Mr. Chairman, during Second Reading I drew attention to the latter part of this clause, and indicated that whilst one could accept the principle involved here, the actual wording was of such a nature as to make it—to say the least of it—a little confusing, and as such it could certainly be contentious. If a matter were taken to court it would be very, very difficult to define the real intent of this legislation. The words to which I must reasonably take exception are contained in line 12, on page 5, where it says—

And also in line 14, where reference is made to “attempts to have himself nominated”.

As I have said before, the principle here is quite acceptable. I am not quarrelling with that, because I believe in such a function as is performed by this particular body, it must be a depoliticized body. I do not quarrel with that at all. The difficulty, however, is in defining what exactly is meant by “seeks election” as presently worded. Any suggestion, a casual word, that he might be interested, does it constitute seeking election? Even an allegation by some disgruntled person may in fact imply that he is seeking election. That may cause a member of that particular board some embarrassment.

The amendment I should like to move does not in any way alter the intent although it does remove, as far as I can see, the difficulty in connection with whether he is clearly seeking election or not, or whether he is attempting to have himself nominated. What I therefore propose to move as an amendment is that if he formally seeks election—in other words, if there is something positive to work on, a positive indication that he is seeking election—he cannot be abused by any person who feels that he may not have had a fair deal in the performance of his functions on the board. There could be people who may just try to make life difficult for him. I further intend to move as an amendment that the word “attempts”, in line 14, be deleted and that “if he consents” be substituted. I therefore move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 12, after “he”, to insert “formally”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 14, to omit “attempts” and to substitute “if he consents”.

I believe these are reasonable amendments in an attempt to remove any ambiguity in the clause and also to ensure a certain amount of protection for the board member in the event of people trying to make life difficult for him in an unreasonable way. I am afraid that, knowing humanity, this could well happen at some stage. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to accept it. Nevertheless, I submit that it is reasonably worded, and certainly in so far as clearing the intention is concerned, it is certainly an improvement on the wording contained in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the object of this clause is to ensure that anyone who seeks election as a member of Parliament or as a member of a provincial council shall be disqualified from serving the Community Development Board. As the hon. member will know, this latter board has extensive powers and cannot be allowed to be used by any person in an attempt to have himself elected to a political post. That is the crux of the clause as it stands now. This clause appears in identical form in the Land Tenure Act, 1966, which is being repealed in terms of the legislation now before the House.

It is an effective deterrent, and anyone who makes any attempt to have himself nominated should resign immediately. I hope the hon. member will accept that. I cannot see how the hon. member’s amendment can in any way improve the clause. I am therefore not prepared to accept his amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear in the Afrikaans version, viz. “indien hy hom verkiesbaar stel by ’n party of amptelike benoeming … This is something which a person does deliberately; he offers himself for election. However, the English text reads “if he seeks election … There is a major difference between the act of offering oneself for election at a party nomination and to seek nomination. A person can seek nomination by going to speak to a chairman of a branch, and saying to him: “Look, I am interested in nomination; what about it? Is there a chance? What are the possibilities?” In such a case he is seeking a nomination. But it might simply be a casual discussion. Consequently there is a difference between the man who deliberately offers himself for election and the person who is tentatively seeking nomination. The former offers himself for election, while the person who simply speaks to a chairman and tries to find out whether there is any possibility of a nomination, or as the English text states is “seeking election”. There is a difference between the English version and the Afrikaans version as far as the consequences are concerned, and all that is being envisaged with the proposed amendment is to make it clear that a positive action has to be carried out by the individual. He must offer himself for election, and he must accept nomination. As the English text reads at present, however, anyone may allege that a member of the board sought nomination by speaking to someone. The proposed amendment is therefore aimed at establishing beyond any doubt that a member of the board may only be disqualified as a result of some action on his part.

†Mr. Chairman, I cannot see the objection. The amendment reads “if he formally seeks election”. That means that the person makes himself available, which is exactly what the Afrikaans text states: “indien hy hom verkiesbaar stel”. He formally seeks election. That is what is intended. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head, but what is intended by the word “formally”, is that he makes himself formally available—“hy stel hom verkiesbaar”.

In regard to the words “or attempts to have himself nominated”, the second part of the amendment, namely to omit “attempts” and to substitute “if he consents”, implies a positive action by the person; it implies that he acted positively. I do not think that the hon. the Deputy Minister has understood the purpose of the amendment proposed by the hon. member. We do not want to change or water down the clause. We do not want to make it vague. In fact, we want to remove vagueness to achieve the objective that the hon. member for Umbilo has set out. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will therefore reconsider his attitude.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo either. It cannot be alleged that I have no knowledge of the legislation. I made a study of this Bill. The amendment which the hon. member for Umbilo is proposing, is embodied precisely in that way in the clause.

In Afrikaans, yes, but not in English.

I understand that the Afrikaans and English texts could cause problems; I concede that. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred specifically to the fact that the Minister delegates many powers to this board, and that the board should not, at some stage or another, find itself in the political arena. Because of the special function which the board has to fulfil one wishes to keep party politics out of this body. I have no special problem in this connection. However, the hon. member for Umbilo has a problem in respect of a person formally seeking election. When it comes to a person formally seeking election and accepting a nomination, one must bear in mind that a member of the Community Development Board has already gone around, through an entire constituency testing peoples’ feelings about his acceptability as a candidate for a specific party in a parliamentary or provincial council election.

But surely he signs a nomination form before he becomes a prospective candidate, not so?

I understand the hon. member’s standpoint, but the hon. member must also evince some under standing for the standpoint of this side of the House. When a person makes himself formally available as a candidate, the harm has already been done, and that is what one wishes to avoid. I can only say, on behalf of this side of the House, that we cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Witbank touched on the crux of the problem. The hon. member for Durban Point is an experienced politician, and I do not think we should misunderstand one another on this aspect. The hon. member knows as well as I do that before a person becomes formally involved in the nomination process, there are quite a number of election processes he can set in motion, thereby throw everything into a state of disorder. My problem is that if I accept this amendment, viz. that he shall formally seek election, that he should accept that he has to consent, one is limiting the discretion of the Minister to determine whether such a person is participating in politics while he is a member of the Community Development Board. This section has been in force since 1966 and we have never had any problems with it. No changes are being made to the principle, and I therefore cannot see why we should accept this amendment now. This definition only limits the discretion of the Minister to a very small extent. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. members, but I cannot see why we should effect a change at this stage, especially in view of the fact that the particular provision has never caused any problems in the past. This provision is being transferred as it stands from the old Land Tenure Board to the new Community Development Board. The present Community Development Board was consulted about this clause and had no objections to it. Consequently I wish to ask the hon. members to leave it unchanged.

Amendments negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with the English text of this clause and it seems to be very much the same when it comes to the Afrikaans text. I have a problem with the clause because it makes it clear that one has an imperative and a permissive applying to the same people at the same time. I am aware that there are brackets in reference to the one group of people. That is the intention, but it does not in fact work out that way. Clause 6 provides for the substitution of sub-section (1) by a new subsection as follows—

1. (1) A member of the board (other than the person who is in the full-time employment of the State and in receipt of a salary from public funds) shall, and any such person may, receive such remuneration allowances as the Minister may, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, determine …

As I read this clause, what one is really saying is that “a member of the board shall, and any such person may, receive such remuneration.” The bracketed part is an exclusion in this particular context. As far as I am concerned it does not make any sort of sense. The clause states that you shall do something and you may do something at the same time with the same people. It is quite obvious to me that the intention here is that there will be different regulations in so far as imbursements and so forth are concerned for part-time and full-time people and for those who are in the employ of the State. Here again nobody can quarrel with that as a concept. It is quite obvious that, in terms of the laws which say that you shall not be remunerated twice in the service of the State, this is the correct procedure, but I believe the way it is worded here is incorrect. It seems that one has an imperative and a permissive, as I said earlier, applying to the same thing. It is quite clear to me that the intention is that the full-time people shall receive remuneration and the part-timers, the people in the employ of the State, may receive remuneration, but particularly in respect of those in the employ of the State. This is why I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

It makes absolutely no difference to the intent behind the Bill, but it does seem to me to make common sense in English, which it does not do in the Bill as it stands at present.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. I think it is completely unnecessary. The words “such person”, which the hon. member now wants to omit, have bearing on the person who is referred to within the brackets. The only interpretation that can be placed on “such person” in the sense that it is used in this clause, is that it must be a person in the employment of the State. I also want to point out that that part of the clause which the hon. member now wishes to amend, is already contained in the existing Act, and there have never been any problems with this interpretation. Therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

*I want to be very honest with the hon. member. I took a lot of trouble over this clause. I asked the legal advisers of the department to have a look at this, and their recommendation was that, in technical legal terms, the interpretation as it stands here, covers both persons, namely, that person who is in the full-time employment of the council, as well as the person who renders the council his services on a temporary, ad hoc basis. I cannot therefore assist the hon. member by accepting his amendment. The advice I received from the legal representatives in the department is that the clause as printed covers the problems raised by the hon. member. I regret therefore that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, whilst it is perfectly true that the amendment I am suggesting does apply to a part of the clause that has been in the legislation all the way through, that does not mean to say that it was right when it was put there for the first time. If it is wrong, there is no reason why it should not be put right now because there is an amendment to this part of the clause which affects that. Therefore, I do not feel that there is any Parliamentary preclusion that need apply. In so far as the actual interpretation is concerned, however, I must disagree with the hon. the Deputy Minister even though he has the force majeure simply to take no notice of what I say. At the same time, I want to say that I think we are passing legislation which makes absolute nonsense of the English language.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I honestly think the hon. member for Umbilo is simply trying to be difficult this afternoon. [Interjections.] When we read this clause and then look at the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo we see that what he is actually requesting is already incorporated in the legislation. When it comes to the interpretation of legislation—and here I wish to concede that he is correct—then it is true that the man in the street has certain fears as far as legislation is concerned. In this connection I wish to make an appeal to our law advisers, as well as to the people who draft our laws, to draft our legislation in a simpler fashion so that it will be comprehensible to the man in the street as well. It is a fact that when one comes to the letter of the law, one finds that it affects everyone. It affects us in our lives, it affects us in our liberty and it affects us when it comes to the question of property. It affects us from the cradle to the grave. Since we are discussing an amendment of this nature today, I should like to make an appeal—and I am not referring specifically to the draftsman of this legislation which we have before us today—to our legal draftsman in this connection. There are certain terms which our legal experts use in the drafting of legislation as well as in the drafting of certain legal documents. In this connection certain stereotyped words and expressions are used which are no longer in current colloquial use. I think one should make an appeal to our legal draftsmen in this connection as well to consider this aspect of the matter. If they do so, I think that would also eliminate the problem of the hon. member for Umbilo to a large extent. Nevertheless I wish to say that, all things considered, I am unfortunately not able to support the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make one comment on what the hon. member for Umbilo said. The hon. member said here that I wanted to force this particular clause upon him. I object to that. The hon. member must take my word for it that I considered this particular amendment, which I received long in advance, for a very long time. I instructed my department to examine the legal language pertaining to this clause to see whether it did in fact include what the hon. member wants. They advised me to this effect, and I am accordingly informing this House. Therefore the hon. member for Umbilo must not adopt that standpoint. I gave thorough consideration to his amendment. What I want is for us to pass legislation in the normal way, as is expected of this hon. House, and as the hon. member for Umbilo expects of me. I should like the hon. member for Umbilo to take my word for this.

Amendment negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is primarily going to have two effects. The first effect is that it will enable the Community Development Board to dispose of land and to take more functions unto itself. Associated with that is the deletion of section 2(4) of the Act.

I believe that the effect of the Bill is going to be that Parliament will be deprived of the right to have further knowledge of the sale of State land, and that, I believe, is an unfortunate tendency on the part of the Government. This does not flow from only this Bill, but we can point to numerous other Bills too in terms of which the Government gave effect to its desire for secrecy. It has a desire to refer matters to bodies or to delegate power to groups who do not find themselves subjected to public scrutiny by means of this House. I believe that this is a serious departure from a long established principle.

In the Western World there is a desire to have what is known as an open society. Many people see that in racial terms, but the argument for an open society boils down to the desire to have a society in which public issues and matters of public interests are debated openly and publicly, because people know that when things are brought to the light and brought under cross-examination, such things are exposed.

We believe that this is important in a democratic society, and that is why we believe in having a parliamentary system and a free Press. That is why, for the purpose of having more open debate or open discussion, it is important that, for example, the new political party which has emerged should be exposed to the light of cross-examination and public debate so that all can see where it stands.

I believe that State land is something which in the view of every self-respecting member of Parliament, regardless of his party affiliation, is a matter of public interest, but the effect of this Bill will be that Parliament will no longer get a report on the sale of such land. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an undertaking that this Bill is not going to be used, for example, to keep undisclosed, except through the Deeds Office which involves a laborious search, the fact that land is being disposed of in District Six to, for example, White purchasers. Previously it was the responsibility of the department to bring to this House every year a list of all State land disposed of, but now the hon. the Minister will be able—I am not suggesting that that is why he has introduced the legislation—to withhold that information from Parliament. I am sure that as a reasonable Minister he will be prepared to give us an undertaking that all sales of land in District Six, for example, to people who are White will, until such time as District Six is declared an open area, be reported to the House.

I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to his Director-General to ensure that, if necessary, there is an annexure to the report of the Community Development Board to this House or to the report of the Department of Community Development in which a list is made available of State land sold, certainly any land which has a value of more than, say, R5 000 or R10 000.

