Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Electoral Act for Indians—Act No. 121 of 1977—which provides for a general election of members of the Indian Council, was promulgated in that year. In terms of the provisions of that Electoral Act, 40 electoral divisions have already been delimitated and the required voters’ rolls have already been compiled on an electoral division basis. On these voters’ rolls have been included the names of 165 682 Indian voters who, in terms of the provisions of paragraph 24 of proclamation R167 of 1974—before the Electoral Act for Indians was passed—had applied for registration as voters. Proclamation R167 of 1974 also provided for the election of members of the S.A. Indian Council in accordance with the system of electoral colleges.

As hon. members know, a general election for Indians had been planned for March 1980 but, at the request of the Indian Council, was not held. A result of the cancellation of this election was the passing of the Extension of the Term of Office of Members of the S.A. Indian Council Act, 1980—Act No. 19 of 1980. There was a proviso written into that Act that the term of office of members was not to be extended beyond 5 November 1980. It is obvious, therefore, that an election of some kind will now have to be held in order that the council may continue to exist.

†I hope that after I have explained the necessity for the proposed amendments to section 6 of the Electoral Act for Indians, 1977, I will have the support of the official Opposition as well as that of the NRP for the proposed amendments. May I just add at this stage that I have informed the leaders of the two Opposition parties of my intentions in this regard before introducing this legislation here in the House.

Shortly after I was appointed Minister of Internal Affairs, the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council, in an open and frank discussion, convinced me that the Indian community at large was not ready as yet for a general election, and also that the S.A. Indian Council should not be dissolved as was the case with the Coloured Person’s Representative Council, but should be allowed to continue with the good work it had done over a long period. I have said that I have been convinced by the members of the Executive Committee, but I should like to explain that I made one proviso in this regard. That is that this matter should be fully discussed by the full council and that I was also going to discuss it with the leaders of the different political parties.

A special meeting of the council was held on 14 October 1980 and was attended by 22 members. At that stage there were eight vacancies on the council. After a full discussion of the issue 20 members of the council voted in favour of an election not being held and two members abstained from voting. After the decision of the council was conveyed to me I also discussed the question of a general election with executive members of the Reform Party, the Democratic Party and the National Federal Party who, in general terms, agreed that a general election at a later date when more information in regard to the political future of the Indian community in South Africa is available, would be more appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, it was only at this stage that I decided not to go ahead or proceed with a general election but to arrange for an election of 15 members of the council in accordance with the electoral college system and to appoint the remaining 15 members. A problem which presented itself was that after paragraph 24 was added to proclamation R167 of 1974 to make provision for the general registration of voters, an election in accordance with the electoral college system was no longer possible. The heading of the paragraph reads as follows—

Since the provisions of section 1 of the Period of Office of Members of the South African Indian Council Extension Act, 1980 (Act 13 of 1980), prohibited the extension of the period of office of the members of the council after 5 November 1980, and as a general election was not the appropriate course to follow, and furthermore, having satisfied myself that the channels of communication between the Government and the Indian community should not, in the interests of all concerned, be impeded in any way, the only reasonable option open to me at that stage was to delete paragraph 24 which prevented an election in accordance with the electoral college system.

A further problem, however, was that when paragraph 24 was added to proclamation R167 of 1974 by proclamation R160 of 1976, it in fact repealed the provisions of paragraph 3 of proclamation R167 of 1974 which determined who would be a voter at an election of members of the council in accordance with the electoral college system. The repeal of paragraph 24 by proclamation 215 of 1980 did not automatically revive the provisions of paragraph 3. It is, therefore, now necessary to add a subsection to section 6 to ensure that all elected members of the statutory bodies referred to in paragraph 3 will be entitled to vote at the forthcoming election of the remaining 15 members of the council. I have already nominated these 15 members and, in fact, have also announced their names.

*So Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to section 6, if they are enacted, mean that the names of the more than 163 000 voters who applied for registration in terms of the provisions of paragraph 24 of proclamation R167 of 1974, need not be removed from the voters’ roll since paragraph 24 was repealed on 31 October and that they will be able to vote in the general election without any inconvenience. The insertion of subsection (2) will ensure that it will be possible to hold a further election in accordance with the electoral college system so as to keep the Indian Council in existence as a link between the Indian community and the Government between now and the first general election.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain to hon. members that during my discussions with members of the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council and with representatives of the various political parties to which I referred a while ago, I stated it as my opinion that the ideal situation would be for the election of members of the various councils for the Indian and Coloured population groups of our country to take place simultaneously with the election of members of the House of Assembly.

It was only logical, therefore, that when the hon. the Prime Minister announced an election of members of the House of Assembly for 29 April 1981, the possibility and the desirability of holding an election of members of the S.A. Indian Council in terms of the Electoral Act for Indians, 1977, had to be considered. Consequently I arranged with the hon. Leader of the House of Assembly that the legislation be held in abeyance until I had had an opportunity of holding the necessary consultation with the leaders of the Indian population.

These discussions with members of the various political parties as well as with members of the Executive Committee took place, at my request, on 4 February 1981. After the matter had been discussed in detail, we agreed with the leaders of the political parties that a general election for the Indian population as early as 29 April was not practical and would not be the right step to take. The members of the Executive Committee of the Indian Council agreed to this viewpoint.

I promised the members of the delegation that the first general election of members of the Indian Council would be held before the end of this year. Even at this early stage I should like to announce that the election in terms of the Electoral Act for Indians will take place on 4 November 1981. I am making this early announcement to afford the political parties the opportunity of getting their business and organizations in order so that they will be able to participate in the election with good effect.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. the Minister with a good deal of interest. He was good enough to let me see a portion of his speech yesterday, and I have listened to the rest of it with equal interest. I am bound to say that it really amounts to a fairly sad catalogue of problems, of proclamations which have expired and of situations which have changed through the years.

While I have some sympathy for the hon. the Minister in that he has inherited these problems in having taken over this portfolio, I must say that I am going to disappoint him immediately. He said in his earlier remarks that he hoped he would have the support of the official Opposition. Well, he is not going to get that support, because we in this party are totally opposed to the principle of having a nominated council. I shall deal with this aspect at a later stage, but it is a basic principle to which we are very much opposed.

I am bound to say, looking at this matter, that the Government’s handling of the question of the Indian Council, the timing and method of its election, is becoming more and more like a comic opera. The Government appears to be involved almost in some sort of act of sleight of hand as far as the Indian Council and its election are concerned. It is a case of now one sees it, now one does not. It is an on-off situation which has been going on for years.

We are entitled to know, during this debate, precisely what the Government has in mind in regard to the actual function of the Indian Council. We were told by the then Minister during the 1979 session of Parliament that because of the appointment and the operation of the Schlebusch Commission it was necessary that an election for the Indian Council should be held very soon. I remember that occasion very well when the then hon. Minister, a silvery-tongued Minister, on the same day that it was announced that the Schlebusch Commission had been appointed to look into constitutional matters, stood up and said that because of that situation it was most important indeed that the council for the Indian people should be a representative council capable of talking to the commission and being a council truly representative of the Indian community. That was the case which was put before Parliament at that stage. We were then told how the voters’ roll had been brought up to date and we were informed of the number of registrations which had taken place and of how the delimitation had been put in hand. We then waited for the election. There were high expectations that there was going to be an election. We were told that there would in fact be an election during March, 1980.

At the beginning of last year’s session of Parliament, however, that same hon. Minister introduced an amending Bill and in an act of political acrobatics that was remarkable even for him, he then told us—remember this was one year later—that because of the operations of the Schlebusch Commission it would be unwise to proceed with the election in March, and he then asked that the life of the nominated body should be extended until November 1980. Again there were high expectations that that election would take place before November 1980. Various members on the Government benches expressed themselves in support of these expectations. I think for example of the hon. member for Walmer—unfortunately he is not in the House at the moment— who said during that debate (Hansard, 1980, col. 652)—

So he was quite confident that that election would take place. The hon. member for Benoni said (col. 655)—

We can go on and point out that a number of hon. members, as well as the hon. the Minister, gave a clear indication that the expectation was that the election would take place by November 1980. No election was, however, held. The council went out of existence and the hon. the Minister has given us something of a chronicle of the problems he has inherited as a result.

Now we are asked not only to restore the voters’ roll to allow for an election, but we are also asked in this Bill to allow machinery to be set up that will empower the Minister—as an interim measure, the hon. the Minister assures us—to recreate the Indian Council as a partially nominated body, half the members to be nominated by the Government, while the other half of the members will come from an electoral college.

In view of this history we, and indeed the whole country, want to know what the next step is. What can we expect? Has the Government finally made up its mind?

You can expect an election on 4 November.

I do not want to question the hon. the Minister’s word. He has made the announcement that there will be an election on 4 November this year, but we have had that sort of assurance before. We have had it from his predecessor, but then totally opposite reasons were given why it was not appropriate.

Are we going to be confronted with a further change of mind this year, or next year? An even more exciting possibility exists. This year we are having two sessions of Parliament and the Government may this time be able to change its mind twice in one year. In the past we have had one point of view in one year and another point of view in another year. What is the situation? This makes a farce of legislation and hardly adds to the effectiveness and the credibility of institutions like the Indian Council, institutions which are, after all, the products of Government policy and are intended to be serious forums dealing with the lives of important sections of the South African population.

Our attitude to the question of Indian representation is wellknown. We believe that the Indian population should be represented alongside with other population groups in this Parliament, and we are opposed to separate racial councils which are always subject to the whims of a sovereign all-White Parliament. That is our attitude.

But we are faced with a Government that has consistently rejected this notion and we are forced therefore as the official Opposition, to look, at a second-best situation. Because we believe that if we are to have a council, however restricted its powers, a council which is going to be a vehicle for testing the views of a section of our population, it is obviously better that that council should be elected, and we believe that the sooner it is an elected body, the better it will be for all concerned.

In introducing this Bill, the hon. the Minister now, however, wants to recreate a nominated body while he dilly-dallies about an election. We are discussing this on 5 February 1981 and the hon. the Minister has told us there is going to be an election on 4 November 1981. Sir, we are totally opposed to giving the Minister power to recreate this nominated body, because one wonders why there has to be further vacillation and delay over an election so that at least the Indian community would have a body that is properly representative of them.

The voters have also been waiting for a long time. The constituencies have been delimited, and for years now the political parties have indicated that they are organized and ready. They have organized branches and they are ready to fight the election.

Would you agree with me that the strongest political party in the council itself is the Reform Party?

Yes.

And it still exists that way?

Yes. I beg your pardon? Are you talking about the Reform Party?

Yes. Is that not the strongest party?

Yes.

Does it still exist that way?

I will come to that. If the political parties have now said, in their discussions with him yesterday, that they will go along with what he proposes, let me say that I have some sympathy with them, because I know from my discussions with them that their attitude is really one of resignation. They actually say: We have waited so long, so perhaps it will not do any harm to wait a little longer. That does not, however, indicate satisfaction with the history of this whole matter, the way in which they have been put off year in and year out, whichever political party is involved. Indian politicians are anxious to have this election take place, and for a number of years they have been organized.

As I have indicated, the hon. the Minister has announced that there is going to be an election, but there is a long history involved in this matter. We have had similar announcements made in the past, and this is what makes the situation totally farcical.

Promises, promises.

That is right. We believe that it is totally unrealistic, totally undesirable, to try again—even if for an interim period—to create a nominated council such as the Indian Council. I am not saying that the Indian Council did not serve a purpose in the past, but whatever purpose it may have served in the past, that purpose is now something of the past. The fact of the matter is that the Indian Council has had some good people on it. In the circumstances in which they saw their community, a community deprived of any representation in the legislative bodies that matter in South Africa, they saw it as their duty to serve on the council. No one questions the ability of these people, or the sincerity with which many of them tackled their task, but the hon. the Minister must know that many good and honourable people have been lost to the Council simply because, as the years went by, they found that their own credibility was being questioned by their own community, because they were serving on a body which was in no way representative. Whatever the status of the Indian Council may have been when it was created, more and more people found, as they served on it, that their role was being questioned in their own community, because of the totally farcical situation of having a body which purported to speak on behalf of the Indian community, but could not really claim to do so because it was not elected. Now the hon. the Minister seeks to perpetuate this, and that is the main principle we shall oppose. That is the reason why we cannot support the Bill.

I believe the hon. the Minister should also take this opportunity of telling us more of how he sees the Indian Council functioning. His predecessor was at pains to tell us last year that for a number of reasons it would have been unwise to have held the elections early last year, but primarily because of the operation of the Schlebusch Commission and because its interim report was expected soon. Let me quote some of the utterances of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor during that debate. He said (Hansard, col. 665)—

and he is referring to the Schlebusch Commission—

That is the reason given by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. He then went on in a later section of the debate to say (Hansard, col. 933)—

The Schlebusch Commission produced its interim report, and the result of that was the formulation and creation of the President’s Council. I want to know from the hon. the Minister, in the light of what his predecessor said, in what way the situation of the Indian community has changed as a result of the creation of the President’s Council.

This afternoon the hon. the Minister announced that an election will take place on 4 November. What is the basis of that, in the light of what his predecessor said? How has the situation charged? What further direction has been given to the Indian community so that they can better assess their situation in the light of the Government’s plans? What do they know about the Government’s plans? Yet this year the hon. the Minister comes along, despite what his predecessor said, and tells us he is going ahead with an election. I welcome the news that an election is taking place. My criticism is simply that it should be taking place forthwith and should not be delayed until the end of the year, and we should not, in the meantime, be burdened once again with a body which is not accepted by the Indian community.

Let me get back to the whole question of the President’s Council. In this regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question. Is it perhaps his intention in the future to use the electoral roll, which is going to be created and on which the November election is going to be fought, as part of the referendum process to which the hon. the Prime Minister has referred, or at least hinted at, should the President’s Council make recommendations relating to the Indian and Coloured communities which need to be referred to the people? Will the Government consult the Indian community in such a referendum, and is this perhaps one of the reasons why the voters’ roll is now being revalidated? I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether his question to me is whether the provisions of an Act which he is anticipating now, an Act concerning the referendum, will be used to test the views of the Indian community before the report is received or before the election? Is that the question?

I am asking the hon. the Minister how he sees the function of the Indian Council. Let us assume it is an elected body. The hon. the Minister has told us that 166 000 people are registered on the voters’ roll. Let us assume that it is an elected body representative of the Indian community. How is the hon. the Minister going to deal with that council? This is what I would like him to give us some insight into. Is it going to be taken seriously when it comes to looking at the views of the Indian community? What are its functions going to be? Will the Government give it real authority to speak on behalf of the Indian community? The topical question is the question of the referendum which has been debated in the House during this session and to which the hon. the Prime Minister has referred. If the President’s Council were to come with recommendations regarding the Indian community, and it was necessary to have a referendum, presumably among the White people in South Africa, would the hon. the Minister consider that the Indian community should also participate in the referendum? Would this voters’ roll be used as a basis for a referendum? That is the sort of thing one wishes to know in trying to assess just how serious the Government might be in regard to the Indian Council.

