Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will be able to deduce from the Bill that it has a twofold purpose, viz. in the first place to effect essential adjustments to the national service system in order to adapt it to the demands of the times and in the second place to facilitate the administration of the Defence Force.

The object of the amendments to the national service system are—

• —To provide the S.A. Defence Force with a guaranteed supply of manpower for the next five years in order to counteract the expected escalation of the threat successfully.
• —To distribute the liability to render national service more evenly and in that way restrict the burden on the individual as much as possible.
• —To establish an effective system of territorial defence, with the emphasis on the rural areas.

The proposals in regard to the national service system, and the consequential amendments and deletions which these necessitate are contained in clause 1 up to and including 6; 8 up to and including 26, as well as in clause 28. Clauses 7 and 27, as well as 29 up to and including 36, contain proposals which are aimed at facilitating the administration of the Act, eliminating the deficiencies which have been identified from time to time, and effecting consequential amendments. I intend to deal with the Bill with its twofold object without going into the details of each separate clause. As far as the national service system is concerned, I shall explain the relevant principles and subsequently point out briefly the principles contained in the other clauses.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill seeks mainly to vest certain statutory powers with regard to land which belong to the State or to the Community Development Board, in a single statutory body. Furthermore, it seeks to increase the membership of the Community Development Board and to vest additional powers and duties in that board. The need for this statutory amendment arose as a result of the rationalization of the Public Service and, in particular, the merging of the Land Tenure component of the former Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure into the Department of Community Development.

The Land Tenure Board, which was established in terms of the Land Tenure Act, 1966, is now being abolished and some of its functions are now being transferred to the Community Development Board. These functions are mainly in connection with determining the value of properties purchased by the State for public purposes, while it also advises other institutions, such as the S.A. Development Trust, which is empowered to purchase land, on property values.

†The Community Development Board will in future also be responsible, subject to the directions of the Minister, for the purchase or lease of immovable property for public purposes. Registration of all immovable property acquired for such purposes will be in the name of the State and any leases entered into will be on behalf of the State. The Minister of Community Development is also empowered to asign the power vested in him by virtue of the Expropriation Act, 1975, and certain other Acts, to expropriate movable or immovable property for public purposes, to the board. Such assignment will be subject to the directions of the Minister who may at any time alter or rescind any such assignment.

Hon. members will note that the major part of the Bill is taken up by consequential amendments, amendments which need no further explanation. However, I wish to stress that the Bill contains important measures which were necessitated by the rationalization of the Public Service, and I trust it will receive the wholehearted support of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill is mainly of an administrative nature and we in the PFP will support it. However, I want to raise two points with the hon. the Minister. Subsection (4) of section 15 of the principal Act, dealt with in clause 13 of the Bill, reads—

“Five thousand rand” is now omitted in order to allow any amount. I want the hon. the Minister to explain to us exactly what is meant by that change.

On page 5, in line 10, a new paragraph (bA) is inserted which reads—

I want the hon. the Minister to explain to us exactly what is meant by this paragraph, because there is some confusion. Surely, this does not mean nomination by a political party. It surely must be nomination by a nomination court for a general election or a nomination as a nominated member of the House.

We on this side of the House will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support given to the Bill by the official Opposition. The aim of the Bill is to vest statutory powers in regard to land belonging to the State, in a single statutory body. The result of this is that the Land Tenure Board falls away and the number of members of the Community Development Board increases from the present 5 full-time and 2 part-time members to a maximum of 12 members.

I believe it is important that we consider certain clauses of the Bill. The increase in the number of members of the board results in certain amendments with regard to, inter alia, the quorum of the board. Provision is also made for committees, and all this is aimed at expediting matters. The new section 51A, as contained in clause 24 of the Bill, vests greater powers in the board which the Minister may determine in terms of Government Notice No. 1100 of 30 May 1980.

As regards the powers delegated to the Minister, the hon. the Minister now also has the right to delegate to the board and to the committee, powers delegated to him. This will mean that matters will be expedited. At the same time it means that a greater responsibility will rest on this board. As is obvious from the new section 51A, a large number of Acts are involved, and accordingly one comes to realize that rationalization of these Acts in terms of the rationalization programme is not a simple matter. One cannot simply begin to prune away the dry branches. The matter must be approached with circumspection. It is notable that since the start of the rationalization of the Public Service, more than 800 obsolete Acts have been repealed. I think it is appropriate that we consider the history of the matter this afternoon.

When the present Prime Minister was elected to that office, he stated in this House on 28 September 1978 that he set certain goals. One of them was an open, honest and effective public administration. It is important to take note of that. It is due to that announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister that this legislation comes before this House today. The hon. the Prime Minister also said on that occasion that he would try—indeed, that it was one of his aims—to establish an orderly Government. When one looks back on the road we have travelled since that date, one appreciates the progress made, because by way of the composition of the Cabinet the hon. the Prime Minister indicated, in the first place, that he would indeed honour his undertakings. This led to the rationalization of the Public Service. When the hon. the Minister spoke about rationalization on that occasion he envisaged that in the first place, the aim would be to conserve manpower. In the second place, it would be aimed at the elimination of overlapping and duplication, the more expeditious completion of tasks, the improved utilization of high grade personnel and at the same time, greater opportunities for officials to make progress in the Public Service. Very important, too, is the facilitation of the task of co-ordinating Government action.

It is clear that the undertaking given on that occasion was implemented without delay. Moreover, the chairman of the Public Service Commission undertook an extensive study tour abroad to see what we could learn about rationalization overseas. In consequence of this the Public Service Commission met with department heads as far back as March 1979 to launch the rationalization programme. I felt that this afternoon was the occasion to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for that step that he took. I also wish to convey my thanks to other hon. Ministers and heads of Government departments who were involved and who tackled this task with enthusiasm.

When the little Budget was introduced some weeks ago the hon. member for Yeoville asked whether rationalization had not already effected a saving. The answer is, of course, that this is something that will only take place in the long term. We shall certainly reap the benefits in the future. One result of this was the introduction of a Community Development Board. This is the board about which we are to take a decision this afternoon. The Community Development Board has certain aims. This board is concerned in particular with the establishment of population groups in their own group areas, with slum clearance, urban renewal and regional development.

Let us consider what the Community Development Board has achieved since it was established. It may be noted that since the board was established, close to 37 000 sites have been provided for the Coloureds in Mitchell’s Plain for the construction of dwellings. In the case of Atlantis, 3 760 plots have been made available; in the case of Phoenix, 7 750; in the case of Lenasia, 1 157 and in the case of Ennerdale, 828. It is therefore clear that the board certainly has a function to perform.

As regards slum clearance, township development and the declaration of slum areas, we see that in the case of Durban—to take only one city as an example because I do not want to take up the time of this House unnecessarily—there have been 1 417 instances of slum clearance since the board was established, while 535 cases have been considered and 934 cancelled. As recently as 25 February 1982 the hon. the Minister made it known in a Press statement that a township called Newlands II had been developed by the Community Development Board at Pretoria. 218 residential plots were provided in that township. This is a scheme tackled by the Department of Community Development and the City Council of Pretoria. In addition, provision is also being made for a site for an old-age home, premises for a school, a church and everything that that involves. I point this out merely to indicate that the Community Development Board has certainly succeeded in its aim. I want to say to this House this afternoon that in view of the shortage of funds for the provision of housing, the Community Development Board in particular will have a bigger task to perform. In the case of Newlands in Pretoria, provision has been made for the middle income group. This group is not eligible for the funds of the Housing Commission. People with an income of between R651 and R1 250 per month may now apply for residential plots here. Therefore that need, too, is being met. In spite of negative criticism on the part of the public, it is with profound thanks and appreciation that one takes cognizance of this. We must take note of the acute shortage of residential plots for these people. More than 600 applications were received for 218 plots. Therefore we shall certainly have to make use of the private sector as well; they will have to be involved in the provision of services and will have to undertake the development in conjunction with the department.

Mr. Speaker, to what clause of the amending Bill is the hon. member speaking? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Witbank may proceed.

The department also brought building societies into the picture. In the case of Tygerdal in the Cape, 80 premises were made available to building societies and 25 at Garsfontein in Pretoria. All were developed. This proves, therefore, that action is needed in that sphere as well. The Community Development Board will also have to give serious consideration to bringing utility companies into the picture to a greater extent in order to meet the need for housing in our country.

In addition, the Land Tenure Board is now to fall away. It is to be appreciated that the people who have served on the Land Tenure Board over the years and have acquired knowledge and experience in that regard will not be included in the Community Development Board. As far as the purchase of land in the name of the State is concerned, the Land Tenure Board now deals with up to R20 million every year. Over the past 5 years more than R78 million has been spent on the purchase of State land. Therefore we are dealing here with a board which will play a role of increasing importance in the future as well.

As regards the appointment of people to that board, I wish to suggest that we appoint experts to serve on the board and the commitees as well. Provision is being made in the composition of the Housing Commission to involve people with knowledge and expertise in this particular sphere. The legislation before us does not indicate that this will necessarily lead to an increase in the number of members of the board. It only provides for an increase in the number of members of the board. With a view to saving I suggest that appraisers, too, be appointed to the board, even if only in a temporary capacity, because over a period of 12 months the department has paid R490 000 to private appraisers in order to value State land. In the subsequent six months a further R413 000 was paid to private appraisers.

Provision is also being made in the composition of the Housing Commission for people of colour, and I referred specifically this afternoon to the fact that the Community Development Board serves the community as a whole. They are responsible for the development of the residential areas of virtually all race groups and they play a role in almost every local management. I therefore wish to suggest that we consult people of colour, too, as regards the composition of this board, even if only in an advisory capacity, although in my opinion we in this country have for too long prepared the recipe, purchased the ingredients and prepared the dish, and then told the people of colour in this country to eat it. There is a member of the Housing Commission representing Asian, the Coloured and the Black communities and I therefore wish to suggest that the hon. the Minister will also consider appointing members of the above race groups to the Community Development Board so that they may take cognizance of what is being done in their various communities in their own interests.

I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the hon. member for Witbank did a great deal of research into the subject he discussed, and it was a pleasure to listen to him. I know him as one who usually prepares himself thoroughly when he is going to take part in a debate. As far as the final part of the hon. member’s speech is concerned, I wish to say on behalf of this side of the House that we, too, accept the reality of South Africa. We accept that there was a diversity of population groups here and that in dealing with problems of this particular nature, this must be taken into account in such a way that the interests of any specific group are not prejudiced.

We on this side of the House support this Bill. I should just like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he could not elaborate a little further on the composition of the board. Perhaps he could tell us why the board has to be enlarged and what the composition of the board will eventually be. In the nature of the matter, boards established by the Government are a very important part of the State administration and the members of each and every board are just as much the object of the public scrutiny as we who are in public life. We therefore take it for granted that the hon. the Deputy Minister, whom I know to be a reasonable man, will appoint experts to this board, people who know their subject.

Last but not least, our best wishes accompany those who will be appointed to this board. Naturally we shall take very careful note of the work they do in future.

Mr. Speaker, the late Senator Langenhoven said that one could not even satisfy 17 people out of 7 000. However, it seems to me as if the hon. the Deputy Minister is succeeding in satisfying 167 hon. members of this House by means of this legislation. Thus far there has not been a single word of criticism of this Bill.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister himself explained, the legislation under discussion stems from the rationalization programme of the Public Service. In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Rissik, I just want to point out that the reason for the enlargement of the board is that two boards are now being combined and that the functions of two boards will in future be performed by a single board. From that point of view the legislation under discussion must of course be welcomed. It is clear that it will streamline matters to a greater extent and will also expedite the decision-making process. As regards the appointment of the Standing Committees and the granting to them of a certain degree of discretion, viz. that the decision of such a committee may not be altered by the board except with the concurrence of the Director-General and other who may be involved, it is evident that in fact, such a Standing Committee will make final decisions and in so doing will also expedite decision-making processes.

In particular I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the provisions incorporated in clause 5 and clause 7. In both cases the issue is the determining of a quorum. Under clause 5 a quorum for a meeting of the board will be four members instead of the present three members. Clause 7 also sets the quorum in the case of the executive committee at four members. It is therefore clear, in my opinion, that the executive committee will consist of a smaller number of members than the full board. That being so, I wish to suggest that consideration be given to setting the quorum at a higher number of members in the case of the board. The full board comprises 12 members. Therefore, when a quorum consists of four members, it means that only one-third of the members of the board have to be present to make a quorum. I wish to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider whether this number is not perhaps too low. I propse that he considers increasing the number.

Then, too, I should just like to refer to clause 14, in terms of which the powers of the board are extended. As I have already said, this board which is now to be established, will perform the function of two boards. I therefore think that this will expedite considerably the process of decision-making. I therefore take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned by other hon. members, a great portion of this Bill is taken up by generally updating terminology.

However, there are certain aspects that I believe require a little probing. In clause 3 there is a substantial increase in the number of members of the board, namely 7 to 12. The Community Development Board has been in existence for a long time, and I would rather have thought that a major portion of their work has already been completed. But now, when one would anticipate that the work should be becoming less, we are almost doubling the size of the board. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us a fairly comprehensive reason for such a substantial increase in the membership of the board.