I believe that by taking away from Parliament the right to know about the disposal of State land, we are actually taking a retrogressive step in terms of a commitment to a democratic system of government. For that reason I believe that the effect of this Bill is going to be, not an increase in the right of the public, through this Parliament, to know what is going on, but in fact an elimination of that right. That will be the effect of deleting this subsection.

The second effect of this Bill is going to be to bring the Foreshore within the ambit of this Act. That would, of course, be a sensible development. As has been mentioned earlier, this has been welcomed and we therefore look forward to the Foreshore entering, as it were, the normal real estate market of the City of Cape Town. That is something we welcome and look forward to.

We certainly will be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill, but we would like an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that the non-disclosure that results from the deletion of subsection (4) will not mean that we are going to have some secrecy, but rather a more open approach, possibly by way of the annual report of the Department of Community Development.

Mr. Speaker, even during the Second Reading debate the hon. member repeated the arguments previously used by the PFP. Of course his major point of criticism against this Bill concerns the amendment of section 2 by the deletion of subsection (4), as a result of which it will no longer be necessary to submit information on land that has been sold when Parliament is convened.

Not at all.

Yes, of course, not at all. That is quite correct. However, I pointed out to the hon. member at the time that this change had already been incorporated in the Agricultural Credit Act. Consequently it is not something which is now being laid down in legislation for the first time by this Parliament. If my memory serves me correctly, there was no objection on the part of the Opposition to this when the amendment were discussed in the House in 1966 and afterwards. If the hon. member reads the Community Development Act, he will see that the hon. the Minister has various powers, but that nothing can happen without the approval of the Minister.

Yes, Connie Mulder was also a Minister.

The hon. gentleman and his party are fully entitled to criticize the hon. the Minister of Community Development during the discussion of the Vote, or during the discussion of the budget or whatever, if he has exceeded his powers. [Interjections.] Why does the hon. member then want this special concession that a submission should be made to this House?

Look at how they schemed and connived (“het hulle ge-konkel”) during that Information business.

How can the Community Development Board scheme and connive? They can only scheme and connive if that hon. member shirks his democratic right and responsibility in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:May the hon. member say that the hon. the Minister will scheme and connive?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

Mr. Speaker, the point is … [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. member please repeat the words he used?

The words I used were that “a Minister may scheme and connive”, as the former Minister of Information, Dr. Connie Mulder, did.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for De Kuilen said the board would not scheme and connive, and then the hon. member said that the Minister would scheme and connive. [Interjections.] He said “The Minister”. Who is telling a lie now? He said “The Minister” would scheme and connive.

He said “a Minister”, and you will have to accept his word for that.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister has just said that the hon. member has told a lie. Surely he may not say that.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that?

Yes, Sir, but let me just say on a point of explanation that the hon. member said: “Die Minister kan konkel” (The Minister may scheme and connive). [Interjections.]

Yes, I said that.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister thereupon say that he was telling a lie?

Sir, the hon. member has himself admitted now that he said “The Minister may scheme and connive” and not “a Minister”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I said the Minister may scheme and connive. [Interjections.] What I meant, however, was that “the Minister” may be used as an example of “a Minister”. I was not referring to the Minister of Community Development in person.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: May the hon. member address you with his hand in his trouser-pocket? [Interjections.]

Order!

I come from a different cultural milieu to that of the hon. the Minister.

Order! If the hon. member makes one further remark I shall be obliged to ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. He must respect the Chair. Nor is it fitting for an hon. member to address the Chair with his hand in his trouser-pocket. If an hon. member makes an appeal to the Chair, he must at least respect the Chair. As far as the point or order is concerned, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North must withdraw the words “die Minister kan konkel”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said that the hon. member was a liar. I think he must be asked to withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, if I may just explain, I wish to say that the hon. member himself admitted that he did not say “a Minister” but “the Minister”.

Then he was not telling a lie.

Order! I ordered the hon. member to withdraw the words. The hon. the Minister must also withdraw his allegation that what the hon. member said was a lie.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, the hon. member suggested that this House could not exercise any form of control now in that a serious principle was being done away with, namely that reports had to be submitted to this House. After the commotion which has just taken place, I want to make it very clear that if anything improper were to occur, that hon. member and every hon. member in this House has the responsibility—and there will be quite a number of opportunities for doing so—to call the hon. the Minister to account.

How would one know that someone is scheming and conniving?

The hon. member asked how one would know. In the first place there is a report from the Community Development Board. If something improper occurs, does the hon. member want to tell me that he will not hear about it, that he will not find out about it? Of course he will get to hear about it. If that hon. member or any other hon. member then shirks his duty in this respect, he cannot blame the House or the hon. the Minister for that, because it is the responsibility of every member, if something improper occurs, to bring it to public notice.

However, I know what the hon. member’s problem is. This is a good piece of legislation. It is merely consequential legislation. The hon. member has no objection to the change in respect of the Cape Town Foreshore Act, or to the additional responsibility which is being conferred upon the Community Development Board; or rather, he ought to have no objection to it. Now he is looking for something to criticize. He is looking for a spectre he can conjure up. The spectre is that no more reports will be submitted to this House. I wish to say that the provision concerned should have been abolished long ago. It is no longer necessary for this to be contained in legislation, and there will also be adequate opportunity for every member to criticize anything improper which might occur.

However, I find it strange that the hon. member should kick up such a tremendous fuss about clause 2. The PFP did precisely the same thing during the Second Reading debate. However, if one were to look at clause 5, one would find that it contains the following—

The words appearing in brackets are now being omitted from the legislation. But the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North did not say a single word about that. Consequently, if he is so concerned about the fact that reports will no longer be submitted to the House of Assembly, I want to know why he is not also objecting to the wording of clause 5. Surely it is precisely the same principle which applies here. But the hon. member did not say a single word about it—not in the Second Reading debate, nor during the Committee Stage, and not during the Third Reading debate either. That is why I maintain that the hon. member is conjuring up spectres and sowing suspicion against the hon. the Minister of Community Development. Yet no suspicion in any form was sown against the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries when this responsibility was still his. In terms of this legislation the responsibility is now being transferred from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to the Minister of Community Development.

There is sin even in the NP!

I want to know from the hon. member why no objection was raised at the time, while an objection is being raised now. Now he has a great deal to say about this, and I maintain that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has no argument whatsoever. He is merely kicking up dust in order to sow suspicion against the Minister of Community Development.

We support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no fault to find with this legislation.

Naturally we have gained experience of this board over a very long period. Yet we have never experienced any problems when this board was dealing with the disposal of State land.

All that is happening now is that the State President is being granted the right to dispose of State land. As far as I am concerned, this presents no problem. I am a person who believes that we should obtain as much information as possible in regard to the board in question. If one were to be given a choice, one would of course assert that it was not really necessary to omit this provision. On the other hand I believe there is no matter which in fact warrants investigation which cannot be investigated in the normal way. Consequently I shall not insist upon this either.

What I feel very pleased about is the fact that the rights of provinces are being reserved. For that reason we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, during Second Reading I also raised this issue of the removal of the need to table the transactions concluded by the board. However, at the time the hon. the Deputy Minister, I believe, indicated that in the annual report of the department there would be a schedule of the said transactions. If that is to be the case, and the hon. the Deputy Minister is willing to confirm it, then we will of course be very happy with that. It does not really make much difference whether it is published in a separate report or in a combined report of the department. As long as it is available to hon. members of this House, I believe, that is all that is required.

The time factor is, I believe, also not particularly important.

There is one other point that I should like to mention though in relation to this very aspect. During Second Reading the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North produced a schedule of the various land transactions. Over the period concerned, I think, it came to a couple of hundred odd transactions. This does rather surprise me because, in view of a large number of properties that are being sold to independent home owners, I would have thought there would be considerably more transactions. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister, in replying to the Third Reading debate, will indicate to the House what happens to this type of transaction. The transactions, as I saw them, were in connection with fairly substantial pieces of land. There are, however, hundreds of smaller transactions that do not appear to have been included in that particular schedule that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made available to me.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for De Kuilen hit the nail on the head when he said that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North suffered from a lack of decent argument with regard to this particular clause. [Interjections.] The hon. member made a statement about secrecy, etc., but I do not want to waste the time of the House with this type of argument. We have already spoken frankly to one another, i.e. during the Second Reading.

However, the fact is that this legislation consolidates a variety of transactions with regard to State Land. As such it is part of the rationalization process, because there are a number of Acts dealing with State land. Thus this clause also aims at consolidating the transactions and the disposal of information about transactions. That is why section 2, for example, is being deleted. In this regard the hon. member for Umbilo quite rightly said that it did not matter in what form information was made available, as long as the information was available. This information is supplied in the annual report of the department. However, this does not mean that information about all these transactions will be made available in the same way. For example it need not necessarily be included in the prescribed list in terms of the provision of the particular section. It can also appear in another form. However, it will be possible for any member of this House to acquire information with regard to transactions. An hon. member would, for example, have the right to ask a question across the floor of the House with regard to a specific transaction and the Minister would then be obliged to reply to it. Information, control or secrecy of whatever nature is therefore not the problem with regard to this legislation.

The hon. member for Umbilo also said that certain transactions did not appear on the list. I understand that this happened because those transactions fall under the Department of Community Development and are therefore not published in that way. At this stage I cannot explain precisely why certain transactions do not appear on that list, but I will get the particulars and make them available to the hon. member.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, while this party supports the principle contained in the Bill, which permits the consolidation of land with agricultural potential into viable farming units, and also supports the making of such land available to farmers at prices which actually may be below the market price, I must respond to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s remarks in regard to the removal of members of the Fingo tribe from land in the Humansdorp district. He spoke about this at great length last week and, amongst other things, attacked me for having observed that land prices appeared to be very low. This was mentioned in a report in The Evening Post. He flourished this report and said that I owed the House an apology for making the statement that these land prices were low. He had obviously done a lot of homework.

You said the Government acted quietly on the issue.

I quote from the report—

He had obviously done a good deal of homework, because he then proceeded to analyze the sale which I had made in an attempt to establish that the Fingo ground was being sold at low prices. The hon. the Deputy Minister is an experienced farmer and is familiar with the Humansdorp district. He should know—and I believe he does know—that the farm which I sold is not in the Tsitsikamma proper and not comparable with the Fingo land. The special value of the Fingo land lies in the fact that it is an area with an annual rainfall of 950 mm or more. It has a rich accumulation of humus over centuries, and properly fertilized and cultivated it has been proved that that strip of land has a very high agricultural potential. The Fingo land is in no way different from the land I have described. If the hon. the Minister had been objective in his approach, if his purpose had been to find out and not to cover up, then surely he would have checked on the farms that have recently been sold.

Cover up what?

I will tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what he was covering up. A number of farms in that particular area and the area adjacent to it have been sold over the last year. Why pick on a farm which is completely extraneous and not even in the same area? Why were the farms which were absolutely adjacent to the Fingo reserve not chosen? Several have been sold in the area. One farm of 600 ha which is adjacent to the Fingo reserve was sold last year for approximately R1 000 per hectare. Another piece of land was sold for just under R1 000 per hectare and that I believe does not include a house. I am told that the Suiderland farm is up for sale at a price well in excess of R1 000 per hectare. Farm land adjacent to the reserve on the south side—that is between the reserve and the sea—has been sold for between R1 500 and R2 000 per hectare. Rainfall figures obtained from farmers in the area are to the effect that there is nothing anomalous about the Fingo land. It is the same kind of land; it has the same type of vegetation, the same characteristics and the same rainfall.

What is the agricultural value of that particular land?

I have just told the hon. the Deputy Minister that it has been sold for R1 000 per hectare.

That is the market value and not the agricultural value.

The prices I have just mentioned, of R1 000 per hectare and more, must be compared with prices of R139 and R325 per hectare for which the Government is selling the Fingo land. I think the whole argument is ridiculous. The question of the land value hardly arises at this stage. Hon. members in this House and the public must not allow themselves to be misled by the feigned indignation of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The principle involved is whether or not the Government has the moral right to remove people from land which they have inhabited for 150 years. The hon. the Deputy Minister says he regards the report in the Weekend Post as “uiters kwaadwillig”. What is it expected to be? Does he think these people are going to “dank die agb. Minister” like many sycophants who sit on that side of the House? Are they going to thank the hon. the Minister that he loaded them and their families on a truck in the small hours of the morning, bulldozed their houses flat and paid out a few hundred rand in compensation prior to dumping them in the veld in the Ciskei, to strive to eke out an existence in the most abject poverty?

On what Bill are you speaking?

I am replying to an attack on me by the hon. the Minister on this Bill. [Interjections.]

I did not attack you on this issue.

You asked me for an apology on it. The hon. the Deputy Minister describes as “leuen No. 1” a Black Sash statement “dat hierdie grond nog Swart is”. What has caused this ground, upon which 3 000 people once lived and which was granted to them 150 years ago in perpetuity and which was to be held in trust for them by the Government, to be seized from its owners? In the terse and frightening phrase of the hon. the Deputy Minister the area has been “ver-Wit”. I wonder what the Xhosa word is for “ver-Swart”? it is a word we might come to know some time in the future because, as someone recently said, a Black Government in South Africa would have to add no single measure to its armoury of rights, privileges and powers to establish one of the most tyrannous régimes in the world.

What has that to do with this Bill?

