Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I should like to announce that next week this House will continue to deal with legislation as it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, arising from the White Paper on the Riekert Report, the following three draft Bills were published for general comment in October last year—

1. 1. Local Government Bill.
2. 2. Black Community Development Bill.
3. 3. Laws on Co-operation and Development Amendment Bill.

I have made it clear from the outset that the objective of the proposed legislation is to improve the quality of life of Black communities in White areas and, in accordance with the Government’s declared policy, to move away from hurtful discrimination. Accordingly, the proposed legislation is intended to give recognition to the settled Black urban inhabitants and to regulate properly the process of urbanization and of rural settlement.

The Bills were published in order to afford all interested parties an opportunity to comment and to make suggestions about how these objectives could best be achieved. I want to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the large number of people and bodies for the penetrating studies they undertook, which are clearly evident from their comprehensive and valuable comments.

The diversity of the comment and the criticisms voiced in it indicate that there are considerable differences in the interpretations given to the published Bills. In some circles, they are even considered to have a negative effect, instead of the positive effect that is intended.

Because this matter is so important to the maintenance and promotion of good relations, I have decided that the draft legislation as a whole should be thoroughly revised in order to ensure that it will be fully in accordance with the contents and spirit of the White Paper and of the Riekert Report, with due observance of the proposals and the comments that have been received. For this purpose, it has been decided to entrust to task to a committee of experts which will combine the expertise of outsiders and of senior officials of the Department of Cooperation and Development. This committee will be led by a prominent lawyer. His name, as well as those of the committee members, will be announced by me as soon as possible.

The committee will be requested to complete its task not later than 15 April 1981, so that the legislation may be introduced during the next session of Parliament this year.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate to the hon. the Minister that we, in these benches, are going to support the Third Reading of this Bill. [Interjections.] In fact, we welcome the new approach by the hon. the Minister, when he made his announcement on 21 November, and we are pleased to see what the main thrust of the Bill is, it being designed first of all to lock the whole question of sectional title schemes into the question of rent control and, secondly, to postpone, to a date which is to be left to the discretion of the hon. the Minister, the date on which evictions would have taken place, which would have been 1 April. We regret that yesterday, he would not accept our amendment wherein it was specifically stated that the relevant date would not be fixed whilst rent control still applied. The hon. the Minister has given the public the assurance that it is his intention, for as long as he is the Minister, not to fix the date whilst rent control was still applicable to people who qualify for assistance under the Housing Act. Whilst we believe that it would have been better for this to be written into the law, we take note of the assurance he has given.

The effect of this Bill—and that is what we are talking about at Third Reading—will undoubtedly be to cool down the temperature of the speculative property market where heat has been generated round the whole issue of conversion into section title units. It is quite clear that this has got completely out of hand. Prices have escalated and the people have been pressurized. One effect of this Bill will be to cool off the speculation that has been taking place in regard to sectional titles. Let me make it quite clear that we, on this side of the House, believe that in many, many circumstances the concept of sectional titles is a very good one, even for less affluent people. It gives people who live in flats an opportunity to own their own flat, thereby not only giving them a sense of security of tenure, but also affording them a hedge against inflation and rising rentals. This is a good thing. We hope that in future debates in the House the hon. the Minister will be able to accept more of our proposals.

How will it be made possible? How is the Government going to help the less affluent tenant to get money to buy his flat? At the moment the remaining flats are, because of sectional title and because of over-heating, available only to those whom the hon. the Minister and his friends call “the fat cats”. What we want to see is that the ownership of flats is made available to the ordinary, average South African and especially to the older, less affluent South African who, at the moment, is being held hostage by the landlord.

Sir, we are pleased that the hon. the Minister is going to cool this situation and we hope that in due course less affluent tenants will be able to own their own flats.

Secondly, the fact that the date for eviction has been postponed, is certainly going to give much more security to people. I believe that many people will sleep far better in flatlands in South Africa as a result of the passing of this measure. The hon. the Minister is aware—and we have a degree of sympathy with him—that problems have been created. This Bill is going to remedy some of those problems, but it is also going to create new problems. I should like to put three problems to the hon. the Minister which is being created by this Bill. I am not going to criticize the Bill, because we welcome it, but I indicate these problems to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity, when he replies to the Third Reading, to state specifically how these three categories of people can be assisted. I am raising these questions because they have come to me in the last 24 hours, reinforcing the points which my hon. colleague from Hillbrow made earlier in the course of the debate.

The first question is that this Bill basically states that henceforth no city council can consider an application for a sectional title scheme if those premises are rent-controlled. That is for the future. Yesterday the hon. the Minister indicated that where contracts had already been entered into, he would find a way to give assistance. I now want to read something to the hon. the Minister. It concerns a person who has bought a flat in a scheme which is not yet registered, but is rent-controlled. He says—

The hon. the Minister is aware that this is a problem, that many sales could be cancelled over a period of time if permission is not given for the sectional title scheme to go through. We want to ask the hon. the Minister once again: In a case like this, where all the flats have already been sold and the scheme has been stopped technically because of the rent control provision, will the hon. the Minister be sympathetic to this group of people and see to it that where flats have actually been sold, this clause will not stop the registration of a scheme? I would like the hon. the Minister to be quite specific on this because this is merely one of a number of enquiries which has been made.

Secondly, there is the question to which the hon. the Minister has given a general reply. Two people contacted me yesterday. They were buyers of apartments in October and November last year. They believed that from 1 April this year they could get occupation. They are not affluent people. They have already divested themselves of their present accommodation, believing that they would get occupation on 1 April. In terms of the strict interpretation of this Bill, they will now not be able to evict the person living in that apartment on 1 April. The hon. the Minister has said he is sympathetic in bona fide cases such as these. I have to phone the people at the end of this debate. Will the hon. the Minister tell me what they must do? Must they write to the hon. the Minister and say: “This is my predicament. These are the circumstances”? Can I say that in circumstances such as these, where non-affluent people are being kept out of apartments by people, let us call them the “fat cats”, they must contact the hon. the Minister and that he will deal with it? I am giving him an opportunity to be a good boy today and say that he will attend to it.

The third one arises directly out of the sale of flats under sectional title, especially rent-controlled flats. The hon. the Minister is aware that I have written to him on this in general terms. I have, however, also written to him about specific flats, either because of the rentals which are now being charged or because of what I believe to be a form of harassment to which people still in rent-controlled flats are being subjected to try to force them out of those flats. The owners cannot get rid of these people, the little old ladies, the less affluent people, because the Minister has said they are protected under rent control. So they say that what they are therefore going to do is to make the lives of those people so unbearable that in the end they will get out of their apartments. Once they are out of those apartments, rent control is automatically lifted from them.

I want to raise this matter in respect of a particular block of flats of which the hon. the Minister will know. This particular block of flats was built in 1925 and the rentals there were very low. They were less than R78 until 18 months ago, when an application for an increase of over 100% was submitted. It was rejected by the Rent Board and an increase of only 20% was agreed to. The owner then said the flats were going to be converted to sectional title because the rental was too low. These were all rent-controlled flats. He opened a register and sold the flats to people who now find they cannot get access to those flats. What is happening? In order to force the poor people out—and I am using the word “poor” in its financial sense—they are now all receiving letters, not from the owner of the block so that they can fight it collectively but from the new individual owners of the respective units. Those letters say: “We are giving you one month’s notice that we are now applying to the Rent Board for an increase from R112 to R275.” This letter is dated 29 January. I have a further letter dated 28 January. It concerns the same block but a different tenant. It says: “We are applying to increase your rental from R114 to R290,16.” The hon. the Minister will say they can go to the Rent Board. However, the position is that the wealthy people who have purchased these flats are now going to the individual tenants and saying repeatedly: “We are going to the Rent Board and we are going to apply for an increase of 150%, 170% or 180% in the rental.” I consider this to be a form of harassment. When one looks at the rationale behind it, one sees that it is that, because the new owners had to pay so much for the flats, they now want to base the rental on the purchase price to them of the flats. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is just the start.

There is a new form of harassment which is for the new owners of the flats to threaten the tenants by saying: “We are going to continue going back to the Rent Board and asking for increases of 150% and you are going to be involved in the cost of fighting this individually and, if you do not fight it individually, you will be driven out through economic circumstances.” I raise this as an reality. Although the protection is still there under the Rent Control Act, the inflated prices that are being paid are being used by the new owners to pressurize the less affluent tenants in order to get them out of the blocks of flats. Perhaps, in his reply this morning, the hon. the Minister can indicate what his attitude is towards this action aimed at the less affluent tenants by, I believe, unscrupulous people, and what action he is going to take.

I have raised these three specific instances, not in order to criticize the measure but to indicate the problems that are going to arise out of the practical application of it and to give the Minister an opportunity of making a definitive statement in the interests of both the landlords and the tenants. With these words, we on this side of the House shall most certainly support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point put specific questions to the hon. the Minister, questions to which in the nature of things I cannot reply now. We trust then that the hon. the Minister will furnish him with a reply in due course.

During the Third Reading, we have an opportunity to review the effect of the Sectional Titles Act, looking back over the previous two stages. It is true, and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Sea Point here—that in this sector of the economy, the leasing sector, a degree of unrest developed in the past due to certain factors that we have already ironed out with one another during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage. A degree of order was introduced to the leasing market with this measure. Where I agree with the hon. member for Sea Point, is that we should not accept that this measure is going to control the situation for ever and a day, because this is a dynamic sector. Building houses and leasing houses is one facet of the economic sector that is making dynamic progress and that must be adapted to the circumstances from time to time. Since sales under sectional title are increasing to such an extent— which is also creating problems in itself—it may be expected that other measures will have to be adopted in future to control the situation. The problem with which we are faced today, and the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Sea Point, who have made an intensive study of this matter, will agree with me, is that we have a basic discrepancy here. One would like the free market economy to take its course, as far as this sector is concerned, so that the price of a unit, whether it is sold or leased, is determined by the free market mechanism. This is ideal. However, on the other hand, since housing is such a scarce commodity in all sectors, for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Asians, there has to be some control to prevent exploitation. Basically this is the crux of the problem.

I want to associate myself with the opening address of the Hon. the State President on 23 January this year in which he said that one of the objectives of the present session will be to find solutions to the problem of providing pensioners and other people in the lower income group with security of tenure without intervening in the free market economy. Now if we review the entire position in retrospect, what has basically happened? I make bold to say that the expectations which the Government cherished with regard to the private sector, were not fulfilled, due to reasons for which I personally cannot hold against the private sector. What happened in effect, was that when it was decided to phase out rent control, control that had been in force over a period of 15 years, it was phased out by means of proclamations with in the space of three years. In this way a vacuum was created with regard to existing units. We in the Government expected the private sector, particularly the developers to take the opportunity of erecting new units. However, the private sector and private capital moved into the vacuum as rent control was systematically phased out or rolled back. From this angle, I feel that this is basically the crux of the problem. I cannot blame anyone for this, because as units under rent control were phased out, beautiful luxury flats went up for sale under sectional title. This happened in Sea Point, for instance.

How does the private developer reason? He is now faced with the following choice: Should he purchase a piece of land and erect units at the current high building costs or should he take the opportunity to purchase an existing building on the beach front at Sea Point or wherever and convert it into sectional title units? This is basically what happened.

I want to recommend that incentives must be found in some way or other to bring the private developer to the point where he will not move backward, but forward and create housing. We are all ad idem that the solution to the problem is the creation of new units. The solution to the problem does not lie in further rent control or in further restrictions on sectional title sales.

On one occasion, economists were discussing inflation. One of them said that inflation was the problem. Another replied: “No, the problem is inflation.” In the same connection I want to say that the problem is not rent control nor the restrictions on sectional title sale; the problem is the creation of new units. They must find incentives to bring the private sector so far as to establish new units at a price that the average man can afford.

In this regard I want to point out a few figures. The State fulfilled its duty as far as it is in the Government’s financial power to establish dwelling units. R1 546 million was spent by the State on housing up to January 1976. The expenditure had increased progressively over the years, and this was of course with the assistance of the local authorities who act as agents for the establishment of economic and sub-economic housing. It is easy to see how the expenditure increased, from the fact that the State alone made 271 units available in the year 1980 at a total cost of R1 320 million. The State is doing what it can in this regard. The private sector must be channelled so that it does not move back as rent control is phased out, but moves forward in order to assist in creating housing.

There is another problem that I can add to those which the hon. member for Sea Point raised. I think the hon. the Minister will have to give attention to this sooner or later. Security of tenure and security of rental must form part of the whole set up. With the sales that are now taking place under the sectional title scheme, we are encouraging security of ownership. But what is then happening in effect? We are encroaching upon the availability of flats that are available for leasing. Not all the people living in flats, young people and old people, want to buy the flats but the available dwelling units on the market are now being sold under sectional title and we are encouraging this. However, the sector that is available for leasing, is becoming smaller and smaller and I think that this is a bottle-neck that will have to be studied by the hon. the Minister sooner or later. I just want to mention the figures for Pretoria in this regard. To the best of my knowledge and according to the statistics that I have, there are 36 400 flat units in Pretoria that are available for leasing as well as for sale under the sectional title scheme. Of these 36 400 flat units, 1 068 were sold under the sectional title scheme in 1976. In 1977, 1 577 of these units were sold. In 1978, 953 units were sold under the sectional titles scheme, in 1979, 980 were sold and up to September 1980, 2 089 flat units had been sold—these are not blocks of flats—which gives us a total of 7 179 units that have been sold under the sectional titles scheme. It is an obvious fact that these units—and this does not include units that were sold under the share block scheme— comprise 10% to 15% of the available units which were available for leasing purposes. However, these have now been withdrawn from the leasing market and a vacuum has therefore been created with respect to those people who want to rent flats. This even includes the people who must vacate the units that have been sold under the sectional titles scheme. There is simply no accommodation available for leasing because other people are already occupying the units that were previously available for leasing purposes.

There is another problem that I feel will turn up sooner or later and this is that the hon. the Minister will have to come to this House in due course in connection with the problem of the security of tenure. For certain flat units, there is no contractual agreement between the tenant the landlord and the landlord can give the tenant a month’s notice to vacate the unit. In view of the principle of security of tenure—a principle that we all accept—I feel it is not asking too much to expect the landlord to form a contract with the tenant for a certain period, even if it is just for a year, because this will ensure the tenant of security of tenure. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would react to this.

I personally am of the opinion that the selling price of dwelling units under sectional title is too high. I am not an expert in this field, but my personal opinion is that the prices of dwelling units that are offered for sale under sectional title are unrealistically high.

Houses too.

If one wants to compare the prices of houses and flat units in terms of capital investment, I do not believe that the prices of houses are too high, and I have spoken to developers about this. If a developer sells a block of flats under sectional title, he can expect a profit of ±40%, whilst the profit on a leasing unit as a fixed investment is ±12%. With the scanty information that I have at my disposal, I feel that due to the high liquidity of building societies, the price of sectional title units on the market, as they are at the moment and have been in the past year, are unrealistically high.

Due to the shortage of flats.

Yes, the question of supply and demand plays a role, as well as the shortage of flats. But this is not the solution to the problem; it is simply identifying the problem. But with the measure which the hon. the Minister has now proposed, I feel that some order will enter the market and the whole situation will be normalised.

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasant to take part in a debate when you can find little to critize in what the previous speaker on the Government side has said. I think he put penetrating questions and I should be very pleased if the hon. the Minister could supply clear answers to those questions. I, too, shall refer to certain aspects of share blocks, since there are cases which need clarification.

†Mr. Speaker, as is customary in a Third Reading debate, one deals with the Bill from the point of view of its practical implementation and the effect it will have. Whilst we have supported the Second Reading and are obviously also going to support the Third Reading as well because it is an improvement on the present situation, we do appreciate the attitude of the hon. the Minister in this matter. The hon. the Minister made the debate very easy in the sense that he readily admitted that the root cause of the whole problem was, in fact, inadequate legislation, and that this had led to abuse.

Having said all this, Sir, I must say that I am still very concerned, even if this Bill is passed. I still believe that we are dealing here with a situation which perhaps needs far more drastic action than we are contemplating at the present moment. I think we are only dealing with the symptoms of the malady, and within the limits of his capabilities, I do believe that the hon. the Minister is doing what he can, but I think we shall have to look deeper to get to the root cause of the problem that has given rise to such a situation in the country, because in a very short period of time the very fine equilibrium in the accommodation market has been completely destroyed.

Before the advent of these flat purchases, the subsequent buyers still had a regular income from their investment and paid rent for the flats in which they lived. As such they could still also apply for social pensions, but some of them subsequently found that they had cut their effective income, having drawn out the money to buy the flats on sectional title, though they still have to pay large amounts in administration fees and levies. So, whilst we offer them every sympathy, there is not much else we can de because that problem has been left totally unsolved.

*This brings me to a few practical problems. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could just give us greater clarity on this score. In Durban yesterday I was approached on two specific cases. In the one case there was a whole block of flats falling under a share block scheme. All the flats were therefore sold under a share block scheme, except for one specific living unit under rent control. Share block schemes do not of course fall under the hon. the Minister, but what are those people to do? Are they also entitled to approach the hon. the Minister directly?

No, they must not come to me.

So the hon. the Minister does not deal with this at all. There is a further example I wish to mention. All the flats in the block were sold under a share block scheme, but there are still people who are not really in possession of their flats, because the building as such is rent controlled. Once again I have to accept the hon. the Minister’s reply that he does not deal with this kind of thing. I realize that this is not his problem, but I am just mentioning it to indicate that we are actually dealing with a very extensive problem here. In a city such as Durban where a number of flats are still subject to leasehold, sectional title cannot really be put into operation. One is therefore faced with the problem that people bought flats simply because of the general problems in the housing market. Often they tried in any possible way to find accommodation for themselves. Now they are saddled with unsolved problems which are actually going to remain unsolved even after we have passed this legislation.

†I just want to conclude by telling the hon. the Minister that a lack of suitable alternative accommodation lies at the root of this problem. This is the aspect that has to be tackled, and it has to be tackled very quickly. One cannot expect private enterprise to provide the accommodation that will be required as a logical consequence of sectional title and the phasing out of rent control. It is virtually impossible to think that one can get private enterprise to erect buildings that will have, for example, apartment-type accommodation and communal bathrooms. There will always be people in South Africa who will not be able to afford more than that level of accommodation. That type of accommodation, however, has disappeared. The Government must be told that in this regard a massive scheme is required. I can indicate to him that, for instance, in a city such as Durban the department owns large tracts of land, areas which are centrally situated such as Black AK which is lying fallow at the moment. I believe those are areas in respect of which the department should try to get money and use it for building purposes.

Where will we get the money?

The hon. the Minister asks where he will get the money. I am quite sure that in a country like South Africa, with the type of thing that has been happening here and the availability of money, we can get the money.

You are dreaming.

The hon. member says we are dreaming.