Clause 4 is a clause that rather intrigues me in that it seems to be a most unusual sort of clause. It provides that if a member of the board should “seek election” or “attempt to have himself nominated” he would be removed from the board. This seems to be a totally new principle involving people to coming onto boards. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that in respect of State employees, should they put themselves forward for nomination and are nominated, they have to relinquish their posts. In respect of people who are serving on the boards of statutory bodies, and this was something about which there was a lot of discussion a couple of years ago, a person who is elected to a public office in the House of Assembly or in a provincial council would be removed from his post on the board. That is sensible and nobody can quarrel with that, because apart from any other consideration, he would be infringing the convention or law to the effect that one does not hold two offices of profit under the State. However, this particular proposed amendment is something which is not in the same category as that. It is quite different, because the clause quite clearly states “if he seeks election” or if he “attempts to have himself nominated”. This is quite a different thing, because in this instance one must define what is “seek” and what is “an attempt”. With due respect, I believe that from a legal point of view these are too all embracing types of expressions. Whilst there may be a good reason—and I believe there is a good reason—for ensuring that the Group Areas Board is depoliticized or not politically orientated, I feel that the wording used is rather unfortunate in that any person who was unseated from a board as a consequence of these expressions would be in a good position to contest his un-seating. The expressions are far too wide. What constitutes an attempt? Is it a question of somebody saying to a friend of his: What is the possibility of my being considered as a candidate? Is that “an attempt”? Normally in law, as I understand it, one tries to get a definition which cannot easily be upset and which clearly defines what was intended by the legislators.

Why do you not move an amendment?

Wait a minute. I shall come to that. I am afraid this does not do so adequately. I intend moving amendments in this regard during the Committee Stage which will not upset what I believe is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister in respect of these provisions but which will, I believe, remove the difficulties I see in the Bill as it is at present.

In so far as clause 6 is concerned, here again I have a small problem. This clause makes provision for full-time and part-time members and the remuneration to be paid to them. In this regard my biggest query relates partly to certain provisions of the Act that are not being amended. I refer to the wording that is used which is being aggravated by the amendment contained in this clause. The proposed new section 6(1) reads, inter alia, as follows—

Here we have a mandatory and a permissive provision applying to the same person under the same circumstances, which to me is quite illogical. This is not the fault of the hon. the Deputy Minister because, as far as I can gather, this provision has been in the Act since 1966. Where one has a question of remuneration and allowances that may differ from person to person in respect of full-time and part-time members, the differences are obviously a very important factor. I feel that these provisions should have been amended some time ago. I have an amendment in respect of this clause as well which I wish to move at the Committee Stage. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will appreciate the fact that I am not nit-picking. It is simply that these provisions do not make sense to me as they stand at the moment. I do not see how we can have the mandatory and the permissive in the same clause.

In clause 14 there is reference to the taking over of movable property. I accept the fact that this may well be necessary but I would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister would give me an example of the type of movable property that he has in mind because I find it a little difficult at this stage to envisage quite what he has in mind. I am quite sure that he has something positive in mind but having listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s introductory speech and having studied these provisions, I cannot quite follow his intentions in this regard.

Bearing in mind the points that I have made, we are quite happy to support the principles contained in this Bill. We would, however, appreciate answers to certain questions. I want also to express the hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give favourable consideration to the amendments we shall be moving. In fact, if he would like advance copies of them, I can let him have them now.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow on from the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member is being somewhat difficult with all the amendments that he wants to move, but at least he does not look very aggressive. Possibly the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to accommodate him during the Committee Stage.

I find this amending Bill a striking example of rationalization in the Public Service, as other hon. members have also mentioned here. By the way, we talk about rationalization so often and I think it could be useful if we looked at the definition of the word once again and how it fits in to what we are trying to do here today. A rationalist is a person who is led by his intelligence in everything that he does and rationalization is the action of bringing this in line with reason. If we were not conducting such a peaceful debate on the Bill, we could most probably, with a view to what happened a few weeks ago, have spoken enjoyably about all the things that the definition can mean.

Why do you not go to Rustenburg tonight?

Therefore, if rationalization in practice, in the Government’s administration would mean, inter alia, that components in the Public Service that fulfil certain functions, are now being grouped together, by passing these amendments we will be succeeding par excellence in bringing this action into line with reason.

We may do well to look at what the position was prior to rationalization. In this specific case—it has a bearing on this amendment—first of all we had the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. This was the department that controlled State land and it was the central point at which the requirements that existed in this regard were correlated. Secondly, we had the Department of Public Works which exercised control over the accommodation of the State land and properties. Thirdly we had the old Department of Community Development that controlled the land for township development, the use of land in general and land for housing purposes in particular.

First of all I must say that the officials who manned this department and are still doing so, have succeeded very well over a period of many years in doing what was expected of them, in spite of the fact that the red tape and the complications which may sometimes seem to outsiders to be unnecessary red tape in order to move from point A to point B, probably gave the officials grey hairs too. They did an excellent job in spite of this conglomerated situation of several departments that existed and definitely lent itself to a conflict of interests between departments. In the nature of things these officials are only human too; after all we are not dealing here with a videotape that is set in motion by the mere touch of a button and does things in this way.

I believe that it was not always easy to apply overhead control, because after all we were dealing with diverse facets even though they fell within the same problem situation. One must also concede that various people implementing the law could interpret it in various ways—I am not even talking now about those to whom the laws apply.

If we take the problem of red tape a little further, it brings us to the time, manpower and money-wasting effects thereof. After all, we know that time costs money. I think that we would gasp for breath if we could do a calculation today in order to establish what red tape costs us in rands and cents. If these amendments therefore mean that there will be a short cut between points A and B, we should definitely welcome it.

But have we saved money?

If we have brought together on paper those things that belong together, this is the first step in giving statutory effect to it, because in future two statutory bodies, viz. the Community Development Board and the Land Tenure Board, will function within one department. Furthermore this will mean that two sets of officials will be grouped together. We believe that this will achieve efficiency and that it will also be possible to spell out departmental policy very clearly.

The board that is to be established will be able to function properly from the head office only if there is effective co-operation with the regional offices. In this regard increasing the number of members of the board to a maximum of 12 is creating the opportunity to act knowledgeably over a broad spectrum, particularly if experts can be appointed on the subcommittees on the regional level, which is now being requested, in order to advise the regional offices and the head office. In this regard one involuntarily thinks of the tremendous headaches that accompanied land purchases for the purpose of consolidation for instance. Representation of farmers on the board that is to be established, and possibly a subcommittee for agricultural land, will be of invaluable importance in regulating matters in this regard. I allege that the time lapse between the origin of the idea that a particular piece of land should be purchased for consolidation purposes and the time when the owner of the land ultimately pockets the money, is now being decreased. Thus far this has been a painful experience, but it is being made less painful by the amendment that is before us at the moment.

I am not referring in particular to the lack of funds here. There are various reasons for the lack of funds, and I think people accept this when it is explained to them that land purchases cannot take place rapidly due to the lack of funds. I am actually concerned about the red tape that gives rise to delays.

I am pleased that we were able to pass legislation earlier this session with regard to valuers, by means of which a greater degree of reliability and integrity has been granted to valuers and to what they do, because valuations also lend themselves to disputes which cause valuable time to be lost.

I want to quote an example in this regard. The post office for instance, is in a position to make its own decisions with regard to land purchases. The post office first has to establish what the requirements are and then decide to buy a specific piece of land for the purpose of expansion. Under the old dispensation, if the land belonged to the State, the post office had to go to the Community Development Board which in turn would make a specific valuation of the land. The next step was submitting the case to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, which similarly obtained a valuation. Surely it could easily happen that there could be a considerable difference between the two valuations so that everything would grind to a halt there and then if time ran out. But after passing the Bill which is now before the House, one board and one department will be able to decide on this. Then the post office would first have to decide whether the site should be purchased or not. If passing this Bill would therefore contribute towards creating an instrument that would make it possible to bring about more efficient, more rapid decision-making and action due to better co-operation between the head office and regional offices, and in doing so if we could put our scarce manpower to better use, we would have succeeded in giving the better administration of the country and good government a push in the right direction. This will demand a great deal from the officials, but I nevertheless believe that they will do so with ease and that they will do so correctly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. member for their contributions and for their support of this particularly important amending Bill. I shall try to answer most of the hon. members’ questions.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked a question about the increase from R5 000 to R10 000, as contained in clause 13. This deals with the question of the repayment of ex gratia payments. According to the Exchequer and Audit Act, this has now been fixed at a maximum of R10 000. The aim of the amendment is therefore merely to bring the Act into line with the Exchequer and Audit Act. Should the sum exceed R10 000, the permission of Parliament would have to be obtained in any event.

The hon. member also put a question about clause 4. Factors that can eliminate a member of the board as such are also at issue here. I think that basically the hon. member for Umbilo has more or less the same problem, viz. that the clause also makes provision for an attempt to eliminate a member as a member of the board. The hon. member said that he had a problem with the legal aspect because “an attempt” is difficult to define in legislation. We are all people who are involved in politics, and I should say that one is dealing with a special situation here, and I think the hon. member will understand if I explain the background of it to him. We must bear in mind that what is at issue here is the takeover of the members of another board who were elected to that position under specific circumstances. I think the essence of the problem of the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is that the old Land Tenure Board, the functions of which are now being taken over, consisted of part-time members, and who are those part-time members? They are members of the general public, i.e. ordinary, active farmers, because they are people who can make a specialized contribution towards the valuation of land par excellence, particularly when it comes to rural property. The activities of the council were such that such temporary members had to serve on the board. Therefore one can understand that if such a member were to participate in politics and even allow himself merely to be nominated by his party—therefore not by way of an official nomination by a nomination court—in the nature of things that man would be involved and all sorts of embarrassing situations could arise. In terms of this legislation the hon. the Minister would be able to say that under the specific circumstances he should not appoint such a member to that board. Therefore one is dealing here with an entirely different type of member to those who served on the Community Development Board, because they were usually permanent members.

The hon. member for Witbank spoke about the essential aim of this legislation in particular, i.e. the rationalization according to which a great deal of red tape can be eliminated. The hon. member also referred to the activities of the existing Community Development Board. He pointed out that the board is not involved in the purchase, sale and negotiation of Government property only, but that it is also actively and intensively involved in the development of property. The hon. member memtioned Atlantis, inter alia, the development of group areas, etc. Therefore, this board is carrying out intensive work on the development of Government property in all spheres. That is why we consider this board an absolutely specialist organization in the sphere of this type of transaction. The aim is to pool the intensive knowledge of the two boards with regard to various matters, and to form one board. Therefore, knowledge and skill can be pooled in one board, and in terms of this provision the powers of the board can therefore be increased.

The hon. member for Rissik put certain questions to me. His questions also had a bearing on the composition of the board. He asked that the board should consist of knowledgeable people. I agree with him that this should be the case. I think the hon. member is particularly interested in group areas, and I think that the Community Development Board has done very good, praiseworthy work to date, particularly in connection with the development of group areas, as well as in regard to the implementation of policy with regard to group areas. As I explained a moment ago, we simply want to incorporate the Land Tenure Board, which acted on behalf of the Government as an agent for the purchase of properties. Some of those members are temporary members, most of whom are farmers. Therefore we shall be bringing about more specialization in this board.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North asked a very important question. It had a bearing on the question of the quorum. He had difficulty with it. We are dealing here with a board that proceeds with its work on a daily basis. Clause 7 makes provision for the decisions of the committees to be subject to a decision of the board. The powers of the board are therefore being increased in order to enable it to exercise better control over the activities of committees. Therefore we felt that the quorum should not be higher than four members. The board must move across the length and breadth of the country a great deal in order to carry out on-the-spot inspections. Therefore if one makes a quorum too high, the mobility of the board may be adversely affected as a result.

I now turn to the hon. member for Umbilo. I think I have already replied to his problem with regard to the elimination of the person who tries to move into the political sphere. The hon. member also put a question about clause 6. He has indicated that he will move an amendment to it and he has given me a copy of the proposed amendment. We can probably deal with this further during the Committee Stage. I think the hon. member’s problem is that he wants permanent members only on such a board. He says that he does not find it acceptable that the board will be composed of permanent members and temporary members. The temporary members are those that we have taken over from the old Land Tenure Board. These people are already specialists in certain spheres. The composition of the two boards forms the basis of the new board. Therefore we must make special provision in the legislation for temporary members. Consequently there may be a difference in the salary and remuneration of members. The one member will be a temporary member and the other a permament member incorporated in the Public Service. In the nature of things their salaries will then differ and therefore the Minister of Finance must be consulted on the salaries from time to time. However, we can look at the amendment of the hon. member in more detail during the Committee Stage.

