Sir, I move the amendments printed in my name, as follows—

Clause 4 appears in Part I of the Bill which deals with the matter of licences to possess arms. Clause 4 itself deals with the provisions relating to applications for licences to possess firearms, and subsection (2), with which the first of my proposed amendments deals, makes provision for the production to the Commissioner of licences by persons who are already in possession of firearms. Sir, since this is intended to be a clean-up, as it were, of the present position relating to the possession of firearms and the licensing of firearms so that from now on a proper register can be kept, we consider that it is essential that not only existing licences should be produced but also the firearm to which the licence relates, so that the persons who are responsible for compiling the register will be able to know that these firearms which are licensed at the present time are in the possession of the persons concerned.

I accept your amendments.

In view of the Minister’s statement that he is prepared to accept these amendments I do not propose to discuss them any further.

I made it clear in the Second-Reading debate that we had considered this matter, but because we felt that it would place additional burdens on the public as far as producing firearms was concerned, we came to the conclusion that provision for this need not be made in the Bill. However, in view of the discussions which have taken place here and also because I agree that it will make for a better register, I am prepared to accept these amendments.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I move the amendment standing in my name as follows—

At the moment the clause reads—

As it is phrased here, it seems to me that it postulates two classes of persons who may possess firearms. In other words, any white person who is not under the age of 16 years may possess firearms, or a person who is disqualified may possess firearms, whereas in fact what is intended in this clause is that a person who is neither a disqualified person nor under the age of 16 years should be able to possess a firearm. In other words, there are two conditions that he must fulfil in order to be able to possess an arm; firstly, he must not be under the age of 16 and secondly he must not be a disqualified person.

Sir, since I put this amendment on the Order Paper it has occurred to me that the correct English here should be “any white person being neither a person under the age of 16 years nor a disqualified person …” It seems to me that that would be the correct way of expressing it, and perhaps my amendment, which makes the wording better than it is now, could be further improved upon by omitting the word “not” and by inserting after “being” the word “neither” and then retaining the amendment to omit “or” and to substitute “nor”, so that it will read: “Any white person being neither under the age of 16 years nor a disqualified person.” As it stands at the moment, it is subject to the interpretation which I have mentioned and I hope the hon. the Minister will either accept the amendment or indicate that in the Other Place he will move an amendment to incorporate the word “neither” and to substitute the word “nor”.

I do not think I can accept this amendment. In the Second Reading debate I was inclined to agree that the knowledge of the hon. member for Durban (North) of English would probably be better than mine, but in the present circumstances I am not so sure any more. I have looked at this clause again and, as I see it, it is intended that any one of those two factors would be a disqualification. If you want to introduce the word “nor”, then, as I see it, you should also introduce the word “neither”, and then say “neither a white person not being under the age of 16 years nor a disqualified person …”

That is what I said.

Well, then you must bring in the word “neither” at the beginning of the sentence. But without the word “neither” at the beginning of the sentence, the word “or” is perfectly correct. I have taken the trouble to consult Fowler’s Modern English Usage and I would like to refer the hon. member to the Second Edition, page 394. Perhaps the hon. member will take the trouble to consult it. I have come to the conclusion that the use of “nor” instead of “or” in this particular case would apparently, according to Fowler’s Modern English Usage, amount to thrusting the word “nor” in where there is no room for it. That is my contention. But I am prepared to look into the matter again and we can have a discussion privately, and if the hon. member can convince me I will change it in the Other Place.

I am indebted to the hon. the Minister for going to so much trouble to find out exactly what this should be. Of course he is quite right that you have a “nor” where you have a “neither”, but then one was dealing here with a translation of clause 8, in which perhaps it was not properly put. But the Minister agrees with me that in fact it should be “neither, nor”, and I agree with him, as I indicated when I spoke, that this is the way it really should read. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

I now move—

It will then read: … any white person being neither under the age of 16 years nor a disqualified person, etc.”.

I just want to point out that the pronunciation used by the hon. member for Durban (North) and copied by the hon. the Minister is wrong. The correct pronunciation is “neether”. [Laughter.]

I still maintain that we should rather leave the clause as it is, but after discussion of the matter, if the present wording is proved to be incorrect, I will change it in the Other Place.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

1. (1) If the Commissioner is of the opinion that on the ground of information given under oath, there is reason to believe that any person is a person—
   1. (a) whose possession of any arm constitutes a danger to the peace or to such person himself or any other person; or
   2. (b) who has discharged an arm at or in the direction of himself or any other person or has threatened or expressed the intention to kill or injure himself or any other person by means of an arm; or
   3. (c) who has by means of an arm killed or injured any other person through negligence or wantonly or through negligence endangered the life or limb of any other person; or
   4. (d) who while in lawful possession of an arm, has lost such arm through gross negligence,

he may, by notice in writing delivered or tendered to such person by a policeman, call upon such person to appear before the Commissioner at such time and place as may be specified in the notice, in order to advance reasons why such person shall not be declared unfit to possess any arm on any ground aforesaid so specified;

and to add the following subsections at the end of the Clause:

1. (3) Any person appearing in pursuance of a notice issued under subsection (1) shall be entitled to be represented by counsel or an attorney.
2. (4) Upon proof that the notice was duly delivered or tendered to the person to whom it was addressed, the Commissioner may at any time subsequent to the time specified in the notice, whether or not such person complies with the notice, but subject to the provisions of subsection (5), declare such person to be unfit to possess any arm at any time or during a specified period of not less than three years, if, having regard to any reasons advanced by or on behalf of the said person and to any information at the disposal of the Commissioner given under oath, the Commissioner is satisfied that such person is a person contemplated in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (1).
3. (5) The Commissioner shall not, without the approval of the Minister, declare any person to be unfit to possess any arm on the ground referred to in section (1) (d).
4. (6) The Commissioner shall by notice in writing sent by post or delivered to him inform any person in respect of whom a declaration has been made under subsection (4), of the tenor of and reason for the declaration.

I think now that this amendment has been moved, the hon. member for Transkei, who has another amendment on the Order Paper, will probably be satisfied and will not want to proceed with his amendment. I should like him to tell me what his views on the matter are.

We would prefer the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as it provides for a hearing before a magistrate who is obviously better trained in hearing evidence and deciding matters than the Commissioner or one of his officers who may be delegated to take the hearing of a particular application. I understand that the Minister is not prepared to accept our amendment. He made it quite clear in his Second Reading speech that he wished to keep control solely in the Police Department. However, in view of the fact that he has acceded to our request that the maxim audi alteram partem should be adhered to and that the person affected should be given a chance of stating his case and producing whatever evidence he has before the Commissioner, we are prepared to accept it. I therefore withdraw my amendments, although I would have preferred it to be done by a magistrate. However, there is still one thing about which I am not quite clear. Is there provision for the Commissioner to delegate …

Yes, in clause 44.

That was the only thing that worried me. I therefore withdraw my amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 20:

I move—

1. (a) the licence shall, if any partner retires from the partnership, becomes a disqualified person or dies, be transferred to the remaining partner or to the remaining partners jointly by endorsement of the licence by the Commissioner, on application by the remaining partner or partners and payment of the prescribed transfer fee in the prescribed manner;.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 42:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I rise to move the amendment standing in my name with the intention that if at some future date, the Minister wishes to create registers in various areas, for example he might want to have other registers, say in Natal, the Cape or a particular district apart from the Central Register, he will be able to do so. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s comments.

It is intended to keep only one register, but even if we were to keep two registers in the future, this amendment would be unnecessary because according to the Interpretation Act, the singular includes the plural and under these circumstances, I think it is not necessary to provide for the plural.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New clause (to follow clause 42):

Mr. Chairman, I move—

43. The Minister may—

1. (a) establish at such centres and at such places as he may deem fit,
2. (b) by notice in writing authorize licensed dealers or any institutions which he deems suitable for the purpose, to establish,

repositories where any person may deposit arms and ammunition on such conditions as the Minister may by regulation determine.

I move this formally, but I wish to indicate that since I placed this amendment on the Order Paper it has been pointed out to me and has been made very clear that in fact the hon. the Minister could set up repositories without having any enabling power in terms of the Act. In terms of this Bill it has also been made clear that any private person can establish a repository for arms. It has been made clear that you may leave your firearm with someone else who will store it for you, but he does not need any licence in order to store the fire-arm. In other words, his possession of the fire-arm while he is storing it, does not require the licence referred to in clauses 2, 35 and the other clauses. Now, Sir, I do not think that this is generally known to the public. I think it is most important that people should, when they go away on holiday, deposit their arms in some safe place. They have always felt that the place to go to was the police station. When they go to the police station, the police refuse to accept those arms. This is the point. This is the public’s natural reaction, “I do not want to leave my fire-arm at home. If someone breaks in, it will be stolen”. So they go to the police station. People generally go to the police station when they are in trouble or when they have a problem. But the police do not want to accept it. It is no good my saying that, in fact, this is unnecessary. They can leave their fire-arms at the bank, with a friend of theirs who has a safe, or anywhere. They can store them at some other place without the person who stores them needing a licence. I think the hon. the Minister will do the public a great service if he now confirms that this is the position and indicates that they may, in fact, store their arms with other people. This will be an authoritative statement upon which the public would act and, I believe, one in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly do what the hon. member has asked me to do, namely to confirm what he said, i.e. that it is laid down in section 45 (2) (b) (ii) and section 45 (2) (c) that the provisions of the Act will not apply to a person to whom arms and ammunition are entrusted for the purpose of, inter alia, storage. In other words, provision has been made in the Act for a person to store an arm with another person for the purposes which the hon. member explained to us. I also want to give the undertaking that wherever it appears to be necessary we shall make this public in the administration of this Act relating to arms. I think this will serve a useful purpose in future.

Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the hon. the Minister and, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw the new clause I moved.

With leave, proposed new clause withdrawn.

Clause 44:

Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 11, as we accepted the amendment moved by the Minister, I asked him what power of delegation there was. He referred me to clause 44. I see that the Commissioner, with the approval of the Minister, may delegate to any person in the full-time service of the State any power conferred on him by this Bill. Apparently the Minister will be the one who is going to decide what powers can be delegated. I ask the Minister, in delegating any powers in terms of this clause, to bear in mind that the person to whom the authority is delegated, should at least have the rank of captain in the service.

Mr. Chairman, this is what we had in mind. As a matter of fact, when framing another draft clause on a previous occasion, we provided for an officer with at least the rank of captain. I am quite prepared to give the undertaking that, in so far as those powers of the Commissioner are delegated in terms of section 11, the officer will have at least the rank of captain.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 45:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act contained it shall be permissible for any white person over the age of 21 years who is in lawful possession of an arm, to allow a white person under the age of 16 years to use such arm under his immediate supervision.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

When the House approved of the Second Reading of this Bill, it adopted the principle of prohibiting future publications—in other words, censorship of the unknown and the unseen, as far as the Publications Board is concerned. We, on this side of the House, remain opposed to this clause and would like to see it deleted. The Minister and speakers on his side have indicated that they hold a view contrary to ours and, may I say, also contrary to the opinion of a vast percentage of people outside. Furthermore, the Government has the power to proceed with this legislation. Consequently, as realists in the situation in which we find ourselves now, I want to appeal to the Minister to consider amending this clause to ensure at least that before this drastic action is taken, there are indications of wilfulness on the part of the publisher concerned and that there are indications of a specific course of conduct on his part, indications which would justify the drastic action which the board can take in terms of this legislation. Furthermore, we think it is essential that the Publications Board should arrive at a conclusion that the conduct of the publisher against which objection is taken, is likely to continue in future and that such a conclusion can be justified by what has gone before.

The hon. member for Rissik, who is not in the House at the moment, suggested that we oppose this legislation because of what he termed a “British liberal outlook” as far as censorship was concerned. His arguments, of course, correspond to a certain extent with those uttered by the hon. member for Ermelo and are equally without foundation as are the arguments of the hon. member for Ermelo. Perhaps the hon. member for Rissik can at a future date elaborate on this approach of his. In actual fact, we on this side of the House agree that certain action must be taken by legislation to prevent the publication of blatant pornography. To that end power should be vested in some body or other. This clause has reference not only to such category of undesirable publications but also to a vastly wider field of publication, as one can see from section 5 of the principal Act. If this clause is adopted in its present form it may, for instance, be possible for the Publications Board to come to a conclusion that certain publications may be bringing certain elements of our population into ridicule. As a matter of fact, we have had instances of this on the political front already. But I do not think it is intended that these wide powers should be given …

Order! The hon. member should come back to the clause.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. But I am dealing with the justification for this clause as it reads now. The Minister has indicated that there are difficulties in dealing with this matter by way of prosecution, but this clause already provides that there should have been one successful prosecution. I would like to suggest to the Minister, without departing from the principle contained in the clause, that that is putting things too wide, i.e. that there should only be one conviction to justify a conclusion by the board that future publications are likely to be undesirable. It is for this reason that I should like to move as an amendment—

In other words, there should be conviction for two undesirable publications before this clause becomes operative. There should, therefore, have been at least two undesirable publications before the board can exercise these very wide powers. This. I think, is a very reasonable safeguard and does not limit the principle of this clause; it only makes it a little more realistic.

I listened with interest to the way in which the hon. member for Green Point motivated his amendment. I do not want to speak for the Minister, but I simply cannot imagine our accepting such a watered-down principle. It seems to me the Opposition is adopting the attitude that we are dealing here with a Publications Board that consists of a lot of unreasonable people, people who are obsessed by a persecution mania and who only want to see how many of these publications they can ban. Surely we cannot say that this Publications Board will use a single pornographic sentence or a few pornographic sentences in a publication to ban all future editions of that publication.

But they have the power to do so.

They have the power, yes, but, surely we can rely on the sense of reasonableness of the members of this Board. Surely there is no need for us to prescribe to them that, for example, there must be ten lines of a pornographic nature before they may ban the publication. The hon. member for Green Point now wants us to give such a publisher the opportunity of first issuing two pornographic or obscene publications before we take steps against him. Surely a line must be drawn somewhere. I do not regard it as our function to protect the interests of these people who want to publish undesirable literature. After all, the whole spirit of this clause does not constitute censorship in its most blatant form. One may much rather regard this as being proper control over these publications for the protection of the general public.

In a previous speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed his misgivings about the norms applied by the members of the Publications Control Board in judging certain matters. I concede that the hon. member may differ with them as regards these norms, just as any one of us may differ with the next person as regards moral codes. After all, we cannot all agree on everything. But where will one find a board or a body which can make a decision which will serve and satisfy everybody? Moreover, this clause does not apply to the members of the Press Union, who are responsible for the vast majority of publications in the Republic. They are excluded. Decent publications falling outside the framework of the Press Union are also excluded. This legislation is being introduced merely to be able to take action against people who are continually publishing indecent literature.

I want to repeat that it is not our task as legislators to protect the interests of people who publish indecent literature. The Minister indicated quite clearly in his reply that the penalties laid down in the old Act did not have the desired effect. The purpose of the control we should like to have, is to prevent these publications from coming into the hands of the general public. This purpose was defeated by the old Act. Under these circumstances I really cannot see how we can deviate from the clause as contained in the proposed legislation and how it can in any way be watered down justifiably.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Tygervallei misses the point which we on this side of the House are endeavouring to make. Here is the drastic power contained in this clause, as it has now been approved, to prohibit a man or a company from carrying on normal business not because of something that has happened or which is there to be judged for the future, but because the Board of Censors believes that such a course of conduct is likely to be adopted by the particular person or organization. This is a drastic conclusion. With the best will in the world on the part of anybody in this House who feels that pornographic literature should be stopped. I can see no justification for that prohibition being permissible on one occurrence, be it a conviction or one publication which has been deemed to be undesirable by the Censor Board. After all, who sets the norm as to what is undesirable? The board itself sitting in secret session sets a norm under all the tests of section 5 (2) as to what it deems to be undesirable. I believe that that is a power which goes too far and should be restricted at least so that it takes effect after there have been two convictions or two decisions taken by the board that undesirable publications have appeared from the Press of that particular publisher.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Tygervallei. Unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment. As I made clear yesterday, the reason for my refusal is that we must prevent this undesirable literature from being distributed among the public. The main task of the Publications Control Board is to prevent the public from getting hold of this undesirable literature. Anything one may do will be of no avail if the damage has already been done among the people. We would be watering down this clause completely if we made it impossible for us to act if we saw that a certain publication containing undesirable literature was being published and if we had reason to believe that the next edition of such a publication would contain similar undesirable literature. The hon. member for Green Point is acting on the assumption that the Publications Control Board is going to take action because it “believes” that the publication will contain undesirable literature. I want to put it somewhat more strongly by saying that it will take action because it has good reason to believe that. It is not merely a matter of belief in the sense that we believe in something we cannot see or cannot hear, but we act because there are sound reasons for us to believe that the literature will be of an undesirable nature. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I showed you a certain publication which I had in my possession. If one has to judge by the contents of what they describe here as the first chapter of a story, I think there is no member in this House who would not agree that publication of the remaining part of this story should not be allowed.

Has that publisher been prosecuted?

No, the publisher did not proceed with his publication.

Why has he not been prosecuted?

Under these circumstances I repeat that we have to prevent this undesirable literature from reaching the public. I heard it said this morning that “prevention is better than cure”, and I think this should be our attitude in this case as well. I pointed out yesterday that I did not want the provisions in terms of which the Publications Control Board functions, to be applied like the law of the Medes and the Persians. This is a case in which a great deal of discretion had to be used, and that is why we are making provision here for discretion to be exercised. If the Publications Control Board were to decide to ban a certain edition, it would not mean that it should proceed to ban the whole series. In the same way as the Publications Control Board prohibits an edition in a series, it may also withdraw its prohibition of the publication of that series by way of a notice in the Government Gazette. The circumstances are fluid here, and the Publications Control Board will have to decide from time to time whether it is desirable that certain literature be made available to the public or not. In those circumstances I cannot allow this clause to be watered down in the way the hon. member for Green Point has suggested.

Mr. Chairman, I think the attitude of the hon. the Minister is most unreasonable. Because a paper commits an offence or acts in a manner which is regarded by his Publications Board as being an offence, not an offence against the law but an offence in the sense that in their opinion a particular edition of a publication is offensive …

Order! I think the hon. member must confine himself more specifically to the clause.

That is what I am doing, Sir. The hon. the Minister has just explained to us how the clause will operate and I am following the hon. the Minister. Because these people publish something which the Publications Board thinks is offensive, the Board has the right to say that they may never publish anything again. Let us take it a step further, Sir. I appeal to the hon. the Minister. Supposing a man publishes a book that is banned in South Africa, would the hon. the Minister go so far as to say that any book written in the future by that author will be banned?

Of course not; this clause does not provide for anything like that.

What is the difference?

With respect, I do not think you have read the clause.

I have read it several times, and I think the hon. member for Green Point is much too reasonable in his approach. He has gone more than half way to meet the hon. the Minister.

He is watering the clause down completely.

Let the hon. member come into the debate instead of sitting there saying nothing. Let the hon. member come into the debate and justify this shocking clause.

Order! Will the hon. member come back to the clause.

If the hon. member for Turffontein knows something about this matter he should come into the debate.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I am trying to put him in order.

I will do that.

And I will co-operate. Sir, I think the hon. member’s amendment is a most reasonable amendment. It gives the Minister everything he requires. He does not require more than that. If the amendment is accepted he says to these people: “We are banning this edition and you know what the law is; if you do it again we have the right to suspend publication.” I think that is an excellent solution and I ask the hon. the Minister to accept it.

I think the hon. member for Kensington has not in fact read this clause correctly, because this refers to a specific type of publication. It refers to a publication which is published periodically in the Republic. He has missed that point to start with.

I have not.

I would also like to point out to the hon. member for Kensington and to the hon. member for Green Point that we are dealing with publications which are not approved publications. Against the original decision on the first publication, they have the right of appeal which is included in this clause. They have the right of appeal under clause 14, so they have really had two bites out of the cherry already, because first of all, they can appeal against the Board’s decision to ban the publication. But, Sir, I want to put another angle as well. Surely to goodness, if this happens to be a type of publication which the Board in its wisdom considers to be unsuitable for publication in this country, is it not better then that they immediately tell the publishers and the importers that this is in fact a type of publication which is not acceptable for publication, circulation and distribution in South Africa? Surely it is a far more intelligent approach to do it that way than to let these publications come in and then to ban every second or third publication. I think this is a far more intelligent and reasonable approach, because then at least the publisher, the importer and the person who wants to place orders for a publication which is an unsuitable type of publication will know from the very beginning that that is a type of publication which is unacceptable to the Board, and that therefore they will be wasting their time if they try to import it, publish it or circulate it.

We are opposed to the clause as it stands, but we thought we would give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of accepting a reasonable amendment.

But it is not reasonable.

I shall tell the hon. the Minister why it is very reasonable. In this case his attitude is not reasonable. The hon. the Minister said his approach was that he should prevent certain things from reaching the public. But how can he do so? The Minister cannot judge beforehand whether the second edition is going to be undesirable or not. How does the hon. the Minister know that a periodical, if it has committed one offence, will commit a second? Here he has a practical example; he held the Buyers Guide up to us, but in fact, when the board banned the first edition, they voluntarily did not proceed with the publication of the second.

This is not what happened.

Well, this is what we understood from the hon. the Minister when we asked him this question. But the point I want to make is this: The hon. the Minister said repeatedly that there could be difference of opinion on what is good and what is not good. The only way in which a publication can really become acquainted with the norm that is set by the board is when it is banned. Then a periodical realizes that it has applied a norm which meets with the disapproval of the board. But then surely it should be given an opportunity of reforming itself. Is this not fair? The board has now said that it disapproves of that kind of article. But now the Minister is not going to give that periodical a second chance at all. He is not going to give it a chance to reform itself. All our amendment is asking—and that is why we made it “two”—is that, if it is clear that it persists in its wrongful action after the first punishment, the board should then tackle it and ban its subsequent issues as well. But I really think a publication should get a chance to reform itself before all issues are banned.