They would have been taught that by example and by experience. The hon. the Deputy Minister quotes me as saying that offering land to White farmers was a gross repudiation of moral obligation to the Fingo people who have lived there for generations, and he suggests that I owe this House an apology. Let us just consider the terms on which this land was given to the Fingoes. I quote from the original deed of reservation. Witelsbos was described as “held in trust” and Witkleibos as a “certificate of reservation in favour of Matemola” and those Fingoes descended from him.

Order! On which part of Clause 1 is the hon. member speaking at present?

I am speaking on Clause 1 because I have been asked to apologize to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the remarks I have made.

You are not speaking on Clause 1.

I cannot apologize without explaining.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on this point? During the Second Reading debate on this Bill the hon. the Deputy Minister made a direct charge against the hon. member for Walmer. He questions the hon. the Deputy Minister’s right of selling this land in these circumstances. With great respect to you, Mr. Chairman, this is the only opportunity that the hon. member has to explain. Furthermore he is the first speaker of the official Opposition on the first clause of the Bill, and it is generally accepted practice, as I understand it, to discuss certain matters in more detail on the first clause.

Yes, but it must be relevant to the clause under discussion. I would suggest that the Third Reading would be a more opportune moment to discuss this aspect than the Committee Stage.

With great respect, Sir, it does not make any difference. Clause 1 deals with the matter in general and therefore, with great respect, the hon. member is relevant.

Order! The hon. member for Walmer must confine himself to the clause now before the Committee. He can discuss his point in general in the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I shall therefore bring this matter up in the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I do understand that it is accepted practice that one speaker from each party may discuss matters of general principle in a Bill during the Committee Stage. This is precisely what I want to do. I just want to make one or two observations in regard to this particular Bill at this stage. One of the points I would like to bring very forcibly to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department is that it is essential that when properties, envisaged under this Bill, are transferred to the Agricultural Credit Board, the transfer should be done with as little delay as possible. It is equally essential that when those properties, holdings and areas are reallocated, they should be given effect to immediately. There is nothing more undesirable in a community than land which is unoccupied because inevitably such land will in due course be utilized by all and sundry.

I should also like to raise a point with the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the views expressed by local agricultural credit committees. I want to say that their recommendations in regard to allocations of any property should be given prior consideration. This is very necessary particularly in the light of the local knowledge that members of the local agricultural credit committees have. It is equally essential that applicants who are acquainted with local conditions should also be given some preferential consideration when it comes to the allocation of such property. We have seen areas that have been allocated to people who were not in any way aware of the circumstances appertaining locally. Because of this, in many cases there have been disastrous results. It is in that context that I say that local opinion, local content and local experience should carry heavy weight in so far as a final allocation of land is concerned.

I should also like to make one further suggestion to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the agricultural credit system as such. This also has a great deal of bearing on the Bill which is before us at the moment. Complaints are made ad nauseam with regard to delays in the processing of applications. In many instances, these delays have a very great effect upon the people who are involved. In fact, delays that have occurred frequently have caused embarrassment, hardship and uncertainty. I would like to suggest that possibly the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department could give some consideration to the question of decentralization of some of the functions in the agricultural credit system. I feel that if this matter was dealt with on a more decentralized basis it would result in a greatly improved service to all those involved.

With these remarks I wish to state that I think this is a very positive piece of legislation and is one which we on these benches are happy to support.

Mr. Chairman, you ruled the hon. member for Walmer out of order and for this reason I shall react to certain of his statements during the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Are we going to debate these points now or are we going to debate them during the Third Reading?

Mr. Chairman, I should be glad if the hon. member for Hillbrow would just listen. He is being far too hasty. He is becoming excited and he is becoming nervous.

I am not nervous.

I said I would react to certain of the hon. member for Walmer’s statements during the Third Reading.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member should really go back to Groote Schuur because he is completely out of his depth here. However, I should like to react now to the statements the hon. member for Walmer made on this particular clause. Does the hon. member for Hillbrow have any objections to that? Very well, then.

As far as the price of the land is concerned the hon. member for Walmer alleged that adjoining land there was sold for R1 000 a hectare. That is quite correct, but let us look at the type of land we are being authorized to sell in terms of the legislation.

I shall begin by saying there is consensus in the House among all the parties—I am including the PFP—that the land must be sold to farmers at its agricultural value. Surely the hon. member knows—if he does not know the hon. member for Wynberg should tell him—that there is a tremendous difference between the agricultural value of land and its market value. In some cases the difference can be as great as 200% or 300%.

Let us take R1 000 per hectare as a norm. What must this man do when he first settles on the land? In the first place he must eradicate any harmful plants. We estimate it will take him about three hours per hectare with a large bulldozer to clear the land. The usual tariff for a bulldozer is R35 an hour. This therefore amounts to R100 per hectare. Grazing must then be established. The hon. member will know that it costs in the vicinity of R800 to establish a hectare of grazing, depending on the type of grazing. The grazing to be established in that area is mainly grass varieties and clover. In this case it will cost more or less R800 per hectare. Fencing and watering points are also needed. Water must be available in the various camps. I estimate that this will come to about R200 per hectare, although hon. members here tell me my estimate is too low. Let us say it will cost R200 per hectare. These three items together total R1 100 per hectare, and that is merely to enable the young man settling there to start farming.

Of course that man does not have a house or outbuildings and kraals there yet. Let us say a house costs R40 000. I do not know whether one can still build a decent house for R40 000 these days. I do know that the young men we are going to establish there will build cheaply. Initially they will only build a rondavel or two. For argument’s sake, however, let us put the figure at R40 000. Let us say that his outbuildings, kraals, dip tank and so forth will cost him a further R20 000.

The above expenditure amounts to a further R62 000 for 300 hectares, and I maintain that in view of this, surely the land is not cheap. We must remember that the purchase price of the land must also be paid, and this totals R325 per hectare. He must pay the purchase price in addition to all these extra expenses which he has to incur just to get into production.

The hon. member must really be reasonable. We are establishing a young man with limited capital. We have reached a consensus in this House that we must establish him at agricultural value.

We have reached a consensus, yes.

The other day the hon. member for Wynberg stated this matter very well when he said we should establish that young man at agricultural value. What I objected to—it appears in my Hansard—is that the hon. member said “the Government acted very quietly on this issue”, as if he wanted to say “hush, hush, there is something going on here”. That is all I have to say to the hon. member. I feel he can think things over for himself. I do not want to have a confrontation with the hon. member, particularly not about legislation we are agreed on. The hon. member has a great deal of experience in this sort of thing and if, as a practical person, he thinks this over realistically, he will agree with me that the land is not cheap; it costs a farmer a tremendous amount to begin farming there after he has established himself there. I think we should leave each other alone now. I have told him what I wanted to say and he has told me what he wanted to say. Let us leave it at that; we are now agreed and he buried the hatchet.

As regards the other matter, it would perhaps be better to say a few words about it during the Third Reading debate.

I am grateful once again for the remarks made by the hon. member for Mooi River. I should like to reaffirm what I said during the Second Reading debate. In the first place it must be our aim and our endeavour to establish young farmers, men who are about 30 to 35 years old. This is the type of person one wants. In the second place, as I have just said, they must be established at agricultural economic value. In the third place that farmer must farm according to the prescriptions of the Agricultural Technical Services Division. The hon. member for King William’s Town emphasized that point very strongly the other day. The fourth point is the point the hon. member emphasized so strongly just a moment ago, which is that the sooner we can get the land into production, the sooner we can get people established there, the better it will be, not only for the area, but also for the land concerned. The strongest argument put forward by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, who is now transferring this land to us, was the fact that his department did not have all the mechanisms to be able to dispose of that land quickly. This was one of his strongest arguments for having this legislation passed by Parliament so that the land could be transferred to the department which does have the necessary expertise to dispose of the land quickly.

Unfortunately there are still certain delays. In the case of an open piece of land one must in the first place determine the potential of that land. Reports on the potential must be drawn up, soil samples must be taken, etc. In the second place it must be determined what the size of an economic unit will be. In the third place the land surveyor must be sent out. He must survey the land and erect the beacons. Only then can one advertise the land. What I said the other day during the discussion on the Second Reading links up with what the hon. member said. In the Second Reading debate I said we have also accepted the principle that people can be established there on a temporary basis, even before all these things have been done. The land can be leased temporarily to selected applicants, with the option of allowing the person to remain there on a permanent basis when all the processes have been completed. Basically, however, I agree with the hon. member that the sooner one establishes a person on that land the better it will be for the person and for the land. We have a classic example with the Fingo land. That land has been unoccupied since 1978 and nothing is being done on that land. The land is completely overgrown with hakea. Hon. members know that hakea is classified as a noxious weed. The problem was so bad that neighbouring farmers began to complain that the weed was starting to grow on their side of the boundaries. That is why it is so essential to put this matter right. I therefore want to support the hon. member very strongly. I shall do everything in my power to dispose of the land which becomes available as quickly as possible.

The hon. member referred to the decentralization of the department in order to handle these matters more quickly. I think if we adopt the method I have just set out we shall be able to deal with this matter very quickly. However, we already have staff problems. I therefore do not know whether we shall have sufficient staff to be able to decentralize the department fully. However, I can just indicate what I have already done. I already mentioned this in the Second Reading. The applications are submitted to the local Agricultural Credit Committees and those committees deal with the applications before the applications are sent to Pretoria. In other words, a large part of the screening process is done locally. This is a degree of decentralization. This is the policy we introduced last year, and I think it will be a great help. However, in my opinion it will not, in view of the current staff problems, be possible to decentralize the department fully.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, as you will remember, the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted me as saying that I thought that taking this land was a gross repudiation of a moral obligation the Government had towards the Fingo people. I said we should consider the terms on which the land was given. I think that from those terms it comes out very clearly what that obligation is. If one reads the original Reservation document, one finds that Witelsbos was described as held “in trust”, that in respect of Witkleibos there was a certificate of reservation in favour of Matomola and those Fingo descended from him, and that in respect of Doris Kraal there was a certificate of reservation in trust for the Fingos of the tribe of Uzwube. The other deeds of reservation are all in a similar vein.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he does not also construe this as a moral obligation. In his private business I am sure that, when it comes to a contract, he does not only consider the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law. If that is the case, why should public morality be any different from private morality?

This land was given for services rendered in wars against the Xhosa. It was clearly held in trust by the South African Government for the Fingo people, but what do we find now? The trustee has found a loophole in the legal documents, has moved the beneficiaries of the trust against their will, has dumped them hundreds of kilometres away in conditions of abject poverty, has sold the assets of the trust—that is a fact—or is in the process of selling them, and will pocket the money from such sale.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has said “die agb. lid is ons ’n verskoning verskuldig vir die feit dat hy te kenne gegee het dat daar nie reg met hierdie saak gehandel is nie.” I do not believe we have dealt with this satisfactorily at all. “Ek is ’n verskoning verskuldig”, but not to the Government. I believe that I and everybody else in the House and everybody with a white skin in this country owes an apology to the Fingo people. I do not expect them to accept it. I do believe, however, that, at the very least, the money received from the sale of this ground should be used to compensate the Fingo people for their loss. Measured by every moral yardstick, the money can only be considered theirs. If it is impossible to give them the money, I believe that, alternatively, land of equivalent agriculture or pastoral value should be set aside for their exclusive use if we believe even remotely in trying to find an equitable solution to a situation like this.

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing agricultural legislation here, and therefore it really surprised me that after the explanation the hon. the Deputy Minister gave the hon. member for Walmer in connection with what was really involved—the hon. Deputy Minister also repeated what he had said during the Second Reading debate—the hon. member nevertheless continued, during the Third Reading, to debate this matter in the way he has just done. [Interjections.] Those hon. members may as well listen to what I have to say. I kept very quiet and listened to the hon. member for Walmer when he was speaking.

The first principle involved here is that the pieces of land specified here were rezoned in 1975, when they were still trust land, by way of resolution of this Parliament, for use by Whites. Because this matter actually involves Black land which has now become White land, this specific discussion should rather take place under the Co-operation and Development Vote. This is where this subject should actually be discussed.

The Bill under discussion concerns the question of how the Department of Agricultural Credit should deal with the matter after the land has been disposed of. However, I find this interesting, in view of the fact that we have always been of the opinion that we should keep politics out of agriculture. We have always adopted this approach, and have also had the co-operation of the PFP. [Interjections.] However, if the hon. member for Walmer now wishes to raise this matter all over again, I should like to quote to him what the hon. Deputy Minister had to say during the Second Reading debate. I want to do so to ascertain whether the hon. member really has a reason for raising this political matter when agricultural legislation is being discussed.

On Thursday, 25 March 1982, the hon. the Deputy Minister used the following words here in this House (Hansard, 25 March 1982, col. 3701)—

That was when the specific land was being alienated. The hon. the Deputy Minister went on to quote what the hon. member for Walmer’s comment had been, as follows—

The hon. the Deputy Minister merely quoted what the hon. member for Walmer had already said. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not try to start a quarrel. However, he merely tried to place a certain statement which had been published, a statement which had been made by the hon. member for Walmer in a newspaper interview, in its correct perspective. Before the hon. member for Walmer spoke today, the hon. the Deputy Minister explained exactly how the Department of Agricultural Credit acts in regard to such land it has at its disposal. Notice is given of such an intention. Surveys are made. Particulars are made available for inspection at magistrates’ offices. Prospective buyers may then apply in a specifically prescribed way. If the hon. member for Walmer then, according to the newspaper report quoted, made the allegation that that was the first time he had heard of the matter, surely he should not blame the Government for the fact that he did not know. If he had the interests of agriculture at heart, he would have taken the trouble to go into the specific procedure and ascertain what was happening in that case. Then he could have reacted on the basis of the knowledge he had acquired in the process.