Finally, there was the contribution of the hon. member for Rustenburg. He, too, pointed out the necessity of rationalization and the efficiency that would emanate from the amalgamation of the boards. We have a great deal of confidence in the new board. We believe that it will be able to act as a specialized body in such a way that the Minister will be able to transfer many of his powers to the board in terms of this Bill so that it can deal with transactions on a daily basis in order to eliminate a great deal of red tape.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The State Land Disposal Act, 1961, provides that the State President may sell, exchange, donate or lease State land on behalf of the State, on the terms and conditions as he may deem fit. The State President has transferred this authority to the Minister of Community Development, whilst the Act also makes provision for the Minister in his turn being able to delegate powers to the Administrator of a province or to officials in the service of the State.

Provision is now being made for the State President to transfer the authority over State land to the Community Development Council as well. In the rationalized Department of Community Development, the Community Development Board will have a much more important role to play. In future that board will be responsible for obtaining property required for public purposes, and when such land is no longer required for State purposes, it is essential, for the sake of healthy administrative practice, that the authority over it should be vested in the board. Of course, this amendment does not affect cases where a provincial administration has been empowered by delegation to alienate land or to lease it.

†The requirement in terms of section 2(4) of the principal Act, namely that particulars of every sale, exchange or donation of State land be laid upon the Table within one month after the commencement of Parliament each year, is now done away with, as the provision is now considered superfluous now that the discretionary powers in this connection are vested in an autonomous statutory body.

The Cape Town Foreshore Board, which was established in terms of the Cape Town Foreshore Act, 1950, was abolished on 1 April 1979, and the land owned by the board at that stage became State land in terms of section 19(2) of the said Act and was made subject to the provisions of the State Land Disposal Act. Most of the provisions of the Cape Town Foreshore Act are no longer in force and, as the land in question is now being dealt with under the State Land Disposal Act, the logical thing to do is to incorporate a provision as set out in clause 3 of the Bill. Hon. members will note that it follows the wording of the existing subsection 19(2A), which is now repealed. It is the intention to eventually repeal the Cape Town Foreshore Act, 1950.

*In conclusion I should just like to point out that the rationalization of the Public Service in so far as it has a bearing on the particular functions and responsibilities that fall under the Department of Community Development, is at the basis of the proposed amendments. For that reason, and also because the proposed amendments are essential for the good administration of the Department of Community Development, I trust that hon. members will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, depending upon the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the Second Reading debate, we on these benches are prepared to support this Bill. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us in his short speech, the Bill is bound up with the legislation that we have just dealt with and which seeks to establish a more effective and professional Community Development Board by giving it more status and certain extra powers. Of course, we have to see this Bill in that context.

It is, I believe, also appropriate to highlight the clause dealing with the Foreshore Act. The foreshore was, of course, a great concept in South African development. At the time the development of the foreshore was criticized by many people, but it reminded us of the fact that mankind has to share each others expertise, because Dutch engineers were brought in to help us reclaim that great tract of land. Even today many people are still critical of that great development, but it is easy to be critical of things on the basis of hindsight. At the time the development of the foreshore showed great vision and was an example of great leadership in town planning. I believe that Cape Town is today still reaping the benefit of it. That does not mean, however, that with the advanced knowledge of what central city development entails and how successful it could well be, the foreshore should not have been developed somewhat differently from what it is today. Clearly, the City of Cape Town is very pleased that the sale of remaining pieces of land on the foreshore will now come into the orbit of the State Land Disposal Act.

There is, however, one clause in this Bill which gives us considerable cause for concern. In parliamentary terms one wonders whether it is not indeed the real principle of this legislation. Because we are in some doubt about whether it is in fact, we are, at this stage anyway, still withholding our opposition to the Bill.

We are elected to this Parliament, and a tradition of Parliament which has been established over many centuries is that we as the representatives of the people who elect us have a responsibility to control State funds and the exercise of the executive’s power in that regard. In terms of the State Land Disposal Act we have had control, but in terms of the amending Bill we will no longer have control over a very important function of Parliament as an institution. That is the right to know what happens to State lands, to know who buys it and how it is disposed of. As I see it, we are here in Parliament to represent our people, to pass legislation and to control State expenditure. Over many centuries a system of control has evolved. We have to have a system because we know that people are human, that they are weak, that they are fallible, and that Parliament is there to exercise control over people who may become greedy or inefficient, and over people who may abuse their powers. We are all human, and it is precisely for that very reason that Parliament has developed as an institution. Parliament originally controlled the power of the king. Now it controls the power of the executive.

This Bill seeks to take away from this Parliament what, I believe, is a fundamental right. Furthermore we live in a capitalist society, and in a sense our wealth is vested in land and in the right of freehold ownership of land. If we are going to allow the State not to report to Parliament on that very fundamental issue, I believe we are not being true to the real traditions of parliamentary government.

That is quite correct.

I went to the Clerk of the Papers of this House to ask him for a copy of the document which has to be submitted to Parliament in terms of the Act. In this respect I should like to quote from the Act, section 2(4) of which reads as follows—

I do not believe that this is an onerous responsibility which is placed on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. It is not as though he has to prepare a bulky and special volume of information. If his department is properly run there is in any event a proper record of State-owned land that is sold. I have here in my hand a copy of that very document. It is in fact kept by the Clerk of the Papers as a manuscript which is available to hon. members of this House. Relatively speaking it comprises only a few pages—14 in this instance—and on each page is recorded particulars in connection with approximately 10 pieces of land that has been sold. It does in fact make very interesting reading matter. I read through it noting the prices at which land was sold. I also ’phoned one or two valuers in two or three of the centres in South Africa where such land was sold. According to them the land was sold at market-related prices. One of the valuers emphasized that the land he had valued had been sold at a very fair price. That is the sort of reply one wants.

The information given in this specific list includes reference to the town or magisterial district and province in which the land is situated, a description of the land, the area of the land, as well as the price of the land, to whom it was alienated, and also some remarks, e.g. “land required for road purposes”. I do not believe that that is unreasonable for Parliament to expect this information. I do not want to reflect upon the undoubted abilities of the new Community Development Board. I am sure that they will be men and women of integrity, although I do not know whether there will be any women on the board. I believe they will be appointed because of their special skills and special abilities. However, I also want every member of this Parliament, no matter of which political party he may be a member or to which party caucus he belongs, to know that we are dealing with an issue here which concerns every single member of this House. It is every hon. member’s fundamental responsibility to the people of South Africa and to the taxpayers of South Africa to see to it that we do not discard our responsibilities. If one goes through this list, it actually provides some interesting information. For example, a Mr. P. T. C. du Plessis and about 30 other people bought some land from a certain commonage. He paid only R63 for 15 ha. And so too did a Mr. De Klerk, a Mr. Schoeman, etc. This is interesting information. I am not sure whether the P. T. C du Plessis mentioned in this list is the same person as the member of this House with that name. [Interjections.]

Do not be sarcastic.

Hon. members in that far corner of the House should appreciate a sense of humour at some stage of their lives. The point is that here we have the opportunity to have a look at what is happening to State land.

After the next election members of the NP are going to need that land.

I really want to make an earnest plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister as many of his responsibilities are non-political. I believe that the matter I am now raising is not really a party political issue. I believe it concerns the very functions of Parliament, for which, I am sure, every single one of us has a great respect. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously to consider dropping this particular clause. Obviously we cannot move an amendment to negative the clause, but we shall certainly be opposing it in Committee Stage unless the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us a good reason why we should not.

In our view the Bill is an uncontroversial Bill. We welcome the provisions relating to the Foreshore Act and we are also happy with the other technical amendments. But we are very, very concerned about clause 2, which we believe is, a very serious undermining of what I regard as an important right of Parliament, i.e. to know which State land has been disposed of and at what price, in what area and to whom. I know that many people will see something sinister in this, but I do not believe that one need necessarily see it in that way. I think it is most probably motivated by a sense of enthusiasm to try to give as much recognition of and support for the Community Development Board. But I do know that some people have already suggested that this may be an attempt to cover up sales of land if the State does not want it to become known. However, I shall talk more about that in the Committee Stage.

So, while we support this Bill, we will be listening with interest to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say in reply to the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said that the official Opposition gave this Bill its qualified support, depending on what the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply would be. Then he produced certain reports which had to be tabled in the past in terms of this legislation and gave the impression that in future certain information might be withheld. In future, if subsection (4) of the original Act were to be deleted, reports like these would no longer be necessary. I do not know about the particular case the hon. member referred to, but I want to tell him that if he knows anything about the activities of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure he will be aware that this is not the first time odd pieces of land have been offered for sale to farmers. This happened for example in the Vaalharts scheme. Everything is “completely above board”; there is nothing wrong with this. Why is the hon. member now trying to give the impression that something untoward happened? There is nothing sinister about the deletion of this subsection. There is a great deal of other legislation on the Statute Book dealing with the management of State land, and in connection with which it is no longer necessary to submit a report to Parliament within a month of the commencement of the session. If I am not mistaken this is also the case with Agricultural Credit. In future this will not be necessary. I hope in the course of my speech to point out that the functions and the responsibilities for which provision is being made in this legislation are of such a nature that one can in fact have confidence in the Community Development Board.

Why must it not be submitted to Parliament?

Why should it be? I have just told the hon. member that there are precedents for its no longer being necessary and I do not know why the hon. member specifically wants it inserted in this legislation. If this is not laid down in other legislation, why should it be laid down in this legislation?

But this legislation concerns State land.

But the other land is also State land. [Interjections.] The principal Act of 1961 provided the manner in which the State President could dispose of certain land. Of course this was done through the mediation of the Minister of Agriculture. However, the Minister of Agriculture, in turn, did not have any say over the land that was under the control and the management of, for example, the Department of Transport. That land was the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and it still is. If land was at the disposal of provincial administrations, the State President had no say either. This is land which is usually controlled by means of a provincial ordinance. Section 7 of the principal Act also provides that the Minister may delegate his powers in terms of the Act to an Administrator or an official in the service of the State, to a board or a body, including the power to lease such land. The State President therefore had the power to delegate his authority as did the Minister concerned, the Minister of Agriculture. I refer again to section 6 and 7 of the principal Act. What is now being contemplated?

†The Minister of Community Development will now fulfil the functions previously fulfilled by the Minister of Agriculture and the development of the various group areas in South Africa for the various race groups is the function of the Community Development Board. One of its functions is also to assist in and control the disposal of affected properties. All the objects and general powers of the Community Development Board can be found in section 15 of the Community Development Act of 1966. We have just dealt with amending legislation in this regard. It is quite obvious that the Community Development Board has continually to dispose of in one way or another of land. It also has to acquire land regularly. Furthermore it is a statutory board with its own autonomy. In his introductory speech the hon. the Deputy Minister envisaged that the board will fulfil an increasingly important function.

*In the discussion prior to this Bill we also heard from the hon. member for Witbank what an important function the Community Development Board has thus far fulfilled. Consequently I do not wish to elaborate on this.

†Therefore, to clothe this board with further powers is only a logical and practical step. I think it will only improve the smooth running of community development. I also think that all race groups can benefit from this forward move. The provision whereby it has to report to Parliament within one month of the commencement of a session is therefore no longer necessary. It is also no real departure from an important principle because I have already pointed out that in terms of other legislation it no longer has to be done.

*There are no sweeping amendments to this legislation and it surely cannot be of a fundamental nature. One would therefore expect hon. members on that side of the House to support this legislation without qualification.

The remaining provisions of the Cape Town Foreshore Act—very few still remain—are now being incorporated into this legislation in terms of clause 3. Since April 1979 the land previously under the control of the Cape Town Foreshore Board has been in the hands of the State. The Cape Town Foreshore Board was abolished on 1 April 1979. What will now happen is that the land controlled by the abolished board will become the responsibility of the Minister of Community Development. He shall deal with it in the same way as the Cape Town Foreshore Board did. Again there is therefore no fundamental change.

We on this side support the Bill because we are of the opinion that there are good reasons for it. In the first place the Community Development Board or a committee of the board will now have further powers of delegation to be able to deal with certain State land. This is an excellent board and its work is basically for the good of all population groups. We have confidence in the board’s integrity and in the seriousness with which it does its work. We therefore have no hesitation in vesting it with these additional powers.

It is also true that all the functions performed by the board—and this is my reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North—must be carried out with the approval of the Minister of Community Development. In this connection I refer to section 15 of the Community Development Act. The hon. member should read section 15 of that Act. In the legislation just dealt with, there is an amendment to this section. If the hon. member reads that section he will see that nothing can be done without the approval of the Minister, because throughout the section one finds the words “with the approval of the Minister”.

But he is not the House of Assembly.

The expression “with the approval of the Minister” appears no less than three times in this section. The hon. member must listen now; I shall explain it to him. Ministerial control is therefore present.

Connie Mulder also had control.