The reaction of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout really astonishes me. As someone who used to be connected with journalism, surely he ought to know what the procedure is when periodicals or publications disseminate this kind of obscene or objectionable literature. They publish an article in one edition, or they begin by publishing an appetizer in which they say they are going to make certain disclosures about, say, homosexualism, or lesbianism, or sadism, or some form of human misdemeanour. This they announce under bold headlines, and then in the next issue they come along with the first article on that theme. Then they usually say that in the subsequent second or third issue they will make further disclosures. This is how the Minister will be enabled to determine whether in the future, after the first article or after the announcement, further undesirable literature will appear in the publication concerned.

But the Minister can put a stop to this.

The hon. the Minister said very clearly here that we cannot accept this amendment, and now I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that he is trying to catch this side of the House napping this afternoon, and that we are not going to allow that. All he is trying to do is to water down this clause. I want to tell him again why we cannot accept this. It is for this simple reason. This type of publication, the publishers of which are very shrewd and which flourishes on the exploitation of filth, can very easily, if this loophole is left, i.e. that two issues may be allowed, but not the subsequent ones, fill one issue with an article full of this filth. They will then skip one, then repeat the performance in the next issue, and so they will continue, and the Minister will simply be unable ever to pin them down. Every time the whole impression will be sold out before the Publication Board can take action, and we will be frustrated in our object. The object of this Bill is to get at the source of the evil done by these publications which shy away from being enrolled with the National Press Union, where proper control can be exercised over them. There have been many complaints here this afternoon that publishing firms will now be ruined and go bankrupt. I feel that if a publishing firm wants to flourish on the exploitation of this objectionable type of literature, it deserves to have strong action taken against it, and if it suffers losses in its attempt to make a profit out of this kind of literature, it is its own fault. So I cannot see at all why the Opposition is kicking up such a fuss over this clause, and I hope the hon. the Minister will not budge an inch.

The hon. member for Turffontein has used an argument against my hon. friend in regard to the publications which are to follow, and he mentioned the case where an advertising programme is embarked upon in which they say that in their next issue there will be an article on lesbianism, etc. In terms of the Act as it is to-day, the Minister has the power to act against those periodicals and, in any case, if he does not have the power to act after such an advertisement, he has the power to issue a warning and to follow up that warning by a prosecution. This is the stand we have taken on this side of the House, that he has the power to prosecute but he has not used that power. Yesterday, in reply to the Second Reading debate, the Minister told us why he has not used that power.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause and speak to the clause.

I accept your ruling, Sir, and I want to say that it is clear from the attitude of the Minister as well as that of hon. members opposite that they are not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, so therefore I am now speaking against the clause as it stands in the Bill.

Order! The principle contained in this clause was accepted at the Second Reading, and the hon. member therefore may not speak against it.

Then may I deal with the effect this clause will have?

No, I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot discuss the effect now.

To come back to the hon. member for Umlazi, he alleged that the hon. member for Kensington had not read this clause properly, but that is just what I want to say about him. It is clear that the hon. member for Umlazi has read it but that he has not understood it, because he referred to periodicals being introduced into this country, being imported, but with respect this clause does not refer to any periodicals brought in.

I accept that.

Thank you. Then let us go on from there. I want to ask the Minister, in the light of his comments in reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday, when he said that he had not prosecuted because of the difficulty of obtaining a conviction …

Order! I wish to point out that the details of the clause are under discussion and that this is not a general Second Reading debate.

Then can I put it to you this way, Sir, that in terms of subparagraph (aa), where a periodical has been found to be undesirable, this can be determined because it is defined in the Act, although the Minister claims that that definition does not hold water when it comes to a prosecution; when we come to subparagraph (bb), line 17, again we find that the board can decide whether a periodical is undesirable in its opinion. Once again this can be determined because once again it is defined in the Act and certain norms are laid down which the board shall use in determining whether or not this publication is undesirable. But paragraph (ii) says, “in the opinion of the board, every subsequent edition of such publication is likely to be undesirable”; there I maintain that we are dealing with something which is indeterminate.

Order! I wish to point out that that point has been made over and over again.

During the discussion now in the Committee Stage on this clause?

Yes. The hon. member for Green Point made the point.

Then there is another aspect I would like to ask the Minister to tell us about in regard to the application of this clause, and that is that we are going to have what the hon. member for Turffontein calls a “skuiwergat”, through which a number of publishers will get away. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do if he does ban a publication and that publication comes out under another name. What is he going to do? Has he now got to start all over again or is he going to accept that this is merely another publication which is brought out by the publishing firm? What I am getting at is the assertion we made earlier, that the Minister is hereby taking a power to put a publishing house out of business, and in the words of the hon. member for Turffontein, to make them bankrupt.

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to point out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who stated that it was not fair that the publisher should be prevented from publishing the subsequent editions because the board would not know what the subsequent editions would contain, that in terms of section 8 of the Act provision is made as follows—

1. (a) at the request of any person and … upon payment of the prescribed fee, to examine any publication or object and to state whether that publication or object is in the opinion of the board undesirable or not.

Therefore, the publisher could under that section apply to the board to reconsider its decision to ban subsequent publications. So that if he is dissatisfied with the board’s ruling, this paragraph provides a remedy.

Mr. Chairman, what I cannot understand is how the hon. the Minister can anticipate whether subsequent editions will be undesirable or not. This is the whole point at issue. The hon. member’s amendment …

Order! I wish to point out that that question has been answered by the hon. the Minister and other members as well.

The hon. member’s amendment is very reasonable, because he at least gives the publication two chances, and not just one, as the hon. the Minister wishes to do. My point is that the hon. the Minister yesterday produced a consumers’ guide in which there was an article which he thought was objectionable. This article dealt with methods of contraception. In this particular case we can possibly assume that part two, which was also coming in a forthcoming issue, would also be objectionable. It is quite likely that part one in itself could have been objectionable without the rest of the articles on this subject being objectionable, but this journal runs the risk of being banned for ever more. I think this is a completely unreasonable power which the hon. the Minister wants to take upon himself. A point which I do not believe has been made in this regard is that so far everybody has been concentrating on “undesirable” in so far as it applies to what is “indecent”; in other words pornography and such literature. Certainly, that is what the hon. member for Turffontein has been getting so excited about, namely that all these pornographic issues are appearing. He said because of this the hon. the Minister needs this power to save public morals.

What else do you want to ban?

Order! I wish to point out that this is not the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I am talking on this clause; I am sorry, but this clause refers to a power which is taken by the hon. the Minister in terms of section 5 (1) fa). Section 5 (1) (a) does not only deal with “undesirable” from the public morals point of view. Section 5 (1) also covers the definition of “undesirable” if it is offensive to the religious convictions …

The clause the hon. member is mentioning now is not under discussion in this Committee. Only paragraph (e), which has the line alongside in the margin, is under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, May I point out that section 5 (1) (a) says—

In this same section it defines what is undesirable. Surely this is relevant. In the same provision …

That is in order in the Second Reading debate, but not at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I am discussing this clause. Surely I can say why I am going to vote against it? I am going to vote against it not only because it refers to pornography or indecent literature in the normally accepted term, but it also refers to “undesirable” in terms of the definition in the section which this Bill amends. Surely it is relevant, Mr. Chairman? I am going to vote …

Order! I cannot allow every member to say why he or she wants to vote against the Bill, because then it will be the Second Reading debate all over again.

I cannot just vote against this clause without saying why.

I have allowed two or three members to do that, but I cannot allow every member in the House to say why he or she is going to vote against the clause.

Mr. Chairman, has anybody mentioned the point that “undesirable” refers to more than public morals and that it may refer to anything which is considered harmful to any section of the inhabitants of the Republic or brings any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt. Nobody has referred to that, to the best of my knowledge. I was here for the Second Reading debate, and this is still clause 1. Am I right? Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether the term “undesirable” encompasses the whole definition of that word in terms of the principal Act and not just public morals as far as indecency is concerned?

Yes.

Order! I cannot allow that discussion and that is final!

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to argue with you, but you have allowed full discussion on the question of the pornographic side of this clause, and I do not want to discuss that at all. I want to discuss the point that anything that is undesirable in terms of the definition falls within the ambit of this clause. I object to that part of it. It has not even been mentioned in this discussion and it is much wider than just lewd literature; one can have a series of cartoons making fun of the super-verkramptes, which might have the result that the next edition will be banned because it is bringing ridicule on a section of the community. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will not ban those sort of things. He might; one never knows.

I do not do the job.

All right, the board then. I object to this very strongly not only because of the impossibility of anticipating further lewd publications, when a particular issue happens to contain a lewd reference or a lewd picture, but because it goes much wider than that. It can affect political development and all sorts of aspects which can fall under the very wide definition of “undesirable” under this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot understand why the hon. members are so concerned about this clause. What we are asking in this clause in regard to the first edition of a publication, as stated by the hon. member for Green Point, is already contained in the Act in respect of imported publications. It is already in the Act in respect of imported series. Now the hon. members pretend that this is a terribly unreasonable power we are asking here. I just want to make it clear that the principle of taking action in regard to series was accepted at the Second Reading. Accordingly I agree that we cannot now discuss the principle of taking action. What we can discuss is whether it should be after the first edition or after the second edition.

Or the third.

Or the third edition. In other words, the details, and therefore I feel myself limited to discussing these. As I said, we previously accepted a principle here with which no one found fault. The principle relates to imported series. Now the hon. members say that an article appears which forms part of a series, i.e. a kind of publication which appears weekly or monthly, which we do not like, which is in our opinion wrong and indecent and which has been published and has already done its harm. They say that because that article appears in that publication we ban the rest of the series. Surely the hon. members know that this is not what we have in mind. Surely the hon. members know that a series will not be banned on the grounds of one isolated article. What we have, in mind relates to a series of articles. This is what I indicated yesterday when I referred to the specific publication which I had before me. This is what usually happens. There is a publication which forms part of a series. That publication contains an article which is totally undesirable and which has already done its harm. They say that they will continue the series in subsequent publications. Now the hon. member for Green Point wants us to allow that publication to offend a second time after having done so the first time.

If it offends again, it must be prosecuted.

But it is no use prosecuting it. The harm has already been done. The hon. member for Etosha quite rightly pointed out that the publication may be referred to the board to obtain a decision beforehand as to whether such an article is permissible or not. The necessary provision is there. I also pointed out to the hon. member for Green Point that this is not an inflexible measure. If the board finds that the second publication is innocent and it has no objection to it, it may withdraw that prohibition it has imposed. It is quite flexible, reasonable and fair. But I think our main task is to keep this undesirable literature from our people. This is the only way in which we can do so.

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the attitude which has been adopted by the hon. the Minister in suggesting—and I hope this is not his thinking—that publishers in South Africa must go to the Censor Board beforehand and submit their documents to see whether they may publish. [Interjections.] But that was what he suggested.

After the publisher has been stopped.

After he has been stopped, it is no good going, because the board has already made up his mind. But if a publisher wants to be cautious, is he to submit himself to continuous censorship on payment of a fee in terms of that section? It is a shocking thought if that is what we are coming to in the publishing world in South Africa.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think he is placing the burden, in terms of this clause, on the Censor Board that it must express an opinion that every subsequent edition of such a publication is likely to be undesirable, and not only the succeeding one. The board has to do that on the evidence of one isolated article or conviction. The board can do it; that is what this Bill gives them power to do. Surely, Sir, that is not the basis upon which one must impose these restrictions. The Minister pushes aside and ignores the fact that each one of these persons who does publish an undesirable article, photograph or whatever it may be, who contravenes the Act, is subject to the criminal sanctions. He puts that aside. Surely, that is the normal way of dealing with something which is against the public interest. Now the Minister wants us to accept that this board, as a result of one prosecution or one undesirable article, which is undesirable in that board’s own opinion, can then come to a conclusion and express an opinion that every subsequent edition of such a publication is likely to be undesirable. I think the Minister has been most unreasonable and unjustified in taking up the attitude he has with regard to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is high time we came back to earth. I feel that the hon. member for Green Point is arguing in the air with that standpoint that the edition will be banned on account of one specific article. Let us be practical. None of us is a member of the Publications Control Board. The general public are not members of it. I am telling hon. members today that you can ask the scruffiest chap in the street what the scruffiest publications in South Africa are. He will be able to tell you which one he is going to buy next week. As the new expression goes, “It’s a ‘safe’ one; that’s a juicy periodical for you”. In other words, if a layman in the street with low moral codes is able to indicate what periodical he tends to buy on account of its contents, how can hon. members be justified in doubting the judgment of the Control Board, and say that it will simply ban a publication on account of one little article in an arbitrary way? Surely this is quite unheard of and unrealistic. But now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) comes to light with a clever way out and says, “But surely they can simply change their name and publish another periodical under a different name”. One really should not display one’s ignorance in this way if one knows nothing about this matter. After all, the fact of the matter is that control is exercised. If a publication appears at intervals of at least a month, the publisher must register the name of that publication under the Newspaper and Imprint Act. The hon. member seems to think that one can simply change the name every week as it suits one. This is simply no argument.

Within the framework of the definition of what may be regarded as undesirable the hon. member for Houghton wants to include things in addition to the indecent. By doing so she is in fact lending force to the argument that this clause is really necessary. On that basis it will be clear if there is an article which she considers to be derogatory to the Jews. If an article should appear which forms part of a serial, surely that is sufficient reason to ban it. This again represents a complete difference in approach between this side and that side of the House. Our point of view is that it is enough if one filthy publication has appeared. The point of view of the hon. member for Green Point is that if two have appeared, it is not so bad. As long as this is the basis on which we argue, we will simply not be able to come to terms. I just feel that we cannot water down this matter, because it is precisely our duty to prevent that first edition from appearing. If this clause is accepted as it stands today, it will be a definite deterrent to those very publishers and will cause them to see to it that that first article which is the point at issue, does not appear.

Mr. Chairman, this is the second time the hon. member for Tygervallei has come into this debate, and both times he talked a lot of nonsense. Does he not know that it has happened in the past that when periodicals have been banned, they reappeared under different names?

It must register under that name.

It does not matter. Whether he has to register or not, it has happened. I merely asked the hon. the Minister what he is going to do. If he wants to close all the loopholes, this is another one he must close.

But I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. I think that my hon. friend from Green Point was quite right in the attitude he took up about the reply of the hon. the Minister. That was no reply. I am sure the hon. the Minister in his heart knows that it was not a reply, especially when he started talking about the principle having already been established and accepted with regard to imported publications. He knows the reason why this principle was accepted and why it was introduced by one of his predecessors in previous legislation.

You did not understand what I was saying. This principle was accepted at the Second Reading.

No, the hon. the Minister also referred to the previous Act.

I referred to the principle in this clause.

That is right, but the hon. the Minister wanted to know why we were opposed to it when the principle was accepted in the Act before.

Order! The principle of this Bill is not under discussion now.

I agree, Sir; it is not under discussion now. But what I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that he knows our attitude, why we are opposed to this. We are opposed to it because the courts have jurisdiction over the publishers in South Africa, and over the publishers of the very periodicals which are referred to in this provision, the only publications which are affected by these particular powers the hon. the Minister is now taking.

The hon. the Minister referred again to a publication which he has there. I do not know its name. It carries the first of a series of articles on contraception. He asked what action he was to take. I am sure that he is quite clear as to what action he could have taken. If he considered that this article was so bad, he could have taken the necessary action in the courts, not only to prohibit the distribution of that particular edition, but also to act against the next or any subsequent editions which might appear.

He has that power and he does not need the power given to him by this measure which he is taking now. The hon. member for Green Point made the point to the hon. the Minister about a publisher who is cautious referring his publication to the board before publishing it. I want to quote an example that occurred recently and I want to point out how dangerous this provision can be. A leading magazine, and I can almost go so far as to say the leading family magazine in South Africa, appeared on the news stands with a rather lurid picture on the front. It is not the picture I sent to the hon. the Minister. When the publishers saw this they were horrified. This particular highly reputable firm had been very careful and very strict with the cover pictures as well as with the articles which they had published. But due to an oversight and a breakdown on one occasion of the machinery employed by that firm in seeing that their publication maintained the high standard which they like to maintain, this picture slipped through. This happened not so long ago. In terms of this Bill as it stands to-day the hon. the Minister’s board could have picked up this picture, said that it was undesirable, pornographic or whatever they may decide upon and on the strength of that, in terms of this Bill, they could have come to the conclusion that future editions of this publication might have carried such a picture on the front page. They could then have banned, pending an appeal, any further publication of that magazine. This might have happened to the leading magazine in South Africa due to an oversight and a breakdown in the machinery of that firm.

It is not Veg you are talking about now, is it?

No, I will come to Veg in a minute. It was in connection with a leading magazine. This is the danger which we foresee in the power which the hon. the Minister is asking now. Yesterday I asked the hon. the Minister a specific question about certain publications. Does he consider that this clause may be invoked against such publications as Veg and the S.A. Observer? Could this clause be invoked against them if it was maintained by the board that they brought into disrepute, or hurt the feelings of, certain sections of the community? Can it be construed that, if the views expressed by these periodicals ridicule a certain section of the community, not only a particular edition can be banned, but all future editions of these publications? Surely these two magazines have followed a pattern. Surely they have taken the pattern of ridiculing a section of the people in this country? I would be very interested to hear the views of the hon. the Minister whether or not this particular clause could be invoked against those two particular periodicals.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is not meeting trouble halfway with one of his arguments, he is trying to split hairs with another. In this way we had to listen for the second time during this debate to the hon. member’s voice. It is not really worth the trouble to do so, but my real purpose in getting up is to ask the hon. member, in the first place, why, if he says that the hon. the Minister already has the powers under the Act to take certain steps, he complains if these powers are now being granted for a second time. Surely it does not matter in that case, and surely the power could then again be laid down by legislation. The second point is that the hon. member puts forward the argument that if a publication accidentally happened to contain something undesirable, its fate was sealed. This is not the position at all. The entire purport of this clause is, firstly, that there must in fact have been a prosecution and that it must have been found undesirable under section 5 (1) (a), or, in the second place, that according to a statement by the board it is undesirable in the board’s opinion, and the said statement has not been set aside. In other words, a statement of undesirability may be set aside subsequently. In the third place we have a council which consists of fair and reasonable people, and which will not simply intervene if a fair explanation is given in connection with such an undesirable publication. We on this side of the House want to ensure that publications containing harmful information do not appear on the streets. This hon. member is meeting trouble halfway and splitting hairs when he refers to publications such as Veg and the South African Observer. He knows what our real idea is here and what we have in mind. What we have in mind as far as this measure is concerned, is mainly publications that corrupt the morals. I am of the opinion that once the publishers of a publication have had an opportunity and they have forfeited that opportunity, it is a good thing if they are exposed to the threat of their publications being banned.

Question put: That the word “edition” in line 9, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—83: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—31: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—84: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—31: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2:

The Minister, when dealing with this clause at the Second Reading, indicated, quite correctly I agree, the problems of acting as a court of appeal for censored films. I think the Minister with this amendment is accepting a very onerous task in that he personally should be responsible for decisions in appeals from the Censor Board. We believe that it is correct that the Minister should accept that responsibility. The Minister demonstrated to us an exercise in the censorship of films when he invited members from both sides of the House to review a film which was banned by the Publications Board, a film under the title “The Chastity Belt”. This is a film which I myself would not have banned. In fact, I found it to be rather a nonsensical farce on the activities of the Crusaders. However, what did worry me is the fact that this film, by virtue of the fact that it was submitted to the procedures of the Publications Board, would now get far greater publicity than the one star it should get at the very most as a piece of entertainment. It seems to me that the Minister in amending section 11 of the principal Act has not given sufficient thought to the possibility of their being a divergence of opinion about what should be banned and what not. He did not give proper recognition to the fact that opinions in this regard may vary between individuals in the same walk of life. With this amendment he proposes to delegate to one person the responsibility of reviewing a film which has been censored, and of reporting and making recommendations to him. The Minister should recognize the divergence of opinion which was apparent when members of both sides of the House reviewed that film and realize also that his decision on appeal is final. There is no further appeal to the court, and he is in fact in the position of a tribunal. If he delegates that power he is giving that power to some other tribunal, I believe it would be wise for him to provide in this clause that there should be at least two persons and possibly three who would do the reviewing on his behalf. I know the hon. the Minister may feel that that will be a cumbersome procedure. But I believe it is dangerous to leave the power to recommend, at variance possibly with the decision of the Censor Board, in the hands of one person only. Where that recommendation is at variance with the decision of the Censor Board, the Minister will find himself having to see every one of those films himself before he comes to a decision. It is for that reason I have moved the amendment which stands in my name, namely to substitute “persons” for “person”, which means that the hon. the Minister should call two or more persons to perform this duty and not rely on one opinion only, because of his own experience of the divergence of opinions on these delicate matters. I therefore move, as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest the hon. member is showing in this problem we have. In fact, we do have a problem here. We are trying to establish something above the Publications Board, something which will give people the right to appeal against a decision of the Publications Board. The hon. member has just explained to us the problems we have in this matter. I must say we are in fact making an attempt here and an attempt was also made in the Act as it reads at present, an attempt which did not provide a proper solution to our problem. I think the hon. member will agree with that. That is so. That is why I said yesterday that it would seem to me that the best procedure would be to abide by the decision of the Publications Board. The hon. member suggested a moment ago that we should obtain many different opinions in cases such as these. My attitude is that we already have this on the Publications Board. The members of the Publications Board were specially selected and are specially equipped to take decisions on matters of this nature. I am quite satisfied that no other person is as well equipped as the Publications Board itself to decide on matters such as these. Thus the people who consult each other go into all the different aspects of the matter so as to ensure that proper consideration is given to the literary, artistic and moral principles, etc. They are pre-eminently the people who perform this function. As for me, in this case I feel I should like somebody to give me his impressions of the film concerned. As we are amending the Act at present, the final decision remains in the hands of the Minister. I think this is an improvement, otherwise I would not have moved this amendment. I think it is an improvement because in the past I was obliged to delegate that power to somebody else who, in the normal course of events, probably had nothing to do with the whole matter. In isolated cases such a person was suddenly asked to decide whether something was permissible or not. He had probably never had the occasion before to consider the standards and norms on the basis of which a film should be allowed or not. In my capacity as Minister I at least have contact with the Board. In addition I am also obliged to report to Parliament. I must admit the procedure is not effective. I do not think it is very effective, but as for me, I am satisfied that if I were to appoint two or more persons, I would find myself in such a muddle that I would benefit much less than I think I shall benefit from the opinion of the one person I will ask to go and see the film. I can very well imagine what would happen if two people like that hon. member, for example, were to be appointed. They would differ with me just as I differed with him in respect of the film we had seen.

