Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned yesterday, I was saying that the Sectional Titles Act had been a great milestone in the development of stable government in South Africa. The owner of a sectional title unit has the same vested interest in the well-being of South Africa as the owner of a house. Of course, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are not houseowners, but who nevertheless have the well-being of South Africa just as much at heart. The sectional title scheme enables thousands and thousands of people, now and in the future, to purchase their own homes. This is of the utmost importance, because there are the owner, the developer and the building society and the building industry itself, and they all contribute to this great enterprise. One has to encourage private entrepreneurs to continue building these units.

The PFP showed no interest in the Sectional Titles Act, and I can prove it. Today they want to blame the Government for any problems which may arise, but on the other hand, they want to claim credit for this Bill as well as for the Act passed in 1971. It can be proved that they contributed absolutely nothing to the passing of the existing Act.

†Mr. Speaker, last night just before the House adjourned I was dealing with the fact that the PFP played no part in the Select Committee and neither did they participate in the discussion of any of the stages of the Sectional Titles Bill in its passage through Parliament. When one looks at the commission that was appointed and also at the Select Committee one cannot find proof that the PFP contributed any real evidence at all on this most important matter either verbally or in writing. The hon. member for Houghton who is now so talkative interjected last night and said that she had other things to worry about. She also indicated that she did not have the time. The hon. member is one who will find the time if she is of the opinion that a matter is important enough. The legislation affects hundreds of thousands of people and will continue to do so in the future throughout South Africa, be they owners, tenants or developers. Homeownership affects the stability and the foundations of a nation. The Progs as a party, however, had no time to make a contribution to one of the most important developments to ensure homeownership for present and future generations. The truth of the matter is of course that the Progs have no interest in future generations because their philosophy provides no solution for the problems of future generations.

The hon. member for Sea Point always speaks as though he has a monopoly on being humane and a monopoly on wanting stability for occupiers of flats. This of course is nonsense; it is not so. The actions of the hon. member for Sea Point prove the very contrary. I have been coming to Cape Town for some 16 years, and except for some odd occasions, I have always lived in the flatland of the constituency of the hon. member for Sea Point. Flat occupiers as well as sectional title owners are entitled to stability and free and undisturbed occupation in Sea Point and in other areas. The hon. member for Sea Point, however, has allowed this premier resort to become a haven for undesirables. I submit that the sectional title holder in Sea Point as well as the other people there have to put up with years of neglect by the hon. member for Sea Point.

The Government has come with legislation because it has in mind the interests of the people who are experiencing hardship. The hon. the Minister and the director-general and his staff are busy daily relieving the hardship in regard to housing accommodation throughout South Africa. In fact, one must pay tribute to the work they are doing throughout the country.

We are all deeply concerned and distressed that positive legislation has been abused by a certain number of developers. In relation to the total number of sectional title units sold, the number of complaints does not form a majority percentage and because it is not a majority percentage it is all the more reason why certain callous owners could, because of their exceptionally large profits, have afforded to adopt a far more humane attitude than they have adopted.

The amending legislation seeks to prevent abuse and to protect people who become victims of certain callous property owners, but it still further encourages sectional title development. The bulk of property owners have done a wonderful service to the buyers in that many people who bought a flat one or two years ago find that their flat is now worth double or treble the amount they paid for the flat in the first instance.

It is essential that private enterprise be encouraged as far as possible to assist in the provision of housing in South Africa. The concept of sectional titles gave a new dimension to homeownership in the Republic. It acts as a stimulus to people to own their own home. The original Act emanated from the unanimous decision of a Select Committee of Parliament. This amendment allows property owners to proceed in an orderly manner with sectional titles. Firstly, those who have bought units must have security of tenure and secondly, once the owner has sold all his units, he has that money available for reinvestment. The tendency will be to reinvest in the property market. Thirdly, unit holders in uncontrolled flats do not face massive rental increases. Fourthly, a hedge against inflation is provided to the unit holders. A man who hires a flat sees the value of his money eroding, but the unit holder has the benefit of the enhanced value and furthermore the unit holder has a stake in the country.

It has been mentioned that this legislation may have the effect of discouraging developers from erecting new buildings for sectional title. This is, however, a fallacious concept, as any building that may be erected now or in the future will not be subject to rent control. The hon. the Minister can either confirm or reject this statement, but I have no doubt that any building that may be erected now or in the future will not be subject to rent control. In fact, the success of sectional titles itself should act as an encouragement to developers when formulating the building of flats for the future and calculating their cash flow. In clause 2(6) there is direct encouragement for people to proceed with the development of sectional title units.

It is true that certain developers have acted unscrupulously and in a hard-handed manner, and it is as a result of this that the hon. the Minister has had to introduce preventive measures. The majority of sectional title owners have acted in a responsible manner. We have a free enterprise system and have to encourage entrepreneurs to proceed with their undertakings. These entrepreneurs must be encouraged to help provide housing for the people of South Africa.

Responsible bodies like the S.A. Property Owners’ Association have devoted a lot of time, effort and study to co-ordinating the problems of this industry. Unfortunately the S.A. Property Owners’ Association and other bodies have no statutory power to deal with abuse by unscrupulous people. Where one encounters abuse or problems in other fields, one has the law societies, accounting societies, medical associations and the Estate Agents Board to deal with it and these bodies set an exceptionally high standard.

Has the time not arrived for the property industry and the Government to investigate the possibility of placing this industry on a footing where it has its own statutory board with statutory powers? I am certain that a property board would be able to regulate matters to such an extent that a number of the abuses now taking place could be eliminated or curtailed. So much depends on this industry. It is represented by so many talented men and women, and I am convinced that they, together with the Government, can investigate a blue-print for statutory powers to establish a board to control the industry.

I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, nobody argues with the hon. member for Walmer regarding the principle of sectional title. Indeed, it was one of my colleagues who first raised the whole question, as the hon. member himself said, namely Mr. Hopewell and subsequently Mr. Sonny Emdin. We are all agreed in this House on the benefits of a properly regulated sectional title procedure. The whole problem arose with the amendment of the protection which the original Act gave to rent-controlled tenants and the residual protection to those who fell within the means test under the Housing Act. This was the whole source of the problem which this measure seeks to correct. We all agree that the principle of being able to purchase one’s flat is a good one. This is a strange debate, Sir, because although in principle we all agree to the measure before us, it has become an “I-told-you-so, no-we-did-it” sort of debate. I do not want to continue that debate any longer. Everybody knows that we told the Government so. Everybody knows that the Government was stubborn and refused to listen and everyone knows that the Government was forced to introduce this Bill and that it is not something which its own members persuaded the Government to do.

The whole problem has arisen because of people taking excessive profits. I shall give just one example. When, at the end of the past session, I got back to my constituency, I found that the tenants of the whole newer section of one block of flats comprising 50 flats, had been given notice to vacate. Amongst them there were a number who were, in fact, entitled to protection but were not aware of their rights. They were told they were going to be thrown out anyway in April, and they were told that the building was going to become exempt from rent control, and so the whole lot were chucked out. There were only two left who had not already gone. One of them, however, had already made arrangements to leave. I was able to point out the other one’s rights to her, but she said she could not stand the pressure and victimization any longer. So there was a building whose complete new section of 50 flats had been emptied. In front of it there is an old building, the original building, to which the annex of 50 flats had been added. The whole building was bought for R300 000 originally, and R100 000 was spent on refurbishing it. The annex alone, the new section, brought them in approximately R600 000. So they made R200 000 as a result of evicting 50 mainly elderly people. Now they sit with the whole main building free of cost. They are now working on the tenants in the old part of the building and threatening them with eviction in April, before these present provisions for amendedment were announced.

I can give you better examples.

Yes, there are dozens of them. The hon. member for Pretoria West said people do not know their rights. He appealed to them not to give way, to stand firm and to have recourse to their rights. Last year in July I took this matter up with the then hon. Minister. I wrote to him on 20 August pleading that when notice to vacate is given to a tenant the lessor should be obliged to state, at the end of the notice, the rights of the tenant if such tenant’s income falls within the limits of the income qualifications or continued protection. It is simple enough, after all for a notice to vacate to state that it will not be valid if the total income of the tenant—or husband and wife together—is less than the qualifying amount under the Housing Act. Then the people would know what their rights are. It was not this hon. Minister, but his predecessor, who wrote me the most stupid letter I have ever read saying my suggestion was not practical, because if a lessor gave a lessee notice and the lessee was protected, the notice was invalid. Of course it is invalid if the matter is taken up, but if people do not know their rights, they do not complain. They simply get out, and whether the notice is valid or not, does not matter. The flat has been emptied and the former tenant has been rendered homeless. That hon. Minister and his Government are responsible because there is collective responsibility in such an issue. It was he, after all, who said it is not practical to give tenants such notification because there was widespread coverage given to people’s rights in the media. That shows how out of touch with reality this Government is. Does the Government not know that there are thousands of people today who cannot afford to buy a newspaper and therefore do not read newspapers? [Interjections.] I am not exaggerating when I say this. It only goes to show that those hon. members do not visit the poorer people in their constituencies, the old age pensioners. When one asks them whether they have not read about something in the newspapers, they say they have stopped getting newspapers because they cannot afford to pay 20 cents a day.

Because they look at TV now.

20 cents a day is R3 per month and that is a lot to a person with an income of R90. In the block of flats I referred to, that hon. Minister’s department, despite the huge profits the firm made, then put up the rents in the rent-controlled main section of the building by 25%, to give the owners an additional profit. Those hon. members do not know what people are suffering, old age pensioners and people living on fixed incomes. [Interjections.] I am not exaggerating when I say that there are people who do not buy a newspaper because they cannot afford the cost of living increases and R3 per month for a newspaper.

No, R6 per month.

Yes, R6 per month; 20 cents per day for 30 days is R6. They cannot afford R6 per month on an income of R97 per month. [Interjections.] The reaction of NP members, however, is to laugh when people with an income of R97 per month, later an income of R109 per month, cannot afford R6 per month for a newspaper.

They are not fighting with you.

No, but they are laughing. They are laughing as though it is a joke when people cannot afford to buy a newspaper.

You are the joke!

The hon. the Minister and his department refused to require from landlords, when giving notice to a tenant, to state the legal rights of the tenant at the end of the notice.

†I took this matter up again. I received that reply on 18 August. I wrote again two days later, on 20 August, and eventually, on 15 October, I received a reply from the hon. the Minister. He went through a whole rigmarole, probably given to him by one of the members of his department, setting out the provisions and the rights of people and again he turned down my request, a simple request that tenants who are affected, inter alia, by the amendment in this Bill we are now dealing with, be informed of their rights. He said—

This was exactly our case. In October last year the hon. the Minister admitted it. But he refuses to take that simple step of warning the tenants of what their rights are. He says—

But in the meantime he does not care about the hundreds and hundreds of tenants who have already been evicted. This Bill which is closing a loophole, cannot right the injustices. It cannot compensate for the hardship of the people who have suffered under it. It cannot undo the damage done to people because of the stubborn obstinacy and heartlessness of the Government and its refusal to warn people of their rights by saying: “These are your rights.” Because of the Government’s failure to do that, it cannot compensate the hundreds of people who have been evicted illegally because the people did not know what their rights were.

Mr. Speaker, we talk of developers, The true developer is a man we should support and encourage. But we are not talking about developers here. We are talking about converters, people who buy up the old buildings. When an organization like one in Durban known as Tafta, the Association for the Aged, which has done a wonderful job buying up old buildings, applies to another Government department to save one of these buildings from being sold under sectional title and the tenants being evicted and asks for a loan under the Housing Act to buy this building so as to protect those old people, the Government took so long to consider the application that that building is now being sold under sectional title. The building was then offered at R400 000 more than it could have been bought for when the original application was made by Tafta.

Your facts are not correct.

Check on the facts. The building concerned was King’s Hall. It was also in my area. The hon. the Deputy Minister will find how long the application was delayed and how much the price increased.

It was done within three days.

We will deal with that in due course if the hon. the Minister comes back.

I now want to deal with one aspect of this which is not clear. The hon. the Minister by way of interjection said that the effect of this provision would not be retrospective. I am not a lawyer. However, lawyers themselves are confused. Sapoa is certainly confused judging by statements on radio and television. I want to find out exactly what the situation is.

In terms of the proposed section 4(6)(c) there will be no consideration of an application by the local authority for approval of a sectional titles scheme if the applicant has acted in conflict with the proposed section 8A(2), which is the provision which voids agreements in conflict with the provisions of the Bill before us in the previous two years. In other words, no application can be considered if the applicant has acted in conflict with the provisions of the proposed section 8A(2). That subsection provides that any sale or agreement is void if it is in conflict with the proposed section 8A(1)(a), which says that one may not sell if there is no plan. The proposed subsection (1)(b) provides that one may not advertise any unit for sale if a plan has not been registered, but obviously one can only void an agreement once there has been a sale. The sale is dependent only on there having been a plan, not on that plan not having been registered.

I want clarity from the hon. the Minister on the following: If a building was sold under sectional title within the last two years—say 18 months ago . . .

In the last two years.

Whatever period it is. Let us say 18 months ago, or under two years ago. [Interjections.] I said “within two years” and I took an arbitrary period of 18 months.

Nobody is arguing with you.

There is an hon. member there trying to be funny. I do not suppose he can read the Bill. What would happen if that sale fell under the prohibition provided for in the proposed section 8A(1)(a)?

It could not happen.

Why not?

Because this Bill will only come into effect when it has passed through the House.

But the sale has already taken place.

Under provisions in other Acts.

In other words, there is no recompense and nothing has been done to deal with the cases that have already occurred, and only future conversions to sectional title will be affected? If that is the case, I think the hon. the Minister has to look very hard at the way it is set out in the Bill because provision is clearly made for any sale effected in conflict with the prohibition, and not any sale effected “since the coming into force” of these provisions. It simply refers to “any sale”. If any sale was purported to have taken place previously, surely it will still now be prohibited in terms of this amendment?

I think it is better to argue about that in the Committee Stage.

All right, we shall do so. I wanted to get it clear here so that there would be no doubt about it.

Another question I want to raise concerns the provision that, if one single tenant qualifies for rent-controll protection, that can cause the conversion of the whole building to sectional title being blocked. I believe that, although there should be protection, that protection should be a continuation of the protected right of a tenant as a statutory tenant and that it should not be possible for one obstructionist, who does not want to buy, to prevent a building from being converted when everybody else in the building is in favour of it.

We can deal with that.

I think we should deal with that and I want to give notice that we shall do so again in the Committee Stage.

The last point I want to make concerns “reasonable rentals” fixed by the Rent Board. The hon. the Minister said he agreed that rent-controlled premises in a block can often be let at a higher rental than uncontrolled buildings. Surely, one of the key considerations when it comes to fixing rent is that the rental should be “reasonable” in comparison with rentals in similar buildings. Surely to goodness, the most similar comparison is two identical flats in the same building.

I shall explain it to you.