Every step taken by the Community Development Board—the hon. member should know this—or every decision taken by it, can be debated in this House if the hon. members consider it objectionable. It can, for example, be debated under the Vote of the hon. the Minister. There is therefore nothing sinister or drastic about this legislation. There is proper ministerial control and the hon. the Minister may be called to account by this House for the actions of the Community Development Board. I therefore take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for De Kuilen and I feel he argued the matter thoroughly. We on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North raised some doubts regarding the functions of these boards and their right to exist. There is no doubt in my mind that the functions of this board—as is the case with all other statutory boards—do come to the attention of Parliament. When a board does its work properly, nothing need be concealed. Where irregularities do take place, I am certain they will come to light. If we are unanimous on this matter, we give those persons serving on these specific boards the impression that we have confidence in them. My experience is that the hon. the Minister and the Government have the necessary confidence in the people appointed. I also feel that no Government will appoint people to serve on a board who will cause that Government embarrassment. We on this side of the House therefore support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the support of this Bill by the hon. member for Rissik and his colleagues. I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Rissik and tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North that the board which has to decide on the disposal of State land, will be a responsible board. This board, which is now to be extended, is going to deal very thoroughly with the disposal of State land. The board will have all the necessary information on the land at its disposal, and as a result will be in a better position than any other outside organization to decide on the purpose for which the land will be alienated or used. I endorse the idea that should malpractices in respect of the alienation of land be suspected, this should be broached in the Vote of the hon. the Minister. However, I wish to confirm my confidence in the ability of the board to decide for itself on the alienation of State land.

The object of this amending legislation is to adjust to the rationalization and to fulfil the needs and requirements of the time.

Clause 1 provides that the power of alienation in terms of the provision of section 3(4) of the Agricultural Holdings (Transvaal) Registration Act, 1919 (Act No. 22 of 1919) and section 78(3) and (4) of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 1965 (Ordinance No. 25 of 1965) (Transvaal), may now also be delegated to the Minister of Community Development or the board. In other words, such land may now be dealt with in the same way as any other State land which may be disposed of in terms of the Act of 1961. The Agricultural Holdings (Transvaal) Registration Act—quite an interesting Act for those days—dealt with a principle which still applies today in respect of the subdivision and disposal of agricultural land. When that Act was debated, it was pointed out that it concerned a tendency which had developed in the Transvaal at that time. People were moving to the towns, where there were job opportunities. They wanted to live nearer the towns, but still have a farming practice, because on the one hand, it was a cheap way of living, and on the other, because this would still offer them the freedom of nature as well as sound, healthy recreation.

A farmer loves his little patch of land.

Yes, that it true. This shows their close connection with the land from the earliest times. However, it was the country people who moved to the cities to find employment, but were still bound to the soil and wanted to remain bound to it. This is a principle which the then Government and the province understood well, and indeed encouraged. Then a problem arose. When a piece of land was divided into more than 15 units, it was regarded as township development in terms of town planning schemes. When land was divided, provision had also to be made for sufficient open spaces, public buildings, roads, etc. However, the registration of this agricultural land was never recognized in terms of the town planning schemes. When the Act was submitted at that time, it was proposed that the agricultural smallholdings should be more or less half a morgen to an acre in size. However, some people felt that it should be two morgen, but many argued that that was too large. It was said that that would mean that too few people could be settled in the vicinity of job opportunities. It was then decided that in terms of that Act it would be one morgen. Land could therefore not be divided into plots smaller than one morgen. That Act was passed in 1919 to effect registration of those plots or smallholdings situated near to job opportunities. So much for that old agricultural legislation.

I have already referred to clause 2 and replied to the points raised in that regard.

Clause 3 concerns the Cape Town Foreshore Act, which was repealed in 1979. The single provision which remained of that Act, must necessarily be contained in one piece of legislation, rather than having it in a separate piece of legislation, detached from all other provisions relating to land transactions. The aim of this legislation is to empower the Minister to determine the purchase, sale, lease or donation of land through the Community Development Board or one of its committees. I think that it is a very sound step to bring all these aspects together in one piece of legislation in terms of the rationalization process. To me this is a completely logical outcome of the previous piece of legislation, and I therefore take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches shall be supporting this Bill, as I think any rational people must if they want to fit in with rationalization.

We do, however, also have the same reservation about clause 2 that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North commented upon. One might also say that a similar reservation could apply to clause 5, involving the removal of “with approval by resolution of the Senate and the House of Assembly”. I appreciate the fact that that would have had to be altered in any case, because there is no longer a Senate, but it is similar in that it removes the necessity for parliamentary sanction. In the one case, however, it merely relates to leasing as opposed to selling—and I do not feel that one can take the same exception to that—and also generally to local authorities and bodies rather than individuals. So I do not have any problem at all with clause 5.

As regards clause 2, I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North does have a fair case, because there are so many accusations made that the functions of Parliament are being removed from Parliament and put in the hands of boards and other statutory bodies.

Quangos.

Yes, if one wishes to call them that. This is happening on an increasing scale and I am quite sure that this particular problem could well be overcome. As regards the tabling of information in Parliament, I imagine that one cannot very well debate it when it is tabled, because the actions will already have taken place, the matter will have been dealt with. I rather suspect that the Community Development Board, being a statutory body, will have to issue an annual report.

That is the point.

The assurance I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give is that in the annual report of the board there will be a schedule reflecting the sales. I can see no good reason why this should not be practicable. I appreciate the desirability of streamlining efforts. In all Government activities there is far too much red tape and rigmarole anyway. I can therefore understand and appreciate the desirability of a bit of streamlining. I do believe, however, that hon. members have a right to know what is going on. So far as we in these benches are concerned, we would be prepared to accept this, providing we could have an assurance that there will be a report on this in the annual report made available to Parliament, as is the case with most of these boards. With those few words we are happy to support the Bill in broad principle and hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us an assurance in respect of clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the hon. member for Umbilo, as he took the part of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The hon. member for Umbilo, in a very levelheaded way, pointed out a possible problem, which one can appreciate. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, on the other hand, waved this document around, which, he said, did not require much work and should therefore continue to be tabled. He emphasized the importance of that document. If I were to ask the hon. member whether he had ever consulted that document in the past to see what transactions had been entered into, I think that his answer would undoubtedly be “no”. However, he is using that document to extract a little political poison from this Bill, a Bill which otherwise can surely be supported in every respect. This is completely unnecessary. Then the hon. member read a name from the document to sow a little more suspicion. I really think that when the hon. member points out how concise that document is, he should bear this in mind with a view to his own speeches.

I wish to say briefly that that document presupposes the keeping of a register, which requires a lot of administrative work. If the board had been affected by the abolition of this document as far as its decision-making function is concerned, the hon. member would have had a case, but his is merely for the information of the board. If, as a good representative—and I hope that he is a good representative—the hon. member had an interest in a transaction he would have ample opportunity, just like all the other good representatives here, to inquire from the department in respect of which land and at what price transactions had been undertaken. I therefore think that the hon. member has made no positive contribution to this debate.

What about District Six?

The hon. member is getting so carried away by legislation which does not belong in politics at all that he is even getting round to District Six. However, I leave the hon. member there.

This Bill is introducing a further refinement into the progress of rationalization, as the activities of the Community Development Board and those of the Land Tenure Board are being merged and will be dealt with by the former. However, it is not only the two boards as such, but also the supporting administrations which are being amalgamated. Such a step makes rationalization meaningful, as the officials and other skilled, professional and even administrative people may be brought together to serve on one board which deals with the purchase and sale of State land.

The administrative arm of the Land Tenure Board used to be nothing but the former Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, which had its headquarters in Pretona, with a branch office in Cape Town. The activities of the board were therefore centralized to a large extent. As against this, the Department of Community Development has eight branch offices, and therefore the activities of the Community Development Board are decentralized to such an extent that they can be performed much more efficiently. Therefore, if a need were to arise for a post office at any small town, such as Pofadder or Putsonderwater or wherever, it would not be necessary to come all the way from Pretoria or Cape Town to determine whether there is a site available and what its nature is. In terms of this legislation, knowledgeable people could be sent from any regional office of the Department of Community Development to determine whether a suitable site is available. They would also be able to make a site survey, and make a recommendation to the Community Development Board immediately.

A futher important principle which, I believe, we should take cognizance of, is that the Community Development Board has a decision-making function as well. Immediately after the necessary submissions, the board will be able to take a decision, and this could therefore shorten the whole administrative process. Because it is true that the purchase and alienation of State land took up a considerable amount of time in the past. By entrusting the decision-making function to the Community Development Board, this process will be shortened considerably. The committee system will be unique to the Community Development Board, and this will also help to shorten the process.

Then I have a final request which I should like to address to the hon. the Deputy Minister for his consideration. When the Community Development Board purchases land which includes agricultural land, in the case of a dam basin area, for example, it would be a good idea to consider giving the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries control over land of this nature at an early stage. My submission in this regard arises from cases which have occurred in the past. Land of this nature has often fallen into the hands of lessees in the past, people who could not operate under the supervision of knowledgeable people from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Often, too, long periods of time elapsed between the purchase of land and the transfer of that land to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Before it was further alienated, long periods of time often elapsed during which that land had to be leased to private people. Therefore I think it is necessary to give early consideration to the fact that before such land is transferred from the Department of Community Development to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, an administrative arrangement should be made for the supervision of land of that nature by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and its officials.

I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that it should be clearly understood at this stage that we cannot consider the two measures in isolation from each other. I believe that the Bill before us is the inevitable result of the previous Bill, of which we have just concluded the Second Reading.

Of course, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North gave us problems all the same, because of the fact that he used the kind of language which one does not normally like to hear when one is dealing with serious measures such as these. Otherwise the debate was conducted on a very high level.

As hon. members on the Government side have already indicated, the object of the legislation before us is to bring about uniformity in regard to land transactions. Therefore I think we can accept that now that the principle of the purchase of land, as contained in these two Bills, has been approved, we have finalized the arrangement of this aspect. For the first time, I believe, nearly all State land transactions are now concentrated in the hands of one single State Department. I believe that this is a summary of the objectives contained in the two Bills concerned.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and the hon. member for Umbilo indicated that they had problems with the deletion of section 2(4) of the principal Act, which contains a provision in respect of the tabling of a list of State land transactions to be made available to Parliament. Again I believe that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has not quite understood what the consequences of the approval of these two Bills are. What will happen in practice now? We are now engaged in rationalizing two Bills under two administrations with the power to deal with the land transactions under the control of the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board has been in existence for 27 years and undertakes a variety of transactions in South Africa. That board handles literally thousands of transactions every year. Now the activities in respect of other methods in regard to State land transactions are being added in the process. A tremendous list would have to be tabled. We feel that that would not be practical. For many reasons, as the hon. member for De Kuilen also pointed out, in the case of State land handled by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, one would in any case not necessarily have to make a list available. I respect the hon. member’s point of view, viz. that Parliament has the right to know what consequences the abolition of this arrangement may have. He says that in deleting this section, we are tampering with the principles of parliamentary supervision. I am quite prepared to concede that one could make an argument out of it. However, as hon. members ought to know, it is also customary for the Community Development Board to present a report to the Minister annually, and this is tabled with a list of transactions concluded throughout the year. So all transactions will be available. However, I want to concede that the details of the transactions, the particulars, as contained in the list to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg referred, would perhaps not be set out in exactly the same way as in that list. Should one need additional particulars whilst studying the list in the report of the Community Development Board, these would be available. Besides, it is a statutory body, and its activities and transactions are public knowledge, or could be made available. So that should solve the problem of the hon. member for Umbilo to a very large extent. I do not think the purpose of this amending Bill is what the hon. member thinks it is. There is no need for him to scrutinize it in order to see whether he cannot find a few irritating things here and there. The hon. member’s behaviour does not earn him any respect. After all, one should have some respect for the Opposition in this House. The hon. member does not earn any respect with the kind of language and insinuations he has used in regard to these matters. I am trying to argue with that hon. member about the facts of the matter in a rational and proper manner, and I am not looking for poison. We can argue with one another and join issue with one another when we are talking politics, but not when we are dealing with this kind of measure. I do not think it does the Opposition any credit when the hon. member avails himself of that kind of reasoning.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the replies that we have received from the hon. member for Fauresmith, the hon. member for De Kuilen and the hon. the Deputy Minister, are inadequate. We are dealing here with State land. We realize that the Community Development Board deals with several, even thousands of transactions. It is the sale of State land that is at issue here. This is a serious matter for us in this House. Our standpoint remains that with regard to this board, this provision should be laid down in legislation. I just want to point out that clause 18 of the Community Development Second Amendment Bill that we dealt with a moment ago, provides that section 25(1) of the principal Act will now read as follows—

Due to the fact that this legislation must link up with the legislation that we are discussing now, if the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to amend the provision that I have just quoted, in order that such a report will in fact include details of any State land that is alienated or sold, then we will be satisfied with it. Apart from the members of the Select Committee on State Land, hon. members are not going to undertake an investigation every year in order to establish which land has actually been sold or not. The important thing is—and I want to put this to the hon. member for Fauresmith—that that information is in fact available and it is already an important control measure with regard to the work of that board. That board is not sitting in heaven. It is sitting here in the real world of sin.

And you are the devil.

Possibly a temptation but not quite that bad! We believe that this Parliament should receive that information even if it is in the form of such a report. The hon. member for Fauresmith did not understand me at all. If it would require a great deal of work by the department and if the hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that it is going to take up a great deal of time and cost a great deal of money to submit this information to us then I could accept it.

It would require a great deal of time and money in order to keep such information up to date.

But the department should already have that information at its disposal. It is simple enough. It would be much cheaper to submit one copy of such a document to this Parliament than to have it included in the annual report and have hundreds of copies printed.