No, we agreed with each other.

No, we did not agree on that film. One of the two people appointed, may say it is a good film and advance certain reasons for his opinion, while the other person may say that for some reason or other the film should not be allowed. What am I to do then? It will make it much easier for me if I were to obtain the objective opinion and impressions of one sensible person. I shall be able to take a decision on the basis of the description he gives me. Under these circumstances, as far as I am concerned, my intention is to appoint only one person. I want to ask the hon. member to leave the matter at that now.

There is something else I want to say to the hon. member. As a matter of fact, this is an additional argument. When the Arms and Ammunitions Bill was being considered a little while ago, I pointed out that, according to the Interpretation Act, the singular includes the plural, and vice versa. It is clearly stated in the Interpretation Act that this is the case “in every law, unless the contrary intention appears”. There is a degree of uncertainty as regards the explanation of this “contrary intention”. These are the precise words as they appear in the Interpretation Act. Words in the singular number include the plural, and words in the plural number include the singular. In other words, if the hon. member succeeds in becoming Minister of the Interior one day, he will, in terms of the Interpretations Act, be able to appoint more persons if he wanted to.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move the following amendment as printed in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title:

I move the following amendment, as printed—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

In terms of an undertaking I gave yesterday in my reply to the Second Reading debate, I caused an investigation to be made into the possibility of moving an amendment which would comply with the feeling expressed in the House yesterday in regard to the submission of reports to Parliament. We have ascertained that it is in fact possible, and with your permission, Sir, I now move the following amendment—

To add the following proviso at the end of the Clause:

I just want to apologize to the House for the fact that it was impossible to have this amendment published in to-day’s Order Paper.

The hon. the Deputy Minister was good enough to give us the opportunity of seeing this draft amendment and I am glad that he has seen the light on the subject and has drafted an amendment which removes our objections to which we gave expression yesterday afternoon. It would appear that the Bill as printed does not really mean exactly what the Minister intended it to mean, and this amendment which he is now moving will make it perfectly clear exactly what he did mean. It would further appear, in regard to the tabling of reports and recommendations by the board, that in the strict letter of the law, the law has been broken by the Department and by successive Ministers, including myself, ever since 1944, because the law is quite clear that all recommendations and reports must be laid on the Table. That certainly was not the intention when the law was passed. I can say so with certainty because I happened to put the Bill through the House. The intention was not that inter-departmental memoranda and things of that sort should be laid on the Table, so this amendment meets our objection to the Bill as printed, and we are very grateful to the Deputy Minister for moving this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Yesterday evening, just before the adjournment of the debate, I was busy mentioning the most important reasons why the Soil Conservation Act of 1946 had not been successful. The most important reasons which I mentioned, not necessarily in the same sequence, were the following: The tremendous droughts which we had, pestilence and plagues, the financial position of the farmer and, finally, the shortage of trained technicians to give the necessary guidance in connection with soil conservation. The hon. the Minister pointed out that the 1946 legislation was definitely an idealistic measure. Incidentally, this does not surprise me because the 1946 legislation was passed by the United Party Government. But we are going to support this Bill of the hon. the Minister, and I am briefly going to furnish the reasons why we are supporting the Bill at the Second Reading. Firstly, we are supporting it because the extent of the problem has now become so great that drastic steps have become necessary to check soil erosion in South Africa. Twenty years ago it was claimed that we were losing about 300 million tons of topsoil annually. To-day it is claimed that we are losing our topsoil at the rate of 400 million tons annually. We are informed by experts that this loss of 400 million tons of soil annually is equal to R1,000 million, almost the same as the total annual agricultural turnover in South Africa. Sir, we support this legislation because a greater responsibility is being placed on the shoulders of the farmer in respect of soil conservation and the application of sound conservation methods. But we also support it because the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of the Minister and his Department will become considerably greater. We thus support the Bill in general because it also enjoys the support of the South African Agricultural Union. In addition we feel that the Bill can be supported because after it has been passed it will not be possible to look for scapegoats; it will then no longer be possible to accuse soil conservation committees of not being prepared to take action against farmers who do not want to apply proper soil conservation methods. It will also no longer be possible, as has frequently been done previously, to blame soil conservation committees for laxity in this respect or in any other respect.

Before I come to the Bill itself I want to touch upon a few matters which arise out of the hon. the Minister’s speech. I must say that we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for making copies of his speech available to us. In his speech he said—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister how this Bill of his changes the situation, because the chronic shortage of extension officers and technicians remains. Sufficient officers are simply not being made available to the farmers. In addition, Sir, I shall tell you why the hon. the Minister will not succeed in improving the position in this way. He will not succeed in improving it because the committees which he is contemplating in this Bill will be absolutely advisory in nature. In fact, the hon. the Minister himself said this in his Second Reading speech. Previously soil conservation district committees could, in fact, plan farms, and, in particular, where they had the confidence of their fellow farmers they could achieve quite a good deal. The greatest objection of the local soil conservation committees was, as the hon. the Minister mentioned, that they could not institute proceedings against lax farmers. That was their only objection. They did not object to the other tasks which they had to perform. But now the hon. the Minister goes and removes all the other tasks and all other powers which they had and says that they will merely be advisory committees. Sir, I just want to repeat that point: He is not going to have the necessary extension officers because this Bill is going to do nothing to the chronic shortage of extension officers, and in addition he is depriving his soil conservation committees of further powers. Who is now going to do this work? I think that the hon. the Minister should give us a very clear reply about this. However, at a later stage in his speech he said that the committees would still always play a key role. In what respect would they then play the key role. Certain powers are being taken from them; they are becoming merely advisory, but the hon. the Deputy Minister claimed that they would still always play a key role. He neglected to give us a proper illustration of what role he thought these people were subsequently going to play. Unfortunately, I now have to refer the hon. the Minister to the Soil Conservation Board’s latest report which we have at our disposal. On pages 6 and 7 they refer to a conference which was held by soil conservation committees in March last year in Bloemfontein. This conference made certain recommendations and, according to the report, they are not, in fact, prepared to take disciplinary action against their fellow farmers, but they have always been prepared to perform any other task for the Minister and for soil conservation. They said—

That is the recommendation which his committee itself made at their conference, but in this Bill the Deputy Minister states: You will never again be elected by the farmers; I shall appoint you in consultation with the S.A. Agricultural Union. In my opinion, if there is one important principle in this respect it is that if one really wants these people to play a key role they must be elected by the farmers; when they have the confidence of their fellow-farmers they can achieve so much more. We also want to give the Minister notification of the fact that in the Committee Stage, in respect of clause 9, we shall propose that, while he will be empowered to constitute such a soil conservation committee, we should nevertheless like to see that the majority of them are bona fide farmers and that they will be selected by him from a panel of farmers from the soil conservation district concerned, a panel which was set up by the farmers themselves. They elect their people to serve on those committees, submit their choice to the Minister and then he in turn can select as many of them as he needs. I think that this would be the best way to do it. But to say that he will merely consult with the S.A. Agricultural Union will, I fear, not have the necessary effect of obtaining the co-operation of the farmers, and these soil conservation committees will still always be the most important link in doing the work. As a result of a shortage of trained technicians, and also because the Soil Conservation Advisory Board which the Minister is contemplating will not play any particular role either, we on this side of the House still see the committee’s task as being of the utmost importance. They are the Minister’s front line; they are his soldiers, but I fear that according to this legislation the Minister is going to send them to the front without any weapons. He is disarming them and pleads that they will be merely advisory, but at the same time he says that they will play a key role. We on this side of the House find this to be an anomaly. It is essential for us to point out that there are 816 functioning soil conservation committees in the country, from 780 or 95 per cent of which the Minister has received reports during the year under discussion. In other words, they were doing his work, and they were doing good work as well; and statistics indicate that these soil conservation committees have evidenced a considerable improvement even as far as attending their meetings is concerned, and in the number of meetings which were held. I can therefore not envisage anyone thinking that these committees are not functioning, because 780 of the 816 regularly submitted reports and there is proof that these committees are displaying considerably more interest.

I now want to mention another argument about why we think that these committees, as he envisages them in the legislation, will not work. If he were to give them new and greater powers, letting them be constituted from the farmers themselves, the situation would improve considerably. In addition to their necessary meetings, the local soil conservation committees have independently planned 1,833 farms, 292 more than in the previous year. But now the Minister says that they will no longer do so in future. We know that they do not like performing this task. Such a committee is usually hesitant, but if they are not there to do it, who is going to perform this essential service in the absence of sufficient extension officers? It should also be borne in mind that only 50 per cent of our farms have, in fact, been planned, and therefore there are still 50 per cent which must be planned, and the Minister knows from his reports that the works are being executed and conservation methods applied on only 12 per cent of the planned farms. Therefore, if there are still 50 per cent of the farms to be planned and one is not going to make use of the soil conservation committees, I fear that with the best possible disposition towards this legislation now before the House, the hon. the Minister is going to come back after a year and tell us that the United Party was right.

The Minister cannot accept that these committees should no longer be elected by the land owners as was previously the case. If he had put something else in its place to fill the gap he could, in fact, have used that argument, but unfortunately he is not filling the gap which is being left; he is simply making it bigger. As a farmer himself he will realize that he would have confidence in a man which he himself had placed there to manage his affairs on such a committee. In addition it appears to me as if the hon. the Minister wants to decrease the soil conservation committees even more. I think that it will land him and the Department in a much greater morass if they decrease the number of the committees.

Why?

If the hon. member had listened attentively to the case which I was trying to build up he would have realized why; it is because there is still such a fantastic task which lies ahead, the 50 per cent of the farms which are unplanned. If the hon. member would merely look at the report about the amount of work which has been done in the past few years he would find that 577,000 farmers’ works were approved at a cost of R81 million, but in the same period a mere 269,000 were completed. Less than 50 per cent of the work which was approved was completed. The value of the approved work was calculated at R81 million and the value of that actually carried out at R44 million. The hon. the Minister mentioned this in his speech.

The only difference is nevertheless whether they are elected or nominated.

No, this is not the only difference. To elect them is in effect an important factor, but what we claim is that these soil conservation committees cannot merely be advisory in nature under the prevailing circumstances. That is the point. They must have an actual function to fulfil. They will still always have to plan farms, because who else can do so? Therefore, what the Minister is proposing here, that locally, up to the highest level, one can merely have advisory people in connection with soil conservation, is a big mistake. We are not arguing with the Minister about the legislation, but what we are arguing about is that the mechanism which he has created for himself in this legislation will not work properly unless he is prepared to extend the functions, which he can, in fact do by regulation, so that the local soil conservation committees are not merely advisory but will also have an actual function.

I want to put another question to the hon. the Minister. In his speech the Minister claimed that the district committees would no longer be responsible for the drawing up of the soil conservation scheme. I can understand this to a large extent, because in terms of the 1946 Act it was the soil conservation district committee or the Soil Conservation Board which could draw up the soil conservation scheme, but now the Minister has said that the district plan or farm plan would no longer be bound by law; it would exist, he said, until it is replaced by directions. But at the same time he has also claimed that financial assistance could only be granted by way of a farm map and a schedule. I also find this to be an anomaly in his speech, to think that the district committees may now no longer draw up the farm plan and that the plan will no longer be bound by law, and at the same time to say that if one needs financial assistance, this should still be granted throughout according to the farm map and the schedule. The hon. the Minister must explain this to us in his reply. There may be a point somewhere which I do not understand, and I think that the Minister must make it very clear to us in his reply how he envisages that it will work. I say again that we are not arguing against the Bill; we are merely trying to resolve the doubts which we have about the manner in which the legislation will be applied. We are in agreement with the reinstitution of the Soil Conservation Division and we surmise that this step is a result of the appeals which were made recently for an individually independent Department of Soil Conservation. Soil conservation activities can undoubtedly be promoted to a large extent by this Soil Conservation Division. We have realized its value in the past, and in future we believe it will once more be of great value.

Now there are merely a few matters in connection with the legislation itself.

Clauses 3, 4 and 5 give the Minister tremendously great powers. Clause 4 provides that the Minister himself has the power to require a landowner to carry out and to maintain soil conservation works. In clause 5 the Minister even goes as far as telling a farmer that he must go and do work on another person’s land. After that work has been done, the Minister is empowered to decide whether it was advantageous or disadvantageous, and if there were costs involved the Minister would decide on the amount to be paid out. Why must the hon. the Minister have these powers as laid down by clause 5? Why does he not leave it to a court of arbitration to pass that judgment? The hon. the Minister does not only require action by the farmer on his own land, but even on another person’s land. The hon. the Minister is going to take it upon himself to pass judgment in respect of what amount shall be paid out. We think that this matter can best be decided by a court of arbitration. Why can this not be done by a court which consists of a representative of the Minister’s Department and the Soil Conservation Board and the local magistrate? They will be best able to give a decision in connection with such a matter. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are also going to make a similar proposal in the Committee Stage and we hope that he will consider it.

I now want to refer to clause 9. I have already told the hon. the Deputy Minister what we are going to propose there in connection with the constituting of his soil conservation committees. In his introductory speech the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he proposed that the Soil Conservation Advisory Council should now replace the old board. The hon. the Minister also said that the old board was also merely advisory in nature. But why is this not mentioned in the legislation? Why does the legislation not provide that an advisory council is going to be nominated? The hon. the Minister is now the Minister of Agriculture, but to-morrow or the day after there may be someone else who is not bound to establish a soil conservation advisory board. Therefore, if another Minister were to occupy the post he could simply do away with that. If it is the view of the South African Agricultural Union and the farmers in general, as it is the view of this side of the House, I think they would prefer it to be stated in the legislation if such a soil conservation board is to be established. What is more, if there must be such a soil conservation advisory council the farmers should, surely, also have the assurance that the majority of those people will, in fact, be bona fide farmers. They must have the assurance that the people will be able to look after their interests. Therefore we shall also propose that such a soil conservation advisory council shall be so constituted that at least one-third of the members will be bona fide farmers.

Finally, I want to say that we realize the urgency of the matter under discussion. We also realize that it is not the final word on soil conservation, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. We all realize that we are not farming with livestock, grain, fruit or with anything else; we are farming with land. We realize that we shall now once and for all have to take urgent steps to call a halt to this problem that South Africa has come to face. We on this side of the House want to do it, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that in recent years, for longer, even, than I have been here, this side of the House has insisted on the urgency of soil conservation. We do not want the soil to wash away; we want to leave something better to our descendants than we ourselves had. It is our duty, and therefore we want to grant the hon. the Minister these powers. These are drastic powers and under ordinary circumstances we would not have wanted to grant them to him, but we are going to do so and we want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he would be prepared to accept our amendments his legislation would only be improved by it. It would not weaken his or his Department’s position in applying what they must apply. He would at least ensure the support of the greater majority of the farmers in South Africa if he were to do this. On that condition we are prepared to support the Second Reading of this legislation.

I listened attentively to the hon. member for Newton Park’s argument. However, we have reached a stage where we must not merely support, but must do something more, i.e. welcome with great enthusiasm anything for the promotion of soil and water conservation. Soil and water conservation are very closely related. It is no use merely making money available and placing legislation on the Statute Book. The population of this country, particularly the farmers, must realize their responsibility. The State is here placing certain means at their disposal and thereafter, the onus rests with them. I have the fullest confidence that if we were to give them the necessary assistance, our farmers would carry this tremendous task through to the benefit of our whole country.

In the Soil Conservation Board’s report it is stated that it is expected that the life of the Verwoerd Dam would be a mere 100 years under present circumstances. On the other hand, I have heard experts say that it is more likely to be 50 years, owing to the present danger of silting up. Therefore it is extremely essential for the inhabitants of our country to be made aware of the necessity for soil conservation and of the conservation of our life source, water, which goes hand-in-hand with that.

I now come to a few of the arguments of the hon. member for Newton Park. He wanted to know from the Minister what the position was in respect of the technicians, in respect of the staff which had to render assistance. According to my interpretation of this legislation and of the Second Reading speech of the Minister, it boils down to the fact that the procedures in connection with soil conservation must be streamlined; that up to now there had been too much prolixity involved. The approach of this legislation is that the onus will in future be placed on the farmer. The Opposition frequently creates the impression that farming is a ragged profession; that it inspires no confidence; that it is in such a rotten position. They must get rid of that idea, because that is one of the reasons why so few of our young people are coming to the fore to render assistance. This is owing to the psychosis which hon. members opposite are trying to create by implying that everything is ostensibly in such a rotten position. We should rather try and instil idealism into our people. If we have to criticize, let us do so in as constructive a way as possible and try to avoid being derogatory and creating an image of farming which instils no confidence.

In respect of the work of the soil conservation committees I have said that this legislation is aimed at streamlining the procedures. We have here more than 800 committees with more than 5,000 members and we have heard that only half of them were active. But what are we going to do now? We are now going to place the onus on the farmer. During a previous debate the hon. member mentioned the fact that he had asked an officer, I do not know how long ago, to do certain survey work on his farm. He is still waiting for that officer. I support the Minister’s attitude that the farmer himself should confidently get down to work because many of them can do the work themselves. Why must officials come and do it?

How do you think an ordinary farmer, with no technical training, is going to survey a dam which must be built, for example a cement dam?

I will tell the hon. member what I did. I bought the necessary implements for my farm manager and from the Department I obtained brochures for him in connection with the building of round dams. Now he is also doing surveys of the contours. In fact, I have even taught some of my farm labourers to do certain work. It is, of course, necessary to call in engineers when it comes to the larger works. But for the majority of these small jobs officials have to travel hundreds of miles to survey a simple contour with a specific slope, something which the farmer himself could do. I want to go as far as to say that 80 per cent of these works could be done by the farmer himself if he wanted to take the necessary trouble and wanted to acquire the necessary instruments. Let me suggest that next time, instead of going to play golf, the hon. member should take his levelling instrument and go for a walk. It affords as much exercise and more satisfaction. There are 90,000 farmers in the country, all of them potential planners. The farmer and his wife could themselves travel around the farm a little and decide where camps should be established and where water should be laid on. If they were to come up against technical problems they could go to these advisory committees and to the technical officers. Things would then go more smoothly. But what is the present position? A plan is now submitted to the farmer, a plan which he perhaps does not even understand. In any case, he must now go and work according to plans which other people have drawn up for him. Therefore I regard this legislation as a great step forward. I heartily welcome the fact that we should involve the farmers in these matters to a greater extent. They should cooperate more closely in planning and related matters. I repeat: Much of this work is elementary and can be done by the farmer himself. In fact, they would welcome being able to do it themselves. I regard the personal participation by the farmer as the basis for future success. But as long as he stands to one side and waits for the State, for officials and for soil conservation committees, he is not directly involved. He merely sits and waits, i.e. an attitude of “others must come and do the work for me”. As I have said, it is the object of this legislation to place the onus on the farmer himself to a greater extent. The hon. member said that the soil conservation committees were the soldiers. But in my opinion a greater number of soldiers can now tackle this work. Each individual will concern himself with his own work and not with that of another. We must stimulate the farmer and create and urge towards self-achievement.

Mention has been made of the powers of the Minister. In my opinion these powers are necessary. We can perhaps argue about the appointment of committees, i.e. whether more should be elected by the farmers’ unions. If we look at clause 2 of the Bill we see what the aims of this Act are, i.e. to make provision for the combating and prevention of soil erosion, and for the conservation, protection and improvement of our soil. To my mind this is of overriding importance. In clause 3 it is provided that a Minister can declare a direction to be applicable. There are a whole range of things which he can cover under such a direction. I must express my gratitude that that range is so wide that it can cover various fields. Virtually every area affecting soil and water conservation—every facet of it—is mentioned in that range. I welcome this in particular. I particularly want to refer to the application of areas which are being reserved as water catchment areas in terms of a legal provision. This is very important in the area from which I come. There we have a clashing of interests with those participating in forestry. We know that the Water Act also makes provision for dealing with these matters and I am glad that our farmers who want to apply soil conservation, and the committees which can act in an advisory capacity to the Minister in future, can also concern themselves with this. I do not want to elaborate further on this matter. I want to content myself with asking for a more positive and sober approach to this matter on the part of the Opposition so that we may give this important legislation the necessary stimulus which will carry through to our farmers. They will now be able to say with pride that they have a responsibility in that matter and that they are going to tackle it in conjunction with the Minister and the Department. I am sure that this is the only way in which success can be achieved. In my opinion we shall not be able to achieve this overnight, but the more people we involve in this and to whom we give responsibility—and this is what is contemplated with this legislation—the quicker and greater will be the success that we achieve.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has indicated that we are supporting this Bill. We are supporting it simply because it is taking the place of an existing measure and because we agree that something has to be done to preserve the fertility of our soil and that it is necessary to educate the public. I was going to say in particular the farming community. But that is not fair. It is not true. We want the public of South Africa to understand the need for the protection of our soil and the fertility of our soil. We put these matters, namely soil conservation and water conservation, right in the forefront of the work which we believe should be carried out by Parliament. I want to say at once that I am not suggesting for a moment that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. But I do want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in my opinion this Bill will prove to be a complete failure in so far as the object we have in mind is concerned. It will prove to be a failure not because of any fault of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but because of the instrument. I will deal with that in a minute or two.