†We in South Africa—and it is right for we are a developing country—spend a lot of money planning the future. We plan grandiose schemes for generations to come. But we often forget that there are many people living now and that we have a responsibility to them. I say that it is very difficult to explain this type of situation to people in the twilight of their lives who find themselves in this impossible situation where everything has been upset and where cheap accommodation has become expensive accommodation. When one tells them that we are going to have a wonderful tomorrow they do not even know where they have to go to find this tomorrow. Those are the people I am concerned about. I know that the hon. the Minister himself has assumed a great deal of responsibility in this regard because he will be using his discretion in many respects. I believe he is a person with influence in the Cabinet and I call upon him to exert that influence and convince his colleagues that we are dealing here with a social problem that needs attention. No matter how we play around with legislation such as we are dealing with at the moment, in the end the solutions to that problem will not be cheap. They will be expensive. The people who will have to bear the responsibility of finding solutions to the problem will be the State. If they do this, they will simply be fulfilling their responsibility to the people living today.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I want to wish the hon. the Minister every success in administering this legislation. In many cases he will need the wisdom of a Solomon. However, we do have a measure of confidence that if he acts in the spirit of this debate he may in future be able to prevent a disaster—if I may call it that— from happening in South Africa as similar to the one that has happened during the past year or so.

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been clear from this debate that the housing crisis, the exploitation of tenants and the lack of adequate protection for them have been highlighted. This crisis has been placed in the hands of the hon. the Minister for him to try to solve. He has come here during the short session of Parliament with what is obviously a rescue operation. I think there are many difficulties that will arise from the legislation before us. It is by no means fool-proof. It is by no means comprehensive. I trust that we all regard this as an ad hoc rescue operation and that we will treat it on an ad hoc basis because of the short session and because we have to get the legislation through at this stage. I also trust that we can look forward to a more permanent solution at a later stage to solve the problems we are facing.

However, I think the debate has been stimulating. We should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the clear replies he has given to so many questions that have given rise to so many queries and uncertainties concerning the implementation of the legislation and also the exact effect of the legislation we are dealing with. This was particularly the case in the Committee Stage where we had to highlight certain situations in order to get clarity. We are not only dealing with the Sectional Titles Act and all the implications of a new aspect of the development of sectional title in so far as its registration is concerned when it comes to conversion to sectional title but we are also at the same time dealing with the protection of tenants under the Rent Control Act. These tenants were protected under the Act.

We have now very clearly inextricably bound rent control and sectional titles together for the future. I think it is imperative for me to try to state very clearly what the Minister has achieved in introducing this legislation. I want to state this clearly because there are people outside the House who are very dependent upon the clear interpretation of what is happening in regard to this measure. If I say anything that is not strictly legally correct, I want to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of correcting me in his reply to the Third Reading so that his speech together with this can be taken as the position as it stands.

You are a “boereverneuker”.

He does not give legal advice free of charge.

Yes, but the Government is going to be committed on this.

Firstly, at the Committee Stage we clarified, and the hon. the Minister agreed, that as far as any agreement entered into prior to the promulgation of this legislation is concerned, any agreement whereby a proposed unit is sold under sectional title, that agreement will be valid and will not be made void in terms of sections 8A(1)(a) and (2). It will be considered as a valid agreement as such and it will not in a subsequent application be regarded as an invalid agreement in the circumstances. The application will therefore not be affected. That is clear. It is also clear that any agreement entered into after the promulgation of this legislation for the sale of units under sectional title must comply with the requirements of this legislation, because otherwise they will be made void. In that case there will be compensation and other measures will apply. The hon. the Minister has confirmed that, as far as such agreements are concerned, they will not be regarded as contravening the legislation and as such be made void. I think that that was stated clearly yesterday.

Now I come to the next set of circumstances. Let us now cast aside agreements of sale and forget about them entirely. The developer of a block of flats does not need to prove to the local authority or the Deeds Office that he has sold any units under sectional title. In respect of any building erected from today back to the early 1900s he is free to apply for sectional title. That application is not dependent on the sale of any units, nor is the local authority or the Deeds Office concerned with the sale of such units. Such application can be made for buildings erected prior to 20 October 1949 which are rent controlled, buildings erected between 1949 and 1966 which were decontrolled or buildings erected subsequently. As regards the buildings which are rent controlled and which were occupied before 20 October 1949 and buildings erected between 1949 and 1966 and which were decontrolled, if application has already been made to the local authority, is the local authority entitled to deal with that application if it was submitted to the local authority prior to the date of this legislation being promulgated? That is the one question.

Could you repeat that, please?

Certainly. I am referring to applications for conversion to sectional title of buildings under rent control because they were occupied before 20 October 1949 and buildings erected between 1949 and 1966 and which have been decontrolled. I am not now concerned with deeds of sale, but with a straightforward application which goes to the local authority in terms of section 4 and complies with all the requirements in terms of section 5. If at the date on which this legislation is promulgated in the Gazette those applications are already before the local authority, can the local authority proceed to process them? In other words, these are applications that are in the pipeline at the moment. I mentioned the figure of 94 applications in Johannesburg but I am told that since the statement was made by the hon. the Minister about what he intends to do, the applications have come in like confetti and there are now hundreds of applications pending before the local authority. What must they do with those applications? May they proceed with those applications? That is my first question.

Before the promulgation of the Act?

Yes. They are already in the pipeline. They have been submitted to the local authority and this legislation has not yet become law. In other words, if this becomes law on 1 March and if Johannesburg has 400 applications, Pretoria 200 and Durban 100, what are the local authorities to do? Can they proceed with the applications as though this Act had not yet become law? Having said that, what I want to ask is that if a certificate is granted in terms of sections 4 and 5, can the applicant then go to the deeds registry and can the deeds registry then consider the application and allow a sectional title register to be opened? Is there no prohibition on the deeds registry? I do not see any and so I want the hon. the Minister to confirm this. In that case, even if the application is submitted to the deeds registry subsequently, and even if it concerns a building occupied before 21 October 1949, can the deeds registry allow the opening of a sectional title register? These are my two questions in so far as the applications are concerned. I want to deal now with the protection that is given to tenants by the fact that a building was occupied before 21 October 1949 or that between 1949 and 1966 they qualified for protection in view of the economic limits because they were in occupation of those particular units at the time of promulgation when the block was decontrolled and their economic limits complied with the requirements of that proclamation. The sectional title register may be open. As far as the protection of the tenants is concerned, they still enjoy it in respect of those flats which were first occupied before October 1949 and are now converted to sectional title. Those people living in flats which were first occupied between 1949 and 1966, flats which have been decontrolled but where tenants can claim protection in terms of the Act because of their economic limits, will still be protected from ejectment because of the terms of section 39(1). They cannot be ejected even though their unit is sold. That date is now being extended to a date to be determined by proclamation. I want to state that very clearly and I want the hon. the Minister to confirm that this in fact is the situation. As a sequitur to that it will follow automatically—and this I want confirmed— that any application made subsequent to promulgation of this Act must comply with these requirements. Then the local authority must examine it and if it is in respect of a building erected before 21 October 1949 it cannot be considered and if there is part protection from 1949 to 1966 it also cannot be considered. It will be subject to those conditions. That is the situation as I see it and I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm that that is so.

As we are dealing with the protection of tenants I think it is necessary to ask: What are we left with in so far as the protection of tenants is concerned who fall under the Rent Control Act? What are we dealing with here? In terms of the Fouché Commission’s report, in April 1978 when the proclamation was issued we had to deal with something like 238 000 housing units in South Africa. Of those 238 000 units, 68 000 were houses and 170 000 were flats. Three proclamations were issued in three successive years. In the first proclamation of 6 April 1978 the hon. the Minister phased out 26% of those units. The next year he phased out 15% and the following year 18%, giving a total to date of 59%. This means that only 41% of those 238 000 units remain which, if my arithmetic is correct, means that 97 580 units are still under rent control today, plus those individual units where the tenants have complained.

So what we are dealing with now are the 97 580 units which are still under control.

27% are still under control.

Well, I am sorry but that is not the figure I have. According to my information 41% are still under control. This percentage represents something like 164 000 people. They are the only ones still left. The question I am asking concerns applications pending in respect of flats erected between 1949 and 1966, on which control has already been phased out. If the answer to my question in respect of this category of flat units is that local authorities will be able to continue to grant applications for conversion, what is the position then in respect of the other 59%, or 140 000 units, in respect of which protection no longer exists? I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister regards this as being in keeping with the feeling he expressed in connection with the protection given to those people whose flats have been decontrolled during the past three years. I should regret to learn that those who have received that protection will now no longer be able to enjoy it and will be subject to having their flats bought in terms of the sectional titles scheme, which will mean that they may face eviction without any further protection being given them. Rent control has been completely phased out in respect of flats erected between 1949 and 1966 and the tenants of those flats have lost their protection. They have no protection in terms of the Sectional Titles Act or the Rent Control Act. In the light of conditions prevailing in today’s property market, I believe this is a very serious position, so serious that it could even be regarded as a crisis.

I should like to refer now to another aspect. As the hon. the Minister knows, deproclamation took place subject to two conditions. The first condition was that rent could only be increased by 10% a year over two years, and the second condition was that tenants within certain economic limits were entitled to protection. Let us look now at the first of these two conditions. In many cases the two-year period has now expired. Last year we asked the Government not to go ahead with the phasing out of rent control in respect of flats erected between 1949 and 1955. In spite of our requests they went ahead and did so. This happened in May last year. The problem is now that rentals in respect of this specific category of flat units have increased to such an extent that the occupants are faced with a crisis because they can no longer afford to pay the high rentals. On the other hand they have no alternative accommodation available to them. Where are they to go now? We are faced here with two illnesses as it were, but the emphasis has shifted in that we have forgotten about the people who are being exploited, people living in decontrolled flats who can no longer afford the ever-increasing rentals they have to pay.

In this respect I want to refer to just one example. In Hillbrow, for instance, I know of a block of flats where the rents have soared from R65 to R150 during the past three years. Three years ago people in that block paid R65 for their flats. This was then increased to R72, later to R80, then to R100, and finally to R150. We all know that there are many people who cannot afford to pay these rentals. They are the people who are being exploited. They have to pay these rentals, which they cannot afford. Yet they have nowhere else to go.

I put it to the hon. the Minister that there is a remedy for this illness, a remedy which lies in his own hands. In terms of the Rent Control Act the hon. the Minister can reimpose rent control on those buildings where people are being exploited, and I appeal to him today to do so. In cases in which landlords are being vexatious and are harassing the tenants and increasing their rents beyond reasonable limits, the hon. the Minister should take proper action. The hon. member for Sea Point also referred to cases of people being driven out of their flats so that the owners can proceed to conversion under the sectional titles scheme. For all these reasons I say the matter is deserving of the hon. the Minister’s attention. He must exercise his authority by reimposing rent control on those buildings. If he were to make examples of some of those exploiters I believe he would be contributing much towards solving the problem.

Referring now to clause 3 of the Bill and to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point, an amendment which the hon. the Minister rejected, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give this House and the public outside a clear undertaking that, after the coming election, he will not simply go ahead and summarily remove the protection that still exists in terms of section 39(1) of the Rent Control Act. Will he give us that clear undertaking, and will he state …

But he cannot do that.

Of course he can do it. He can do it by proclamation.

He can only do it by introducing new legislation.

He can do it. That hon. member should read what is written in the clause. Clause 3(2) reads as follows—

What does that mean? Of course he can do it! We want a clear undertaking in this regard from the hon. the Minister. There is this sword of Damocles that is hanging over their heads. There is also a general election in the offing and we are all concerned about the interests of our voters. The hon. member for Bellville is also very worried because he has a number of tenants in his building as well. We are now having talks and discussions which are completely contrary to the line that was adopted before. We want that undertaking from the hon. the Minister.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do something else. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the whole question of sectional titles, rent control and the protection of tenants. This commission of inquiry should in the first instance examine the whole question of tenant protection not only in regard to the question of rent control but the question of protection generally.

Order! Is this argument material to the content of the Bill?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I submit with great respect that this point is covered by the whole question of occupation. We have people coming into this country from Zimbabwe, South West Africa and also from abroad and they together with our own South African people need this protection. I think that this question of tenant protection should be a number one priority of this commission’s investigation.

The hon. member for Bellville raised the question of free market enterprise, the question of supply and demand. I agree with him that the solution does not lie only in legislation but also in motivating the public sector and private sector towards building as many housing units as possible and letting them as reasonably as possible. As far as the public sector is concerned, this matter is in the hands of the hon. the Minister. As far as the private sector is concerned I should like such a commission of inquiry to examine the tax benefits, if any, or tax relief that can be given to developers in order to encourage them to build so that they can let those premises at reasonable rentals to members of the public.

The third matter I should like such a commission to investigate is the fact that was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Central, viz. that sectional title cannot be obtained on leasehold premises. Why is that? That is the law, but we can change the law. We do have 99-year leases and those are long leases, so why cannot we change the law and allow sectional title to be granted in respect of blocks of flats that are built on leasehold property? That is a further question such a commission should investigate.

Finally, as far as town planning is concerned, we find that the proposed subsection (6)(a) of clause 1 of this Bill reads—

Unfortunately, owing to lack of control, oversight and various other factors there are many buildings that have been erected in virtually every local authority area in South Africa that contravene the provisions of town planning schemes or proposed town planning schemes. For example, if a developer builds a 20-storey building and it contravenes a particular town planning scheme, will he be forced to pull that building down? Of course not. Such a developer can be fined or penalized in some way or other because that building is not in compliance with the provisions of that town planning scheme, but the building will stay. I should like this proposed commission to make recommendations to the hon. the Minister in cases of this nature because I think that in such cases the hon. the Minister should have the power in the case of a block of flats that is sought to be converted to sectional title and the circumstances justify it although the building contravenes a particular town planning scheme, to ensure that there will not be an automatic bar to a building of that nature being converted to sectional title.

In conclusion, in order to finalize this matter, I want to repeat a challenge that I issued to the hon. the Minister.

You do not have to repeat it.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that whenever he wishes, on a Saturday afternoon when people are not working, I am prepared to arrange a meeting of flat owners in Hillbrow which the hon. the Minister can address and at which he will have a personal insight into the crisis conditions, the deprivation, the hardships and the harassment that these people are suffering. I make this an open offer to the hon. the Minister which he can take up at any time he pleases.

Order! I want to inform hon. members that I have been very lenient towards them in respect of the debate on this legislation as well as the debates on other pieces of legislation that have come before this House. I have done so because this is a short session during which the Votes of Ministers will not be discussed. I trust hon. members will not take advantage of that leniency.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by replying to the speech by the hon. member for Bellville, because he submitted a number of interesting facts to this House. He touched on a matter which was also raised by all the other speakers, namely the question of alternative housing. This is a very important factor in the whole issue. The hon. member for Durban Central referred to it, as did other hon. members. The hon. member for Sea Point asked how I was going to assist in making flats more easily available for the ordinary man—often people who are unable to obtain property in any other way than by purchasing a flat under sectional title. All these matters have a bearing on this. In that regard in particular I want to refer to the scope of the problem, because housing in this country cannot all be provided by the State alone. Indeed, it is not the case anywhere in the world that the State alone takes upon itself the responsibility for all housing. We could not begin to afford to adopt that principle. The fact is that the State is obliged nowadays to accept responsibility for virtually 99% of non-White housing in this country—and that is a large number of people—because employers in the private sector do not wish to come forward and accept that responsibility. This is an incredible burden which we in South Africa have to bear, and accordingly we have laid down as a principle that we can only hold ourselves responsible for a group of people below a certain income level. However, even that the Government cannot achieve on its own, and the Government and the department need the help of the private sector. On the one hand hon. members would like us to involve the private sector in this regard, but on the other, hon. members like the unwise hon. member for Hillbrow come along and insist that we must intervene more and more in the private sector, that we should hang more and more millstones around their necks and impose more and more restrictions upon them. Is there an hon. member in full possession of his senses who thinks that anyone will invest money in a block of flats subject to restrictions with regard to rent control, sectional titles and a hundred and one other restrictions which the hon. member also wants to hang around his neck, when there are other, far more attractive fields of investment? Does the hon. member think that there is anyone who has so taken leave of his senses as to enter the development market under these circumstances?

What about new buildings?

After 1976 there were no restrictions.

That hon. member lacks any responsibility. He stands up here and rattles off a whole lot of questions, being as fully aware as we are what the answers are. He does so merely in order to talk. He suffers from talking disease. [Interjections.] I am not angry with him; in fact, I like him.

Just give us the answers.

I just want to assist him a little. I want hon. members to show understanding of the problem. I cannot do all the things the hon. member asks. I cannot restrict the private sector and then expect them to help me. After all, in that regard one cannot have it both ways. That, too, is what the hon. member for Bellville pointed out here when he said that we should rather try to involve the private sector by making things attractive for private entrepreneurs, by making things competitive for them and by making it worth their while to invest their money in housing. If there is any positive proposal, I shall go out of my way to implement it. In fact, as far back as 1978 we appointed a committee in terms of legislation, the Housing Matters Advisory Committee, which is geared to submit proposals to me regularly, which I can submit to the Treasury and other bodies, proposals as to how we can create incentives for the private sector to invest more in housing. However, this is not such a simple matter. Here again it is a question of funds. The hon. member for Durban Central or the hon. member for Bellville said that what the hon. member for Hillbrow and I are doing is to impose a financial burden on the private sector by expecting them to subsidize rent. [Interjections.] We are not allowing supply and demand to play its proper role in the free market system. No, we expect the developer to subsidize a tenant, and I think the general feeling is that this is not the duty of the private sector. The State must do so, but it is still a question of funds. I am not afraid to point to our record in this connection. We have an exceptionally good record in this connection, as I showed in detail the other day.

When the hon. member for Hillbrow was furnishing statistics, he made special reference to the difficult situation in Pretoria. Pretoria is today in fact the focal point of our problems with regard to White housing, and accordingly, at my request the Government has given its approval as an extraordinary measure, an extraordinary concession— to tell the truth, an exceptional concession— for my department to build a block of 1 000 dwelling units in Pretoria, because there are so many public servants who are continually coming and going, and for us to make provision for those who fall just beyond the qualifying limits for housing, because it is they who are very hard hit. [Interjections.] I went even further than that. We gave the ACVV an advance of R25 million to provide housing for the elderly people of Pretoria on land which we made available to the ACVV. That is not a small sum of money. I can tell the hon. member for Durban Central that housing enjoys an extremely high priority with the Government, but there are many other high priorities, too, which the Government must bear in mind. We in this country do not only have a housing problem, and we must not think that because there is a lot of money in the country, Government spending can be unlimited. There is a ceiling in that regard as well. There is inflation which we must bear in mind at all times. If the Government were to say: “The coffers are full; let us therefore eat, drink and spend money”, and we cared not for the morrow, then all these things would be meaningless for us tomorrow due to the erosion of our funds. After all, we cannot be so irresponsible. We are spending millions on housing. Over the past five to six years this Government has done more than in any period in the history of the Republic, and even while there was a White housing surplus my department approved any scheme for White housing virtually on a “voetstoots” basis, simply because it wanted to spend a part of the funds available on Whites too. I say that as far as the elderly people were concerned, we approved plans and applications virtually on a “voetstoots” basis. Now, of course, the situation is a little different.