We still adhere to our standpoint. We are opposed to the deletion of this provision because in my opinion it is a parliamentary issue. It is not a party issue. As far as I am concerned it has a bearing on Parliament as an institution and the principle of parliamentary control over the actions of Ministers and how those Ministers dispose of the money of the people. It is our responsibility to keep an eye on this type of situation. I believe that the deletion of this provision will undermine the work that we as members of this Parliament are doing. We shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred to a sinful world. I must say that when I look at him, I can understand that. Once again the hon. member is trying to suck venom out of the deletion of this provision as if there is information that is “deliberately” not being made available. I know the hon. member did not use the word “deliberately” but nevertheless he implied it. He implied that it is deliberately being withheld from this House.

But even I could serve on that board.

All this information is available to the hon. member at any time. What difference does it make, if the information is available in any event, whether it is included in a report that the hon. member was able to read for the first time today? I really think that the objection of the official Opposition in this regard does not hold water at all.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly that he indicated that the information will be contained in the department’s annual report, although not necessarily in quite the same form, so that it would be intelligible to hon. members in order that they can understand what it is all about.

At this stage I cannot go along with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, not necessarily because the hon. member for Fauresmith indicated that he was disappointed that I went with him the last time, but because the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North says it is a control measure. Well, I cannot quite see how it comes to be a control measure if the transactions are concluded and they come to us long after they are finished. I accept that the documents are available so that one can in due course raise them in the House in various debates, and this is in itself a form of control measure. Surely, one can do it from the annual report as easily as one can do it from a special document. Therefore, in so far as I am concerned, I am quite happy to accept this and the undertaking of the hon. the Deputy Minister that these sales will not be lost, but shown in the annual report.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the illogical arguments with which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is now involved. The Community Development Board has been involved with transactions dealing with State land and property for 27 years, and in terms of legal provisions the board has never needed to submit a document to the House of Assembly. If the Community Development Board has never had to do so, why should it do so now? Why should this be done merely with regard to this specific State land? Surely it is illogical. One would have to record thousands of transactions in one specific document simply to comply with the hon. member’s request.

No.

If one has not drawn up such a list applying to the Community Development Board for 27 years, why should it be done now?

It is not a list of State land.

But what does the Community Development Board work with? After all, basically it is State land. What we are dealing with here, forms part of the process of rationalization. I really cannot understand the hon. member’s logic.

Mr. Chairman, but why is it necessary, after a report like the one that I have in my hand has been submitted for 20 years, that it should be done away with now? The legislagtion deals with the sale of State land. When State land is sold, information in this regard must be tabled. I do not think it is a difficult task in a large department like that of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Anyone who has anything to do with land or who values land, draws up such tables. Therefore it is not a problem. In any event, such tables do not contain very much information. People who conduct certain business, obtain all the information that they need in this regard at the Deeds Office. An attorney can obtain it at the Deeds Office, too. One could ask a fairly intelligent clerk to do this work. It is really not a difficult task.

Our standpoint is that we are not prepared to accede to the House of Assembly being deprived of its right to be informed about transactions dealing with State land, we believe in the principle of parliamentary government. The House of Assembly must be informed about money that the Government spends.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I raised the question of the composition of the advisory board, and because I think I motivated my case fully at that stage, I do not intend to repeat all those arguments.

I therefore move as an amendment—

I think I have set out my case fully, and I therefore merely await the hon. the Minister’s response.

Mr. Chairman, as the Committee already knows, I have an amendment on the Order Paper which is similar to the one that has just been moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, but the hon. the Minister indicated yesterday during the Second Reading debate that he would be willing to accept an amendment containing the principle of our amendment. Since he has already submitted an amendment to me which he intends to move and which we find quite acceptable, I shall not move mine, and I shall wait to see what the hon. the Minister wants to do in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Green Point is about. As far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, I want to suggest respectfully that the clause concerned effects a very real improvement to the Prisons Act. This is actually something which was requested as far back as the report of the Viljoen Commission (RP.78-1976). I fully support the clause. However, I wish to move as a further amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate at once that I am able to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort.

The hon. member for Durban Point has also moved an amendment, and this gives me an opportunity to react to it. After listening yesterday afternoon to the very illuminating arguments advanced by both the hon. member and the hon. member for Green Point, we came to the conclusion that we could in fact improve the functioning of the advisory board if we involved outside disciplines as well.

†I therefore move the following further amendments—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 2, to omit “and”;
2. (2) on page 5, after line 3, insert:
   and
   (g) two other persons who are not in the full-time service of the State and who in the opinion of the State President have special knowledge or experience of matters connected with the functions and duties of the advisory release board,
3. (3) on page 5, in line 12, after “board” to insert:
   contemplated in subsection (1) (a) to (f)
4. (4) on page 5, after line 35, to insert:
   (7) A member of the advisory release board who is not in the fulltime service of the State shall receive such allowances as the Minister may determine in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

I think that the insertion of subsection (1)(g) is crucial to the argument of the hon. member for Durban Point. My third amendment is consequential. I think that these amendments meet the requirements of both the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Green Point.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for the amendments he has moved. I think they cover the plea which I made yesterday. With the leave of the Committee, therefore, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, as I have already indicated, the hon. the Minister’s amendment is acceptable to us on this side of the House. In fact, I believe that as far as the appointment of people to this board is concerned, the amendment allows a greater degree of pragmatism, and this can only have a beneficial effect. While supporting the amendment, we do wish to express the hope that the additional members on the advisory board will make a valuable contribution to this extremely important matter.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. J. Cuyler agreed to.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Justice agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendment of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, is very closely connected with the Land Tenure Act, 1966, which my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, has repealed. The said Land Tenure Act provides for—

1. (a) the acquisition of land for farming purposes;
2. (b) the disposal of State land which is not suitable for farming purposes; and
3. (c) the development of State land for farming purposes.

The powers relating to the acquisition and disposal of State land are at present vested in the Minister of Community Development, and only those concerning development are vested in the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

The object of the amendments proposed in this Bill is to vest in the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the powers relating to the acquisition and disposal of such State land as well. To this end, the provisions of the Land Tenure Act, 1966, which has been repealed, are being incorporated into the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, with minor adjustments, and are being linked up with section 10 of the latter Act, in terms of which State land suitable for farming purposes may be sold or leased for that purpose by the Agricultural Credit Board.

Hon. members will also notice that the concept of “immovable property of the State” is being clearly defined for the purposes of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966.

It may seem strange to hon. members that the funds for the acquisition of land for farming purposes should come from the Treasury, but when the following facts are kept in mind, the proposal should meet with general approval.

Firstly, purchases of this nature usually involve the acquisition of land for irrigation schemes, which may have considerable financial implications. If such funds were to be drawn from the Agricultural Credit Account, for example, the account could be depleted to such an extent that money which is required on a continuous basis for normal aid to farmers may not be available.

Secondly, hon. members know that it may sometimes take a considerable time to develop land up to a point where it is suitable for allocation. Meanwhile, no funds can be recovered.

Thirdly, I want to point out that such land is acquired at market value, but is subsequently allocated at its agricultural value, which is much lower, and this may result in a loss. I trust that members will support me, as both the ordinary aid to farmers and the acquisition of land for farming purposes are truly essential.

The proposed amendments have been drawn up with the co-operation and approval of the Department of Community Development.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill.

We have always made it clear in this House that we strongly believe that land which is suitable for agricultural purposes, and which for some reason is not being used for those purposes, should be made available to people in agriculture for utilization and improvement as soon as possible. We have often pointed out in the past, too, that it is to a large extent the responsibility of the State to ensure, by means of this department, that young farmers are able to enter the industry in this way. We all know that it is almost impossible for a young farmer to enter the agricultural industry today, unless he has a great deal of capital, and that to a large extent, this can only be done with State aid. By means of these amendments which we are now discussing, a certain number of farmers can in fact be enabled to enter the agricultural industry.

While I am referring to the number of farmers, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how much land is involved here. He can give the House some information about this in his reply. I am not referring specifically to land which has already been acquired or which is already under the control of the department. However, I want to know how much land could be obtained if this Parliament made sufficient funds available for the purchase of that land. I should like to have a reply from the hon. the Minister in this connection.

There is another aspect which I believe should be mentioned here today. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the fact that land very often could, and probably would, be bought at its market value. We all know, too, that in many cases, the market value of agricultural land in South Africa today is out of all proportion to its production value, and that land which is going to be made available to younger farmers is therefore going to be made available at a loss to the department. This will inevitably mean that certain losses will be suffered, which imposes yet another responsibility on the hon. the Deputy Minister. This is something I should also like him to deal with today. It means that if that land were to be advertised at a price which is below its market value, there would be a special duty resting on that board to ensure that the available land was allocated in an absolutely even-handed way, without anyone being favoured at the expense of anyone else. It is very easy to say—and I am sure that this may have happened in the past—that some people benefit, while others may be prejudiced in the process. I should like the hon. the Minister to say more about this specific aspect.

Furthermore, I should like to enquire of the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the land that was recently advertised in the Eastern Province Herald has any connection with the matters which we are discussing here today. A certain number of farms were advertised. Full particulars were given of the size and price of every farm, and interested persons were invited …

Is the hon. member referring to farms in the Humansdorp district?

Yes, these are farms in the Humansdorp district. In the advertisement, interested persons were asked to come forward, to apply with a view to appearing before the board at a later stage, when a final decision would be taken. I should like to know whether this is in any way connected with the legislation we are discussing today. While we are on the subject, I should also like to know how the department obtained control over the land I have just referred to. Would the hon. the Deputy Minister also explain to us how the board will go about making these allocations? What are the factors which the board will take into consideration in making those allocations?

There is just one other matter I wish to refer to. Provision is being made in the Bill for Parliament to make funds available to the department for buying such land. Have funds already been requested for this purpose, and if so, how much? If funds have not been requested for this purpose in this year’s budget, I should like to inquire of the hon. the Deputy Minister what his plans are for next year. How much money he is going to ask Parliament to vote for this purpose? It would be interesting to know at this stage what the scope of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s plans in this connection is.

With these few words I just want to repeat that we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn that the official Opposition is supporting this amending Bill, because I think that what is going to flow from this legislation is going to be of great value to agriculture. It forms part of the programme of rationalization which has already been initiated. We used to have problems with the disposal of land and what was to become of it, because it fell under two departments. The right of disposal fell under the Department of Community Development, while the development of the land fell under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Surely this was a blueprint for red tape. In a certain sense, the farmers may regret the rationalization of this system, for in the process, they got to know a lot of people by going from one department to another. At the same time, however, it was gratifying to see the goodwill and understanding and insight into the problems of the farmers shown in the various departments. Therefore I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the officials of the Department of Community Development, who used to deal with the affairs of the farmers, for the way they went about it and for the understanding they showed.

A further aspect is that as a result of this rationalization, as the hon. the Deputy Minister called it, there will now be one law and one board less. Surely this makes sense. We are not concerned with new legislation here. All that is really happening is that the administration of the present Act is being transferred from one department to another in the interests of rationalization. I think that agriculture is going to benefit by this change. After all matters affecting agriculture should be controlled by experts, people with understanding and knowledge who are in contact with the farming industry. And there certainly are knowledgeable people in agriculture. I am sometimes surprised at the depth of the knowledge of the officials in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. There are times when one thinks that one has identified a problem, but then one finds that the department is already aware of it and is already working on it. I think that with the help of this Act, they will be able to make a considerable contribution towards solving the problems of the farmer. One of the problems in this connection is the dilemma in which the farmer in the rural areas finds himself as a result of circumstances—the high average age of farmers, the high land prices and the fact that young farmers do not have enough capital to enter the industry. In this connection I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Wynberg and to ask whether the circumstances that are going to be created by this Bill cannot be used to settle young farmers on the land which is controlled by this legislation. I also want to ask whether it is not possible to allow these young farmers to lease this land so that they may gradually accumulate capital in order to buy that land at a later stage—so that, in a certain sense, they receive an option to buy, but such option must be subject to the approval of the Agricultural Credit Board. When that land is resold—those people may be forced to sell that land—it must also be subject to approval by the Agricultural Credit Board for a certain period in order to minimize speculation in this connection. The dilemma of the young farmer who wants to enter the agricultural industry is something which I do not have to spell out. I am sure hon. members are all aware of it. Especially in the rural areas where there are droughts, he is faced with an enormous problem. In terms of drought, the parent, the father who is actually going to bequeath his land to his son, has to use his reserves systematically in order to survive and to keep his farming operations going. Then, when this young man wishes to enter the industry, he has to share his inheritance with brothers and sisters and he has to find some way of buying them out. These are important aspects, and since the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that Agricultural Credit funds are not as freely available as we would like them to be. I want to suggest that if land has to be acquired, it should not be acquired with these funds, so that this fund can be maintained specifically in order to assist young farmers who wish to enter the industry.