I should like to reply to the hon. member for Nelspruit, who has just resumed his seat. What I would suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that if the issue concerning the difficulties that will crop up in the administration of this measure, were to be referred to a Select Committee, it will take that committee three years to complete its job. I base that on the three years it took the Select Committee to deal with the present Water Act. We sat for three years on that and it was a matter, namely the protection of water, which was no more important than that of soil. Here again unfortunately we are in the position that we have the conservation of water and the conservation of soil as two totally different things, whereas they are inextricably bound together. This must have been a matter of big thought to the hon. the Deputy Minister as it is to everybody in this House who is interested in soil and water conservation. Soil conservation and water conservation go together. Soil conservation, in so far as the existing Act is concerned, has failed. That admission is implicit in the present Bill that we have before us. The present Act has failed. It is not serving the purpose, whatever the reason may be. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave some of those reasons. As I have said, it took us three years on the Select Committee to deal with the Water Act. It would take us three years to deal with soil conservation if we are to get an Act which will serve its purpose.

I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park and that is that you have to get a live, active interest in the farming community in any measure designed to be effective where soil conservation is concerned. If you do not get that then the basic mainspring upon which the whole of your soil conservation will be based is failing. There is no driving force. There must not only be an appreciation by the farmer that as an academic principle it is good to preserve the fertility of your soil. He has to be convinced that it pays him to conserve the fertility of his soil. He has to get an absolute fundamental principle engrained into his mind that his way of life as a farmer is to protect the fertility of his soil, is to protect the heritage which has come to us from our forefathers and which we must pass on. We are the caretakers of the soil. We are not the owners of it. We have our title deeds. We have bought it and all that sort of thing. But we go and those that come after us and the nation that follows are the people who have got to take over from us the fertility of the soil, undiminished, if in fact we are to survive as a nation.

Now, Sir, with these preliminary remarks I want to say this. One of the things that is missing here has been excellently set out by the Natal Agricultural Union. It appears in a special show supplement. I am referring to the show that was opened the other day in Pietermaritzburg by the hon. the Prime Minister. It is the show supplement of the Natal Witness in Pietermaritzburg. It excellently sets out the attitude of the Natal Agricultural Union. It is no good us saying that organized agriculture is behind this Bill. The Natal Agricultural Union is an agricultural union dealing with diverse soil conditions of the farming community in Natal. But it carries the support and confidence of the whole of the farming community in that province. The Natal Agricultural Union has indicated their opposition because of its ineffectiveness. It is not a question of their opposition in principle to soil conservation. Let us put that out of our minds once and for all. There is no farmer worth his salt to-day who is opposed to soil conservation per se. Of course we are all in favour of soil conservation.

What we are concerned with is to make an effective instrument for it. And here the Natal Agricultural Union is against it. And, Sir, the chief reason is that it does not bring the Bantu areas under the provisions of the Act. You cannot have a farmer saying: “Of course, I stand for soil conservation. Of course, I apply soil conservation on my farm. I have my farm very carefully planned. I adopt soil conservation methods all the way through my farm.” And if you were to ask him: “Is that so? What about this part of your farm?” He will then say: “Oh yes, but I conserve only on half my farm. On the other half I do not apply soil conservation methods.” That is exactly what we are saying as long as we do not bring in the Bantu areas under this Bill. We are saying just that. What is South Africa? South Africa is an area in which there are white and non-white areas. It includes the Bantu areas. What does the soil conservation measures in terms of a law which can be enforced look like in regard to my province? May I show you? This map I have here is my province with the Bantu areas. Can you imagine soil conservation in the white areas and the law not applying in the black areas? Fancy saying that we have an Act enforcing soil conservation in Natal …

Who created all those black spots?

Mr. Speaker, what an approach to this basic problem in South Africa! What an approach by the hon. member. Here I have a map of Natal. There are spots that are not under white control. They fall under the control of the Department of Bantu Administration. The law does not apply and has not been made to apply. How can the Government say that we are applying conservation methods, that we have a law now dealing with soil conservation in South Africa when you have a situation like that?

This is the fundamental weakness and the main, basic reason why the Natal Agricultural Union has said: “If you are to have a law dealing with soil conservation, apply it to everybody.” The Railway administration, the roads departments, are all exempted from it. Some of the worse soil erosion there is in South Africa stems from inadequate planning so far as the Railways and the roads departments are concerned. Some of the worst soil erosion I have seen results from a concentration of water, wrongly planned, from drainage works on the Railways and the various roads departments. These areas are exempted, as well as the Bantu areas. With weaknesses like this in the instrument, how can the Deputy Minister, when the time comes, expect that he will be efficient in the administration of the instrument? It is a failure in that regard because of the inherent weakness in the provisions.

As my hon. friend pointed out, the present committee, with their weaknesses, have done their best. They have not been as effective as they could be. Who is going to be the first to throw a brick because of inefficiency? Can I start, perhaps, with the Government themselves and ask them whether they have been as efficient and effective as they might have been? Do we have such a government, composed of Cabinet Ministers, that none of them can be said to have been inefficient or ineffective? Let us then not be too harsh in blaming the district soil conservation committees. They have been doing their best. I am not saying the Deputy Minister blames them. I think he paid them a compliment. We agree. But when we take them away and disband them, we want to substitute something better and how can it be said that a voluntary committee appointed by the Minister will be better? They will be volunteers. It is no good the Deputy Minister saying to Messrs. A, B, C, D, and E, “I am appointing you to one of the new soil conservation committees”, if they have not volunteered for the job and are not willing to serve. What is the good of that? They will stay at home. They are not interested. There is no discipline. One can only appoint them when they are interested, when they are volunteers. They are not elected. They do not have that sense of duty towards their fellow farmers.

On that point I want to come to what the hon. member for Nelspruit said just now. The hon. member dealt with what he called, I think, “enthusiasm and idealism”. He said that the farmers had to bring enthusiasm into their farming operations, which included soil conservation work, and so forth. Enthusiasm and idealism are like marriage. One can take love and kisses to a marriage, but one needs something a darn side more than that if you are going to make a success of it. One’s love and kisses on one’s farming land, too, requires something more than that if one is going to make a success of it.

Let us just for a moment look at the hon. member’s contention. It sounded fine and it will read nicely in Hansard, for a townsman. But does the hon. member know what the farmers are going to say when they read the hon. member’s speech? They will say: “Where does this townsman come from? He cannot be a farmer to talk like this. Where does he live?” We are not talking here for the big farmer, as he is called to-day, nor for the cheque book farmer. We are talking for the practical farmer who has to make a living. He has to pay debts and have something over to spend on his wife and his children and for himself to live and to have a reasonable existence. The hon. member says—I say it reads well in Hansard—that probably something like 90 per cent of our farmers, if they will get down to it and buckle to the job, can get all sorts of work in connection with anti-erosion schemes done on a do-it-yourself basis. They can get it done themselves.

You do not understand what he said.

The whole point of the hon. member’s speech was self-help. I am not against self-help regarding the farmer, but I do honestly wonder where the hon. member was brought up and on what farm, because on the farm on which I was brought up, we worked seven days a week, and we were liable to be called out for 24 hours a day if the job necessitated it. There was no question of self-help. There is this idea, this sort of picture that is painted in the minds of many of these good folk, of a farmer sitting on the stoep so long, with his big pot of coffee and calling out to the kitchen boy every now and again to come and replenish the kettle. He sits there with his cup of coffee, watches the crops grow and tells the Induna boy to do this and to do that. What a wonderful picture! What a flight of fancy! It ought to go into Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Is that how you farm in Natal?

No, I am talking about the picture as presented by some of the hon. members on that side, including my friend there from Christiana, who thinks he can sit here in Parliament while somebody makes his mealies grow in the Western Transvaal.

What do you do?

No, until the hon. the Minister makes an apology here for what he said to me the other day, I do not want to deal with him.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to make those interjections. I can use that kind of language myself. I advise him to be quiet.

I won’t be quiet!

When the organ grinder is on the job, what need for the monkey?

Order! We are discussing the Bill.

I am the organ grinder, Sir.

The monkey!

Order!

So far as this particular matter is concerned, I want to draw this to the hon. member’s attention. I believe he will be honest enough to admit it. If the farmers want to get a subsidy in terms of the Act for the work they do in connection with anti-erosion measures, they cannot get it unless the work is done and planned by one of the staff of the Department. There is the point. It is no good the farmer who is up to date, doing 80, 90 or 100 per cent of the work himself, and then saying to the Department “I want a subsidy for the work I have done”. That is the provision in the law. This is the crux of the whole matter. Where is the staff An up to date farmer can do the work. I accept what the hon. member said so far as the practicability is concerned. But we are not dealing here with the big farmer or the cheque book farmer. We are not dealing with the farmer who says, “I am going to do that work and then I shall risk getting it passed by an official afterwards and getting my subsidy. I do not mind if I do not get it. It will be simply that much less on my income tax.” We are dealing with the practical man, down to earth, who has to make both ends meet somehow. If he is to get a subsidy, he must have his work planned and approved by an official of the Department. That is basic. [Interjections.] I have yet to see any provision in the present Act where one can get a subsidy without getting a certificate from the official of the Department concerned. There is no such provision. I will stand corrected if the Deputy Minister gets up and shows me where that provision is. We will be very grateful, indeed, if there is such a provision in the Act. This is basic. We are short of staff and we shall continue, under existing circumstances, to be short of staff. The shortage of staff is one of the main, fundamental reasons why, what one might call, a planned soil preservation and soil conservation economy is not practised to a much greater extent than it is at the present time. It is basic, and it remains one of the fundamental difficulties here. In this article to which I have referred, the Natal Witness sets out the view of the Natal Agricultural Union. Apart from the question of what it calls the “patchwork quilt” of ownership of the land, it says: “The husbandman must have the knowledge of how to practise such farming”. He must have the knowledge. He must know what to do and the time to do it.

Let us look for a moment at what the farmer has to contend with, and what the extension officer has to contend with when he comes to assist farmers. He has to deal with the different farming types in the different areas, which call for different treatment. He has to deal with the different soils, which require totally different treatment. He has the different rainfall in the different areas. Once again, the soil conservation methods in the different rainfall areas are totally different from each other. Lastly, he has to take into account whether the final payability of the farming of that type in that area will be assured for the man who goes in for soil conservation.

Let us take transport costs. The man who is a long way away from his market, who has heavy transport costs, may have off-setting factors against, for instance, that high transport cost. He has to get his product to the market. He must go to some or other market. Now he must obtain a price which will give him a profit. After all his expenses, including the cost of soil conservation, has been paid, he still has to make a profit. A neighbour who is close to the market may be in a totally different position. The extension officer has to act as the trusted officer for the Department. When I say “trusted” I do not use the word ill-advisedly: I say it deliberately and after careful thought; the trusted agent of the Department. If there is one official in the whole of the Department who is in contact with the public and who can make good the image of the Department as far as the farmers are concerned, it is the extension officer. The extension officers are the people who are in touch with the farming community day after day and month after month. They are there to help and it is accepted that they will help. They have to take all the factors into account and can say to a man that if he continues with that type of farming in that area he will fail and will not make a profit. They will say to him that he may be a good farmer, that he may be doing his very best, that his production may show that he is successful, but that he will fail to make a living. They will advise him to change over completely, because of distance from rail or distance from market or whatever it may be. These are all the factors that have to be taken into account. Where are these extension officers? They do not exist. I do not know where they are to come from, but at the present time they do not exist. When it comes to the planning of works and so forth, we are far behind. I do not have a copy of the report with me, but I think we are two or three years behind with planning at the present time. Soil conservation is a matter for now, not a matter for two or three years time. Unless the hon. the Deputy Minister takes my advice and introduces a measure which will get the backing of the farming community because it is something practical and which will have their wholehearted support, then while we are going to lose, in my opinion, three years before we can start and this can be a stop-gap in the meantime, it will only be a stop-gap and nothing more.

On the question of the committees, I want to say that the present committees are being substituted by advisory committees. I ask the Deputy Minister to go through the records of any organization and find where an advisory committee has been a success.

The Natal Parks Board.

Is that a success?

Yes, the advisory committee is a success.

No, is the Parks Board a success? How coy the hon. member is. How readily he threw that potato in front of me. When I asked him whether it is a stone or a potato, he replied that it is a snowball and that I must just put my foot on it and continue.

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to find a purely advisory committee which is a success. May I say to the hon. member that the Parks Board is not an advisory committee.

It has an advisory committee and that advisory committee is a success.

I am quite prepared to discuss that with the hon. member one day.

Please do not be tempted.

I shall resist the temptation. For the record in Hansard may I say that it was on your advice that I resisted the temptation so that the hon. member will not be able to say afterwards that I refused to debate the matter with him.

In my opinion the farming industry of this country is now in the same position as a manufacturer who decides that his equipment is outmoded. We had a classic example in Britain a few years ago. The equipment of the British manufacturers was not old in terms of years; they were old in terms of models; they were old in terms of output; they were old in terms of concept when compared with modern equipment being installed in countries like Japan, America, West Germany and so forth. The British Government made special taxation proposals to allow those manufacturers to buy and install up to date new modern equipment. That is the position with the farming community to-day. We are handling the old models, the old outdated ideas, the outdated equipment, not in terms of tractors or harrows, but the methods and the ideas. What we want now is a brand new set of equipment which is modern and up to date with new ideas giving us new norms to aim at we need new ideas, new targets to which we can aspire. That cannot be done. I suggest, in terms of this Bill before us. This is no blame to the Deputy Minister or the Minister. The Minister’s Department has said the present Act is a failure: it does not work. We have had it for many years and it has not been successful. We will come with something new. The something new will be equally unable to cope with the situation. We are trying to graft on to an old tree which has reached the end of its fruitful life. That is not what is needed. We need something new from the ground roots upwards. That can only be brought about as a result of the widest consultation.

What do you suggest?

I have suggested a Select Committee or a commission. I do not want a number of people who are not associated with the practical side of farming. We could have one man who knows something about the administrative side of government. It should only be one, because if we had two, they would quarrel as to what is the best method. The rest of the members of the committee or the commission should be people who make their living out of farming. They should investigate every up to date method of soil conservation and not in South Africa only. Some of those methods may be biological methods, as they are called to-day, which may have nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanical side of soil conservation. Incorporate these latest up to date methods in an Act, obtain the backing and the support of the farming community, and then we will have the enthusiasm and the necessary drive to push the matter forward. But it has to be quite clear to the farming community that not only will they protect the soil of their country, but that they will be committed to make a livelihood at the same time as they are protecting the soil. Then it is worth their while. I am sure the Deputy Minister will then obtain their backing.

Mr. Speaker, after the quiet debate which we had this morning, we have now once more experienced the hon. member for South Coast’s tirade. The hon. member for South Coast said that he had serious doubts and that this legislation would fail because of the inadequate instrument for its execution. I merely want to point out that this legislation was drawn up in collaboration with the Agricultural Advisory Board and the Soil Conservation Board. If the hon. member had wanted to take the trouble to read the Soil Conservation Board’s report he would have read about all the bottlenecks that these people are faced with. What is more, this legislation was drawn up in collaboration with the South African Agricultural Union, of which the Natal Agricultural Union is an affiliated member. If it is as he has said, then surely the Natal Agricultural Union is not being faithful to its chief affiliate. He also professed that in the Bantu areas nothing at all was being done for soil conservation. He said that for that reason this legislation would also be a failure. Has he then not read what the Soil Conservation Board had to say about the development in the Bantu areas? On page 28 of its report for the year 1st January, 1967 to December, 1967, the Soil Conservation Board stated—

In addition it stated—

The hon. member now pretends that no planning and nothing at all is being done in connection with the washing away of soil in the Bantu areas.

He has never been there.

I want to come back to what the hon. members for Newton Park and South Coast said about the shortage of officials. Sir, they would have had the right to attack the Government if there was a shortage of officials and if the Government was doing nothing about it; then they would have had the fullest right to attack us, but this Government has done a tremendous amount to supplement the shortage of officials. We know that to-day there is a manpower shortage throughout the country, not only in the Public Service.

Why?

As a result of the tremendous economic explosion which we have had here in South Africa. Special provision has been made at the universities for the training of extension officers to supplement the shortage. The Department has gone further and appointed part time technicians to help supplement the shortage. Our committee members have been trained. Hon. members will see in the report that we already have 1,858 committee members who have received basic training, and a further 1,000 of these committee members have received advanced training. It is unreasonable to want to put all the blame on the Government for a manpower shortage which is not only being experienced in our Public Service, but throughout the entire country. It was also said here yesterday that the drought conditions in South Africa were one of the causes for the fact that soil conservation works have not progressed. Sir, I want to agree with the hon. member for Nelspruit who implied here that we, as farmers, could do very much more ourselves. I know of several farmers who are so soil conservation conscious that they planned their own farms and carried out their own soil conservation works without having asked the State for assistance. But the hon. member for Nelspruit also added that our farmers could do a great deal more to help the State combat this great evil in South Africa. Sir, I want to quote to you what Mr. C. C. Claassens, director of information and education, said recently when he was opening the North Western Agricultural Union’s congress in Calvinia—

Sir, this must be the basis on which our farmers in South Africa approach this question of soil conservation and conservation farming.

It has also been alleged here that the farmers cannot carry out these conservation works because they are not in a financial position to do so. During the many years in which the Government has been engaged in this, subsidies have constantly been increased: loan facilities were established, etc. The facilities are there for the farmer to make use of, but we find that they do not make the best use of them. Still, I merely want to refer you to the Soil Conservation Board’s tables in connection with the loan scheme, and their remarks about this matter. It is a matter which T myself should like to take up with the hon. the Minister. The Soil Conservation Board’s tables indicate that from 1966 to 1968 the following number of works was approved under the loan scheme: in 1966. 1.092 works were approved, and this decreased to 130 in the year 1967-’68. This was in the Highveld region. The same tendency applies in all the other regions. The value of these approved works was R119,659 in 1966-’67, but in the year 1967-’68, this amount decreased to R16,188. On page 7 the Soil Conservation Board has the following to say about this—

Since this can detrimentally affect the construction of conservation works this matter was taken up with the Department of Agricultural Credit. When revising the form certain questions which met with opposition were omitted—

Apparently it seems as if the establishment of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure had deterred farmers from taking loans from the Department. I nevertheless want to request that the hon. the Deputy Minister give serious attention to this matter. It is an urgent necessity, as the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services also mentioned in his report, that these loan facilities should be just as accessible to farmers as in the past and that this division should also be streamlined.

Sir, we hope that this legislation will shortly come into operation. We hope that it will not be three years before it is streamlined, as the hon. member for South Coast has predicted. We hope and trust that the bottlenecks, which were mentioned in the Soil Conservation Board’s report, will be eliminated. I am convinced that this legislation will mean a great deal for South Africa. Together with the veld reclamation scheme and together with the financial assistance which farmers in South Africa can now obtain, I am convinced that the tempo of works for reclaiming land will increase, and I am convinced that this will help to preserve South Africa for our descendants.

Since we are dealing here with one of the most important Bills which could probably be brought before any Parliament in the world, a Bill dealing with the preservation of our tillable soil and vegetation, upon which our entire existence depends, it would be a good thing if hon. members on the Government side were to understand that although we are casting the searchlight on legislation which now has to replace all other legislation in regard to soil conservation, we are only doing so in an attempt to see what is the best thing that can be done in this connection. Sir, it is no easy thing to introduce a Soil Conservation Act in order to reclaim the soil. In this connection we have a considerable backlog to make up here at the southernmost point of Africa, owing to the fact that our farming industry is only a few centuries old. Our farming industry is not 2000 to 4000 years old as is the case in countries in the northern hemisphere. Those of us who have visited those countries have seen how countries which are overpopulated conserve, fertilize, care for and nurture their fertile soil. The population of those countries runs into millions, and their fertile soil is limited. Here in South Africa it is a horse of a different colour. We have a great deal of land. We have vast expanses, and droughts, overgrazing and many other factors have ruined our fertile soil, and in terms of the figures which the hon. the Minister himself mentioned yesterday to indicate what has already been done in this connection, it is clear to us that we are losing the struggle. Any legislation which is intended to make it easier for us to win the struggle must be welcomed by the entire House.

Sir, everyone in this House, everyone on that side of the House, and everyone on this side of the House, even those who are not farming and who did not come from farms owe, to a very large extent their derivation from mother earth, from the farm. There is not a single member who will not say with the English poet: “This is my country, the land that begot me; these windy spaces are surely my own and the people that toil in the sweat of their faces are flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone”. This is what we all feel for the soil, and this is how we all feel about its erosion, and that is why, when this legislation is being introduced to replace existing legislation and which is intended to protect our fertile soil, we must see whether we cannot do better.