However, to speak of a housing crisis, as the hon. unwise member for Hillbrow does, is something I am quite unable to associate myself with. The hon. member has a crisis on his brain because there is a crisis in his party’s ranks.

No, the crisis is in your ranks.

The crisis in the ranks of the PFP owes its existence to the fact that his party has too many candidates for too few constituencies. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central wanted to know how those who have acquired an interest in a block of flats through the share block system would be affected by the legislation. In the first place, the administration of the share block legislation is not something that falls under my department, but under the portfolio of the hon. Minister of Industries, Trade and Tourism. Accordingly that legislation is not directly involved here. Nevertheless I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban Central that the kind of interest one acquires on the basis of share blocks is a different type of interest to that referred to in the legislation at present under discussion. It is not an interest which results in right of ownership; it is an interest which affords other types of right, inter alia, the right of occupation. The share block legislation provides that before such a block of flats can be converted into sectional title units, at least 30% of the shareholders must request the directors to do so. If 30% of the shareholders have asked the directors to convert the block in which they have a right of occupation into a sectional title unit, in order that they may obtain a right of ownership in it, the directors will have to act in terms of the legal requirements. They will have to submit a scheme complying with the requirements of the Act. This of course means that people falling under rent control will have to be taken into account. That, in short, is the reply to the hon. member’s question.

I now come to the hon. member for Sea Point. He referred to the fact that I was unable to accept his amendment yesterday. The unfortunate situation is that he is seeking a simple solution for a very complicated problem. There are various groups of people who are protected under rent control today. Because this is so, I was unable to react favourably to his request. In the first place, there is the group of protected tenants who are protected because their income does not exceed a certain amount. They are therefore protected due to their income. In the second place there is the group of protected tenants who are protected because I cannot exclude them from rent control unless I pass a law through Parliament. They include two groups: The less well-off tenants and the “fat-cats”, as hon. members opposite call them. Therefore there is a third group of tenants, too, protected under rent control at the moment and they are the people who really do not deserve State protection because they do not fall within the income limits of the Housing Act. However, because they fall under the group of tenants who are still protected by rent control relating to flats built before 1949, they are in a favourable position. If I were to link the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point to the phasing out of rent control it would mean that I would still have to protect all of them, including the fat cats, to the end of my days, or at least for a very long time. [Interjections.] I hope that the situation will change and normalize in due course to such an extent that I shall be able to put the provisions of the legislation into effect, so that it will no longer apply to certain people, and so that certain tenants can be given notice. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance—he asked me a specific question in this regard—that I shall not do so this year. This is not an election measure. It is legislation that was drafted last year when no one had yet dreamt that an election might be called. Therefore it was not drawn up with any such ulterior motive. The fact is that I had to review the situation and deal with it at the time, not because the legal provision, the effective date of which had been postponed to 1 April 1981, was then in force, but because it had conveniently been used by speculators to promote the unholy methods they were adopting, methods they adopted in terms of the Sectional Titles Act because the deficiencies in that Act permitted them to do so. Those, then, were my reasons. Because there are so many categories of people that are protected, I cannot apply so simple a general exclusion as that requested by the hon. member.

Then, too, the hon. member listed three specific problems. I could mention another 13 to him.

I only want to know about those three.

All day yesterday, hon. members put forward tentative or imaginary theoretical possibilities that could arise out of this Bill. I tried to reply to them to the best of my ability. We could carry on with this little game, but fortunately it is to be hoped that it will now come to an end. Therefore I am still patient and I shall reply to this as well.

In the first place, the hon. member referred to the case in which the city council is still considering the scheme and has not yet approved it. At the same time I want to reply to a question by the hon. member for Hillbrow. If the local authorities have not yet taken a decision and will only do so after the legislation has been promulgated, then they will have to take their decision on the basis of the provisions of this legislation. However, if the contracts in question that were entered into are entirely legal in terms of the old Act, then there is no question of rent control units at issue, then it is unnecessary …

We were not referring to contracts, but to applications.

Wait, I want to mention an exception. In that case it is unnecessary to submit a new scheme, unless the scheme answers to the requirements of this legislation. Then the process can continue, and moreover, the Registrar of Deeds does not have a discretion. Accordingly the Registrar of Deeds will register the sectional title. He takes it that when it gets to him, the local authority has already taken steps to ensure that the legal requirements have been complied with. If, however, a scheme has been submitted to the municipality in terms of which legal contracts have been entered into in accordance with the old dispensation and under the existing legislation, and there are rent control units in that block which is to be converted, then that developer will of course require my help, as I said yesterday to the hon. member for East London North and other hon. members. He will need my help because I must then condone those isolated cases which still fall under rent control. And I should do so with pleasure if, in the first instance, it was done legitimately and if it was a transaction which was initiated by a bona fide developer and not by a swindler. In that case I should be willing to be helpful. I should be willing to help him to prevent his plan being wrecked due to the few cases of rent control involved.

What must the local authorities do?

The onus will now rest with the developer.

Yes, but they are before the local authorities.

Order!

But he has already submitted them to the local authority. Surely the developer knows what is going on in the interim. If the local authority has not yet approved the scheme, then the developer must realize that he has entered into a contract which forms part of his scheme and still falls under rent control. He shall have to approach my department, put his cards on the table and say that he had acted bona fide and quite legitimately under the provisions of the old Act but that in terms of the legal contracts he entered into with people …

Must he …

Order! If the hon. member wants to ask a question, he must stand up and ask permission to do so.

The hon. member should just listen for a moment. I am simply giving him free advice. This is a difficult and technical aspect. If some of these contracts are affected by the rent control provision, then in the nature of the matter the city council will not be able to consider that contract after the legislation has been promulgated if the problem has not been eliminated, and the problem can be eliminated by the developer. The plan can be lying there, and the developer can eliminate the problem with my department by obtaining from me a lifting of rent control from those units, and I shall give it favourable consideration if the steps taken have been legitimate and bona fide and if there is alternative accommodation for those people. We shall try to arrange this. As I said in the course of the debate, it is worthwhile for the developer to be helpful. If the people are really deserving cases, he can tell me that he has another block of flats where there are flats which he does not wish to convert. He can then ask them whether they would not be helpful by going to live there. If the people say that they will move there, the department will have no objection as long as those people do have alternative accommodation. But the local authorities will not be able to consider schemes before the problem of the rent control cases have been ironed out with my assistance. I hope that is clear.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is saying that all applications presently pending for sectional title before a local authority, applications that have not been decided upon the date that this becomes law, must go back and must be decided upon on the old basis, and that from the date that this becomes law all applications before them can only be decided upon in terms of the new law?

Of course, yes.

In other words, the developer must then withdraw his application if it falls foul of the provisions of the law?

At long last the hon. member understands the situation; that is correct.

The hon. member for Sea Point also referred to the question of victimization. Once again this is clear evidence that this is not solely due to the provision introduced into the legislation last year by the former Minister of Justice, the provision in terms of which the legislation was amended so that it would be possible from the beginning of April this year to give notice to a person that he should vacate a flat. It is not solely due to that provision that victimization took place. In the first place—and this is the essence of the matter—we have for the past 10 years had an Act—which, in passing, hon. members opposite supported enthusiastically—in terms of which action was taken, as the hon. member for Bellville also said earlier on. However, it was an Act which had never withstood the test of a problematic situation such as the one we have experienced over the past year, a situation in which the demand for housing exceeded the supply. It was due to the deficiencies in that Act which then came to light, that I came to this House with the Bill under discussion.

In the first instance it was the existing deficiencies which allowed victimization to take place. That is so. However, I admit that it was a contributory factor that it was possible to tell people that if they did not give in, they could in any event be evicted from their flats on 1 April 1981. That is of course the case. That, too, is why I introduced the amending Bill here. This kind of victimization, of which we had a typical illustration in the example depicted by the hon. member for Sea Point of a flat tenant enduring such hell that he eventually jumps out of a window or packs his bags and leaves, can in any event continue under the present provision, without the amended provision for which we have been fighting for so long being inserted in the Act. This can continue under normal circumstances. Now the hon. member wants me to say what I am going to do about this, how I am going to prevent victimization. It is not easy to prevent it because it does not only occur with regard to people protected by rent control but also with regard to people who are not subject to rent control. Just as many cases deserving of compassion occur of people who fall outside the provisions of the Rent Control Act being victimized. Because I foresaw that these things could take place and that a new group of clever people could now appear with all kinds of stratagems to persuade people to vacate their flats, I arranged for all the chairmen of the Rent Boards to meet in Pretoria today where the Director-General of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services is discussing with them these problems which can arise out of this kind of thing. This is the only effective method. The Rent Boards will have to deal with these problems. Accordingly they are being briefed in this regard today. Moreover, they are being issued with certain instructions in so far as it is possible to give instructions to Rent Boards. They are being advised as to how they must act in situations of this nature. That is the furthest I can go.

Then, of course, there is one thing I must state clearly with reference to various questions put by hon. members. If anyone oversteps the mark and simply carries on recklessly increasing rent, and I receive complaints in that regard which can be supported by evidence, then I shall not hesitate for a moment to take action. In fact, I am looking for a few such people. I shall not hesitate for a moment to reimpose rent control on them. I shall come down hard on them. I warn them that they are now dealing with a different man. I am warning them. People who plague us to the utmost degree and whose greed knows no bounds, will have me to reckon with.

I think I have now been emphatic enough. I have also made myself sufficiently clear. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked whether this applied to new buildings. The answer is that it does not apply to new buildings, nor to buildings under construction.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow once again that it is now time for him to come to his senses and put an end to his mad, hysterical stories about crises. [Interjections.] Hon. members should really exercise a little patience. The fact is that as far as White housing is concerned we did not have a shortage for a number of years. However, a shortage occurred overnight, due to the economic climate and not due to the Government’s doing. In fact, that backlog occurred due to the prosperity of our country, due to progress in the country. It must be borne in mind that during the first eight months of last year there are 10 000 more immigrants entering the country than emigrants leaving the country.

Then, too, I must point out to the hon. member that over the past five years we have reduced the backlog in non-White housing by 20 000 units. Over and above that we have re-established 20 000 people from slums in decent housing. Does that not attest to progress? Show me any country in the world in which housing conditions are as good as they are in this country at present, and where the State is doing as much as we are doing.

When I say this, I am not suggesting that there are not people who are living in need. That we shall always have. Let us go to the squatter camps and ask the people there where they come from. They will tell you they come from Richmond, Beaufort West and from as far as our furthest borders. There is a constant stream of them, and as soon as I take one out of that situation, there is another who crawls in under a bush. Economic factors contribute towards this state of affairs, and to a large extent we shall have to live with this situation. Indeed, hon. members opposite want us to allow such people to squat and to remain there. Is it not their policy that such people should simply be allowed to come and squat and crawl in under the bushes around our cities, and I must not touch them? After all, that is the policy of those hon. members, is it not? [Interjections.] Yes, and now the hon. member sits there gaping at me!

I think I have spoken enough now—both nicely and harshly—to those hon. members. I did so in a very good spirit, because I like to do so. I hope that they will take to heart these paternal warnings I have given them.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Before doing so, I want to thank him for his reply. However there is one more aspect about which confusion could arise. My question concerns the further phasing out or withdrawal of rent control. In fact the question only concerns the flats built before October 1949 and not the others. The hon. member for Bellville also referred to this. Do I understand the hon. the Minister correctly to say that he cannot phase out the rent control on such flats further without coming to Parliament with an amendment of the Act?

Yes.

Order! The hon. member cannot have a second opportunity to speak in this debate.

Sir, that is so, but there is a second question I want to ask. Can the hon. the Minister abolish rent control in respect of specific flats in that group?

I can exclude them from rent control, as the Minister has always had the power to do. It is done on an individual basis and according to merit.

Colin, all you had to do was to read the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this measure is another step in the process of rationalization, and is the result of lengthy negotiations between the Department of National Education and the S.A. War Graves Board and the National Monuments Council. The main purpose of the Bill is to invest the National Monuments Council with the powers of the S.A. War Graves Board and to repeal the existing War Graves Act, 1967, as amended. The purpose of the two Acts and of the council and the board is to a large extent the same, i.e. the protection and conservation of certain historic and cultural monuments. Therefore there is good reason for combining the provisions of the two Acts. From the nature of their functions, there is inevitably some duplication between the two boards, and a combination can only promote efficiency. Staff and accommodation could be better utilized, for example. Research is another essential part of the function undertaken by both the board and the council, and at the moment, each is often involved separately in research in the same area. In this way, someone from the S.A. War Graves Board may have to travel to Potchefstroom to inspect the cemetery dating from the First Anglo-boer War in connection with its maintenance. The National Monuments Council, on the other hand, has to inspect the remains of the fort occupied by the British troups during the siege of Potchefstroom, which is situated near the cemetery. Under the present statutory provisions, mutual co-operation and assistance are not promoted; after the consolidation it will be one joint effort.

It may be stated that all the relevant provisions of the War Graves Act, 1967, which are not already contained in the National Monuments Act, 1969, and which are necessary, have been included almost verbatim, while the Act is now being renamed the War Graves and National Monuments Act. I may refer to a few consequential insertions, such as the definitions of “exile”, “garrison troops” and “Voortrekker grave”.

In clause 5, all the necessary powers which are at present vested in the S.A. War Graves Board are conferred upon the National Monuments Council in almost identical wording. These include, inter alia, the exhumation and re-interment of the remains of any person; repairing, maintaining and caring for cemeteries and graves; establishing gardens of remembrance and maintaining registers in respect of graves. Similarly, provision is made in section 10 for the continued existence of the War Graves Trust Fund and the declaration and alteration of National Gardens of Remembrance.

†Mr. Speaker, I will now briefly refer to some new provisions. With a view to specific projects requiring specialized expertise, provision is made that two additional members can be appointed to the council or to any one of its committees for a particular purpose for a limited period. Furthermore, in order to ensure specialized attention to war graves and related graves, two special committees of the council are formally established, viz. the Burgergraftekomitee and the British War Graves Committee, with a view to identifying certain graves to enable the council to consider appropriate steps with regard to them. The membership of these committees is kept small in order for them to function efficiently and the period of office of their members is brought into line with that of the council. By this provision the continued existence of two key committees of the War Graves Board is statutarily ensured under the new dispensation. This is done at the specific request of the present board.

The council’s existing power of recommendation in terms of the Forestry Act, 1968, is incorporated in the relevant section of this Act.

An important new provision concerns agreements with other States. It is generally known that certain graves falling within the ambit of the Act referred to are situated within States which no longer form part of the Republic. Provision is now made for agreements between the Governments concerned for the restoration and maintenance of such graves and monuments.

Pursuant to the transfer of the powers of the S.A. War Graves Board to the National Monuments Council, provision is made in clause 8 for the transfer of personnel and the protection of their rights and conditions of service, and also for vesting the Board’s assets, rights, liabilities and obligations in the council in clause 14.

*An important principle is contained in clause 11(b), which extends the existing protection afforded by section 12 of the principal Act in respect of cultural treasures such as rock-carvings, pre-historic implements and archaeological or palaeontological finds. In terms of the new provision, paintings, documents and manuscripts, as well as objects made of metal, glass, wood or porcelain, are now also protected against destruction, damage or exportation from the Republic, if they have been in the Republic for longer than 80 to 100 years, including treasures in our territorial waters, in or around old submerged wrecks of ships, for example. Such objects are considered to be part of the country’s cultural treasures, and the National Monuments Council strongly recommended that this protection be afforded. This recommendation was also very strongly supported by the S.A. Museums Association.

Although additional assistance is now being provided for the National Monuments Council through the establishment of specific committees, a great extra task is nevertheless being imposed upon the council as a result of the combination of the two Acts. The members of this council have in the past rendered a service to the nation which cannot be measured in terms of money. They have undertaken the task of conservation without demanding any payment for it. The conservation of objects that have been created is a noble task, because it is a part of our national heritage. If a nation does not have a past, it obviously cannot build a future either. I believe they will perform with equal zeal and care the new task which has been imposed upon them in respect of war graves and cemeteries. For the sake of the record, I should like to mention their names with a sense of gratitude: the Hon. Mr. Justice R. M. de Kock, Prof. D. J. Kotzé, Prof. F. Smuts, Mr. E. Vertue, Dr. J. B. Scott, Mr. B. Watson, Mr. H. A. Chadwick, Dr. G. A. Hosking, Dr. R. Liversidge, Mr. J. C. Loock, Prof. M. C. E. van Schoor, Mr. J. F. Preller, Dr. C. K. Brain, Prof. J. S. du Plessis, Prof. J. F. Eloff, Mr. G. J. van Zyl, Mr. C. G. Coetzee, Mr. A. Dörgeloh and Prof. E. L. P. Stals. I thank these members of the council for their disinterested services. I also thank the present Director, Dr. Douglas Hey, and his staff for their services. We are also grateful for the services of the former Director, Prof. J. J. Oberholster, who died last year.

While I am thanking people, however, I must also mention the names of the members of the S.A. War Graves Board, and they are the chairman, Dr. A. Kieser, and the members, Mr. P. J. Clase, M.P., Mr. A. C. Long, Lt.-Col. A. J. Kenyon, Col. G. R. Duxbury, Mrs. J. M. Raath, Mr. J. H. Stander, Brig. J. B. Kriegler, Mr. G. A. Chadwick, Col. W. Otto, Mr. W. H. Delport, M.P., and Mr. A. Wade.

I thank them for what they have done in respect of specific cemeteries and graves, and for what they are still going to do until 31 March 1982. Of course, the possibility is not excluded that they may serve on the council, on the Burgergraftekomitee or on the British War Graves Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the spirit in which the hon. the Minister delivered his Second Reading speech. In particular, I want to associate myself with the thanks and gratitude that he expressed towards the members of the National Monuments Council and of the South African War Graves Board. These two bodies consist of people who provide a service in a completely unselfish manner. Often that service is provided at tremendous personal sacrifice. Often it takes up their time and energy and costs them money to do their work to the benefit of the cultural affairs of South Africa. I do not believe anyone who has any national pride, will raise any objection to the efforts that are being made in this and other ways to keep our history, our past, alive. There are people who are concerned—and I believe they have good reason to be so—about the decline, if I may call it that, of the teaching of history at some of our educational institutions, not due to a lack of competence on the part of the educators, but due to the lack of, or decline in, interest in our past. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is a matter that causes us concern, that there are many people in South Africa today, citizens who have been born in this country, who do not even know the important dates in our past any longer. When one talks about simple matters, they ask: “Who was that? What happened there?” If there is a body that promotes the conservation of one aspect of the past, viz. the National Monuments Council, it is something to be recommended, to promote and to support. This applies to the South African War Graves Board too. The fact that the latter board has agreed practically to amalgamate with the National Monuments Council is very satisfactory and, as the hon. the Minister correctly indicated in his Second Reading speech, this is going to bring about considerable savings as well as increased efficiency.