With these few words I also wish to express my full support for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in my contribution to this debate, I also wish to endorse some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Prieska. First of all, however, I want to say that we welcome these amendments that are being made. In fact, these are things that all of us have long been asking for, and as hon. members have already indicated, this is also the culmination of the programme of rationalization. As hon. members have also indicated, this process has also been responsible for the disappearance of one of our laws, the Land Tenure Act, as well as the Land Tenure Board, the functions of which are now to be taken over by the Agricultural Credit Board. It is true that one would like to entrust the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries those functions that appertain to it, and that is in fact the purpose of these amendments.

When one reads the new sections 10A, B, and C which are being inserted into the principal Act by clause 3 of this Bill, one finds that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is obtaining powers of acquisition and disposal. Provision is being made for this in sections 10A and C. In terms of section 10B, the department is also acquiring powers of development which at present fall under another department. As I have said, I think these three functions belong under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The hon. member for Prieska pointed out, with reference to the powers that are now being conferred on the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to acquire immovable property, whether by way of acquisition or by way of exchange, that it is important that the hon. the Deputy Minister should spell out to us again what exactly the intention is with the powers that are now being conferred.

I also think of the designated areas in our borders. The Deputy-Minister and I paid a visit to some of those areas a few years ago, and there we encountered an urgent need in the sense that in order to solve the problem with which we are faced there, the State has to acquire that land in order to resell it on reasonable conditions. I have here one of the memoranda in this connection, submitted by the District Agricultural Union of Thabazimbi, one of the biggest agricultural unions in that part of the Transvaal. One of the requests, with a view to long-term planning, was the following—

The hon. the Deputy Minister said at the time—I think this view is still held—that this is a splendid ideal and that one would like to do this, but that it is hardly practicable because of the enormous funds that would be required. Nevertheless, I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give an indication of whether he agrees with me that the legislation is giving Agricultural Credit, to call it by its abbreviated name, the power to acquire those properties when the time is ripe, whether by way of acquisition or by way of exchange, and then to make them available to farmers to enable them to settle in those remote border areas.

We appreciate the development which is taking place in the department through the acquisition of the new powers. We fully support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to hear that the hon. member Mr. Theunissen is also supporting us with regard to the Bill. As far as I am concerned, he has hit on the essence of what it is all about, and what I too want to dwell on for a moment, viz. the obtaining and financing of and the disposal of agricultural land, because this is the heart of everything. If one looks back over the years at how our agricultural land fared, one finds that due to circumstances and changed conditions it has in fact become increasingly fragmented due to the fact that each and every one wanted to obtain land for some purpose or other.

It is true that various Government departments—the majority of them in fact—have obtained land. Of course this was a very logical development to which one cannot actually object in principle, because if one thinks of Government departments like Defence and Transport, it is logical that they had to obtain land. I say that one cannot raise any objection to this, but the main concern that has arisen in the heart of the farmer and in his organization, is the fact that in this process, agricultural land has become fragmented to a large extent. Furthermore, a problem has also arisen in the sense that some of these lands or parts thereof have in fact remained largely unutilized.

It is a well-known fact that only 4% of the land in the Republic of South Africa is agricultural land with a high potential. Unfortunately it is also true that most of the development that took place, did in fact take place on or close to the land with high agricultural potential. The result is that proportionately more of this land has been lost to agriculture.

The hon. the Minister recently said in reply to a question here in the House that 133 000 ha of land has been lost over the last five years, and I want to allege that the largest portion thereof was in fact land with a high potential. These things have disturbed the farmer and the S.A. Agricultural Union, because it is in fact the task of this organization and its members to watch over our precious heritage. In the process more and more unutilized land has been lost. However, fortunately this was regulated in due course and better control is being exercised over this land. The Bill before the House is a further step towards greater order. The principle of achieving a greater degree of order is of course absolutely essential. The same also applies to the purchase and financing of the land.

Since we have to watch very carefully over our few natural resources in this country—of which land is probably the most important—we must ensure that we vest control over the land in the department in which the S.A. Agricultural Union and the farmer have the necessary confidence. I am of course referring to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. This department has the necessary knowledge at its disposal. In saying this, I am not casting any reflection on any other department or organization, but it is actually not the task or function of any other department—nor will it ever be—to dispose of agricultural land as such. Consequently I want to allege that the legislation will be received with great joy by organized agriculture and by the farmers. In the nature of things, other Government departments cannot do the work as effectively as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. This department can obtain and develop the land, and it is particularly pleasing that the department can also obtain financing now in order to achieve its task. Consequently, it is to be understood that land which would otherwise have possibly been lying unutilized and would have been lost to agriculture, will now be able to be developed. This legislation will definitely contribute towards averting a possibly embarrassing situation for other Government departments. If one looks at it from that angle, other Government departments and bodies should welcome the fact that the department that has the necessary knowledge and skill, will develop and administer the land. This also links up with what the hon. member for Fauresmith said earlier today during the discussion of another Bill, that matters of this nature belong with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. This extremely important amendment should therefore be welcomed by everyone, and I make bold to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of organized agriculture for introducing the Bill. I feel it is a particularly positive step to obtain, finance and administer precious agricultural land, and to achieve better order. Consequently I am pleased to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in supporting what the hon. member for Wellington has just said. We in these benches support the Bill in its entirety. We consider it an extremely important piece of legislation for our agricultural industry and farmers. The legislation also holds out great hope for further development in agriculture. This I will discuss shortly.

At this stage I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister that we have some concern in relation to the allocation, selling or letting of Agricultural Credit ground. I think it would be a good thing if one eliminated the fear which exists in people’s minds in the agricultural sphere about the effective functioning of the Agricultural Credit Committees in the various magisterial districts and their recommendations regarding the use of such properties, particularly in respect of their local knowledge, their competence and their managerial ability. It is a small point, but I think an important one. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will know what I am talking about. So I feel that to ensure that land is disposed of in a fit and proper manner by these committees, taking all these factors into consideration is going to remain a very, very important aspect of whatever system is adopted, however big the system becomes, and one does indeed hope that this is the beginning of this sort of thing becoming a lot bigger, with a lot more help going towards re-establishing people on the land.

I should just like to comment on one other point in the debate so far, and I am referring to a point made by the hon. member for Wynberg about a report concerning land in the Weekend Post of 6 March of this year. My only reason for doing so is to suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister should take the opportunity to reply to this in full, because this sort of report does the agricultural community, the farmers, no good at all. I believe that there are certain assertions in this article that cannot be left unanswered. In particular I refer to sentences like—

According to a certain organization—

Further on it is said—

The last of these insinuations I should like to quote, insinuations made quite without any real foundation, is the following—

I see the hon. the Deputy Minister holding up a piece of paper. Yes, that is the article. I feel that the hon. Deputy Minister should answer these allegations in full, because only one of two situations can exist. If one is to show that this is a whole lot of rubbish and that the people were adequately compensated, I think it would be important for the House to know the area of land that was taken, as well as the area of the compensatery land. I think it is important for the House to know that those people were, in fact, adequately compensated so that one can put an end to this undermining type of attitude that is adopted whenever any land is given out. The situation has been and gone, and to continue making capital out of it, engendering unfortunate attitudes amongst people, really does no one any good at all. I would therefore welcome it if the hon. the Minister would clear the air completely as far as that goes so as to put to rights the impression created by the very vague insinuations made by those people.

Another point I should like to mention is one that flows from this legislation and is very important. It is a question that has been mentioned by many other speakers this afternoon. I am referring to the re-establishment of young farmers on the land. As the hon. the Deputy Minister will know, I have recently tabled several questions about this in the House. I must say that the answers given to those questions do indicate—and that was the purpose of the questions—that there is no real direction, no concerted, co-ordinated plan, to stop the good ship of agriculture sailing along without quite knowing where it is going as far as this is concerned. I believe that this matter, in conjunction with the protection of the environment and energy matters, will become the politics of the future. The problem we are going to have to cope with is going to be the question of a secure, stable rural community able to produce raw materials and food and maintain the infrastructure of such a vast area of our land, making proper use of it. When one considers the fact that, certainly during last session, this House was bombarded with demographic projections concerning South Africa’s future, including figures for the urbanized population and the numbers that were going to be required in the managerial, skilled and professional ranks in order to maintain certain growth rates and to cope with employment requirements, and one considers the details of the projections that have been undertaken by institutions in order to meet the challenge, particularly in relation to commerce and industry, then I really feel that, as regards projections in the agricultural sphere of the number of farmers we need on the ground and the schemes we need to bring this about, we are very much in arrears, that this matter should be roundly debated in the House and that we should definitely, together with organized agriculture and whatever other bodies we can muster, bring about a far more enlightened, planned approach to the requirements for the future and, flowing from that, a specific plan, with specific annual targets, for the establishment, area by area, of young farmers on a rateable basis.

I think that the idea of ground owned by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure being made available for leasing by young farmers so that they can build up capital and of their being assisted to purchase ground holds out great hope for South Africa. In every magisterial district of South Africa there is ground lying idle. Ground could even be leased from current owners where that ground is not being adequately used so that it can be put to better use. There are all sorts of ways in which people could be encouraged to go back to the rural areas and to the farming communities. I believe that in this way we could perhaps arrest a situation that has already developed in many rural communities, as a result of which the small urban communities which serve those farmers are on the point of collapsing. The infrastructure of those communities can no longer support the presence of doctors, for example. The number of pupils at the schools decrease, leaving them with fewer teachers, which in turn forces parents to send their children to schools elsewhere. In this way a whole host of factors revolves around us getting people back on to the land.

I would like to bring up again the question of giving prior notice under this legislation because it involves to such a large extent the acquisition of land by the Government and its reallocation in order to make better use of it. I should like to suggest that the whole question of the settlement of particularly young farmers on the ground is one of the utmost urgency and one which demands immediate attention from all sides of the House. I have spoken about this to some of my hon. colleagues in other parties represented in the House and they have some very good ideas in this regard. I am quite certain that the time has now arrived for this to be consolidated. I shall certainly bring this matter up again in the future. We have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for King William’s Town for supporting the amendments in the Bill on behalf of his party. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will furnish an effective reply to the reservations that he raised here and the question that he asked. I also want to express my gratitude towards the hon. the Deputy Minister for having brought the amendments to this Bill, which I feel is a very important one, to the House today.

I do not want to cover the entire field that has already been covered once again now. I just want to point out three main points which I feel are important. In the first place it is of cardinal importance to me that land that is earmarked for agriculture, should be controlled by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Now I find it interesting that a person like Dr. Wassenaar tries to give advice to the State by saying that it should sell some of its assets in order to balance its books. Among other things, it should sell some of its land. As soon as one has to sell one’s assets in order to balance one’s books, it screws things up (neuk). However, I am convinced that the State has not yet landed up in that position at this stage.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “neuk”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. It is like a farmer who has to sell his breeding stock in order to keep the bailiff from the door, and therefore I do not think that it was very good advice that the hon. gentleman gave to the State. Apart from that I wonder who would actually buy the land. It is in fact the aim of the Government, indeed their ideal, to assist the young farmer who cannot afford to buy land, to obtain a piece of land. Therefore I think that the department is following the correct policy.

In the second place I am very grateful that the State is prepared to purchase this land with funds that will be provided from the Exchequer. It has already been explained that the existing funds of the Department of Agricultural Credit will not be adequate for purchasing and at market value and then, after it has been developed, making it available at agricultural value. In most cases this is irrigation land, and it is actually a very expensive procedure to develop land of this nature. Therefore I am very grateful that the State has also agreed to this.

It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill, which I feel is a very important one.

Mr. Speaker, from the discussion of this Bill thus far it is quite clear that all hon. members in this House who know and love agriculture, are convinced that in the first place, we should rejuvenate agriculture. The hon. member for Prieska said it was essential that agriculture should be rejuvenated. In passing I just want to point out that during the past few years a degree of rejuvenation has occurred, although I do not want to suggest that it is thanks to the activities of this department.

It is also quite clear to me that all the parties are unanimous about the idea that every possible effort should be made by the Government to establish young farmers in agriculture. A further very important aspect emerged from this discussion, however, and I am glad that all parties support this aspect as well. I am referring to the notion that where the State owns land and wants to establish young farmers on it, this should be done at an economic price. It is very important to me to know that we are agreed on this cardinal principle as well.

I shall try to explain certain principles in regard to the disposal of agricultural land that are applied by the Agricultural Credit Board, in my replies to hon. members.

The hon. member for Wynberg asked that we try to make land available as soon as possible. I think the hon. member for King William’s Town and other hon. members said we should not allow valuable agricultural land to remain unutilized. This is something I feel very strongly about. Unfortunately when land is made available a fairly long process must be followed before a decision is taken on what to do with that land.

The Department of Community Development has to notify every department that land is available and that it has to be disposed of. Then those departments have to indicate to the Department of Community Development whether they are interested in that land for a purpose other than agriculture. For example, the Provincial Administrations may request that such land be utilized for nature reserves and the like. Of course it goes without saying that this is a long process. In consultations with the hon. the Minister of Community Development and with the hon. the Prime Minister we have tried to overcome the problem caused by some departments being inclined to wait too long before replying to the question whether they are interested in the specific land or not by specifying a fixed period within which those departments have to reply. If they do not reply within that specified period we consequently accept that they are not interested in that land.