Sir, I do not want to be unnecessarily critical. I do not want to say that there are too few officials and too few technicians to carry out the Act. I want to present everything in pose that we have enough officials and enough technicians. It is no use saying that the far- the most favourable light, and I want to supmers must do the work alone. There are in fact many farmers who have done the work alone and who have never asked for assistance in regard to the planning of their farms, and have never asked for subsidies. There are hundreds of farmers like this. But that planning is not in terms of national planning. No farmer, who has planned and executed his own works, without giving attention to the planning on his neighbour’s farm knew whether the work he was doing would fit into the framework of the work which had to be done in that particular region. It is no use every farmer carrying on on his own and undertaking conservation work on his own farm; he must be assisted by technical people who have planned on a regional or national basis. There must be technical people who can say to that farmer: “This is the area we are dealing with; this is the potential as far as water and grazing are concerned,” and after those works have been planned they must be carried out and inspected.

Sir, I have already stated that I do not even want to go in to the question of whether there are enough people to do this work; there are not enough, but let us suppose that there are. Let us suppose that we will one day reach a stage when there will be enough technicians available; let us suppose that we will one day reach the stage where more planning can be done and where work can be carried out. Let us suppose that we will one day reach the stage where instead of one eight, half of the part of South Africa which we occupy will have been reclaimed to such an extent that we will feel satisfied that we are winning the struggle; then I would still like to ask the pertinent question: In what respect is this legislation so much better than the old legislation that it will encourage the farmer and instil into him more confidence to undertake conservation work? Here we come to the burning question of whether this Bill makes provision for everything we should like to make provision for? Sir, I welcome the fact that powers are being granted to a Minister or to a body if those powers are necessary in order to administer the Act properly. How extensive are the powers which are being entrusted to the Minister in this Bill? Let us glance for a moment at the powers which are being given in terms of clause 3 to an individual, to the Minister. The Minister may, either by notice in the Gazette or by written notice to the owner or occupier of land declare a direction to be applicable with reference to land referred to in such notice, relating to—

As far as I can see just about everything is mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (m)—

Sir, greater powers have never been granted to a Minister. I do not know whether there is any legislation in this country in terms of which a Minister is granted so many powers in regard to the soil on which we live. I have no objection to this. As long as powers are granted to a person, a body or an organization which is able to carry into effect, to ensure that we recover the soil and are able to leave it in a condition which posterity can be proud of, it will be a good thing. But now I wonder, even in this legislation and with these vast powers which we are giving the Minister, whether we have done something to instil in the man who must do the work greater confidence so that he can get on faster with the job? The Minister said the climate was favourable for soil conservation. I do not know what the hon. the Minister put that down to. We have just had a prolonged drought, and the people are still groggy. They are only now beginning to recover. They have not yet solved their economic problems, but supposing next summer is a good summer and the land rehabilitates itself slightly, and the farmer feels like purchasing machinery and carrying on with his soil conservation works, his erosion works and his water conservation works, does he have more confidence in doing so under this legislation than he had before? I find in the legislation that the Soil Conservation Board is being substituted—and the Bill states that the Minister may, not that he shall—by an advisory soil conservation committee, or a soil conservation advisory committee. Now, think for a moment of other advisory committees which Ministers of Agriculture have already established—I am thinking of the Agricultural Research Advisory Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Deputy Minister remembers, but I was a member of that committee. We had such great plans on that committee, because it was a committee that had to furnish advice in regard to agricultural research which had to be carried out, and do you know, Sir, it met twice. It was composed mainly of experts and officials. The S.A. Agricultural Union had representation, as well as other bodies, and it met once and prepared for itself a long agenda according to its terms of reference; it met a second time and then never again. Now the hon. the Minister can tell me that the Soil Conservation Board did not meet very often either, and I must agree, but I do not think it was their fault. But I do not think that any advisory board which is constituted can function better than the Soil Conservation Board did, or otherwise the Minister must tell me in what respect it could perhaps function better? What will the impetus be which will cause it to function better? I want to go further. It has been said that there may even be regional advisory committees. It is the Minister who has to determine whether he will appoint them or not. The legislation mentions district committees. I just want to point out that even in this legislation we are emasculating those district committees, owing to the fact that they have no powers. They may not even bring a charge against a person. They are there on an advisory basis, to advise the Minister. I want to ask the Minister the following: Two former speakers on this side have already indicated what problems they have. The hon. member for South Coast said that he thought his legislation should go to a commission which would go into it and determine what could best be done. I know the S.A. Agricultural Union was consulted, and that all their advice was included in this Bill. They stated what proportion they want on that board, but it has not been defined in the legislation. It states that the Minister may appoint a board; it does not state that he shall appoint one. It is of no use the hon. member for Vryburg saying so. They will consult, yes, in regard to the legislation which has to be established, but I know, and the hon. member for Vryburg also knows, that the S.A. Agricultural Union wants a board to be established on which they will have a proper proportion of representation. But when we say that, we come back to the Soil Conservation Board. And even in this way I do not know whether it will give the necessary impetus to the entire attempt to make it function better. I do not know. If we cannot do something to bring home an awareness of the conservation of that part of mother earth which we have at our disposal, not only to the farmers but also to everybody in this country, and bring it home to them in such a way that we make them so afraid that even they become conservation conscious and will want to share in the national attempt to conserve our portion of mother earth, then I do not know whether we can win through. We have already made so many attempts to do so. We had the Veld Trust, and we had other bodies, but is the population of South Africa soil conscious to the extent people in the northern hemisphere are, where one can hardly travel five paces, by road or by rail, before one sees how the earth has been banked up and built up and terraced and conserved and fertilized in order to conserve it. One can scarcely move without seeing how this is being done. But this is not the case in this country. If we cannot make a positive attempt to make the entire population of South Africa more soil conscious, I do not know whether we will win through. I shall return to that later.

I now want to discuss the problems which the hon. member for South Coast raised, i.e. that as long as the Railways, the provincial administration, the divisional council and Bantu land is excluded from a soil conservation Act, so that one cannot get to them, then I do not know whether we will ever be able to achieve success with this thing. You know, even between farmers in the same area one finds this problem that the one man has carried out soil conservation works or water conservation works, he has embankments built and he has been engaged in doing this for years at his own expense—I speak from experience, because this has happened to me already— and subsequently there is planning and many works are broken up and a start is made from scratch because in terms of the regional planning they were wrong. And just to the north of you you have a neighbour who has only mountains where nothing can be done as he overgrazes, there are two inches of rain, the water flows from his land and your embankments are done for. This is not the kind of planning we are looking for. There we have experienced problems. The hon. Minister knows that at the outset he had problems because he could not get the best elements on the soil conservation committees because the progressive farmers who could look after themselves did not want to serve on them. The second difficulty was that if you complained about the man who was doing nothing and ruining all your works, they said: Yes, but Oom Piet is on the church council and lives in the town, while his son is eking out an existence on the farm, and we cannot bring a charge against the man now because he is overgrazing his veld. That is the kind of problem one experiences in regard to things of this kind. I want to put it like this. We welcome this new legislation and we hope that it is an attempt in the right direction, but we must throw the spotlight on those things which we still regard as weak links, which can be improved. I think the legislation can be greatly improved, if instead of merely giving the powers into the hands of one man, the Minister, an appeal board were established. Otherwise, when an appeal is made, it returns to the same people who undertook the planning in the first instance, and if I want to appeal against something which happened to me and I appeal to the Minister then it goes back to the same people who planned my works in the first instance.

In my opinion this is not a court of appeal. It is not a body one can go to. I want to recommend very strongly to the Minister that the establishment of an arbitration court, a statutory body, be borne in mind. I am less concerned about whether the Minister appoints it or whether the Judges appoint it, or who appoints, but there must be an arbitration body which the individual or the undertaking can approach and say: Something is not being done here which should be done, or in this instance I object to what is being done, and then let the arbitrators decide. And it must be a statutory body, so that it can even be binding on the person who has to administer the law, and on other bodies as well, because I have by this time mentioned all the bodies. I am aware of the problems in introducing legislation which will also have a bearing on the other departments which I have already mentioned.

This is a colossal undertaking but if we cannot get past it, we can never make a success of this legislation and solve the soil conservation problems in this country. It will not be possible. We will simply continue to do patchwork and the footpaths will be trodden out and the water will come down and the dams will silt up and things will continue as they have always done, no matter how hard we try. For years I lived near Tarka, and I know what happened there, how many works had to be carried out at State expense, further and further up along the Vlekpoort, to try and prevent the soil from washing down and silting up the Lake Arthur dam; the dam wall was raised, but this was mere patchwork; there is nothing permanent if one does not have the powers to prescribe to all these bodies. And when the Minister has all his prescriptions and is the only judge to say whether a thing is right or wrong, then I as a farmer feel concerned. Then I as a farmer feel that I would like to put in a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister and tell him that if he does not see his way clear to referring this Bill, even at this late stage, to a commission, they should go into this aspect which we have now mentioned here thoroughly, because it will be so difficult for the legislation to operate if there are so many factions and departments under it. Then he must give further consideration to whether it is not worth while to accept the second suggestion which we will make subsequently in the Committee Stage.

I do not want to discuss this matter much longer, because there are many speakers who want to speak after me, but I want to make a special appeal to the Minister and to all the hon. members on that side of the House. Goodness knows, this side of the House is not after political gain; there is no political gain in criticizing what happens to the soil for any Party. The hon. members opposite can rise and abuse us so much that the ocean will not wash us clean, but we must all live from the soil and look after it. I want to make an appeal to both sides of the House to the effect that we should approach this matter with a view to what is the best thing to do for our Mother Earth, and perhaps we can then find something which is better than we have at present.

I listened carefully to what the hon. member for East London (City) had to say. His first complaint was that the progress we were making with soil conservation works was too slow. I want to remind him—and he ought to know this—that we are making good progress under the circumstances if we take into account the vast expanses of our country and the devastating droughts which sometimes afflict our soil for years on end, and if we take into account the topographical situation of our country, with its mountains and its rapid downflow of water. In view of all this, we have really made good progress. Ours is not a small country; it is an extended area in which soil conservation has to be generally applied. I want to congratulate the officials whose never-ceasing task it is on the progress which they have already made in this connection.

I would just like to dwell on one other point the hon. member raised, which is his complaint against the fact that the Minister will now have more powers and that it will be possible for his actions to become too autocratic. But immediately after making that remark he contradicted himself when he said that he had no objection to this, provided the Minister had the machinery and the people to carry out the works. In that respect he is correct, we need more. I like this soil conservation legislation for another reason, and that is because for the first time in this country mining is now being involved, through legislation, in soil conservation. The sphere of contact between agriculture and mining has for many years been a favourite topic of mine, and for the first time now this Bill provides that mining will also be involved in regard to responsibility towards soil conservation, soil protection, soil rehabilitation, etc. This was not always the case. For many years, outside and inside this House, I have been advocating that this deficiency in our legislation should be eliminated. Since this Bill is now making provision for that, I am truly grateful and I should like to have it placed on record that I take cognizance of this in the same spirit. I know that farm owners on whose land mining activities are being carried on will welcome the specific provisions of the Act. Previously our soil conservation land and prescriptions only applied to the farm owner. The owner himself was responsible for the conservation of the soil and the maintenance of State conservation works. The title holders of the subterranean rights, the mine developers and companies, had the right to occupy the soil, to penetrate it and to remove the mineral ores and wealth from the soil for its own purposes without any specific statutory provision or regulations in respect of soil conservation responsibilities being applicable to them. They were able to proceed with their work according to their own discretion and as they saw fit. These people were able to use and even destroy the soil without being held responsible for the restoration of that soil which they had destroyed for the purpose of its activities. This state of affairs weakened the soil conservation idea in the sphere of contact between the agricultural and the mining industry and caused much friction and dissatisfaction among farm owners. We were faced with this problem in many districts where mining activities are taking place. The equilibrium of responsibility was disturbed. The one party was exempted and the other party was held solely responsible. The cessionary, whether he had obtained that right by means of a contract, of whether he had retained that right by means of a deed bestowing underground proprietary rights upon him, has always gone scot-free, and there was no legislation which applied to him. Now I interpret the provisions of this Bill and of certain clauses which I shall mention in a moment in this way that it will apply to the mining company, the concessionary and mine developer, as well as the farm owner. I am very grateful for this. I take it that the notice and the farm plan can now be served on the developer as well. I read this in the first section of clause 3 (1) which reads as follows—

1. (a) the cultivation of land, including the ploughing thereof, the protection, stabilizing or temporary withdrawal of the land from cultivation …

I also want to read what the definition of a land occupier or an occupier of land is, according to clause 1 (vii). This paragraph reads as follows—

According to the definition “land occupier” therefore also means a person who is carrying on prospecting or mining activities on land. This is one of the most important aspects of the Bill which I welcome. It means that the developer will be responsible for the preservation, repair and maintenance of works connected with his activities while he is doing so, and particularly when he ceases his activities and must vacate that farm and has to restore it to a condition required by soil conservation authorities. A farmer is held equally responsible when he allows his veld to become trampled. He must then withdraw his stock from parts of that pasturage so that it can rehabilitate. If ploughed land should wash away, farmers are also held responsible; they are required, with State aid, to carry out the necessary restoration, and to maintain it.

Closer co-operation between mine developers and farm owners should now be possible with the provisions of this Bill. The success of the implementation of the various provisions will depend on the degree of understanding and co-operation from both parties. I assume that the mining entrepreneur and the farm owner will now be brought together by this measure for the first time. They will be able to negotiate and plan together. They will be able to approach, carry out and apply the soil conservation plans for that specific farm, district or region on a joint basis. I assume that they will submit their differences in regard to the application of conservation plans to the soil conservation advisory committee. If this committee should be unable to find a solution, it will be referred to the Minister who will then have the final say.

I am fully aware that the provisions of section 3 (1) (n) will make the application of the Act in regard to a mine developer subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister of Mines as well. In this clause it is provided that all prescriptions which will apply to the developer in respect of soil planning must also be submitted to the Minister of Mines. Personally I find it a pity that the Bill contains this provision. Not that I have any doubts in regard to the goodwill and sympathetic approach of the Minister of Mines, but in this way the officials of the Department of Mines who will advise the Minister of Mines in this connection still retain a measure of discretionary power. In my opinion it affects the fundamentals of soil conservation in regard which agriculture and agriculture alone should have the last word. However, the provisions in question constitute such a major improvement and progress that I do not want to dwell any further on them or raise any objection to them. It testifies to greater understanding on both sides, i.e. on the part of mining organizations as well as agricultural organizations, as far as common responsibility towards the soil is concerned. I want to assure the hon. the Deputy Minister and his officials of my sincere gratitude and appreciation for their share in the insertion in this Bill of the specific provisions to which I referred. I can only hope that in consultation with the Minister of Mines all the necessary steps will be taken to curb the irregularities which existed in the past, and that it will be ensured that mine developers and concessionaries will in future make their contribution to the conservation of our soil as well. I hope and trust that in this connection there will be the greatest measure of co-operation between agriculture and mining, which will be to the benefit of the conservation of our precious soil in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I will be grateful if the hon. member for Marico, who has just sat down, will excuse me if I do not follow the point which he has raised. He was making a very valid point in connection with the application of the Soil Conservation Bill in respect of the mining industry and I think it is something which we on this side of the House also welcome.

There is no doubt that the Bill we are considering to-day, namely to consolidate and amend the law relating to the combating and prevention of soil erosion in our country, is a very important measure indeed. It might well be the most important measure this House has been called upon to deal with this Session. I think the young Deputy Minister in dealing with this Bill has taken on himself a tremendous responsibility.

We on this side of the House think that the responsibilities which are entrusted to him are perhaps too great. I am not in any way belitting the ability of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but we feel that this Bill confers too great a responsibility upon one Minister. For that reason I hope that during the Committee Stage, some of the points raised by the hon. member for Newton Park will be seriously taken into account so that, when we have finished with this Bill, we shall have a better measure than the one we have before us this evening.

Every sector of our community is vitally interested in the steps which the Government is taking to-day to safeguard our soil. I think the point has been made often enough that we in this country can afford to mine our gold, our diamonds, our asbestos and our other mineral riches, but one thing we cannot afford to mine is our soil. Nobody is to blame for this, but I think that, in the years gone by, there has possibly been an element which has been mining our soil. The time has come for that situation to be brought to an end. The wide publicity the subject of soil conservation and soil erosion has enjoyed in our country has. I think, made the whole nation aware of the need to tackle this problem on a national basis. Soil conservation is a national responsibility. In the same way as the defence of our country is a national responsibility, so the defence of our soil must also be looked upon as a national responsibility. I think it is quite right for the State to have decided to amend the legislation we had on the Statute Book, dealing with this particular problem. I think it is quite right that they have decided to bring it up to date and to create a more effective machinery to deal with the problems we are facing. As in the case of our water, where far-reaching legislation has been introduced to preserve our water supplies and to control the usage of water, it is also imperative that we have legislation on our Statute Book that seeks to control not only the preservation of our soil, but also its proper usage. I think that one factor we often neglect when discussing soil conservation, is that we do not always insist upon the proper usage of our soil. Very often we find cases of ploughs being used where a plough should never have been used. I think the plough has probably been responsible for creating more problems in regard to soil erosion than any other instrument.

I say that this is a national problem in which the whole nation must play a part, because I think it is an entirely erroneous concept which many people have, especially some of our friends in the cities, that the farmer is the sole guardian of our soil. The soil erosion problems with which many farmers are to-day confronted, must surely not be blamed on them. This question of soil erosion arises as a result of the cumulative effect of malpractices which have taken place over the centuries. I believe it is hardly fair to expect the present generation of farmers to be responsible for combating the results of practices which took place in years gone by. On my own farm, for instance, some of the very worst cases of soil erosion were caused by the transport waggons that passed along that way in the previous century, taking goods to Kimberley and to Johannesburg. These waggons, drawn by long teams of oxen, and passing over uncontrolled tracks, created what to-day are some of the most serious dongas on my farm. Not only did the tracks of these waggons create dongas eventually, but the thousands of head of oxen, which had to be provided with grazing on the mountain slopes and in the vleis, caused a serious deterioration of the veld. It seems to me that, in our approach to the farmer, it is unfair to expect him to take measures to-day to control soil erosion caused by factors over which he had no control. It is for this very reason that I say that we have to look upon this as a national problem. It is a problem which demands national intervention in order to bring it under control.

In the light of these facts and when one thinks of all the problems brought about by soil erosion, we on this side of the House are justified in saying that this Bill has come as a bit of an anti-climax. There appears to have been a considerable amount of consultation with the South African Agricultural Union, but we are concerned became some of the recommendations which that union made, have not been incorporated in this Bill. We are concerned because all the powers are vested in the Minister. The main objectives of this Bill, as I read it, appear to be to vest in the Minister all the powers to decide upon the directives to be issued to the various farmers as to what methods they should apply on their particular farms. He also has the power to penalize or to prosecute farmers when they fail to carry out the directives which have been issued to them. We on this side of the House would, I think, be far happier if there were a statutory board, an umbrella organization, to take control of this particular situation. In the administration of this Bill, the Minister becomes the kingpin in the whole set-up. He becomes a presidential cog that has to take nearly all the decisions. I feel that it is asking too much of one man to shoulder all that responsibility. There is no doubt that ultimately when the effects of this Bill come to be judged, what we will really be judging will be the ability of the Minister to cope with the powers which he has now taken. Whether this Bill succeeds or not, will, I think, depend to a large extent upon the ability of the Minister to apply effectively the machinery he has here brought into being. I do not think that he has provided sufficiently for the co-operation, advice and help of other organizations he might well have made use of and other machinery he might well have created to assist him in this tremendous task. But in this respect, Sir, I think that we on this side of the House welcome very much the statement the hon. the Deputy Minister made during his Second Reading speech yesterday, namely that he has decided to re-establish a separate department of soil conservation. This was a separate division of soil conservation. This was a division that was functioning before. It was done away with but has since been re-established. I think this is, in fact, a very wise move. It places in the hands of the Minister possibly an effective machine with which to assist him in carrying out the provisions of this Bill. But I have no doubt that he will find that he will have to build this division into a very strong department and that he will have to ensure that this department is not starved of personnel. What is more, he will have to see that this department is given the right type of personnel to carry out the provisions that are laid down in the Bill before us.