I know what is happening. It is generally felt that the rent boards are not protecting the protected tenants. They are putting their rents up to the extent that one now has uncontrolled flats in the same building being cheaper than the flats which are controlled. That is happening, and I say it is in direct contravention of the spirit of rent determination, the determination of a “reasonable rental”. The first comparison must be with the rental of equivalent premises, and nothing can be more equivalent than two identical flats in the same building. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with that matter too.

I conclude by answering one question that was put to me in regard to our attitude on occupation. I want to say in one sentence that the NRP’s policy is loud and clear. It believes in local option, to be decided by the community who occupy any area and decided at the lowest level of authority in that area, viz. the city council or whatever it may be. But the decision on whether an area should be “open” or “closed”, should rest entirely with the residents of that community’s own area. It must not be dictated from Pretoria and not forcibly made open to integration, as is done by the Government on the one hand and the official Opposition on the other. That is our clear and unequivocal stand, namely the right for people to decide for themselves as a community whether they will be “open” or “closed”.

We support this measure, but we shall probe further in the Committee Stage the points that I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions with regard to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. I think that one can agree with many of the things he said. I certainly think that some of the suggestions that he made previous to this debate were relevant. He says that the essence of the problem is that people are not aware of their rights. This is very true, and if some practical method can be found by means of which people can be made aware of what their rights are, other than through official gazettes, etc., that might be very helpful. However, the problem does not arise because of the factual situation. The major part of the problem that has been under discussion here yesterday and today arises from the fact that the Opposition have come with absolute tirades in the newspapers, not specifically pointing out the particular problems, but with massive smear campaigns dragging the Government’s whole housing policy and its philosophy towards sectional title into it. Therefore if the public were confused before, they are now really well confused. For example, there was the hon. member for Sea Point making statement after statement in the newspapers. Nobody is saying there were no problems. We know there were problems. I myself encountered problems which I took to the hon. the Minister. I can show hon. members my correspondence which began in the middle of last year and which led to meetings between all the NP members in Cape Town and the hon. the Minister. Discussions also took place with the hon. the Minister at the congress of the party in October last year. The hon. the Minister issued Press releases and we have now come to this House with this measure. Sir Alec Issigonis, as hon. members will remember, was the person who designed the Morris Minor and the Mini Minor. He was a brilliant engineer. He said that one never knows, whatever tests one does, what will happen to a motorcar until one gets into the hands of the vicar’s wife. I am afraid that with this kind of legislation also, with all the evidence that one might weigh, it is so complex that no matter what one does, until the legislation is actually put into effect, particularly when one is breaking new ground, one does not know wholly what the effect will be. But the Government monitored the situation carefully and carefully kept its ear to the ground, and as soon as problems emerged it took the swiftest possible action. There will even be people who will say that the Government’s action was too strong, but the fact is that the matter got so out of hand and there has been so much abuse, and abuse which has been given much publicity, that it was necessary and still is necessary that the Government should have taken the strongest possible steps, not only to regularize the position, but to demonstrate to people, people who are vulnerable, people who are fragile, people who need protection, that the Government will, as it always has done in the past, continue to protect them.

The essence of this Bill is very simple to understand. That is, in the first instance, that it simply protects low income tenants. Secondly, it protects a tenant against victimization, as can be seen in the clause dealing with the conversion of rent controlled plots. Thirdly, it protects tenants by prohibiting sale before a register has been opened. It is a simple, but very important and strong measure of protection for those who require that protection. It does go further, however. It even goes beyond the scope of this particular piece of legislation. There is in fact a hidden provision in this Bill. Because of the developing shortage of housing and because of the existing situation of supply and demand, the fact that this legislation will have the effect of delaying the opening of new sectional title registers and will curb the availability of new flat accommodation, it will also lead to delaying development in this particular section of the property industry whilst the building industry, Government agencies and the Government itself will be given the opportunity of providing sufficient housing as is required by the public. It is all very well to be wise after the event. It is all very well to come with slick opinions on what the Government should or should not have done. The fact of the matter is, however, that nobody anticipated the real momentum of the boom in our economy. Nobody anticipated that we would have massive immigration. Nobody anticipated the unstable situation which occurred in Zimbabwe and which caused tens of thousands of immigrants from that country to flock to South Africa. There were also many other factors which contributed to the situation which developed. Nobody anticipated the sharp increase in the price of gold and that interest rates would drop to such an extent as to cause massive pressure on the property market. It is also true that nobody anticipated the enormous liquidity we experienced in our economy. All these things were not predictable. The fact that all these things had this particular impact on the situation surrounding sectional titles legislation also had the deleterious effect of jeopardizing the interests of people who required the protection of the State. As soon as that emerged, however, the Government took the strongest possible steps in order to protect those very people.

If we were really serious about this matter, if we were not sitting here in this House tongue in cheek—and I am referring now to hon. members of the Opposition—I am sure that what a reasonable man would have expected was for hon. members of the Opposition to have said: “Well done. Excellent. We are delighted.” In fact, they are all in agreement with the actions of the hon. the Minister. Again, however, the way in which they grudgingly agreed to this measure was characterized by such a tirade of invective against the Government that even their agreement with this measure was certainly lost on the public.

What did you say last time?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow should not interject or participate any further in this debate. The hon. member for Hillbrow has discredited himself completely as far as his sincerity is concerned in respect of housing matters, even those pertaining to his own constituency. [Interjections.] I shall tell you why I say this, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked me a question, a question which I shall answer. The fact is . . .

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member entitled to allege that another hon. member has entirely discredited himself as far as his sincerity is concerned?

Is that what the hon. member said?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Very well, Sir. I withdraw the statement that he has entirely discredited himself and I say that he has brought his sincerity into question. I say this, Sir, because the hon. member for Durban Point has said in this House . . .

Mr. Speaker, may I request your ruling as to whether the hon. member may say that another hon. member’s sincerity has been brought into question?

Did the hon. member withdraw the remark unconditionally?

The fact that he has entirely discredited himself, yes, Mr. Speaker. I have yet to hear your ruling in regard to the statement I made as to the fact that he is insincere in regard to this matter.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I say this in reply to the hon. member’s question, Sir. I want to reply to him. While that hon. member was in Hillbrow gathering signatures—we read in The Argus that the hon. member had collected 9 400 signatures— against the kind of action that this Government had taken in regard to sectional title, at that very moment, at the height of the crisis, the so-called manufactured crisis, when the hon. member for Sea Point was holding forth from every platform in the city, the hon. member for Hillbrow was in correspondence with the department in an effort in fact to reduce the amount of housing that was available to his own constituents. I say this, Sir, because the hon. member applied on behalf of an owner of a block of flats to remove that block of flats from the normal restrictions that applied to that block of flats so as to permit members of a community alien to the community that existed in his constituency to occupy that block of flats.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

There is correspondence in that regard. [Interjections.] That hon. member said that there were these 80 flats in his constituency, that they were flats that were empty or almost empty, that they were in a very poor condition and that there was no demand for them. This is the man who was collecting signatures because there was a shortage of accommodation for pensioners and vulnerable people developing in his constituency, people who could not afford to pay high rentals. There he was, on a street comer, sitting at his table with the PFP banner collecting signatures for his petition and all the while he was in private correspondence with the department to the effect that there was this block of flats in poor condition and almost empty, that there was no demand for the accommodation, that it was uneconomic, and making an appeal to the department to permit Coloureds and Indians to occupy that block of flats. [Interjections.] This is not a racial debate. The fact remains that the State has a responsibility to all of the communities in this country. It also has a responsibility to the White community in this country. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the departmental inquiry that followed the hon. member’s letter showed firstly, that it was not a block of flats at all; secondly, that it was a rooming house; thirdly, that there were 80 rooms in the house with communal bathrooms; and, fourthly, that far from being empty it was almost fully occupied. All but six of those rooms were occupied.

Three.

All but three of those rooms were occupied and the caretaker informed the department that those three would be occupied within a month or two. I want to say, Sir, that it is common knowledge that when one is dealing with a rooming house with 80 rooms, one is going to have a few of those rooms vacant at any particular point in time.

Why then did the owner ask for it?

Sir, when a member of Parliament makes representations to a department of State I think he could at least do the Minister the courtesy of at least investigating the appeal he is making to see that it is a valid one. The fact remains that what the hon. member did showed that in terms of his own philosophy, in terms of his own morality, he was being untrue to himself and to his own philosophy. I say this because he was discriminating against Black people. He did not ask for Hillbrow to be made an open area. All he said was that because this block of flats was in a poor condition . . .

Order! The hon. member was quite right when he said that this was not a racial debate, and that he was only advancing that point to show the scarcity or availability of flats. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I accept your ruling. From what I have just said it is clear that the hon. member’s private correspondence was at variance with his public stance.

The hon. member misquoted me in the House yesterday. He said that he was quoting from column 1098 when he stated that I had said something, but he quoted me out of context. He told the House that I had said last year in the course of a similar debate that we would normalize the housing situation.

Did you not say that?

Of course I did say that and of course we will. The hon. member, however, does not seem to remember because he certainly did not say that I had spoken in terms of urban renewal. I spoke then of the inner-city areas of South Africa that were crumbling, were collapsing and that we were seeing the final scars of District Six. He should remember that that was the whole issue at the time. I was making an appeal on behalf of my constituency because of the fact that the Sectional Titles Act was a tool which could be very usefully used to subdivide individual houses where they formed part of slum areas. If they were to be divided, there could be private ownership which in turn could arrest the phenomenon of creeping slum conditions. That was the argument which I advanced at the time, but nobody argued with me then. Nobody stood up and said that they did not agree with me. I think if they would refer to Hansard, the hon. members would agree with me.

I also referred to the fact that 80% of the people in a part of my constituency were not homeowners, not because they did not want to be homeowners, but because an individual person, if of limited means, could not buy a whole terrace of houses, but he might be able to afford one. I also said that the landlords of Maitland were not in Maitland; they were sitting in the constituency of the hon. member for Sea Point. By a policy of laissez-faire they were just allowing those areas to become extremely depressed. I said that we could not allow that anymore.

The hon. members opposite, because of the way in which they presented their criticism of the Government in respect of the Sectional Titles Act, have in fact created such uncertainty about the whole question of sectional titles, did the country a disservice. I do not know whether those gentlemen hate our country or whether they are just trying to be clever. I really do not know what it is, but they also seem to enlarge these things out of all proportion.

There are many genuine cases of people who have even operated illegally in terms of the amendment that we now have before us, but because they have been genuine, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to be lenient in those cases after they have been carefully weighed. I want to give one example of what I have in mind. Garden Cities—I quote the name of the company because it is a well-known utility company, a non-profit making company—has older blocks of flats in a very good condition in its possession. The philosophy of that kind of company is to provide housing for individual people at the lowest possible cost and to subsidize rental payments and interest if necessary. As far as I know, that company, for example, has sold individual flats only to individuals who have been occupying the flats concerned for a long time. The flats were sold to them at a low price and with subsidized rates of interest in order to make it possible for those people to become home-owners. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that in that kind of case he should interpret the legislation most leniently so that that kind of sale can proceed.

In conclusion I should like to point out that the hon. member for Hillbrow said in the debate—I quote from his unrevised Hansard and I hope he will forgive me for that—where he quoted me on this whole question of normalizing the whole situation—

He then drew attention to the coming election. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow this afternoon that the people of Maitland are very anxious to contest an election. We cannot wait for the hon. member’s party to come and contest that constituency.

The people of Maitland do not read about Government action in Opposition propaganda sheets, or even in the usual newspapers. They know what the situation is. They know that the State has either spent or allocated R1,2 million for the upgrading of houses in their constituency. They know that new hot-water cylinders have been installed in all the houses where it was needed. They know that all the houses in the constituency that were in need of re-roofing had been reroofed and rewired. They know that a home for the aged in the area is going to be erected. They also know that the largest grant made by the Department of Sport last year was for their constituency, in order to provide playing fields for the people of Sanddrift. They know that the hon. the Minister has proclaimed Maitland as an area in need of rehabilitation, and that urgent steps have been taken to upgrade the area. They know that the Minister of Transport Affairs intends building a new station and upgrading another. They know what has happened in regard to schools and also what has happened concerning the conservation front at Rietvlei.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is relevant to the question before the House whether the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has produced a new station?

Order! I do allow some latitude with regard to housing and related matters, but hon. members must not take advantage of that leniency.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make the hon. member for Groote Schuur unhappy on his birthday and will therefore not pursue the matter any further.

I support the measure before the House because I think it is sensible. In my view there has been abuse and we must make every effort to call a halt to it. But in the final analysis it is very necessary that we must build more houses for those people who are in need of housing in or adjacent to the areas where they have always lived.

With these few remarks I support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister will understand why I was not in the House yesterday to listen to his introductory speech and on behalf of the official Opposition to offer him our congratulations on his appointment. I want to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for the effective way in which he congratulated the hon. the Minister on his appointment and dealt with his speech. May I say to the hon. the Minister that he no doubt is aware of the fact that he is in charge of a very sensitive portfolio, one in which the interest of people should dominate over party politics or party ideology. I must also say to the hon. the Minister that he has, in fact, started well. He has shown that he is prepared to learn. What is more, he has shown that he is prepared to learn from the Opposition, inter alia, that the Government is often wrong. And he knows that the Government was disastrously wrong in its handling of the phasing out of rent control and in allowing the eviction clause to be passed last year. He knows it. What I want to tell the hon. the Minister is that he should keep on that track, keep listening to the Opposition and re-examine Government policy and he might, in fact, end up being the most distinguished Minister of Community Development. The hon. member for Maitland made a fascinating speech. Part of that speech was a direct repudiation of his Minister. He says that the reason for the turn-about was all the agitation. It was the agitation by the Opposition, he said, that caused the Government to reverse its policy. [Interjections.] That is what he said. He said it was the agitation from the Opposition. That is, of course, a reflection on the hon. the Minister, because what did the hon. the Minister say? Soon after the hon. the Minister took office he said in a statement on 21 November—

And he is correct. I quote further—

He says it happens on a large scale. That hon. member’s best contribution to the debate, however, is to say it was because of the agitation of the Opposition, whilst the hon. the Minister says the opposition was because of a large scale abuse and victimization. So the hon. the Minister’s own statement confirms what we told him. In fact, it is a repudiation of the hon. member for Maitland.

It is a pity, in a sense, that this hon. Minister personally has to bear the brunt of some of the comments that we have to make about this Bill. Nevertheless this Government has to learn a general lesson, as this hon. Minister, and ail the hon. members opposite, supported the eviction clause last year. Consequently, they are all responsible, every one of them, not just the ambassador to the Court of St. James. It is fine to sweep him under the British carpet or to get rid of him under the Union Jack, but those people are still sitting there and they were responsible for what happened.

What are you people saying now?

The hon. member asked how one could have foreseen this, indicating that the Government was overwhelmed by a new set of circumstances. Of course the Government should have foreseen this. In the report of the Fouche Commission of 1977, I think, the scale of the problem is indicated by the fact that there were 170 000 rent-controlled flat units in South Africa. The Fouché Commission says that approximately 70% of those families— to be exact, 119 000 families—lost their sense of security, and whether they were evicted or not, they nevertheless had to endure the sense of insecurity because the protection that was there before was taken away from them. So that hon. member should have realized that 119 000 families would be affected.