Now I come to a very important matter. I am sorry that I have to say that when one looks at the financial grant to the National Monuments Council, one cannot but conclude that it is a stepchild of the Government. One simply has to look at the latest annual report of that council to see that the council is very dissatisfied and considerably frustrated regarding the creation of posts and the provision of the necessary finance for those posts on the council. Can one believe that this council, that is responsible for the conservation or in any event the identification of important articles and buildings from the past of the South African nation, had to be satisfied with 12 fulltime members last year, 1980—to keep an eye on this tremendously vast country, on what has already been identified and to go out on identification expeditions for that conservation with which we are all concerned? With a great deal of acclamation, this hon. House entrusted additional tasks to the council last year, with regard to shipwrecks, inter alia. But if I look at this report and review the Government’s record with regard to this council, it seems to me that no account is being taken of the fact that when one entrusts extra functions to a body like this, financial provisions should also be made for them. One would like to know what financial provisions are being envisaged in view of this new task being entrusted to the council. I have to depend on one indication in the Bill to establish what the financial provisions will be. In clause 10, in the proposed section 9A(6) it is stated—

This is the National Monuments Council—

R1 000! Could we be more modest? At most this will cover the cost of two journeys of inspection, or the reburial of the earthly remains of two people. This is the “abundant” provision that the Department of National Education had in mind with regard to this matter. This gives me little cause to hope that, financially speaking, anything better will come about in the future, if this type of indication is to be accepted as valid and generally prevailing. My request to the hon. the Minister is that since he is now …

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, we welcome the spirit of the Bill and the principles embodied therein, as well as the spirit in which the hon. the Minister proposed the legislation. Our reservations are centred chiefly on the financial provisions in the first place. The National Monuments Council must be properly provided with the necessary finances before we can support this Bill with sincere unanimity. We welcome the idea of the gardens of remembrance. We also welcome the idea of negotiations with foreign States when there is a question of the earthly remains of people who were killed in or died during wars and uprisings in South Africa. There is another important reservation. It has a bearing on clause 3. My hon. colleague Prof. Olivier will address the House on this.

Since we are waiting for the explanations and assurances of the hon. the Minister, I can therefore not say at this stage whether we will be able to support the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refresh the memory of the hon. member for Johannesburg North a little. He was pessimistic about the appropriation of funds for the bodies in question and referred to the single amount appearing in this Bill. Looking at last year’s budget documents, however, we notice that other amounts were also appropriated, which we have to take into account. The amount available to the S.A. War Graves Board is really not all that small. An amount of R587 000 has been appropriated, and there is really quite a substantial difference between this and the R1 000 he referred to. Other amounts have also been appropriated. For the rest, I do not wish to differ with the hon. member. We wish to express our appreciation towards the hon. the Minister and the Director-General of the department for making provision in this Bill for the preservation and care of what is of real value to the peoples of this country.

Mr. Speaker, please bear with me if I dwell on this matter at some length today and add a little here and there. This is a special occasion, particularly to those of us who live in the Eastern Transvaal, where we are shortly going to be celebrating a big and very wonderful festival. Permit me to point out here and now to the hon. members opposite that I am not referring to the festival of 29 April. That is a festival we are indeed going to celebrate, and we are going to derive great pleasure from it. However, I wish to talk about the commemoration of Amajuba. The history of our country and the events surrounding the birth of nations in this country are rich in romance, tragedy and acts of heroism and it is fitting that we should take note of the work of historians. However, we should not merely leave it to the historians, but also use it to inspire every man in the street, every member of our nation, so that they can re-experience that history and tread that path together. It is for that reason in particular that we are celebrating the commemoration of Amajuba. Amajuba is also a mountain. That mountain is perhaps not as majestic as Table Mountain, but in another context it is as great, and it stands out as a special landmark in our history.

Permit me to say why I wish to relate this commemoration to this particular piece of legislation. “Amajuba” is the Zulu word for “doves” and to the Zulu, the mountain of Amajuba with its krantzes is the home of the doves. To me the dove is the symbol of peace. We often see doves released on the occasion of certain festivals, etc. On 27 February 1881, exactly a hundred years ago, a very great and important battle took place on this mountain. I do not wish to go into the details. It was fought between two groups of people who were in direct opposition to one another and they marched up that mountain bearing firearms. A festival is now being arranged on this occasion, which will also involve marches to the summit of the mountain, but the marchers will be bearing torches. Torches will be borne to the summit from the Transvaal side, from the grave of Gen. Joubert. Torch bearers will also come from the Natal side, via Skuinshoogte and Mount Prospect, past the grave of Lord Colley, and the two groups will meet at the summit of the mountain. This, in my view, is the symbolic festival of two language groups extending to one another the hand of friendship, taking one another’s hand in a gesture of peace. In this connection I must thank the Administrator and the Executive Committee of Natal very sincerely for their grand contribution in order to make this festival possible. I think they have a brilliant Administrator and a willing Executive Committee.

We, too, accept that it is a good Executive Committee.

I also convey my sincere thanks to the Administrator of the Transvaal and his Executive Committee and to the Administrator and the Executive Committee of the Orange Free State for the funds they have voted. My thanks also go to the board of control that is arranging the whole matter, and in this connection I wish to make special mention of the director of the festival, Mr. Chadwick of Natal. These people have performed a gigantic task in the planning and preparation for this occasion. It is going to be a memorable occasion for us when these people of both language groups, Afrikaans speaking as well as English speaking, come together to participate in a festival that has a symbolic meaning to us. Majuba, that mountain of ours, is becoming the mountain of hope and confidence for the future. I can also mention that one of our hon. members of this House is going to deliver an address to the youth there, and this is something we really appreciate and welcome. May this festival of Majuba, our monument in that mountain range, inspire our people to a new vision, to a new idea of co-operation and a new hope of confidence in the future. May that mountain, Majuba, ever be a mountain, a symbol that can appeal to us to stand together in the interests of our country.

It is only fitting that we should preserve by way of legislation what is vital to us, and take care of what is near to our hearts, but it is equally important, as I have already said, that we should make John Citizen aware of what exists in the part of the world where he moves, lives and travels. In this connection I wish to refer to a booklet issued by the Tourism Branch of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. This booklet is a guide-map for the tourist in the Republic of South Africa. There is no other book containing all the information available in this booklet. Every motorist in this country should have a copy in his car. It is available free of charge and wherever one opens it, there is a colour map and a description of what is worth seeing in that area. It is one of our finest guides to those things which we preserve and care for in this country. It leads the motorist, wherever he may be travelling, to go and visit places that are worth seeing, interesting, and of historical importance. However, it is not quite complete. There are indeed some shortcomings. I feel that in this respect one should appeal to the local authorities and other organizations, e.g. the Rapportryers, the Voortrekkers, the Rotarians, etc. to furnish this body with data on the basis of which they can review this document regularly and supplement its contents.

Permit me to take up the time of the House with a brief description of what I regard as a shortcoming in this particular document. Near Zeerust, in the North Western Transvaal, the battle of Mosega was fought: That was where the Voortrekkers under the leadership of Potgieter and Maritz defeated the main force of Mzikilazi at his kraal, Mosega. This was a battle well known to us in history. Now that constituency is vanishing. This is something we are very sorry about, since it is a historical constituency with a very able representative in this House.

The battle of Mosega is recorded in the history books. You can go and read it. It would appear as if it was normal practice for the Boers to send out punitive expeditions to put Nzilikazi in his place, and so on. However, if one goes into the history of the matter oneself, and visits the site of the battle, one encounters at different places various aspects of that interesting battle. In the first place, one realizes that that Matabele tribe were outstanding military strategists. That area of theirs was strategically extremely very favourably situated for defence against attacks from anyone, whether it be the Voortrekkers or the Zulu impi’s that so often threatened them from Natal. Therefore, in surveying that site, one realizes what able strategists they were in that respect.

What is also interesting in that area, however, is that several small monuments have been erected on the site of that battle. When the Trekkers arrived there there were, of course, already Whites there, at an American mission station. A Mrs. Wilson was also buried there. She was the first White woman to die in the area today known as the Transvaal—at the time the South African Republic. She lies buried on that site. If one visits that site and is genuinely interested—as perhaps a historian or a student of history is—then one can almost relive history there. One can walk the ground on which events there occurred, and follow the route along which the Trekkers moved.

I accordingly request the hon. the Minister to ensure that ample provision be made in this respect, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North has also advocated. Since we are now combining the responsible organizations into one body, I wish to request that we should provide them with the necessary funds to care for all the sites that are of special historical value to us, and keep them in good order. It must also be seen to that information in connection with these sites is widely published by means of brochures of this nature to the public at large so that every citizen of this country can become acquainted with that wonderful historical heritage of ours.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length. This is of course a very interesting subject. It concerns, inter alia, the conservation of monuments such as war graves, etc. All these things are part of the historical heritage of a nation. Without them it is not possible to reconstruct the past properly. One needs all these things from the past as a means of reconstructing history. In a civilized country in particular it is a good thing that attention should be given to this matter and that people should discharge their obligations in this regard so that future generations may at least gain an insight, from the relics of the past, into the way things really were. These things are indissolubly tied up with our history, not only with the history of our own specific population group, but also with that of all the population groups in the country.

However, I should like to come more specifically to the legislation under consideration. In the first place we need to be very grateful to the South African War Graves Board for the work it has done. Actually the board as such is now going to disappear, but the National Monuments Council is being extended in the sense that it will have two additional members serving on it so that the work which was actually the task of the War Graves Board may now be continued by the National Monuments Council.

It behoves us on this occasion to consider that the establishment of the War Graves Board had a very long preamble. There was a stage in our country when the identification and maintenance of war graves was left in the hands of voluntary organizations. As a result of differences in cultural ties as well as differences in history and background, it so happened that certain organizations only gave attention to Voortrekker or concentration camp graves for example, while English-orientated organizations in turn gave attention only to the graves of British soldiers.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke of the very small staff which the National Monuments Council has at its disposal, but we should remember that the administrative staff of the War Graves Board was very, very small. With this in mind I think they pre-eminently deserve our thanks for the positive work they have done as far as the restoration and maintenance of graveyards is concerned. The whole idea of gardens of rememberance originated with them and in addition they erected certain memorials.

In this instance, as far as I am concerned, we are dealing with more than the mere rationalization of the Public Service, because my information is that the feeling arose among those attached to the War Graves Board themselves that the ongoing task with which they concerned themselves could be undertaken far more effectively if there were only one encompassing board. The obvious body to act as such an encompassing body was of course the National Monuments Council.

Some of those who are concerned with these matters possess an exceptional academic background and one therefore has to express one’s full confidence in the council as such as well as in its ability to carry out its task to the best of its ability in future.

I shall content myself by pointing out that the activities of the old board will now be taken over by the new council. I say a “new” council because a change in nomenclature is about to be effected. Furthermore I observe in clause 17 that the words “to empower provincial councils to make ordinances for the payment of money in connection with certain national monuments” is to be deleted from the long title of the principal Act. I really hope that this is not going to bring about a drastic change, because to a great extent we are concerned here with cooperation between and a linking together of the various bodies involved.

†I therefore want to conclude by simply wishing the newly constituted council well for the future. We are confident that its members will continue to perform this very important task in the history of our country, namely, to try to preserve items of historical interest for future generations.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North raised the point with regard to an increase of funds, and in my view this is quite a valid point. I realize that in this materialistic world in which we live it will be difficult to persuade the State to spend more money on, for instance, the preservation of war graves and memorial gardens. Indeed, many people will question such a step.

In the past we have had two bodies dealing with these matters and many people may feel that as there will only be one council in future, some of the activities may no longer be given such high priority. I think this is understandable. The S.A. War Graves Board has been in existence for approximately 12 or 13 years and there are a number of hon. members here who have served on this board. Perhaps some people may look upon this change with less enthusiasm than others but I believe that this is a natural evolution that should have taken place in South Africa, namely, the bringing together of these two bodies into one council, because, as has been pointed out, with two bodies in existence there has been a certain amount of duplication and a degree of wasted effort in the past. This will now be eliminated. We shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this Bill by the hon. the Minister is, I think, the natural culmination of developments in our national consciousness of the need to preserve those things that are important to the cultural background and history of our nation. It is a natural culmination of these developments since the passing of the Bushmen’s Relics Protection Act of 1911. Over the past 69 years the House has dealt with a whole series of pieces of legislation, amending legislation that has been introduced from time to time, both in regard to war graves and the preservation of our national monuments. The hon. the Minister said that the process of rationalization has led to the amalgamation of the two bodies and to the consolidation of all their activities into one Act. This, I think, is the natural acceptance of the fact that in the development of a nation there is a need to preserve the monuments, gardens of remembrance and graves of those who have fallen in the past. This is a necessity not only from a cultural point of view but it also plays a part in one’s acceptance of one’s national pride in one’s nation even as an individual or a citizen. I have taken a particular interest in these matters and I therefore welcome the steps taken by the hon. the Minister to consolidate the activities of these two bodies in one council.

The hon. the Minister has dealt very fully with the provisions of the Bill and I want to deal with only one aspect of it before I make one or two other comments.

I should like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention to clause 11(b) which inserts a proposed new subsection (2B). As the hon. the Minister pointed out in his Second Reading speech, this subsection will vest the commission with further powers in regard to the preservation, not only of paintings, prints, documents, deeds, seals or manuscripts but also in regard to objects or groups of objects made of gold, silver, copper, brass, bronze, iron, glass, wood or china. This brings me to the point I want to make. A clear distinction is drawn in regard to what one could call creative efforts of man or artistic works, whether these be paintings, writings or prints. In regard to such works, a time limit of 80 years has been fixed. In regard to objects or groups of objects fashioned from gold, silver etc., a period of 100 years has been fixed. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that there are two distinct schools of thought on this subject. I do not go along with the school of thought that feels that one has to specify a date when it comes to empowering the commission to preserve certain objects. I belong to the school of thought that feels that if something is of cultural or historical value and needs to be preserved for future generations in one’s country, one should not fix a time limit as a decisive factor in determining whether an article is an antique; in other words something that is of value and should be preserved. If one takes the period of 80 years mentioned in the legislation, that will take us back to the year 1900, and what the Bill actually envisages is that the commission should only be empowered to preserve articles older than 80 years. This means that only paintings, prints, documents, deeds, seals or manuscripts predating 1900 shall not be destroyed, damaged, altered or exported from the Republic. As I have said, I belong to that school of thought that feels that even 10 years ago, or five years ago for that matter, a great work of art may have been produced in one’s country that one may want to preserve and keep in one’s country. That should then be the decision of the commission. It is for them to decide whether such an object should be preserved for future generations. The Bill provides, however, that if it was created in the past 80 years, anybody can destroy it, dispose of it or export it. In fact, they can do what they like with it. Perhaps the commission should give further thought to the fact that there are works of art that I know of—Africana, for example—from the years 1910, 1912 and 1914 that have considerable value but, in terms of the proposed legislation, these works can be disposed of or exported from our country with no control whatsoever. I feel that the ambit of the provisions can be broadened. When it comes to prohibitions such as this, I feel that a discretionary right should be given to the commission to determine whether a work of art or any specific article should be retained in the country and preserved without any time limit being fixed for such retention and preservation.

If a work of art, for example a candelabrum, has been fashioned from silver within the past 100 years, it may be exported from South Africa in terms of the proposed legislation but, if it was made more than 100 years ago, it is subject to these restrictive provisions and can therefore not be exported. I respectfully put this point of view to the hon. the Minister because I personally feel that there should be a general mandate to the commission to decide itself what should be preserved, at any time, for future generations and the further cultural development of this country.

This brings me specifically to the question of graves. There are two classes of graves which, as I read the Bill—and I may be wrong in this—do not directly fall under the commission and which the commission is not empowered to preserve. I am referring, in particular, to the graves of missionaries of the past, and I have two specific graves in mind. Let me draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one of them for the sake of my argument. I am referring to the graveyard that lies near the home of Dr. Moffat and Dr. Livingstone in the Kuruman district.

I do not know how many hon. members have visited this graveyard. It is becoming overgrown and it is disintegrating but it is part of our history. It is a most interesting graveyard because it is probably the only graveyard that I know of in South Africa where the history of the persons buried as well as the manner in which they met their deaths in the early part of the 19th century is inscribed on the tombstones. This is an extremely interesting place. In fact, it even goes back to before the time of the Great Trek. It is therefore something that we may well ask the commission to give their attention to. There are also one or two graveyards of this nature in the Eastern Cape which should be preserved for the future generations of our country so that they can have an appreciation of the value of our history.

There is also another class of war grave which I do not think has ever received adequate attention. Those who know our history—and in particular those who know the history of the Anglo-boer War—know that burghers were captured and sentenced to death and buried in ordinary graveyards. These people were also soldiers and I feel strongly that these graves—we have some here in the Cape—are places which are entitled to the same remembrance, preservation and consideration as those in any other graveyard which will receive attention in terms of this Bill. Accordingly I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give some consideration to the graves of those burghers who fought for South Africa in the Anglo-boer War and who were tried, found guilty and executed. Although they were soldiers, they were, in terms of British law considered to be traitors and they were shot out of hand or hanged. These graves merit equal preservation as part of the history of our country.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to two other aspects. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has raised this matter and although I do not often join with him in a plea, I will on this occasion and ask the hon. the Minister to give some consideration to the finances of the National Monuments Council. When one considers that more than 1 000 items have already been declared national monuments by the council of which some 80% are privately owned, it is clear that the funds of the council—and I include those of the War Graves Board—have never permitted adequate inspection of these premises to ensure that they do not fall into a state of disrepair. There has never been an adequate inspection and the council has had to rely mostly on honorary inspectors. As far as I am aware the National Monuments Council has had only one White inspector and some 15 Black inspectors or caretakers although the former is more likely to have fallen into the category of caretaker. I think it is essential that the council as it has now been broadened should at least have a small inspectorate to advise the owners of these national monuments and at the same time carry out adequate inspections of the graveyards and those places that we want preserved in the manner in which they should be preserved.

The last point I want to deal with has been raised in previous discussions. As a result of the work of the council South Africa now has a number of declared national monuments all over the country. However, only a limited number—approximately 20 to 25— are owned by the council and the council has title to these properties. As I have pointed out, over 80% of these monuments are privately owned and in the case of these monuments many of the owners take a natural pride in the fact that the property they own is a national monument, something that belongs to the nation. When one declares a property a national monument one gives it to the nation for future generations to preserve. I feel that inadequate attention is given to drawing the attention of tourists and those people who travel about our country to this work and the monuments concerned.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot use his influence with the provincial authorities, divisional councils and so on to ensure that where these monuments are situated, adequate signposts for tourists will be erected so that people will at least know where to go and what to look at. The council itself spends considerable sums of money on supplying owners with plaques giving the history of the monuments. The owners put them up in a suitable way where they will be easily visible. They are, however, of no value unless the tourist or visitor can get there, look at the monument and learn the history of the place he is viewing. We hide our monuments away, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the authorities, the provincial authorities and others, to see that at least on the national signboards some indication is given of where the tourist can turn off the main road, the beaten track, to view a monument. Most people travel with their families and children so that we are really imparting the history of our country to the future generations as well.

Mr. Speaker, a maiden speech is also in certain respects a monument. That is why it is a great privilege for me to be able to deliver mine in support of the National Monuments Amendment Bill. In this Bill far greater powers are being conferred on the council, which seeks to reclaim and preserve for posterity the rich heritage which Providence and history has left us. We already have a tremendously large arsenal of these monuments and I think that all of us should occasionally visit them again to draw fresh inspiration, courage, confidence and faith from them. From the arsenal we have we can also derive love for that which is peculiar to our national character.