I find it regrettable that the hon. member for Walmer raised a matter here, when agricultural legislation was being discussed, which should in reality have been discussed under the Co-operation and Development Vote. He raised a matter here which could cause real problems in regard to race relations. This is proved by the statement he has just made about land which is being unjustly alienated from the Fingos. He alleged that the returns from the land transactions should actually have gone to the Fingos. I find it extremely regrettable that he raised this matter during a discussion of agricultural legislation. I think even the hon. member for Wynberg will hang his head in shame at this. It is certainly not the way we have, up to now, dealt with agriculture in this House. [Interjections.]

There are also several other matters I unfortunately did not have the opportunity to deal with during the Second Reading debate. Clause 1 deals with immovable State property and the sale, the leasing and the development of State land in future. Now we also know that the hon. the Deputy Minister has adopted a very practical approach to methods dealing with and allocating this land. This is proved by the way in which he did this, and even by the changes which he introduced in the allocation of the land at Putfontein. In connection with this land the matter was first referred to the Agricultural Credit Board, which undertook the initial sifting process. However, it appeared that there were certain problems, which were an inherent part of the entire process. For this reason the hon. the Deputy Minister decided that in future he would have similar transactions referred to the committees of the Department of Agricultural Credit first. These committees will undertake the sifting process, after which the Department of Agricultural Credit will have the absolute say as regards the allocation of the land, in co-operation with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I want to comment as follows on the alienation of this State land. The land is being sold at its agricultural value, and we on this side of the House—as a matter of fact, all parties in this House—and the agricultural unions agree that this is the right thing to do. In the first place these are young farmers who do not have sufficient capital to purchase land at the normal market value, and for this reason it must be possible for them to buy land at a reasonable price and be able to earn enough from that land to be able to pay the interest on the purchase price.

As regards the allocation and the alienation of this land, there is one aspect for which I should like to suggest an alternative. When the land is allocated, there is still the possibility that a mistake can be made as to the man who will manage the farm effectively.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it proper for the hon. member to address the Chair with his hands in his pockets.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, it is strange how touchy one becomes after one has been hurt. [Interjections.]

With the allocation or the availability of that land, the capital requirements for the man who is able to purchase it even at its agricultural value, make certain demands which may still disqualify the young prospective farmer. I should therefore like to suggest leasing on a trial basis. This has the advantage that the lessee to whom the land is to be allocated, can prove himself on the land. It is more than likely that he will need less capital to run a farm, and that land can be allocated to him only after he has proved himself. Leasing of the land is therefore done with a view to selling it to a man who has already proved himself. I do not think this has been argued or discussed in the past, and I suggest that something of the sort be considered.

Another matter I should like to raise concerns the proposed section 10C(2), which reads—

I believe this is a step in the right direction by the Government and the department. They can now obtain funds in this way for the Agricultural Credit Board’s revolving fund, and in this way the Agricultural Credit Board will eventually have sufficient funds to be able to function independently. In the past agricultural credit had an actual shortage of capital in times of need and could therefore not make the necessary loans to prospective farmers or to farmers in difficulties. The principle contained in the proposed section could mean that the financial position of the Agricultural Credit Board, which, for example had to cease purchasing land this year owing to a shortage of funds, could now be strengthened.

I think we on this side of the House, and the farming community as a whole, should express our thanks to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department for the way in which the farmers are being helped, and also for the goodwill inherent in this legislation, because the interests of the farming community as a whole are being furthered in this way by the Deputy Minister, the department and the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the speech by the hon. member for Ventersdorp. I think that in particular his proposal that land be leased to prospective buyers on a lease basis deserves the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department. I think this is a particularly good idea and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Ventersdorp on it.

I think it is most regrettable that the hon. member for Walmer seized on this Bill—which is a very good Bill and in the interests of agriculture and farmers—to start an unsavoury rumour. I think it is a great shame that this occasion was made use of—although we are almost getting used to this sort of thing—yet again to bedevil relations between Whites and non-Whites on every possible occasion. I have never heard conservatives in South Africa objecting to State land being given to Blacks, even if it is given away for nothing.

We have here the unsavoury insinuation by the hon. member for Walmer that the State gave land to Whites in an improper way, and this insinuation cannot be ignored.

We in these benches support the legislation wholeheartedly because it is in the interests of the farmers of South Africa and in the interests of agriculture in general.

Mr.

Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation.

In the first place, I should like to return to a question asked by the hon. member for Wynberg which has not yet been replied to. The hon. member asked how much land was available for alienation by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I should now like to give him the figures I received. Economic units, that is dry land, total approximately 48 804 ha; uneconomic units, that is small pieces of waste land and dam basins, etc., total 9 839 ha, and irrigation units total 3 727 ha, a total, therefore of approximately 62 170 ha.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Walmer is not in the House at the moment—but in pursuance of what the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Ventersdorp said, I want to point out that those people were not removed to nowhere. They lived on 7 600 ha in Humansdorp, and they were resettled in on 8 400 ha in the Ciskei. Therefore they did not receive nothing in exchange for the land they had. I want to emphasize that these Black people never had ownership rights on the land. It was always State land. The hon. member for Carletonville said that Parliament had already decided in 1975 that the people must be moved. The hon. member for Walmer really must not come and reproach me because the people were moved. I was in Parliament in 1975 and therefore had a share in the decision, but I was not solely responsible for their removal. However, we shall not be able to agree on this matter because the hon. member’s party’s policy does not coincide with my party’s policy regarding the removal of badly situated Black spots. Those people were living on 7 600 ha of land surrounded by Coloureds and Whites and were not near their own people. By rights they belong to the Fingo tribe of the Ciskei.

Did you consult them first?

My information is that they are quite happy where they are now.

I do not want to debate this matter further, but I do want to take strong exception to a report by the Black Sash regarding the way I dealt with the matter during the Second Reading. I do not want to react to it. I treat it with the contempt it deserves. I really think these people must stop this sort of thing because it is not doing anybody any good. The hon. member for Barberton was right to say that all that is achieved by this sort of thing is the bedevilment of relations in the country. The hon. member for Ventersdorp, supported by the hon. member for Barberton, advocated the idea of leasing on a test basis. I was very impressed with this idea. That is why I told the hon. member for Mooi River that because the process of permanent alienation is a long process—sometimes it takes over a year—I have suggested to the Agricultural Credit Board that we dispose of this type of land temporarily, in other words that we lease the land on a temporary basis. However, we must apply a process of selection even at the stage of leasing the land, and not merely lease the land to the highest bidder. It may be extremely dangerous to give someone the option to purchase. However, my problem is this: If a farmer leases land, he is going to erect the minimum of capital works there. For example, he is not going to build a house and he is not going to plan the farm completely because there is still a factor of uncertainty. On the other hand, there is the danger that if one gives him the option to buy, after five years one is virtually compelled to sell to him. For this reason one must try to strike a balance in this regard. I therefore promise to go into this matter very thoroughly, because I think it is an excellent idea first to test the farmer one is placing on the land. If he cannot make the grade, one removes him and replaces him with someone else who can. I therefore think this is an excellent idea. I shall consult the hon. member in this connection in the future.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp also mentioned a further point. It is a point I emphasized in the Second Reading, namely that in terms of this legislation we can purchase land with State funds. In other words, we can budget to purchase X ha of irrigation land, for say, R1 million. We receive the money from the Treasury and the day the land is alienated, those funds are paid into the account of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. This is a tremendously valuable concession. In this regard I agree with the hon. member. I have already expressed my thanks, and wish to do so again today, to the hon. the Minister of Finance and his department for being so accommodating as to accede to our request in this connection.

I want to make a second assertion in this connection. The hon. member for Barberton will remember that when he was still among his friends, the agriculture group approached the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs to ask that agricultural land be returned to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries as soon as possible and not fall under another department. Today I want to thank him, as the former chairman, and the rest of the agriculture group, as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs, for the fact that this matter was dealt with so quickly. It was only raised last session. I should also like to express my thanks to the officials, particularly Mr. Louis Fouché and Mr. Piet van Blommestein, who really lost no time in dealing with this matter. I am very grateful for this. It has been one of my life’s ideals that agricultural land must fall under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries so that we can dispose of it expertly. I am therefore particularly grateful today that we have progressed so far that we were able to pilot this legislation through Parliament.

I wish to thank hon. members most sincerely once again for their many wonderful contributions and for their special interest in the settlement of young farmers in our country. Thank you very much for a most fruitful discussion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, just before this debate was adjourned, I had occasion to cross swords with the hon. member for Berea. I pointed out that an Act had been passed by this House last year dealing with the registration of nurses who are members of the S.A. Nursing Association. Section 1(a) of the Nursing Amendment Act, 1981, amended section 38 of the Nursing Act, 1978, by replacing subsection (1)(a) of that section with the following subsection—

Section 38 of the Nursing Act, 1978, was amended to provide a clear definition of the territory in which the association functions or is allowed to function, by means of the phrase “practising his profession within the Republic”. This amendment was intended to eliminate any uncertainty about the territory and to define it clearly. The 1971 Act relating to the national States very clearly lays down that when a State becomes self-governing, it is responsible for regulating its own health affairs, and therefore has jurisdiction over nursing as well. Last year the official Opposition, through the mouth of the hon. member for Berea, tried to make political capital out of this matter, and they have in fact done the same this year. They wanted to emphasize the colour connotation. The hon. the Minister then spelt out to them that when a nurse works alternately in Natal and in KwaZulu, she has to register with the council and she also has to register with the Nursing Association. This means that as soon as they come to work in the Republic, they have to register. There is nothing new about this. Nor is anyone being discriminated against. The situation is quite clear. The National States Constitution Act gives jurisdiction to the national States to organize their own health services. Act 71 of 1981 inserted a provision, which was in line with this, to the effect that a nurse registered with the S.A. Nursing Association practised her profession within the Republic, and we are now introducing this amendment to define clearly what the borders of the Republic are for the purposes of this legislation.

Clause 2 provides for the S.A. Nursing Council to perform certain functions under certain circumstances in territories which used to form part of the Republic. This is in the spirit of other legislation which has already been passed and it is being done in order to render assistance to the national States where they may need assistance until such time as they are able to take charge of those services themselves in the process of becoming self-sufficient. It is important to note that this clause recognizes the jurisdiction of the government of a self-governing State with regard to its health services, because it provides that the council may perform any function assigned to it by or under any law of that State in connection with control measures in that State.

The acceptance of this amendment will greatly clarify matters, and for that reason I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Middelburg has made a very good contribution, and we on this side of the House fully agree with his standpoint on this amending Bill. However, it is quite clear to us that the PFP seizes upon this kind of legislation time and again and year after year in order to propagate its ideology of one mixed government at all levels of administration, one professional association which has to exercise control over all the national States in Southern Africa. This is a policy which simply does not work. It is a policy which has never worked anywhere in Africa. In Africa one either chooses the course of integration in all fields, which is what the PFP policy actually amounts to …

And the NP policy.

… and the outcome of this is conflict and eventually Black majority rule, as has happened in our neighbouring States, or one chooses the course of orderly separation at all levels, orderly separation, vertical separation and differentiation in accordance with the policy of the CP. There is no middle course in this process. He who finds himself caught in the middle between these two poles will be ground to powder by the exigencies of the times. And we are going to see this happening here.

Just look at what is happening in one of our neighbouring States, beyond the Limpopo. Mugabe and Nkomo are two Black leaders who waged a so-called struggle for freedom with terrorists. They took over the government of the country with great fanfare, but the moment they had to govern together, it would not work. What is the reason for this?

What has that got to do with the Bill?

I am coming to that; I shall explain presently.

They are leaders of two different Black peoples, each with its own language, its own tradition and its own customs, and they could not be governed jointly by one government.

Now the hon. member for Berea comes along …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would you give a ruling as to whether this is relevant to the Bill?

Order! The hon. member for Pietersburg must confine himself to the Bill.

Gladly, Sir, and that is precisely why I am coming to the hon. member for Berea. He said the following, inter alia, in his Second Reading speech (Hansard, 1982, col. 3715)—

Once again the hon. member wants to speak for KwaZulu, as he did in the passage I have just quoted.

Last year the hon. the Minister said the following in connection with the same subject (Hansard, 21 August 1981, col. 1595)—

The hon. the Minister also referred to KwaZulu—

But he admits that he got it wrong last year.

Wait a minute, I am coming to that.

The Bill which is before us is intended to rectify a situation in law so that there can be no misunderstanding. The hon. member for Berea has once again spoken about the KwaZulu situation instead of concentrating on the situation of Berea. The situation to which he refers does not reflect the opinion of Black people in general. Every Black man in this country—I also know them; the hon. member for Berea is not the only one who talks to them—who has any self-respect and national pride aspires towards the ideal of self-determination The hon. member speaks in the same breath of other self-governing territories which may also be involved, but to which jurisdiction over health affairs was transferred long ago. I want to ask him what about the independent States. Would that hon. member deny them their own freedom and right to self-determination? It seems to me that the political consciousness of those hon. members has so fallen under the spell of international liberalism that they are no longer able to understand the basic desire for freedom felt by various peoples. That is why the electorate of South Africa cannot understand them either and why they will be rejected at the next election. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister touched on the essence of the matter, in my opinion, when he said (Hansard, 22 March 1982, column 3711)—

Doctors and physiotherapists as well.