Secondly, the Fouché Commission states on page 83—

So the Fouché Commission said it: Of the 119 000 cases, the cheaper and older apartments are occupied by old people of scant means. The Government ought to have realized that this was the category of people that was going to be affected.

It is not a case of the Opposition being wise after the event. If the hon. the Minister reads through the files he will know that in October, 1979—i.e. before the amending legislation last year—I wrote to his predecessor—

Remember, this was in 1979—not last year, but the year before—

This was a warning long before last year. I now quote from another conciliatory letter from the former hon. Minister—

That letter was written to me on the same day that he did a deal with Sapoa and said that he was going to get rid of the eviction clause. The Government should have known the position from the statistics and reports of its department. It was advised well in advance by the Opposition and by other people who had their finger on the pulse of the housing market that this was going to be a growing problem. The hon. the Minister has come along with some kind of rescue operation. I do not want to be churlish about it. I think there are many people who will be grateful to him, even at this stage, for having embarked on this rescue operation. It was necessary. Thousands and thousands of tenants, and I say this advisedly, have been living in a state of insecurity. The property market has become overheated with an effect both on the price structure for the purchase of property and on the rental price structure. As other speakers on this side of the House have said, nothing that the hon. the Minister does now can undo the months of uncertainty, insecurity and hardship which many older, less affluent people in the cities of South Africa have had to endure.

We agree with the main thrust of this legislation but we have to read it very carefully to see how it is going to be applied. We have to read it against the background of the statements and the assurances the hon. the Minister has given us. He made a statement on 21 November and I think a further statement on approximately 5 December. The first point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is that he made his statement on 21 November. But right from the start there were certain unsatisfactory features in that statement. In essence he said that no schemes could be registered in future if rent control applied and that there could be no selling unless they were registered. That was the essence of what he said he was going to do by way of legislation. But what he failed to do, was to indicate the date from which this particular legislation would come into effect. There still is no date. But three months ago, on 21 November, he said: “I am going to put a stop to all this as soon as I can introduce legislation in Parliament.” But he did not say as from that date. We warned him and said we believed that the effect of this would be that a large number of people would try to jump the gun; that in fact, there was going to be even greater pressure to sell and greater pressure to push schemes through. The hon. the Minister might shake his head now, but he must go back to his statement of 5 December 1980. There he said—

So he admits this. He says: “Yes, this is happening.” I want the hon. the Minister to tell us, either today if he can or in the Committee Stage, how many sectional title schemes, properties which are rent controlled or partially rent controlled, have in fact been registered since 21 November. How many schemes have gone through since this warning the hon. the Minister gave? In an interview with one of the newspapers, the Director-General said: “It may have to be made retrospective if people jump the gun.” We want to know from the hon. the Minister how many schemes which would otherwise have been blocked by this legislation have in fact been approved by the Government since the hon. the Minister’s warning on 21 November. He says it has come to his attention that many people are jumping the gun. We now want to know: As a result of his not giving a date, how many people have in fact jumped the gun? All I can say is that there was tremendous pressure brought to bear on people to buy the moment the hon. the Minister made that statement and before the legislation was made public.

A further problem has been created as a result of the change in its attitude and policy by the Government. We asked the hon. the Minister once again—he referred to it in his statement of 21 November—what would happen to people who in all good faith prior to 21 November last year—which was when he gave his warning—had purchased units under the Sectional Titles Act believing that as a consequence of the amendment of the Sectional Titles Act last year they would be able to obtain occupation on 1 April this year? What of those people? How many people are involved here? What is he going to do? He said—

But there is no way in which he can resolve the problems of those people. I want to know what is going to happen to people who purchased flats in good faith and in terms of Government legislation, who sold their other properties and were making arrangements to move in and who now find that in terms of this legislation they are not going to be able to fulfil the contract and they are not going to be able to get possession of their particular apartments.

Then I want to come to the issue of retrospectivity. This was also raised by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Hillbrow. It involves a kind of “yes or no” situation. Is it retrospective or is it not? We had a Mr. Gershater of Sapoa saying that in fact it is retrospective.

I told him the day before that it was not so.

I am raising this point because this is what was said over the television and the radio after Sapoa’s meeting with the Minister. Did the hon. the Minister not have a meeting with Sapoa on Monday? Is the hon. the Minister saying that at the meeting on Monday he created an impression so wrong or so different that within a day the spokesmen of Sapoa, having had a meeting with the Minister, could say they believed that this was retrospective? The hon. the Minister must be very careful. We want a categorical statement without reference to any reservations the Minister might have . . .

But you can read it in the Bill.

Sir, quite obviously Sapoa and the Minister do not interpret the legislation in the same way. The hon. the Minister must know that it is on his head. It is his legislation. He is introducing it. We want a categorical statement on whether or not this is retrospective.

I want for the moment to put a case to the hon. the Minister on the basis that it is not retrospective, on the basis that deals that are closed before this legislation comes into force will not be declared null and void, that the people concerned will not be penalized and that this will only apply to deals and sales that take place after the legislation comes into effect. I want to argue and ask questions on this basis. What about people who have already started purchasing flats on an instalment basis and who now find that these schemes are going to be stopped as a result of this legislation? There are many schemes like that. Many people have paid their deposits and are now starting to pay for their apartments on a monthly basis or otherwise. What happens when the apartments concerned cannot be registered because they are either partly or wholly rent-controlled? What happens in those circumstances? Do the deeds of sale hold good and will those people be advised to continue paying instalments on a scheme which in terms of this legislation will never see the light of day? If they have started with the process of purchasing those apartments, must they continue to pay or will they in fact be prevented from paying and will the scheme fall away if it has not been registered? It would be very strange indeed if in fact they were required to pay for a scheme which in terms of this legislation can never be registered. On the other hand, they have a contract with someone else to continue paying. What is the contractual obligation of the person who has already paid his deposit and who is committed to paying on a scheme which in terms of this law will never be registered?

It is spelt out in the legislation. You arrived late this morning and did not read it.

The legislation sets out in great detail what the respective rights of the purchaser and the seller are in respect of a scheme which is null and void because it was entered into after the legislation came into effect. I am, however, not talking about those. I am talking about people who get a letter stating: “It is our intention to apply to open a register. We give you the option to purchase. Will you please give us your 10% and pay instalments. Then, when the scheme goes through, you will be allowed to take possession of the flat.” Now those schemes are never going to go through. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the obligations of the purchaser will be in such a case. Will he be stopped from continuing to pay his instalments and, if he does stop, what are his rights in respect of any future scheme? If such schemes are cancelled as a result of this legislation and the owner gets a new scheme through in due course, has the original purchaser any rights in respect of the new scheme? How is one going to deal with schemes in which the process of payment has commenced but which, because of legislation, can never be brought to fruition? The hon. the Minister must not say: “There may perhaps be one or two cases.” I want to tell him now, so that he cannot say that he did not know about it, that there are going to be many, many cases where this applies, cases of schemes in which the selling part has commenced but which are never going to reach fruition. What we want to know is what are the rights in those circumstances of the person who has commenced to purchase or the person who has started to sell?

What this Bill does once again is that it links the registration or non-registration of sectional title schemes with the question of rent control. This is the first time that it has done that. Before that there was no link between the registration of schemes and rent control. The hon. the Minister has now introduced rent control as a factor in so far as the registration of schemes is concerned. It is quite clear that buildings that were first occupied before 21 October 1949 are rent controlled, all the tenants are protected and the only way that those flats can be decontrolled is by coming to this House and changing the law. Therefore, until this House changes the law there is a degree of certainty for those people because the hon. the Minister has not said how long it is going to take him before he amends the law. However, he has managed to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to call an election so that he does not have to change the law in May this year. Therefore, to that extent for those people there is security. However, there is another category of buildings. There are those buildings that were under rent control, they were occupied between October 1949 and December 1966; they have been decontrolled although within them certain of the units remain controlled only because at the time they were decontrolled tenants were living in them who qualified for assistance under the Housing Act. Those same tenants still five in those particular units and those same tenants continue to qualify for assistance. In those cases rent control will continue.

The hon. the Minister has said—he has also nodded his agreement across the floor of the House—that in those circumstances he does not want a small number of tenants necessarily blocking a whole scheme. That is fine; that is an intention. We believe that the hon. the Minister must declare publicly how he is going to deal with this matter because, as I see it, the only way that he can deal with this matter is to decontrol those premises even before the scheme is put to the city council for approval. The scheme cannot go to the city council for approval unless the premises have been decontrolled. Therefore, the hon. the Minister has to decontrol them before he even knows if the sectional title scheme is going to be accepted. That is the only way I can see it. The hon. the Minister will tell me that he is going to have to decontrol them, but he is going to have to decontrol them before there is an approved scheme because, unless he has decontrolled them, they cannot be submitted for approval of registration.

What is wrong with that?

Is the hon. the Minister therefore saying that he is going to decontrol certain units which are rent controlled before any scheme has been submitted for approval? Secondly, I want to know from the hon. the Minister in what circumstances he will decontrol. When will he decontrol and when will he not? Will he say: “No, but he is a good friend of the National Party”? He will not do so. In what circumstances will he do so? What are going to be the grounds for the hon. the Minister when he decides whether a flat unit has to be decontrolled or not? What are the circumstances?

Thirdly, we want to know if he does decontrol and he has defined the circumstances, what conditions will he impose? The situation becomes very difficult if he is going to decontrol. Let us assume that there is an elderly, non-affluent tenant in that unit who qualifies for assistance under the Housing Act. Once the protection of Rent control has been taken away a statutory right has been taken away. It can only be replaced by a contractual right, a contractual obligation as between the landlord and the tenant. I want to know, if the hon. the Minister takes away rent control in order to allow the registration of a whole block, in what way is he going to see that the residual tenant is protected? How is he going to ensure that the civil right that he has given that person in terms of civil and contract law is as effective as being able to go to the Rent Board and having this matter dealt with at the expense of the State? We want to know how the hon. the Minister is going to deal with that small residue of people whom he says he does not want to have holding up a scheme.

Will the hon. member not table an amendment?

We now find that we have a wise Minister and we want to see how he is going to deal with it. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the Minister to embody in draft legislation the formal undertaking that he has made. He made a statement on 12 December and he said that he was going to deal with this in a sympathetic way.

I am going to. You will get your answer.

When it comes to the question of peoples’ rights it cannot be done on the basis of: “Well, we have an attunement for this particular matter.” It must be in terms of a clearly defined code of behaviour.

I want to make a final point. This is perhaps one of the most important points. It deals with the question of the right to evict tenants under the Sectional Titles Act. From the time the Sectional Titles Act was introduced in 1971 until last year the position was that rent-controlled tenants could not be evicted in terms of the Sectional Titles Act. That was an absolute barrier, and anyone who bought a sectional title unit actually bought it on that understanding and in that knowledge. Until that stage there was an absolute ban on evictions under the Sectional Title Act as far as rent-controlled premises were concerned.

Last year, by a majority vote in this House, the Act was changed and that provision was repealed making it possible for people to be evicted from 1 April 1981. That meant that people could be evicted but that they had a stay of execution until 1 April 1981. What does the hon. the Minister do now? One can still evict people in terms of the Sectional Titles Act. In terms of the principle contained in this amending Bill it will still be possible for them to be evicted. All that has not been set now is the date. It now says “from a date to be determined by the State President”. What does this mean in terms of peoples’ basic rights of occupation? Does it mean that it depends on when the Minister decides or a new Minister decides? If we do in fact want to repeal this particular provision I believe we must do so. I do not believe that the question of the right to occupy one’s home should depend on the whim of a Cabinet Minister. The right to occupy one’s home, one’s right in terms of the occupation of property should be written very, very clearly into the law. It is not good enough merely to say that there will be a time when eviction will be allowed but that one will have to wait until a Cabinet Minister says it is lawful to evict. We believe the hon. the Minister should reconsider this once again.

I believe it is the intention of hon. members on this side of the House to move an amendment tomorrow in which they will seek to revert to the situation which existed in April 1980, when it was not possible to evict. We think it is quite wrong to threaten the security of thousands upon thousands of people in the property field in this particular way. Once again I stress that more particularly older and less affluent people should not, I believe, have their security of tenure rest on the discretion or the whim of a Cabinet Minister. Their security of tenure should be very clearly written into the law.

The hon. the Minister now says: “Yes, but the people can trust me. I am a sensible Minister”. [Interjections.] I believe the people of South Africa did trust the predecessor of the hon. the Minister until last year. What did he do? In spite of undertaking upon undertaking inside and outside of this House that people who deserved protection under the Housing Act would continue to have protection, he in fact went back on the assurances given to the public. If the hon. the Minister wants to re-establish what we believe is a healthy thing, an atmosphere of trust and reassurance between the public and the Government, he should go further than this particular amendment. He must not say that he is the one who will decide when evictions are going to begin. He must say that it is wrong in principle. As long as we have this situation of rent control and as long as we have a Sectional Titles Act we must continue, as we started with rent control, to maintain a barrier on the eviction of people who are entitled to protection under rent control legislation.

We welcome the degree of security which is given to tenants in terms of this legislation. We are concerned about the new uncertainties which the hon. the Minister has imported into the whole question of contracts—the lapsing of contracts and contracts being made null and void. We still remain very, very concerned about all this. Therefore we urge the hon. the Minister not to come back to this House in a year’s time and admit that the Government was wrong twice in two years. He should come back tomorrow and say to the people of South Africa that as long as they deserve protection in terms of rent control legislation so long will it be guaranteed that they will not be evicted in terms of the Sectional Titles Act.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point has just said, inter alia, that the hon. the Minister learnt a great deal from the Opposition. I shall refer to that in a moment. On the other hand, however, I think that we should not forget that this legislation is following the course taken by most of the legislation we pass in this House. As example we need only examine the Order Paper for today. There we see that the four Bills, of which the First Reading has been disposed of today, are all amending Bills. Of the 12 Bills on the Order Paper nine are amending Bills.

What is the point?

The hon. member for Durban Central should really just exercize a little patience. He made a long speech yesterday. I did not keep on asking him what the point was. He must wait until I arrive at my conclusion. [Interjections.]

It has been my experience with every piece of legislation that laws have to undergo certain changes after a certain period—call it a trial period if you like. This is exactly what is happening in this case as well. That is why the heavens have not fallen because this particular Amendment Bill is being dealt with here today.

The hon. member for Sea Point also referred to the warnings issued by him in 1979, viz. that shortages would arise and that people would end up without any accommodation. That is true. He did issue those warnings. At that stage, however, his warnings were irrelevant since there was no backlog in the provision of housing for Whites. I shall quote the figures in that regard in a moment. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a moment. I shall come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow at a later stage. I shall reply to him in a moment. Then I shall also quote the figures in question. At that stage there was a surplus of White housing and that is why it is understandable that the Government did not heed his warning. Only during the second half of 1980 did the problem present itself to the extent to which it exists at the moment, and then positive action was taken. I shall come back to this matter again.