That is why it would also be appropriate at this stage to pay tribute to the predecessor of the council, viz. the Historical Monuments Commission. I am aware that the members of the Commission performed a very important task, and that it was they who initiated the conservation idea. It is owing to the work of these people that we already have monuments all over this country. The Commission did important work, sometimes under extremely difficult circumstances, and I think we can pay tribute to it for that. I also wish to point out that during the 35 years the commission functioned existence, approximately 307 monuments were declared. We are very grateful for that.

However, it became essential that we did not stop at the conservation of war-graves, battlefields and buildings only, but that a far wider field should be covered. For that reason the National Monuments Council was established during 1969. It is also interesting to note that during the twelve-year existence of the council, more than 560 monuments have already been declared, each equally commendable. The council achieved another very important goal as well, viz. it created a renewed interest among our people in the conservation of historical assets. It generated a conservation awareness among our people.

Let me mention a few examples. Hon. members will recall the protests in the Press when there was talk of Reinach’s shop in the constituency of the hon. member for Fauresmith being demolished. The same applied in the case of the old market building in Bloemfontein when the possibility that it might be demolished, was mooted. The same applies to that beautiful old building, the Ramblers building. I think the council can really give attention to the matter. It deserves to be declared a national monument, not only because the founding congress of the NP took place there in 1914, but also because of other historic events and because it is a beautiful, graceful building which really ought to receive the attention of the council.

The council has been granted other powers as well, for not only buildings are involved. It also involves the conservation of archeological remains, rock art, fossils, meteorites, and other scientific treasures. A new addition is even the conservation of wrecks of ships off our coasts. I consider this to be a good thing. In this regard I must at once plead guilty of once having located a wreck, sought a souvenir and what is more, found one. Perhaps this was not the correct thing to do. However, I am referring to something that happened years ago.

It might also be interesting to know that South Africa is one of the oldest parts of the world as far as human and animal life is concerned. In that way we have already received worldwide recognition for discoveries which were made here. If the activities of the council are examined I think that the enthusiasm with which they commenced and what they have already accomplished will lead to further sensational discoveries being made in South Africa.

South Africa is also very rich in battlefields. It cannot be otherwise, particularly if it is taken into account that during the Second Anglo-Boer War alone approximately 140 generals made war on one another on this soil. There were 76 on the Boer side and approximately 66 on the British side. I doubt that such a large number of generals will ever in history make war on one another on South African soil again.

It is self-evident therefore that there will be many battlefields in South Africa, but that it is just not humanly possible to declare all of them to be monuments. All of them are really places worth commemorating, but most and the most important of them have already been declared.

This council also has a very impressive record in respect of buildings, each with its own character and cultural historical value. Recently I paid a visit to the old Fort in Bloemfontein, the old Fort which according to historians was built by Major Albrechts and took 12 years to complete. It is an interesting part of that history, particularly if one observes the problems he experienced with labour in acquiring the necessary funds, but that fort was eventually completed and today it has been converted into a magnificent monument, well worth visiting. I wish to express a word of thanks to the S.A. Defence Force and the hon. the Minister for their contribution towards converting that fort into a military museum. I am convinced that if one pays it a visit one will become aware of what has really been done there in respect of the provision of equipment and its display. It is a magnificent museum for Bloemfontein. Everyone who pays it a visit may feel justifiably proud of what has been accomplished.

This council has also, in co-operation with provincial administrations, local authorities, private bodies and private individuals, undertaken huge tasks and I think they all deserve our gratitude and appreciation. Let me refer to a single example, viz. Church Street in Tulbagh. It is a remarkable achievement. Then there is Wagenaar’s reservoir in the Golden Acre. It is known as the oldest European architecture in existence in South Africa. The Wagenaar reservoir was preserved for posterity at tremendously high cost. The preservation of these important cultural historical places can, as the hon. the Minister said, never be measured in terms of money.

There are even two small towns in our country which have been restored almost in their entirety. I am referring to Matjiesfontein and Pilgrim’s Rest. These places have become major tourist attractions. It is interesting to see in the visitors’ books who have visited those places and what comments have been made in those books, and one will also find that a very large percentage of those visitors came from overseas. Someone has mentioned that songs have also been written about Pilgrim’s Rest and Matjiesfontein. That is true.

That is why I am able at this stage, also in view of the fact that the council has engaged in tasks of this tremendous magnitude, to address an urgent request to the council pertaining to that part of the country which I come from. I want to request them to give attention to the Free State once again.

Where is that? [Interjections.]

If it has to be done they could even establish a permanent office there. If this is not possible, they could send their scouts in all directions from Bloemfontein. I can assure them that they will find that the Free State is still rich in historical associations. The Free State is rich in historical buildings, archeological remains, rock art, and many other things.

Furthermore the Free State has the potential of a dozen or more towns similar to Matjiesfontein and Pilgrim’s Rest. There are places where history is still alive, and can be sensed. They are little towns which ought to be restored and if we do not give attention to them now, I believe it might be too late over a decade or two. Then that heritage may be lost to us.

Finally I should just like to express my sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the introduction of the legislation under discussion. We know that the preservation of the cultural historic, the things that are of value to us, are a matter of deep concern to him as well. I believe that on some occasion he will find the time to have a serious talk with the hon. the Minister of Finance to persuade him to make more money available to this council for the commendable work it is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen on his maiden speech in this House. The self assurance with which the hon. member made his speech already testifies to the long experience which he gained in the former Other Place. In addition I want to say that we agree in essence with by far the majority the requests and standpoints which the hon. member raised. I, too, should like to support his request that we should take a new look at the Free State in this regard.

I find myself in the fortunate position that I am able to associate myself with the words of appreciation which were conveyed here to the hon. the Minister by the hon. members for Johannesburg North and Von Brandis. This also applies to the ideas which have already been raised with regard to the National Monuments Council and the War Graves Board. Consequently I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said in this regard. He referred to the really excellent work which has already been done for us by these two bodies. In addition I want to convey my personal appreciation to the staff of this body. I also want to mention the magnificent work which was done by the late Director of the National Monuments Council. The late Dr. Oberholtser was a colleague and personal friend of many of us. We convey our best wishes to his successor, Dr. Hey.

As the hon. the Minister indicated, one of the principle objects of the Bill is the repeal of the War Graves Act and the disappearance of the War Graves Board as a corporate body. Consequently its functions and activities are being transferred to the National Monuments Council.

Of course, when it comes to national monuments one thinks of the role which voluntary organizations have played in our history. One thinks of the historic houses of South Africa, the Simon van der Stel Foundation and so on. We also think of the efforts which have been made on part of the public to convince our authorities that as far as those parts of our cultural heritage are concerned which deserve preservation and conservation, they ought to act with a greater measure of regard and respect. In this regard I have in mind the struggle which accompanied the preservation of the Western facade of Church Square, Pretoria.

As the hon. member for Johannesburg North indicated, we are experiencing a problem with clause 3 because the single War Graves Board will in future take the form of two committees of the National Monuments Council. The hon. the Minister explained that there were reasons why this was being done in this way. It was inter alia a recommendation of the War Graves Board which is now on the point of being dissolved. The hon. the Minister also said that one should approach the matter in that light. I shall presently indicate why I am nevertheless of the opinion that it is a mistake to establish two bodies in this way. I shall then proceed with my actual motivation which arises out of a deep conviction based on my view of the history of our country and the role which that history ought to play in the future of our country.

The first point I wish to emphasize is that I find it a pity that it is now being incorporated in the Act that when graves in South Africa have to be cared for, this has to be done by means of a “Burgergraftekomitee” on one hand and a “British War Graves Committee” on the other. I have no objection to the board’s feeling of its own accord that under specific circumstances it should entrust certain aspects of these two parts of our history to various members, as happened in the case of the War Graves Board. However, when we incorporate this in the Act and say that we are interpreting history in the sense of two bodies, the “Burger-grafte” on the one hand and the British War Graves on the other, it seems to me that we are indeed retrogressing despite the fact that all of this is happening under the auspices of the National Monuments Council. I regret that. Consequently I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this step.

I regret our incorporating into a statute in this sphere as well that we are dealing with two types of bodies. It is the statutory incorporation which is indeed a cause of concern to me in this regard.

It is not two bodies. It is only one body with two committees.

The two committees in this connection are mentioned separately.

Another reason why I want to address a request to the hon. the Minister and raise an objection is that the functions of these two committees in fact differ completely from the functions of the original S.A. War Graves Board. The duty of these two committees is simply to identify the graves and then make a recommendation to the council. I can understand that due to the sensitivity which existed, the former board may have experienced problems because it had other functions as well, for it not only had to identify the graves, but also had to determine which of those graves were to be maintained and preserved. Fundamentally however, these two committees have advisory powers only, and that is why I believe that under the circumstances the necessity for two committees to do this work is not justified.

In the third place the S.A. War Graves Board was also able to care for graves which do not fall under either the “Burgergraftekomitee” or the British War Graves Committee according to this Bill. For example the hon. member for Von Brandis mentioned the graves of missionaries and of other people who had died during the Second Anglo-Boer War. If it were to happen consistently that all those graves were declared national monuments, the hon. the Minister would indeed be able to say that the National Monuments Council was able to fulfil that function. However, many of those graves are not graves which need necessarily be declared national monuments. Consequently if we have to maintain that distinction between the two bodies, there is no body which is in a position to undertake that work in respect of the maintenance and preservation of graves which are not national monuments.

Our history, as I shall subsequently indicate, has also been made by people other than White citizens, as they are described here, and British soldiers who died on South African soil. Once again I want to draw a distinction here between graves which are going to be proclaimed national monuments and other graves. Here, too, it seems as though this division is creating a deficiency which did perhaps not exist when the previous S.A. War Graves Board was functioning.

In view of this I want to address a request to the hon. the Minister that this disturbing distinction which is being made in the Bill should be eliminated. I would not object to the hon. the Minister simply stipulating that the former S.A. War Graves Board, in whatever way it may be constituted, shall serve as a committee of the National Monuments Council. However, it is this conception that our history should be seen in terms of that struggle between Boer and Briton— for that is as it can be interpreted here— which is in my opinion less acceptable in this regard.

In addition it is essential that we should cast our gaze into the future. I am sure, whether we prefer it or not, that in 20, 30 or 50 years’ time we shall have to come back to those people who died in the period after 1914. I am thinking for example of people who died in the 1914 rebellion and our own people who died in South West Africa. However, we are faced with a problem, for in terms of this legislation there is not really a body or person which is authorized to care for the graves of those people, other than national monuments. It is a matter of really great sadness to me that something is being done which could lead to it being possible to interpret our history in a specific sense only.

This brings me to another technical point in the Bill. There are many things in the Bill which one can welcome. I shall presently come back to my general view of the place of graves in history. What is particularly to be welcomed, as my hon. colleague also said, is the protection which is being accorded to works of art and other objects to which reference is made in clause 11 of the Bill, especially the prohibition on the export of such objects without the necessary authorization. I am glad that the stable door is being closed in this regard before the horse disappeared, as has already happened with certain of our natural resources in this country.

I think the hon. member for Von Brandis certainly touched on an important point when he asked whether there might not be other more recent works of art which were more recent than the date specified in the legislation and which did indeed deserve the protection of the State. I should like to associate myself with his request that the hon. the Minister should consider that matter.

I welcome the provision in the proposed legislation for insurance coverage against disablement of or accidents to members of the staff of the council. I should also like to associate myself with the plea for greater financial aid. I do not want to go into that matter further, for I think it has already been made very clear.

What is at issue here? It is concerned fundamentally—or so it seems to me—with a few major things. In the first place there is the fact that the people of South Africa, by the protection and preservation of its monuments, demonstrates its ties with the past in a concrete way. Ours is a young country and that is why it is a good thing to make a start with this process of preservation and maintenance while we are still young, and we are young if we compare ourselves with other countries of the world. But young as we are, there is a cultural heritage of which we are and may be justifiably proud; and what we are dealing with here is the maintenance and preservation of the creations of the spirit of those who preceded us in this country of ours. It is essential—and this is the spirit in which this whole conservation effort is being made—that we must be able to preserve that cultural heritage against the onslaughts of materialism, this compulsion to believe that all other things, for the sake of economic progress, are of lesser importance.

Materialism and modernization constantly endanger that cultural heritage of ours. That is why it is essential that we should accord proper recognition to those creations of the past. In certain respects we have already waited too long. In certain respects, as all of us know, some of that heritage has already been irrevocably lost. I am thinking, for example, of one aspect, viz. the fact that in the implementation of the Group Areas Act the National Monuments Council was only called in at a later stage to protect some of those historic buildings as well.

I want to go further and say that we are also dealing here with the preservation of our graves. Those graves, scattered as they are over the soil of South Africa and elsewhere, are signs of the path of suffering which the people of South Africa followed for so long. If we examine our history, we see that it reflects the struggle between Boer and Briton and the struggle between White and Black. Throughout the history of our people from the earliest times, we see that it is characterized by the conflict between White and Black and between Boer and Briton. Those graves which are scattered over our soil, are examples of those people who were prepared to make the highest sacrifice, to lay down even their lives for the sake of the lofty ideals in which they believed. They were prepared to fight and die for those ideals. That is why it is good that one should maintain and preserve those graves in this way. We of this generation in this way pay tribute to those warriors and the battle which they fought.

We cannot escape that struggle, that history and that past, even if we wanted to. We cannot deny the struggle between Boer and Briton and White and Black in South Africa. It did occur. That is why it seems to me that our approach should be that we should not try to deny it, but that we should use that history on the road that lies ahead. Despite the fact that those things in the past were inclined to keep us apart, they should now bind us together. Those things are, after all, our common heritage. That history was created by Boers as well as Britons and by Whites as well as Blacks. That is our common heritage of the past. It is in that regard that I make the appeal that our approach should not be one of continuation of the struggle as though it were still of importance today, but to use that struggle of the past as a constructive element in the future of our people and our fatherland.

We cannot wish history away. We cannot argue it away. We cannot wish or argue away the concentration camps of the Second Anglo-Boer War. We cannot disregard or forget the women and children who died there. We cannot deny the fact of the Boer prisoners of war who were exiled to a foreign country to live among people whom they did not know.

You are making an inflammatory speech.

We cannot deny the suffering that was endured. Perhaps we are not even able to understand the feelings of the Boer prisoners of war who returned to find what they found here. It is touchingly portrayed by Jan Cilliers, inter alia, in the second verse of his poem “Dis Al”—

• Oor die oseaan,
• Dis ’n graf in die gras,
• Dis ’n vallende traan—
• Dis al.

Nor can we imagine the feeling of the British Tommies, the British soldiers, who came thousands of miles to die here in South Africa. They came to a country they did not know, they had to fight against people they did not know and left a heritage in the form of widows and fatherless children.

Now we know all too well that that history was exploited in the past by many of our people, and is still being exploited. It was and is still being exploited in the political sphere. We know that unfortunately there are still many people who vote for the Opposition because fundamentally they …

Are anti-national.

… are anti-Boer, anti-Afrikaner and not anti-national. Likewise there are people who vote for the NP because they are still fundamentally anti-British. In our whole situation it is understandable that …

Now you are talking politics.

I am not talking politics.

Order! I really think the hon. member can discuss the Bill without recounting our entire history.

What I am trying to do is to tell the hon. the Minister that in all honesty I cannot consider the distinction which is drawn in the Bill between the “Burgergraftekomitee” and the British War Graves Committee either desirable or justified, particularly in view of the role history ought to play in our country, viz. not as a dividing factor, but as one which binds us together in our common destiny.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to avail myself of this opportunity of telling the hon. the Minister, on behalf of myself and the other members of the War Graves Board, that we greatly appreciate the kind words he uttered here today. I have appreciation for the few nice things which were said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but I have less appreciation for other things he said. This Bill is concerned with those things we wish to preserve and the people we wish to honour, and I am sorry that he soured things a little by placing the emphasis on the struggle of the past between Boer and Briton and between White and Black. I did not appreciate that. I do not think this House is the place in which we should decide that issue this afternoon. We on this side would prefer to tell one another that the struggle between Boer and Briton ended a long time ago.

The “Prof.” arrived but recently.

If we wish to evaluate the principles contained in this Bill properly, I think it is essential for us to examine not only the National Monuments Act of 1969 which is now becoming the principal Act, but also the War Graves Act of 1967. What the hon. member has perhaps forgotten is the fact that two corporate bodies are now being amalgamated by this legislation in terms of our general and essential policy of rationalization. To be able to do so the legislature must phase out the one corporate body. A sensible legislature phases out in such a way that no one takes offence.

If one examines the historic background of the War Graves Board and what gave rise to the War Graves Act, what does one find? One finds that for years on end the South African was preserving, caring for and maintaining his war graves, to such an extent that the War Graves Committee was established as long ago as 1939. The former War Graves Board developed from the War Graves Committee, which was not a statutory body. How did the board function? It functioned through two committees, viz. the “Burger-graftekomitee” and the British Forces Committee. It was not a statutory body, but consisted of volunteers who gave their attention to the preservation and maintenance of war graves. They decided that neglect was not allowed to set in in the work which had to be done as far as the graves of British and Boer soldiers were concerned. It was the task of these two committees to ensure that the graves of those who had died would be cared for.

Before long it was realized that the task of preserving, caring for and maintaining graves was actually a permanent one. Out of this arose the realization that statutory power had to be conferred on the former South African War Graves Board. That is why the War Graves Act of 1976 was introduced. This Board in turn decided that the task of maintaining war graves was so important that two committees had to be established— the “Burgergraftekomitee” and the British War Graves Committee. The British War Graves Committee did not necessarily have to consist of Britishers. Even today they are good South Africans. But what was their task? Their task was to ensure that the British soldiers’ graves were preserved, cared for and maintained.

That is why I cannot agree with the hon. member Prof. Olivier that by means of this legislation we are reinstating and perpetuating the old historical dispute which we have long forgotten. Far from it. I think this legislation is merely a reflection of the fairness of the hon. the Minister and his department. Historical institutions which have over the years worked beautifully under very difficult circumstances cannot simply be eliminated from the task. They must be maintained for the sake of the great and important work which they have to do.

Consequently I should on this occasion, and as a member who for a very brief period had the privilege of being able to serve on the War Graves Board, like to pay tribute to the “Burgergraftekomitee” and the British War Graves Committee with which we have co-operated very well and did great work under difficult circumstances. I am very grateful that in the co-ordination and amalgamation of activities of the two corporate bodies, it is nevertheless possible for these bodies to continue to exist as statutory bodies. However, I want to avail myself of this opportunity of addressing a request to the hon. the Minister. Since he thought fit to provide in the proposed legislation that the chairmen of both committees may serve on the council, I wonder whether it would not be possible, when the new council is constituted, for these two chairmen to be able to acquire membership of the general council. If no vacancy exists at the moment, I wonder whether in that case the hon. the Minister would not ensure, in terms of the provisions of clause 2 of the Bill, that those two chairmen be appointed. If the hon. the Minister is able to make this concession, I believe this would go a long way to bringing about better co-operation between the committees and the council and in addition the work of the council will be expedited and facilitated.