I also welcome the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement that the policy of his Department is to be based on guidance, assistance and advice and that prosecutions under the powers that he is taking in this Bill will only be resorted to in the very last instance. One cannot help being concerned about the fact that in dealing with legislation of this kind too much emphasis is possibly being placed upon prosecutions whereas in fact what one really wants to do is to ensure the co-operation of the farming community as a whole. I should say that in this connection one cannot emphasize too strongly the very vital role of the extension officers, which they are called upon to play in the arrangements which we are making under this legislation. What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that in the past there has been a shortage of extension officers. I have made a speech before in this House emphasizing the important role the extension officer has to play. He is the direct link between the Minister and the farmer. He is the adviser to the Minister. I think the day has come that we have to look upon the extension officer as one of the most important officials in the whole Department of Agriculture. I believe that we will have to recognize that his status has to be raised in the whole structure of the Department of Agriculture. He is the man that should be held in the very highest regard at all times by the farmer, because ultimately, in terms of this legislation, he will be responsible for the implementation of the measures contained in this Bill. I do not in any way want to belittle the efforts of the extension officers that we have had in South Africa. I think they have done a tremendous job under tremendously difficult circumstances. Often their field of function was undefined. They were overloaded with much work that could be described as red tape. They were not able to get their teeth into the kind of work that had to be done on the farms in co-operation with the farmer. When we speak of the extension officer, I think it is most important to emphasize—and I think one cannot emphasize it too strongly—that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to see that if he wants to make a success of this legislation he has a sufficiency of extension officers. They will have to be the right type of person. Their qualifications will have to be of the highest order for the farmers with whom they have to deal to have confidence in their advice. T should like to emphasize that this post must be developed into the most sought after in the whole of the departmental structure. They could have a senior status and be vested with very considerable authority.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this brings me to another point. I think it is the most important point that I would like to make in my speech here this evening. I often ask myself, when dealing with soil conservation in this country, whether in the past we did not place too much emphasis on the bad side of farming, whether by the very institution of a system of subsidies that we have we have not made of our soil conservation legislation merely a medium for the payment of subsidies and loans to do certain work. There is no doubt in my mind that it is the indifferent farmer, the farmer who has not cared for his land, who has neglected it, who is placed in the best position to get the greatest benefit from these subsidies and cheap loans. As against that, the farmer, who has consistently looked after his land by seeing to fencing, to waterworks, to erosion works, and whose general farm management is of the highest order, he is the man who stands to gain only very little from the subsidy system. Nowhere in this Bill is good farming emphasized; nowhere is machinery created for assisting the farmer who has done his best to preserve his land. I think he is the one to whom the hon. the Deputy Minister must direct his attention. He is the one that must be encouraged. He is probably the one deserving of more assistance than those who have tended to neglect their soil. There are many ways that this can be done. The one thought which I want to leave with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that when in the future they decide which farmers shall get assistance during periods of drought and difficulties that it must be the good farmer, the one that has qualified by virtue of the excellence of his farming, who should be most readily assisted.

Do you know what you are saying?

I know exactly what I am saying. If the hon. member read the report of the Marais Commission he would have seen that that was the golden thread that ran through the whole of that report. What we want to do is to encourage good farming.

Are you speaking on behalf of your party now?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I was speaking on behalf of my party. Why am I here?

We do not talk with two voices like the Nationalists.

Order! I should be glad if hon. members would cease making interjections.

If we really want to get the idea of soil conservation amongst our farming community to take root, then we will have to institute a system whereby the farmer who is making the greatest effort and who has his farming on a sound conservation basis is backed with all the help that we can give him. There is another point I wish to emphasize. If we can get the farmers to realize that those who are neglecting their farms are the ones that are going to suffer the most during droughts and other periods of privation and that they are the ones that the Government is least keen to assist, then you are going to get the bad farmer to change his system. He will then realize, without being forced or prosecuted, that the way to succeed and the way to get assistance is to put his farming on to a sound basis.

The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted figures in connection with the money spent by the Government on soil conservation He gave me the impression that he felt that the Government has done more than its duty in this particular respect. Now, I emphasized earlier that soil conservation is a national problem. I do not believe for one moment that in the years gone by, the State itself has spent anything like enough money on the control of soil erosion. It is all very well to quote the amount of money which has been given for subsidies and loans, most of which has to be repaid, but I say the time has come where we have got to have a dynamic approach to this whole question of soil conservation in South Africa. I want to quote an example where the State and the Provincial Councils have had a dynamic approach to a particular matter, namely the construction of our national roads.

Look what progress has been made in that particular respect! Look what a fine network of roads we have throughout this country. I think we are the envy of many other countries. The reason why we have achieved this is because we set out with an objective in view and because we decided that we would not stint when it comes to the expenditure of money. The result now speaks for itself. I believe that in exactly the same way we have to tackle the question of soil conservation in South Africa. We have to be determined now that the State must be prepared to spend in order to save at a later date. This is surely a question of a stitch in time saves nine. Every day we wait to get this matter under control, the more it is going to cost us at a later date. I feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister must think again when he says that he feels that the State is making a sufficient contribution in respect of financing soil conservation measures in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member for Newton Park and the other speakers on the Opposition side that I respect their approach; I respect their approach to wit that this matter is so important that it is not a political matter and that they are going to support the amending legislation because it is to the benefit of the conservation of our soil. Now, the hon. members have raised a few problems. The first is, what becomes of the existing committees, and what are their functions. I want to inform the hon. members that their functions remain the same while only two aspects have been removed. The first is that they will no longer be responsible for prosecution and that for reasons as mentioned by the hon. member for East London (City). The other privilege they are being deprived of is that they will no longer undertake the drawing up of farm and district plans. However, we need these committees as much as we did in the past. The hon. members on the opposite side feel uneasy in regard to the appointment of these people. On the other hand, however, the hon. members say that we have too few extension officers and that we do not have enough officials to whom this tremendous task has been entrusted. Are hon. members aware that in order to appoint soil conservation committees in some areas, four meetings are required and then there is still no quorum.

Then how do you get 816 committees.

There are 816 committees which were initially appointed, and when the terms of service of those people had elapsed, and others had to be appointed, it was an extremely difficult matter to get the people so far as to attend an election. I am not talking in general, I am talking about many of the committees who are not motivated and not inspired in regard to soil conservation. The hon. members may be inclined to think of those outstanding committees. During the discussion of the Agricultural Vote, I referred to the outstanding soil conservation committee at Ixopo. I would just like to see what Minister would be so stupid as not to ask that committee to carry on with its work exactly as it was doing. How are these committees constituted? They are constituted by popular vote. You as practical farmer have had this experience, that when a member is elected, the voters adopt the attitude: He is in fact a member of the co-operative board of management. He is in fact a popular deacon or elder; we may as well elect him to the soil conservation committee. And he does nothing to conserve the soil.

Just like a Member of Parliament.

Sometimes.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was interrupted we were dealing with the anxiety which may arise in the minds of the United Party owing to the fact that the election of committees will now fall away, and may lead to dissatisfaction. I mentioned to you the reasons why the committees are no longer being elected, but I want to mention one further reason: The vast majority of committees that served in the past did their work faithfully, but we found that many of the committees that were elected by popular vote were not prepared to act objectively. But when the people serving on such a committee are appointed from a list of names submitted to us by the Department and by the agricultural unions, people who are soil conservation conscious, they will function better.

The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned the shortage of officials. We admit that we do not have the necessary extension officers and that we must fall back on the assistance we can get from these committees. But now the committees are going to get a great deal more work done because they no longer have to draw up the particular district plans. It will not even be necessary to waste time by drawing up individual farm plans. Hon. members also wanted to know how payments are going to take place if the work is not done according to a farm plan. But this is not going to be done; the work is done strictly in accordance with the farm plan and schedule.

By whom?

Prescriptions are served by the Department on the district concerned, on the magisterial district or the specific area. Sir, the Opposition is missing the fundamental point in regard to this Bill which is as follows: We want to make this Act streamlined. We want to have this work done far more rapidly than was the case in the past. What happened in the past? The officers and the committee drew up the farmer’s plan and the work was done. When the farmer wanted the subsidy on a fence he was going to put up or a dam he was going to build, those officials had to be sent to the farm to carry out inspections in order to find out whether the work had been done. Hon. members know how much time this takes, and I admit that we do not have enough officials to do this. But how is it going to work now? Our whole purpose with this measure is that of streamlining it. The work which was initially approved is now carried out and the farmer then submits a sworn statement in which he declares that the work has been done, and then he is paid.

The inspection must still take place?

No, the inspection can take place at any time after that. I was present in this House before when that hon. member asked how we should go to work in such a work as to avoid delays; he asked that all the red tape he mentioned here should be eliminated, and that is precisely the whole purpose here. We are now taking the man’s word and we say to him: “You have made a sworn statement to the effect that you have put up that fence, and here is your money.” The inspection comes afterwards. There will be inspections, sometimes 25 per cent of a district, sometimes more and sometimes less; we are only going to make random inspections. We will soon realize what farmers want to apply soil conservation, and what farmers do not. But the hon. member must remember that the farmer pays 45 per cent of the costs of the erection of that fence himself. The man who pays 45 per cent of the costs of a fence will not allow that fence to be flattened deliberately. Suppose the inspection has been held, the man has already been paid out, and the fence is subsequently flattened. We do not have the officials to keep on seeing whether the fence is still standing or whether the cement dam is still being maintained. If that does not happen, then the farmer himself loses 45 per cent of the cost paid by him. Sir, let us lose a half-million rand; let us lose a half-million rand; what of it? We want to get the work done. We want the work to proceed. That is what the hon. member for Salt River said.

What does the Minister of Finance say about the R1 million?

I am sorry he is here at this moment! The hon. members of the Opposition raised the question of arbitration here and stated that such power had never been given to a Minister before as is being granted to the Minister in this legislation. I admit that. The hon. member for Newton Park initially agreed with me that the purpose of this Bill is to conserve the soil, and that one cannot give a man too many rights if he wants to conserve the soil. Even a United Party Minister can in my opinion also be granted the same rights if his purpose is to conserve the soil.

They will never come into power.

I mean of course an intelligent United Party Minister; I think you will be able to find one in the country*

Never!

The hon. member for Newton Park would like to have arbitration. Sir, there is not another Minister in the Cabinet who is subject to so much control as is the Minister of Agriculture. There are the various farmer’s associations; there are the various provincial agricultural unions; there is the South African Agricultural Union; there are all the growers’ associations, the wool growers’ association, the mealie growers’ associations, etc.; they can all come to the Minister with critical eyes. He dare not make a mistake, and in addition to that he must eventually report here in Parliament on what he has done with the powers entrusted to him. No. the hon. member must not be so keen on arbitration, because it is not possible to take advantage of any of these powers.

In addition the hon. member is asking that the soil conservation advisory council Should be mentioned in this Act. Sir, if that were to be done, all the departments would have to be consulted in regard to the appointment of such an advisory board. Hon. members themselves know how it can be appointed. I maintain that we are asking for the right to act freely in order to attain these objectives, with which the Opposition agrees, rapidly and efficiently.

You are not going to ignore those departments?

No, one is not going to ignore them, but these are all things which are going to cause further delays again. Sir, hon. members on the opposite side who have participated in this debate are all practical farmers, and they know how practical farmers feel about things of this kind.

I come now to the hon. member for Nelspruit, and I want to give him full marks for one thing he said, namely: Must we always, when we speak of soil conservation, place the entire onus on the Department of Agricultural Technical Services; with the view to the shortage of extension officers in this country, must the farmer, when he wants to put up a fence or build a dam across a stream, get a technically trained man to help him? As a practical farmer I know precisely where I want to put up a fence on my farm. That is where we make the mistake. I think the hon. member for Walmer would agree with me when I say that one no longer finds the farmer who says: “Give me a sextant and I shall measure how high this dam should be built or this is how this canal should be made.” You do not get enough farmers who could do this. You find more and more of them who adopt the attitude: “I shall make the farm available to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services; they must send out an extension officer to me.” That is the wrong approach. I then come to the hon. member for South Coast. I agree with him. He began by asking whether there was still that enthusiasm among our people to want, of their own accord, to leave this heritage of a farm free of washaways to their children. There I agree with him, but he had a specific problem, which is the situation in Natal. We cannot draw Bantu Administration into this legislation. My feeling is that we should have lumped the whole lot together and stated that we are conserving the soil of South Africa in this Bill, but we must be realistic. [Interjections.] Before we want to plan the Bantu areas for them, we must be able to say with a clear conscience: “Come and look at what the white area looks like.” Only then will we be able to say to them that we want to help them. Let us first sweep in front of our own door.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Vryburg that, since he mentioned that problems may arise in cases where a man has a loan from agricultural credit and Land Tenure, we should, with the conservation of the soil never consider a man’s financial ability; no means test must be applied. I assure the hon. member that if the payment of a subsidy here is justified, then we do not consider whether that man has a loan with Agricultural Credit or not.

In addition the hon. member for East London (City), apart from the fact that he stated that the Minister is being granted a good deal of power, made the statement that we should put a scare into them. Our approach is not to put a scare into a farmer with this legislation. Our approach is not to tell him that we now have powers, exercised by an inspectorate to prosecute and put him in jail, because then this legislation would be doomed from the start. We want him to state from inner conviction that he wants to farm in such a way that his offspring can carry on farming as their father did before them. We do not want to threaten, but there will be obstinate people whom you will have to take by the neck and say: “Now you will just have to apply conservation.” This will ultimately have to happen.

The hon. member for Marico has an exceptional problem in regard to mines. I respect his opinion on that point and he will have to take it up with the Department of Mines. Now, lastly, I want to come to the hon. member for Walmer. He also stated that the Minister was receiving too many powers, but I think he was perhaps instructed to do so. But he agreed that the extension officers had insufficient time to do the basic work for which they had been trained, and I also think so. There are hon. members here who adopt the attitude that the extension officer is a man who puts up fences, but that is not what he was trained for, he was trained for much more important work. He also stated that we are inclined to emphasize the darker side of agriculture here. Sir, that is correct. We forget about those men who have been applying soil conservation efficiently of their own accord, and many of our farmers have never asked for a cent from the State in order to put up a fence. I am not saying this with contempt for those who have in fact asked for assistance, but we should, now and again as the hon. member for Walmer has done, thank those farmers who have put their hands into their own pockets and paid the account themselves; I want to thank the hon. member for Walmer for doing so. In addition he stated that there were many farmers who will only apply soil conservation with one purpose, namely that of obtaining a subsidy. We cannot argue: there are such cases. It is not out of conviction that he wants to apply soil conservation and put up paddock fences or build a dam; it is for that 55 per cent and more subsidy which he can get. It is for that reason that he wants to apply conservation and this is not the purpose. But I am not condemning those people. I am merely saying that what the hon. member for Walmer said must not be allowed to pass without comment. He also stated that in my Second Reading speech I implied that the state was doing enough. But in a country such as ours the State can never do enough to conserve our soil. I will never create the impression that I feel that the State is doing enough. Up to now we have been working under an Act which I admit was introduced by that side of the House in 1946—and it was a fine Act for its time, but we have now reached the stage where the Act must be adjusted: in those years the State did its duty and contributed its share, and in the future it will do even more. He then stated that the most inefficient farmer is the farmer who receives the most assistance. Perhaps that is putting it too strongly. I am not in full agreement with that. But there are many of the farmers who are receiving a great deal of assistance because, initially, they did not apply conservation, and it is our duty, by means of these committees, which I want to state once again we deem desirable for the purpose of assisting us in the implementation of this legislation, a piece of legislation which has no ulterior motives, a piece of legislation with but one purpose, as the hon. member for South Coast and other members on this side stated, to conserve our soil—those committees are going to help us to get these things done. Ultimately I believe that even if it should take a long time, we will fair better under this legislation than we did under the former Act.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

It is not necessary for me to furnish a detailed explanation of this measure. We are all aware of the danger, mainly of an economic nature, which weeds constitute for our country and although we have had considerable success so far, control may by no means be relaxed. With modern means of transport weeds spread much more quickly and over longer distances than was the case when the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1937. Thus fodder is transported on a country-wide basis in drought conditions such as we have just experienced, and it has therefore become necessary also to gain control in regard to weeds which can spread in this way. Existing legislation only provides that seed shall not be contaminated by or mixed with any particular weed, and therefore it is not logical to allow any “material”, as defined, which can contain weeds, to continue to spread without exercising any control and consequently thwart the efforts to combat weeds, which has cost the State alone millions of rands.

The control will be exercised judiciously, causing as little disruption as possible. We particularly have in mind areas where weeds such as satan’s bush and dodder are found, and hay, fodder, etc., which come from those farms will of necessity have to be subject to certain control measures. It will therefore be in the interests of the farmers themselves to control the proclaimed weeds as far as possible and so to assist in preventing weeds which are found in certain areas, from spreading to other parts of the country.

Furthermore, since cases are continually found of persons selling seeds of weeds as ornaments or putting up for sale by the roadside the fruits of weeds, such as blackberries and prickly pears, thereby causing it to spread, it has also become necessary to extend the penalties contained in section 9 of the Act.

This is a very short Bill and this afternoon was not the only occasion on which it was explained to us by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We have already been furnished by his Department with a particularly good reason for the introduction of this legislation, and therefore we on this side of the House will raise no objections to it. We are particularly pleased that persons who are packing fodder and who are likely to spread dangerous seeds, such as satan’s bush seed as well as dodder, in that material, are also being restrained. Apparently it is already known that the State has spent almost R100,000 so far in combating this weed, statan’s bush, which unfortunately has been spread mainly in the Graaff Reinet area. [Interjection.] Yes, it is also found in the Richmond district, but Richmond is not the only area. Satan’s bush is found in many other parts of South Africa to-day. Because of the fact that this seed originated there …

Is it the Nationalist Party …

Order!

No, I do not think hon. members would like us to discuss the hon. member for Ermelo or the member for Worcester.

Order!

I withdraw.

We are pleased that steps are being taken to stop this weed from spreading. It is known to us that large parts of South Africa have already been contaminated by it. This weed has been spread mainly by persons selling fodder, particularly over the past three years since the beginning of the drought. The power which is now being granted to the hon. the Minister so that he may also include “material” in the definition, will help to prevent this seed from spreading any further.

As regards clause 2 in terms of which nobody may sell prickly pear plants, other noxious seed or any portion of any weed without the consent of the hon. the Minister, we want to tell him that the amendment introduced here is also an extremely good one. So many people are growing these plants in gardens and even indoors, without realizing that they are very noxious weeds. However, I also want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should be very careful in what he says about the prickly pear. There are certain varieties of the prickly pear species which we should not like to see classified under this definition. There is, for example, the blue-leaf prickly pear, the Schoeman prickly pear, etc. [Interjections.] These are excellent prickly pears. The main reason why they are good prickly pears is that they do not have any thorns. They make excellent fodder. The hon. the Minister should be very careful not to prevent, under this particular provision, the Schoeman prickly pear from being sold throughout South Africa.

Clause 3 is merely a definition of material. I have no cause to say anything about it, since it has already been incorporated in clause 1. We therefore agree with the changes the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to effect.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of the Bill is to erect a minor amendment to each of two Acts administered by the Financial Institutions Office, namely the Pension Funds Act and the Banks Act.

In terms of an amendment to the Pension Funds Act effected in 1966, every pension fund is required to hold at least 10 per cent of the value of its total assets in Government stock. A fund which did not comply with the requirement when the amendment came into operation, had to invest annually in Government stock at least 20 per cent of the net increase in its aggregate assets during that year and should comply fully with the 10 per cent requirement not later than the end of 1971. Representations have recently been made on behalf of local authorities and pension funds of local authorities that such funds should be relieved of the obligation to hold a portion of their assets in the form of Government stock.

Like the Government, local authorities also provide essential services to the public for which they need loan capital. An important source of loan capital for local authorities is the local authority pension funds, to which the local authorities, as employers, also contribute substantial amounts. In the past most of these pension funds invested practically all their funds with local authorities. In order to comply with the requirement of a 10 per cent investment in Government stock these pension funds will now have to invest the bulk of their available funds in Government stock for a few years. They will, therefore, be unable to give any appreciable support to local authorities. Local authorities will experience difficulties to obtain the loan capital which they previously obtained from these pension funds from other sources. Having regard to all the circumstances and especially to the functions performed by local authorities, it is considered that there are good grounds for differentiating between pension funds of local authorities and other pension funds in so far as compulsory investment in Government stock is concerned. It is proposed, therefore, that pension funds of local authorities be exempted from the requirement to hold a percentage of their assets in the form of Government stock on condition that such a fund holds at least 90 per cent of the value of its total assets in the public sector. This arrangement in fact merely restores the old status quo and is acceptable to the parties concerned.

The proposed amendment to the Banks Act as set out in clause 2 of the Bill will make it possible for banking institutions to appoint to their boards of directors, executive officers who possess specialized knowledge of the management of the institutions. This is the modern approach. In order to ensure that the composition of the board of directors is balanced, the number of executive officers who may serve simultaneously on a board is limited to one third of the total number of directors. A similar concession was granted to building societies in 1968.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. It is an amending Bill and is an essential administrative measure. However, regarding clause 1, where the Minister refers to the investment of pension funds in local authorities, I hope the Minister will not lose sight of the fact that there might be a danger where the local authority pension funds invested their funds in their own local authority. It will not be a problem with the big local authorities, but in a small local authority if the pension funds were invested solely in the local authority appertaining to the pension funds, there might be a risk if there are funds which are not properly looked after. I know it is a remote risk, but there is that possibility. On the other hand, I do not think we should object to the suggestion made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do think, however, that this is a matter which should have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention, because there is a risk, particularly in a remote township that there might be a tendency to invest the whole of the pension funds in the local authority and at some future time they may find their pension fund in some difficulty. We know it is a practice with companies that no company is allowed to invest its pension funds in the stock of the company concerned. A certain proportion of the pension funds of a company must always be invested outside the company for obvious reasons. There is this possible risk as far as local authorities are concerned.

The second clause, referring to the directorship of banks, I think is a welcome step. There is no reason why the senior staff should not be elected to the boards of the banks. On the other hand, I think the hon. the Minister is quite right in limiting it to one third, because it would not be advisable to have the whole of the bank policy controlled by the staff. Equally, if there was no member of the bank staff on the bank board, there is the possibility of the board becoming too remote from reality. I think it is a welcome step. As the Minister said, it has been allowed in the past in building societies. We support the suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Pinetown, I can only say that clause 1 of the Bill states that the pension funds under discussion must at least invest 90 per cent of their total assets in assets of the type specified in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the main Act. Paragraph (c) of the main Act reads as follows:

Paragraph (d) reads as follows:

Lastly, paragraph (e) reads as follows:

I appreciate the point the hon. member has raised here. I am of the opinion that in terms of these three subsections of this legislation it would be possible for a local authority to invest 90 per cent of its pension funds in its own loan requirements. However, I will look into this matter. If there is any real substance in what the hon. member has said, I will give attention to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Object of legislation:

The main object in introducing this measure is to provide for radio listeners’ licences to expire on a common date every year, which will permit of an envisaged new system for the control of such licences to be introduced.