The hon. member also discussed the question as to whether this legislation should be with retrospective effect. It is not stated anywhere in the legislation that it is to be with retrospective effect. As far back as December last year, according to a report in Die Burger of 4 December, the hon. the Minister said the following—

This was the statement by the hon. Minister and since he was referring here to indisputable evidence of abuses, all complaints submitted to the department have to the best of my knowledge at this stage been investigated, and it was possible to prove abuses in only a very small number of cases. Consequently the Minister had no reason to make this legislation with retrospective effect.

The fact that it is not retroactive highlights one problem and that is that in many cases many people used their savings in good faith to purchase flats, under the sword of the abolition of section 39, with the purpose of occupying those flats themselves. Since this provision has now been postponed at the State President’s discretion, some of those people will probably end up in financial difficulties and lose financially because the legislation is being postponed. That is why I believe that the hon. the Minister will have to examine heartbreak cases in this regard and I am sure that he will do so.

In this legislation?

No, it is not incorporated in this legislation but I understand that there are regulations and proclamations in terms of other legislation enabling him to consider heartbreak cases in this regard.

The hon. member for Sea Point also raised the question of security of occupation. It is true that this has also become a problem and in this I am in full agreement with him. At the moment I think there are problems in ensuring greater security of occupation for lessees. I have had discussions with the hon. the Minister and the department in this regard and today I merely want to express the hope that we shall at some stage be in a position to make provision for measures in terms of which a lessee who is prepared to pay the required rent will be able to enjoy greater security of occupation. At the moment these people are to a large extent defenceless.

A great deal has been said about this legislation before us at the moment. A great deal of emotion has been stirred up in respect of it. The Opposition has used it as an excuse for election propaganda but I am not angry at them for doing that. It is the Opposition’s privilege to exploit such a situation. However, although they are condemning the exploitation of measures in connection with housing, one would have expected them to refrain from exploiting an undesirable situation for party political gain. But the good expectations of this side of the House have been disappointed by their conduct just as they were in connection with the two measures involved in this legislation, by people who used the opportunity to benefit themselves at the expense of the comfort, security and even the means of others.

If we take the motion out of this debate we see that there are two laws involved in this legislation before us. The first is the phasing out of rent control and the second, the Sectional Titles Act which seeks to give an owner the right of occupation of his own flat in approximately two months’ time. Please note, Sir, that I believe this idea is being lost somewhat in this debate—i.e. that that right does not exist yet. It will be effective only as from 1 April, i.e. in two months’ time. Both laws to which I have referred are in my opinion sound laws. Their principles are sound Housing for the person who is able to afford it ought to be provided on a supply and demand basis and not with protection by the State in the form of rent control. This is the principle and I still believe in it.

Similarly it is a sound principle that an owner is to be allowed to live in his own property without the Act prohibiting it. I still think so. Both are sound laws in the same sense as petrol and matches are both wonderful inventions, but if the two are applied simultaneously in an uncontrolled way, only a catastrophe can follow. I do not believe we have a catastrophe as far as housing is concerned, but the simultaneous implementation of these two laws—the one is still really only being envisaged—definitely creates problems which require urgent attention.

It is true—I have already admitted this— that the Opposition did issue a warning and that we disregarded that warning. We did so because we believe in the fundamental good faith of all people. We were not evil-minded enough; but the Opposition was. Perhaps they live closer to the underworld than we on this side of the House do, or perhaps I should say that they have had more experience of it so that they were able to predict events.

Just say we are more intelligent.

We on this side were really unable to predict this situation. However, when their reservations later proved to be correct, the hon. the Minister was approached by various MPs on this side as the hon. member for Bellville pointed out yesterday. That is why, as long ago as the second half of last year, the hon. the Minister issued a statement in which the measures which are now being incorporated in this legislation were envisaged. To a large extent this calmed the turmoil which arose as a result of the situation.

Perhaps I should quote what the hon. the Minister envisaged in December last year, for it coincides exactly with what is incorporated in the legislation. He said—

Everyone involved was thus warned in good time that legislation to this effect would be introduced. Consequently the hon. the Minister acted as rapidly as possible after malpractices had been proven. This is the factual situation.

However, the hon. member for Hillbrow asked yesterday whether the legislation would have been introduced if an election had not been announced. I believe that this is an insinuation which is not worthy even of the official Opposition. Surely the facts I have now quoted refute the suggestion or insinuation in that allegation.

It was not an insinuation; it was a straight question.

The hon. member referred to waiting lists for economic and subeconomic housing. A year ago there was no shortage of White housing. At that stage it was pointed out in this House that there were vacant units in Epping Gardens, in Parow and in Hillbrow which had been vacant for a considerable period of time. In fact, I think that something like 10 000 units were vacant in Johannesburg at that stage.

10 000? No, never! How do you come by that figure?

The hon. member can prove the contrary.

In the Cape Town municipal area there are at present 264 applications which are less than a year old. Only 44 are more than one year old. Surely this proves the point I have made. At the same time, however, the Cape Town municipality has 51 units which are vacant and have been for a considerable time now. This indicates that people do not simply accept any dwelling unit; they have certain preferences as well. That is why one cannot in my opinion concentrate exclusively on the figures on waiting lists. The Bellville municipality has 85 applications which are less than one year old. The figure for Parow is interesting. There are 190 applications which are less than a year old, but 127 of them do not qualify for subeconomic or economic housing. Consequently it is really only a small number who qualify. In Johannesburg—as far as I know—there are 671 applications which are less than a year old, whereas only two are older than a year and only seven older than two years. The waiting lists to which the hon. member referred do exist, but these lists are still new and this emphasizes the fact that this is not a situation which could have been predicted over a long period. In fact, it arose only during the second half of last year.

They were applications for economic housing.

To the local authorities?

Yes.

Why would anyone who is not applying for economic or subeconomic housing register it with the municipality?

Oh, please.

Therefore the hon. the Minister was quite right when he said that the shortages that did exist had only arisen recently, inter alia as a result of a very high immigration figure, viz. approximately 10 000 in the first 10 months of last year.

But the hon. member went further and also held out to us the situation in the USA. They have rent control there and he held out that country as Utopia to us. But I want to quote from a report which appeared in The Star of 21 March 1980. It read—

Consequently I find it rather strange that the hon. member—and I am sure he knows about this side of the matter as far as the USA’s rent control situation is concerned as well—presented only the bright side of the picture and pretended that that country was an Utopia. Other countries have exactly the same problems as we do.

The hon. member for Durban Central also intimated that the hon. the Minister had ulterior motives for postponing the date on which section 3 of the Act is to take effect. He asked how long after the election the State President would give the green light for the Act to be implemented. I am almost certain that the hon. member for Sea Point spoke in the same vein as well. This is another untenable insinuation, one in which the State President is also being implicated. The hon. the Minister stated emphatically during the no-confidence debate that we were dealing with an abnormal situation and that as soon as circumstances had returned to normal in the building industry, we would proceed with the legislation. I cannot imagine the hon. the Minister being able to say more at this stage. After all he does not have complete control over when such a situation can be terminated, and consequently I think that he gave quite a reasonable reply.

The hon. member for Green Point—I am sorry that he is not here at present—referred yesterday to a mess which had arisen after the Government had amended section 39 in 1980. Those were his words and not mine. What kind of intemperate language is that? The amendment to section 39 would in any event only have come into effect on 1 April, and how could it have caused a mess at this early stage? His speech, with that formula, honestly reminded me of many of the newspaper reports we have seen with banner headlines, but with nothing of substance in the report itself. It is a privilege for me …

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

The hon. member may ask a question in a moment. It is a privilege for me to support this legislation. I should like to make one final remark. I think that the amendment which the hon. member for Pretoria West placed on the Order Paper to ensure the payment of compensation to the buyer was a very sound one. I believe that it is a sound proposal and that it would be unfair to afford protection to the seller alone and not to make it available to the buyer as well. Now the hon. member may put his question.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to what date the figures refer which he has given in respect of Johannesburg?

Mr. Speaker, these are figures obtained from the department and I believe they are available to him as well.

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member dispute that as at 30 September last year …

Does that arise from your question?

Yes. … there were 294 applications from persons waiting for economic housing in Johannesburg, 13 applications for assisted housing and 112 applications for housing for the aged? Can the hon. member dispute that that was the situation?

Mr. Speaker, the figures I furnished are the best I am able to obtain, and I cannot conduct a debate on them. I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the comments made in the debate, I wish to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow and other hon. members who congratulated me on my appointment as Minister. Let me say that I appreciate their kind remarks.

*I also just wish to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members on my side of the House for their participation in the debate. In the nature of the matter I am not going to give so much attention to each of them, but that is not an indication that their contributions are not appreciated. On the contrary, it was their duty to challenge every Opposition speaker, man for man, and to deal with him. Indeed, that is what they did, and thoroughly too. Nevertheless, in the course of my reply I shall also touch on matters raised by hon. members on my side of the House and I wish here and now to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West, the hon. member for Bellville, the hon. member for Walmer, the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for False Bay for their support, and compliment them on the study they have made of the legislation. In the nature of the matter there are complicated technical points of law in certain clauses, but these hon. members made a thorough study of them and obtained expert advice on them. They did not simply come along here and asked all kinds of questions which they themselves could have answered if they had only made a study of the legislation. It is of course the Opposition’s privilege to ask questions.

[Inaudible.]

Indeed, there were so many that in the nature of things I shall not be able to reply to all of them now and will have to furnish a collective answer to some of them. However, if I do not reply to certain questions, hon. members must not take it amiss of me. I may well have an opportunity later, during the later stages, to furnish more specific replies, because this legislation is in fact Committee Stage legislation. After all, this legislation enjoys the general support of all of us, and here I should like to thank the parties on both sides of the House for in fact supporting the Second Reading of the legislation. It is only a pity that this was accompanied by such a wailing and a gnashing of teeth. I do not know whether I would have the heart to support legislation with so much melancholy and sighing as hon. members opposite are apparently compelled to do because it is such an outstanding piece of legislation.

†I think I should take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Walmer on his maiden speech as a member of the NP. It was an excellent maiden speech from this side of the House. [Interjections.] He dealt very effectively with the arguments raised by members of the Opposition, especially when he crossed swords with the hon. member for Hillbrow. [Interjections.] The hon. member suggested the establishment of a property board. I like the idea, and the suggestion will have the necessary consideration.

*Throughout the debate since yesterday we have had the same old arguments as those dished up during the no-confidence debate by the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Durban Central. It is the same old story of sectional titles and rent control. I hope that after we have had the opportunity to iron out these matters fully here and furnish the necessary answers, we shall be done with these two aspects. I do not think it can be expected of me to cover the entire field again today. Accordingly I shall concern myself almost entirely with follow-up work with regard to aspects concerning which it seems to me that certain hon. members have difficulty understanding some of these provisions.

I do think it is necessary for the sake of the record to rectify certain facts so that everyone can know what is really at issue. Neither I nor other hon. members on my side wish to try and deny that hon. members of the Opposition objected very strongly last year when the former Minister of Justice, under whose control the legislation fell at the time, came forward with the amendment in question. It is a fact and it appears in Hansard that they objected very strongly, but now hon. members persist in maintaining that the Minister in question was obstinate at that stage and did not want to listen to the Opposition. At the same time they are attempting to create the impression that we on this side, myself in particular, are doing these things due to the good advice I have had from them. What sense does that make? The fact is that hon. members on this side, like hon. members opposite, had reservations last year about what would happen in a changing climate. But we do not fight and iron out our disputes in this House. Surely hon. members know that. I am not revealing a caucus secret now. If hon. members on this side differ with Ministers concerning legislation which has to be introduced, the necessary channels exist through which they can state their standpoints. That is in fact what happened. As a result of this, and also, of course, due to the fact that the Minister in question was an accommodating Minister who was willing to help where he could and was also very open to arguments from the hon. Opposition, the then Minister came to this House and said: “I am convinced that we must do something.” He himself then came forward with an amendment in terms of which the operation of the clause in question was postponed for a year. What could be more fair? What could be more fair than to afford everyone concerned with sectional titles, a year of grace to put their affairs in order, and to afford the Government the opportunity to assess the changing climate? Here I agree with the statement by the hon. member for False Bay that we were perhaps a little more naive than hon. members opposite. We believed what the then hon. Minister said in this bench.

On our proposal!

Once again the hon. member does not know what I am talking about. He should close his mouth and open his ears a little more. Last year the hon. the Minister said here that he did not believe that large-scale conversion into sectional title flats of the older type of flat, those to which reference is made in the report of the Fouché Commission and in the extract from the report just quoted by the hon. member for Sea Point, would continue. These are the very flats in which the less well-off and the pensioners live. This shows that the situation is not as bad as hon. members opposite argued. Unfortunately it is true that due to the fact that the situation is open to exploitation, it was that very type of flat which the speculators descended on, as the hon. member for Durban Point showed here. There were profits to be made. Those flats were built relatively cheaply and were sold three, four or five times without anything being done to them, not even a coat of paint. They were sold at a high speculative price, and those relatively cheap dwelling units are today, as the hon. member for Green Point rightly said, expensive units. Whether hon. members opposite were more aware of the methods of these exploiters than hon. members on this side is immaterial. The fact is that we accepted the good faith of the developers. The Sectional Titles Act has not been on the Statute Book since yesterday, or since last year when we discussed it here. The Act has been on the Statute Book for 10 years. During these 10 years hundreds of transactions have been registered in terms of the Act.

But that was under rent control.

It was done in a perfectly orderly way.

Before last year a tenant could not be evicted.

To this day a tenant cannot be evicted. The amendment has never been in force. That is the point I want to make. The fact is that during the discussion of the former Minister’s Vote even I stood up and said that in view of the changing housing situation a tendency could be observed for people to begin to convert the old type of flat into sectional title units on a large scale. It was never the idea that this should be allowed. I said that here, and I emphasized it. I warned that if that tendency were to persist, it would not be tolerated because it would affect people who really need protection. I am not ashamed to admit that we were wrong as far as the developers are concerned, if one could call them developers, because they have done nothing constructive. The people responsible were in fact speculators and reckless agents. At the time the former Minister and I did not reckon with the fact that under the changing circumstances there would be such a stampede by these people. Now I do not know why hon. members continue to harp on this and reproach the former Minister with having been so short-sighted. The fact is—and the hon. member for False Bay said this clearly, and it was also pointed out by the hon. member for Durban Central and other hon. members—that within the past 12 months the housing situation in the country has changed radically. There was a large surplus of housing. Only last year there was a relatively large surplus in Johannesburg. The hon. member for Hillbrow will concede that.

But not a surplus of cheap housing.

There was so much cheap housing available that the kind of thing about which the hon. member for Hillbrow wrote to me, took place. There was such cheap housing available that he told me that Whites did not want to live there and he wanted non-Whites to move in there. At one stage, more than 10 000 flats were standing empty. I have piles of photos here of similar flats. I went to look at the flats. Some of them are situated in the central city area of Johannesburg. They are fine blocks of flats and were available at a relatively low and reasonable rental, a rental which under normal circumstances would be within the reach of the class of people about whom we are speaking today. However, tenants could not be obtained to rent those flats. Accordingly, thousands of non-Whites occupied the flats. Did the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is so concerned about a supposed shortage of White housing on the Witwatersrand, ever raise his voice to condemn the hundreds of people who simply occupied those flats illegally and without authorization, according to the judgment of the court? On the contrary.