Finally I should also like to pay tribute on this occasion to the provinces and the local authorities that have contributed so much over the years to the maintenance of our war graves. This is not really a task which can be managed by the State alone. It is impossible for the State to perform this task alone. Consequently the local community must also play their part. That is why in all sincerity I wish to make an appeal in this regard to our local authorities on this occasion. I believe that they are in a position to harness the cultural organizations of both language groups into contributing to the continuation of this major task. In fact I believe that it is the South African’s bounden duty, that it is really his special honour, to pay tribute to the memory of our fallen in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has just made a brilliant speech. His speech was extremely balanced and realistic. We thank him sincerely for it. The hon. member was, of course, a member of the committee that co-operated with the “Burgergraftekomitee”. That is why he can talk about these matters with so much insight.

Next, I also wish to avail myself of the opportunity of sincerely congratulating the nominated member, Mr. Vermeulen, who for 6½ years was a member of the Other Place, on his excellent speech earlier today. It, too, attested to the thorough study he has made of historic matters. I sincerely believe that he is an asset to this House.

I also wish to congratulate the new hon. Minister of National Education very sincerely on his appointment. He must remember that many eyes are focussed on him nowadays. He is a man of vision and drive. That was how we learned to know him as Principal of the RAU, an institution in Johannesburg that is today truly a credit to the whole country. Nor can I omit to point out that the hon. the Minister’s late father, Mr. Marcus Viljoen, was editor of Die Huisgenoot. This is a cultural journal that still plays a very important role in South Africa today.

While the subject of national monuments is under discussion in this House, I also wish to refer to a matter in which I myself was fairly deeply involved during the 15 years in which I served on the Johannesburg City Council, viz. the nature reserve of Melville Koppies. Inevitably, vandalism has often occurred there too. Only the other day efforts were again made to destroy the centuries-old smelting-furnaces there. This is because the local boards simply do not have the capital or the staff to exercise proper supervision. I am of course aware that the hon. the Minister takes a great interest in these nature reserves, and that he will attend to this matter as well.

I am always talking about Johannesburg, perhaps because I come from there and because Johannesburg is a great city of culture. Because it fills one with real sadness to think that a historic theatre such as His Majesty’s is eventually going to be demolished, without further ado, to make place for a supermarket, owing to materialistic group interests—people who are only interested in money. It is things such as these that make one sad, since it amounts to the destruction of cultural assets that are very dear to us. Whether it be the His Majesty’s Theatre or another historic theatre, is immaterial. It is things such as these that eventually cause artists and theatrical companies to leave for our neighbouring States instead of continuing to stage performances here. I hope and trust that this Council will give earnest attention to this matter as well.

I am aware that this council does important things, that it devotes its attention to matters of real importance. Here I have in mind, for example, the house in which President Kruger died in Clarens. I recently paid a visit there, and I can testify to the fact that at least half of the company in which I found myself, consisted of English-speaking people. By the way, all of us joined in singing the “Transvaalse Volkslied” with great feeling. This proves that the hatred of the past is no longer an issue. We have all become one nation and those things form part of history.

Another thing I am very pleased about, is the State President’s acre in Bloemfontein where our former State Presidents are buried. It is fitting on this occasion that we should also pay tribute in that regard.

The hon. member Mr. Vermeulen also referred to various matters, among others to the historic homes at Tulbagh. There was the centenary of the Zulu war. This centenary took place in May/June 1979. Stellenbosch celebrated its tercentenary in October 1979. By the way, the greatest concentration of monuments, 121 of them, is to be found in Stellenbosch. The University of Cape Town also celebrated its centenary in 1979. The year 1979 really proved to be a very fruitful historic year, because in addition to everything else, three historic farming units were purchased in the Daljosafat area.

I must point out to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that the money is, after all, also being utilized for many other purposes; it is not only a question of R1 000 for graves. He must remember that the Cabinet appropriated R150 000 for restoration. The multimillion rand project at Pilgrim’s Rest was also launched, and this signified a remarkable renaissance of restoration in South Africa. Thus there is action over a very wide front.

Before coming to the question of war graves, I wish to come closer to the present. I also have a few things to say about the Heroes’ Acre in Pretoria. In May, 1888 it was asked of the “Volksraad” of the then South African Republic that such an important place for statesmen be established. Gen. Joubert having considered the request, it was subsequently granted. Gen. Andries Pretorius was also buried there. Strangely enough, the children of Gen. Potgieter did not want the last resting place of their father to be disturbed. They said a monument could be erected there, but they refused to grant permission for his remains to be brought there. Pres. Kruger and his wife, Tant Gezina, are also buried there. Two of our former Prime Ministers also lie buried there—Dr. H. F. Verwoerd and Mr. J. G. Strijdom. Wreaths are laid there every year. That is all part of our history, however we may differ politically with one another.

While we are discussing this legislation, I wish to say that it is really remarkable that the NP Government has such fine achievements to its credit in regard to these matters. As early as 1906 concern was expressed about the state of neglect of the graves of South African citizens and British soldiers who died on the battle-field. Up to 1956, there was no central body entrusted with the care of war graves. It was the NP Government which, after coming into power in 1948, gave further attention to a matter about which concern had been expressed in 1906. We are grateful to the Government for that. That is why so many of us side with the NP. Up to 1956, the work in connection with the graves of burghers was undertaken by Burgergraftekomitees and local cultural bodies. There were organizations such as the South African Legion, the Moths, the Guild of Loyal Women, the South African Soldiers’ Graves Association and the Maintenance of Graves Trust Fund that devoted their energies to this matter. In 1956, however, the Minister of Public Works also established a Commission for South African War Graves with the task of further co-ordinating and planning the work. In 1967, the South African War Graves Council was established in terms of the War Graves Act, and since then we have had the two committees to which the hon. member for Newton Park referred.

The legislation goes further, however, and I think the view of the hon. member prof. Olivier is somewhat limited if he thinks that no further action can be taken. The fact is that an area can be declared a national garden of remembrance and I think that this is in the hands of the hon. the Minister. The legislation indeed provides that burial grounds and graves may be repaired and restored, maintained and cared for. Fences, walls and gates may also be erected and any grave, burial ground or garden of remembrance may be inspected. It is true that we have layabouts nowadays. There are people who drink a lot and there are so many vandals and people who mess up everything. Although these people can go and lie around in such places, this can now be stopped. The mortal remains of people killed in action can now at least be preserved safely there. The council can now also compile and update registers and can always record personal details in them. It can also publish requests for more information if it requires such information. Furthermore, the continued existence of the War Graves Trust Fund is being guaranteed. As I have already said, the legislation also provides for national gardens of remembrance.

It is also interesting that the legislation defines the word “exile” more closely. Initially one thinks of it as a strange word that does not really belong in legislatioon, but then one sees that an “exile” is defined as somebody who, during the Anglo-Boer war of 1899-1902, was removed as a prisoner of war from any place now included in the Republic to any place outside South Africa and died there. One also acquires fresh insight on looking at the definition of a “Voortrekker grave”. This is defined in the legislation as the grave of any person who participated in the movement known as the Great Trek and who died between the years 1835 and 1854. In the legislation one also encounters a clear definition of “garrison troops”, who are described as the permanent forces of the former republics and colonies in South Africa and the forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain stationed in South Africa prior to 1910.

However, I now wish to come to a matter that belongs in the present. This has also been embodied in legislation, and it is also in the documents at our disposal. I know that the hon. the Minister will attend to this, possibly in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Defence, and therefore I am pleased that the latter is also in the House. I hope that effect will be given as soon as possible to the care and maintenance of the graves of those who have died in operational service since 1 January 1948. The necessary amendment must therefore be effected to the War Graves Act, No. 34 of 1967.

That brings me back to the South Africa security forces. In consequence of publicity and requests in connection with the care of graves of members of the South Africa Security Forces who, since 1 January 1948, have lost their lives in the execution of their duties in defence of the then Union and later the Republic of South Africa, the council has already had discussions with representatives of the S.A. Defence Force, the S.A. Police, the S.A. Railway Police, the Prisons Services, and the South African Agency of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Due consideration has also been given to the practical implementation of the care of the graves of the South African Security Forces who died in the execution of their duties or who may perhaps yet die. It would appear that the S.A. War Graves Board is the appropriate body with the ultimate responsibility for the care and maintenance of those graves.

That however, brings me to another matter which I should like to put to hon. members for their consideration. As I have already said, I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Defence is present today. I know that the hon. member for Pretoria East also feels very strongly about this matter and that he too will take the matter further. I wish to refer to the Arlington burialground in Washington, with which we are all acquainted. That is where important victims have been buried since the American Wars of Independence and where a Pillar of Remembrance has been erected for the Unknown Soldier. This is also where ultimately, tribute is paid to the fallen by way of remembrance services in an amphitheatre. With us, however, the graves of fallen members of our Security Forces are distributed throughout the length and breadth of our country. In years to come, they may be forgotten owing to the movement of communities. For that reason we should consider whether it is not time for a national garden of remembrance to be established in South Africa, similar to the one at Arlington in America. In that way there will ultimately be a place where one generation after the other can relate the heroic deeds of our young people, of our older people and our men and of the sacrifices they made in the struggle against Marxism. The hon. member Prof. Olivier referred to Jan Cilliers. One of his poems which I call to mind now, is just as apposite today—

Is this not the kind of scene that is still taking place day after day? There are many lost graves of fallen, brave heroes. They were the martyrs, the bearers of our freedom. The centuries know their value, they who lie buried in the earth. Their blood drained into the earth so that the sun of freedom could shine over us today. Among the people of the 20th century, however, they are forgotten. They lie alone, lost and abandoned. That reminds me of another poem by Jan Cilliers—

I thank you for the attention to this essential legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to reply to this debate in which various members have made such a positive contribution to the furtherance of this matter. In the first place I wish to associate myself with previous speakers in congratulating the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen on his speech, even though I realize that it is somewhat impudent for a relative newcomer to this House to do so. I wish to express my appreciation for the thorough study he has made of the subject of promoting the conservation of monuments. He referred to Bloemfontein in particular and said that people from all directions of the wind gathered there. However, one of my problems is that whenever I am in Bloemfontein, I have a feeling that the wind comes from all directions.

In this regard I should like to refer to a very important piece of historiography from the pen of the Hertzog Prize winner, Karel Schoeman, on the first 100 years of Bloemfontein’s history. I think this is one of the finest efforts at bringing history to life, not simply in the form of mere facts, but by re-creating the whole way of life of that time, the social history and the social conditions of the city as it developed over the century. One of the most interesting aspects of that history is how Bloemfontein ultimately developed from a British imperialist strong hold to what it is today, an all-Afrikaans city. This shows how things in South Africa change in an evolutionary manner. I think this is a book which hon. members would do well to keep handy as a piece of “bedside reading”, since it will give them great pleasure.

I also wish to express my appreciation towards the hon. member for Rosettenville, because he and I had so much pleasure together during the early years of the establishment of the university in Johannesburg. I am grateful to have been able to enjoy so much support from him, and not only on account of the fact that he was chairman of the school committee of the school our children attended.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to digress and mention his reference to my father, who was editor of Die Huisgenoot and who also sat in the Press gallery and was responsible for comment on the proceedings here. When I was a child I asked him once what he was doing there. He gave a snort and said he had read through the “Deipno-sophitae” of the Greek anthologist Athenaeus, that is to say, a book entitled “Witticisms of the Gourmands”. Perhaps, in those days, I gained a somewhat distorted perspective as to what would be awaiting me one day in this House!

I just wish to give the hon. member for Rosettenville the assurance that his concern in connection with the demolition of His Majesty’s Theatre in Johannesburg is unfounded, since my department has twice referred that matter to the Historical Monuments Council, which was requested to go into the desirability of its preservation. After very careful consideration the National Monuments Council decided not to recommend it.

I also wish to associate myself with the appeals by various speakers on the necessity for more finance to be made available for our cultural heritage and the national monuments of the country. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I also wish to express my thanks towards those hon. members, amongst others the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Von Brandis, who emphasized that the Government was indeed appropriating a considerable amount for this purpose. I also wish to give the assurance, however—and I address this in particular to the hon. member for Johannesburg North— that the matter of the financial advancement of the preservation of our cultural heritage is receiving my serious attention and will continue to do so, particularly since I agree on the importance thereof.

I think those of us who have had the privilege of paying a visit to Israel, will know how systematically and extremely effectively Israel is utilizing its cultural museums, for example a Museum such as the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem, or the Museum of the history of the Diaspora in Tel Aviv, as an instrument with which to forge the nation. It is being used as an instrument by which a population brought from all over the world, is being forged together in a common pride, faithfulness and loyalty. I believe that we in South Africa can learn a great deal from that in developing our museums and cultural institutions more effectively than they have thus far been developed, particularly as an instrument of national pride and the building of the nation, as several hon. members have remarked, and in this connection I am thinking in particular of the hon. member for Von Brandis.

I also wish to refer to the fact that the Government recently instructed my department as well as the departments of the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, to devote special attention to the extension of the monuments at Delville Wood in Northern France. As hon. members know, a memorable battle was fought there during the First World War and a large number of brave South Africans lie buried there. This is a matter that will undoubtedly require considerable funds, but at the moment it is receiving special attention on the instructions of the Government.

Since reference has been made to the provision of funds, I wish to refer to the whole matter of sufficient provision of personnel. I wish to point out that the type of skill that is necessary here, the type of knowledge and experience that is necessary here, is virtually impossible to buy. Without in any way derogating from the quality and importance of the personnel in the service of the National Monuments Council and the War Graves Board, I wish to emphasize that a very important part—perhaps the major part—of the service of these Councils is being rendered by the members of those councils making personal sacrifices, without any compensation. That is a level and quality of expertise which the State would in any event never have been able to buy with money. Consequently, appreciation has been expressed from all sides of the House for those council members.

I wish to leave the question of financial provision at that, with the assurance—and I address this particularly to the hon. members who have insisted on it—that I am making an in-depth study of the matter in an effort to identify the specific bottlenecks clearly and then to take it up with my colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I should also like to refer to another important point of criticism expressed by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He doubted whether legal status should be accorded the two committees that are at present active in the War Graves Board. I think the hon. member for Newton Park has already given him a suitable reply from the inner circle of that Board, but I do just wish to reemphasize that the statutory recognition that is being accorded these two committees, the Burgergraftekomitee and the British War Graves Committee, is not intended to perpetuate past differences. It is being done after repeated negotiations, as the hon. member for Newton Park has said, and at the express request of the chairman and the members of the War Graves Board.

In the second place—in this respect the hon. member Prof. Olivier has in fact answered his own question—these two committees are not going to perform any far-reaching functions. Their functions are actually far more limited than they have been up to now under the War Graves Board. Their function in the new set-up will only be to identify graves. If it is necessary to win the goodwill of the two cultural groups co-operating within the War Graves Board in this way, I do not think it is a price that need give rise to any misgivings. Furthermore, I am quite convinced that it is in no way a question of a perpetuation of disunity.

We have today heard a considerable number of differing emphases of the historical differences in our country. To show how, in the course of time, matters are regarded in a different perspective, I just wish to refer to two incidents, one from the era of the Second War of Independence, and the other from more recent times, incidents which, in my view, reflect the spirit in which these things are judged by a mature nation looking back on its own history and its own conflicts. Hon. members may have heard of the almost theological debate between a Free State Boer father and his two sons in the trenches at the battle of Stormberg. While they were lying there waiting for the enemy, they were debating whether one’s enemy actually had a chance of going to heaven if he was killed in action, or whether all one’s enemies simply went the other way without qualification. There was a long discussion. The father believed that the enemy had no choice and that there was only one destination for him, namely in the other direction. The two sons were more “verlig”.

It is still like that today.

They felt that no matter how strongly one differed with one’s enemy, one should at least grant him a chance of another dispensation in the Hereafter and that one also had to concede that there was a very good chance of a considerable number of the enemy ultimately finding their way to heaven together with oneself. When the sign was given that the attack was imminent, that the enemy were coming over the hill and that the “burghers” should start shooting, the old man said to his sons: “Well, son, now you are going to see how we shoot your heaven full of English”.

I experienced another incident illustrating the manner in which these matters are regarded, when I entertained a number of guests at lunch at the university in Johannesburg. One of the eminent English-speaking businessmen of the community was at lunch with us. He was “pukka English”: Rand Club, a high wall around his garden, “northeastern suburbs of Johannesburg”, etc. We were talking about how relations between Afrikaans-and English-speaking people were developing. He told me how his son had come home from school a day or two before—he is in a private school, I must add—and he had asked him: “Fred, what have you been doing today?” His son said: “Well, dad, we have been mainly busy with history”. “History? What history?” “Well, dad, modern South African history. We dealt with the Boer War. You know, dad, it is ‘darem’ a pity we lost the Boer War”. Then his father said: “But we did not lose the war. We won it”. “No, dad”, he said, “we did not win it. The bloody British won it”. I believe that while this spirit prevails, we need not be concerned that the Burger-graftekomitee and the British War Graves Committee will cause any trouble for us in future.

I also wish to address a remark to the hon. member for Johannesburg North in connection with his reference to clause 10, in which the assurance is given that R1 000 will be spent in respect of the Free State. The hon. member rightly referred to the decline in our knowledge of history. He must now permit me also to refresh his knowledge of history a little. This provision is a direct continuation of a provision adopted in the legislation of the old Orange River Colony in 1905 when the Orange River Colony established a special fund for the maintenance of war graves. In that legislation, introduced at the time by the acting Colonial Secretary, Lord Basil Blackwood, provision was made for this fund ultimately to be amalgamated with the funds of other colonies—as they then were, with the proviso, however—and this was expressly inserted into the legislation at the time—that at least R1 000, at the time £500—in any event, £500 was worth much much more then than R1 000 today—should be utilized for the Free State graves every year. Those provisions, which were quoted by the then Minister of National Education when he first had the matter embodied in legislation in this House in 1968, are therefore still a continuation of the old guarantee that was given with the establishment of that original Free State Graves Trust Fund Ordinance. It therefore bears no relation whatsoever to the kind of money that the Government makes available to the War Graves Board or the National Monuments Council nowadays.

I should just like to express appreciation very briefly for the remarks by the hon. member for Standerton about the publication by the Department of Tourism, which promotes visits to places of interest, particularly historical interest. I am particularly pleased to learn about that publication, because in a time in which we hurry from place to place at high speed, we have little time to look at what there is in our country and what is going on, and what roadsigns to the past, as it were, are deserving of our attention. Such a guide for tourists, which makes them aware of the living past, is of immense value. In this regard I also wish to refer to the publication by the late former Director of the National Monuments Council, prof. Oberholster, formerly of Bloemfontein, in which he gave a very detailed description of the major historic monuments of our country. That book, too, is decidedly an important guide to the discovering of what is really worth seeing.