I am not anticipating the debate that would take place were I to introduce a Bill of that nature.

I am not anticipating the debate either. We are talking about a council which ought to be fully representative of the community, and I want to know what the Government’s intentions are. I admit that it might be difficult. From past experience we know that the Government’s intentions change from year to year. I would, however, hope that under this hon. Minister there might be a little more consistency. I hope he has thought the matter through and that when he talks about the election and the council, he has something in mind as to how important that council is going to be when he determines the wishes of the Indian community.

Sir, these are many of the questions which we believe need to be answered. As far as the Indian community is concerned, they want to know just how serious the Government is in setting up a body which might be properly representative of the Indian community. But in the meantime we cannot go along with the perpetuation of a nominated Indian Council, and for that reason we are opposed to this Bill and will vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have seldom, if ever, in this House witnessed such a total disregard of the interests and wishes of a particular section of the South African community—in this instance the Indian community— as I have had the displeasure of listening to from the hon. member for Musgrave. It is quite obvious that the official Opposition does not see its role in this House as being part of the machinery to find solutions for the many problems of this country and its peoples. The role of the official Opposition is merely to play politics and to try to score petty political points when we are confronted with a problematical situation as in the present instance. The same people who like to pose as the champions of a particular section of our community try to score political points instead of assisting in the finding of solutions in the interest of that section of the community.

*This attitude was clearly apparent from the reference by the hon. member for Musgrave this afternoon to what he called “the sad catalogue of problems”. We are faced with an awkward situation here, but instead of displaying understanding and suggesting an alternative as to how we could get out of this dilemma, he flings reproaches at the Government, puts all sorts of hair-splitting questions to the hon. the Minister and tries to score political debating points with a view to the approaching election. This afternoon the Opposition has once again been unmasked as being nothing but an obstruction in the House, because time and again their approach is one of obstruction when we try to make progress with legislation designed to cope with a particular problem situation.

The hon. member is insinuating that it is the policy of the Government and of this side of the House to perpetuate a nominated Indian Council. Surely that is not true. In 1977 already we placed legislation on the Statute Book for the very purpose of making provision for an elected Indian Council. Surely it is very obvious that it is the policy of the Government and of this side of the House to move away from a nominated or partially nominated Indian Council. Surely it is obvious from all the policy statements the Government and of this side of the House in what direction we are moving with members of the Indian community.

Backwards.

If a person has such a distorted concept of direction and course as the hon. member who has just spoken, one can understand why he would regard progress as deterioration. The Government has very clearly indicated the direction in which it intends moving, also by means of the Act that was placed on the Statute Book as far back as 1977.

Now what are the facts? The fact is that proclamation No. R.167 of 1974 provided for the election of members of the Indian Council in accordance with the system of electoral colleges. The Indian Council was duly constituted on that basis. Paragraph 24 of proclamation No. R.167 of 1974, which was later added to proclamation No. R.160 of 1976, provided for the registration of Indian voters, with the very object of moving away from the system of electoral colleges. Approximately 164 000 Indian voters were infact registered in terms of that paragraph. While paragraph 24 made the election in accordance with the system of electoral colleges impossible after 5 November 1977, it simultaneously repealed the provisions of paragraph 3 of proclamation No. R.167 of 1974. That is the paragraph that provided who could vote in an election in accordance with the system of electoral colleges. Now, on the other hand, section 1 of Act 13 of 1980 has prohibited the extension of the term of office of members of the Indian Council after 5 November 1980. That is the situation we now find ourselves in.

In terms of the 1977 Act, we should have had an election, and I charge the hon. member for Musgrave with refusing to respect the wishes of the Indians themselves in this connection. This is the most glaring form of contempt for peoples’ wishes I have ever seen. It is the greatest violation of the principle of self-determination that I have ever heard of. The members of the Indian Council asked the hon. the Minister to postpone the election. The Indians’ own representatives asked the hon. the Minister to postpone the election. The hon. the Minister went further and consulted the representatives of the various parties. He consulted the various Indian parties, and they agreed that now was not the time to hold an election. But of course, the hon. member for Musgrave knows better than the Indians themselves what is good for them. He is the big wheel who is urging us to hold an election now, without any evidence, without any indication even that he consulted with the Indians, without any indication whatsoever that the Indians agree with him. And yet he comes here and poses as the great spokesman for the Indian population. After the hon. the Minister had set out in detail in his Second Reading speech what liaison there had been between him and the Indian community, the hon. member simply questioned this on his own authority. It is nothing but a transparent political game.

We now have the situation where we either have to hold an election, while the Indian community itself is saying that they do not want one at this juncture, or we have to find another solution. The only solution we can find in this case, is the deletion of paragraph 24 of proclamation 167 of 1974. As I have explained, however, paragraph 24 also repealed section 3 of the proclamation. Consequently, one cannot simply revert to the system of election on the basis of electoral colleges. For that reason it is now necessary for us to make provision by means of legislation, as we are doing in the Bill before the House, for half of that council to be elected by electoral colleges as previously constituted. In order to retain the registration of the 164 000 or so voters, we also have to make provision by means of the Bill that that registration will not be undone. That is all that is being envisaged with this Bill. The object of the Bill is merely to create machinery for escaping from the existing dilemma. It is very clear from the speech by the hon. the Minister and, as I have already previously argued, it is also very clear from the Government’s policy in this regard, that this Bill is nothing but an interim measure and that elections in terms of the 1977 Act will be held as early as practicable.

But the hon. member for Musgrave is saying: “No, it is unrealistic.” According to him it is unrealistic to have a partially nominated council, even for an interim period. Now, if that is unrealistic, I want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave what is in fact realistic. Is it realistic first to go and hold a national convention and to implement the recommendations of that national convention in a year or two, or three, or probably never? Would that help the members of the Indian community? Surely the hon. member for Musgrave, who is a senior member of this House, knows as well as anyone that according to the policy of his party it will not be possible to make provision in any form for any say by the Indians in the Government of this country, not now, not tomorrow, not ever, for the simple reason that the voters of this country will never accept their policy. Surely it is not a realistic alternative that the hon. member has advanced. It is nothing but politicking. And then he says that it is unrealistic to implement the provisions of the Bill under consideration now, as an interim measure.

He is totally irrelevant. In any event, he will soon vanish from the scene.

Yes, the hon. member for Simonstown is quite correct. The hon. member for Musgrave will soon vanish from the scene. In due course one will encounter him and people who think as he does only in museums.

We shall see.

There are absolutely no grounds for misgivings about this legislation; on the contrary it is the only realistic, practical method of escaping from the present dilemma. This Bill is being introduced with the best of intentions in order to serve the interests of members of the Indian community. It will serve only as an interim measure, until the Government can make a reality of its already stated policy of elections for a fully elected council for the Indians when the time for that is opportune, which is also in accordance with the view of the Indians themselves. For that reason I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has given us a graphic illustration here this afternoon of how the NP Government goes forward in reverse. He made heavy weather of the fact that the official Opposition was an obstruction. I should like to submit that this Government has been obstructing the aspirations and the wishes of the Indian community for far too long.

By giving effect to their wishes?

By giving effect to their wishes! I shall deal with that in a minute.

Why do you not deal with it right now?

We in the NRP are not going to support this measure here today. The predecessors of this hon. Minister, in their dealings with the Indian people, enjoyed the support and the encouragement of this party for long enough; as a matter of fact, once too often.

I can only describe the dealings of this Government with the Indian people as nothing more and nothing less than a trail of broken promises, and the NRP will no longer be part of the broken promises. I should like to trace the history of these broken promises. I want to go back, not to what this hon. Minister said, but to what his predecessor said in this House on 12 February last year. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 85, col. 585)—

He was speaking about the postponement of the election for the Indian Council and the extending of the life of that council. He went on to say—

That is what the hon. the Minister’s predecessor said here on 12 February 1980.

All that is already contained in the Act.

We are faced here today with a repetition by the hon. the Minister of virtually those very words. All we need do is look at what the hon. the Minister has said to us today. He has told us that the executive committee of the Indian Council, after frank discussions with him, advised him that the Indian community at large was not yet ready for a general election. He went on to say that he had discussed the question with the executives of the Reform Party, the Democratic Party …

Is the hon. member referring to the previous discussion?

No, Sir. I am referring to what the hon. the Minister told us during his Second Reading speech today.

But I had two discussions with them, one last year and one before. To which discussion is the hon. member referring?

Mr. Speaker, I am simply referring to the fact that the hon. the Minister told us here today that he had had discussions with the various political parties and that they had indicated that there should not be a general election for the Indian people at this stage. Am I correct in that? That is what the hon. the Minister said. I presume that the hon. the Minister discussed this matter with the smaller parties, the minor parties.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the hon. member for Musgrave in rather strong language. He said that he felt that the hon. member for Musgrave was being a little backward by not agreeing, as he put it, to the wishes of the Indian people. He suggested …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the question later. I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to my argument first. I listened very politely to what the hon. the Minister had to say. It was suggested that the hon. member for Musgrave was actually guilty of the greatest insult to the Indian people because the hon. member for Musgrave had questioned the fact that the hon. the Minister had spoken to the members of the various political parties. After all, this was the mandate that had been given to the hon. the Minister. If the members of the Indian parties had said: Please, just reappoint the Indian Council, reappoint your 15 members. Let us go back to the old way of doing things. We shall elect the other 15 members through our electoral college but we do not want an election yet because we are not ready for it …

Oh, Brian, come back to the Bill, will you?

Order!

If it is so that the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Mossel Bay feel that they have done the right thing then may I ask why it is that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister did not ask my hon. leader and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether or not they could hold a general election on 29 April of this year? What is the difference? There has been no consultation with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or with the leader of the party that I represent in regard to this matter. But why should there be? I should like to know, in terms of what the hon. member for Mossel Bay has had to say, whether the hon. the Prime Minister consulted his own party before calling a general election, never mind the other political parties. Did he consult the hon. member for Rissik? I am sure he is dying to have a general election! There is also the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The list is endless, Sir. No, Sir. We cannot accept that as being an argument. It is an empty argument. That is an argument that is no longer acceptable to the members serving the opposition parties on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Indian people have been denied this election on no fewer than three occasions over the last two or 2½ years. Initially, the election was set down for November of 1979. That date was put forward to 26 March 1980. During the Committee Stage of the debate on this issue last year I moved an amendment which the then hon. Minister accepted, an amendment to the effect that the election would take place no later than 5 November 1980. There we have the three dates. And today, this hon. Minister has come along and given us a fourth date—4 November 1981. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in all fairness: Can we really believe you? Can we accept what you are saying today? Having had this trail of broken promises it is extremely difficult for us to accept this. This party has tried to give encouragement and has tried to help. I know that the hon. the Minister has had representations from the Indian people just as we have had representations from them. Congratulations were showered upon me last year because of the acceptance of the amendment to set the election down for no later than 5 November 1980. Indians, literally in their hundreds, telephoned me and wrote to me to say: “Fine, now we know we are going to have an election. There is no way that we cannot now have our election.” There was dismay near the end of last year and there were those who said, “The Government has found a way to get around this.” I said that they were making a mockery of Parliament. Believe you me, Sir, I felt that sincerely, because this Parliament, where we had debated this issue last year, was indeed being made a mockery of as that election did not take place. Now the hon. the Minister comes to us today and he again talks about delays. We can no longer have any part of this circus, if I may use such terminology, but that is what it has become.

A charade!

It has become a merry-go-round and we shall have no part in any more trifling with the Indian people.

The hon. the Minister and the Government have the wealth of their enormous majority and they will vote this measure in whatever way they want. With that tremendous majority they will decide what they want. This is the sort of thing, however, which puts us to shame and which will go against us when the history of this country is written one day. In heaven’s name, I believe that we have done an injustice to these people by not holding this election when it should have been held. We are doing an injustice to these people again by perpetuating the folly of having a half-appointed and half-elected Indian Council. If we do not hold this election at the end of the year, well then, thank heavens, that we in these benches have opposed this measure today. In future we shall oppose any measure that has anything to do with not allowing the Indian people the right to have a general election to elect their own South African Indian Council.

Mr. Speaker. I listened attentatively to my old friend, the hon. member for Umhlanga. While he was rather histrionically giving full rein to his vocabulary, one word after the other, I was wondering whether I should see him in my mind’s eye in the milieu of the Areopagus or the milieu of Hyde Park, for the terminology which the hon. member was using was simply astounding.

It is the same terminology one hears while watching Dallas.

The hon. member referred to “a trail of broken promises”, to a circus, to a “merry-go-round” and went on to say we were “trifling with the Indian people”. Other expressions used by him were “it puts us to shame” and “in heaven’s name”. I last experienced the likes in Hyde Park, as I was not alive when the Areopagus was in session. I shall come back to the hon. member at a later stage.

I now want to deal with the speech by the hon. member for Musgrave and contrast him with the hon. member for Umhlanga. Just as he did last year the hon. member for Musgrave actually made a purely party-political speech. I want to remind the hon. member that at that stage he said, inter alia (Hansard, 12 February 1980, col. 586)—

The hon. member’s theme today was more or less the same. There is now an election at hand, on which occasion all the parties will, hopefully, state their standpoints on these matters to their collective satisfaction. I just want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave briefly—in so doing I conclude my remarks on his speech—that I do not think he really understood what the hon. the Minister said. That is the first point. In the second place the hon. member has no idea of what the hon. the Minister has to deal with. I want to refer him once again to the hon. the Minister’s speech.

I now want to quote two things from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. In the first place he said (Hansard, 5 February)—

I know the hon. the Minister and I know that he can be “open and frank” in a discussion, and consequently I can imagine how he held discussions with the people. I go on to quote what the hon. the Minister said—

It is clear to me from this that the hon. the Minister, as the new Minister in this portfolio, held long discussions around a round, long or oval conference table with the Indian leaders, listened carefully to their problems and arrived at this well-considered opinion after the discussion. In contrast to the hon. member for Musgrave the hon. the Minister stated his standpoint in the light of the view we adhere to in this regard.

The hon. member for Umhlanga said that the Government had made a promise last year as a result of an amendment he had moved. But, Sir, that just demonstrates the problems in which one can find oneself if one accepts an amendment from the Opposition.

I too have already experienced that. One must not even consider something like that.

I hope that the hon. the Minister learns a lesson from this as well, because I want to tell him in what a fine spirit the previous Minister made the promise. He said: “Very well, the people are insisting on this; let us now demonstrate that we co-operate well.”