As regards the claim by Provincial Administrations regarding the establishment of nature reserves and the like, I want to point out that we should be very careful in this respect in South Africa. I am not saying this to the detriment of the Provincial Administrations, but we must be very careful in South Africa. Because we have limited amounts of agricultural land, and particularly limited amounts of good agricultural land, we must be careful not to set aside high potential agricultural land for the establishment of nature reserves.

Hear, hear!

I am of the opinion that we must approach this matter with great care. The hon. member for Wellington pointed out how much land is lost to agriculture every year. Since the provision of food will be of cardinal importance to South Africa in future, we must be careful not to use our good agricultural land for purposes not connected with the production of food. In the long term any of this nature will be very harmful to this country.

All hon. members who took part in the debate referred to the establishment of young farmers. I should like to say a few brief words about the disposal of agricultural land, as well as the policy followed by the Agricultural Credit Board. The hon. member for Wynberg wanted to know what kind of person we should like to establish in agriculture. That is a very good question. Every time we try to establish a norm, the question which arises again is what kind of person we should like to establish in agriculture.

He must vote for the NP.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development says he must vote for the NP. In the form we send him, we unfortunately do not ask what political party he supports. We have never asked that question.

Just test his IQ and you will know whether he votes for the NP or not.

Must he have an AB number? [Interjections.]

In the first place we like to establish young farmers who have already proved that they know how to farm. We are therefore looking for a person who was a share cropper or a tenant farmer, and has proved over the years that he knows what is involved and that he knows how to farm. I believe this is the first and most important factor we take into consideration when evaluating an application. The second factor we take into account is his family. If such an applicant already has a family—and this in turn raises the question of his age—one or two or three children for example, of course he gets preference. Hon. members can understand that he must obviously be given preference over someone who is still very young, although I have sympathy for a person who has just left university. I really am sympathetic towards such a person. He has just completed his university training. He is qualified in agriculture, but in the first place he has not had an opportunity to prove himself as a practical farmer and in the second place he does not have a family. We like to establish people who already have families because they are obviously more stable than persons who are still very young. Just think how young people like to gad about, and that sort of thing.

In the third place age is of course extremely important. We try to establish young people between the ages of 21 and 40 years. About six months ago we sold 17 farms near in the Western Transvaal. The average age of the farmers established there was 33 years. We are therefore in fact succeeding in bringing about a considerable rejuvenation in this industry. If one establishes 17 young men in such an area, it goes without saying that they can have a tremendous effect on community life there, for example in farmers’ associations, church councils, churches and so on.

And in schools.

Particularly in schools, yes.

And even in the NP. [Interjections.]

Three times 17 is a lot of children.

Yes, three times 17 is a lot of children for one of those schools. That is correct.

I have dealt with this matter very briefly, but that is more or less my reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Wynberg and the question asked by the hon. member for King William’s Town. These are more or less the kind of people we are looking for. This is what they are like. When we discuss the Agriculture and Fisheries Vote later in the session, I should like to elaborate a little on these specific matters. I think it would be a good idea to have a thorough discussion of the procedure and so on. However, I should like to say a few brief words about the procedure. As soon as a decision has been taken that land should be permanently earmarked for agriculture, a fairly long procedure has to be followed. In the first place the quality of the soil and the type of farming to be undertaken there has to be ascertained. In the second place—after reports on the potential have been submitted—it has to be ascertained how large the piece of ground should be to give the farmer in question a reasonably economic unit. That is very important. In the third place a land surveyor must carry out a survey. Only after all this has been done can one advertise to dispose of the land. This is the fourth aspect. It is true that this is a long procedure. However, we also have other methods of doing this now. This is what the provisions of this amending Bill now give us.

The moment it has been decided that the relevant land will be made available for agriculture, it is given back to agriculture. Then we can also dispose of it temporarily. This was pointed out by one of the hon. members on this side of the House. We can then lease that land temporarily, for example for one year, two years, five years or however long it may take to complete all these other procedures. The important point is, however, that for temporary leasing one can already apply a selection process so that the man to whom one temporarily leases the land may eventually obtain that land on a permanent basis. The procedure is simple. One gives him a lease and one more or less demarcates the land leased to him. One cannot do this absolutely but it is very easy to do in extensive farming. One leases the land to him and he has the opportunity to build up capital. I think it was the hon. member for King William’s Town who raised this point. We give him the opportunity to build up capital, and when his lease expires, he already has capital, machinery, livestock, etc. In other words, one establishes a man temporarily who will be very easy to establish permanently because he has already built up a certain amount of capital. We can, therefore, by means of leasing—before all the processes have been gone through and before one is able to dispose of the land permanently—apply a process of selection so that the man to whom we lease the land may eventually obtain it on a permanemt basis. I think this is an excellent system. As a matter of fact, we can give him an option to purchase. However, I am rather hesitant to do so because when we establish someone and give him an option to purchase, we are virtually compelled to sell to him when his contract expires. However, if we establish him in the knowledge that he may eventually obtain that land, he will do absolutely everything in his power to develop the land and even to make improvements to the land in order to ensure that he obtains the land when it is eventually advertised. However, if we give him an option to buy, there is the danger that if he turns out to be an unsatisfactory applicant we are not under an obligation to sell it to him. I am only mentioning this because it is a change in the policy of the department, and I feel it is a very good change—i.e. that in leasing land you can apply a process of selection and in this way allow a person to build up capital, machinery and livestock so that it is easier to establish him when he eventually takes over that land. I think I have now replied to the question made by the hon. member for Wynberg and many other hon. members concerning the procedure that is followed and the type of person we like to establish. I should like to elaborate on these matters a little more when the Agriculture and Fisheries Vote comes up for discussion.

The hon. member for Wynberg also asked me about the Humansdorp lands. I want to state categorically that I am extremely unhappy about the report to which the hon. member for King William’s Town referred. This is the report which appeared in the Weekend Post of 6 March 1982. I feel extremely unhappy about it. I think it is an extremely malicious report. In the first place—I almost want to call it lie No. 1—it is implied here, as a matter of fact it is stated here by the Black Sash organization that this land is still Black land. Surely these people could have thought for themselves. If these lands are already being advertised for disposal to White farmers, they must have been deproclaimed long ago. These lands must have been removed from the specific schedule and returned for permanent disposal long ago. It would not have been handed to the department of Agriculture and Fisheries if unless the procedure to be followed to turn it into White land had in fact been followed. I call this lie No. 1.

I now want to refer to lie No. 2. The hon. member for King William’s Town also quoted it. The report read, inter alia—

This is an absolutely malicious lie. It is not true. There were no “crops”. There were no crops whatsoever. The Department of Co-operation and Development transported the livestock to the new areas where those Black people were settled. I maintain that it is absolute maliciousness to blazon this kind of report abroad. Just think what will happen if this sort of report is published abroad, and I am sure it already has. What immeasurable harm will it not do to our country? The report went on to state—

Apparently, these people do not know that there is only one House now. That is, however, by the way. I did not want to spoil this wonderful debate we were having, but the hon. member for King William’s Town specifically asked me to react to this.

I do not in any way want to introduce any further maliciousness into the discussion of this report, but I just want to point out that the hon. member for Walmer was asked to comment on this report. He stated here—

I cannot understand why the hon. member said this, because the advertisement which appeared in this connection was the first indication anyone had that this land was going to be disposed of. If I remember correctly, these advertisements appeared in the middle of February and the applications closed on 19 March. Nobody knew that these lands were going to be disposed of, yet it is still insinuated that “the Government acted very quietly on this issue”. It is as if an element of suspicion has to be created in regard to the handling of this matter. The report continued—

I want to add to this—

This links up very nicely with the questions placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He asked, for example, whether officials of the department of the Minister concerned, who carried out the removal of the Fingos from the Tsitsikamma area in December 1977 and during the second half of 1978, were accompanied by another group that was armed and whether they themselves carried firearms. In another question he asked whether the Police were present. I feel these are absolutely malicious questions; no weapons were involved. This was a move carried out by the Department of Co-operation and Development. Those people’s possessions were loaded on to lorries and they themselves were transported in buses. There was no question of force being used.

Did it meet with their approval?

I think the hon. member for Walmer owes us an apology for the fact that he also implied that this matter was not dealt with correctly. This matter has been under way for some time.

But he is a Savage. [Interjections.]

I want to mention a second point that is very important. I think the hon. member for King William’s Town is also aware of this—

They went on to say—

They also said—

Then the hon. member for Walmer was also reported as follows—

At the outset I mentioned how glad I was that we were unanimous about the fact that when the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries disposed of land to young farmers, it should do so at economic values. On this we were agreed; The hon. members for Wynberg and King William’s Town said so quite emphatically. We certainly cannot sell at market values for then a young farmer who does not have the necessary capital would never make the grade. We all know at what rate land prices have risen in this country.

Let us compare this with the land the hon. member for Walmer sold. The hon. member must pardon me for drawing this comparison, but he left me no alternative.

He asked for it.

The hon. member for Walmer’s land was situated ten km from this land. It was sold in October 1980—1 971 ha was sold for R645 000. [Interjections.] This represents R327 per ha. Let us see what the hon. member had on this land. There were two dwellings and all outbuildings, such as milking sheds, barns and so on.

He was a real “fat cat”.

There were 130 ha of cultivated land of which 30 ha was established grazing. Hon. members who know about this sort of thing know how much it costs to establish one hectare of grazing nowadays. It costs a great deal of money. The land was divided into 37 cultivated paddocks and 40 field paddocks. In total there were therefore 77 paddocks. Do hon. members realize how much fencing material and money was involved? There were five cement reservoirs with the necessary equipment and water was available for all the paddocks. I want to congratulate the hon. member on a very well-cultivated farm. Let us compare this R327 per ha fully cultivated farm on which one could immediately start farming, with an uncultivated farm. On an uncultivated farm a prospective farmer must first clear the land with a bulldozer. In the second place he must make provision for water. In the third place he must build himself a house. In the fourth place he must put up outbuildings. In the fifth place he must lay out paddocks. In the sixth place he must purchase livestock. He must do all these things on land that costs him R6 000 for 186 ha. I do not think that is particularly inexpensive. When I compared the above data and ascertained what the market value of land was at that stage (August 1980) I wondered whether the land was not a little too expensive. I therefore consider this kind of report to be malicious. I want to suggest to the hon. member for Walmer that before he reacts to this kind of report on the advice of the Black Sash, he should first consult people who know something about these matters. I think he should first have consulted the hon. member for Wynberg before he raised this matter. I want to suggest to the hon. member that in future he should first consult the hon. member for Wynberg before he makes statements about a matter, such as this, about which he obviously did not have the necessary knowledge.

What I have just said is also a reply to the hon. member for King William’s Town’s question. The procedure is that applications are submitted to the local Agricultural Credit Committee, and in this respect there is also an amendment to our policy. This committee examines the application provisionally and ensures that all information on the form is correct and then certifies it as correct. We are experiencing a great many problems in this regard because people know that if they have too many assets, they cannot come into consideration for ground offered at agricultural value. One wants to help the average man. The application forms contain many incorrect statements. The procedure has therefore been changed so that applications must now be handed to the local Agricultural Credit Committee, so that they can certify the correctness of the information. However, the local Agricultural Credit Committee may also make recommendations if it wishes. After the local Agricultural Credit Committee has gone through the applications, they are sent to the board. However, before the board considers the applications they are sorted out by various officials. I just want to point out to hon. members that we received over 1 000 applications for the 17 farms in the Coligny area. I am expecting a similar situation at Humansdorp. The officials then go through the applications and to a great extent they are able, on the basis of recommendations by the Agricultural Credit Committee to screen the applications. Only then does the board consider the applications. At that stage the board does not even know who the applicants are. The board goes through the applications and divides them into three categories, namely A, B and C. I just want to mention that the board follows a system of allocating points in respect of all the things I mentioned earlier, for example age, knowledge, capital and other aspects. The board, therefore, follows a system of allocating points, and it works extremely well. They then first look at the As, then the Bs, and so forth. Eventually they make recommendations which have to be submitted to the Minister for final approval. I think this is an excellent system. I therefore reject the statement that we employ a system of “farms for friends” with all the contempt it deserves. This cannot happen when this system is used. That is why I feel it is a pity that such a malicious report had to appear in a newspaper to discredit the department and the Government with regard to this matter, which is of the greatest importance to us all.

Sir, I must make haste. The hon. member for Wynberg asked me the extent of the land involved here. Unfortunately I cannot tell him this today. The hon. Whip of the official Opposition must stop talking to the hon. member for Wynberg now, because I should like to talk to him.

Help yourself.

This legislation makes provision for the Department to acquire land, to develop it and then to distribute it, and mainly irrigation land is involved. We still have a great deal of land at the P. K. le Roux Dam. We are dividing that land into plots and disposing of it. At the moment we also have various other projects in the pipeline. I do not think any provision has been made in this budget for any futher acquisition of land. I think we must first dispose of what we have. Particularly now that all these lands have devolved on us, a great deal of work will be required to arrange for temporary leases, etc. Black land that has been proclaimed White land automatically returns to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, provided it is suitable for agriculture, of course. Unfortunately I cannot now tell the hon. member the extent of the land involved, but at a later date, perhaps during the discussion of the Vote, I shall tell him how much land we still have at our disposal, particularly irrigation land, because this is very important.

