government; the Government stands by its assurance, but the exploitation that took place was the result of the action of opportunists who saw this as an opportunity to make short term profits here. The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to this, and it is true that high pressure methods were used to force pensioners and elderly people to vacate a flat if they were not able to buy it as a sectional title unit. The share scheme was even used—and the hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to this—which amounts to people first obtaining shares in the share scheme so that they might have the opportunity later on of converting units into sectional title units. Tenants were told that they had to pay the deposit on the sectional title unit at once. This was done before the sectional title register was opened. It did not provide the security which the hon. the Minister and the legislation envisaged for purchasers under the Sectional Titles Act. When these practices began to emerge, after holding discussions with various parties, the hon. the Minister came to the conclusion that order had to be created, that the interests of the tenant as well as those of the landlord had to be protected. Then the hon. the Minister came up with the Bill under discussion. What is now being determined by this Bill? What is the essence of the Bill that is now before the House?

The Bill provides that a sectional title register may not be opened if a dwelling unit in the building concerned is subject to rent control. In the second place, the Bill provides that a dwelling unit cannot be sold before a sectional titles register has been opened. In the third place, the Bill provides that a dwelling unit that is subject to rent control, may not be occupied by the owner thereof.

Surely when this legislation comes into effect—and we thank the official Opposition and the NRP for their support of this measure—there will be order in the industry. Surely the property opportunists and chancers are now being clamped down on. In terms of the legislation under discussion, their practices will be controlled, as the hon. member for Pretoria West clearly pointed out. Now surely it is clear that the hon. the Minister and the Government are not prepared to allow their good undertakings in terms of the elimination of rent control and in terms of the encouragement of the sales with regard to the sectional titles scheme, to be exploited. In terms of the legislation under discussion, an effort is being made to prevent a few converters from exploiting tenants, exploiters who contribute nothing towards meeting the housing needs of those who qualify in terms of the National Housing Act, and lessening their suffering. The provisions of this Bill now aim at creating order and regulating the actions of these people.

This is a good measure. It is a measure that will bring about rest and order in a certain sector of the economy, which was disrupted to a certain extent, but has been put in order by the rapid, controlled action of the hon. the Minister. Consequently I am pleased to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that a phenomenon such as that which has just occurred should have manifested itself during the discussion of a Bill on sectional titles. However, it is probably due to the coming election that hon. members on the Government side—believe it or not—came and displayed the most unpleasant and unsavoury naked racism here during the discussion of an amendment to a sectional titles Act. [Interjections.] That is really incredible.

Who started it?

No one here started it. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the other side of the House started it. There is no doubt about that. [Interjections.]

But that is just what they are. [Interjections.]

This thing began as far back as the no-confidence debate when the hon. the Minister himself raised the matter. That is where it started. Let us have no doubt about that. There are a few questions which were put to us to which I should like to reply, and I beg your indulgence in that regard, Mr. Speaker. The questions are perhaps, strictly speaking, out of order, but I think I owe hon. members replies to those questions and should like to furnish those replies.

Order! I shall permit no further debate on that subject.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to abide by your decision. It is just a pity I am not going to have the opportunity to reply to questions which hon. members had the opportunity to ask. The same racist leanings which cause hon. members on that side to ignore the feelings and needs of people because they do not have the political power to hurt them, has also manifested itself in the handling by that side of the House of this kind of legislation. As the hon. members’ support has come more and more from people who are financially powerful, people who are entrepreneurs or property speculators, to that extent they lose their interest in the needs of the kind of people who suffer under conditions of this nature. They simply hope that conditions will be rectified by this legislation. [Interjections.] This accusation hon. members on that side of the House will hear repeatedly. It is not over, nor will it be over when we have disposed of this legislation. [Interjections.] However welcome this legislation may be—and we on this side of the House welcome it—it cannot rectify the mess that has been caused over the past few months, particularly after last year when section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act was amended. This legislation, however good it may be, cannot hope to rectify that situation, because it is a grave situation.