At a later stage in his speech the hon. the Minister touched on another central point when he said—

Problems may arise again, and consequently we may come forward at the end of this year or next year …

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member tell me where the quotation appears that he has just read?

It is a quote from the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech.

The hon. the Minister skipped that paragraph.

Well, it does not appear in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, but this is, however, what the hon. the Minister is envisaging. We need not split hairs on this matter.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Umhlanga and remind him of what he said in this House last year (Hansard, 12 February 1980, col. 597)—

This, then, is the hon. member for Umhlanga, the man who made such a theatrical speech here just now, who used these words—

In other words, if the hon. member wants to rail at someone today he must not rail at the hon. the Minister. He did not do so last year either. He railed at the Indian community. I doubt whether the Indian community read everything which was said here last year by the PFP, and if they did, they very clearly did not take heed of what the hon. member said. The hon. the Minister bears the responsibility. In spite of what happened last year the hon. the Minister, who is the responsible Minister, has to take the Indians’ ideas into account. Consequently, if we reach the end of this term and things cannot yet be done in this way—one should like this very much, and so would the hon. the Minister—we must take into account that we are dealing with a different ethnic group, their peculiar problems and their specific circumstances. On their part the Opposition can say whatever they like. We have to bear the responsibility and we shall sort out these problems in conjunction with the Indian community. The whole group and I, personally, I want to assure the hon. the Minister, were quite satisfied with the way he handled these affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great respect to the hon. member for Rissik. I have great appreciation for him, great affection for him, because I must say he is never devious. One always knows where he stands. Even though he and I differ in many respects about fundamental matters, at least I always know where the hon. member stands, and I have great appreciation for that. [Interjections.] However, I think the hon. member for Rissik, as well as the hon. member for Mossel Bay, did the hon. member for Musgrave an injustice by saying that the hon. member for Musgrave had played a purely political game, with a view—according to the hon. member for Mossel Bay—to the forthcoming election. If the poor Indians had in fact been registered voters who could vote in the coming general election, the accusation by the hon. member for Mossel Bay would have made sense. However, the advantage to be gained by the PFP in the coming election by pleading the cause of the Indian population in this House escapes me completely. That is the kind of party-political game which really makes it difficult for me in this House to understand whether we are truly in earnest about these matters. For that reason I want to approach this matter from a different angle.

I also think the hon. member for Rissik did the hon. member for Musgrave a second injustice by saying that the hon. member for Musgrave did not understand the hon. the Minister. He can accuse the hon. member for Musgrave of many things, but I do not think he can really accuse the hon. member for Musgrave of a lack of understanding or of intellectual inability. I think that was a little unreasonable of him.

You did not listen very well.

That was what he said. If he did not say it, I should like to apologize. However, I think he did say it, and very clearly too. I have very clearly noted down that he said that the hon. member for Musgrave did not understand the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik also said that the hon. member for Musgrave should not upbraid the hon. the Minister, because the hon. the Minister had the interests of the Indians at heart, had consulted the Indians, etc. However, the hon. member for Musgrave and the other hon. members on this side of the House are not upbraiding the hon. the Minister personally. We are upbraiding the hon. the Minister as the person who implements the policy of the Government, as the person who interprets the policy of the Government, and as the person who now finds himself in the truly unenviable position of having to gloss over what the Government has bungled. Who else are we to upbraid? After all, the Government is not present in an abstract form. If we have anything to say about the conduct of the Government, surely we have to say it to the hon. the Minister concerned and to no one else.

I have no objection.

Thank you very much. I want to apologize to the hon. the Minister for not having been present when he made his speech, but I have read his notes, which I understand he later supplemented by saying that he had in the meantime had further talks with other members of the Indian community, and so forth. However, I have looked at his speech. In his notes there are a few things—and I shall come back later to the matters of principle— which are not very clear to me in terms of the hon. the Minister’s explanation of why there could not be an election earlier. Before I come to that, I just want to say that the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side really must not blame us for having justifiable misgivings about the question of whether the Government really knows what it wants to do. Nor does it apply to this matter alone. It applies to many other matters as well. Two years ago, on 30 March, the then Minister of Indian Affairs said the following with reference to a speech made by the hon. member for Kimberley South (col. 3697)—

It was on 30 March 1979, not 1980. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

“… as we have been requested”—

“We regard this as particularly important”—

†Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the hon. the Minister—

We are not saying this. It was said by the Minister of Indian Affairs in 1979. The Minister continued—

Mr. Speaker, that was on 30 March 1979—

The hon. the Minister then continued and said what a real achievement it was that such a large percentage had registered. I do not know what has happened to the other 200 000 Indian voters, because according to the …

200 000?

I am sorry. I understood there are about 163 000 registered voters at the moment. At that stage there were 283 000. What has happened to the other 120 000 in the meantime?

They could not wait. They gave up.

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting from the speech by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs on 30 March 1979. The fact is that I cannot blame the hon. the Minister for finding himself in this dilemma. But it is a dilemma caused by this Government. That is all we are saying, and nothing the hon. member for Mossel Bay, the hon. member for Rissik or the Cabinet can say can really alter the fact that the Government has bungled time and again year after year in regard to a matter of the most fundamental nature in South African politics, namely the rights of the Indian people.

With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I could not quite in my own mind justify a statement he made today. Firstly, he said—

I regret that I was not here when he spoke. Consequently I do not know whether the hon. the Minister enlarged upon this statement.

Then have the courtesy to be here when I speak.

Sir, if the Order Paper had been followed, I would have been here.

We accommodated the Minister.

In all honesty, I am not sure that I am to blame, but that is neither here nor there. I should like to know why the hon. the Minister said that that was not the appropriate course. What were the factors, what were the elements involved, which led to this not being the appropriate course at that time?

Go and ask the Indian leaders. They will tell you.

No, that matter has been dealt with.

The hon. the Minister went on to say that, in the interests of all concerned, the channels of communication between the Government and the Indian community should not be inpeded in any way because of the reasons mentioned. He continued—

As far as I know, paragraph 24 was only deleted in 1980 after the final decision was taken not to extend the tenure of the Indian Council. In other words, from 1976 to 1980 the provisions contained in paragraph 24 and in paragraph 3 existed side by side. Apparently the Government was not worried at that stage about this existing. So from a purely technical point of view I really fail to understand how the hon. the Minister …

Do you not understand that in the past the lifetime of the council was extended while now we are reconstituting the council? Is that too difficult to understand?

What I am trying to say is that I gathered from this document that the hon. the Minister was saying that because of paragraph 24 paragraph 3 was deleted. Sir, I have looked at the proclamations—and I have them here—but nowhere could I find that the introduction of paragraph 24 in 1976 repealed paragraph 3 of the proclamation of 1974. In actual fact they existed side by side from 1976 to 1980 when paragraph 24 was repealed, now to be reinstated. For that reason alone the introduction of clause 1(2) of the Bill seems to me quite unjustified.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister does not have to fight with me.

*There may be valid reasons why the election could not be held in spite of the express intentions and promises of the Government, but the reasons advanced here by the hon. the Minister as to why it was not possible are not at all convincing. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that to me. The basic problem is that we are witnessing the phenomenon again here which appears time and again—and I am not blaming the hon. the Minister personally for this—and that is that the Government shows a complete insensitivity to the truly fundamental needs of those members of our community who are not represented in this House. The hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Mossel Bay profess that the Government really has the interests of those people at heart. I sometimes suffer from a very strong imagination, but heaven knows, I really cannot stretch my imagination far enough to agree with that view.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin at once with the hon. member Prof. Olivier and say that he complimented the hon. member for Rissik by saying that even if he did not agree with the hon. member, at least he knew where the hon. member stood. In politics, especially in the official Opposition, there is a serious need to know exactly where they stand. In fact, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat did not always stand where he now stands. So I really do not think the hon. member can blame the hon. member for Rissik for never having deviated from his standpoint.

I think there are certain fundamental premises on which I disagree with the hon. members, and I think we should start there. The debate has centred around two main aspects. In the first place, there has been the technical part, dealing with a general election in terms of the 1977 legislation, or the reconstitution of the council in terms of the 1974 legislation. This is the one basic point we are arguing about. In fact, it is what the legislation before us is actually concerned with. The other aspect is the difference between the fundamental policy premises of the official Opposition and those of this party in respect of how the rights, and in this particular context the political rights, of various population groups should be accommodated. Therefore I should like to debate these particular aspects with hon. members, and I think it is quite reasonable that they should want to debate them with me. Therefore I should like to accede to the request that we do so.

However, let me deal first with the witticisms that are being paraded as arguments. What did the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Umhlanga really do? All they did in their arguments was to outline the history of the matter as recorded in Hansard. I saved them the trouble. I sent them a copy of my introductory speech, which contains this in any case. However, what hon. members are forgetting is, in the first place, which party not only advocated material rights for this population groups, but also took the initiative in starting that process. Hon. members happen to forget that when their political forbears were in power before 1948, the Indian population was not even recognized as being South African citizens. They did not have a record in respect of …

What has become of your 1948 Indian policy?

Just give me a chance, please. I did not interrupt that hon. member. The fact is that this is the party which recognized the Indian population as being South African citizens.

Secondly, I want to make the categorical statement today that no responsible member of the Indian population would like to go back to the educational dispensation which existed under the Natal Provincial Administration. And in the third place, the development of political institutions for the Indians, in respect of rights, began with a council which was wholly constituted, because there was a need, which still exists, for instruments to be created in the first place for consultation with population groups whose lives are affected by legislation passed in this House, in which they themselves are not, however, represented. Now I ask, with all due respect, whether there is a single hon. member on the other side who objects to the creation of instruments for consultation, no matter how ineffective they may be in the eyes of those hon. members. I suggest that there should not be a single hon. member holding such a view. After all, the Indian Council developed in an evolutionary way. In 1974, the situation arose where the Indian Council was partly nominated and partly elected. I submit that this testifies to a process of development in which the council received an element of representation, even if it was not fully representative. Surely that is progress.

In the fourth place, the Government introduced the Electoral Act for Indians in 1977, in terms of which the Indian Council was to be elected on a basis of constituencies. This represents progress, if I understand the meaning of the word correctly. Let us now observe the course of events since then. Surely it is relevant.

In my capacity as Minister of Interna Affairs, those hon. members blame me for the fact that the election did not take place in accordance with the assurance formerly given in debates in this House. I think they have every right to do so, but in exercising this right, there are certain aspects which I think hon. members should consider. One of these is the question of who took the initiative which caused the elections not to take place. What do we know about this? What do those hon. members know about this? Do those hon. members realize on the strength of their own knowledge—if they do not, they ought to—that in every case, the postponement of the elections was suggested by representatives of the Indian population itself and not by the Government? In my opinion, this gives rise to a crucial question. This is that when I am dealing with the interests of the Indian population, and in view of the achievements of the predecessors of hon. members on the other side, the question arises of whom I should listen to. Should I listen to hon. members opposite …

Never!

Or should I listen to the leaders of the Indian community?

Who are their leaders?

I am coming to that.

The leaders whom you nominated.

I am coming to that. Please give me a chance.

They are not elected leaders.

If only the hon. member for Bryanston would keep his mouth shut, he would not swallow his common sense. [Interjections.] I want to reply to those hon. members in all fairness, and I assume that they would like to hear the replies. I want to submit that if I am to consider and attach importance to the various standpoints concerning this matter, I have to attach the greatest importance, when the interests of the Indian population are affected, to the standpoints of the leaders of the Indian community. I do not think anyone would argue with me about that. Whether or not I followed what I allege to be the correct course of conduct, when I received the request from the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council—and hon. members know that various political parties are represented on the Executive Committee—that the election be postponed, I regarded the reasons they gave me as convincing. But because, in the first place, I could theoretically be accused of having listened to the opinions of only four people, I said that before giving any further consideration to the matter, I wanted to learn the view of the whole council. This was the second step in the process of consultation and consideration in order to establish what the majority view was.

The council met, and at that stage it consisted of 22 members; i.e. all the members still serving on it were present. The representatives of various parties sat on that council. After discussions the council voted on the matter, and 20 of those members voted for the postponement of the election and two members abstained. Then, Sir, in carrying out my responsibility, I took a third step. I consulted the recognized political parties existing at that time. The hon. member for Umhlanga blamed me for having done so. He asked me why I consulted leaders of the Indian parties in connection with an election, but not the leaders of the Opposition parties in the House of Assembly. However, this is a non sequitur. In the first place, the leaders of the political parties are not after all leaders of Opposition parties against me.

If they were sitting over here they would be.

Sir, if they were here, that hon. member would not be here. They know his record. [Interjections.] The second thing the hon. member blamed me for was for having consulted only the small parties, as he said. Apparently he spoke to the big ones.

I did not say that; I asked it.

No, Sir. I rose to ask the hon. member a question and he told me that he would reply to the question later, but then he resumed his seat. I now want to ask him this question: Who are the small parties and who are the big parties? [Interjections.] The fact remains that I consulted all the recognized parties, but the hon. member reproaches me for having done so. I do not know why.

Is the Reform Party not divided on this matter?

Of course, but I consulted them as well. Of course they are divided about this. I want to tell the hon. leader with all due respect that when they consult people, they consult only those who subscribe to their point of view, while I consult everyone.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in his discussion with the Indian political parties he found out from them what their attitude was to a nominated council, to the principle of an electoral college. If so, what was their attitude in this regard?

Mr. Speaker, the deputations I saw and I myself reached consensus about the fact that we prefer an elected council, in terms of the 1977 legislation, to a nominated council. That is exactly what I said.

But they are opposed to a nominated council.

Wait a minute. The hon. member says they are opposed to it, but did they not request me to postpone it? How can the hon. member make that statement?

What is their attitude now?

I shall tell the hon. member what their attitude is.

†Let me give the hon. member the answer. I shall tell him what the answer is in English so that he may be able to understand me better. [Interjections.] Please, there is no insult implied. Will the hon. member accept that? The position, Sir, is frankly that I can only judge by results. If this legislation is accepted, there will be 15 vacancies to be filled. There are 10 vacancies in Natal, four vacancies in the Transvaal and one in the Cape. For the 10 vacancies in Natal, 42 people have been nominated and since nomination day one has withdrawn. For the four vacancies in the Transvaal 10 people were nominated and in the Cape for the one vacancy, three people. I submit, with due respect, that this is sufficient evidence to prove that the Indian people are prepared to serve on that type of body until such time it is generally elected.

Let me reiterate what I have said before. The initiative in postponing the election in terms of the 1977 Act was taken by the Indian people and not by the Government, myself or my department. Let me reiterate further that under the present circumstances, I as the responsible Minister had to take cognizance of the attitudes and the wishes of the Indian people and if I had not done that, I could well have been accused of ignoring the people whose interests I have to serve. [Interjections.] With due respect, it can never be argued that any political party represents all the people in the community concerned.