Then, too, particularly since several speakers have underscored the responsibility of local authorities and other organizations to contribute to the preservation of national monuments, I also wish to refer with appreciation to the role of the so-called “heemr-inge”, that is to say, people who, in a local context, keep the local history, traditions and culture handed down through generations, alive. I also wish to appeal to our various culturally aware local communities to emulate this example—I think it originated in Stellenbosch, later spread throughout the Western Province and is now taking root elsewhere in the country—by encouraging so-called “heemkringe” in order to promote the cultural heritage and the cultural and historical memories of a particular local environment. I think the descendants of the Settlers in the Eastern Province are also setting a very fine example in this respect by keeping alive memories of their historical tradition.

Then, too, I wish to express special appreciation for the remarks by the hon. member for Von Brandis.

†I am particularly grateful that the hon. member has drawn our attention to possible loopholes in the present provision for securing the continued existence of our cultural heritage here in South Africa. He pointed out that the time limit that has been introduced in the Bill before the House does not provide sufficient scope for the Council to take the initiative to ensure the preservation of cultural objects of an earlier era in South Africa. I should like, however, to draw the hon. member’s attention to section 10 of the Act, in terms of which the National Monuments Council is enabled to declare as national monuments not only immovable but also movable objects of aesthetic, historic or scientific value. In other words the council has the authority to declare a movable object—that could be a book, a document, an artefact etc.—a national monument. Thus it would also fall under the complete protection of this legislation which will prohibit either its destruction or its being changed or its being removed from the country. This is virtually the same effect that would have been achieved had we added a specific provision in the new clause to stipulate that the council can declare specific objects to be worthy of preservation. I think the matter is fully covered here and I am sure that the loopholes have been sufficiently closed.

Then the hon. member for Von Brandis also referred to the need to provide for the care of certain graves and graveyards which do not fall strictly within the ambit of the various definitions contained in this legislation. He referred to certain graves in the Eastern Province and to the famous missionary graves near Kuruman. Here again section 10 of the principal Act could provide for the preservation of such graves by having them declared national monuments by the council.

As I read the proposed new section 3A I feel it is wide enough to provide for initiative on the part of the council in respect of graves which do not fall directly within the ambit of the terms of reference of the two committees referred to by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. In this respect one must also consider the main provisions contained in clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to amend section 5 of the principal Act. Paragraph (b) of the clause inserts two subsections the first of which empowers the council—

Those are the various graves and burial grounds set out in the section to which the hon. member Prof. Olivier objected. In respect of wars and rebellions the matter is quite open. It is not limited to either “burgergrafte” or “British war graves”. As far as I can see, this could also be applicable to members of other population groups. The same would apply to “voortrekkergrafte”. The definition of “voortrekkergrafte” is very wide, embracing also the graves of any people who participated in the movement known as the Great Trek. This could include people of all races as far as I can see.

I feel that both the general provisions added by the proposed new paragraphs (cA) and (cB) to be inserted in section 5, as well as the proposed new section 3A, provide sufficiently for a wider scope without limiting the National Monuments Council to deal merely with graves or graveyards brought to its attention by these two committees.

Is there not a restriction on the object and function of the committees as set out in the proposed new section 3A(2) in terms of the definitions contained in the proposed amendment to section 1 of the principal Act, where “exile” and “garrison troops” are specifically defined? It would appear to me that the provisions contained in the proposed new section 3A limit the scope of the committees. Therefore this may disqualify the type of grave I have mentioned, viz. a missionary grave.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to put it more explicitly. What I actually mean is that clause 5(b) gives a wider authority to the council than simply to act upon the recommendations by the two committees. The council can act on its own initiative. If the two committees feel that they are limited to “burgergrafte” and “British war graves” the other categories which do not fall within the wide scope of these two specific categories could be included in the programme of the council on its own initiative. The other cases would then be dealt with by virtue of section 10 of the principal Act which provides that the council may recommend to the Minister that he declare as national monuments both movable and immovable assets of aesthetic or scholarly value, and these, I believe, could include graves. However, they would have to be declared national monuments and this might be a roundabout way of doing it. If this appears to be a problem, I shall raise the matter with the council to see whether they consider it necessary to have amending legislation introduced which will then be placed before the House in due course.

I should also like to assure the hon. member for Von Brandis that I shall take up with the council and with the other authorities concerned his very pertinent and useful suggestion in regard to adequate signposting of roads to national monuments for the benefit of tourists. I think it is a very good suggestion and I am very grateful for it. I shall certainly follow it up.

*Mr. Speaker, I hope I have now more or less covered the most important matters raised by hon. members. In closing, I just wish to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Newton Park has requested that the two chairmen of the committees involved should be appointed to the council, and I wish to give him the assurance that I shall afford this request very favourable attention in view of the existing vacancies since I think it is a fair request.

Having said that, I wish to thank all hon. members very sincerely once again for their contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Republic is a member of the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties—Upov—and is therefore compelled to accommodate in its legislation adjustments effected by Upov in its convention. Consequently the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act is based on the principles contained in the Upov convention.

In 1978 Upov agreed to certain changes in its convention and the Act was accordingly amended in 1980, but in the process a very important existing provision disappeared.

†The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, 1976, previously provided that plant breeders’ rights in the Republic may only be granted to citizens of the Republic and citizens and residents of member countries of Upov or with whom the Republic has negotiated special agreements regarding plant breeders’ rights. This stipulation is in accordance with the convention of Upov. The absence of this requirement in the Act is not only contrary to the convention of Upov but it also endangers the Republic’s membership of Upov and it is therefore necessary to reinstate the stipulation in the Act.

*This amendment also provides me with an excellent opportunity of rectifying in the Act the change in the designation of the Minister and the department which came about as a result of rationalization.

The Bill has the support of the S.A. Agricultural Union and the South African Plant Breeders’ Association and other interested bodies.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has just said, this amendment to the legislation should really have been passed last year, and for that reason of course we have no objection in principle to supporting the amendment.

South Africa is a member of the International Union of New Plant Varieties, Upov, and that is why it is necessary for us to amend our legislation to bring it into line with the requirements of the member countries. This is one good reason why we support the legislation. There are of course other reasons why we gladly support the Bill. Firstly we should like to ensure that we retain our membership of Upov. As we all know, there are tremendous increases in production costs in agriculture, especially in fruit-growing. It is therefore very important and necessary for South Africa that we continually extend our expertize, our ability to select good plant material and everything that goes with it. This can to a large extent be furthered by retaining our membership of this international organization, because in this way we can constantly exchange expertize, knowledge and manpower, which enables us to keep abreast of the latest developments in the fruit industry in particular. For these reasons we on this side of the House gladly support the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, this is a minor amendment to give effect to an unfortunate omission which occurred last year. It merely brings our legislation completely into line with the convention of the International Union of New Plant Varieties. It is only a small component which unfortunately remained in abeyance.

Last year we debated the necessity for the protection of plant breeders’ rights fully here and I therefore do not wish to make a long speech about it now. It is essential for plant breeders’ rights be protected because it is a tremendously expensive undertaking to develop cultivars. On my desk in front of me I have an example of what can be done. [Interjections.] It is a new cultivation accomplished by our Bien Donné research station and all I do about it is to help to evaluate it.

The hon. member will realize that just looking at it does not help at all.

Mr. Speaker, I have brought this bunch of grapes with me just to illustrate what can be done and how essential it is to protect the plant breeder. In this case it was a departmental plant breeder who developed this cultivar, but unfortunately he has resigned from the service of the department.

In all humility I wish to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that not only private plant breeders, but departmental plant breeders as well, ought to be compensated if they cultivate such a special product. I know it is perhaps more appropriate under the vote of that hon. Minister, but I shall unfortunately not be here when his vote comes up for discussion and I will then not be able to ask him nicely to take care of our departmental plant breeders. In all politeness I therefore ask him now to take care of our departmental plant breeders, because they work surprisingly hard to give us these new cultivars which can earn our country vast amounts in foreign exchange. I make a serious appeal on the hon. the Minister; I also support this Bill gladly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister and you will now have to share this bunch of grapes.

Yes, on behalf of the House I have no objection to sampling it further!

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member for Paarl that he should send over a specimen of those beautiful grapes he has in front of him, just to prove that they are not made of plastic. In other words he can send some over to this side of the House as well.

We shall support this Bill. When the principal Act was introduced in 1976, it was received with acclaim by all, as it took out of the Patents Act an item which, I believe was quite unique in that particular Act. It thereby gave a new method and a means to those who do as the hon. member for Paarl does, i.e. those who create new cultivars etc. It also provided a new system of control and registration for all the people who are interested in advancing, for our benefit, our agricultural activities in this country. That Act was based on the international conventions that have already been referred to. This consequently gave the whole Act an aura of internationalism. When one looks at the amendments effected last year, one finds that there was no reference to foreigners being able to register or make application for registration in this country, and it is not surprising that this situation has had to be corrected. I believe, too, that the correction is in accordance with what is required. I believe, however, that the hon. the Deputy Minister must accept responsibility for the fact that this was not included in the legislation last year. However, reading through it, one does see that it could quite easily have been missed.

One sees that in terms of clause 3 certain words are being deleted. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not refer to this but the words to be deleted are quite obviously being deleted because the definition of an agent, in any event, only refers to a person who is resident in the Republic. I should just like to have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s confirmation of that. As I have said, we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is complete unanimity on this Bill and I therefore am just rising to thank members for their support. Also, I just wish to confirm that what the hon. member for East London North said is true.

The hon. member for Paarl informed me that this would be his last contribution to an agricultural debate. Therefore I have the privilege of saying, in just a few words, that we have very great appreciation not only for the contribution he made to the discussion of agricultural affairs in this House but also for the contribution he made on his farm to the development of agriculture, especially in respect of the type of farming he practises. [Interjections.] As regards this legislation and the development of new cultivars the hon. member has made an exceptional contribution. He worked in very close conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries not only to get this legislation on the Statute Book, but also to assist with the development of new cultivars. We appreciate that very much.

For a number of years the hon. member was chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and we are also proud that an agriculturlist of his standing was able to fill this particular post for such a long period.

On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and also on behalf of all his colleagues in this House who practise agriculture, I wish to say to him today: Thank you very much. We really envy him the fact that he can now go and farm in peace on his farm. We wish him only the best for the future in his farming practice.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act, No. 100 of 1967, which came into operation on 16 February 1968, is the control and promotion of the marketing of canned fruit on export markets by the South African Canned Fruit Export Board, which was established under the Act.

The South African canned fruit industry is pre-eminently an export orientated industry, almost 90% of the total pack being regularly exported. It is precisely for this reason that measures were introduced at the time to ensure the orderly marketing of canned fruit through the Export Board and in the interests of the industry as a whole.

Since its inception, the Export Board has acquitted itself honourably of its task. The board has now requested that the Act under which it functions be amended in certain respects to facilitate its operations. Under the Act the Export Board can establish an agency in London only, to advise it on matters relating to the marketing of canned fruit. Clause 1 of the Bill amends section 3(a) of the Act to empower the board to establish agencies also in other countries. This is considered necessary to enable the board and the canners to expand their export markets more efficiently outside the United Kingdom, which presently constitutes the largest single outlet for South African canned fruit.

*Furthermore, the Act provides that the Minister shall appoint twelve members of the South African Canned Food Export Board from nominations he has to invite from, firstly, the South African Fruit and Vegetable Canners’ Association (Pty) Limited, secondly, a body which is representative of co-operative societies owning canneries and, lastly, the Canning Fruit Board. Of the twelve members to be appointed by the Minister, eight must represent private canneries, two co-operative canneries and two producers of fruit intended for canning. In terms of section 4(5) of the Act, the Minister appoints one of the twelve members as chairman of the Export Board, but no provision is made for the Minister to consult the board in connection with a suitable person to be appointed by him as chairman. This is regarded as a shortcoming in the Act, because the board is obviously best able to advise the Minister concerning the person who should be appointed as chairman of the board.

The position of chairman is of the utmost importance in the performance of the board’s functions, because the member who is appointed to this office must under all circumstances be able to maintain an objective approach to matters being considered by the board. Therefore, if the chairman were himself an active fruit producer or canner or had a direct interest in the cultivation or the canning of fruit, he could not observe the absolute neutrality required of him. From this it also follows that he should preferably be a person who has a good knowledge of the canning industry and above all a person who is able to preside over a meeting with authority and who is unconditionally acceptable to all members of the board.

The Export Board has hitherto been in the fortunate position that all the persons who have served as chairmen since its inception, including the present chairman, have been retired canners, who possessed all the most important qualities required for the position and acquitted themselves of their task in exemplary fashion. However, it is realistic to accept that this favourable position cannot continue indefinitely and that the day may come when a suitable candidate for the post may not be readily available. In order to provide for such an eventuality, it is deemed expedient that the board’s choice of a chairman should not be limited to sitting members of the board, but that it should under specific circumstances be able to nominate a person from outside for that office. If the Minister appoints such a person as chairman, therefore, he has to appoint him as a member at the same time, in which case the board will then consist of 13 members.

In order to prevent any disturbance of the proportional representation of private canneries, co-operative canneries and fruit producers on the board as presently constituted, a person other than a canner or producer who is appointed as chairman will be able to take part in discussions on the board and will be able to perform his functions as chairman at meetings, but will not be able to vote on any matter that is being considered by the board. Furthermore, he will not be included in the determination of the quorum for purposes of the meeting of the board.

The designation of a deputy chairman should not take place in the same way as that of the chairman, because a deputy chairman only has to exercise his office under exceptional circumstances, and on a quite temporary basis. Consequently I agree with the Export Board that he should be appointed from the sitting twelve members of the board. In the physical absence of the chairman or when the latter has temporarily recused himself from the proceedings of the board for some valid reason, the status quo with regard to sectoral representation is maintained so that the deputy chairman is in fact allowed to exercise his right to vote at a meeting at which he is presiding. In those highly exceptional cases where both the chairman and the deputy chairman are absent from a meeting, it would be quite impractical for the Minister formally to designate a chairman for that specific meeting. The members present should therefore be allowed to exercise their democratic right in electing a chairman.

Since the present chairman of the Export Board was appointed in terms of the provisions of the existing Act, it is provided that he shall be deemed to have been designated by the board for the unexpired portion of his period of office.

Clause 2 of the Bill contains the proposed amendments to section 4 of the Act to provide for the different way of constituting the Export Board and the designation of the chairman.

†In present-day conditions it is customary, and I dare say even essential, for a corporate body such as the South African Canned Fruit Export Board to delegate some of its powers to committees. It stands to reason that the board itself does not have all the expertise required to arrive at unquestionable decisions, to adopt the correct approach to a particular problem or to issue directives to its licensees with regard to shipping, finance, advertising and various other issues intimately connected with the international marketing of canned fruit. The Act, however, does not explicitly bestow the power upon the board to appoint committees and, to remove all doubt as to the authority of the board in this respect, it is considered desirable to add a provision explicitly permitting the board to establish committees, which may consist of board members or board members and other persons having the required knowledge of a particular matter to be investigated or disposed of on behalf of the board. Clause 3 of the Bill gives effect to this need.

In conclusion, following upon the authority of the board to appoint committees, clause 4 of the Bill merely seeks to extend the existing indemnity of personal liability provided for in section 7 of the Act to members of committees.

Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when one sends a good Afrikaner to London as an ambassador. He comes back with “English as she is spoke back home”. I think this is the first piece of legislation that the hon. the Minister is dealing with in the House, and on behalf of this side of the House I want to extend our hearty congratulations to him on his appointment to that important position and wish him everything of the best for the future. I also want to express the hope that he will carry out his duties in the House with a great deal of success, unless of course the voters of Cape Town Gardens have the good sense to send a PFP member to the House on 29 April.

The Minister is well equipped to serve as the Minister of the department concerned. As a former clergyman, he can ensure that the sins of the department are properly and efficiently combated; as a former rugbyplayer he can ensure that the department is not caught off-side too often; and as a former diplomat he can ensure that the activities of the department and the relations between the department and the public are always based on courtesy.

In his speech, the hon. the Minister convinced me that this Bill is a good piece of legislation. Therefore, I may inform him that the legislation has the approval of this side of the House. At the same time I want to point out that it deals with canned fruit. This is one of the products that has recently undergone very large price increases as a result of a tremendous rate of inflation. Of course, this is also something that affects the public a great deal, particularly the lower income group. Under those circumstances the hon. the Minister will find that when it comes to food prices, he will have to put up with a great deal of criticism from this side of the House in future in the interest of the consumer in South Africa. At this stage I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to protest against the fact that the Government allowed a monopoly to arise with regard to canned fruit, so that practically 75% of this industry is now in the hands of a single body.

It is a co-operative.

Yes, it does not matter whether it is a co-operative or not. That hon. Minister must bear in mind that he is no longer the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Nor is he a dairy farmer any longer. We want him to stick to his trains in future.

I want to protest on behalf of the consumer in South Africa to the fact that the Government allowed this to happen because I believe that it is going to mean even higher prices for the consumer in circumstances in which they are already crippled by the tremendous increase in the cost of living in South Africa. But that is enough about that subject at this stage. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister once again that we are looking forward to his work and contribution in this House. We on this side of the House grant our support to this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in this party would also like to wish the hon. the Minister well and to congratulate him on the occasion of the presentation of his first Bill. He did extremely well and we look forward to further interaction with him in this House. Our very best wishes go to him, and we trust that he will enjoy his portfolio as much as he enjoyed being at the Court of St. James.

We on this side of the House shall also be supporting this Bill. We find that the processing, canning and exporting of our fruit is an extremely valuable earner of foreign currency for us. It is something which traditionally has been associated with South Africa as a very fine exporting country. We certainly welcome the provisions of the amending Bill whereby it will become possible for the Canned Fruit and Export Marketing Board to establish offices outside London. We are actually quite surprised that the penetration which South African canned fruit has made in other parts of the world has been so successful when one considers that the board has been confined to offices in London. In particular when it comes to canned fruit we want to tell the hon. the Minister that we heartily endorse this Bill, because canned fruit, unlike fresh table-fruit, has not had the advantage of being able to take advantage of the differences in seasons between the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. Fresh fruit certainly has that advantage for its exporting and marketing opportunities. Canned fruit on the other hand does not have that kind of advantage and therefore quality of the product is of the utmost importance, and not only of the product, but also of the marketing strategy to be employed in order to get South African canned fruit onto the world market rather than the fruit of other countries. With that in mind, and very briefly, we should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we wholeheartedly endorse the principles and the amendment being brought in here and trust that this will be of benefit to the marketing of our canned fruit and that this industry shall prosper as well in the future as it did in the past.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I too should like to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this post. We have all the best expectations of him making a success of this too, as he has in fact achieved success in the past in the other capacities in which he served. I should also like to congratulate him on the occasion of submitting his first Bill here in the House. This is a very important piece of legislation. Although it is short and sweet, it has much more substance to it than one would expect at first sight.

In discussing the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Amendment Bill, one is automatically reminded of the events that recently took place in our country, when tremendous floods and flood damage hit South Africa. One is really filled with compassion when one thinks of the tremendous, tragic loss of life that was caused by this great disaster. One also thinks of the large stock losses, of the devastated farm lands, vineyards and orchards, of the valuable agricultural land that has been completely washed away. Furthermore a tremendous amount of damage has also been done to house and hearth. However, what one does not always think of, is that some of our factories were also destroyed. In this case one of our canning factories was also destroyed.