Whose responsibility is it to provide houses for them?

It is not a question of providing houses for them. The Government is providing housing for them on a large scale, but that is another story. We are not holding a housing debate now. [Interjections.] You are going to hear more of that story. The fact is that instead of the hon. members from Johannesburg having expressed their concern about the fact that relatively cheap housing for Whites was being taken out of the hands of the Whites, they did everything in their power to support the Black Sash and similar organizations in their effort to put more people into those flats illegally. Is that not so?

Nonsense.

Is that not so? I ask that question of the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Houghton. It is their fault that hundreds of flats are unavailable to the poor Whites in Johannesburg today. That is a reproach that can only be levelled at them. It is due to the actions of the Progs, and their henchmen outside the House. [Interjections.] I did not evict White people from Pageview; no one did so. We are now concerned with White housing, about which the hon. member for Hillbrow is apparently so concerned. The hon. members should put their own house in order before coming here with such wild accusations.

What is the position in Pretoria today?

I am coming to Pretoria. I shall be there in a moment. I hope I do not make such a mess in Pretoria as the hon. member has made in Johannesburg in his own constituency.

Order!

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member cannot argue with me when I say that there is more unlawful occupation in his constituency today than there are Whites waiting for houses. Is that not so?

No, it is not so.

Of course! There are many more, and I can provide the hon. member with figures with regard to relatively cheap flats being occupied unlawfully by non-Whites. There are twice as many as there are Whites waiting for housing in Hillbrow. Those are the facts. [Interjections.] It is that hon. member who is keeping those Whites out of there.

I do not want to deal with his letter again. I think the hon. member for Maitland put that matter in perspective.

The Minister is responsible for that.

I am sure the hon. member does not want me to bring up that scandal again; accordingly I shall drop it for his own sake. The fact is that we should really retain our sense of perspective in this regard. I do not think we can let this Second Reading debate go by with all the accusations that have been made here, for example that such reckless action was taken that many people were affected in the process, people whose hardship we are unable to do anything about today, as the hon. member for Green Point intimated. The amendment of section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act last year was a sincere effort to bring the Sectional Titles Act into line with existing legislation relating to housing. The hon. member for Hillbrow concedes that point to me now. Anyone who buys a house today can give notice to the occupants and occupy his house. Anyone who buys a house today that falls under rent control or is occupied by a protected tenant, viz. a person who falls within the income limit of the Housing Act, whether the tenant is a protected tenant or whether he is protected under rent control, can give that tenant three months notice, and whether it be an old lady or a pensioner or even if he is as poor as a church mouse, when that occupant has had three months notice, he has to leave.

You are arguing against your own legislation.

That is not terribly cruel for hon. members opposite. The fact is that hon. members supported the Rents Act with regard to those provisions. They are therefore jointly responsible for the fact that those provisions are included in the Rents Act. If the occupant is a protected tenant he must be given three month’s notice. That is fair. If the owner wants that house for himself, for his children, or for his immediate family, then he must be able to get it. What is so wrong with that? If under the same circumstances a person has the same right with regard to a flat, why is that so disgusting, hideous, cruel and wrong? [Interjections.] Why is it so only when a flat is involved, but the same set of rules are not cruel and offensive and unacceptable when they apply to a house? This is an anomaly which exists in the legislation and which we cannot tolerate for all eternity. That is why my predecessor removed that anomaly from the legislation last year. After further consideration, however, he decided, due to practical reasons, to delay the date when the Act would come into operation for a year. Now hon. members are making out that as a result of that, people have been so cruelly turned into the street. After all, the Act was never in force.

They were threatened.

They were threatened, yes. They were threatened, but they were not turned into the street as a result of the amendment of the Act. It is true that they were threatened with it. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of giving his reply to the debate.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that they were not turned into the street lawfully in terms of any legal amendment. They were threatened. I concede that that is what happened. It is due to the loopholes in the existing legislation—and that is what hon. members are so quick to disregard— that those things which have occurred over the past few months took place, that the irregular registration of sectional titles could take place. It was not due to the amendment of the law we decided to effect last year. That is what we are doing today by way of this legislation. We are eliminating certain loopholes which permitted the irregularities and exploitation which has taken place in recent times. We are closing those loopholes so that those malpractices cannot continue, so that those specific things can no longer take place. That is why so many people found themselves on the street. It was because people simply told flat dwellers in advance that they had to buy their flat and that if they did not buy it, they would be evicted. That was the threat used against them. It was not illegal to do such a thing. The Act did not prohibit it. Now this is going to be prohibited by legislation. The fact is that flats could be sold to people, that it was possible to collect deposits from them, that all manner of stratagems could be used, without real plans being submitted to the municipality. It will now no longer be possible to do this after the Act has been changed. Previously, however, they could do so legally. Nothing prohibited them from doing so while the Act was still unchanged. They could do anything, anything under the sun, before a sectional title deed was registered at the deeds office and the sectional title register opened. They could do anything under the sun legally.

That is why I say to the hon. member for Durban Central: “I cannot unscramble this egg.” That is impossible. People have done these things. Due to the deficiencies in the existing legislation these practices have taken place. How can we undo them now? This could only be done in one way. That would be by making the legislation under discussion retrospective, as the hon. member for Green Point said he would prefer. I do not know whether he spoke on behalf of his party. However, this is something that would create the greatest chaos imaginable in this country.

I did not say that.

The hon. member did say it.

No, I did not.

Very well then, then the hon. member has come to his senses. [Interjections.] The fact is that if this legislation were to be made retrospective, it would result in total chaos in the entire industry. Well, if we are in agreement on that score then hon. members need not argue with me further. The legislation is not retrospective. What I shall do, however, is to prevent this kind of swindling and malpractice from taking place in future when this legislation comes into force, because I have closed the loopholes. That is my reply to hon. members, and I hope it is very clear.

Sapoa was wrong, then?

Sapoa was wrong, but the fact is that that gentleman granted that interview before he had consulted me. Why do I say this? I say this because we agreed on it.

I heard it this morning over the radio.

Why do I say so, Sir? I do not want any misunderstanding in this connection. The fact is—and my officials were present—Mr. Hugo, who was the spokesman for Sapoa at that discussion specifically said that they would make no statement concerning this matter. This means that if he did in fact do so, then he did so after he had left there and changed his mind. Moreover, Mr. Hugo asked me two or three times: “Is the legislation retrospective?” Indeed, we replied to him two or three times in English and in Afrikaans, and accordingly I must say that if that man subsequently spread that kind of story, then I have no medicine for him either. The fact is—I must admit it—that this proposed alteration of section 39(1) was conveniently used by the reckless swindlers to victimize and threaten people.

I think I must now provide a few more specific answers. Hon. members asked me about the older flats. I think I have now given them the answer that it was never our intention that the older flats, specifically, would be descended on. Ultimately, however, they became the target of the people who bought up the flats for purposes of speculation for private gain. I shall also pass over this part of the letter which the hon. member wrote to me. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow, as chief spokesman of the official Opposition, put four specific questions to me and I now wish to reply to those questions. The first question he put to me—and this is also a point raised by the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Durban Central—is whether I now wish to amend the Act so that the date on which section 39(1) comes into operation will be the date when the State President issues a proclamation to that effect. He said that this would be a sword hanging over these people’s heads and that I should give these people more stability. All I can say in this connection—I have already made the point in this connection—is that this situation cannot continue for ever. It is an interference in the free market system. However I admit that in present circumstances we are compelled to accept this situation as such and to wait until things become more normal after this tremendous stampede of exploitation has taken place. I want to say to hon. members that they will simply have to accept that the people affected by this section are protected as long as rent control continues. That is a specific and clear reply to the hon. member for Sea Point.

Will the hon. the Minister accept an amendment in this connection?

We can discuss possible amendments in the Committee Stage. The hon. member can place his amendment in that regard on the Order Paper. The fact is that it is clearly stated in the Act that those people affected by rent control will enjoy the protection of the legislation. As long as rent control continues, these people will enjoy protection, unless of course I advise the State President at some stage to rescind this provision and issue a proclamation enabling people to be given notice. At the moment, however, it is finked to rent control and to protected tenants. I cannot phase out rent control further before coming to Parliament and obtaining the permission of Parliament. Is that not so?

It has to do with the proclamation, even though there is rent control.

That is correct.

Then there is still protection.

But I am saying that I link this protection to rent control and to protected tenants. If rent control lapses, then it would of course be unwise to carry on with this provision.

That is what the old provision said. If rent control exists, people cannot be evicted.

But surely we are now back with the old provision, except that there is now a provision which enables me to advise the State President, whereas formerly it would have had to be done by way of legislation. That is the difference. My personal policy in that regard is that I link the protection enjoyed by people under the sectional title legislation to protected tenants and people under rent control. That is the answer to the hon. members. They must accept that as long as rent control exists, this protection will exist.

I cannot at this point say “for two or three years” as the hon. member for Hillbrow has on occasion recommended. That would not be practical, because I do not know how the situation is going to change. The housing market could certainly normalize within a short time and then circumstances could be such that it would be unnecessary for me to interfere with the free market mechanism. It therefore depends on circumstances. Accordingly that is also my reply to the hon. member’s further question concerning my definite standpoint on rent control. That was his second question. My standpoint, as the hon. member for False Bay said in the course of the debate, is that in the present climate the Government has taken a decision at Cabinet level that the further phasing out of rent control will not be proceeded with because the climate and the housing market at the moment are such that we shall expose people to hardship. For this reason the Government will in its own time and when the market is normal again and when there is sufficient accommodation for Whites on reasonably short demand, consider approaching Parliament with the necessary legislation to phase out rent control.

In this regard, too, hon. members opposite like to create the impression that by its three phases of the phasing out of rent control, the Government has left a large number of people in the lurch. Surely that is not true. People living in buildings occupied for the first time in or after 1966 were never under rent control, after all. Surely the Government always protected those people towards whom it had an obligation during the three phasing out periods. Surely rent control was never lifted as far as they were concerned. That is my reply to the hon. member for Pretoria West who rightly pointed out that we are also dealing with “fat cat” tenants.

“Flat cats.”

Yes, they are not only “fat cats” but also “flat cats”.

What the hon. member for Pretoria West said is undeniably true, viz. that there are still people today who are protected by me due to rent control who in fact do not need protection. However, I cannot introduce legislation to deal with all individuals. There are retired people with a monthly income amounting to thousands of rands, but they are living in cheap units. There are families that are far poorer but are denied a flat because those “fat cats” are protected.

How many?

There are not many of them, but it is unjust that this should be so in a society. These are the anomalies that occur when the Government interferes too much with that kind of thing, and for this reason I want to withdraw my intervention as soon as possible when the problems are solved. Hon. members agree with me that in our economic situation that is the correct approach.

The vast majority of people about whom the hon. member for Hillbrow wrote such long “love letters” to me are “fat cats” who are now moaning because they have to vacate their flats.

[Inaudible.]

Of course! They do not need any protection from me because their incomes are higher than the limits laid down. I am not alleging that there are not deserving cases among them too. That there are such cases is understandable.

Very few of them. How many are there?

The majority of cases investigated in the hon. member’s constituency do not fall within the group for whom I am responsible. However, the point I want to make is that in this regard, too, there are irregularities and the hon. member for Pretoria West rightly pointed out that this cannot be tolerated in the present situation. Because in the process we are protecting people who do not need it and we are doing so at the expense of others who desperately need to have a roof over their heads. However, these are evils that one has to accept when there is rent control, and the Fouché Commission pointed out that anomalies of this nature can arise. In the meantime we have to live with them, but I hope that matters will return to normal so that we can eventually eliminate these practices and act more realistically. However, this can only take place if there is sufficient housing and the situation has not been exploited.

Another question put by the hon. member and by the hon. member for Sea Point, relates to the issue of the single flat which can prevent a whole flat unit from being converted into a sectional title unit. If I wanted to compromise in this connection, how should I go about it, they asked. The fact is—and the hon. member for Durban Central mentioned this too—that I must be careful that a situation is not created in which a few protected tenants are victimized because they are the fly in the ointment for the owner who wants to convert a flat unit. I must take care that these tenants are not victimized to such an extent that life becomes intolerable for them and they eventually jump out of the window or prefer to pack their goods and leave. That is the situation in which I find myself. I have an obligation towards such people even though they are in the minority; indeed, even though there is only one protected tenant in such a flat unit.

However, as the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned, I said in my statement that there is a way in which one can deal with matters of this nature. In terms of the provisions of the Rent Act I can exempt such flats from rent control, but I have said that such a thing could only occur if an application were made, and I should of course set my demands too. If a person is very eager to convert a flat unit and get rid of the few protected tenants, he must apply to my department. We shall then consider the circumstances and then I could tell him: “You are a developer and have the money to convert this flat unit; it will be largely to your benefit if you were to obtain the concession to evict the three protected tenants. Therefore provide alternative housing for these people.” Alternatively the department could say to him: “We understand your situation, and we can provide these few families with alternative housing.” In these circumstances I can exempt the flats in question from rent control and the owner can go ahead and convert the flat unit.

At this point I should also like to outline the sound aspects of this sectional title legislation. I refer in the first place to the incentive to own a house. Nowadays the ordinary man can barely afford a dwelling house. Therefore for the most part he resorts to obtaining a flat if he wants to be a property owner. Therefore I shall not stand in the way of people who approach me with deserving cases. I shall try to accommodate them. My department will also attempt to obtain acceptable alternative accommodation for them or to make other arrangements. I shall continue to protect those people. That is the assumance I want to give to the hon. member for Sea Point.

You must go further.

There is another question which the hon. member put to me. He asked me a question about the irregularities which had taken place in the interim. He wanted to know how we were going to accommodate the people who had suffered damage. I think I answered the question when I said that the legislation will not be retrospective. It is a pity, but those are the facts. I could have tried to rectify certain things merely by making the legislation retrospective. What the hon. member for Sea Point said here is true. It is true that I intimated towards the end of last year that I had considered—and the Director-General of the department made such a threat in passing—making the legislation retrospective if the swindling carried on on a large scale. I was careful, however. I did not want to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer and then at the same time break the glass on the table top. Accordingly I acted with some circumspection and caution, as we on this side of the House usually do, in the best interests of all the parties concerned, as may be expected of a wise Government. I then asked my department to watch the situation very carefully after my announcement. Since my announcement, in which I intimated in passing that if necessary I would make the legislation retrospective, while in fact I hoped that I should never have to do so, there was a tremendous drop in the rate of submission of new plans for sectional title registration. That is the information my department gave me. The existing plans were proceeded with, but over the past few months applications for new plans have in fact come to a virtual standstill. This was also due, of course, to the holiday season and the limited availability of building society funds for the purchase of sectional title units. I then gained the impression that it was unnecessary to make the legislation retrospective, not even to the date on which I made the announcement. The fact of the matter is that even before that date a number of people had been detrimentally affected in terms of existing legislation. I cannot say that those contracts must be declared void. That would be unfair, because the Act, with its deficiencies, made it possible for the malpractices to take place. For example, people could sell their whole block of flats virtually before any plans had been submitted to the municipality. The Act made this possible, so how can I penalize people who acted in terms of the legislation, fully within their rights? Hon. members will concede that if I were to make this legislation retrospective, even if it were only to be to 1 January or 30 November, we would be saddled with tremendous problems. It would cause far more problems for far more people than the few people whom we could benefit. As I said to the hon. member for Durban Central yesterday: “It cuts both ways.” There are many owners who would very much like me to do so so that they could regain those properties and sell them again at a large profit, because in the mean time prices have risen. I think we are now doing the best we can under prevailing circumstances. As far as some people are concerned, the horse has already bolted. We are now closing the stable door, but I fear that we will not get the horse back. That is the situation which hon. members must simply accept. I simply cannot agree that the legislation be made retrospective.