But all the votes represent all the people.

Sir, I should like to take this further. Having listened to all the evidence and having discussed the issue with all the political parties, I found that there was consensus that a general election in terms of the 1977 Act should be deferred until a later date. The only point in issue that remained to be resolved was the question for how long the election would have to be deferred.

Let me deal with the consequences of the decision that was taken. In view of the hon. member for Umhlanga’s amendment which my predecessor accepted, that the lifetime of the council could not be extended beyond 5 November 1980, I found myself in the most invidious situation where I had no institution that I could consult on matters relating to the Indian people. I therefore deemed it advisable and appropriate that even though I and my party had conceded that the council’s effectiveness could be improved, it was still a body that I could consult pending the general election. Had I not done that, it would have meant that my department and I would have run the affairs of the Indian people without consulting any institution.

Why does it not worry you when it comes to the Coloured people?

If the hon. member wishes me to discuss that aspect, I shall do so with pleasure, but I am afraid, Sir, that you will rule me out of order.

You are anticipating Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

A good member should always anticipate Mr. Speaker’s ruling. [Interjections.]

*In practice this would have meant that I would have had no consultative institution to negotiate with. I then considered that I should rather come to this House to listen to the arguments advanced here by the hon. members. I knew that they would advance certain arguments. I considered that I should come to this House with legislation providing for the interim stage. I make no apology for that to anyone.

I went even further in my talks with the Indian leaders. I stated it as my own view that it would be better if the election of councils for the Indian population and for the Brown people could coincide with the election of Parliament. Hon. members will recall that I gave notice of this legislation on the first day of this session and that the hon. the Prime Minister announced the general election last Wednesday. I immediately arranged for the legislation not to be debated—and I informed hon. members of the Opposition of this—so that I could in all fairness explain the position to the same people I had originally consulted. On this basis I decided that I would call an election for 4 November in terms of the 1977 legislation. That is what has happened.

Why so late?

I shall go into that if the hon. member would like me to. I had hoped that the hon. member would be sufficiently informed of the tensions and the divisions—politically speaking—which now exist within that community. It gives me no satisfaction to talk about the divisions between those parties. I should very much like to give the Indian population a chance, if I can, to organize themselves in such a way that they will be able to take part in that election effectively. The decision that they are unable to do so at this stage was not mine. I could show the hon. member all the newspaper reports about the divisions. I could score points against the Indians, but I do not intend to do so.

I come now to the argument of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I want to ask him a question, and this is not a catch question: How many Indians did he consult before putting his standpoint here today? Tell me how many? Did he consult one, two, three or ten?

Two.

That is my problem, Mr. Speaker.

That is not true.

Then say how many you consulted.

When one listens to the arguments of those hon. members, they all make one fundamental mistake. They do not have to make that mistake if they would first ascertain what is going on in the ranks of that population group. What is going on there? This population group, like other population groups in our country, has not been exposed to parliamentary procedures and the organization of political parties for the same period as we have. This is a fact, and once again it is not my own evaluation of the situation. For this reason, painful processes are going on in the formation of political parties and the organizational structures within the Indian community. It would be unreasonable of me not to take cognizance of these and not to give them the opportunity of first organizing themselves properly, politically speaking. I should like to tell the hon. member Prof. Olivier that according to legal advice I have taken, the electoral college list has expired, and that is why I need the legislation. However, I do not want to debate the matter any further now; I do not think it is necessary.

Finally, I just want to discuss the fundamental aspects, and then I shall conclude my speech. My party’s attitude towards political rights of the various groups—in this particular case, the Indian section of our population—is simple. My party recognizes the existance of various population groups and various nations. This is a basic input of this party’s political policy. The majority view of people concerning the future political dispensation in South Africa contains two basic, accepted elements. Firstly, whatever model may apply in this country, it will not be possible to divorce it from ethnicity.

And when you consult them in a referendum?

I am coming to that. Just give me a chance. After all, I did not interrupt the hon. member. Secondly, it must have a geo-political content. This is the structure, the texture of South African society. I am not responsible for it, but I have to live with it. One has only to look at the diversity within one and the same group. Look, for example—this is relevant now—at the diversity within the Indian population group alone. Just look at the different aspirations which exist and the conflicts which have to be resolved within this community alone. This is a decisive reason why we cannot follow the course advocated by the hon. official Opposition. We must also take into consideration the fact that the existing diversity repeats itself many times over in respect of the other population groups living here. When we consider that, the solutions proposed by the hon. member for Musgrave become even more impractical, even more of a flight of the imagination and even more dangerous.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that—as he himself admitted—he is now going beyond the scope of the subject of the Bill. I have not allowed a wide discussion of the matters of principle in this debate.

As it may please you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asks me what my standpoint on this is and if you will allow me, I shall try to reply to him without breaking the rules. My standpoint and that of the Government is that provision must be made for political institutions—of which the SA Indian Council is one—for the various population groups.

The hon. member refers to legislation which is not yet before this House and asks me whether I shall hold a referendum in terms of that legislation. Surely this is a totally hypothetical question. Surely it is also a fact …

Your Prime Minister talks about it.

The hon. member must please give me a chance. I am replying to that. What did the hon. the Prime Minister hold out the prospect of? But wait a minute, let me rather say it myself. There is no legislative machinery on the Statute Book to provide for referendums. The machinery that has existed has had a single purpose only, for example, the question of whether or not we should become a republic. The need may well arise in the future to consult the various population groups on a variety of measures—or subjects. I support that standpoint. But it is not linked with the President’s Council, or exclusively with the President’s Council, as the hon. member for Musgrave suggests. I think enabling legislation to provide for such a procedure should be welcomed by all parties and by all members of the parties on the other side of this House. It could be an effective instrument for consultation, could it not? I am prepared to debate the legislation at length when it is before us. For the present, I want to make just one remark, and that is that I regret the behaviour of the Opposition. Perhaps the word “regret” is too mild. I find it disappointing …

You are shocked!

I find it disappointing that when we are debating matters in this House which affect other population groups, the hon. members on the other side cannot rise above their petty politicking.

Shame!

The fact is that the legislation before us represents an agreement with the Indian population and was initiated …

Not with the population; with the Indian Council.

Order!

It is an agreement with the Indian population …

No, with the Indian Council.

May I finish, please?

Order!

It represents an agreement which I have concluded with the Indian population through their leaders and the political parties in their community.

Nominated leaders.

Are the leaders of the Reform Party nominated? Are the leaders of the Central Democratic Party nominated? If so, by whom? The hon. member must not talk nonsense. I think it is tragic that the hon. members on the other side should so totally ignore the wishes of the Indian population.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and other Government members will be pleased to hear that we are not going to discuss in depth or raise again many of the arguments which we raised at the Second Reading stage. Perhaps we shall leave that for a later stage. However, it is important for us to review this clause to identify our main areas of agreement with the thrust of the Bill. What this particular clause does is that for the first time it locks the question of registration of a sectional titles scheme to the issue of rent control. In that sense this is a new departure. In the past it was not locked into this. Nevertheless, although it was not locked into it, the hon. the Minister will concede that it was the process of administrative decontrol of rental units, together with the provision in last year’s Act that from 1 April there could be eviction, that led to the sudden spate of sales and registration of schemes under the Sectional Titles Act. Therefore, while the two were not formally linked by way of legislation, in fact they were linked, because the procedure of decontrol and the threat of eviction hastened the increase of the number of sectional titles schemes. The hon. the Minister is now formally interlocking these two in order to try to arrest this process and to give the tenants more security. In so far as this clause will achieve that, we want to support the hon. the Minister and to thank him for accepting our advice on this matter.

We raised a number of issues yesterday relating to the practical problems which are going to flow from the implementation of the provisions of this clause. The hon. the Minister in the main has said that this will work itself out or else he has discretionary powers. We want to say to the hon. the Minister that because he has said that he hinges the success of this operation on the discretionary powers that he has, we are going to hold him responsible. We are going to hold him responsible for ironing out the problems which we believe are going to flow from this piece of legislation. He does not want to write certain things into the law, and he must now accept the responsibility for how he applies his discretion, and I am going to identify a couple of these items.

First of all, this puts the onus on the municipalities, the first authorities to approve of the registration of schemes, to take certain new factors into account. The first factor that they have to take into account is contained in the proposed subsection (6)(b) which states—

I now want to put some practical problems to the hon. the Minister. It may be easy for a local authority to determine whether or not a building is completely rent controlled, although there is no register of rent controlled buildings. But they can assume that if a building was first occupied before 21 October 1949 it is rent controlled. They can ascertain when they first allowed it to be occupied. How is the local authority going to determine that certain units in a building are still under rent control? There is no register of these units. In fact, a tenant who is claiming protection of rent control is not required by law either to advise the landlord or to advise the rent board. There is in fact no register of buildings in which there are still residual tenants under rent control. Even the question of whether those particular units are rent-controlled, depends on whether the individual was under rent control at the time it was decontrolled, whether he qualified and still qualifies for assistance under the Housing Act, and whether an individual tenant still occupies a particular room or apartment in a block of flats.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that is placing a very severe onus on the local authorities. If a building is rent-controlled, or partly rent-controlled, what procedure does he envisage can and should be followed by the local authority in order to comply with this provision? The proposed new section 4(6)(c) says that local authorities may also not consider a scheme if a developer, in conflict with a subsequent provision, has sold or offered for sale a unit in a period of two years immediately preceding the date of his application to the local authority. I should like to know once again from the hon. the Minister how the local authority will know. How is a local authority to know whether an individual landlord, owner or converter has offered or advertised a particular unit for sale in the preceding two years or not? [Interjections.] Let us assume a local authority does not know and proceeds to give approval to a scheme, and a tenant subsequently gets a court interdict saying the local authority was wrong in approving the scheme and that they can show that there are people who deserve protection under the Rents Act still occupying the premises. What then? We want to know from the hon. the Minister how he envisages that a local authority should know and be quite sure it is not approving or considering a scheme in contravention of these two provisions contained in this clause of the Bill.

The third point on which I want to dwell is the practical problems we raised yesterday and which the hon. the Minister indicated could be ironed out in various instances by him in terms of his discretion. In relation to this particular clause I want to know from him again what is going to happen in instances where schemes have been commenced to the extent that tenants or other people have already signed an agreement to purchase. I am referring to people who have already started to purchase and who now find that, as a result of this, the scheme will forever be stymied, because the particular block of flats will forever be under rent control. The hon. the Minister said yesterday they would have to carry on paying their monthly instalments if that was stipulated in the contract. They will, however, carry on paying monthly instalments for a contract which, in terms of this clause, can never be brought to fruition. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what he intends should happen should these contracts go on with everybody looking around in another direction saying they will in fact be registered while, in terms of this measure, it is said they cannot be considered for registration.

Furthermore, there are certain schemes already in the pipeline and there are schemes which have been to a local authority, and because the local authority is not satisfied that the particular building complies with the requirements of sectional titles legislation, has sent that back again for improvement so that the building can be altered in order that it can comply. What happens if a council is already considering a scheme but has not yet made its final decision? At what stage is the cut-off point reached? What happens if an application was made prior to the promulgation of this legislation and has been referred back to the converter so that he can make adjustments to his scheme before he can get approval? Can that scheme come back again?

No.

Well, I think this should be made quite clear. If a scheme has already been considered, even if they are sitting considering a particular scheme, they cannot proceed to consider it …

[Inaudible.]

Right, I want to raise that point. I shall deal with that. The hon. the Minister said further that he did not want one or two individual tenants to hold up a whole scheme because they are still protected by rent control. We believe that this thing cuts both ways. It can very often protect particular tenants, but it can also prejudice a number of well-meaning people who have already purchased and have good reason to believe it is reasonable that they should get occupation of those premises.

The hon. the Minister has said that in the end he will accept personal responsibility for the decision. He says that the only way out of this dilemma is for him to exempt, by proclamation in the Gazette, that particular unit within a block of flats from the operation of rent control. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we feel that in this respect he is taking upon himself an awesome responsibility. We want to tell him that we are going to watch him very, very carefully indeed. As the responsible Minister, we are going to hold him responsible in every case in which he takes a decision. We want, in fact, to see whether he is going to have the wisdom of Solomon so as to ensure that nobody is going to be prejudiced as a result of the situation that has arisen.

The fourth point in regard to the discretion of the Minister is that this whole matter is linked to the question of whether rent control still applies to a block or to a unit. The hon. the Minister knows that the question of whether units will continue to be rent controlled is in his discretion. In fact, it is in the discretion of the Government to come to this House to ask whether rent control should be abolished. We want therefore to say to the hon. the Minister that we think that as a result of seven months of agony caused by the legislation of last year, the hon. the Minister is giving some measure of protection to tenants, but we are far from satisfied that these clauses as they stand here combined with the discretion that the hon. the Minister is going to exercise are in fact going to be adequate to meet the situation. We are going to watch the hon. the Minister. We are going to come to him with our complaints, we are going to come to him with our criticisms and I should like to take a bet with the hon. the Minister. I am prepared to wager that he is going to have to come to this House again next year with further amendments to make this legislation workable in the future.

If necessary, I shall do so.

Mr. Chairman, we just want to say that we see complications and difficulties and, to the extent that the hon. the Minister has said that he is going to use his discretion, we shall hold him responsible for the way in which he exercises that discretion.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, firstly, to say that of course we appreciate the admissions made by the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate, and his sympathetic admission of the deficiencies which arose in the Act and gave rise to exploitation.

The matter I wish to take further with the hon. the Minister—I will not repeat the questions put by the hon. member for Sea Point—deals with other additional problems which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I want to say that we would be wrong in thinking that with the provisions of this specific clause we are in fact going to return to a stage of normalization. In this respect normalization lies very far in the future. I want to come to the specific point which the hon. the Minister raised yesterday, and that is the case where there is one or two, or more units in a flat, which are still subject to rent control. He said that he could not allow that one or two or a few persons to obstruct or to delay the whole project for ever. The hon. the Minister also said that he would use his discretion and that it would naturally be a difficult decision for him to take. He also said that it would perhaps be possible to approach the developer and to ask him to try to provide alternative accommodation. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister on what basis such a step would in reality be enforceable on such a developer, especially if the hon. the Minister had already abolished the rent control, because the moment rent control is abolished …

I am not that foolish.

I am very glad to hear it. Once the hon. the Minister has abolished rent control he has absolutely no further control over the matter. When the hon. the Minister talks about alternative accommodation, I wish to raise the following point with him: In terms of the position as it used to be, it was necessary to find comparable accommodation for a year or a specific period. In such cases, if there is a difference in rental, a developer will have to undertake to make up the difference. The price which such a person who might have been a protected tenant, would have to pay the moment he is moved, is that he would have to forfeit the protection he had always enjoyed.