Present system of licensing:

As the Act reads at the moment, every listener’s licence expires every year on the date on which that licence was taken out for the first time. The system whereby control is at present being exercised over the collection of licence moneys, consists, firstly, in a register being kept of every licence holder by the Post Office. Renewal notices are sent every year to the listeners at the addresses which appear in the registers, and the date on which each licence was renewed is recorded in the registers. Secondly, under this system radio licence inspectors pay house to house visits so as to ask persons who possess radios to produce their licences. Those who do not have licences, are then requested to take out licences and their names and addresses are recorded in the registers. Finally, under the existing system radio dealers in selling radios insist on radio licences being produced by the buyers and enter the particulars on the invoices, of which they send copies to the Post Office. In this way it is ensured that new listeners take out licences and that their particulars are recorded in the registers.

Reminders are sent to persons who do not react to renewal notices, and after various further steps and warnings they are subpoenaed for non-payment of the fees.

Ineffectiveness of system:

The present system, Mr. Speaker, has been in existence since 1927. Years ago, when there were still relatively few listeners’ licences, it still functioned reasonably well, but in view of the increase in the number of licences from 498,000 in 1948 to almost 1,700,000 today, so many problems are being presented that it has become essential to revise this system completely.

The greatest weaknesses of the system are that it fails when listeners change address without notifying the Post Office or when a person acquires a radio in some way or other without taking out a listener’s licence. The renewal notices do not reach people who move without reporting their changes of address, and tracing them is a time-consuming and often impossible task. New listeners who acquire radios without taking out licences are, right from the start, pirate listeners who can only be traced by chance by inspectors doing the rounds for the purpose of asking occupants of houses to produce their licences. The whole register system is extremely cumbrous and expensive. It involves a tremendous amount of administrative work which consists of following up cases where, according to the registers, listeners failed to respond to renewal notices, and which is for the most part unproductive since it is so difficult to trace listeners who left their last-known addresses.

To keep pace with this steadily growing mass of administrative work the staff doing radio licensing work have to be increased continually. This work is increasing at an even faster rate than the rate at which new licences are taken out every year. The inspection staff are so deluged with work concerned with the following up of cases of defaulters, of which the Department has records, that they can only devote a fraction of their time to their more productive work of tracing pirate listeners by paying house to house visits for the purpose of asking listeners to produce their licences. The stage has been reached where it is clear that the present register system is making excessive demands as regards operating costs and manpower whereas it does not serve its purpose adequately, and that it will also be of no avail to go on increasing the staff engaged in the unproductive work of following up defaulters.

New system:

Mr. Speaker, after thorough investigation and research for various alternatives, it has been found that the most practical solution is contained in doing away with the system of registers and changing over to an arrangement in terms of which the control of licences will in the main consist of house to house visits by radio licence inspectors to determine whether listeners have licences. A listener’s licence year is being introduced which will extend from 1st October in any year to 30th September of the following year, and in conjunction with that it is being provided that a person who takes out a licence for the first time, will only pay a licence fee in respect of the unexpired quarter or quarters of the licence year. A further new arrangement which is being introduced, is that any person who fails to take out during October his new licence for the following licence year, has to pay by way of penalty 10 per cent of the licence fees in respect of every month during which he has as from that date failed to take out his licence. However, the total amount of the fine will never exceed the licence fees. Clause 8 provides that these licences shall expire on a common date, clause 6 that the fees payable in respect of new licences shall be determined on a pro rata basis, and clause 7 for the payment of the penalties I mentioned.

Renewal notices will no longer be sent out, in view of the fact all listener’s licences will expire on 30th September every year and all listeners will be informed before the time, on the radio and through the Press, that they are to take out during October new licences for the new licence year. Licences will be issued at post offices, just as is the case at present. Under the envisaged arrangement radio licence inspectors will, on a much larger scale than is the case at present, pay house to house visits for the purpose of asking that licences be produced. Listeners who do not possess licences, will be subpoenaed after fair warning.

Radio dealers and repairers will still be required to insist on the production of licences by persons who buy radios or have them repaired, but there will no longer be any need for them to send copies of the invoices to the Post Office. Their books of account will instead be checked regularly by the inspectors. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the retention of copies of invoices by radio dealers and repairers. Information about the licence holders will have to be furnished on the invoices, information which may be followed up by the inspectors for the purpose of exercising proper control.

The envisaged new system is an administrative arrangement and it will be possible to adapt the details thereof to circumstances if it should become apparent that adaptation is necessary. I want to give the assurance that the Post Office will implement this system in a responsible manner so that nobody will be caused unnecessary inconvenience. For instance, it is not the intention to trouble travellers or holiday makers for their radio licences, but only to carry out inspections of radio licences at the permanent addresses of persons.

Different kinds of licences:

Sir, provision is also being made in this Bill for a new kind of listener’s licence which may be issued to business concerns such as hotels, mines, transport services, etc., which make use of radio receiving systems through which their customers or employees may by means of loudspeakers, for instance, listen collectively to broadcasts received by one main set. Clause 5 (b) deals with this matter. For practical reasons it is desirable to differentiate in this way between what one may call “private” licences which are issued to a person or a household, and licences for organizations which use radio receiving systems for business purposes. It will be possible to prescribe different fees in respect of these business licences, depending on the nature and extent of the systems they use. In addition the enabling provisions in the Act in terms of which regulations may be made, are being adapted so that a member of a household may under prescribed circumstances be exempted by regulation from the obligation of having a licence and also so that it may be prescribed who will be regarded as the head of a household and may consequently be held responsible for producing the licence which is valid for that household. Clause 14 deals with this. These adjustments are necessary for clarifying the object of the Act and facilitating the practical implementation thereof.

Delegation of powers:

Mr. Speaker, in clause 13 of the Bill it is being provided that the Postmaster-General may delegate powers to the South African Broadcasting corporation enabling the latter to issue licences and collect moneys on behalf of the Postmaster-General, if under certain circumstances or in respect of certain licences it may appear to be desirable and practicable and may promote efficiency. In actual fact the Post Office acts as agent for the S.A.B.C. as regards the collection of listeners’ fees, and the S.A.B.C. has to pay compensation to the Post Office for doing so. As a result of this provision it will be possible to allow the S.A.B.C. to perform some of its own collection work if in future it should be found that this can be done effectively and be advantageous to the S.A.B.C. This clause also provides that it will be possible, by agreement, for any local authority or other body to collect licence moneys on behalf of the Post Office where this may be found to be advantageous and practicable. In cases where, for instance, such a body lets houses and has to collect the rentals monthly, it may be arranged for radio licence fees to be collected in instalments, i.e. along with the rentals. The object of all these provisions is to create the necessary statutory machinery which makes it possible for the most effective administrative arrangements for the collection of licence fees to be made in future whenever and wherever such arrangements may appear to be desirable and practicable. It goes without saying that the Post Office itself will still issue the vast majority of licences since it has at its disposal the most extensive organization for that purpose, and that it is only to a relatively limited extent that other bodies will possibly take over some of this work. All administrative arrangements in terms of which the services of other bodies may be used for assisting in the collection of moneys, will be subject to the approval of the Minister. I should like to emphasize this point.

Miscellaneous provisions:

Mr. Speaker, the remaining provisions of the Bill include, more specifically, domestic affairs and consequential adjustments, and may in all probability be discussed more profitably at the Committee Stage. Perhaps I may just refer here to the transitional provision contained in clause 8 (2) and (3), in terms of which it is being provided that listeners’ licences taken out before the commencement of this amending Act, will remain valid until the individual dates on which they would have expired had these new provisions not been introduced. This ensures that nobody will, as a result of the contemplated new system, lose in anyway on licence moneys already paid. Hon. members will also notice that clauses 2 and 16 make the Radio Act applicable to South-West Africa and repeal the Radio Ordinance of South-West Africa. This is necessary because the administration of radio matters in the Territory was taken over by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in terms of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, which came into operation on 1st April.

Conclusion:

Sir, I believe that the new system of licensing which will be made possible through this Bill being passed, will not only be more economical as regards finances and manpower than is the present system, but will also to a large extent be instrumental in combating pirate listening which has over the years caused the South African Broadcasting Corporation great losses in revenue. I trust that this measure will receive the support of both sides of the House. I move.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given us a full explanation of the Bill now before the House. As I see it, it contains five main provisions, all of them unexceptionable to a greater or lesser degree. I shall have a few comments to make on each one of these five.

The first main provision is that there shall, now be a single date for the expiry of listeners’ licences. I believe that, on the whole, this is a sensible step, for the reasons the hon. the Minister gave us. It is quite clear that there were great shortcomings in the previous system and that a new system had become imperative. The hon. the Minister said that no notices would be sent out before the expiry of a listener’s licence on 30th September each year, except that notices would be given in the Press or over the radio itself. I wonder whether that is really going to serve the purpose intended. For income-tax purposes, and in the case of other licences, we are given previous notification. I trust that the hon. the Minister’s fond hope that such notices will not be necessary will be realized. I do see a certain disadvantage in this particular provision. That is that it might involve a very large amount of paper work at one particular time of the year. If all our licences are to expire on one particular date, namely the 30th September, it will mean a growing amount of work during the few weeks just before the expiry date, or just after. I see that one disadvantage, but on the whole I do believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I admit that the system was cumbersome in the past, and that this new system should be given a chance to prove itself in practice. It has the advantage, amongst others, that if there were to be a change in the licence fee. the Minister can make that change applicable from a certain fixed date. I believe that the licence fees are too high, and I trust that, should there by any announcement in this regard, it will be an announcement to the effect that licence fees will be lower than they are at present. This is only a fond hope I am expressing, Sir, and I am thinking aloud.

Hear, hear!

Perhaps he will announce TV on 30th September.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be distracted by interruptions, but I think I should point out that a broadcast service, in terms of the definition in the Radio Act, which we are now amending, does also include the word “television”. Although television is not a subject we are debating now, I hope you will allow me to say just one sentence on this subject. If this particular clause is passed, and the hon. the Minister has the right to alter licence fees, I hope he will not increase them on account of the fact that we are getting television. I shall say no more on this point.

There is one thing I think the hon. the Minister might just tell us, and that is why all the other fees for which provision is made under the Radio Act, were not also made payable on 30th September. Many other licences are mentioned in the Schedule to the Radio Act, for example coast station licences, land mobile station licences, radio repairers’ licences, etc. There is quite a long list of them. Since the Minister is now making the expiry date for radio listeners’ licences the 30th September, why does he still, in this Bill, retain the 31st December as the expiry date for these other licences? To me it seems a good idea to have the 30th September as the final date for the expiry of all radio licences.

The second main provision in this Bill is that the hon. the Minister will now have the power through the S.A.B.C., or directly, to see that different types of listeners’ licences can be issued. We have had a discussion on an amendment in a previous Bill on this matter when I pointed out how we on this side of the House had always felt that there should be greater power for the hon. the Minister or for the S.Á.B.C. to grant free listeners’ licences, institutional licences and licences to businesses. This is what this particular Bill is doing at the moment, so we find this provision unexceptionable. I can particularly understand a provision of this type being introduced in regard to the manager of an institution such as, for instance, a hotel. I believe at the moment a hotel owner has to pay R1.75 for each loudspeaker in a separate room. Sometimes in a five-star hotel one finds a loudspeaker in the bedroom, one in the bathroom and you might even have one in the sitting rooms. So you can have three loudspeakers. [Interjections.]

Order!

Indeed, I think it did work unjustly in the case of these big institutions where they have to pay all these additional licence fees. I trust that the hon. the Minister will be fair in laying down the fees for these new licence holders. I am particularly concerned about institutions where pensioners live and institutions for the aged, and I should like to have some assurance from the hon. the Minister that in these old-age homes, where many of the old people have their own little portable radios, the intention is to issue a single licence for the institution as a whole. Thereby the owners of these transistor radios, many of whom are pensioners, will not be compelled to pay these very high licence fees annually. I should like to have an indication from the hon. the Minister that that too might be or could be part of the intention of this Bill.

The third main provision in this Bill deals with the change in the duties of radio repairers and radio dealers in regard to their responsibility towards the Postmaster-General and the filling in of forms. Here, indeed, this Bill is again an improvement on the past Bill. In the old days the radio dealer had to fill in a form in triplicate every time a customer went to a radio dealer to have a radio repaired or to buy a new radio. Every time forms had to be filled in in triplicate and you had to have your licence number with you. The onus was on the radio dealer to make sure that that person who brought in the radio for repair or the person who wanted to buy a radio did have a licence for that particular radio. There has been a slight change for the better in regard to this. In the past these forms had to be filled in in triplicate and the third form had to be sent to the Postmaster-General. All that the hon. the Minister is doing now is simply to remove that third form which had to be sent to the Postmaster-General. However, I wonder whether this is really sufficient change. I say this on account of the difficulties which we know the public had experienced in the past; difficulties like, for example, when they took their radio to have it repaired, and where they had more than one radio. Difficulties also arose when they were on holiday and their car radio broke down. They had to have it repaired, but for some obvious reason they did not have the radio licence or the radio number with them and they could not actually have that radio repaired without having the number or the licence. This difficulty still remains. This particular provision does not remove that difficulty.

I do, however, grant the hon. the Minister that he has made a change in regard to this form in triplicate which had to be sent to the Postmaster-General. Just imagine the vast amount of work which that provision involved during the past years. I wonder how many man hours, how much money and how much office space had been wasted through this rather senseless provision of forcing the radio dealers to send the triplicate form to the Postmaster-General. According to information given by the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question, last year more than half a million of these forms were sent to the Postmaster-General, 553,000 during the year 1968. Still, this resulted in very few prosecutions. One can imagine the cost, the manpower and the office space which had been used through that provision. What is more important, when this provision came before the House, we on this side of the House, warned the hon. the Minister that that would be the result. However, I am most glad to see that the hon. the Minister has to a certain extent accepted our ideas and our views in regard to this provision.

The fourth provision in this Bill is one which allows the hon. the Minister and the S.A.B.C. to delegate the authority to issue radio licences to other bodies which are recognized in law. For example, the hon. the Minister can now allow a city council or a municipality to issue radio licences and collect the fees. I believe that is an improvement, although the hon. the Minister told us that it is a factor which will not affect a very large part of the country. I take it that on the whole it would only be the larger municipalities who will be collecting radio licences through their own organizations. I understand they will get commission on that and I trust the hon. the Minister will be reasonable and generous when he lays the amount down. I believe it will be a good idea. However, throughout the whole of the country it will still be the ease that the ordinary person will go to pay his radio licence at the Post Office. In this case you will basically have the same procedure as in the past. This new system of permitting the local authorities, the municipalities, to collect licences is, I believe, basically a good one. I come from a city, the city of Johannesburg, where we tested in practice this system in the issue of the annual motor car licences. Over a hundred thousand, close on two hundred thousand motor car licences are issued on behalf of the Province of Transvaal by the local authority in Johannesburg. It has worked very well and I have heard it has been done in Durban as well. It might be done in the hon. the Minister’s city of Bloemfontein too. It would be worth while to find out from these municipalities who have attempted this method of issuing licences in the case of motor cars what they have done, what the snags were and to see to what extent this particular system can be applied profitably and well to radio licences.

The fifth provision of this Bill is that certain persons of a household can be exempted from paying licences. The position at the present moment is that a person holding a licence can have as many radios as he wants to, provided that all these persons live under the same roof. The hon. the Minister is now coming with a provision which makes it possible for people who do not necessarily live under the same roof, but who are still members of the same household, to be able to get their radio licences under that one householder’s licence. As I see it, it will refer to cases such as the following: You will find the head of the family living in a certain town takes out a licence and if it so happens that he has a son at a university and a daughter at the boarding school he will be able to licence their transistors (most of the young people nowadays have transistors) under the central licence of the householder. I believe that the provision is that the Minister is taking the power to do this, under this Bill. As I understand it the householder’s licence will exempt those other members of the household of buying licences. I should like to have a rather firmer assurance from the hon. the Minister that he does actually intend doing something in regard to those cases where the head of the household has, for example, a son at the university and a daughter at a boarding school, that they will be permitted by regulation to have those radios, while they are still basically members of the central household, without an additional charge.

Sir, these are the few comments that I have to make on the five main provisions of this Bill. On the whole we agree that it is an unexceptionable Bill; that it flows from the previous amendment to the Broadcasting Act that we dealt with a few weeks ago in this House, and for those reasons this side of the House will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

The speech the hon. member for Orange Grove has just made proves that even he can be sensible at times. I want to thank him for the Opposition’s support of this Bill. There is really nothing contentious in this measure. I should like to give him the assurance for which he asked in the last statement he made in connection with concessions to persons belonging to the same household, where members of the household may be at a university or a boarding school. I have already issued instructions to the effect that a concession should be made in such cases. I also want to give him the second assurance for which he asked in respect of concessions to the aged as far as their radio licences are concerned. If the finances of the S.A.B.C. permit, such concessions are granted gladly. It is in fact the intention to improve the system of collecting radio licence fees to such an extent that it will be possible to accommodate these cases. If the finances are available, they will be readily accommodated. There is no lack of sympathy at all. I do not think the hon. member raised other points to which I have to reply specifically at this stage. I think that further questions, if any, can profitably be out to me in the course of the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

As you know. Sir, the Water Act was referred to a Select Committee during 1955 and 1956. The then Bill was very thoroughly considered and unanimously accepted by this House.

Since then it was necessary to effect certain amendments from time to time, and now I have to approach the House once again for approval to effect further amendments— amendments which have become essential over the years. It is not possible for us to stand still; we must move on all the time and also adapt our water legislation to changed circumstances. Because I regarded it as essential, and in view of the important principles contained in this Bill, I consequently deemed it advisable to refer this Bill to a Select Committee for consideration. This was in fact done and the Select Committee investigated the amendments very thoroughly and a Bill with a few necessary amendments was adopted unanimously by all the members of the Select Committee. This Bill has now been submitted to the House. I want to extend my sincere thanks to the Select Committee for its prized study of and attention to this legislation. Since water legislation is always complicated and has far-reaching consequences, it requires careful consideration and sound insight. The House may rest content that close attention was devoted to this Bill by the Select Committee, and that it has now become essential to accept the proposed adjustments with a view to enabling the Minister to exercise better control over the water resources of the Republic. I shall now discuss in brief the principles contained in this Bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Water Act provides that the use of water for industrial purposes is to he under my control and that the use of water which, on an average, is in excess of 50,000 gallons per day, may only be allowed by way of a permit. It was felt that a similar provision was necessary in respect of the use of water for urban purposes, because the position may in fact arise where a local authority may build a dam in a public stream and divert water which would normally flow past and thus prejudice a major project constructed by the State at considerable cost. In this manner the State may find itself in the position where, owing to the steps taken by the local authority or authorities concerned, it has to create at considerable cost additional storage facilities in order to protect the existing irrigation area, which may also include the supply of water to cities or towns and industries, and in order to straighten out the position.

Therefore I consider it desirable that provision be made in the Act in an attempt to prevent this undesirable situation from arising. In cases where local authorities have effected in a river storage which is in excess of 45 morgen feet of water or where more than a million gallons of water per day are being used, such storage or use is to be effected by way of a permit issued by the Minister of Water Affairs.

For years now my Department has experienced problems as a result of the injudicious development taking place in certain dam basins. In view of the fact that there is nothing to prevent large-scale development, such development is subsequently flooded resulting in considerable expense for the State. For instance, roads have to be diverted, or compensation has to be paid in respect of permanent structures, etc. In order to prevent as far as possible such problems from cropping up in the future in cases where dams are contemplated in certain rivers, provision is now being made in terms of which it will be possible to proclaim dam basin control areas.

A railway line or a road or a building can be laid down or constructed in more than one place, but a dam can only be built on a certain dam site. That is why it is essential that all dam sites be protected and be proclaimed as controlled areas so as to ensure that development does not take place in such areas. This will bring about a major saving, prevent a great deal of inconvenience and save many sites for water storage.

It is, of course, appreciated that people may suffer damage because of these arrangements. Consequently provision is being made for compensation. It is also being provided that a claim for compensation shall not become superannuated. In addition it is being provided that normal farming operations be excluded, but that any road, building, water work or any other work or structure of a permanent nature may only be erected or constructed under cover of a permit from the Minister.

In cases where storage dams are built by the State and the river-bed is consequently being used as a channel for the distribution of that water amongst riparian owners or the supply of water to local authorities or industries, the State has at the moment no control over the construction of works or water works in such a stream unless such area is declared to be a State water control area in terms of section 59 (1) (b), the result being that in terms of section 62 permits will then have to be issued to every riparian owner in respect of his existing rights. This requires a great deal of work which may be eliminated if the provisions of section 63 were applied; in other words, when the preparation of a schedule of rateable surface areas is implemented and water is then supplied to the persons concerned in terms of such a schedule of rateable surface areas, as if the river were a channel.

In the Appeal Court case Mostert v. The Minister of Water Affairs, the Appeal Court did in fact make it clear that where a State water work was involved, the provisions of section 63 were to be implemented, and where a river without a State water work was, for the purposes of control over the use of water in that river, declared to be a State water control area in terms of section 59 (1) (b), the provisions of section 62, i.e. the issuing of permits, were to be implemented.

In order to facilitate the Department’s work and also to acquire control over the abstraction of water in a State water control area which was proclaimed in terms of section 59 (1) (b) and in cases where a dam was built in the river in question and the river is being used as a distribution channel, it is therefore essential to amend the Act and to make provision for control over all waterworks in such a river in order that waterworks may not be constructed without the Minister’s approval by way of a permit. It will therefore be possible to exercise proper control over the abstraction of water.