I think I have given a reasonably detailed reply to the hon. member’s question on advertising. Advertisements are placed in all the local newspapers. A notice is also put up at the magistrate’s office. The advertisement appears in the Gazette; it is also broadcast over the farming programme and it also appears in the farming magazines, the Farmers Weekly and the Landbouweekblad, etc. Advertisements therefore have a fairly wide impact. I think this is a reasonably detailed reply to the hon. member’s question.

The hon. member for Prieska made a very good contribution. I can see he has a tremendous amount of knowledge on this matter. I have already replied to questions regarding advanced age, temporary leases, the surveys that take time, etc. However, the hon. member raised a very important point, and what he had to say was very true. This is another reason I am so grateful that the hon. the Minister of Finance allowed us to obtain the land with money appropriated by this Parliament—one must buy the land at market value—and that we are able to dispose of it at agricultural value. This was a tremendous concession. This also proves the Government’s desire to establish young farmers on the land on an economic basis.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen has a good knowledge of this matter. He knows a great deal about the border areas. In terms of this legislation I have the power—he is quite right—to purchase land in the border areas. I should very much like to take steps there at this stage already, but at present there are certain activities in progress which I do not want to discuss now because I do not think they are relevant to this matter. However, there are activities in progress in which the Physical Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister is involved, specifically with regard to the border areas. I think the hon. member is aware of this and I should not like to disturb those activities in any way now. They will certainly make recommendations at a later date which may better regulate our planned activities in the border areas.

I have already replied to many of the matters raised by the hon. member for Wellington. However, I want to join him in thanking the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, because he and the hon. the Minister and the officials of the department had a tremendous share in this very topical matter. Only last year the farming group’s controlling body consulted the hon. the Minister on this matter and it was dealt with extremely rapidly. I want to join him in thanking everyone involved.

I think I have already replied to the question on the contribution of Agricultural Credit Committees. I just want to make one further point. When we establish a young man—this is very important—we make it a prerequisite that he should farm strictly according to departmental requirements. In the first place his land must therefore be planned and he must carry out that planning extremely carefully. He will also be subject to constant inspections by the extension office of the Agricultural Technical Services Division. The point the hon. member raised is very important. I think it is necessary that we lay down these requirements for the various applicants because it is essential that we make use of the expertise in the department that the hon. the member for Prieska referred to, in the establishment and the consolidation of our young farmers.

I do not want to go into details regarding Dr. Wassenaar’s statement to which the hon. member for Ladybrand referred. I just want to associate myself with him by saying that if we were to follow Dr. Wassenaar’s advice that we sell all State land at market value, something would happen that we do not want to happen, namely that within a few years the agricultural land in this country would be in the hands of a few people and large companies. This we must avoid at all costs. I am not ashamed to stand up on any public platform and say that there is already a tendency for farms to become larger. I think that people who buy valuable agricultural land in South Africa and then do not cultivate that land properly and fail to utilize it to its full potential are doing the country immeasurable harm. I think we should get away from the idea that farms be larger. I think we should rather pay attention to our smaller farmers. We must rather do everything in our power to keep the smaller farmers in agriculture.

I want to thank hon. members for the wonderful discussion we have had. I am just sorry that we had to introduce a discordant note. However, I do not think the hon. member for Walmer will take it amiss of me. A specific question was asked and I had to reply to it. I feel we are so unanimous with regard to the policy which must be followed to establish our young farmers that we did not want to introduce a discordant note. However, I had no option. Once again I thank hon. members most sincerely for this wonderful discussion and the fact that they support the department so fully with regard to the establishment of young farmers.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the debate last year on Act 71 of 1981, which inter alia amended section 38 of the Nursing Act, 1978, in order to provide for only those registered persons practising their profession in the Republic, to become members of the S.A. Nursing Association, the hon. member for Berea wanted to know from me what I understood by the expression “Republic”. I then stated that for the purposes of the Nursing Association it meant the Republic excluding the self-governing territories that exercise control over health matters.

I based this statement on the fact that the legislative authority with regard to health matters in such areas rests with the various Governments of those territories; that the Nursing Act, 1978, is not applicable in such territories and that in terms of the agreement that was concluded with the Governments in question, the S.A. Nursing Council will continue to administer chapters I, II, III and V of the Nursing Act, 1957, in such territories, but that the various territories would make their own arrangements with regard to an association.

Further to the contradictory opinion that the hon. member for Berea expressed, and after further discussions with the Nursing Association, I have had the position investigated. According to the legal opinion of the Government Advisers, it will be extremely impossible to establish what the legal consequences would be when section 38 of the Nursing Act, 1978, comes into effect. At the moment the Nursing Act, 1957, applies in self-governing territories that have been entrusted with the authority over health matters. Since the Nursing Association is a statutory institution, the practically untenable situation would arise, should it be correct that the association would continue to exist in the territories when section 38 of the Nursing Act, 1978 comes into effect, that the affairs of the association will be regulated by various authorities, viz. the Republic and the various self-governing authorities, as well as in terms of various groups of legislation.

As matters stand at present, the association in the Republic has already decided on a different constitution, which differs with the prescriptions of Chapter IV of the Nursing Act, 1957. The new constitution will come into effect on 1 May. Consequently, problems will arise at that early stage already, because it will mean that the association would have different constitutions in the various territories.

Under the circumstances the legal adviser has recommended that steps should be taken in good time in order to eliminate any possible anomaly.

Apart from the possible legal problems that may arise as a result of steps that individuals in a self-governing territory may take in order to retain membership of the Nurses Association in such a territory, nurses in some self-governing territories, viz. Gazankulu and Qwaqwa have already decided to establish their own associations. Therefore, should the situation not be set out beyond any doubt in good time, it could happen that in certain self-governing territories nurses would obtain membership of the association and that others in other similar territories would not. A development of this nature would create a further untenable situation. As hon. members know, the Government of KwaZulu has asked me to make provision for nurses from that area to retain their membership of the association. I have undertaken to look at the matter.

Since it has already been accepted in principle that the association regulates its own affairs, and in view of possible contradictory legislation that could be accepted by the various Government bodies with regard to the association, I really do not see my way clear to forcing the association by law to include nurses from such territories as members. This could not but lead to chaos.

I am of the opinion that a healthy approach is for nurses within a specific territory, falling under an authority that has legislative powers over the health function, will have to establish their own association, because I believe that it could not but lead to confrontation should a representative association, of which the committee members may possibly originate from other territories, have to take action in order to promote the interests of nurses in such a specific territory. Consequently I am of the opinion that the amendment of section 38 is essential for good order.

The association has also informed me that with a view to preventing the isolation of nurses in self-governing territories, the association has already made provision for establishing a controlling organization for Southern Africa in which all the various nurses associations can be incorporated, so that nurses in the entire area will be in a position to participate in international matters and bodies, and in order to promote the development of the nursing profession in general in Southern Africa.

In terms of the second provision of the Bill, the South African Nursing Council is being empowered to exercize powers of the council in States which previously constituted part of the Republic, in order to assist such States. The provision is similar to the provisions in the Pharmacy Act and the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Act that have recently been passed.

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting amending Bill, and I must point out that the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech was equally interesting. Next time perhaps the hon. the Minister will take the advice that he gets from this side of the House. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister will not be surprised that I participate in this debate again on this occasion. While reading the Bill one’s mind certainly goes back to the debate which took place here in the House last year. At that stage, when the Bill was introduced here by the hon. the Minister, it provided that every person practising as a nurse in the Republic of South Africa had to be a member of the S.A. Nursing Council. It also provided for a constitution which had to be approved by the hon. the Minister. At the time I raised the question relating particularly to nurses in KwaZulu who had been told that they would be required to form their own nursing association. I also raised the question of a draft constitution which I had before me at the time, a draft constitution drawn up by the S.A. Nursing Association, which provided inter alia, that the term “Republic” in that constitution would exclude so-called self-governing States. At that stage I told the hon. the Minister that this attitude of his was ultra vires, that the legislation we were passing was ultra vires. I told him that it was in any event also contrary to the wishes of the people of KwaZulu, the Government of KwaZulu and the nurses of KwaZulu, who wanted to be part of the S.A. Nursing Association.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I also told the hon. the Minister then about the practical difficulties being experienced in Natal, and of difficulties which would be experienced in regard to the interchange of nurses between an area that would be under the jurisdiction of KwaZulu and the so-called White area of the province of Natal. These were real practical difficulties that had been drawn to my attention both by the Black nurses and by the White nurses of Natal. Basically, however, the point was that KwaZulu was part of the Republic of South Africa and did not want independence. Therefore the proposed constitution was ultra vires the law that Black nurses could indeed not be excluded.

The hon. the Minister, of course, at that stage knew better.

He always thinks he knows better.

He knew better. He said here in the House on Friday, 21 August 1981, and I quote (Hansard, col. 1589)—

That was what the hon. the Minister said in reply to what I had remarked earlier in that Second Reading debate. Later in that same debate I said (col. 1604)—

Nothing is more obvious!

That was indeed the obvious point to make. The debate went on, however, and I stated (column 1608)—

I was dealing here with the Bill and with nurses practising within the Republic of South Africa.

I then asked the question—

The hon. the Minister replied by way of an interjection, as follows—

Why then are we today amending the Act of 1978? [Interjections.] Why are we amending the Act of 1978? Quite clearly it had everything to do with the Act of 1978. [Interjection.]

The hon. the Minister admits now—he has indeed had the candour to admit this—that his law advisers have drawn his attention to the point which I made last year. We now have to try to give legality to a bad move which the hon. the Minister made last year, a thoroughly bad move, which he was prepared to make illegally because he was prepared to say to Black nurses that they could not belong to the S.A. Nursing Association because they lived in a self-governing State and were therefore not part of the Republic of South Africa. That would have been illegal, and I believe that every Black nurse could at that stage have gone to a court of law in South Africa and challenged this move by the hon. the Minister. Every Black nurse could at that stage have demanded the right to belong to the S.A. Nursing Association. Having taken a thoroughly bad move illegally last year, the hon. the Minister now approaches Parliament to give legality to a move which is equally bad. What he is asking us to do this time, is quite clearly to pass legislation by way of stratagem, in which we are going to say to these people that any people who live in any area which has been declared a self-governing territory within the Republic of South Africa “shall be deemed not to form part of the Republic”. We are deeming part of South Africa not to be part of South Africa. That is the point of ridiculousness to which we have to come in this country. In order to meet the needs of apartheid, in order to meet the needs of forcing people, even in the nursing profession to compartmentalize themselves into separate associations, we are actually resorting to the sordid stratagem of passing a Bill which is going to deem a part of South Africa not to be part of South Africa. It is a totally ridiculous situation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness, and he can answer in good time, how we as a Parliament of South Africa can deem a part of South Africa away in order to meet his purposes, particularly when we know that those people—and one thinks here particularly of KwaZulu, and there are no doubt other areas involved as well—have declared themselves time and time again as wanting to remain part and parcel of the Republic of South Africa. They have done so from their Government down to their nurses. They have said repeatedly that they do not want to be regarded as an independent State but that they want to be part of the Republic of South Africa and, as far as the nursing profession is concerned, they want to belong to the S.A. Nursing Association. The hon. the Minister admitted it again in his speech this afternoon. I believe that this attitude on the part of the Government is reckless and irresponsible and that it will redound to the discredit of White politics in South Africa. Furthermore, I believe that it will further exacerbate relations between Black and White in Natal and in other parts of South Africa. It is a thoroughly sordid piece of legislation designed to perpetuate separatism in South Africa. It is designed to manipulate the situation so that we reach the stage where we are deeming part of South Africa not to be part of South Africa. We in these benches will therefore certainly vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Berea, it was clear that once again he displayed exactly the same attitude and spirit as he did last year when we discussed a nursing amendment Bill in this House. It is very clear to me that those hon. members are not at all interested in the amendment to the Act, an amendment that aims at creating order in the nursing profession. Having listened to that hon. member, he did not utter a word about the Bill, but simply made politics of the entire matter. [Interjections.] And just look at how the hon. member had to be helped by all his colleagues on that side of the House. That hon. member has no interest whatsoever in the regulation of the nursing profession. He made politics of his entire speech, and he did not come to the essence of the Bill at all. The legal situation is that when certain functions are transferred to national States or self-governing States in terms of a constitution, those national States are, of course, granted legal authority over those functions. In this case we simply have the dual situation where the provisions of the Nursing Act, 1957, as well as those of the Nursing Act, 1978, are applicable in the national States. Of course this could lead to endless confusion and it could also lead to tremendous embarrassment being created for the nurses.

Last year this House discussed legislation dealing with the registration of nurses who are members of the S.A. Nursing Association. Subsection (1)(a) of the Nursing Act, 1981, provides, inter alia—

This amendment was made last year in order to make provision for a clear indication of the territory in which the association may function and where it may practise its profession in the Republic.