†I should like to deal with one further point and that is in regard to the availability of alternative accommodation. That is the crux of the matter and that will have to be the ultimate solution to the problem. For this reason I can foresee that this will not be the end of the story and we shall have to make further changes.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point had no objection at all to a certain obligation being placed on the local authority. Therefore he accepts that the body which should have the control in this instance should really be the local authority. He did not ask that some or other department should have the control, and I must therefore accept that we all agree that the local authority should control this matter.

What the hon. member for Sea Point actually discussed was the way in which the local authority would in fact exercise control to obtain certain assurances with regard to subsections (b) and (c). I think we can safely leave this in the hands of the local authority, because it is not something unknown. This type of action takes place daily when title deeds to properties are registered and reregistered. For a diversity of reasons certificates must always be issued.

I think that the local authority can ascertain for itself by way of reasonable evidence that no premises are rent controlled. It can for example say that the developer must submit an affidavit to it in which the developer certifies certain things. If that still does not lead to complete satisfaction, it can be said that every inhabitant of the premises must be visited to affix his signature to a certificate which must be submitted to the local authority by the developer that the premises are not rent controlled. However, this is the extreme case. Nevertheless, I am convinced that something must be done about this matter.

A third method may be used. It can be said that the developer involved must go to a regional office of the department to obtain a certificate there. However. I do not believe that something like this is necessary, because it lies within the control of the developer. If he can get satisfaction among the tenants on his premises surely there can be no problem. If I must give you an off-the-cuff opinion I maintain that I can see no practical problem as far as subsection (b) is concerned.

Precisely the same thing pertains with regard to subsection (c). The developer must sign an affidavit in which he states for example that he is not guilty of any of the infringements mentioned. If the local authority is satisfied that something like that is reasonable evidence, the application will be granted. The whole matter falls under the control of the local authority, but I nevertheless believe that regulations in this regard will be promulgated at some time or other. However, I see no reason why one should object to this. I think it is practicable. This, then, is the reply of this side to that question.

I now come to the question of the cut-off point. The hon. member for Sea Point wanted to know where the cut-off point is going to be.

†I shall try to explain the position. Schemes are in preparation and they have been submitted to the local authority at the stage when the Act is promulgated. The question now is what becomes of such schemes in the process of their being finalized. The answer is obviously, as the hon. the Minister has said, that there is a cut-off point. The cut-off point coincides with the date on which the Act is promulgated.

One should bear in mind that there are two stages. While the application is with the local authority, the cut-off point may come into operation. Once the scheme has been submitted to the Deeds Registry, the cut-off point is not relevant. The cut-off point only pertains to the stage when the scheme is under consideration at the local authority.

*I must say straight out that I agree wholeheartedly with the approach that we should finalize this matter as soon as possible. We want to protect the tenants as soon as possible. That is why I believe that the cut-off point should be precisely here.

I should not like to go any further into the aspect of alternative housing which was raised by the hon. member for Durban Central. Yet I wish to point out to him that it is a matter for negotiation. If the owner of a block of flats or the developer wishes to get rid of a person who is obstructing the whole scheme, he must be prepared to negotiate. Even the Minister can play a role in the negotiations by ensuring that the scales are kept in balance. Actually I see no problem in this regard.

Lastly, I wish to point out that in my view the proposed section is a very good one. In terms of the section the protection of tenants is being further extended and I believe that in practice it can work very simply.

Mr. Chairman, I wish it was really as simple as the hon. member for Pretoria-West has made it out to be. As the hon. member for Sea Point has said, we are now dealing with the practical application of what had been agreed to in principle at the Second Reading. I think we are now ad idem. What we want to establish is the maximum protection for the maximum number of tenants entitled to that protection, and to ensure that there will be “geen omseiling van hierdie Wet nie”, and that everybody will enjoy that protection. The first thing to deal with, therefore, the practical implications, is, as the hon. member for Sea Point has said, the onus of administration now placed on local authorities. That is clearly so, because the whole of section 4 of the Sectional Titles Act deals with the applications submitted to the local authority who now has to deal with them.

In the short time that this hon. Minister has had to come to this House with this legislation—and we thank him for it—has he had the opportunity to discuss this matter with local authorities? They have bodies which represent them; indeed, each province has a municipal association while the four provinces are represented on the United Municipal Executive. Has the hon. the Minister perhaps had the opportunity to consult local authorities and to ascertain what difficulties, if any, they have or may foresee in the practical implementation of the onus of administration now being placed on them in terms of paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 1 which we are considering here today? Let me give an example. As hon. members know, I have for 16 years been very closely associated with the daily administration of local authorities, and I think therefore I have a little experience of some of the difficulties they encounter. In Johannesburg alone, from January until October 1980, in ten months, there were 94 applications for sectional title involving 2 500 units as opposed to only 61 applications the year before and 32 in 1978. One can appreciate the large increase in the volume of staff needed to handle these applications for sectional title.

Does the hon. Minister now expect local authorities to appoint an inspectorate to see to it that an inspector has to go out and inspect the buildings in respect of which an application for sectional title has been made? Must he interview every tenant and ascertain whether each one of them is entitled to the benefit of rent control in terms of the economic limits? And should a tenant say to the inspector: “Well, my income is R380, or less”, must he just accept that? What is the onus of responsibility on them?

The hon. member for Pretoria West said: Leave it to them, they will implement it, and they can take an affidavit. But, Sir, with great respect, if we want this thing to work we must not give more work to the local authorities. Let us rather place the onus upon the developer. Let the local authority place the onus upon the developer. Let him go and get the affidavit from the tenants themselves.

That is what I said.

Let those affidavits be filed and let the developer be responsible for the information contained in them and to see that they are correct.

It has been said that this can be done by regulation but in terms of section 40 of the Act which deals with regulations, I do not think one is even entitled to make regulations in this respect because section 40 refers mainly to regulations in so far as sectional title and a deeds registry are concerned. In terms of section 4, which we are dealing with, the local authority can ask for information, and perhaps under this section the information can be obtained. But I think the local authority would like to know what this affidavit must contain. The hon. the Minister must please not tell me that he will make regulations and that he will leave it to the local authorities. It is his department’s responsibility to say: We will issue a standard affidavit and we will inform local authorities that this is the affidavit that will be accepted. Local authorities will then know exactly where they stand, because the first thing they will want to know is what affidavit is required, what their responsibility is and how they are to discharge their responsibility in so far as the onus is concerned that is being placed upon them in terms of this Bill.

This brings me to the next point. The first thing we must try to do is to get a clear and unequivocal interpretation of exactly what clause 1(c) means. I have been telephoned by lawyers and various other people, including hon. members in this House, about the statement the hon. the Minister made in the House. Some people are even interpreting this to mean that a local authority, on receipt of the application, must go back for a period of two years and see whether there has been a contravention during the preceding two years.

You cannot be so naive.

Just let me finish. This is being interpreted as meaning that the local authority must go back two years and see whether there has been—

My interpretation is—and I want the hon. the Minister to state this clearly—that there is no retrospectivity as far as clause 1(c) is concerned and that the “period of two years” only concerns contraventions after the Act comes into force. I would argue— and I believe I would be correct—that “subsection (2) of section 8A” and “subsection (1)(a)” do not come into operation until this law has been promulgated. Therefore it is only in regard to applications made subsequent to the promulgation of this Act that the period of two years applies. It is therefore only in a period of two years after the promulgation of this Act, in other words in regard to fresh applications after the Act has become law, that this provision applies. To put it very simply, if there has been an application for sectional title, and there has been a contravention in the sense that the sale is contrary to the provisions of subsection 8A(1)(a)—-and I am referring to a sale post-dating the promulgation of this Act— can that contravention be regarded as a contravention prohibiting the persons from applying for sectional title for two years?

I now want to take the matter one step further. I trust the hon. the Minister will help me clarify this point. The legislation stipulates “committed an act which, if it were not for the provisions …”. Can we interpret committing an “act” to mean the commission of an offence for which the person concerned has been found guilty, the penalty stipulated in clause 2(4) having been imposed? In other words, a local authority cannot fine a person merely for having committed an act. One can only go by court records. If a person has been convicted of an offence, and there are court records to substantiate this, that offence must be the only type of “act” that is applicable. In other words, will the hon. the Minister state clearly that the “act” referred to here is in fact an offence for which a conviction has been obtained in a court of law? I think that must be clarified fully by the hon. the Minister.

I think local authorities also have to answer two questions. Firstly, do they have to carry out the inspections? Is the onus on them to clear the building or part of the building, in other words to ascertain whether rent control is applicable or not? Secondly, do they have to check on the actual contraventions that have taken place subsequent to the Act’s having been promulgated and see to it that there is no application for a subsequent two year period? Let us try to relate this to practicalities. How would local authorities otherwise know whether there has been a contravention, subsequent to this Act coming into force, by the applicant for sectional title? How on earth are they going to get that information? Do they have to search court records or, in the event of an application, must one place the onus on the applicant to state under affidavit that he has not been convicted of an offence or that he did not commit any offence at all subsequent to the Acts having been passed and prior to having made his application? I think those points require clarification. I think it would help local authorities and the public, at this stage, if we could just obtain the necessary clarity before we go any further.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Sea Point put a number of questions to me, but they already know many of the replies. All I can say is that they are right. In general, therefore, my reply can be very short because they know what the answers are to all these questions. I hope it is not merely a matter of talking for the sake of talking. We all agree that something must be done in this connection. However, I gain the impression, listening to the hon. member for Sea Point, that the Opposition wants to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare. They always want to eat their cake and have it, and I am becoming irritated at that kind of laxness on the part of the Opposition. However, I shall leave it at that. We must at least bear our part of the responsibility.

That is unfair.

Surely it is not right of the hon. member for Sea Point to come and say: It is your Act; you must be responsible for it and we are going to hold you responsible for this and that. This is a difficult piece of legislation; we are dealing with a very difficult problem. It did not arise—as the hon. member sought to intimate here—due to a stupid Act or due to an intention to change a legal provision. Nor did it arise due to the fact that the hon. the Minister effected an amendment to the legislation last year which has not come into effect. It arose due to deficiencies in an existing Act. That is the essence of the matter. It arose due to deficiencies in the legislation, legislation which up to now had had no occasion to be tested in practice. This is the first occasion on which Parliament has been able to consider it. The hon. member now comes along and says that I am trying to close the loopholes and he holds me responsible for that because it is I who am doing so. I bear the responsibility; I am not afraid to accept responsibility. I am not afraid to exercise my discretion. Nor would I be ashamed if I had to come along next year and effect a number of changes to the legislation. I am going to do what is right and essential. I do not wish to give the impression that this legislation is watertight and that provision has been made for the hundred and one problems mentioned by the hon. member. We could conjure up an endless number of spectres. Hon. members need not even mention such problems. Even I could mention a few problems which I can foresee.

Tell us a few.

Mr. Chairman, that would get us nowhere. It could only get us somewhere if hon. members opposite were to be positive and say: “Listen, I think you can deal with this sort of situation by considering the motion we have placed on the Order Paper.” That, however, the hon. members do not do. In fact, they are making no effort to add anything to the provisions of the legislation. All they are doing is sitting back and saying they will do nothing, that there is a major problem but that it is our problem. Nevertheless they want to have their cake and eat it: They do not want us to prejudice these people, nor do they want us to prejudice those people. I am going to try to act as hon. members expect of me, but they must not think that they will get very far with that kind of argument. Each of us should at least try to bear his own responsibility, and I of course am prepared to do my share. I am responsible for the legislation, and I admit that it is very difficult to make provision in the legislation for all the possible eventualities that hon. members forsee. That is simply impossible, and accordingly many of these matters will have to be dealt with administratively. That is my answer in advance. The hon. the Deputy Minister of the department and myself are prepared to act with as much circumspection as possible. We shall probably take some decisions which will not be to everyone’s liking, but we shall nevertheless have to make decisions. We shall have to make decisions because events have placed us in a situation in which one simply cannot introduce legislation capable of dealing with the situation satisfactorily. That is the reply to the majority of reservations put forward.

The hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members have said that I am imposing a burden on the local authority.

Only as regards the practical implementation.

How is the practical implementation going to be effected? I do not think hon. members will differ with me when I say that this is a burden which must be imposed on the authorities. They are the people who have dealt with these matters over the years and now they are also responsible for the implementation of clause 4(6)(a) of the legislation. They are the people who are in the best position to deal with this kind of directive. It is only a question of how they are to do it in practice—as the hon. member for Sea Point said—and my seeing that they can do it. I cannot at this point draw up a set of rules to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Hillbrow and put them to him. Nor do I think we shall be able to issue proclamations in this connection. I am prepared to leave it to a large extent in the hands of the local authorities to determine what requirements they must set the developers. The hon. member for Hillbrow put forward a very practical example. Let the local authorities that feel that way, require of the developer that he submit a certificate stating that none of the people living in the block of flats are subject to rent control. Just as an affidavit must nowadays be signed when we deal with land transactions, stating that we belong to one or other race group, and that affidavit is accepted at face value, in the same way the local authorities will of course, in their documentation of the process, require a statement. In any event, that is how I see it. If they do not see it as I do, then they can do it as they see fit, but I hold them responsible.

The fact is that this is not such a tremendous problem. I did not regard it as such a problem that I went out of my way to consult the local authorities in this regard. I think this is a normal function they are able to handle in the course of their activities. However, it is true that there was a prominent member of the United Municipal Executive in the Sapoa deputation. He said that the United Municipal Executive, which he represented there and on whose behalf he acted as spokesman, accepted the situation as such and would undertake the task. That satisfied me.

The question asked here is how the local authorities are able to determine exactly what people fall under rent control and how they are going to determine which people have already committed an offence under section 8A. Let me say here and now to the hon. member for Hillbrow that he was quite correct when he said that the legislation was not retrospective. With that I wish to bring to a conclusion the reply to him. He is correct in regard to all the statements he made. His assumptions are correct and the legislation is not retrospective.

He only made one mistake, and that was when he said a “act” meant an offence as established by the court. I do not think that we are in agreement in this connection. The law advisers told me that in this instance a “deed” or “act” takes place when a person submits a scheme in regard to which he has not acted as prescribed by the Act. In those circumstances, therefore, he has already committed an unlawful act. The fact that he has committed an unlawful act, committed an act which prevents his land from being approved by the local authority, will mean that he will be penalized. He will not be able to submit a plan for the block or unit in question for another two years. It is therefore a matter of the act or deed of the person.