This Bill seeks to carry out reparations in an part of our community life in which a great deal of harm has been done over the past few months, during which uncertainty and even fear have caused misery in the lives of thousands of people. I do not think it is overestimating to speak of thousands. The people in question are needy, elderly people who are being threatened, and there is probably no threat—other than perhaps the threat of death or personal injury—which has such an unsettling effect on people as the threat that one will lose one’s dwelling place, that one will be evicted from one’s dwelling place. One’s dwelling place soon becomes an intimate part of one’s life. It is a symbol of one’s protection. It is one’s shelter, a place of rest and escape. It is the place where one can be alone as an individual at times, or, if one prefers, where one can be with one’s family and friends. It is this very threat that has been hanging over the heads of thousands of people, and to some extent still does, as was quite correctly indicated by the hon. member for Durban Central. This will be the case just so long as no specific date is attached to clause 3 of the Bill, or so long as there is no reversion to the situation which prevailed before the session last year when the amendment was introduced. Therefore this threat is still hanging over people’s heads. Now that this legislation is introduced, it is interesting to see how hon. members stress that they addressed representations to the hon. the Minister to rectify the matter. It is remarkable that one heard nothing about it in the Press, that no-one heard anything about it in the streets or in political circles in our country and that the only person who ever said anything about it was the hon. the Minister himself. It is remarkable that no one ever heard hon. members opposite being at all concerned about these poor people who found themselves in such a grave situation.

You are playing to the gallery.

The hon. member says we are playing to the gallery, but there has been a great deal of playing to the gallery this afternoon. I want to say to the hon. members that they must not think that they can get the HNP deserters to return to the NP in this way. The hon. members are going to run into difficulties in that regard.

This is indeed drastic legislation. As hon. members have already indicated, some of the provisions of this legislation are indeed of a retrospective nature in the sense that certain contracts of purchase and sale that have already been entered into will be declared void. That is what I mean.

No. Where do you read that in this legislation?

Surely the position is clearly that . . .

No, go and read it again this evening.

I may explain it to the hon. Minister later. I do not think he quite understood me. I say that this is drastic legislation. The Minister should perhaps make clear to us whether this legislation seeks in any way to create a situation in which any contracts entered into thus far will be declared void. That is how I understand it and I should be surprised if that is not the case, because it is indeed necessary that this should be the case. This is drastic legislation and this is the kind of legislation which one would not normally welcome, precisely because it has such a drastic effect on the situation. On the other hand, we must concede that drastic legislation was probably necessary to deal with this drastic situation.

Let us look briefly at the effect that rent control has on the whole situation. There are hon. members who maintain that rent control has nothing to do with this. It is obvious that rent control has everything to do with this. In discussing the amendment to section 39(1) last year, hon. members on this side specifically pointed out that rent control was something which had existed in South Africa for a number of decades, whether one liked it or not. If we have to pilot amending legislation through this House which affects rent control, or certain aspects of it, to the degree that the amendment to section 39(1) affects it, then one is looking for trouble if one does not handle it with the greatest circumspection. I fear it was impossible to handle it with circumspection if one takes into account the drastic effect of the amendment in 1980.

The hon. member for Pretoria West made mention of the protected tenants and tried— with some success—to indicate that the Government had permitted relatively high income limits in determining which tenants should enjoy protection. I concede that. The problem is just that the hon. member omitted to indicate that it was due to that very amendment moved in 1980 that the protection of that group of people was completely destroyed. Therefore in this situation it is pointless to speakabout the income groups that are indeed protected, because as far as that legislation is concerned they, too, lost their protection entirely. The hon. member for Pretoria West says that it was in fact the meeting of the Pretoria MP’s which gave rise to this legislation. The hon. member for Bellville in turn sought to intimate that it was the NP MP’s of the Western Cape who had in fact provided the impetus for it. I think it is cause for gratitude that hon. members opposite, from whichever region they may come, eventually perceived the wisdom of the comments made last year in this House regarding this matter and which have indeed, in the months since that discussion been shown to be so accurate.