The flood disaster which struck the South Western Cape, will definitely have a considerable influence upon the available quantity of fruit for the canning industry this season. I have established that it has been calculated that a mere 100 000 tons of yellow peaches will be available this year, in comparison with 140 000 tons the previous season. The apricot harvest has also dropped from 25 000 to 20 000 tons. Storm damage, particularly due to hail and wind, has for instance also caused a great deal of fruit that would otherwise have been exported as fresh fruit, to be damaged to such an extend that it will not be suitable for export trade. The damage to canning factories has resulted in the production ability of those factories being reduced by half. As a result, the excess fruit now has to be sent to other factories, for instance in Paarl and Mossel Bay. In its turn this means higher transport costs, which can also have an influence on the price of those canned fruits.

Consequently, the total quantity of fruit available for export will be much less than was originally expected.

Now I am grateful for the fact that the Opposition parties have announced that they support this Bill. We are also grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister submitted this Bill at the request of the people concerned, who asked for it. As he explained very clearly in his Second Reading speech, clause 1 of the Bill, by means of which section 3 of the principal act is to be amended, provides that the South African Canned Fruit Export Board be empowered to open agencies outside the Republic. In terms of the present provision, the Board is empowered to have a foreign office in London only. Therefore, this amendment enables the Board to open agencies elsewhere, for instance in Brussels and Hamburg, or wherever. I do not want to go into the matter any further. However, I want to point out the importance of this industry in the Western Cape. The fruit canning industry is of tremendous importance to the Western Cape. I can mention only a few statistics to form some conception of how important this industry is. In 1980, this industry earned R130 million. The fruit farmers, of whom there are approximately 2 300, were paid approximately R30 million for their products. R35 million was paid to the factories which manufacture the containers and tins. The factory workers, who earn their living in these factories, received R18 million in salaries and wages. The shipping companies also benefited by this. The sum that they received, amounts to R12,5 million. To this we can also add the considerable sums of money that were spent on other items, for instance cardboard boxes, labels, printing, etc. and the amount increases by much more.

During the canning season 16 000 workers are employed in the factories. If we add the labourers employed on the farms of these 2 300 farmers, this proves that this canning industry plays a tremendously important economic role, but at the same time it also fulfills a very important socio-economic role in the Western Cape.

This industry is not without problems. The canning industry differs from most other South African industries in that it is practically entirely dependant on exports for its survival. Consequently the industry is much more export orientated than most of the other industries in South Africa by far. Almost 90% of the fruit that is canned, is exported. In contrast to this, the domestic market is relatively small and consequently the industry is very sensitive and very vulnerable when things go wrong. The vulnerability is further increased if one takes into account the fact that the most important consumer countries for canned fruit are also countries that are large producers of fruit themselves. Here I am thinking for instance of the USA, Australia and the continent of Europe.

The most important market is situated in Europe and here the United Kingdom holds first place. Countries like Germany and Belgium are equally important. All these countries are member countries of the EEC. Trade with Canada has been adversely affected by the withdrawal of the tariff preferences that we enjoyed in terms of the Ottawa Agreement. In addition, our exporters are being adversely affected by the high tariff walls of the EEC.

Furthermore, it is also true that there are fruit producing countries that are member countries of the EEC. In this regard we can think of France, Italy and Greece which, apart from the protection that they enjoy as a result of their membership, receive production assistance from their fellow member countries. The result is that South African products are at a great disadvantage when they have to compete in retail trade abroad. Consequently Italian and Greek products can be offered at lower prices on the market. On the long-term, there is the danger that planting more fruit trees in the countries that in fact form our largest market, will enable those countries to become self-supporting.

The export of canned fruit is also influenced further by fluctuations in the money market. The strength or weakness of the dollar or the German mark as against the South African rand, plays an important role in determining the price of our products on the overseas market.

Of the eight million cases that are exported annually, approximately seven million go to Europe. The development of alternative markets is therefore a very difficult problem. The Far East is definitely a market that should receive much more attention, but there the problem is that we will be faced with very strong competition from Australia and California.

I have tried to indicate that the industry is export orientated and is dependant upon this because the local market is too small to absorb the volume of production of the industry.

A Whip has told me to hurry up and therefore I am going to conclude by saying that even though there are many problems, there really is a ray of hope too. This is that the products placed on the market by South Africa have a good name abroad. The quality that we provide there is good quality. Our products are just as good, if not better than those of the rest of the world. Better marketing methods can contribute towards our being in a position to combat the competition that we are faced with. I believe that our industry is in a position to fend for itself and that the Bill will contribute towards making this possible.

Mr. Speaker, further to what the hon. member for Kempton Park said, as a producer of fruit for canning purposes, I should like to give my full support to the Bill before the House. There are sound reasons for my wholehearted support, reasons that will affect the canning industry in general and which create an overall picture to endorse the necessity of our accepting the measure before the House.

The canning industry is interwoven with the wine industry now. It plays an important role supplementary to the wine industry in rotation or alternate cultivation. Consequently, it is clear that unfavourable production or marketing factors that affect the one industry, must of necessity exert an influence on the other.

From an economic viewpoint, these two agricultural industries, the fruit canning industry and the wine industry, form the staple agricultural industry of the Western Cape. What is more, economic activity and stability in the Western Cape is determined to a large extent by the stability and growth potential in these two agricultural industries.

As has already been indicated, the canning industry is chiefly, up to 90%, dependent on the export market for its production. The United Kingdom and the EEC countries are the traditional export market for South African canned fruit. However, in recent times drastic changes have occurred in this market. As a result of increased canned fruit production, the EEC countries had become increasingly self-sufficient. I want to emphasize that this increasing production of canned fruit in these countries is the direct consequence of Government support, including financial support, for the fruit producers in the countries concerned. This situation is being aggravated by the fact that Greece was admitted to the EEC on 1 January 1981. Greece is in a position to offer large quantities of canned fruit at extremely competitive prices. In addition, there are the ever-increasing, protective custom tariffs of 24% and more on canned fruit imports from South Africa to the EEC countries.

In contrast to this there is a healthy growth in the production of canned fruit in our country, particularly as a result of selected plant material and more effective training techniques, which result in a great yield per hectare.

The canning industry therefore finds itself faced with an extremely serious problem. On the one hand there is an increased unit yield, and consequently an increasing total production, and on the other hand a growing danger that it may lose its traditional export markets as a result of factors beyond its control. This problem has already reached a critical stage and restrictions in production are already being mentioned; a restriction which in turn could result in serious disturbances in the agricultural planning and the established production pattern of agriculture in the Western Cape, with necessarily serious economic consequences for agriculture, but for the whole of the Western Cape too.

Against this background it is obvious that every fruit farmer and everyone involved in the fruit canning industry will welcome every measure to make the South African Canned Fruit Export Board more ready for action to carry out its marketing function more efficiently. This is the chief objective of the Bill before the House and that is why I want to give it my full support. Since the Export Board is now being put in a position to appoint new agents and investigate new markets once again, and since this board can obtain knowledge and guidance from outside, in the board and at committee level, I feel this testifies to enterprising ideas and purposeful action. Therefore I want to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister for this action and thank him for it.

I also want to extend my hearty thanks to both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for the financial assistance which was granted to the canning industry at the end of last year. Everyone involved in the canning industry has a great deal of appreciation for the timely action of the Government. However, I want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to think about this problem once again, particularly with regard to more practical planning for the promotion of exports, so that we may extract the canning industry from this difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. members who have congratulated me and wished me well on the road ahead. The hon. member for Bryanston would appear to be somewhat of a stranger in Jerusalem in wishing me well, but nevertheless expressing his doubts, in passing, about the outcome of the forthcoming election. I do not think the outcome is in any doubt. The hon. member had better read his own publication here in the Cape, so that he may get to know the feeling of the voters in Cape Town Gardens.

Van der Merwe wrote that report himself. [Interjections.]

It is a pleasure to me to be back in the House of Assembly after a short absence of about two years. I am thoroughly aware of the great responsibilities which my new obligations entail, and I should like to assure hon. members of the House that I have plunged into my new activities with great dedication and enthusiasm. With the support of hon. members on this side of the House, and of the department, I believe that I shall be able to administer this department, which came into being in its new form on 1 November last year, to the benefit of the economy in South Africa.

It has been a great privilege and a very instructive and enriching experience for me to be able to represent South Africa in the United Kingdom. There, too, I was involved in the export trade, especially with regard to our fruit—deciduous fruit and canned fruit. Therefore I am pleased to be able to continue this association, which began in the United Kingdom, with the introduction of my first piece of legislation in this House. Hon. members, especially the hon. member for Kempton Park and the hon. member for Ceres, pointed out that although we can be very proud of the quality of our product, and although it is precisely the quality of our export product which has given the South African product such an excellent name abroad, we have nevertheless entered a difficult stage, in spite of the good quality of our product, because tariff protection and other problems are causing very stiff competition in our principal markets. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and I met members of the canning industry at the end of last year and had talks with them. It is a difficult, uphill road, especially since the product is mainly dependent on the export market. The hon. member for Bryanston, who thoughtlessly remarked here that he was unhappy about the fact that a monopoly was now being allowed in the industry, should just take cognizance, in the first place, of the fact that the industry is mainly export-orientated. 90% of the product is exported. Nor is a monopoly undesirable per se. What is more, the share of the company to which he referred is only 75%. The other 25% is shared by 27 other canneries. So there is no question here of a lack of healthy competition.

He was thinking of his Press. [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon. member for Bryanston has got quite a number of obsessions, and I hope that when we discuss economic matters in the future, we shall be clearer about what exactly we mean. I hope we shall be able to obtain a clearer understanding of matters, so as to avoid talking a lot of nonsense here when we are debating our economic affairs. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. member for Kempton Park and the hon. member for Ceres in particular for their references to these difficult problems which the export industry has to contend with at the moment. The fact that Greece has been admitted to the EEC since 1 January 1981 has been particularly significant, because it has meant that another large fruit producer has received the benefits of EEC membership and marketing for its product. There is also the problem of the long distances our product has to be shipped and the high cost involved. Then, of course, there are the many other problems to which the two hon. members referred. Because of all these factors, this is an industry which is under pressure and which is faced with difficult circumstances. Therefore I trust that these few adjustments to the legislation will enable the Export Board to improve their marketing even further. A determined attempt is also going to be made to establish the well-known and fine “Cape” emblem more firmly in the export market. I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the Export Board for the very good work they have already done on behalf of the South African producer and canner. I hope these amendments will enable them to penetrate the European markets even further.

Mr. Chairman, this is a two-clause Bill and I do not intend to detain the Committee very long. In terms of the rules of the House I should, however, like to state our point of view in regard to the Bill.

We will not vote against the first clause because it provides for the re-establishment of the voters’ roll which one hopes will lead to a properly elected Indian council as soon as possible. We will, however, vote against the second clause because that allows the hon. the Minister to reappoint a nominated, indirectly elected Indian council as an interim measure. It may not even be an interim measure. This was the fear we expressed yesterday. That will therefore be our position during the Committee Stage.

I would like to take this opportunity to make some comments on the question which was raised yesterday, i.e. that of our contact with Indian political parties. The hon. the Minister spoke of how he had talked to Indian political parties and he wondered what contact we had with them. We certainly do not enjoy the same facilities as the hon. the Minister. He can send for the leaders of political parties to come and talk to him. But I must say that we have been in contact and we are in contact with the Indian political parties and we have been in contact with them in regard to this Bill. We have no doubt that, as a result of that contact, the Indian political parties certainly are opposed to a nominated, electoral college system Indian council. They want a general election as soon as possible. Prior to this debate we received a representation. I did not use it yesterday because the hon. the Minister had said that he had had some problems and that he had recalled them. But we received this representation made by one of the political parties and I quote—

This was their attitude. It was quite clear on the principle that they want an election soon and that they reject a nominated Indian council. This was precisely the point of view we put yesterday.

May I ask whether you received that from the Reform Party?

Yes, this came from the Reform Party. We have subsequently had other contact with them. The hon. the Minister explained that this arose from the meeting he had in October last year. Yesterday he said of his own volition that he had suggested that it might be a good thing if they had their election to coincide with the general election and he did not anticipate that the hon. the Prime Minister would call a general election quite as soon as he did. The Minister explained that he had then called upon the leaders of the political parties to meet him again so that he could explain the problems. I want to make the point that it is quite wrong as Government members suggested yesterday that the Opposition has no contact with Indian political parties. We do keep in contact with them. We value the contact we have with them and we believe it is necessary that we should, as far as possible, take heed of the representations they have made. I believe the Opposition did just that yesterday when we took up the attitude we did on the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, the standpoint of the official Opposition, as put has now been stated by the hon. member for Musgrave, is a complete anomaly. If only subsection (1) were to be accepted, and not subsection (2) as well, it would mean that the approximately 164 000 registered Indian voters would be restored to the voters’ roll, but the principle which is already an integral part of the Bill, and which was passed at the Second Reading, i.e. that an election is not going to be held now, will entail that 164 000 voters will not have an opportunity to cast their votes. Meanwhile there is a vacuum in the sense that there is no representative body for the Indians. It would therefore be completely nonsensical to accept subsection (1) only and not subsection (2) as well.

Have the election as soon as possible.

The hon. member says we must have the election as soon as possible, but the principle which was established at the Second Reading was in fact that the election should be postponed until a suitable date. We were in general agreement that as soon as it was possible to hold the election, as soon as a suitable date arrived, it would be held. However, it is not possible to say today that it will be within six months. If we do not accept subsection (2) as well, it means that the Indians will be without any representative body for another six months or more.

Like the Coloureds.

The hon. member says “like the Coloureds” but when it happened to the Coloureds they kicked up a resounding din about it. Now they want to be instrumental in creating precisely the same situation in respect of the Indians. Surely this is an absolute anomaly. However, this is the type of attitude and conduct we have already become accustomed to on the part of the official Opposition. They try to manipulate and exploit every situation for as much political gain as possible. Their aim is not to act in the interests of the people involved, but to get at the Government and the NP. That is their motive. As a result their aim is not to try to find solutions. They want to cause obstruction and to throw a spanner in the works when we seek solutions. Then they want to point a finger and level accusations and reproaches at the Government. That is their attitude, and that is why they have now adopted this ill-considered approach of accepting subsection (1) and opposing subsection (2).

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to the whole of clause 1. We are opposed to clause 2. Like the hon. member for Musgrave, I should like to restate my party’s position.

Do you mean subsection (2) of clause 1?

We are against clause 1 and clause 2. I am just making that clear now in order not to delay the working of this Committee. In the past we have supported the postponement of the election of a fully elected Indian Council. We have made that clear and we have given our reasons for doing so. I said yesterday that we could no longer continue to support this situation because of the reasons I advanced yesterday, namely the past history of delays and of what has taken place.

There is a point I should like to add. The hon. the Minister made much during the Second Reading debate of the fact that the S.A. Indian Council as such had voted for the retention of the present system. There were 20 votes cast in favour of that and there were two abstentions. I think the observation is valid that where one has 15 nominated members I venture to suggest that the hon. the Minister has a captive audience of 15 people and I think they are 15 votes that will most assuredly go along with his particular point of view. Like the official Opposition, we have had contact not only with parties but also with individuals in the Indian community. The general consensus is, and I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Musgrave said, that perhaps even if they are not ready, even if the view of a number of the Indian politicians is that they are not as yet ready, as was expressed to the hon. the Minister, for a general election, it is the earnest desire of the general population that they do hold this election as soon as possible. Furthermore, they do not want a continuation of a half-nominated and half-elected S.A. Indian Council. This does not meet with their general requirements. It is not a popular body. I must say this. Among the rank and file of the Indian population the present S.A. Indian Council does not enjoy the popularity that a fully elected council would. Having said that, we shall be opposing this Bill in the Committee Stage and we shall continue with our argument in the Third Reading in due course.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Musgrave, I should like to explain that I did not suggest that the hon. member or his party had no contact with Indian leaders. What I did say was that I had consulted with all the recognized parties. The hon. member referred to a telegram that he had received from the Reform Party. I received two from that party which are just for the record and are not in reply to the argument I should like to put before the Committee. The one is from the leader of the Reform Party. It is addressed to the hon. the Prime Minister and reads as follows—

At the same time I received the following telegram—

He is the leader of that party …

Who is that from?

Let me just finish and I shall give it to you. I quote further—

[Inaudible.]

The point I am trying to make, and I am not trying to make it at the expense of the Reform Party, as I indicated yesterday, is that this is the sort of thing that happens in this party, in other parties and in that community. Surely this is evidence of why we should at least assist the parties within that community in restructuring and reorganizing so that they can be enabled to fight elections. In terms of the principal Act, which provides for elections on a constituency basis, the leader of the majority party after the election must be appointed chairman by the State President. He in turn must recommend to the State President the names of three other members who, with him, will form the executive. This is the very point I am trying to make. What are we trying to achieve in terms of the proposed new section 6(1)(b). We are reviving the voters’ roll for the 163 682 enfranchised Indian people. The reason why we have to do this is because the old voters’ roll has lapsed. Allow me to explain that there are not only 163 682 registered Indian voters. There are 286 000. The 163 682 were registered in terms of the proclamation whilst the rest were registered in terms of the Act. In other words, we do therefore need the proposed new subsection in order to have an elected council. So I cannot understand or appreciate the argument advanced by the hon. member for Umhlanga in which he said he was against that provision as well. We need that provision in order to gain the objective of having an election for the Indian people on a constituency basis.

Clause 1(2) is necessary in order to enable me to deal with an interim situation. I want hon. members to understand that regardless of when the election in terms of the 1977 Act is held, there is going to be a period within which there will be no other body than this one, ineffective as it may be, with which I can consult and discuss matters relating to this particular group of people.

I take the point of the hon. member for Umhlanga. His argument is valid. He said that of the 22 members who attended the council meeting 15 had been nominated. I am not quite sure whether that is indeed so but I am prepared to argue on that assumption. The fact is that because that is so and because it could be legitimately argued that they have a vested interest and because it could further be legitimately argued that the members of the executive committee have vested interests, I did not terminate consultations with either the executive or the council itself. After I had heard the views of the members of the council and after I had heard them confirm the request of the executive, I initiated the next process, which was to consult with all the recognized parties in the Indian community. Only after that did I decide to accede to the request to defer the election on a constituency basis and to accept in the meantime—because I had no option—that rather than have nothing at all, I should reconstitute the Indian Council in terms of the 1974 Act. That is why I decided to do just that.

Hon. members may disagree with me but I have agreed to a general election for the Indian people on a constituency basis. The only question was that of the most appropriate time to have the election.

We have agreed that the appropriate time would be 4 November 1981. We have discussed various possible dates.

The problem is that your predecessor said exactly the same thing.

All right. That may well be so. The point is that I prefer to do the correct thing rather than becoming bogged down on account of what my predecessor said. Therefore I approached the council to seek their approval to attain what all of us evidently wish to attain. I hope I have now given satisfactory answers to all the objections raised by hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I move—