I quote further—

Doctors as well.

I am coming to that. That is exactly what the CP also says. One cannot throw everything into the same pot. Then one is looking for trouble. However, the hon. the Minister went on to say (column 3711—

It is not a controlling Government structure. It is a structure for negotiation, and when these states have reached the stage where they have their own professional associations for medical practitioners, they will be able to function in this way. Surely that makes sense. [Interjections.] Give every territory the right to self-determination, the right also to organize its own professional associations. Then create a consultative body so that they may deliberate as equal partners on matters of common interest and on international matters. Surely this is the policy. However, we are still undergoing a process of development. Therefore we are still striving to attain such an ultimate ideal. That is why clause 2 is necessary in this legislation. These things cannot be done overnight. After all, the Republic of South Africa has undertaken to help these undeveloped countries. That is why the clause provides for the Government to come to an agreement with the Governments of those States in terms of which the statutory powers of the South African Nursing Council may be exercised there as well. These are the logical consequences of a fair and equitable policy in this multi-national situation in South Africa.

For these reasons, I take pleasure in supporting the amendments in this Bill on behalf of the CP.

Mr. Chairman, in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech he advised us that the nursing profession was, with his blessing, going to put its new constitution into effect on 1 May. The new constitution has many things to commend it. There is the decision to decentralize so as to bring them closer to their members, and there will also be representation of all race groups on the regional boards. Equally important is, I believe, the honest endeavour to establish a league of nursing associations of Southern Africa to accommodate the various nursing associations. This will hopefully be in the interests of all the nurses concerned.

Whilst we accept that there are practical and valid reasons for this legislation—and we see the difficulty that exists at present between the Nursing Association and the self-governing homelands—we unfortunately cannot support the legislation before us, and we believe that we have a valid reason for not supporting it. By passing this legislation one would, in fact, be depriving the nurses of KwaZulu of membership of this association. We believe the option should be left open to those nurses who are members of the association at present. If they feel that they are not being accommodated by the South African Nursing Association, as far as representation is concerned, they can form their own association, but the status quo is being disturbed. We feel that the hon. the Minister is erring in seeking ratification of this legislation. We agree with clause 2, but unfortunately one cannot separate the two provisions. We must therefore vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast has expressed certain misgivings, and I think the hon. the Minister will reply to him on those. I just want to say something about what was said by the hon. member for Pietersburg. I find it interesting that when it comes to the Nursing Association, consultation and a consultative body are acceptable to the hon. member. If this is so, why is he afraid to say that it also contains a function of co-responsibility?

The problem lies with joint decision-making.

He says this is fair and equitable in our multinational setup. I think the day will come when we may be prepared to accept not only some of the logical consequences, but to be more consistent.

But that is still not power-sharing.

I want to come to the hon. member for Berea. I do not find it strange that he was the spokesman on this matter. In any event, he was not concerned with the nurses and the Nursing Association, but with the political capital he could make out of the matter. I do not find it strange either that he said that the PFP would not be voting for this statutory amendment. After all, they are obsessed with race.

You are obsessed with race.

They see a racial connotation in all these things.

You are afraid of the Zulus.

It is very clear to us that a very definite line has been drawn again in this respect between the policy of the NP and the policy of the PFP, which are diametrically opposed to one another in this regard. I am very glad they are. It is also very clear to me that the approach of the NP and that of the PFP towards matters such as these are poles apart.

The hon. member for Berea speaks of a bad measure we want to put on the Statute Book. He calls this legislation a clever ruse. He speaks of a plan which is intended to serve the ends of apartheid. We do not expect the hon. member to support the policy of the NP. What we are doing here is to carry the policy of separate development and the granting of independence to States to its logical conclusion. We do not only talk about separate development; we also want to implement it. We do not say one thing and do another, like the PFP. There will be hitches in the process. When interim steps are taken towards an ultimate object, problems will be encountered which we shall have to deal with. However, we must be honest in what we try to do and in our intentions. We must also show that we are confident that the nurses of other race groups are finally able to manage their own affairs. We certainly expect the responsible Minister of any State to which this may refer to encourage his people to wean themselves of mother RSA. After all, no one could want to be tied to somebody else’s apron-strings for ever.

If the nurses are not trusted, they will come to doubt their own abilities. Even worse, they will question the sincere attempts of the Government and its intentions with this legislation.

They are already questioning them! [Interjections.]

Definitely!

I strongly doubt whether the hon. member for Berea and hon. members of his party have any understanding of this matter. He misinterprets the legislation. What he wants to do is to make political capital out of the Bill. However, this is not what is contained in the Bill; what is at issue here is the fact that legislation was passed in 1978, in terms of which the Nursing Association was empowered, among other things, to draw up a constitution—which they have in fact done; their constitution will take effect as from 1 May this year. The second point is that after difficult negotiations, with KwaZulu, inter alia, it was agreed that every self-governing State would make its own arrangements, including those relating to health services and other functions and procedures as provided for in the legislation which is under consideration. The third point is that we want to try to prevent a situation where contradictory legislation may be passed by various government authorities. Furthermore, we also want to protect the Nursing Association, so that it will not be possible to take legal action against the Association. As has already been indicated by previous speakers in this debate, it would create an intolerable situation for a co-ordinating nursing association—which the PFP in fact advocates—to function in if every Black self-governing State with legislative powers were to introduce its own health legislation, and all that goes with it. If that were to happen according to what guidelines and in terms of what constitution would this co-ordinating body have to perform its functions? Surely this is a senseless idea; surely it is not only the NP Government which believes that a self-governing Black State should have control over its own health affairs with control in terms of a policy which is laid down by that country itself.

Surely all these matters form part of an agreement. As I have already said, this forms part of what was achieved after difficult discussions with those people, discussions between the Government and the Black States concerned. In fact, we have a good reputation for honouring agreements we have entered into. Furthermore, it is also important to note that the S.A. Nursing Association wants this arrangement; they do not want to dictate in any way when the interests of the nurses of another State or region are at stake. Would the hon. members of the PFP have wanted that if they had been in the same position?

In clause 2, provision is being made for the S.A. Nursing Association, just like the S.A. Medical and Dental Council and the S.A. Pharmacists Board, to be authorized to perform its functions in the independent States, by agreement and not in a dictatorial manner. I believe that the provision confirms the need for co-operation across borders in the interests of the entire sub-continent, and specifically in the interests of the nurses. It has not been the intention of this Government, least of all of the S.A. Nursing Association, to isolate any nurse or group of nurses or to create a situation in which they would be isolated. That was why the voluntary movement which has been referred to—the League of Nursing Associations of Southern Africa—has been established in order to do three things. In the first place it has to promote the interests of the nursing profession; in the second place it has to keep doors open so that nurses will be able to establish international connections; and its third object is to share the privilege of research, publications, etc., with others on a voluntary basis, and also to give every group of nurses the opportunity of making contributions in the interests of this profession.

With these few thoughts I gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I must react to some of the arguments advanced by hon. members on the Government side. In the first place, I should like to ask the hon. member for Middelburg, why is it so essential for nurses to have their own association, it is not also necessary for doctors, or even physiotherapists, to have their own association as well. I could also mention other similar examples with regard to the health service professions.

From the hon. member for Pietersburg we have, I believe, had the greatest rationalization of White “baasskap” we have encountered in this House for a long time, except perhaps from the hon. the Minister himself. He even had the effrontery to attack the hon. member for Berea and contend that he could not speak on behalf of the Zulus. Nevertheless he speaks about what the Black people need, their national pride and the basic striving for freedom of the various peoples. [Interjections.] However, what is the real situation? The KwaZulu Government and the Zulus do not want this legislation and the hon. the Minister knows it. Therefore this hon. member comes along with what I can only regard as dishonest politics because he is trying to sell his idea of “baasskap” and apartheid.

There is no such thing.

However, we know what the Zulus want. They held their own election and they won it. They rejected independence, and they reject this legislation too. Nevertheless the hon. member is trying to justify this kind of approach in a pious way, and he is talking nonsense about the question of national pride. He wants to force national pride down their throats. [Interjections.] However, the Black people are not taken in by this kind of performance.

The hon. member for South Coast made quite an interesting contribution. He really wanted to support this legislation but was afraid of what might happen in Natal. After all, he knows what the reaction of the Zulus was. Perhaps the hon. member for Umbilo, who sits next to him, knows a little more about how the Black nurses in Natal feel about the matter. Now the hon. member has to reluctantly swallow his opposition to the legislation. The hon. member for Rustenburg thinks that KwaZulu legislation must not be in conflict with legislation of this Parliament. KwaZulu is not independent, and therefore all the laws that apply to the Zulus are subject to the authority and sovereignty of this House. How, then, can laws in connection with KwaZulu be in conflict? They must be in line with the laws of the Parliament of South Africa. Moreover, KwaZulu does not want independence, and therefore that argument falls away.

†Sir, we have in front of us a quite astonishing piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that exposes the NP, because it does not deal with health; it is naked political legislation. It is apartheid in its worst form. It is apartheid forced upon people who do not want it. First of all—and the hon. member for Berea dealt with it—how can one deem a part of one’s country not to be part of it? In constitutional terms it is mind-boggling, and I believe that it reveals something about the mentality and attitude of this Government. What do we have in KwaZulu in relation to the nurses and the whole situation? Politically speaking, the KwaZulu Government out-manoeuvred this Government because they said: “If you want to give us self-government, we will fight the elections; we will win them, and we will win them on the basis that we will not accept independence.”. The hon. the Minister and his colleagues are therefore facing a situation where the biggest single group of Black people in this country, a group who outnumber the Afrikaans-speaking Whites, will not accept independence. So what does the hon. the Minister do? He comes to this House with a Bill which is, I believe, an insult to our constitution. It states that this area which has been declared a self-governing territory within the Republic “shall be deemed not to form part of the Republic”. That, Sir, is sophistry. In Afrikaans noem ons dit ’n “drogredenasie.” I believe that to bring a Bill of this nature to this House, is an insult to Parliament. This kind of legislation does not do any credit to the traditions of Parliament and its legislative function. Why? Because the hon. the Minister and his colleagues are determined to force apartheid on the Zulu people and they want to see the fruits of a quasi-independence without actually giving them independence, something which KwaZulu does not want. So we see the charade exposed in its nakedness—what apartheid is really about. The Government is forcing a de facto independence, an apartheid independence, on a State which has not accepted independence and which has shown through its “volkswil”, “volkstrots”, and all these great words which hon. members of the NP like to use, that it does not want independence and that its birthright is in the Republic of South Africa which its people have helped to build up and intend keeping that birthright there. What do we get? We get this Bill from the hon. the Minister.

What about the nurses? There is a hospital in my constituency, Edendale Hospital, which is situated in the Swartkops Location, as it was called in the Victorian era. The township was established in 1842 and adjoins the town of Pietermaritzburg. There is a fine, modern hospital there which was erected in 1953. What happened at that hospital recently? A very unpleasant incident happened last year, and the hon. the Minister knows all about it because we raised the issue under his Vote last year. I believe the House should know what actually was the spark which set fire to all the trouble at Edendale Hospital last year. I want to suggest that this Bill could be just such a spark on a much wider scale in the whole of Natal.

A bus service was introduced in 1953 when the hospital was opened to carry nurses of all races from Edendale Hospital into Pietermaritzburg where the Black and White nurses could go to their various homes. Because this bus was provided by the central Government, the so-called White Government, it was decided last year that Black nurses should travel on a separate bus and that this bus should only be used by White nurses. The KwaZulu Government was told to find its own transport for its own nurses because they were KwaZulu nurses and that the State health services could not provide them, for reasons of apartheid, with a bus, because the bus was funded by the State health services and not by the KwaZulu Government. That bus is still running, but instead of carrying 30 or 40 nurses of all colours, as it had done for nearly 30 years, it now carries six or eight, or sometimes two or three, White personnel only. What else goes on?

If that is true, it is a scandal.

The hon. the Minister must resign.

It was that sense of resentment which gave rise to and was a major factor in the trouble at the Edendale Hospital last year. It is an indication of the deep grievance which nurses have. The hon. the Minister and his department decided to force apartheid on the nurses of Edendale Hospital, where for 25 years everybody worked perfectly well and ran a reasonably efficient hospital.

It is not only that. If a White nurse wants to work for the KwaZulu Government, she has to go through four Government departments to be appointed on the establishment of the KwaZulu Government. First of all, she has to get an appointment through the KwaZulu Government. She has then to go through the Department of Co-operation and Development and then through the State health services. Finally, she has to be checked out by the Security Police as well. Appointments are a very difficult thing indeed.

It is not only that which causes resentment. Edendale Hospital, some 8 km from Pietermaritzburg, lies on a perfectly good dual-carriage tarred road, and a White employee working there gets a territorial allowance for crossing into KwaZulu where there is not even a border gate. It is this kind of attitude which I believe …

Is deemed to be outside the Republic.