As I have said, I do not foresee any difficulties. If a false statement is submitted to the local authority, the person in question must run the risk of it coming to light. In that case there are of course very heavy penalties that can be imposed. The whole process may be declared illegal and he will then have to repay a great deal of interest and also pay damages. He will also be penalized in the sense that for two years he will not be able to submit the same proposal. Moreover, he could also be found guilty if charged in court. In that case he would have to pay a fine. In that case, therefore, he would run a calculated risk. I think, therefore, that it is quite acceptable for the city council, simply by calling for a statement by the people in question on a form prescribed by it, to place the onus on the developers. They can add as many frills as they like. They can call for an ordinary affidavit stating that there are no protected tenants or tenants under rent control or that there is no former offence, or they can call for proof in the form of a written document signed by every tenant in which he states that he is not under rent control. I therefore do not think we need dwell on this matter any further. I do not think this is an unbridgeable problem.

The hon. member for Sea Point also asked me about those who had already entered into a contract with regard to rent controlled units. The situation is that if it is a lawful contract, the man with the contract will have to honour it. That is the position in law. I can only change it if I make the legislation retrospective, and we all concede that we should not do that. If anyone has entered into a legal contract, the process goes on. If the contract is lawful and forms the basis of the action, and the city council does not have other difficulties, then it will be passed by the city council, and if the city council accepts it, then it is merely a matter of a formality at the Registrar of Deeds. It may also occur that he finds himself in the position that although the end of the road has not been reached—the plan may still be under consideration by the city council—he is already aware that he is saddled with a unit that he has bound himself to in a lawful contract, while he knows that that unit is under rent control and that under normal circumstances he will not be able to obtain the right of occupation to it on 1 April as he had thought. I cannot revert that process, unfortunately. It will have to go through and I shall have to deal with those purchases on merit, as I did with the others. There are of course many more purchasers whose contracts have already been accepted and who are now faced with the situation that it is a fait accompli because the sectional title register has been opened. I shall have to treat this group who are still in the process in the same way as I will treat those people who have already passed through the entire process, i.e. by exercising my discretion, as the hon. member said. I think this is the only appropriate way of doing it. If hon. members know of another way of doing it, they must please tell me.

As far as local authorities are concerned, authorities that are still sitting on an application, hon. members want to know where I can stop them. I repeat that the essence of the whole matter depends on whether the contract was a legal contract under the old dispensation, under the existing Act before it was amended. If it is a legal contract, irrespective of what led up to it—in other words, whether the people were victimized or threatened or whatever—and that contract forms the basis of a plan that is in the hands of the city council, and the city council has not yet given it its final consideration at this stage, then that cannot prevent the city council from approving the plan. It may be that the city council will turn down the plan for other reasons, but it cannot turn it down on the grounds that it deems the contract to have been concluded on a basis which is not in line with the legislation as we are altering it. That would be quite wrong, because when the contract was concluded, they could not have known what the legislation and the provisions therein would be. In other words, if the city council were to find that there were other reasons why it could not accept the sectional title plan and send it through to the Registrar of Deeds, then the process would stop there. In that case, in handing in a second plan they would have to go through these channels in terms of the new legislation. But the process will not stop merely because it has not yet been disposed of. If everything that the process is based on is according to law, then the process cannot be stopped. I hope the hon. member understand this now.

The hon. member also, of course, raised the situation which I believe he simply wants to be placed on record again. This is the situation of those who sold in good faith. I can only stress once again that these people are in my hands. I have only one method of assisting them. That is the method I explained very clearly during the Second Reading debate yesterday, namely by making exceptions under the Rents Act, on merit of course. Nor do I see any other way in which we can deal with the individual deserving cases, apart from this way. The hon. member is of course free to tell me eventually that I did not act correctly and that he would have done it differently. He has the right to criticize, of course. However, it will be my function and my duty to exercise my discretion in this regard.

Again, of course, I do not see any other way in which we could deal with these exceptional cases. Hon. members will realize that we are seeking to achieve a certain aim and that in the process of achieving that aim we are saddled with certain consequences of a situation which could arise due to loopholes in a legal provision. Therefore we must now do our best about the results of what could take place, without throwing the baby out with the bath water. Of course, this is not such an easy process. I think that hon. members who know something about this will be sympathetic towards me in this regard and will realize that I have to deal with it with the greatest circumspection. It is not solely a question of people that we want to protect; it is also a matter of interest groups. Just as there are people who must be protected, to prevent them finding themselves on the street, so there are people whose interests in this matter amount to thousands of rands. I must take into account the interests of both these groups. It is expected of me. I cannot simply, for political advantage or due to political reasons, make an Act to stop the whole process at this point. To a degree it may have been the easiest way to make the legislation retrospective. However, I do think that we have done the best thing in the circumstances.

The hon. member for Durban Central again raised the issue of the one flat-dweller who brings the whole process to a standstill, and asked what steps I would take to protect that one flat-dweller. The hon. member had better leave that to me. I am sorry to have to put it to him like this, but I think that if he wants to whisper something in my ear, he can certainly do so. The fact is that I am really not so naive as to permit the control to be taken out of my hands, and then to think that the people in question will satisfy me. There will have to be fixed arrangements, if I may put it that way, to protect the people involved. If I had not wanted to protect them, then surely I could have allowed the process to continue in a case where a minority of 5% or 10% of the inhabitants of a flat building are subject to rent control. However, I am out to protect the individual. Therefore the hon. member should rather leave it in my hands.

The people are safe in our hands.

You have never yet been able to save them.

I think I have already said to the hon. member for Hillbrow that he is correct in his assumptions, and that I can therefore endorse it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for the explanations he has furnished because they solve some of the problems which have arisen. However, arising out of his explanation there is one more problem, since it appears as if his explanation is not consistent with an interjection he made concerning the “cut-off date”. The hon. the Minister said that when a scheme was submitted which arose out of a contract or agreement that was lawful at the time when it was entered into, it could still be considered by the municipality in question. There is no reference in the legislation to a lawful contract entered into earlier with regard to the registration of a scheme. Section 4(6) reads—

The Act states this quite clearly. Whether it is a lawful scheme and the people in question reached agreement on it, or whether such a scheme has already been submitted to a municipality, the Act nevertheless provides that the local authority may not give consideration to such a scheme if any part of the building is still subject to rent control. In the mean time there are schemes that have already been planned and submitted to the city council, but they have not yet had time to consider them, or perhaps they have been returned to the developers for amendments, and it is in cases of this nature that we want clarity. In terms of the Bill and the explanation furnished by the hon. the Minister, local authorities may not give further attention to such schemes.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member’s problem, but according to my legal advice the Act is not retrospective. Although it has not been stipulated anywhere, it is a principle of common law that if penal provisions are contained in an Act they may not be made retrospective if they are not inserted in the Act. In this legislation it has not been inserted that it is retrospective. This is accepted by the courts.

As far as I am concerned, it depends on whether there is already a lawful contract. If a lawful contract has been entered into in terms of the principal Act, then I recognize that this is an act which cannot be undone, and for this reason the process based on it must continue. But let us for the sake of argument accept that I have not been correctly advised. Let us take it that there are such cases. If so, the people involved can fall back on what I have now said. This is the assumption I am working on today, and that is my reply to the hon. member for Sea Point. If this is not the case, and a person encounters problems in this regard, I shall exempt such units from rent control, because I should not like to halt a development.

You cannot exempt such units from rent control if it is before …

Administratively I can do anything. According to the law advisers the process can continue if the contract is in order. But if, for example, my law advisers are not so clever, then I still have the administrative power to take what I regard as the correct step. If a lawful contract has been concluded and forms the basis of a sectional title scheme submitted to a city council and that is the only obstacle to its being approved, I shall see to it that it is approved. I do not know whether I can accommodate hon. members any further.

Mr. Chairman, this is the point on which I think everyone wants clarity. I should like to put the following two situations to the hon. the Minister. Let us take the case of a building first occupied between 24 October 1949 and 1 June 1966. This is a building which falls under the last three categories of phasing out. Buildings built between these two dates fall within the three phases as announced in three proclamations over three years; they were under rent control and they are now being phased out. These are the buildings with which I wish to deal. As I say, I want to put two situations to the hon. the Minister. In the first instance I want to take the case of an application for sectional title in the case of a building in regard to which nobody is entitled to the protection of rent control because, firstly, it has been decontrolled and, secondly, no person is under the income limit. Therefore such a building is clean from that point of view. Let us say that a contract has been entered into to sell that building. At this stage the application has not yet been made to the local authority and therefore not to the deeds registry. I should like at this stage to say that I should like some clarification of this point from my friend, the hon. member for Pretoria West because he said that the cut-off point is the local authority and I do not understand that. I do not agree with that. I want to say that in the circumstances that I have just described there should be no reason why that application to the local authority cannot be proceeded with and, if approved, if it is not rejected for any reason, then be submitted to the deeds registry for approval.

That is correct.

Very well. The second set of circumstances in regard to these buildings that we are discussing now are those in which there happen to be a few people in a particular building who lay claim to the protection of rent control because of their income level. Here again flats have been sold under sectional title pending an application that has not yet been made. Here again, the application has, firstly, not reached the local authority …

But the contracts have been signed?

Yes, the contracts have been signed but firstly, the application has not reached the local authority in the one case and secondly, in the other case, it has reached the local authority but not the deeds registry. Can all these applications for sectional title be handled without any hindrance by the legislation as it stands at the moment?

Yes.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his categorical reply.

There is one point that I should like to go back to and that is in regard to the question of affidavits which we have already discussed. Our main aim in regard to these affidavits is to avoid delay and to ensure that the applications are dealt with as quickly as possible. If I am not wrong, I think local authorities would prefer to have a standard affidavit so that they will know exactly what their responsibility is in this regard. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would reconsider this point. He will then be able to have issued through his department a standard affidavit in regard to the obligations of the local authority. I can give the hon. the Minister a good reason for saying this. In terms of section 4(9) of the principal Act such an application has to be considered within 60 days otherwise the applicant can appeal to the administrator. They only have 60 days because there is a time limit on these applications. Therefore, if there is going to be undue delay, we are going to run foul of this 60-day provision and that may have to be amended as well. That is the position I want to put to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions arising out of this clause. I want to deal more specifically with the proposed new section 4(6)(c). The hon. the Minister said that this would have no retrospective effect. Let me put a hypothetical situation to him. Let us assume a developer has, say over the past six months, taken a period of time to sell certain units in a particular building and has done so in contravention of the provisions mentioned in this proposed new section, in other words he has not had a sectional title plan. Let us assume further that this legislation becomes law and that the person concerned still has not sold all his units, but does then happen to sell the last one or two units, still without a sectional title plan. In other words, he is still contravening the relevant provisions. He then completes the sectional title plan and submits an application to the local authority. In terms of the proposed new subsection (6)(c) he has, in fact, “committed an act” in the period of two years immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted to the local authority, albeit one month after the implementation of this Act. As I see it, the local authority will, in every respect, be prevented from considering the application. This means that all the people who bought units six months previously would be affected, because there would be no opening up of a sectional register.

Seeing as I am on my feet, let me make a second point. In line 19 of the English text reference is made to “in the said scheme”. I presume that this means that if a developer, over the previous two years, has in fact committed an act which contravenes the provisions of the proposed new subsection (6)(a) in respect of that scheme, he would be prevented from having the application considered. If at the same time, however, he submits two or three applications for other schemes, in regard to which he has not contravened any of the relevant provisions, would he be allowed to proceed with the other schemes? As I see it, this is a penalty being imposed on developers who have taken steps which are contrary to the spirit of the legislation now being introduced. Is the penalty going to be applied to a developer in regard to one action only, or in respect of all the actions he might take in developing property, making applications, etc., and does it in fact mean that he will be prevented from submitting further applications in respect of any other schemes?

Mr. Chairman, I concede to the hon. member for Hillbrow that there is no difference whatsoever. If the contract is lawful, the process must continue. Even though a scheme has not yet been submitted to the municipality, if lawful contracts have been signed then the matter is cut and dried. We could of course encounter the situation as sketched by the hon. member for East London North. It may be that there are one or two people who do not yet have a contract. Then those one or two units are outstanding until contracts have been entered into, but the other contracts that already exist are binding in terms of the provisions of the existing legislation, and the developer can carry on. We cannot make this legislation retrospective.

However I agree with the hon. member that my department ought to give a lead in this connection and I am informed that they have already drawn up a guide.

Very good.

They did so because they were afraid that questions would be asked. Therefore they already have a guide. As soon as this legislation has been disposed of, they will post the guide to all local authorities. It is a guide in which all the necessary information is provided. In the guide they will also furnish examples of how they can dispose of the task. I can therefore set the hon. member’s mind at rest in this connection.

I should like to point out a distinction to the hon. member for East London North. This relates to the legality of a contract. If a person had been initiating the process of obtaining sectional title for a whole block of flats but on the date when this legislation came into effect, legal contracts had not yet been concluded with say, one or two people, then he should be able to carry on with the scheme but would have to make a new submission with regard to the block of flats. He would have to submit a new plan for the scheme to the municipality, one which complied with the requirements of the new legislation. In other words, the process in respect of a block of flats need not be checked if contracts have only been entered into for some of the flats. If some of these flats fall under rent control and the agreement has not been concluded, then of course he will be able to carry on with the rest of the block but not with those particular flats. He shall not be able to convert those particular flats in the block into flats under sectional title unless I come to his assistance. If those flats are in the minority and there are good reasons why he wishes to do so, then I shall accommodate him if they are meritorious cases. But it must be understood that if he enters into further contracts with occupants in the flats, then he will have to submit a new plan to the municipality for those flats. If there are rent controlled units in regard to which no contracts have been concluded, he will not be able to conclude contracts in that regard. As far as those flats are concerned the scheme will not be able to continue unless I assist him in that situation.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we can get a copy of this intended directive, even before the Third Reading tomorrow. I mention this because I believe that the hon. the Minister has, even at this stage, introduced a brand new concept into the legislation with his interpretation. He said that whether in fact a local authority could proceed, would depend on whether a contract was entered into earlier on. This legislation does not state that. It is very clear that it cannot proceed if there is rent control. What the hon. the Minister has now said is that they can in fact proceed in regard to one part of the scheme and not the other part. Clause 1(b) reads—

Do I understand the hon. the Minister to say that if a scheme has been agreed to with certain purchasers, and the other purchasers who are under rent control object to the scheme, the owner will be allowed to proceed with the scheme in respect of those apartments which are not under rent control and the ones which are under rent control will be excluded? I do not think the hon. the Minister understands the basis of applications. One does not make an application on the basis that one has entered into a contract. The scheme is not started by entering into a number of contracts. The scheme is started by laying it before the local authority. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he means by a “wettige” contract? I put it to him advisedly. I promise him that when I go back to Sea Point tonight, my telephone is going to ring. People are going to phone me and ask questions. They will say: “The Minister has now changed his mind. He said that if there were contracts to purchase flats, in spite of the fact that the block is rent controlled, the scheme will be allowed to go through in regard to those flats in respect of which there were contracts.” That is the one point and I want clarity on this.