The hon. members for Durban Central and Sea Point raised another matter when they asked how it was possible that the tenant of a flat protected by rent control should pay more rent than a different tenant in the same block who is not protected. During the interim period this became possible. However, what the hon. members do not understand—and I do not take it amiss of them for not having thought of this—is that when we phased out rent control, my predecessor gave certain guarantees and took certain steps to keep an eye on the situation specifically in order to prevent very substantial increases in flat rentals. Although this was not written into the Act, he had a “gentleman’s agreement” with the owners that the rent would not be increased by more than 10% within the course of a single year for the first two years after that housing was excluded from rent control. As a result it was permissible for the rent paid by a specific tenant to increase from R100 to R110 per month while the case of the protected tenant was referred to the Rent Board. The members of the Rent Board then went to look at surrounding properties and also the block next door and ascertained that the real rent which the owner in question should get for the flat was R115 or R125, which was more than the R110 which the tenant next door paid, due to an undertaking given to the Minister by the owner. However, hon. members cannot come and tell me now that the Rent Board should apply criteria different to the normal when a reasonable rent is to be determined. They cannot even consider the owner who is obliged to ask an unrealistic rental because he has an agreement with the Minister. That is the reason, and I think that this clarifies the questions which hon. members asked in this connection.

The hon. member for Durban Central referred to lasting solutions. At this point, however, I wish to say that the lasting solution in this case does not consist of intervention by the Government by passing legislation on sectional titles preventing people from being evicted. Nor does the solution lie in the implementation of rent control, in terms of which one asks the private sector to subsidize the rentals of the less well-off and pensioners. That is not the long-term solution nor is it a fair solution. The fair solution is the provision of adequate alternate housing.

That is the answer.

We have no argument on that score.

That is what we have been saying for many years now.

The other day, when I was speaking and hon. members thought about the election that had been called, I said to hon. members that the situation had changed overnight. The hon. member for Durban Central said so himself and moreover it was proved by the hon. member for False Bay. The situation has changed overnight, and even if one has a lot of money— indeed, even if one has all the money in the world—and one has all the know-how, all the machinery and bulldozers and people who want to build and can build, one cannot build the houses in days, weeks or even in months. It takes to time to plan the sites and provide the necessary services. Hon. members must be reasonable, because yesterday and the day before there was still a surplus of White housing. Yesterday and the day before, the building industry was experiencing a recession. In fact, they did not have work, and the Government had to keep them going. People left the industry, and we are saddled today with the major problem of obtaining artisans to build houses. Nevertheless—as I told hon. members the other day—we have no fewer than 108 000 dwelling units in the pipeline. After all, that is how a Government shifts rapidly into gear. However there are certain limitations, too, because after all, one can only run a 100 metres in a certain time, and after that one cannot improve much on one’s time. We have now reached the stage at which we can improve very little on the rate at which housing is provided, and hon. members must understand that. However, the solution is not to be found in all the other types of intervention. As the hon. member for Maitland and other hon. members have said, the solution is to be found in the provision of alternative housing.

I do not know what else I should say to the hon. member …

How are we going to get rid of the red tape?

That is a subject for another debate. I do not know whether I should still reply to the hon. member for Durban Point, in other words whether there is still something which I have not replied to. He asked one question on which I want to tackle him. He can take it. He has the weight to take a few blows. He should really make sure of his facts. I am not dealing with the whole field of housing now, and moreover, many of the administrative matters and an important aspect of housing are the responsibility of my good friend and colleague the Deputy Minister.

I said so.

Yes, he said so. Now, I cannot always be conscious of all the details, and I was “unconscious” of this one. [Interjections.] However, in the interim, the hon. the Deputy Minister informed me that it was not true that as the hon. member for Durban Point made out, he had been sitting for weeks and months brooding in the case of King’s Hall. The fact is that the chairman and director of Tafta …

But the hon. member for Umbilo is a member.

I do not know whether he is the chairman or the director. In any event, the director and the chairman spoke to the hon. the Deputy Minister in Durban on a certain date. That evening he left by air for Pretoria and the next morning he phoned these people and told them that they could proceed to purchase King’s Hall. Therefore they received an answer within 12 hours. How can we improve on that?

The letter was written months before that. It took them months to try to get an appointment with the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister will have an opportunity to react to that, but it seems to me as if the hon. members have got hold of the wrong end of the stick as usual.

There is one more matter concerning which the hon. member for Durban Point put a question to me, one to which I think I should react at this point. He said that when owners notify tenants that they are to be evicted, I should oblige the owners to stipulate in that notification what the rights of the tenants in question are. He wrote to the former Minister and later wrote to me as well. Since I do not leave the former Minister in the lurch, I gave him a similar answer. But I do want to say to him that as his friend I shall take another look at the matter. I do not simply want to cast good advice to the winds. Since he feels so strongly about that, I shall take another look at it. However, my department says that it is very difficult to give owners such an instruction. How is one to do so? One can only do so reasonably effectively by requiring it of them by way of legislation or regulation. That could perhaps be done, but …

It can be set as a condition for the lifting of rent control.

I shall take another look at that. The fact remains, however, that it is not easy to impose obligations on people who are distributed throughout the country. However, I shall again consider whether there is anything in the hon. member’s idea, although I promise him nothing. Unfortunately I cannot be impractical.

Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the end of my speech. The hon. member for Sea Point asked me a few more questions. He said that I had carried out a rescue operation. He can call it what he likes, but the fact remains that I clamped down on those people effectively. Order returned to the industry overnight, and that is more than he can say. The fact that we have succeeded in achieving such a degree of stability in this industry over the past few months without legislation, that we have brought about so much order after the disorder that had prevailed, speaks volumes. Even though the hon. member for Sea Point is praising us with his tongue in his cheek, I am nevertheless prepared to accept that he has good intentions.

I have already replied to the question concerning the number of people who have made use of the intervening time and have carried on with their activities. Subsequently the hon. member asked me about the people who had entered into a purchase and sale transaction in good faith, using all their savings, when they were threatened with eviction. At the time they drew their savings and signed the contract of sale, knowing full well that they were paying too much, simply to have security over their heads. But now, due to the amendment I am effecting, they find themselves in the position that they can no longer evict a protected tenant from the small flats which they have purchased. Of course I have the fullest sympathy with these people, particularly if the tenants are “fat cats”. They will have no difficulty since I shall simply remove that block of flats from rent control. However here, too, I shall have to act with great circumspection and have the merits of each case examined by my department, which is geared to do so. In a meritorious case one need not of course be so heartless. If in this case I have two conflicting interests, namely that the person occupying the flat is really not in a position to find other accommodation, while their purchaser is just as eager to take occupation because he is perhaps in the same financial position, my department will go out of its way to make that flat available to the true owner, because that is the principle we want to carry out, viz. by obtaining alternative accommodation for that other person. It may take a month or it may take a little longer, but I shall act very sympathetically in these cases, and this can only be done on this basis. After all, I cannot make legislation which will provide for each individual case of this nature. I think the hon. member is now satisfied with that. I have already explained under what circumstances I shall do so.

I think that I have given very concise answers to hon. members opposite in the shortest possible time, virtually in record time. It is a pity that time has caught up with me so that I cannot go into further detail, but I should like hon. members to give the assurance that if I can still be at their disposal during the other stages, I shall reply to the other questions they may ask.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has already explained that the legislation is not retrospective. But what I should like to know is what will happen in cases where people have already initiated the process.

That is not such a difficult question to answer, but that is not why I did not reply to it earlier. It is just that my notes became a little mixed up. As far as that is concerned, the situation is that if a process has been initiated under the old Act and a person has concluded a legal contract in terms of the old Act, then even though the sectional title has not been registered, this amendment does not make it void. He carries on with it even though that contract does comply with the conditions I have set here. He continues to carry out that contract, on both sides. That cannot be undone.

Even though he can never get into his flat?

No, of course that is not the position. If he can never obtain occupation of his flat, then there are of course legal steps which can be taken. They will not be the only people who find themselves in this situation. But the situation is that if people have concluded a legal contract under these particular circumstances, under the old provisions of the Act, then the hon. member cannot expect of me that I should undo that. I do provide that if in future anyone concludes such an illegal contract, the recovery of rents, damages and so on will be possible. However, further than that I cannot go.

Does that mean that a person will have to continue making his payments, although he is never able to obtain registration?

He must continue to honour the contract he has signed. That is all I can say to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments envisaged in this Bill can be considered as consequential amendments, and emanate from the organizational rationalization of the central Public Service. In terms of the original proposals with regard to the rationalized pattern of the Government departments, the Department of Education and Training would have amalgamated with the Department of Cooperation and Development. At the instance of the Education and Training Council, which consists entirely of Black members, and after further investigation by the Commission for Administration, it was recommended that, due to the extent and importance of the functions of the two departments and in view of the fact that the Government had committed itself to bringing about equal education for all population groups, the Department of Education and Training should continue to exist as an independant department. This recommendation was confirmed by the Government and on 28 May 1980 the hon. the Prime Minister made an announcement to the effect that the Department of Education and Training would continue to exist as an independent department.

This decision puts the Department of Education and Training in a position to devote its undivided attention freely to the planning and expansion of the educational services for the Black peoples. The former secretary of the department, Mr. G. J. Rousseau, whose title is Director-General: Education and Training was appointed as head of the department with effect from 1 June 1980.

I am grateful that Mr. Rousseau’s services were available for this «important position. Mr. Rousseau, who was born on a mission station in Malawi, has devoted his entire life to Black education, after graduating from the University of Pretoria. Not only is Mr. Rousseau an expert in the sphere of Black education and Black languages, but he is a connoisseur par excellence of the needs and aspirations of the Black people. Therefore I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate Mr. Rousseau on his appointment as Director-General. I want to wish him everything of the best in his important, exacting task.

Clause 1 of the Bill under discussion provides for the insertion of the definition of “Director-General: Education and Training” in the definition of the Act and for the deletion of the definition of “Secretary”.

Clause 2 contains a textual improvement, which envisages combining paragraphs (e) and (f) of section 23, since paragraph (f) cannot be implemented alone.

Clause 3 arranges for the word “Secretary” to be replaced by the word “Director-General” wherever it occurs in the Act.

Clause 4 contains the short title.

I want to content myself with this and express my confidence that this measure will enjoy the support of all hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to my feet to say that we on this side of the House support the Bill. We are grateful for the technical improvements that are being made by means of the various clauses, because as the hon. the Minister indicated, in its present form the Act is in fact an absurdity.

As the hon. the Minister himself did, I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to extend my hearty congratulations to Mr. Rousseau on his appointment to this important position. On behalf of this side of the House, I want to wish him everything of the best in the important work that he is engaged in. In the nature of things, we on this side will always try to ensure that he provides the sort of service of which we know he is capable because of his dedication and which we as a party expect of him.

Mr. Speaker, with the rationalization in the Public Service the change of the name of “Secretary” to “Director-General” has practically become a custom now. On behalf of the NRP I should also like to convey my congratulations to Mr. Rousseau because he is also one of the officials who have been promoted from Secretary to the higher position of Director-General. Since he is dealing with such a difficult department, we hope that many positive results will be achieved under his guidance.

We support the further amendment that are now about to be made to the principal Act since they seem to be correct to us.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to welcome the hon. member prof. Olivier back to the House with the hope that his contribution in the House will be positive; I assume that he has just made his first speech in the House after a long absence.

In the advance planning with a view to rationalization, it would definitely have been considered, or the temptation would have been very great, to include the education of the Blacks under the umbrella of the Department of Co-operation and Development. However, in his introductory speech the hon. the Minister has already explained that realism and the importance of education and teaching prevailed here. The Government must be congratulated on the wise decision to retain a full department with a Director-General.

Education is still regarded as being very important by this side of the House, including the education of the Blacks. How often have we not had to hear from that side of the House how inferior and poor Black education in South Africa is! Obviously, an independant department that can devote its full attention to the education of the Blacks, means that education has been placed upon a sound, firm foundation. That is why it is a pity and a tragedy that negative, destructive criticism of the activities of the department is always being expressed, by the Opposition too, if we think of last year’s discussion of the Vote concerned.

It is a pity that agitators also step in from time to time in order to incite pupils to boycott schools. It is the right of every pupil to attend school. This is a right that they have and that must be exercised. Failing to attend classes is counter productive and backfires directly upon the pupils themselves. It is they and they alone who suffer in the process and who will suffer more in the future.

This side of the House says thank you for the tremendous task that the Department of Education and Training is doing under the leadership of the very capable Director-General, Mr. Rousseau. We also say: Carry on in this way.

Clause 2, which deals with an amendment in the procedure which must be followed when misconduct has occurred, will be dealt with by another hon. member.

We support the proposed amendments which, although they may seem slight amendments on the surface, are extremely important. We wish the Director-General together with his department everything of the best for this year.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should also like to support the amending Bill. The few remarks that I want to make, do not have a bearing on clause 1 and 3, but on clause 2, whereby section 23 of the principal Act is amended. Section 23(23) provides—

… the Director-General must recommend to the Minister that the person charged either be discharged, or be called upon to resign, or that he is not re-appointed as a teacher for a certain period. This is the present wording in paragraphs (e) and (f) of section 23(23) of the principal Act.

According to the present wording of paragraphs (e) and (f), three things happen to a teacher who has admitted that he is guilty of misconduct or who is found guilty of misconduct: Firstly, he is discharged; in the second place he may be asked to resign or in the third place, he may not be re-appointed as a teacher for a period, as determined by the Minister.

According to the proposed amendment of paragraph (e) of section 23(23) of the principal Act, only two things can now happen to a teacher who is found guilty of misconduct, viz. he may resign or may be called upon to resign and he may not be reappointed as a teacher for a specific period. In view of this, this brings me to the point that I should like to make regarding the serious consequences that misconduct may have for teachers. It is provided as early as in section 21 of the principal Act under which circumstances a teacher may be discharged from his post. We find that misconduct is one of the reasons.

In section 22 of the principal Act we find a long list of acts and omissions which are defined as misconduct of which a teacher may be guilty and which may give rise to action being taken against him. There are 15 such actions which have been designated as misconduct in section 22.