[Inaudible.]

The greatest tragedy, in fact, since last year’s amendment is not only that people lost their security and feeling of safety with regard to their dwelling place, but also that due to the orgy, as one could almost call it, of sectional title speculation which followed, housing which had been cheap due to the fact that it was old housing built years ago when building costs were still much lower, was converted overnight into extremely expensive housing quite beyond the means of the people who had traditionally stayed there. It did not become expensive due to innovations effected there or due to conversions, renewal or anything of that kind, but chiefly due to the fact that speculators had made enormous profits in that field. It is for that very reason that we welcome this kind of legislation. We shall have a great deal to say about the detail during the Committee Stage, because I think there is a great deal to say on that score. I think that hon. members, particularly those opposite, should not be too quick to jump on hon. members of the Opposition if, like the hon. members for Hillbrow and Durban Central, they level certain limited criticisms at certain aspects of the legislation. It is very clear that it would take very good legislation and also able handling of the legislation to get people out of the mess they are in at this stage. We therefore support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point spoke a great deal of nonsense about the control of money power in this country, while we know that the PFP are the fat cats, that the fat cats sit in that party. He spoke of the concern of his party in relation to sectional title, but he neglected to mention that the Progs had no interest whatsoever when sectional title was introduced in 1971. There was a Select Committee with regard to sectional title and the PFP took no interest in that particular select committee. The hon. member for Houghton took no interest in it whatsoever.

I had other things to worry about.

We then had the First Reading, the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of the Bill dealing with sectional titles. It was legislation which affects everyone’s way of life in the country. Yet there was no quantitive contribution, in fact, no contribution at all by the PFP.

It is not possible to talk on every possible piece of legislation.

The hon. member for Houghton says it is not possible to talk on every subject, but this is a subject which affects everyone in this country. It is a vital subject. The hon. member for Houghton also represents a constituency, but she never speaks about the problems of her constituency. This legislation deals with the heart of housing and stability in South Africa. Yet the hon. member for Houghton had no contribution to make neither on the Select Committee, nor on the First Reading, on the Second Reading, in the Committee Stage or on the Third Reading of the Bill. The PFP had no hand in it and expressed no opinion with regard to sectional titles. Yet today they appear as though they were the people who actually thought about the concept of sectional titles. However, in fairness to the NRP I want to say that in 1956 Mr. Hopewell, the then MP for Pinetown, and in 1964 Mr. Sonny Emdin, introduced motions in this House. They encouraged the development of sectional title in South Africa. But the official Opposition had no interest whatsoever in the development of sectional title in South Africa. They are merely playing for the voters at this time. They are hoping to catch a few votes at the expense of people who are enduring hardship and for whom all of us feel.

*The hon. the Minister argued his case convincingly and the hon. member for Pretoria West and the hon. member for Bellville replied effectively to the hon. members of the Opposition. The Opposition is using the sufferings of people with whom we all sympathize for cheap politics. The hon. the Minister has introduced this amendment precisely because he is very sympathetically disposed towards these people.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Durban Central made a disgraceful insinuation that this legislation was being introduced because of the coming election. There was no question of an election when the hon. the Minister publicly announced on more than one occasion that it was his intention in 1980 to introduce this legislation as a matter of urgency. In fact, as a Minister who is new in this portfolio he has introduced this legislation at the first possible opportunity this session. That sort of allegation is therefore completely without foundation. I see the hon. member for Durban Central is smiling. He knows I am quite correct. There was no reason for that type of insinuation.

You voted with us last time.

The hon. member for Hillbrow says I voted with them last time, but he omits to mention that both he and I are supporting this Bill today. So, I do not know what he is making a noise about. I am not disagreeing with him on the principle of the Bill today. I am supporting the Bill and he is supporting the Bill. Therefore I do not know what he is referring to.