The second point is: I can understand how he can meet the converter or the promoter of the scheme in respect of the residual flats under rent control, i.e. from 1949 to 1966. There are still some left. He has administrative powers to deproclaim rent control on those particular units. Now I come to the hon. the Minister with a scheme in regard to a block built before 1949. A “wettige kontrak” has been entered into in respect of some of the flats. Some of the tenants object to it. They are all subject to rent control but some of them object to it. The only way in which he can accommodate that particular scheme should he wish to do so, is to lift rent control.

Of course.

Is the hon. the Minister telling us that he can lift rent control?

Yes, I can lift rent control.

The hon. the Minister is actually saying that nobody is protected under rent control. He can lift rent control. He has told us repeatedly and he told the public the other day that he wants to come to the House to amend the Rent Control Act so that after it has been amended, he will be able to lift rent control by proclamation. Now he is telling us that even in respect of the fully rent controlled apartments which in terms of the law …

I can do it now.

In terms of what provision?

The Rent Control Act.

What the hon. the Minister is actually saying is that nobody is protected anymore; that all rent control, even in respect of pre-1949 buildings is at the complete discretion of the hon. the Minister without an amendment to the Act. Once again I shall show him tomorrow or during the Third Reading debate that this is at variance with the statement he made the other day. He actually said to the public that in May this year the Government wants to change the law to enable it to lift rent control by proclamation and now he is telling us exactly the opposite.

I want to come back to another point. The hon. the Minister has now introduced a new concept by saying: “As daar ’n wettige kontrak is.”

Give me an opportunity to answer. Then you can speak again.

I cannot speak again. Is the hon. the Minister suggesting that he is going to agree to a sectional titles scheme for part of a building, namely, that part that is not under rent control, while the part of the building that is still under rent control will be excluded from the scheme? One will then have part of that building falling under sectional title whilst in the other part ordinary rent control will apply.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are two matters I must explain. They are complicated, and this may be why the hon. members have not been quick to understand them. It might also be that I do not explain them very well. The first is the issue of rent control. At present the situation is that if there are circumstances which in my opinion are meritorious, I can abolish rent control with regard to any property. After all, this does occurs from time to time. Over the years the Minister has had the power to abolish rent control with regard to any property under certain circumstances. This also applies, for example, to properties built in 1921. Therefore it is not a question of this being in conflict with what I have said. The fact remains that this does not happen on a large scale, and in the exceptional cases I shall excercise my discretion. The Minister has always had the right to do so and has done so for years without anyone being able to point a finger at him. I, too, have done so. Why, then, is the hon. member suggesting that the whole basis of rent control will colapse in ruins as a result? [Interjections.] Then he must not emphasize the point so strongly. After all, this is not a new approach. I say that the Minister has the right to exercise that discretion to accommodate people. That is what I have been saying all day.

Questions have also been asked about the question of certain flats in a block with regard to which the process of concluding a contract was already in progress. The position would have been simpler if a plan had already been submitted to the City Council, because that would have meant that the contracts had been concluded. However, say for example an owner approaches me and says: “It is hard lines. I have a block of flats which I was converting into sectional title flats. There are already legal contracts with regard to the majority of them.” If none of the flats fall under rent control, he can carry on in any event. It could also be the case that he had not concluded contracts with some of the people. In that case he can of course enter into legal contracts with them. As regards the flats that do not fall under rent control, he can conclude legal contracts. Say for example legal contracts have not yet been concluded with regard to ten units in a block of flats comprising 70 or 50 flats and that of the ten, seven are ordinary flats he is able to convert. Then there is nothing to prevent him from entering into legal contracts with the people in question in terms of the new legislation.

There is. They must still be submitted.

Yes, of course. They must still be submitted. Then I can only help him by telling him that I shall lift rent control with regard to the three tenants in question. After all, I will not stand in the man’s way unnecessarily. It is not a new approach. This kind of problem does arise, and I have to deal with it. If the man is a swindler, then I shall of course think twice before helping him, but if he is a bona fide developer who is lawfully engaged in the process, then I shall help him by making it possible for him to carry on with that process in terms of the provisions of the legislation so that the legislation is not an obstacle in his path. I say this to the hon. member for East London North. I shall have to accommodate the developer. I have already said this. The hon. member for Sea Point wants to see a new approach in this, but this does not entail a new approach. I hope that is now clear.

Mr. Chairman, I am becoming a little worried now. Can the hon. the Minister please determine what the cut-off date is and as at that cut-off date, what precisely happens? I would have thought that the cut-off date is the date of promulgation of this law. The date that the State President signs it this becomes law and that, I would think, is the cut-off date. In examining the cut-off date we have to ask ourselves a question which falls into two categories. If an application has been filed with a local authority but the local authority has not yet considered it, can that local authority continue to consider it? Let us assume that the cut-off date is the date that this law really comes into effect. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, it is 1 March 1981. As at 1 March 1981 the City Council of Johannesburg, as I have already told hon. members, finds itself with 94 pending applications. What must it do with those applications? Must it throw them out because they do not comply with this law or can it proceed to consider those applications? When exactly is the cut-off date? The applications have reached the local authority but it has to process those applications. What is it to do with those 94 applications as at the date of promulgation? That is my first question. Secondly, if the date of promulgation is as we have suggested, for example, 1 March 1981, can anyone actually file a new application for sectional title and is that new application not then subject to the very provisions of clause 1 of this legislation with which we are at present dealing? Surely that must be the position? This is a matter on which we require clarity from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to draw hon. members’ attention very clearly to section 51 of the principal Act, which reads—

Is that the Rent Act?

Yes. This demonstrates to hon. members that this whole matter revolves around rent control units over which I have the authority. Now I come back to the hon. member’s two questions and I want to tell him that if there is at present a plan at the municipality and it has not been passed, then it is not the cut-off point. This story of a cut-off point is just another argument. The fact of the matter is that if there is a plan at a municipality and that plan is legally based on contracts which were concluded in terms of the old Act, then the plan proceeds. In that case there is no cut-off point.

It has nothing to do with contracts. It is not necessary to regularize contracts.

Order! The hon. member has already had his opportunities to speak on this clause.

The reply to the hon. member’s question is that if there is a sectional title plan which is based—and I take the hon. member back to the word “contracts” for he wants to put words in my mouth which I did not use—on legal contracts, then it is necessary to proceed with that scheme. Is that clear now? But if there are people who are intending to conclude contracts, they must, of course, do so in terms of this legislation. If the hon. member maintains that the cut-off point applies in that case, it must be true, but it is not such a sharp division. I have given hon. members the undertaking that it depends on how far that process has gone and on how far I shall be prepared to accommodate those persons in assisting them in their planning, with a view to submitting a scheme to the municipality. However, if plans for a scheme are before the municipality, a scheme which is based entirely on contracts which were concluded legally, the process continues. Then there is no cut-off point.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we should have a very close look again at the possible implications of the clause now under discussion. In the proposed new section 8A(1)(a) we see that—

I should like to point out that the important words here are “unit”, “building” and “land”. All three words are used here in the context in which they are defined in the Sectional Titles Act, which we are amending here today. I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm the following assumption. As I understand it the position is that not only can a unit, as defined in the principal Act, not be sold, but an interest in that unit cannot be sold either. In the principal Act a unit is defined as follows—

Furthermore, I also understand the position to be such that one cannot sell an interest in a unit which one proposes to convert at a later stage. The final portion of the proposed new section 8A(1) reads as follows—

What is aimed at here is obviously quite clear. This is to prevent an agreement of sale being concluded for the sale of the land or an interest in a unit until a sectional title register has been opened.

The problem I have is one which arises in respect of the provisions of the Share Blocks Control Act. In this connection representations have been received from flat-dwellers in Durban who live in leasehold properties and can therefore not obtain sectional title. Consequently they have to rely on share blocks to a large extent. I believe it is necessary that they should be informed that this legislation in connection with sectional titles does not affect anybody in a share blocks scheme. It does not prevent a sale in terms of the share blocks scheme. I believe it is important that people be informed of this.

Important, however, is the following question. What happens if a developer wants to circumvent the legal conditions which exist by trying to persuade people that he can sell them units under the share blocks scheme if they buy shares in his company? Should he succeed in concluding these transactions, and later, after say six months or a year, try to legalize his actions by applying for ratification of his transactions in terms of the share blocks scheme and conversion to sectional title—having complied of course with the legally imposed requirements in connection with conversion to sectional title, in regard to 30% of the issued shares and 50% of the flat-dwellers agreeing thereto—will his application then be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions contained in the proposed new section 8A which we now wish to insert in the Act? I should like the hon. the Minister to enlighten us in this regard because I have a great difficulty in respect of this matter.

Only today I received a letter in this connection from someone living in a block of flats in Hillbrow. In this letter he informs me that the block of flats in which he lives has been sold to a certain company—I will not mention the name of the company—and that that company has now been appointed by the new owners to sell the flats individually. I shall give the hon. the Minister the letter to read should he want to have it. The writer of the letter goes on to say that an associated company will be appointed as administrative agents. I quote from the letter—

As we can see from this, people are already trying to find loopholes in order to circumvent the provisions of this legislation. I wonder therefore whether it will not be necessary for the hon. the Minister to give very serious attention to the implications of the sale of flats under the share blocks system in terms of which shares are sold without any difficulty and without being affected in any way by the provisions of the Sectional Titles Act or of this amending Bill before us now. I think we must have a very careful look at this.

While I am dealing with this matter, I should just like to mention two further points. The first point I want to deal with is the question of compensation contained in subsection (3). We are now providing for the status quo ante to be restored in that the sale has become void because of these provisions and compensation has to be paid. There is, however, one aspect that we do have to consider. When such a sale is cancelled, these people have, in many cases, in fact, in most cases, taken occupation. What is to happen to them? If the sale is cancelled they have to go. Under these circumstances they lose out on the flat that they have bought and they are going to be evicted from that flat because they no longer have right of tenure or occupation of that flat. I think that we have to give careful consideration to this question of the occupation of such flats because such people are going to be evicted.

The other point I want to raise is in regard to subsection (5). This subsection provides that “sell” includes to sell subject to a suspensive condition or to exchange or to dispose of. I think that this is a good provision because it covers any sales which disguise the sort of sales which should be prohibited, whether suspensive or not. I think it is necessary for this position to be covered and I feel that this is a good provision. In subsection (6), however, there is a provision which I do not think has been mentioned in this debate so far. I feel that it is a provision that should be mentioned because people should know about it. The whole question that we have been discussing, the entire contents of this Bill, do not apply to a new building to be erected or in the course of being erected as at the date of the coming into operation of this legislation. I think that this is important for the reason that right here in Cape Town—I think, quite frankly, that this is the position that obtains in most towns—flats under sectional title are being sold merely on the plans even before a single brick has been laid. It is as well for the public to know that such buildings are not in any way affected by the provisions of this legislation. We have no fault to find with this provision. These buildings have never been under rent control and it is clear that the provisions of this subsection will not affect any new buildings and developers are free to act in any way they please.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member expressed his concern at the question of share blocks—the case where a person buys a share in a building. The question of share blocks does not fall under my department and the legislation which controls it falls under the Minister of Industries. Problems which may arise in this regard—if there are any—will then have to be dealt with under that legislation. Unfortunately I cannot make provision for that in this legislation. But I want to tell the hon. member that we are concerned here with a flat which is being purchased, but the share block scheme does not concern the purchase of a flat. Shares are bought giving the purchaser a right of occupation there, but he does not obtain possession of the flat. He obtains only an interest there, e.g. a right of occupation. In the second instance one also buys shares in a company. One does not buy the building; it is only a share in a company; the building is not yours. This is the difference between the two cases. However, I am saying that if there were to be any effect as a result of the fact that people have bought shares under the share block scheme, we shall have to deal with those cases in terms of other legislation. [Interjections.]

The other question which the hon. member put to me related to new buildings. In this case I must act as we acted in 1966. When we discussed rent control in 1966, we said that all new buildings were being excluded and I was also obliged not to curb the initiative of the private sector if they wished to construct flats for sale under a sectional title scheme. I actually want to encourage them to do so and this provision is specifically intended to encourage them. I agree with the hon. member. This is very clear. The hon. member’s interpretation of the provisions of the subsection are correct. Nor does it affect buildings which are at present under construction.

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

1. (1) On page 4, in line 24, to omit “and”;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 32, after “developer” to insert “; and”;
3. (3) on page 4, after line 32, to insert:
   1. (iii) compensation for any damage or loss suffered by him which he would otherwise have been entitled to claim from the developer on the ground of breach of contract had the contract not been void and had the developer failed to transfer ownership in the unit or proposed unit concerned in accordance with the contract.

The reason for these amendments is really very simple. In terms of clause 2(2) any contract of purchase and sale is void, and in such a case certain things can happen, things which are, for example, foreseen in subsection (3), viz.—

However, two aspects are being added to this which have to be considered. Firstly, the one person must not be enriched at the expense of the other and, secondly, if any damage is suffered, compensation must be paid.

In terms of subsection 3(a) the developer in the first place receives reasonable compensation for the use of the property. This means that if there was enrichment at the expense of the developer, he is compensated for the enrichment. Secondly there is compensation for damage, which means that the developer receives compensation if he has suffered damage.