Correct. I thank the hon. Chief Whip. The point is that it is this kind of spirit of division and of resentment that this hon. the Minister stubbornly and mulishly persists in putting into our situation in Natal. I believe that it is time that we strip the mask off hon. members on the opposite side because they are doing more to sour race relations in Natal than anybody else by introducing this kind of legislation into this House. We have a very difficult situation in Natal. We have an exploding population and the Whites are more heavily outnumbered by the Blacks than in any other province. I believe that we genuinely have a very sensible and practical workaday relationship and we can do without this kind of apartheid that is being forced down our throats by the Pretoria Government. Let us take some other examples. This hon. the Minister kindly went to Natal a few weeks ago to investigate the cholera problem. When he went there he would have noticed what a good job the primary health care operation is doing in Natal. But primary health care in Natal is staffed virtually entirely by nurses. They have a serious problem in many cases because there are clinics in KwaZulu and, literally across a 5-strand barbed wire fence that is most probably broken, there is a Black spot in Natal. For practical purposes, however, they are the same area. The people have intermarried and form one community but the community is in so-called Natal and the other is in so-called KwaZulu.

And the nurses have to belong to different associations.

Yes, that is the point. The nurses have to belong to different associations. A nurse who is working in the Edendale Hospital, for example, may decide that she wants a transfer to the King Edward Hospital, which is only 80 km away in Durban. Therefore she has to switch her nursing association membership. On the other hand, a nurse who is working in Edendale may decide that she wants to staff a clinic in Sobantu Village, which is in a so called White area about 9 km from Edendale, and she then has to change her nursing association membership. One can mention many other examples, but the point is that this Bill is, constitutionally speaking, an awful Bill. There is virtually a contradiction in clause 1 because it states—

It must be an assault on any legal man’s ear in this House to have that kind of legislation.

The real objection, however, is that the Zulu people, the Black nurses of Natal and the White nurses, as far as I know, do not want this legislation. I say this because the people of Natal are South Africans first and English, Indians, Afrikaners and Zulus second. They want to express their commitment to quality nursing in one association, not in one that is forced on them by this hon. the Minister and this Government, and then we have to bear the brunt of it. I want to tell hon. members that the KwaZulu Government is very, very concerned about this legislation. The hon. the Minister knows how the KwaZulu Government has tried to speak to him about it, they are not only concerned about it because they do not agree with it; they are also concerned about it because of the danger to their health services as a result of reaction from the nurses. The Black nurses of Natal and of KwaZulu are flaming mad about this legislation. They do not want it in Natal.

The hon. the Minister knows that.

I do not want it and I hope that the hon. the Minister will take great care in deciding how he is going to apply this legislation. If possible he should withdraw it.

Clause 2 deals with the question of liaison among the various sections of South Africa. It has been very interesting to note, and I am sure hon. members have noticed, how this whole question of the independent homelands is in a sense breaking down under the pressure of the unity that there is in South Africa. I say this because virtually every Bill contains a provision which provides that certain things may be done in regard to those areas that formerly fromed part of the Republic of South Africa. This is a constant pattern that we are finding in respect of much of the legislation that is introduced into this House. The fact remains that South Africa is one country. We can talk about all the various “volkere” as much as we want to, but we have to accept that South Africa must stand or fall by the fact that it is one country. This fact applies nowhere more than in regard to health matters. If the hon. the Minister investigates the whole question of health he will discover, as he no doubt already knows, that germs do not respect colour and that they will move freely from any one area to another. It is very important for us to appreciate the fact that South Africa is one country and particularly in this regard.

I believe that this is a shameful Bill that has been introduced. I believe that it is a Bill that is going to cause confrontation and trouble in Natal in regard to our health services. I think the hon. the Minister has done the country a disservice by introducing it at this time in the history of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who has just resumed his seat, expects me to take him seriously. Sometimes, when the fancy takes him, he makes a speech in this House such as the one he has just made. Three-quarters of that speech had absolutely nothing to do with this legislation. He delivered a tirade about a bus service at the Edenvale Hospital. That hospital belongs to the health department of the Government of KwaZulu, and a bus service which passes that hospital must be under the control of that Government. My department has no bus service there. I had a meeting with the Minister of Health of KwaZulu on Friday, and I have seen him on other occasions as well. He has never raised the question of a bus service at the Edenvale Hospital with me. He once met with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and myself when he was having problems with certain White members of staff. We had the matter investigated and the problem was eventually solved. I do not wish to discuss that matter in this House. As far as this bus service story is concerned, I just want to repeat what the hon. member for Pietersburg said and what I also said last year, and that is that neither the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South nor the hon. member for Berea represents the people of KwaZulu in this House. If it is necessary to speak to them, I speak to them myself. I know their feelings about certain matters. I talk to them about matters which affect them. I immediately want to say to that hon. member and the PFP that as long as this Government is in power, they must not expect us to implement their deplorable policy in this country. They have a policy with regard to the Black people which would completely ruin this country. They want to sell out the White people, whether they live in Natal or anywhere else. Those hon. members know they have a policy of one man, one vote. It has been explained in this House. Why are they always trying to conceal it? Why must they make use of this kind of legislation to thrust their feeble ideology down our throats? We are the Government, and whether those hon. members like it or not, we shall continue to introduce legislation which is in line with the future policy of the Government. I repeat that the hon. members of that party do not speak for the Government of KwaZulu. Nor do they speak for the Minister of Health of KwaZulu. In the interview I had with him, he personally told me that he was getting tired of the way in which PFP newspapers and politicians kept making trouble by saying that they represented the people of KwaZulu. He said this in my presence. There my Director-General is sitting, and I can also call the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development as a witness in this connection. I mentioned the hon. member for Berea by name. I told that Minister: Sir, it is strange that a newspaper report has been published according to which you visited the office of the member of Berea the morning before I introduced my most recent legislation. Why did you not come to see me? Then the Minister told me that he had not discussed that legislation with the hon. member for Berea at all that morning. The hon. member for Berea had raised the subject himself. I had not known that. However, the hon. member for Berea broached the matter in this House as if that Minister had come to discuss that legislation with him. He told me that he had met the hon. member here by chance and had then gone to his office. The matter will have to be discussed with him to see who is telling the truth. I think it is for the hon. member to take up the matter with him. The KwaZulu Minister of Health and I have often discussed matters. We do not agree about everything; we have had disagreements about various matters.

Why did he come to see you on Friday?

I shall tell you why. He came at my invitation. He had been to see the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development the previous Tuesday, and he said he did not like the legislation. I told him that was all right; he did not have to like the legislation. I also explained to him the purpose of the legislation.

If you had a black moustache, you would look just like Hitler. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to see how the newspapers always extol the hon. member for Bryanston for the interjections he makes, but if he realized what a fool he made of himself when important matters are being discussed, he would probably wait until the end of the debate.

He still gets second prize in South Africa.

This legislation goes back a long way; it has not been devised today. The principle of the legislation was accepted as far back as last year. The hon. member for Berea says I have admitted that I made a mistake. I piloted the principle through Parliament last year, but because of the interference of the PFP, I am now being forced to insert the definition concerned. Do hon. members know what form that interference took? We can be open about this now. Legal advice was given to those people, but the problem was that it could not be taken any further because there was not enough money to go to court.

Who are those people?

The hon. member for Berea knows who they are. He knows what legal advice was given.

Legal advice is akin to communism. [Interjections.]

I want to make the question of the definition quite clear to the hon. members on that side. Discussions were held with the Nursing Association as far back as the year before last. The Nursing Association asked for the legislation, but they are not taken into consideration. All they talk about here are the nurses in KwaZulu and in Natal. Nevertheless, the association asked for the legislation, and there is correspondence to prove this.

Let us go further back. When KwaZulu asked for self-government, a contract was entered into. I referred to this last year as well. In the contract it was made clear that chapter 4 of the 1957 legislation—that is the legislation on nurses which was placed on the Statute Book in 1957—would not be applicable to KwaZulu. In terms of the contract, chapter 4 of the legislation, in terms of which the Nursing Association was established, was not applicable to KwaZulu. This was agreed upon in advance, and the signature of the Chief Minister of KwaZulu appears on that contract. They knew that when they became self-governing and acquired their own Department of Health, they would have to manage their own affairs with regard to nursing services and health. They knew that they would have to exercise control over the hospitals and clinics within their territory. They also new that they would receive money in their budget to enable them to control their health services.

In what country in the world does one find an association which falls under two Governments, irrespective of whether those governments are sovereign or merely have self-governing powers? KwaZulu has its own Chief Minister and its own Minister of Health. [Interjections.] He is recognized by the hon. members over there, because he forms part of the KwaZulu Cabinet. Could one imagine the position if there had to be only one Nursing Association for the whole of South Africa? Such an association would be able, for example, to tell the KwaZulu Government that it was underpaying its nurses. In reply, the KwaZulu Government could say that it was not going to put up the salaries of the nurses. The Nursing Association of South Africa could then decide—after all, they would have had a say over KwaZulu as well if KwaZulu had not been excluded in 1957—that all nurses in KwaZulu belonging to the association should go on strike. Nurses in KwaZulu would then go on strike because they refused to obey the orders of the Government of KwaZulu. What chaos this would cause in a country! However, the hon. members do not think of these aspects. They are blinkered and they only speak of Natal, as an entity on its own. In saying this, I am referring in particular to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

The principle of the legislation was accepted last year. Perhaps the definition did not go far enough. I am not a lawyer and I did not realize that a contract which had been entered into could not form part of legislation unless its terms were embodied in that legislation. They must be properly embodied in the legislation. Only the contract provided that chapter 4 was excluded.

There is also a further step which has been taken, and this has also been explained in this House. It was done at the request of the association, and that was why we amended the Act last year, but because of certain things that are going on, things I have found out about, it is very important that we define precisely what is meant by the “Republic of South Africa” for the purposes of this legislation. The hon. member for Middelburg mentioned this. Even if the KwaZulu Government never asks for independence, it does not matter. It is up to them. The Government has told all the States that independence is up to them. If they do not wish to become independent, this will not prevent us from proceeding with the reorganization of the nursing services and the association as such, in the entire area we are talking about now.

The hon. member for Pietersburg raised an interesting point. Before I come to that, however, I just want to say that this is not the first time that the health department of the KwaZulu Government has heard about this. They heard before the 1977 contract was entered into that they would have to form their own association. In 1978, the association met with all the States and said that they would have to form their own associations. Many have already formed their own associations, but KwaZulu feels that it does not wish to form an association. Surely we cannot hold up all the other organization and reorganization just because they do not wish to form an association. The hon. member for Pietersburg referred to a controlling body. I had been informed by the President of the Nursing Association that the association had decided at its own initiative to hold a meeting in Pretoria on Saturday, 17 April, to discuss the possibility of forming a controlling body. All the self-governing States and independent States, i.e. Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei, Venda, Gazankulu and Qwaqwa, as well as the RSA and South West Africa/Namibia, were invited and were represented. Lebowa sent a representative as an observer, because they first wanted to see what was going on. I spoke to the KwaZulu delegation after the interview and it would appear to me that unfortunately—I emphasize, “unfortunately”—the invitation did not reach them. They were not present. I do not know what the reason for their absence was, but I am just saying that it is extremely unfortunate that enquiries were not made to ascertain whether they had received their invitation, or to find out why they did not receive the invitation. However, I cannot speak for them, because they were not there.

†It was decided, with great enthusiasm, by this group of professional people representing the parties I have mentioned, that they should start the League of Nursing Associations of South Africa. It will be called Lonasa for short. This body would then give every one of its members equal status, with the chairmanship rotating amongst the parties concerned.

*Its functions will be to co-ordinate international participation, to award bursaries, to organize research and surveys, to bring about co-ordination, to co-ordinate the training of nurses, to arrange for mutual aid, etc. This is something which is being arranged for the whole of Southern Africa. Must we drop the matter as a result of the opposition of the PFP and fail to pass legislation which could regulate these matters? My information is that each of the States I have mentioned, except Lebowa and KwaZulu, has its own nursing association. That is the progress we have already made. It is not a question of apartheid, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North says. [Interjections.] How can he talk about apartheid? When the Black States are excluded, it will be found that there are still Black and Brown nurses on an equal footing with White nurses within the Nursing Association. This being so, where does apartheid enter into the matter? That hon. member has got apartheid on the brain. There is no apartheid there. The hon. member asked: What about the doctors? The hon. member probably knows that there is no legislation controlling the Medical Association. The Medical Association is a voluntary organization. The difference between the Medical Association and the Nursing Association is that the latter is a statutory organization. The 1978 Act makes it obligatory for anyone who is registered with the council to be a member of the Nursing Association as well.

In spelling out these things, I just want to reply to one or two more matters raised by hon. members. I have already dealt with the hon. member for Berea. He said it was not legal to proceed with this. All I can say to him is that the definition concerned is only contained in the legislation for the purposes of membership of the association. The definition in the legislation is intended to ensure that there can be no uncertainty about who may be a member of what part of the Nursing Association. I think the hon. member for Middelburg replied very effectively to the other matters raised by the hon. member for Berea. I repeat: This is not a definition of the borders of the Republic for political purposes, but only for the purposes of membership of the Nursing Association.

The hon. member for Pietersburg gave his support to the Bill. I thank him for doing so. He also participated in other debates on this matter, and I think I must agree that what has been revealed here is that the PFP has the idea that everything they say is right. They think all their ideologies are correct. They think that making everything equal and refusing to allow a people to build up its own national pride is correct. However, that is our policy. They will just have to wait with their policy until they come into power one day, or until they retire on pension—then I shall have to look after them in any event.

At R20 a month.