And this brings to a fourth point that I should like to make. I just want to endorse yet again how extremely important it is—for Black teachers too—that the teaching corps should carefully guard against any form of misconduct at all times. The many “do’s” and “don’ts”, contained in the above-mentioned section of the principal Act, can really be described as the code of conduct for Black teachers. Whether a teacher is White, Brown or Black, he has a serious struggle to uphold his professional dignity today. Therefore, all teachers must take very careful note of their conduct. They must ensure that the codes of conduct which are established for their profession, in the interest of their profession, are adhered to with a great deal of care and dedication.

I have already pointed out on a previous occasion that professional codes of conduct—of any profession—are aimed at achieving certain ideals. In other professions, for instance the medical profession or the legal profession, guidelines that determine professional conduct, have been established for many years already, and in this way definite standards have been laid down, with which members of the specific profession must comply. The Black teacher has a mammoth task and a great responsibility in the times in which we are living, and this will definitely be the case for a long time to come. There is definitely an important task for him to teach and educate the children of his own nation, and it is very important and essential for them seriously to guard against their conduct—whether it be misconduct or other forms of transgression—placing them in a position where they may be discharged because of misconduct, be called upon to resign and not be allowed to be appointed as teachers for a period, as the hon. the Minister may determine. It is absolutely essential for the teacher to be involved in any form of misconduct as little as possible. He must definitely not be guilty of anything of this kind. I am saying this because today we have the situation where thousands of Black children are the victims of political agitators and intriguers. I am also saying this because today thousands of Black and Coloured children are being deprived of the opportunity of receiving the education that is so essential to them. As I said, the children—and to a large extent many hundreds of teachers too—who simply want to continue with their education in a peaceful way, are the victims of radicals and revolutionaries today, people who do not have the slightest interest in the child and his education, or in the teacher, but who have entirely different objectives. This is even more reason why teachers should stay out of trouble. Otherwise they will be charged and penal measures will be applied, such as those that are being envisaged by the amendments before us, amongst others. Then they are deprived of the opportunity to ensure that their own people receive the necessary education. These amendments to paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (23) of section 23 of the principal Act are also confirming an old truth. And this is that very few rules and regulations are not amended or improved with the passage of time. When the principal Act was passed in 1979, we were convinced that paragraphs (e) and (f) made it possible to take adequate action against a teacher who transgressed. Now, however, in 1981 we find that the clause concerned had to be rewritten and improved once again. And I believe that the teaching corps will also find that specific codes of conduct that were good enough for 1981 will possibly be quite inadequate in the year 2040. This gives me reason to believe that it will often be necessary for codes of conduct, and even the penal measures that follow on offences and are connected to them, will have to be amended, as it became necessary to do in the case under discussion. Penal measures, rules, regulations and codes of conduct are amended from time to time. Recently I read that in Boston in the USA, certain codes of conduct were prescribed for the teachers there in the year 1872. Those rules and regulations also had to be amended in time. And I want to read a few of them to you because they are very interesting. The regulations prescribed the following, amongst other things—

1. 1. Each day teachers will fill lamps and clean chimneys.
2. 2. Men teachers may take one evening each week for courting purposes, or two evenings per week if they go to church regularly.
3. 3. After ten hours in school the teachers may spend the remaining time reading the Bible and other good books.
4. 4. Women teachers who marry or engage in unseemly conduct will be dismissed.
5. 5. Every teacher should lay aside from each pay a goodly sum of his earnings for his benefit during his declining years so that he will not become a burden on society.
6. 6. Any teacher who smokes, uses liquor in any form, frequents pools or public halls or gets shaved in a barber shop will have good reason to suspect his worth, intention, integrity and honesty.

Sir, hon. members will agree that those regulations also had to be amended! I am satisfied that the amendments envisaged in this amending Bill are essential, and therefore we on this side of the House support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank hon. members for the support that they are granting this Bill. I want to thank the hon. members for Gezina and Marico for their contributions. In my opinion, the codes of conduct to which the hon. member for Marico referred are very interesting. I think our legislation is at least much better than is the case in Boston.

I should also like to thank the hon. member Prof. Oliver for his support. I think that he has commenced his re-entry to the House on a positive note, and I sincerely hope that he will continue in this way. However, I must tell him that one can see that the hon. members on this side of the House are eager to talk and to tackle him. However, the opportunity did not present itself today; they will probably have the opportunity to do so in future. I also want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for his support.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As part of the organizational rationalization programme in my department it is necessary to give constant attention to steps which can be taken to eliminate duplication and to help ensure that our work is done more efficiently. One of the steps which can be taken with this object in mind is to consider ways in which administrative procedures may be simplified through the delegation of powers conferred by law upon the Minister.

It is consequently the main purpose of this Bill to expand the provisions in terms of which the Minister may delegate his powers under the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967, the National Culture Promotion Act, 1969, the Cultural Institutions Act, 1969, and the Mentally Retarded Children’s Training Act, 1974. These additional powers include, inter alia, the following—

1. (a) The consideration of recommendations from the National Cultural Council and its executive committee.
2. (b) The appointment of committees of the National Cultural Council and the payment of compensatory allowances to council members, members of the commission and members of the committee.
3. (c) The establishment of boards and the appointment of members of the boards for declared cultural institutions, technikons and training centres for mentally retarded children.
4. (d) The approval of board decisions in connection with visiting hours and the payment of entrance fees to declared cultural institutions.
5. (e) The placing of collections belonging to the State in the care of a declared cultural institution.
6. (f) The determination of establishments at technicons and training centres for mentally retarded children.

In addition the Bill makes provision for the repeal of section 12 of the Cultural Institutions Act, 1969, in terms of which an Advisory Council for Declared Institutions is established. The Committee of Heads of Declared Institutions, established under section 13, has virtually corresponding functions to fulfil, and the repeal of the section concerned is therefore aimed at eliminating duplication.

For the rest the Bill makes provision primarily for the rectification of obsolete designations and concepts.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to say a few things in connection with the four Acts concerned—two in connection with culture as such and two in connection with education—it is my pleasant duty to address a word of welcome to the hon. the Minister. We on this side of the House do not need to obtain any information or gather any facts regarding the hon. the Minister’s cultural background. Nor do we have to call for advice regarding his administrative competence, because he acquitted himself of his duty with great distinction in another position that he has recently vacated.

However, I must tell the hon. the Minister that he will probably agree with me when I say that cultural affairs in South Africa, with regard to both the Afrikaans-and the English-speaking sectors, are showing danger signs in some respects. The hon. the Minister will probably have his task cut out to put right matters that are going wrong—I do not have any doubt that he will put matters right there. In saying this, I am not alleging that it is the calling of the State as such to create culture. After all, it is the task and function of the general public and the people of culture as a group to develop the culture of a country or a group of people. What is in fact the duty of the State, is to do everything in its power to eliminate stumbling-blocks that may exist in the way of the development of a cultural life. Wherever the State is able to facilitate the task and efforts of such organizations by means of facilities as well as finances, it should do so.

The unfortunate thing with regard to our cultural life in South Africa as far as the State is concerned, is that it is divided between a large number of departments. One simply has to mention that culture as such falls within the ambit of the hon. the Minister and his department, but that, strangely enough, television and radio, immensely important instruments in the promotion of culture in a country, fall under the Department of Foreign Affairs and that censorship, the watchful eye that must be kept over morbid developments in the written and spoken word, once again falls under a different department, viz. the Department of Internal Affairs. It has often struck me personally in the past that it appears that there is little, if any, consultation between the various departments when matters of joint cultural interests are brought to their attention by some event or decision or other.

In my modest opinion, it will be one of the tasks of the hon. the Minister to make an effort to bring about that consultation, coordination and sound co-operation during his career as Minister in charge of this specific portfolio, because I believe this is essential in order to achieve the objective which the Government is setting for itself, viz. to promote cultural advancement. We have the position today that education too, particularly the cultural subjects such as history and languages, is the responsibility of a variety of different elements, organizations, bodies and departments. In some respects there are people who are disconcerted about the results achieved as a result of this.

With those reservations I repeat that we extend a hearty welcome to the hon. the Minister. We hope—fervently too—that he will have a long period of service in this particular department. I am told that, over the past six years, we have had no less than five different predecessors in the hon. the Minister’s post. Consequently it is not surprising that long-term planning and the formulation of measures to make a positive impression on our cultural life, remained in abeyance or were partially completed only. Once again I express the hope that the hon. the Minister will remain in this post for a long time. We on this side of the House do not have the slightest doubt about his ability to see to it that things are done properly.

The Bill which is now before the House, in terms of which four existing Acts are to be amended, deals in the first place—as the hon. the Minister has already said during his Second Reading speech—with the delegation of powers, powers granted to the hon. the Minister in the relevant Acts, but for which in the nature of things it would not be administratively sound for him to assume all the responsibility himself. We on this side of the House have no objection to this expansion of the hon. the Minister’s powers of delegation. However, allow me to add one thing only here. This is that where delegation is permitted on such a large scale, it must always be borne in mind that when a principal delegates a power and a duty to an agent, the principal nevertheless remains responsible for everything that his agent does. Particularly since cultural affairs are involved here, we shall nevertheless want to depend on the hon. the Minister keeping an eye on things. We also hope that where delegation takes place, he will continue to apply his specific insight into what is good and healthy and right and productive, where the officials in the councils concerned exercise their delegated powers.

There is one other principle involved in this legislation. This is the abolition of the Advisory Council for Declared Institutions. That abolition is now taking place, as I understand the matter, at the request of the advisory council itself, for the simple reason that the functions of the advisory council and the functions of the statutory committee of heads of declared institutions overlap to a great extent and that ultimately there is a very limited demand for meetings of the Advisory Council for Declared Institutions. Consequently, no objection can be raised against this from our side.

The rest of the provisions, as we analyse and understand them, do not raise any question on which we want to dwell, or which would necessitate us to oppose the proposed provisions of the Bill. As the hon. the Minister has already indicated, most of the provisions are merely aimed at facilitating the administration of certain aspects of the four Acts concerned and putting the Minister and the department in a position to manage and implement them on a sounder, more efficient basis. Under these circumstances, we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I also want to associate myself with the words of congratulation extended to the hon. the Minister. I want to put it to him that in the department of which he is now the Minister great things are expected from him.

Furthermore, I wish at the outset to give attention to the principles contained in this specific legislation. It deals, of course, with the extension of the powers of delegation. We find that an enormous extension is taking place. We must, of course, accept that with the growth of, let us say, the bureaucracy or the growth of a huge department, a department as large as the Department of National Education which deals with matters all the way from zoo’s to universities—I do not know what the common denominator is in this regard—it is natural to expect that more and more administrative delegation must take place. We in the Opposition are of course in favour of delegation as long as we have the assurance, and the assurance is there by law of course, that the political responsibility always remains that of the person to whom the power was originally given. We know it often happens in this House with legislation we are dealing with concerning certain powers that are given to Ministers that we in the Opposition are sometimes hesitant to grant those powers, but because you have confidence in the specific Minister—I have seen it many a time in this House—you go along with it. How often have we not in this House heard these words from a Minister: “But you people can trust me.” In a case like this you find that in the end any Opposition will compromise in this respect. It is for this reason that one realizes that although we are prepared to grant these powers of delegation, there must always be the deep impression that in this respect this House is the actual and final policeman and that the political accountability in this respect is to the House.

When I look at the long list of powers that are being delegated, there is only one aspect in this respect which I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister. We find here—and the hon. the Minister mentioned this in his speech as well—that the appointment of council members of technikons is also going to be delegated. Let us look for a moment at the position which prevails in this country. As far as I know there are about six technicons in South Africa today. [Interjections.] I do not believe that this specific matter is one in which you are going to encumber your Minister with administrative red tape if you should in this specific instance say that this might be one instance in which he should not delegate his powers or in which he should give this House specific reasons why these powers must be delegated. I need not remind the House or the hon. the Minister that there is a feeling or a tendency in South Africa—and not only in South Africa either—to regard the technikons and the universities as being equal tertiary institutions. This is the point I am a little worried about now. If we provide that a member of the council of a university shall be appointed by the Minister, why should we then delegate that power in respect of a technikon? This is the point I want to make here.

†At some stage one reaches a specific point where that Minister has to apply his mind to whatever power or duty he has to perform. In other words, when it comes to the question of the appointment of a member to the council of a technikon, as in this case, that technikon or that community knows that at some stage or other the Minister will have to apply his mind to that specific appointment. We know, of course, that he will most probably act on the advice of his officials but the feeling does exist that this sort of administrative action should not emanate as it were from a sausage-machine. I am not suggesting at all that we should delete this provision from the legislation. All I want to do is put it to the hon. the Minister that we have to guard against not going too far down the line as far as the delegation of powers is concerned.

*I come then to another point, namely the abolition of the Advisory Council for Declared Institutions, because, as was rightly said, the Committee of Heads of Declared Institutions actually performs that task. This is in fact the case, but I also understand that the Advisory Council did not really have any work since the duties were performed by the Committee of Heads of Declared Institutions. Perhaps one could learn a lesson from this, in the sense that we must guard against too much government.

†We must guard against too much government, against too many bodies and institutions. We are dealing here with the Advisory Council for Declared Institutions that has been in existence for many years, a body consisting of from three to six nominated members. The inactivity of that body cannot be simply explained by saying that there was, in fact, a duplication of the work by the Committee of Heads of Declared Institutions because that body could only act once matters had been referred to it by a Minister. Perhaps that could have led to the inactivity of that body. I do not say that that in fact was the case, but the possibility exists that over the years as far as policy was concerned, nothing was considered to be of such great importance as to warrant reference to the advisory council for their views and opinions.

I repeat, however, that my party is of the belief that we should rather have less government, fewer bodies trying to run affairs. If the hon. the Minister and his department reach the stage where they find that certain bodies serve no purpose and should be declared redundant, let them abolish such bodies and let the work be done by people who are directly concerned with the promotion of culture, in this case, the Committee of Heads of Declared Institutions.

We do, however, support this measure, and I look forward to hearing the views of the hon. the Minister in regard to the delegation of powers in respect of the technikons.

Mr. Speaker, I too should like to associate myself with hon. members who have congratulated the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of National Education. I had the privilege of being a member of the council of the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit for a number of years, and the Minister was rector and vice-chancellor there at the time. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we are expecting a great deal from him, and I am also saying this on behalf of the chairman of the education group on this side of the House, the hon. member for Hercules. In the nature of things there will be close co-operation between ourselves and the hon. the Minister in future. The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to cultural affairs that are not running smoothly, and that is why he requested the hon. the Minister to carry out his task with a firm hand. We are all aware of the importance of education and it is referred to in different terms. We on this side of the House consider the hon. the Minister to be fit for his task and we know that he will impart firmness, not to a matter that is not running smoothly, but to a matter that must enjoy the best attention at the highest level at all times. Consequently I should like to wish the hon. the Minister strength and every blessing for the special task that he has to carry out.