On the other hand the purchaser may claim 12% per annum from the developer, which in actual fact simply amounts to the enrichment of the developer at the expense of the purchaser. In the second place the purchaser may also recover reasonable compensation for any expenditure incurred by the developer. Once again this is enrichment, but we see that no provision is made for compensation which the purchaser may claim in a specific case. If one states these two aspects and not compensation as a possibility, the purchaser cannot claim it and I believe that all hon. members would like to assist the purchaser as far as possible. That is why I moved the amendment, viz. so that the purchaser may also receive compensation.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Pretoria West because they will also satisfy the hon. member for Hillbrow. The existing legislation does not stipulate the measure of compensation to which the hon. member for Hillbrow referred, but the extension of the scope of the claims instituted in terms of the amendments which have been moved by the hon. member for Pretoria West, will also satisfy the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Chairman, for that reason we will gladly support the amendments, because we definitely think that these people are going to be left high and dry. In fact, I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, that some of these owners are very happy when these deeds are cancelled. Some of these deeds were entered into some years ago, and some owners are very sorry that they sold premises at the prices that prevailed two years ago, because if they sold those premises today they could probably get 300% more than what they originally sold them for. They are therefore now looking for an opportunity to get out of it. If a person now has to be compensated or have to find other accommodation at today’s market prices, this is something that will assist us to help them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I informed the hon. the Minister earlier on that I, too, intended to move an amendment, as follows—

The hon. the Minister is being very accommodating today and I trust that he will accept this amendment, particularly in view of the statement he made yesterday as to his intention in this regard. All that is being envisaged with this amendment, is to give a legal form to the intention of the hon. the Minister’s statement. Let us just go back to the legislation which has been in operation since 1971, the time when the Sectional Titles Act was placed on the Statute Book for the first time. Since that time there has always been a ban on the eviction of people from their flats. There was an amendment last year making it possible for people to be evicted as from April this year. However, the hon. the Minister said that he did not want to set the date at 1 April, but some date which could be announced by proclamation. We questioned the hon. the Minister further to determine what exactly the date would be, because there was uncertainty. The period could be one month, two months, one year or two years. However, when one is dealing with people’s houses— and surely their flats are their houses—they must have a measure of certainty as to where they stand. If the hon. the Minister says that it is the Government’s intention that the date is not to be introduced while rent control is still applicable, we believe that this intention can in fact be incorporated in this clause by means of this amendment. It simply states that it is a date in the future, but not a date which is applicable while rent control is in operation. I trust the hon. the Minister accepts both the spirit and intention of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the hon. member for Sea Point. I think that the whole rescue operation in regard to this piece of legislation involves giving security to the aged, the frail, the unmarried person or pensioner who does not know what is going to happen from one day to the next and is dead scared of not having anywhere to go. They know, under present circumstances, that things can change so very rapidly. For example, economic conditions seem to be changing overnight. Amidst all this uncertainty, that sword of Damocles, about which we spoke, can at any time drop on their heads. That certainly does not give people any sense of security, and I think they do deserve such security. I am not only speaking of the frail, the aged or the pensioners. I am also speaking of the young married people, in fact everybody who has to have a sense of security. All we are doing—as the hon. member for Sea Point so correctly pointed out—is to link up with what the hon. the Minister himself said, that he relates the whole issue to the question of rent control. All that the hon. member for Sea Point’s amendment is doing is to tie up the issue of rent control. I do urge the hon. the Minister therefore to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the hon. member had not made that remark one could still have thought that there really were no ulterior motives involved in the amendment. I just wanted to concede this to the hon. member for Sea Point, and I shall still do so despite the remark which the hon. member for Pinelands has just made.

You will accept it?

I do not believe that the hon. member for Sea Point, or the hon. member for Hillbrow, who supported the amendment, had any ulterior motives with the amendment. That is why I should like to put my problem to them. In view of the spirit in which I spoke here yesterday hon. members are quite correct in asking us to do something in this regard. If I were able to do so, I should like to do so, for this is the intention. But I must point out that there are two kinds of people who fall under rent control. The one group consists of those people who are protected in terms of the Rent Control Act, an Act which I cannot amend by extra-Parliamentary means. That group includes people whose income falls within the Housing Commission’s limits, but it also includes a group of people who fall outside those limits. As hon. members opposite like to say, it includes the fat cats as well. Consequently well-to-do people are also involved here. At present they are enjoying the protection of the existing legislation, in terms of section 39(1), until I put the provision in question into effect. In other words, under the existing circumstances I am protecting that group of people, whatever their income may be, until I decide that it is no longer necessary to protect fat cats. Then we decide to put that section into effect. Protection will still be afforded even if we were to repeal this section. When we put this legislation into effect, a new provision is added, i.e. clause 1 which amends section 4 of the principal Act.

The second group of people are those who are protected lessees. The group of people living in flats which were built between 1949 and 1966 are protected by us. This is a different category. These are people who fall within a certain income group, and that is why we are protecting them. As far as this latter group is concerned as well as those people in the first group who fall within these limits, we want to protect them for the foreseeable future even though we have phased out rent control completely. The former Minister said that he was not going to abolish the rent control boards, as he always wanted to protect this group of people for whom the State is responsible. We have now converted that concept into legislation and it is found in clause 1. In other words, before such time as I have returned to Parliament and repealed clause 1 of this Bill which I have introduced, people will always be prevented from converting the dwelling units concerned into sectional title units because those units are occupied by people falling under rent control. Those will be the units in which protected lessees live.

Owing to this Bill protected lessees will therefore never be affected by sectional titles unless we come forward and amend the law in Parliament. Do hon. members understand this? Consequently it is not a question of its being possible for us at any stage to withdraw the hand of protection from lessees by arbitrarily means of a proclamation of the State President. It protects people under rent control as well as certain people even after rent control has been phased out completely. There is one group of people I always want to protect.

Hon. members are now creating difficulties for me when they tell me that on the day on which I do away with rent control, if I go back further than 1949, then I must also withhold my hand as far as sectional titles is concerned and withdraw my protecting hand from those people who I want to protect, as long as they need protection. In other words, I want to do more than hon. members are asking for and I want them to understand this. If hon. members ask me to withdraw my hand from people whom I wish to protect for the foreseeable future even though I were to phase out rent control even further in future, I want to tell them that I cannot do so. If there were any other way in which the situation could be saved, I would give my favourable consideration to such an amendment. If this concerned only those people who really ought to be protected under rent control and whom I am now protecting, I should easily have been able to say so.

However, hon. members must understand very clearly—and I have no reason for wishing to evade the situation—that the law provides that a local authority may not proceed to consider the conversion of a scheme into sectional titles as long as a protected lessee lives there, i.e. a lessee whom I am protecting under rent control. Hon. members now want me to say at some stage: “The Rent Control Act has now been amended. I have phased out rent control. Now only protected lessees remain and I am now withdrawing my protection.” I do not want it done in that way. That is why I cannot accept the amendments in their present form. I foresee that for a very long time to come yet I shall have to keep my hand over the protected lessees. They are being protected by legislation and not by a proclamation of the State President. Their guarantee is embodied in clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, once again I can understand the hon. the Minister’s intentions. I understand he has good intentions in regard to this matter. There is, however, a point on which I must differ with him. He says that the actual protection will in future lie in clause 1. That could well be for future schemes, but he has just said to us that he knows that in respect of rent-controlled properties a number of schemes have already gone through. He has already said all those in the pipeline will still go through. I can tell him that in my constituency there are many, many tenants living in old rent-controlled buildings which have already been declared schemes. There is therefore no protection for them under clause 1. Clause 1 is “deur die mat”; it has gone already.

But they are the exceptional cases.

No, Sir, I can promise him that this applies in the case of dozens and dozens of old blocks of flats, which have all gone that way. Now the people are asking: “What protection is there for me?” The Minister says that, even when rent control in a general sense has been phased out, there will still be rent control or protection for the people who qualify for assistance under the Housing Act.

*I understand that it is his intention that as far as those people are concerned, for as long as he can see into the future, they will never be liable to eviction.

Not under this legislation, except if the legislation is changed.

It depends upon the nature of the proclamation to be issued under this Act. I accept the hon. the Minister’s good intentions. Unfortunately there is no other House of Parliament where we can effect further amendments to the Bill. When he says that the people involved will be protected, I wish to ask him in all courtesy whether his law advisers could not draft an amendment that would formally and legally give them the assurance that they will remain protected tenants and that rent control will remain applicable to their flats. We are prepared to withdraw our amendment with leave of the House if the hon. the Minister can tell us that he and we have the same object in mind and that he will make an effort to write his verbal assurance into the legislation. Ministers come and go. After all, that is politics. Consequently, that assurance should be written into the legislation. I kindly request the hon. the Minister to see whether a further amendment could not be effected to ensure that that particular group of people, the underprivileged people, will indeed be protected.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, am merely rising to address the hon. the Minister on this specific point. One appreciates the fact that he has said that in actual fact he did not want to protect well-to-do people. I was referring to those people who enjoy the protection of rent control and who should never really have received it. However, the hon. the Minister must accept that they comprise an extremely small percentage. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the Fouché Commission’s report. A random sample was made which determined what percentage of the people in question were above a certain income group. If he examines it he will see that they comprise a very small percentage. In conjunction with the flats in respect of which rent control has already been phased out, that percentage will in actual fact become even smaller.

I just want to make the point that, despite what he told us today and the assurance he gave us that there would be protection in the foreseeable future, there will always be uncertainty. Assurances on the part of the Minister and of any other hon. member will be to no avail when one is dealing with such specific provisions. The effect of this legislation is very clear. As soon as it comes into effect and a proclamation is issued, section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act will be abolished. That will be the effect of doing so, and once it has been abolished there will be no protection and it will be impossible to evict anyone. We appreciate all the assurances which have been given, but I want to say that this will re-assure very few of the old people who are concerned about this. Ministers come and go and it is possible to exert pressure. We know that there are certain organizations that will continue to exert pressure. Of course one hopes that the hon. the Minister will always be in a position to keep his promises, but that uncertainty will continue.

Mr. Chairman, if I may I should like to deal with this “onsekerheid” a little further. We are here as legislators to put laws on the Statute Book. Officials are there to interpret those laws as they stand on the Statute Book. With the greatest respect to the hon. the Minister who has made such compassionate statements—and I have said that he is a compassionate man—we are now facing a general election and when we come back in August this hon. Minister might be the Prime Minister for all I know. He might even be the Minister of Defence or he could even be the ambassador to the Court of St. James. Whilst the hon. the Minister has made these statements which we accept—we accept absolutely the fact that he has made them in good faith, we accept them 100%—the point is that we are legislators and we have to place laws on the Statute Book. It is the law that has to be interpreted. The interpretation of a law does not depend upon the compassion of a Minister; we may have a very uncompassionate Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services in the future. I am sorry to say that we may have had such individuals in the past. A future Minister may see these things in an entirely different light. He may say he does not believe in rent control and that it is a lot of nonsense. He may say that he prefers the free enterprise system and that he is not interested in the other arguments. We cannot leave it to the compassion of one man. In the interests of good legislation I would urge the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Chairman, I do not hold it against hon. members that they are harping on this string because after all they must speak for the benefit of the Press and the gallery, as well as for their voters outside. I do not want to deprive them of this privilege. However, I have really been in this House long enough to know that this type of argument has already been raised over and over again here, ad nauseam. Not that there is nothing in it; perhaps I should concede that too, but I do want to make a representation to hon. members all the same. They must accept the spirit in which this legislation is being submitted. If a Minister or the Government want to have their way, it is the easiest thing in the world to come here to Parliament and to amend a law. Therefore, if hon. members do not want to trust me now, I could agree to an amendment now and when Parliament is in session again, in three, four or five months time, I could change it again with the stroke of a pen, on the basis of the Government’s majority. Therefore, it is not a question of a successor. If my successor is not satisfied with a law and an amendment that I am passing now, he will simply change them by means of legislation. Consequently, there is not much to the argument that I might not be here tomorrow, I might be at the Court of St. James and all this nonsense. Hon. members will simply have to accept that I simply cannot draw a distinction here between two groups of people who are protected in terms of the Rents Act. That is why I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. It is possible that we could have sat through the night and racked our brains to find a solution somewhere, but hon. members would be much better off if they accepted my word that this is what my intention is in the present climate and that we are not keen to create more trouble than we already have on our hands. After all, we have had the experience of recent times. Does the hon. member for Durban Central think that I would bring such a hornet’s nest about my ears? After all, I have had the experience of what can happen when the restricting legislation is lacking. I said this during the no-confidence debate. I also said it during my Second Reading speech, and I am saying it again now. As long as rent control exists in terms of the Rents Act, I intend allowing people the concessions to which they are entitled in terms of the Sectional Title’s Act. This even applies to those whom I do not really have to protect as their numbers are not high. I accept what the hon. member for Durban Central said. This is why I tolerate them. However, I cannot allow legislation to be passed here which would entrench their situation for eternity. I cannot do this.

I have now informed hon. members about what I tried to do. They may continue with their efforts but unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment as it is formulated now. I do not understand how one can include what hon. members opposite are proposing in the legislation by means of an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a last attempt to see whether we cannot reach agreement on this matter. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that a small change be made to the amendment that I moved. I therefore move as an amendment to my amendment—

This amounts to the fact that we want the provisions of the proposed new section 2(2) not to be implemented whilst rent control is still in force with regard to tenants who qualify for assistance in terms of the Housing Act. In other words, it amounts to exactly what the hon. the Minister said himself. Therefore I do not understand what his problem is. He says that he wants to protect these people, and I am now trying to accommodate him by means of this altered amendment.

What does the hon. the Minister say now?

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I cannot accept an amendment of this nature without first forming a clear picture regarding the implications thereof. For what it is worth, I can tell the hon. member for Sea Point that we will do some serious research into whether this proposal has merit or not. However, he must not accuse me during the Third Reading debate of causing him to step into a trap by saying certain things to him merely to cut short the debate.

Do it in the Other Place.

The hon. member for Bryanston ought to know that there is no longer an Other Place. Nor can I try to introduce an amendment that we cannot implement, not even by way of instruction.

Can we not simply do it at this stage?

No. I want to put it to hon. members that the principle is wrong. To move something of this nature here, is an incorrect principle and I cannot accept an incorrect principle. Hon. members have the assurance that if the Government wanted to perpetuate this situation, surely it was not necessary to be amending this legislation once again now, since it would only have come into effect on 1 April. This provision has not yet come into effect, and if I wanted to do things differently, surely I could have allowed the legislation to come into effect in its original form. However, I am showing my bona fides by saying in advance that the implementation of the legislation will be suspended indefinitely. The legislation would have come into effect on 1 April this year, but now it is being suspended indefinitely until a date when the Cabinet, the Government, decides that it is desirable to advise the State President under the circumstances. I am not prepared to do more than that. They have already grasped my whole hand. They must please not try to get hold of my whole arm too.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to be helpful to the hon. the Minister. Should he be willing to consider this, we will have no objection to completing the Committee Stage and the Third Reading tomorrow, which will mean that he will not be held up at all. If he should like to consider it by tomorrow, we will give him an assurance that we will take the Third Reading tomorrow.

No, I am not prepared to do so.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to do this, we are now leaving the matter at a stage when, it seems to me, the hon. the Minister is prepared to perpetuate an incorrect principle for as long as possible, despite all his good intentions. [Interjections.] I am not unfair. I believe that a fair proposal has now been made in order to put the hon. the Minister in a position to weigh up the matter and come up with a decision tomorrow.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services agreed to.

Amendments moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin put and the Committee divided:

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

Let me just mention what the effect of my amendment will be. It is proposed that the delegation of powers should be extended, and that powers should also be delegated to senior officials of the Department of National Education with regard to appointing councillors of technikons. In view of yesterday’s debate, in which the hon. the Minister himself said that he did not intend delegating that specific power and in which the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who has extensive experience and considerable knowledge of these type of matters, also said that this is a type of power that should not be extended, I request the hon. the Minister to incorporate the good intentions that were expressed here, in the Act, in order to eliminate all doubt in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the trend the discussions took yesterday, when we all agreed that it is not desirable in practice to allow the important function of composition the councils and appointing councillors for technikons to be taken out of the hands of the Minister, I am prepared to accept this amendment.