Mention has also been made of the controlling body, and I have already explained that.

†I come to the contribution of the hon. member for South Coast. Perhaps I should just repeat that KwaZulu is a self-governing State and has its own health department. The Nursing Association tells me that it is impossible for nurses to have an association in one part of the country and then to serve two governments, the Government of KwaZulu and the Government here, because of the chaos that would result if they were to receive instructions or requests from the government which is not in control where the association is actually based. A second point is that the Nursing Association asked for this. They asked for it last year. In fact, they asked me to define “the Republic” at that stage. It was possibly my fault, because I thought that the contract already determined that the provisions of section 4 of the original Act of 1957 were not included in the contract. However, evidently the contract is not law. That is why I am just putting the position beyond doubt, but the principle of the Bill was already accepted last year. The Bill does not exclude KwaZulu from the Republic at all; it only excludes the nurses there on the basis that, because KwaZulu is self-governing and has its own Minister of Health and Department of Health, they must form their own association in order to be able to negotiate. It actually concerns the question of negotiation. The drawing up of ethical standards and curricula for training is not involved. This only has to do with, for instance, salaries and various ancillary matters they deal with themselves. On that they can then negotiate. It will not help them to work through the S.A. Nursing Association and to ask us to relay matters to the KwaZulu Government. The hon. member for South Coast also said that, because he cannot support clause 1, he will not be supporting clause 2 either. Well, that is up to him. Perhaps, now that he understands that the association asked for this and that one cannot serve two departments of health at the same time, he may change his mind.

*The hon. member for Rustenburg also strongly emphasized that the hon. member for Berea was simply trying to play politics. He also said that it was important that people of colour should handle their own affairs. I fully agree with that. He also made the important point that the self-governing States had their own governments. We cannot get away from that. We did not force it upon them. They asked for it and they willingly signed a contract in which they accepted certain rights for themselves. When they accept certain rights, they must be able to exercise those rights as departments and as governments.

About the second clause there is not much to say. I just want to repeat that this clause provides for the Nursing Council to operate in the States that have already become independent. I have explained the Bill as fully as possible and I hope that the hon. members opposite, although they may feel that they do not like it, will realize its practical value and will support us in having this legislation placed on the Statute Book in accordance with the wishes of the S.A. Nursing Association.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is an accepted principle that the public abattoirs of local authorities and the South African Abattoir Corporation should function on a no-profit-or-loss basis. In order to do this, the tariffs which may legally be charged in respect of the lease of such abattoirs, are determined with due allowance for the various expense items at abattoirs, for example loan costs, interest, salaries, wages and maintenance, as against the through put of stock and the required revenue.

As a result of the general increase in prices, new or recently improved abattoirs are hardly able to compete with nearby old-fashioned abattoirs where the cost structure is, after all, lower resulting in lower tariffs. In practice, butchers understandably give preference to the slaughtering of stock at abattoirs where the lowest tariffs apply, and carcasses or meat is conveyed to the areas of jurisdiction of the local authorities where higher abattoir tariffs are charged, with the result that less slaughtering is taking place at the abattoirs of these local authorities, and the facilities are not being utilized to the full.

New or recently improved abattoirs cannot be operated effectively if the throughput drops as a result of competition with the old abattoirs which are being over-utilized because of the lower tariffs. Provision is now being made for the imposition of a levy in respect of meat which is brought into an area which is determined by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. However, such a levy would only be imposed after consultation with the Abattoir Commission and will, it is hoped, result in the elimination of the said unequal competition, which in turn will lead to the better utilization of new and recently improved abattoirs.

A further aspect of the Bill I wish to refer to, is the question of the conveyance of carcasses or meat from abattoirs. Certain abattoir owners have already resorted to undertaking the delivery of meat from the abattoirs to the butcheries themselves. This constitutes a saving on costs for the butchery owner, for otherwise each one would have to have a suitable vehicle for such conveyance. Of course, the owner of the abattoir has to be remunerated for this service, and provision is being made for this now. In order to operate such a service effectively, there must of necessity be the greatest measure of co-operation between the owner of the abattoir and those butchers who make use of the transport service. However, no butchery owner is compelled to pay the transport tariffs if he does not make use of the transport. Section 21 already contains the necessary authorization for such differentiation in respect of tariffs.

The proposed amendment with regard to the appointment of the Directors and the Managing Director of the S.A. Abattoir Corporation, means that the Managing Director is no longer appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but by the Directors. Four of the five members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation will still be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Managing Director, who is appointed by the aforementioned four directors, automatically becomes the fifth member of the Board of Directors. However, the Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries and of Finance maintain control for instance as far as the remuneration of the Managing Director is concerned.

The proposed amendments have met with the approval of interested parties. Furthermore, this affords us the opportunity of effecting certain consequential amendments.

Mr. Speaker, any legislation dealing with the meat industry, will of course be regarded with a great deal of interest. The meat industry is probably one of the largest industries in our country, and, in my opinion, it is also the industry which is regarded with the greatest amount of suspicion by the public. Therefore, we on this side of the House studied the legislation very carefully before deciding to support it.

We applied two criteria in particular in considering whether we were going to support this legislation or not; Firstly, whether the legislation was in the interests of the producer, and secondly, whether it was in the interests of the consumer. In other words, we wanted to determine whether this would mean that the producer would at least not be receiving a poorer price for his product, and secondly, whether the consumer would not have to pay more for the product as a result of this amendment.

There are, in fact, three principles contained in this legislation. The first is the imposition of a tariff on transport provided by the owner of an abattoir, if the owner of the abattoir is a local government body, for instance, a city council. It is important to note that what we are dealing with here are not abattoirs run by the Abattoir Corporation, since they are not affected by this legislation in this regard. Therefore it is primarily concerned with the imposition of a tariff on transport. The butchery is a comparatively small concern, particularly in the rural areas where these abattoirs are found, and it is not economical for each owner of a butchery to have a vehicle suitably equipped for conveying meat. Such a truck usually costs approximately R50 000 or R60 000.

We therefore support the idea that the local authority should make that transport available through the abattoir to the owners of butcheries. Since one wants to make this applicable in those areas, and particularly in the rural areas, the question arises—and I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister—whether the butchery owner in the city does not have the same problem where there are larger abattoirs which are controlled by the Corporation. It has been my experience, and it has also been brought to my attention, that wholesalers in the meat industry often force the smaller businessman in the cities to do business with them as it is the only way he has of getting the carcass he wants to purchase, to his place of business. He literally has no choice. The question which occurs to me is whether this concession should be limited to abattoirs controlled by this legislation, or whether it should be extended.

While I am discussing the problems experienced by the smaller businessman in the meat industry, in the cities, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is giving enough attention to the fact that the access to the buying of meat by the larger abattoirs is often such that the smaller businessman is left out. In theory, it is true that even the housewife, if she so wishes, should have the right to buy her carcass, her sheep, or lamb or whatever, at the abattoirs. However, this is not the case in practice. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give attention to this matter.

The second principle dealt with by this legislation is concerned with the levy imposed on meat which is introduced into one area from another. The hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out that it is particularly the new abattoirs which are forced to impose tariffs on the services they render, tariffs which would be slightly higher than those of the older abattoirs as a result of additional costs, and perhaps, too, as a result of higher interest rates. Therefore the tendency would be to buy meat from an area where there are older abattoirs and that the new abattoirs would then perhaps be under-utilized. This is a problem one would sympathize with. We realize that perhaps it is necessary, in the times in which we live, to introduce artificial regulations in order to give the new abattoirs an opportunity of utilizing their facilities to the full. However, I assume that this would cause considerable problems. Firstly, one assumes that a tariff could only be imposed if the abattoirs were being under-utilized. In other words, this is a matter of under-utilization, and not of the price of meat. This is a matter of who will determine what that levy should be and how it will be determined. What is more important, is who is to act as policeman to determine which meat has been introduced into one area from another. Whose responsibility will this be? I think that the determining of the amount of meat introduced into one area from another in particular, could be a very thorny problem. I therefore wish to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has already decided on this, as the legislation does not provide for what the levy is to be and who is to act as policeman.

There are few other points which I should also like to deal with. During the past few years there has been a change in the slaughtering pattern in South Africa, which in my opinion, has met with approval. Originally the idea was that abattoirs should be erectea near the large cities. Over the years, the tendency has been for the private sector to apply for, and often obtain, permission to erect their own abattoir and then usually in the area where the meat is produced. This also meets with our approval. In time the older abattoirs will no longer be able to comply with the hygienic and other standards that have been laid down, or else they will not be able to comply with the requirements concerning the number of animals which have to be slaughtered to provide the cities with meat. As we have the opportunity of discussing the meat industry now, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter his attention in his reply and to give us an indication as to what the policy is going to be in the future, as more and more private companies are going to apply for permission to establish abattoirs. I therefore think the hon. the Minister should avail himself of this opportunity of dealing with this matter.

In conclusion, I wish to say that this party has always expressed itself to be very strongly in favour of the free enterprise mechanism and the capitalist system. To a certain extent we sometimes agree with legislation which might run counter to this principle. I have tried to explain that we understand the problem of the local authority which has built an abattoir, not with its own funds, but with the funds of the taxpayer, and that this Parliament should help those local authorities to protect their investments by means of the levy which has been mentioned here. However, in the long run, one would not like to see this tendency perpetuated. The point I therefore wish to make, is that the PFP will support the hon. the Minister in this legislation in this instance. However, we would just like to express the hope that, in the long run, even abattoirs will be able to operate independently, but that they will be able to pay for themselves and that they will be able to compete with one another, thereby becoming as cost effective as possible.

This is a principle we support, and I want the hon. the Minister to be aware of this. I hope that the hon. the Minister will also state that he is in favour of this.

With these few words, I wish to say that we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone on this side of the House is gratified that the official Opposition is going to support this legislation. It is also a pleasure to take up the request of the hon. member for Wynberg that the problem of the small butcher in the urban areas should also be investigated with regard to the conveyance of their meat from the abattoirs to the retailers. I think the hon. member for Wynberg touched on a point in this regard which is not really dealt with in this legislation.

The hon. member for Wynberg raised a second matter in regard to who is going to exercise control in respect of meat introduced into the area served by an abattoir from outside that area. I cannot see how any institution other than the local management concerned, in whose interest it is to exercise control over the abattoir erected or improved by it, or in respect of which it has incurred expenses, will be able to exercise control. I therefore say that it is in the interests of the local management to exercise that control and that it should be their exclusive responsibility. I think that, in essence, the proposed statutory amendment is not aimed at protecting, nor does it wish to protect, the Abattoir Corporation or private enterprises in any way. We are dealing with a statutory amendment which affects local authorities which were forced to equip their abattoirs, or even to build new abattoirs before 1984, so as to comply with the requirements of the Act concerned as a result of the stricter implementation of the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act.

It is true that in practice, a few local authorities, as well as the butchers who are located in the area of that local authority, have decided to erect central abattoir facilities by way of mutual agreement. It could easily happen—it has probably happened in the past—that the parties to such an agreement deliberately did not or were unable to abide by that agreement. In this regard, I am thinking of the case of a butcher who undertook to slaughter at a particular abattoir, becomes insolvent for some reason or other. If this should happen, the butcher would no longer be able to slaughter there. This leads to the decrease of the total number of animals slaughtered at that particular abattoir, which was possibly established mainly as a result of the implementation of the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act. Because fewer animals are being slaughtered at that abattoir, the average cost per slaughter increases. A measure has to be introduced in order to obviate this problem, and I consider the proposed amendment to be a very effective way of doing this.

The hon. the Minister is aware that I have the interests of the smaller abattoirs in the rural areas at heart, and in respect of such abattoirs, I wish to say that I consider the amendment to be a protective measure which can and must be applied in their case as well, as the smaller local authorities will find it far more difficult than the larger ones to comply with the requirements of the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act and to equip their abattoirs in such a way that they will be acceptable before 1984. The proposed statutory amendment will thus be able to protect such a smaller local authority which has to incur large capital expenses—when I say “large capital expenses”, I mean in respect of that local authority—against the introduction into the area of meat from outside by wholesale butchers for example.

I have no fear that the legislation could lead to a kind of subsidization of inefficiency, since the power to impose such a levy is in the hands of the Minister and the Abattoir Commission. Before the levy is permitted to be imposed on the meat which is introduced into the area served by such an abattoir, the hon. the Minister and the Abattoir Commission will surely investigate to establish whether the business of the abattoir which serves that region is conducted in such a way that the levy will not subsidize inefficiency. Furthermore, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that at this stage there will be close contact between the Abattoir Commission and local authorities and that such contact is maintained. This close contact is essential since slaughter facilities throughout the country are at this time coming under close scrutiny. If the necessary communication between the Abattoir Commission and local authorities does not exist, therefore, excessively, luxurious abattoir facilities might be erected at some places. This is something to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. Some local authorities often plan ahead for a period of 15 or 20 years. They also plan for the number of slaughters which will take place. Inevitably, this often leads to the initial establishment of facilities which are too big, or else too many facilities are established. Then the costs which have to be incurred immediately, are disproportionate to what such a local authority can really afford. The solution is that the Abattoir Commission should make plans for abattoirs available to local authorities. This is something which is in fact being done at the moment, but they should take this further. They should make plans available which could be adapted in time, so that large numbers of animals can be slaughtered at a later stage. This would prevent certain smaller communities from being deprived of their abattoir facilities. If they could plan on a small scale now, they could, with the approval of the Abattoir Commission, extend those facilities at a later stage.