This brings me more specifically to the Bill. I should like to refer to the principle running through it, viz. the delegation of powers by the hon. the Minister to the Director-General or another officer, and in terms of clause 9 to certain councils as well. It is interesting to note that these powers were vested in the hon. the Minister in fairly recent legislation, viz. by means of legal provisions that were included in specific laws between the years 1967 and 1979. Consequently it is interesting to ask oneself why the legislator is now adopting a different view on the question whether—let me use the terminology that has already been used—democracy or bureaucracy should exercise certain powers in terms of this specific legislation, The obvious answer is most probably—and experience has also taught us this—that delegation eliminates unnecessary paperwork, and in this way greater efficiency can be achieved, because the time and attention of busy people with important work is not being occupied unnecessarily. The power to delegate which is included in this Bill, is in any event not compulsory. The Minister may use his discretion to decide whether he wants to delegate or not.

It seems to me that in any event, the vast majority of the powers that may be delegated, concern provisions that are being carried out according to specific norms or patterns, following a period of application. The hon. the Minister mentioned a whole series of them, and therefore I am not going to repeat them. However, when it comes to nominating one or two representatives for local government or donors to a council, or establishing guidelines with respect to positions that will form part of an establishment, or introducing other posts, remuneration, allowances for members of councils, committees, commissions, etc., it is possible to create a generally acceptable pattern so that delegation is not only necessary, but desirable too. All of these are matters for or against which many arguments can be advanced when legislation like this is discussed during the Committee Stage. But with wisdom that is gained in time, and taking into account existing codes, practices and customs, patterns develop which can be followed in the future. Then most—if not all—of the original reservations fall away.

Democracy is developing along the lines of specific patterns which makes delegation an almost obvious procedure in the future. In addition, the relationship of trust between the hon. the Minister and high-ranking officials, to whom he can delegate, are a guarantee that the demands posed by democratic considerations will not be ignored. During this session a good number of Bills have already been dealt with by the House, legislation in which provision was made for delegation. I feel that an additional consideration with regard to this state of affairs is rationalization. If this word is to have a significant meaning, each step that can produce greater production with less effort must receive serious attention. Delegation that is implemented correctly, can be a tremendously positive factor in administrative and organizational activities.

A further factor, the effect of which I feel should not be underrated, is that a party that has already been in power for more than 30 years, can create conditions of confidence with regard to which there are many benefits on the one hand because everyone knows where everyone else stands. On the other hand, however, it emphasizes the necessity of continually guarding against the formation of groups. This makes delegation more possible. I imagine that a new government would be suspicious about the administration that it inherits, but an old government would need it for the ever-critical judgment of every decision taken under delegation, and critical judgment by the hon. the Minister will be particularly necessary because in the nature of things it remains the responsibility of the hon. the Minister.

There are two instances of delegation in this Bill that I want to question. The one has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Central. Firstly, it concerns the decision regarding which local authorities or other bodies are represented on the council of a technikon. The second is the one which the hon. member is questioning, viz. the power to appoint members on such a council. I feel that this power should be exercised by the Minister himself. Such decisions are subject to public criticism for which the Minister must assume responsibility and to which I feel an official should not be exposed.

Apart from the fact that the Bill grants the Minister the discretion to decide whether delegation should take place or not, it also grants him the power to continue to exercise powers that have already been delegated. It seems reasonable to me to assume that at the moment it has been decided that the powers concerned should be delegated. One can reach that conclusion; otherwise the Bill would not have been submitted for consideration here.

I think a Minister should consider the matter carefully before he decides to delegate, particularly if he is a new Minister. I think the legislator depends upon the Minister exercising his discretion carefully in this regard. A degree of flexibility is allowed so that the Minister can still take some decisions himself in spite of delegation. I feel that this discretion should be applied in a principled way. For instance, if the hon. the Minister were to allow the official to whom the power has been delegated to decide whether a local government should have one or two representatives on the council of a technikon in one case and then in the following case take the decision himself, I feel he would be putting himself under serious suspicion. The process of delegation must therefore be applied consistently.

It seems to me that it is reasonable to accept that powers that have been delegated once, will not easily be recalled. Later on, this hon. Minister or a subsequent Minister will no longer recall that he delegated certain powers and the officer who has to exercise that delegated power, will not report to the hon. the Minister on every occasion that he has taken the decisions himself and he will no longer consult him regarding what should be decided. By means of delegation, a pattern is created which can be followed in future and the fact that powers were delegated, later fades into oblivion.

However, I have no objection to this. When things go wrong, there will be criticism and there will also be the opportunity to look at them again.

As has already been said, the power to delegate mostly applies to delegation to the Director-General or another official, except in the case of clause 9. In terms of the proposed section 14A(1)(a) a power may be delegated to a council. This concerns—

The councils to which powers may be delegated in terms of this, are the councils for zoos, museums and art galleries. These councils all have considerable incomes of their own—some of them have large incomes of their own—that are supplemented by Government subsidies. These councils must submit their budgets for approval every year. If these powers are in fact delegated, I believe that many delays could be eliminated in practice. The administrative road between the meeting place of such a council and the office of the Minister and back to the executive officer of the council again, may be a very long road and may be lengthened even more, if the Minister is not satisfied, by explanations, doubt etc. Because of the nature of the set-up, control is exercised over the expenditure of these councils, for reasons including the fact that their budgets must be approved and furthermore because Government auditing applies. Delegation here is a new approach with tremendous possibilities. I believe that practice will prove that it is a wise decision to delegate these powers to these councils. The institutions controlled by these councils, have already come a very long way. The Minister and the department know what they can expect from these councils. Their administration has been established. Any expansion that they want to carry out, must be authorized on a higher level. Control over the budgets can be exercised according to tested norms and these councils have built up a record which justifies their being entrusted with this greater autonomy. I feel inclined to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this step which I consider to be a step in the right direction.

In conclusion I want to refer to clause 8, in terms of which section 12 of the Cultural Institutions Act, 1969, is being repealed. By repealing this, the Advisory Council of Declared Institutions is being abolished. Now I am not aware of the contribution which the advice of this advisory council made in the past, but it is quite possible that they carried out excellent work to begin with but that they nevertheless became redundant after that. I want to say that it is a fairly common experience that the advice of an advisory council dries up in time. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon. In adopting new concepts or establishing new institutions by legislation or otherwise, an advisory council is not only useful but essential in many cases and almost indispensable in some cases. However, no body can continue to give positive advice on one and the same issue. In time, all facets of such an issue have been adequately covered and new questions regarding old institutions do not easily arise. When advice has assisted towards forming a fixed pattern, further formal advice is generally no longer necessary. Bodies that are affected, staff that is involved, supervisory measures and normal accountability are then such that the Minister and the department can manage with the assistance of public criticism. I know of advisory councils which continued to exist without being of any use any longer. Putting an end to services that were once useful is never pleasant, particularly not for those who are directly involved, but I believe that advisory councils that have not yet been abolished after a while, should in fact be abolished. I hope that the tears that will be shed about this one, will be tears of compassion. We owe the people who served upon it gratitude and recognition for the good services that were provided, but I do not think we owe them apologies because the council has lost its usefulness. The path of this advisory council, like those of others, has come to an end.

With these remarks it is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to express my sincere thanks to the hon. members for the kind words of welcome and for the encouragement they gave me. I have no illusions about the fact that the various legs of the portfolio entrusted to me, viz. education in its diversity of facets, the promotion of culture and sport, each entail their fair share of problems and difficulties, but that is all the more reason why it is a privilege for me to do my best in this capacity. In particular I am specially grateful that the experience which the hon. member for Koedoespoort has behind him could form the basis of his kind words, and I also noted with grateful acknowledgment his reference to the good wishes of the chairman of our group dealing with these matters. His words are all the more meaningful to me because I know what contribution he has made over a very long period in the promotion of education and culture in the Transvaal. I am also especially grateful for the specific and practical suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Durban Central. When the hon. member for Johannesburg North was speaking, I could not help thinking of an attempt which he, I and a few other enthusiasts made quite a few years ago in Pretoria to start an open-air theatre movement there. I think this effort was washed out a little, even before it came into existence.

Pursuant to the remarks made by hon. members, I wish to make it very clear that I do not think a Minister should dissociate himself from administrative details in his department. I do not think a person can construct policy viewpoints without knowledge of the building material, the details, without being familiar with them. I think one should also allot to oneself as a task a salutory share of the detailed responsibility in one’s administration to be able to determine a proper policy. I also think that one can in that way transmit one’s ideas and views to the various officials dealing with the matter far more proficiently. Consequently it means that one should display the necessary discernment as to the degree to which one should allow oneself to become entangled in the details. I wish to agree at once with the hon. members about the undesirability of using the power granted in the Bill to delegate the appointment of council members of the technikons. Consequently I do not intend to delegate the Minister’s power to appoint council members or to designate the bodies empowered to nominate council members, except in the case of institutions which are of a purely local importance. There are specific technical colleges, schools and similar institutions where I think such delegation can be done, but as regards institutions such as technikons which, as the hon. member for Durban Central rightly said, should really be deemed to be on a par, as far as their own special character is concerned, with universities, I wish to give the assurance that it is not my intention to delegate or to make use of the delegatory powers, except perhaps that one could consider allowing the re-appointment of a person originally appointed by the Minister to take place by way of delegation, when the matter of such re-appointment is raised, because it is based on a judgment already exercised on ministerial level. I also wish to state it as my conviction that delegation can only succeed when an understanding on a judicious degree of feedback exists between the delegator and the delegatee. Even if the delegatee is competent to exercise and discharge the delegated powers it is nevertheless essential that he should from time to time supply his principal with feedback on matters arising from the exercising of his delegated powers. But what I think is important is that one should, with delegation, ensure that practical decisions are taken on the best level of expertise. If the decision is of such a nature that it does not require a degree of judgement which a Minister, as non-professional in the department, normally has, it is far better that that judgement should be exercised on the level of the Director-General or other official in the department who does in fact have the best available expertise. Good administration, I think, requires decisions to be taken on that level on which the most lively and best expertise is present.

At the same time it has always been my standpoint that every decision which amounts to a mere rubber-stamp and in which the person taking the decision does not really exercise judgment, ought to be delegated. I do not like rubber-stamp decisions because they are not really decisions, but merely affirmations. That is why I think that one should see in such a case who the person is who has to exercise judgment. The responsibility ought therefore to be delegated to that person who in fact exercises judgment so that everyone can see that it is he who is doing so, even if it is true—as several hon. members rightly observed—that the ultimate responsibility rests with the principal and that the final and overall responsibility within the entire structure of our State administration and our legislation—as the hon. member for Durban Central also said—actually rests with this House.

Pursuant to what the hon. member for Koedoespoort said, I consequently wish to emphasize that to my mind delegation is proof of two things. It requires two presuppositions. In the first place there must be a confidential relationship, in this case between the Minister and his Director-General. I wish to refer with grateful acknowledgement to the privilege which I have of having in the Director-General of National Education not only a person with experience, but also a person with whom I have over many years, in my previous positions, built up a confidential relationship which gives me all the more confidence in submitting this matter to the House. Besides the confidential relationship, however, there is another important aspect as well. As was emphasized by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, delegation should not really take place—particularly in this case of delegation to a council—if experience and a certain degree of prestige and stature, has not already been built up by such a council on the basis of years of achievement. Consequently this will be an important guideline for me when I have to decide whether I should make use of this power conferred upon me in terms of the present legislation in any specific case. The two presuppositions are therefore the confidential relationship which exists between the specific official and myself, as well as the knowledge, experience and expertise built up over a period of time by the body to which the delegation takes place.

Now I should also like to refer to an observation made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North when he adopted a critical standpoint on the distribution of cultural tasks among various departments, and made a plea for proper co-ordination in particular. Although there was a great deal of truth in what the hon. member said, I am convinced that cultural tasks should always be widely distributed. I do not think that a single Government level can claim for itself a monopoly or a primary say in regard to cultural matters. Cultural matters require the attention, the managerial involvement and the promotional activity of the central Government, as well as the provincial and local authorities. Naturally there is a distribution, but in addition there is also distribution among departments. In a certain sense each department is dealing with some or other form of culture. Recently, at the place where I spend my holidays in Waterberg—if I may refer to the home of the hon. member for Waterberg—I heard the enthusiastic remark, which more specifically intended for the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, that the dying out of the art of distilling peach-brandy was one of the greatest cultural losses ever suffered in that region. [Interjections.] At first I thought the man who said this was joking, but in the end it turned out to be a very serious observation, for both the technology as well as the absorbtion capacity of human beings in respect of peach-brandy distilling apparently required an exceptional background and a sturdy foundation.

I should also like to refer to the wish expressed by the hon. member for Johannesburg North that I shall have a long period of service. He also referred to the fact that I have, during the past few years, had quite a number of predecessors who dealt with this portfolio. I think this serves merely as a demonstration of the particular usefulness over a wide front which characterized the abilities of my hon. predecessors. Consequently I want to pay tribute on this occasion to the construction work done and the inputs made by my hon. predecessors in this portfolio, almost all of them persons with whom I was very closely associated in my previous field of action. The hon. member for Johannesburg North wished me a long period of service, and I could not help noticing a certain feeling for the future, signs of a sensible insight into the probable course of events in future on the part of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, viz. that the responsibility for this portfolio will for many years to come continue to be entrusted to people on this side of the House, and that the people on the opposite side of the House, in spite of all their preparations and clarion calls, do not have high hopes of ever taking over this portfolio from us. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I should like to refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Durban Central about the abolition of the advisory council in connection with cultural institutions. The hon. member implied that the Minister had not referred sufficient work to them. It is true that in recent times the productive work in connection with the administration and policy of the cultural institutions of our country, the so-called declared institutions, was done by the body consisting of the heads of those institutions. But I also wish to refer to the very apposite remarks made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, viz. that the ability of an expert advisory council in particular to give advice eventually wanes, and the new advice which it is able to give may be so limited that there is not much sense in keeping that body in existence. For a Minister to refer all kinds of aspects to that body to no good purpose, simply for the purpose of keeping it in operation, cannot be justified.

You can appoint other members.

Well, if there was sound advice previously, other members need probably not think up much new advice. I really think the hon. member for Koedoespoort made a remark well worth considering when he said that this country should not allow a council to continue to exist, simply for the sake of sympathy or out of respect, while it does not really have any productive function anymore. We should then have the courage to abolish that council and thank the members for the good work they have done. We have such a vast amount of work to be done in this country that we should not give our experts unnecessary work.

I have one final observation with reference to something the hon. member for Koedoespoort said. He observed that once a person has delegated, it is unlikely that one will repeal one’s delegation. However, I am convinced that a person in a managerial position, particularly if he is new to the position, has the responsibility of ascertaining what powers, delegated to him by law, have in the course of time been delegated to other people. In my previous position in South West Africa I applied this principle to very good effect. I required every person who was responsible to me to give me an indication of what powers, which I should really have exercised in terms of my office, had been transferred to him in his office. Then I made a critical reappraisal, in the light of changing circumstances of whether all those delegations were meaningful and correct, and made adjustments here and there. In some cases I even repealed the delegation, and in other cases I found reason to add further powers to those already delegated.

Once again I wish to express my appreciation for the attitude in which the hon. members, including those on the opposite side of the House, supported this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, after the very able manner in which the hon. the Minister dealt with this legislation here on his first appearance as Minister, I now move—