I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my speech follows that of the hon. member for Fauresmith. We, too, shall support this Bill.

At the outset I should just like to raise one minor reservation. In clause 1(d) a definition of “meat” is given. I am just a little worried, because as I read the definition it could also refer to a sought-after article such as biltong. I think one should accept that biltong is also included here, and therefore right at the outset I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to prohibit us from taking biltong to Loftus or wherever in future. [Interjections.] So when he makes regulations he must please exclude that one small item. [Interjections.]

I now come to more serious matters. As I see it, this Bill has become essential because of a practical problem. However, I do not believe that this Bill is the final solution. I should say, at most, that we are dealing here with a positive experiment. Personally I think that the hon. the Minister will need the wisdom of Solomon to take the right decision in each of the present cases, for I foresee certain problems. Suppose an abattoir were erected by a certain local authority and that local authority’s projections for the future were unnecessarily optimistic. The local authority could then approach the hon. the Minister and say that their abattoir was being under-utilized, whereas in fact the underutilization should be ascribed to an incorrect projection for the future. If protective measures had been adopted for such an abattoir, and it were to appear afterwards that the protective measures did not produce the results they were supposed to produce, I trust that the hon. the Minister would, in his wisdom, take a new look at the protective measures concerned.

Let me give an example. If, in the opinion of the Minister and, of course, the local authority, a certain abattoir is under-utilized and the protective measures provided for the Bill are implemented, and it becomes evident in due course that there is in fact no improvement, it would, I think, be absolutely essential that those protective measures be reconsidered. It is also quite possible that due to various circumstances there could be a real drop in the supply of slaughter stock to a particular abattoir. The farming pattern is changing in certain parts of our country and will continue to change. For this reason I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to constantly keep a watchful eye on the situation to ensure that in the long run we do not create more problems than we solve with this measure.

I want to conclude. I think this Bill is a positive experiment. I do not believe, however, that it is the final answer. Time will tell whether it was the correct measure.

Cas, you are talking so much sense—why did you walk out?

Mr.

Speaker, when we scrutinized this Bill, it became very apparent to us that there were certain principles in it which were very difficult to justify and to accept. We do accept that, from a historical point of view, a great number of the small towns have enjoyed their own abattoir facilities. One is also aware of the fact that in the last five to six years a number of these abattoirs have disappeared. I am also aware of the fact that by 1984 all municipal abattoirs must conform to minimum standards of hygiene.

As has been said by the hon. member for Barberton, this Bill does not necessarily provide the final solution. In fact, I would say that this is no long-term solution at all. It is correct, of course, that certain municipalities have upgraded their abattoirs at considerable expense, resulting in increased fees being payable for the use of these facilities. It is true, and one is very much appreciative of the fact, that there are other municipalities who have done nothing to improve the abattoir facilities under their control and who are able to offer reduced slaughtering charges for those who patronize them.

The problem here, as we see it, is that the imposition of a levy is one of principle and that it’s application must be avoided at all costs if a final solution is to be found. For anybody who has been involved in organized agriculture for many years, as I have—and I am not the only one in the House—one fear which has always been held is the irresponsible imposition of levies to remedy ad hoc situations without getting to the root of the problem. Anybody who accepts this as a means of solving a problem is living in a fool’s paradise. In view of the fact that the S.A. Agricultural Union saw its way clear to support this measure, we particularly regret that we in these benches find ourselves unable to accept this particular aspect of the Bill which in fact is one of it’s main principles.

I must point out that one of the biggest problems that the agricultural community faces, is this question of its marketing costs. There is no doubt that the application of levies of this nature is going to lead to one thing only, and that is a greater increase in the cost of marketing that has to be met by the producer. It will also result in the consumer having to pay more for the final product. This is, therefore, not the solution. [Interjections.] May I just draw a comparison here between two particular townships in close proximity to each other, say about 12 or 15 km. Where in any other respect in the free enterprise system does one find such a situation? Does one, for example, find that one is going to be penalized if one buys petrol in a certain municipal area because a municipality has gone to the expense of building an elaborate garage to supply those facilities? [Interjections.] This is precisely the same principle, Sir. This is contrary to the concept of free enterprise. [Interjections.] It is a socialistic principle, and it cuts right across the whole principle for which we stand, namely a free economy.

I believe that what we must look at is the reason why some of these abattoirs are finding it difficult to meet their commitments. Is it due to the fact that they have been over-zealous in the upgradings that they have made in their abattoirs? Is this the reason? In my view this could possibly be one of the reasons, and I want to make it quite clear that we on these benches maintain that the farmer’s product must be available to the consumer at the lowest possible cost—not only from a marketing point of view as far as the producer is concerned but also at the cheapest possible price to the consumer. [Interjections.]

I maintain that the solution to this problem is to let the free system run in free competition from one area to another. A levy as envisaged can also have a detrimental effect on certain meat traders. Some meat traders may move out of an area in which a possible levy is being contemplated. They may move out many kilometres and buy their requirements there. From the point of view of saving costs on transport, they obviously want to have those animals that they have purchased, slaughtered at the nearest possible abattoir. By attempting to cut those costs, they are now making themselves liable for the payment of possible levies when they bring those meat products back to their own markets.

We on these benches abhor the suggestion that levies are the answer to finding a solution to this very difficult problem, and on those grounds therefore we shall oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is really a great pity that the hon. member for Mooi River does not see his way clear to supporting this Bill.

Yes, it is really a great pity.

I have a high regard for the hon. member’s view of agriculture. I also believe that he tries his best to assess correctly what is in the interests of agriculture. In principle I accept it as such. However, as regards the Bill in question I believe that there are a few aspects which he does not fully grasp. The first of these is that at this stage a fundamental problem exists with regard to abattoirs which, as has been indicated, are going to be established subject to stricter hygiene regulations. These additional costs which will now have to be borne by specific municipal ratepayers, mean that as the hon. the Deputy Minister has explained, they will have to pay the capital costs plus the operating costs, divided by the number of slaughterings.

The fact that these abattoirs are established in accordance with the new standards places them in a disadvantageous competitive position in relation to other, older abattoirs which were established years ago and whose turnover is so much higher. We are now talking about a practical problem which does exist. It is a practical problem which must be solved. Therefore, what the hon. member for Mooi River has said is already in conflict with the reality of the situation. Cattle which were, for example, raised in the Ermelo district, where there is a new abattoir, are now being sent by rail to Balfour, where they are slaughtered and the meat processed. Thereafter, the meat is once again brought back to Ermelo by the wholesale trade, which of course influences the cost structure. Now, we must remember that most of the meat at Ermelo is marketed by Checkers, O.K. Bazaars and other supermarkets, which obtain their meat wholesale. Retailers who serve the local trade, and who have to support the local abattoir, too, therefore derive no benefit from this at all, and accordingly the unit cost at that particular abattoir is increased.

That is very true.

The problem now is that as has been proved in practice, the smaller abattoirs are adversely affected by the system to which I have just referred. They are placed in a very disadvantageous position, are made less cost-effective, and their unit price increases. This inevitably places an extra burden on the shoulders of the consumer, who is at the same time the ratepayer in the municipal area of Ermelo, or any other similar town.

There is also another aspect to which I want to refer. The hon. member for Wynberg said that it had first to be established whether such a system would in principle be in the interests of the farmer. It must also be established whether it will benefit the consumer. I agree with that. This is absolutely correct. What the hon. member for Mooi River is advocating might only lead to a drop in the price of the meat as such if it is brought there from an abattoir outside a certain area. It is possible that it may then be cheaper. This of course means that the meat will not be marketed by the local abattoir in a specific area. However, the costs involved in such a case is not the only costs in relation to such a matter. To regard them as the only costs, is surely to take a distorted view of the matter. The total cost which, for example, will have to be borne by the ratepayer of Ermelo, is the slaughtering cost payable to the abattoir at Balfour, as well as the tax which has to be paid at the local abattoir. The cost of the local abattoir is, as you know, part of the tax structure for which the ratepayer of Ermelo is liable.

I wonder, therefore, if a single member opposite will venture to suggest that the cost structure of an under-exploited abattoir, regardless of the form of the levy, should not be taken into account in conjunction with the municipal rates structure. Surely it forms part of the total cost, does it not?

Yes, that is quite right.

Can we, then, disregard those costs out of hand? By doing that, the expense to the consumer will, in fact, be increased. The cost which the consumer has to bear, is not merely the cost of the meat, but in fact the cost of the meat plus the tax with which the costs of the abattoir also have to be covered. His total cost is therefore higher. This is precisely what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to do. He wants to make that specific abattoir more cost-effective and to a certain degree force people to slaughter locally. While I agree with the principle that a levy is not the ideal solution, it is the most effective solution in this case, because there is no other possible solution.

I should like to raise a few matters with the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first is the principle of the imposition of a levy. The second, which is going to be very much to the fore in practice, is the manner and formula in terms of which the levy will be determined. If one considers the manner and the formula whereby the levy is going to be determined, one can begin by trying to establish what the total cost of a cost-effective abattoir is. In that case the levy can be determined according to the price of the meat plus the levy as if the meat is being slaughtered there. If this is really the case, two slaughtering fees will be involved, and I do not think that is right. In determining the formula for the levy, one will have to include an incentive for the municipality involved to enable it to continue to function cost-effectively. The municipality must not be fully compensated for its costs; by way of a levy, as if it had done the slaughtering. It must be paid less than the actual cost so that there will be an incentive for it to increase its efficiency. If this is done, one has the benefit of being able to determine what the cost of an abbattoir would be if it were to be utilized to the full. A formula ought to be found somewhere between these two poles for the determination of such a levy.

Another point which has already been raised, is the question of the transportation of meat. I think this point has already been discussed adequately by other speakers who took part in the debate, but I just want to say that in my view, this once again is a typical example of the degree to which the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department go out of their way to promote cost-effectiveness. [Interjections.] Those hon. members of the NRP do not even know which clause I am discussing, because I do not think that they would otherwise have reacted to my remarks in such a fashion. This measure just proves to what extent the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department try to promote cost-effectiveness by forming a sort of club whereby transportation costs can be limited to a minimum and whereby one person undertakes the transportation so that meat can be delivered to the various distribution points in the cheapest possible way for the consumer.

This side of the House is convinced that this is a good Bill and we also accept in principle that we will be looking at the matter again in future, as one looks at any legislation. In the meantime, we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Mooi River who opposed this bill, do have merit, but at the same time we must bear in mind that we are faced with a situation in the country where a considerable amount of the taxpayers’ money is tied up in these abattoirs. We cannot simply allow them to go out of business. One might argue the same case in respect of platteland schools. If a platteland school is starting to lose pupils as a result of the depopulation of the platteland, one does not simply close the school; one takes steps in an attempt to keep the institution going because of the amount of public money and the infrastructure involved.

The hon. member for Wynberg has already put the feelings of my party on this Bill across, but there are one or two points that I should like to mention very briefly. I am glad to support this Bill, particularly from my personal point of view, because in my own constituency, the main urban centre namely Grahamstown, has just committed itself to spending a considerable amount of money on a new abattoir. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know, also that the decision that was taken was not an easy one. We were well aware of the difficulties facing us. The decision was therefore an act of faith on the one hand and an act of desperation on the other. The despair derived from the prospect of having to lose yet another industry if we closed down the old abattoir, and with it, of course, the jobs that we so desperately need in Grahamstown. However, faith was put in the farmers and in the local butchers who rallied around the city council and pledged their support. But the danger always existed that the large retailers of meat who owed no allegiance to the local community and who operated from the supermarkets and from independent abattoirs in the larger centres, could ultimately force our local people and the local abattoir out of business. This legislation will now give us the kind of protection we need.

The abattoir is also the focus around which a number of allied industries and occupations revolve in a small town such as Grahamstown. There is, for example, the local stockbroker, the livestock agents, the livestock speculators and the local butchers, who all to a greater or lesser extent stand to benefit from the presence of an abattoir. In a town where every job opportunity is precious, any reasonable protection of these jobs, either directly or indirectly, is very important to us.

The last point I should like to make concerns the sale of offal to the less privileged sector of the town’s population. Again, in a small town, the presence of an abattoir which sells a considerable amount of this important source of cheap protein to the financially underprivileged communities is important. In many instances offal is the only source of meat protein which these people have. Therefore to take it away would be sorely felt. These points might not seem important in affluent cities with plenty of job opportunities for all sectors, but let me assure hon. members that in the rural areas we are very conscious of them. These then are further reasons why we are going to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the short time still available I should just like to thank hon. members for the discussion of this matter. I want to start by thanking the hon. member for Wynberg for the support he has given to this matter on behalf of his party. With regard to the transport tariffs which are now made possible in terms of this legislation in relation to local authorities, this can in any event also be done by the Abattoir Corporation. In terms of the Abattoir Act it is indeed possible that they, too, can render such a service to the local butchers and that in such a case they can also levy a tariff for that service. When we have more time, I shall come back to one statement which the hon. member made with regard to the role played by wholesalers in regard to abattoirs in the controlled areas in particular. I think it is very important that I reply in detail to the question which was put to me by the hon. member in this regard, and I shall gladly come back to his question when we have more time. The hon. member also asked me who was going to play policeman. The Act provides that the local authority that asks for protection must itself create the machinery to control the import of meat into its area. The information at my disposal is that it can then have certain regulations made by the Minister to make this possible.