Now I come to a very big problem. It deals with the powers and the performance of duties and functions of irrigation boards. Time and again it has been the experience of the Department that certain, and I repeat, certain irrigation boards do not perform their duties, do not maintain or repair their works properly, nor distribute water amongst the irrigators in a proper manner, i.e. so that everybody may receive his just share of the available water.

In addition there are certain irrigation boards which do not meet their loan obligations, do not hold regular meetings, do not revise their schedules of rateable surface areas regularly and do not furnish the Department regularly with information which they have to furnish in terms of the Act. All the Department could do in the past, was to issue instructions to such a board and if it did not comply with the instructions, the Minister of Water Affairs had to take over that board and, by proxy, vest its functions in an officer of the Department. This places a major burden on officials since it is additional work for which they are not remunerated, and in such a case they must in effect do the work of a board which consisted previously of perhaps nine or 12 members.

In order to meet these problems I now propose to effect certain amendments. Firstly, the constitution of irrigation boards ought to be changed. It is now being provided that the Minister of Water Affairs may of his own accord appoint half of the members of an irrigation board, whilst the other half are nominated and elected by the irrigators themselves. These powers will, of course, only be used in cases where existing boards fail to perform their duties properly. May I just tell the House that we have to deal with more than 300 boards of this nature.

Secondly it is being provided that certain areas may be proclaimed. In such proclaimed areas it will be possible for the State President to vest in the Minister control over the waterworks of such an irrigation board and the distribution of water in the irrigation district concerned.

Furthermore, it is being provided that the Minister or any officer in the Department authorized thereto by him may by notice in writing to any irrigation board direct such board to take steps in regard to the maintenance, repair or betterment of any water work or in regard to the method of distribution, supply or use of water in or from any such waterworks. If such a board fails to give effect to such directions, the Minister or the officer concerned himself may take the necessary steps and take over the control of the works or the distribution of water for such period as may be deemed necessary. In cases where it is deemed necessary to take over the waterworks of a board, the State may not levy rates on the irrigators in respect of such waterworks on which a loan is still outstanding, unless that loan is written off by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. Where additional works are constructed in the interests of irrigators, rates may be levied in respect of such additional works.

At present it is almost impossible to succeed in a charge to the effect that a person was guilty of unauthorized use of public water, because it is always said in defence that the water was taken or the sluices were adjusted— in colloquial language this is known as common water theft—without the knowledge of the person who is charged. If he proves that this was done without his knowledge, it is impossible to obtain a conviction.

In view of this and of representations made by the Attorney-General it was decided to eliminate this loophole by providing that under certain circumstances an owner may nevertheless be convicted and also that his manager, agent or employee may be convicted.

Legislation is required in order to implement the policy of the Water Affairs Branch of the Administration of South-West Africa gradually being taken over, as contemplated by the Odendaal Commission, by the Department of Water Affairs of the Republic of South Africa.

At the moment there are certain ordinances in terms of which the Water Affairs Branch in South-West Africa operates. In order to cause, as far as possible, no disruption and to effect a gradual take-over, it is being provided that the present ordinances shall be deemed to be regulations made in terms of the Water Act, and also that these regulations may be amended and new regulations may be made so as to make it possible for the functions of the Branch, with due regard to the special circumstances in South-West Africa, to be carried out as smoothly as possible without the said functions being restricted by provisions of the Water Act which cannot be applied to South-West Africa in their entirety, or in cases where there is no provision under the Water Act for special circumstances which may arise there. It is also being provided that any or all of the provisions of the Water Act may be applied to South-West Africa, and it is the intention to apply to the Territory in due course those provisions which may in fact be applied profitably to South-West Africa, and subsequently to make provision for additional matters by way of regulations which may then also be amended from time to time. As has already been said, this will only be effected with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

In addition to the above-mentioned major amendments, certain minor financial amendments have also been effected. For instance, it is being proposed that the maximum subsidy which may be granted to a private owner, be increased from R1,000 to R3,000,. Hon. members will recall that in this regard representations were made to me in the course of the previous session.

The provisions relating to the submission of White Papers to the House of Assembly and the Senate are also being amended. At present it is necessary to submit a White Paper in respect of every State water works in excess of R200,000. It is now being provided that a White Paper shall only be submitted in cases where the cost exceeds R500,000. In the case of an irrigation board which negotiates a loan, it is at present necessary to submit a White Paper if the cost of the work exceeds R60,000. It is now being proposed that a White Paper should only be submitted if the cost exceeds R150,000. The reason for these amendments is obvious and it is unnecessary for me to elaborate on it. Costs have increased since 1956, and the drafting of White Papers for relatively small amounts merely places an additional burden on my Department.

Pursuant to representations made by the S.A. Agricultural Union an amendment has also been effected as regards the furnishing by farmers of detailed plans and specifications for water works in excess of a certain amount. Whereas previously such plans had to be submitted in respect of works in excess of R1,800, this will now only be necessary if the cost is in excess of R3,000. The provision which obliged me to ask the House for an extension of time in the event of my being unable to issue permits in any State water control area within three years, places me under a big obligation. I feel free to ask the House to delete that provision.

With a reorganization of the Department, and also by virtue of certain amendments contained in this Bill and certain specific arrangements which I have made, I now hope to issue within three to five years permits in respect of which it was previously estimated that with the present shortage of staff it would take more than 100 years before it would have been possible to issue them. We are doing our best. That is why I feel free to ask for this particular provision to be deleted. I also want to give the undertaking that if there should be a miscalculation in this respect, i.e. if within a year or two we should discover that we had in this time miscalculated by a year or two, then I, for my part, shall come to this House in good time to warn you and to say that it was with the best of intentions that we set it at three to five years, and to tell you whether we can keep it up and whether we think that the target can be reached.

With this explanation I have covered the most important provisions and new principles embodied in this Bill.

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the explanation he has given of this Bill and to make one or two preliminary remarks regarding the measure we have before us this evening. The Minister quite rightly said that this Bill was sent to a Select Committee before Second Reading, and that agreement was reached in the Select Committee regarding the provisions of the Bill we have before us. The pattern that was followed here was that which was adopted in 1956 with the original Act upon which a Select Committee sat for some three years, and that Act is still the basis of our law dealing with water in South Africa. This Bill before us is therefore an amendment, in some respects, of that basic Act which still stands. I do not know whether in the future there will have to be further substantial amendments. I will come to that in a moment. But for the moment we have these amendments, and although perhaps the Bill on the face of it may not look as though it is of particular importance, I can assure you, Sir, that it gave the members of the Select Committee many days of sitting and many long hours considering the changes that were made in the Bill that was first introduced into Parliament by the hon. the Minister. That again shows, I think, that it was possible in a Select Committee to get down to the fullest and most detailed consideration of one of the most important matters that we have before us in Parliament at present. We have dealt this evening already with a soil conservation measure, and now we come to water. We had the fullest support from the staff and members of the Minister’s Department who came before us. They were perfectly frank and gave us the utmost help and information that they could. In passing, may I say that we were all grieved and recorded our grief at the passing of one of the senior members of the Minister’s staff just on the eve of a sitting of the Select Committee. When we were about to hear him, he suddenly passed away. We expressed our grief then, and I would like very briefly just to refer to it here now because he was an official whom I had known for many, many years and who had given a lifetime of service and, indeed, was engaged upon his duty and had accorded us very valuable information at the time of his passing. The other officials subsequently filled the gap and we had the greatest help from them, so that we sat there as a Select Committee determined to find what was best, in terms of the law, to deal with this question of water, the conservation of water and the use of water in South Africa. Sir, I venture to suggest that the time is coming very rapidly, because public opinion is changing to the extent that there is coming a greater and greater appreciation of the need for us not only to conserve our water supplies but also wisely to use the supplies we have. I was recently shocked to hear a suggestion by a professional man as to how we should use what is usually called our “fossil water”, water which, once used, is gone for ever; it is not an inexhaustible supply. It therefore behoves us as Parliament to see that the use as well as the conservation of our water will be as wisely controlled in terms of our laws as is possible for human endeavour, with the knowledge at our disposal. The time is coming, and I think it is close, when because public opinion is so aroused, there is such a realization of the vital part played by water in our economy, in our very life as a nation, that before long I am sure we will have a Bill coming before us which will make the conservation and the use of water priority No. 1, over everything else in South Africa in our public life. It is not in our law yet, with the result that you get, as we have a Bill here, where certain Departments contract out of the restrictive provisions of this measure. Sir, this is most regrettable. We have brought in in this Bill those bodies which it was thought to be competent for us with a chance of success to bring in, but the net is not yet wide enough. I believe that the time will come when we will have to say to all branches of public activities, including Government Departments, Railways and Harbours, together with every other Department, and Bantu Administration, that they take second place to the need to conserve and adequately to use our water supplies. Water must not be made subservient to the needs and desires of other State Departments. It is not in the Bill before us, but we are getting close to it. I believe it will not be long before that time comes and I hope the Minister is going to be bold when the time comes.

Let me say at once that we support this Bill. It was a unanimous measure in the Select Committee. It has come before the House as an agreed measure from both sides. I want to say to the Minister that he is in this privileged and fortunate position that he has the whole of Parliament behind him. There will not be a dissenting voice in Parliament as far as this Bill is concerned. When he has that backing and that power, he must go forward, knowing that he has the people behind him; he has the public opinion of South Africa behind him in any steps that he takes within reason to control the use and the conservation of our water supplies. This Bill gives the Minister very wide powers indeed. We have had changes in this portfolio. I regret them. I prefer to see a portfolio change hands quickly if it is to leave the hands of a Nationalist Minister and come into the hands of a United Party Minister. Naturally, the quicker the better, and I would have no objection, but as long as this Government is in power I would like to see a portfolio such as this remaining for quite a lengthy period in the hands of one Minister. I hate to see a portfolio like this chopping and changing. This is no child’s job to get down to an understanding of the ramifications of this question of water. It is a job that takes a man who is going to apply his time to it, who will get down to it and work hard to learn even the broadest principles of the ramifications of our water supplies in South Africa.

I say quite frankly that I believe the hon. the Minister is trying to get the job done. Last year we treated him gently during the discussion of his Vote to give him a chance. This year we will deal with the question of water supply when we discuss his Vote later on and we will discuss it from a different angle than the four precise corners of a Bill, such as the one that we have before us. The hon. the Minister receives a tremendous amount of power through this measure. What are we going to do in regard to water supplies in South Africa? We have come a long way since the 1956 Act. The 1956 Act took certain powers away from certain private owners which they resented. With this measure we are going further and taking away further rights and powers and placing them in the hands of the hon. the Minister. We have to do it. In the Select Committee we faced this problem fairly and squarely. We asked ourselves where we should place the authority so that it will be recognized and will be easily available. We do not want something obscure and involved and something so nebulous that the ordinary man concerned with this primary necessity of our lives in South Africa does not know to whom to go. The power is being placed more and more in the hands of the hon. the Minister. We say to the Minister that he may take the powers and we do it willingly. We are doing it for the sake of having a clear-cut authority in the administration of water affairs in South Africa. We feel that this is the only way to deal with the problem. One cannot give power, such as we are giving the hon. the Minister here to committees, boards, councils and all sorts of groups of people. I now want to come to a remark the hon. the Minister made in regard to the “besproeiingsrade”, irrigation boards.

Your English is not so good; your Afrikaans is better.

I am sorry, but I was brought up in an Afrikaans-speaking family and that is why my English is not so good. The hon. the Minister dealt with this question regarding irrigation boards. This is exactly the question that had to be faced by the select committee. One cannot get boards, however good they may be, to exercise the authority and to perform the functions effectively and efficiently all the time. There is always the interplay between persons, personalities and conflicting interests. In this Bill we have taken a certain line and I am sorry that it may not be acceptable to certain people, but the duty we had to do and we discharged in the select committee, was to make certain that as far as possible the irrigation boards functioned much more effectively than they had in the past. Inefficiency and ineffectiveness can lead to a waste of water. We cannot afford waste of water, whether through the inefficiency or the ineffectiveness of an irrigation board or for whatever other reason. The powers are therefore again placed in the hands of the Minister to enable him to take certain steps under certain circumstances, so as to deal efficiently and effectively with the work which an irrigation board may be failing to do. If it is failing in its duties and is unable to do its task the hon. the Minister may step in. I appeal to the irrigation boards, because they are themselves the custodians of this precious element. It is up to them in the interests of South Africa to see that they work efficiently and effectively on the job they have. If a member of an irrigation board cannot do his job efficiently and effectively and if he will not attend meetings and take his share of the responsibility I want to ask him to resign so that somebody else can take his place and get on with the job. That is the only way this matter can be handled if it is not to go back into the hands of the hon. the Minister for him to deal with it. We have this prime resource on which depends the whole of our civilization and in this Bill this has become very marked. This Bill deals with water for industries, the local authorities, irrigation and private farmers.

The hon. the Minister dealt with the question of staff. I understand that the position in regard to this is getting better in the Department of Water Affairs and I am very pleased. I am sure that all of us in Parliament will be pleased if that information is well founded. The staff of the Department of Water Affairs does not only consist of clerical staff. One cannot go out on the highways and byways and find a girl who can type, because she has just left school and has been taught typing, and employ her in the Department of Water Affairs and expect that she can do a job in connection with one of the technical or professional posts, which have to be filled some way or another if the machine is to work efficiently. Vast schemes are undertaken by this department. We will deal with one of these schemes which are being held up, at a later stage. When the time comes we will deal with one of the dams envisaged under the Orange River Scheme, in respect of which a town was built but is standing empty and where the work has been held up for various reasons. The schemes that are undertaken by this department at the moment are enormous and the expenditure runs into countless millions of rand. We want to see these schemes progressing, but they need men behind them. I know that a tremendous burden is placed on the staff as a result of this. The Minister pointed out certain changes in the Act which will permit him to save time and work in his department. We are only too happy to lend him our aid in this regard so that the necessity of producing White Papers and other documents to lay before the House in respect of minor schemes is done away with. Let us save the time and the money and let us hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to attract people who will stay with his department and will be of value because of their technical and professional qualifications. I am sure that in this department any young and ambitious man who really wants to play a part has a very fine opportunity and future in this department, and if he intends to make it his life’s work he will never regret it.

The hon. the Minister also briefly dealt with the question of South-West Africa and one clause of the Bill before us also deals with that territory. To put it widely the position is that at the present time South-West Africa is enjoying certain powers and has certain laws dealing with the question of water affairs in its own territory. These laws can be changed in terms of this measure by way of a proclamation by the State President and provisions of this measure can be made applicable to South-West Africa. This becomes very much an administrative matter and it will be for the hon. the Minister to say, in the fullness of time, in respect of the application of our laws here in the Republic, that they shall apply to South-West Africa or he will hold his hand and leave them with their own laws. In passing I want to say that when we had evidence from the proper official from South-West Africa I think we were all impressed by the difference in the whole of the setup and the physical characteristics of the territory; the different position in so far as population centres are concerned and the difference in regard to not only the climate but also the soil conditions. We did realize that there was a great difference in principle between the situation in South-West Africa and the situation here in the Republic. While the provision is there for the moment South-West Africa is being undisturbed and left with its own laws. In future the hon. the Minister may for some reason or other find that it is necessary to change that, but we hope that he will be slow to act in any respect which will interfere with their own powers and their own capacity as the authority on the spot to deal with their own problems and their own particular difficulties and the local conditions they have to face there.

There is a very bright spot in this Bill so far as certain communities are concerned, and that is as regards groups of farmers, whether organized or otherwise who may be prepared or wish to put in water supply schemes or who may want assistance in terms of the subsidy provisions in the Bill.

The amount of the subsidy has been increased for them. The conditions under which they can get the subsidies are, I think, less onerous. I am just wondering how far our farmers are going to be made aware of the provisions in this Bill before us, of the new conditions under which subsidies can be made available to them for schemes. Perhaps, merely by reason of the fact that this Bill went to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, and that the deliberations of the Select Committee are not public, it is not like a Bill here in Parliament which creates outside interest because of its controversial nature. This is not a Bill like that. There is no controversial angle to this particular Bill. Therefore we do not have the kind of debate which we would have had in the case of a controversial Bill, which receives publicity through the Press, and that sort of thing. If one wants to know how much value even members attach to this important matter, I ask hon. members to look at the House at the present moment. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are dealing with a vital element upon which our whole civilization and our nation rests. [Interjections.] I am sorry, Sir …

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member a chance to deliver his speech.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am beginning to wonder whether I made a truthful statement just now. I said this was a non-controversial measure. Now I am beginning to wonder whether I was not wrong. It seems as though there are certain controversial aspects, after all, although they may not be related to water, except as an additive to some other beverage, and they may be associated with that.

In regard to this particular matter, I say that because the widest publicity in the form of a controversial debate will not be given to this matter, it can well be the case that these provisions, which I think will appeal enormously to groups of farmers right throughout the whole of the farming areas of our country, namely the increased subsidies and probably the simplicity with which application can be made, as well as the fact that application can be brought to fruition in getting these increased subsidies, may not be generally known. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister at this stage in that regard whether possibly some administrative means cannot be found to bring to the notice, perhaps of organized agriculture—I am a great believer in organized agriculture—the provisions of this Bill, dealing with those increased subsidies and the conditions under which application could be made. I am not going to ask that it be made easy for people who waste water. We have no water to waste. Production, the bare necessities of stock, of agriculture, and even in some cases of homesteads themselves, when we experience these droughts, are dependant upon having an assured water supply. The principles in regard to an assured water supply I shall deal with while discussing the Vote. I do not propose to deal with it now. In most cases it may well be the case that the farmer, or the group of farmers who will take thought for the morrow and realize how in this country we have to accept droughts as part and parcel of the ordinary, normal way of life and the lot, of the destiny of the farming community, will say timeously: “We must not rely upon the rain we have had to-day; we must realize that there will be a drought perhaps next year.”

Let us now establish a certain water supply for the household, for our stock, for whatever it may be, in the way of water that is available for the purpose of their homestead and even perhaps irrigation in a lesser or a greater degree. This information I fear is not going to get to the people whom it would assist so much. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to confer with the officials of his Department, perhaps bring in a representative or organized agriculture and find out how best it is possible to disseminate the information to the farmers concerned.

I do not want to keep the House in regard to this Bill. There are only one or two other matters that I would like to deal with very briefly. One is the question of the control of dam sites. That is not immoderate language, it is spelt “d-a-m”. The clause dealing with the reservation of these sites is one which took a great deal of discussion and long debate. A compromise, however, was reached. It was not truly a compromise—it is not the right word—as a compromise seems to indicate that both sides rather gave way on something. It was not a compromise in that sense. It was a unanimous agreement. It was, shall I say, the solution found by the Select Committee. Clause 3 of the Bill, in my opinion, contains the solution to this problem. What we wanted to do in Select Committee was to protect sites suitable for the construction of major conservation dams by the Department from time to time. We are faced with this difficulty. As I have already said, the Department is faced with works running into tens of millions of rand. They have their plans already for a few years ahead. It is not only staff in the Department that is necessary to prepare plans and then to see that they are carried out by the technical and professional people, but you have to have contractors who are prepared to come and build those dams. In South Africa we have gone so far as to even get consortiums from elsewhere to come and lend a hand. We have to have the builders to do the work.

After all, the blueprints, the plans and specifications and everything else have been compiled by our people. But we then want someone to actually do the physical work. However much we may desire to continue to build these enormous conservation dams, which are vitally necessary—it must be remembered that Rome was not built in a day and we cannot simply rush in holus-bolus and build vast numbers of these dams—we have not the resources neither in men, nor in money, nor in the people to actually do the physical work. The Department is, therefore, in the position, that in respect of a particular river a dam site is found where they are satisfied after their investigations that a dam can be constructed which will serve the purpose. And, Sir, dam sites which are going to be available to serve the purpose are not always readily available on some of our rivers, not even on some of our major rivers. I know there is a feeling abroad that anybody can go along and if he finds a bit of bed rock he can build a nice concrete wall on it and construct a dam. That is not the answer to this problem. And nobody would be more criticized than the engineers in charge of such a project, if for any reason the dam itself fails to be efficient and effective for the purpose for which it was designed and constructed. Everybody concerned on the construction side has, therefore, got to be doubly careful. What then was the position of the Department in this matter?

It is vital if we are to continue in the years ahead to build these big conservation dams that the Department must be able to go ahead beforehand, particularly in our bigger rivers, to find a suitable site for the construction of our dams and then to hold it. They do not want to come along afterwards and find that somebody else has used that particular rock dike across a river—an area which might be a suitable base for a dam—and has built a bridge on it because they thought that it was a good place on which to build their concrete piers.

But this is what happens, Sir. Therefore when the departmental officials find spots where a dam can be built, they want to protect those spots, not just for a year or two, because they may not have the money or the resources to build a dam within a year or two. Nor indeed can they determine where development will take place. They naturally have an order of priority according to which certain dams being constructed will be the first called upon to supply water to a certain area they have in mind. Therefore, Sir, there must be a continuing search for sites for the construction of dams for the years ahead. But how to protect those sites so that other developments do not take place precisely where it is proposed to build a dam in the years ahead? Here we find a clash of interests between the people who own the land at the present time and the people who may want to develop in that area. In my own province, as elsewhere, there is always the possibility that someone may establish a private township alongside a river, right in the place where the department proposes to build a dam in years to come. How was this matter to be dealt with? I believe that the solution was found in this particular clause. A solution had to be found because we had to grapple with the possibility of certain farmers, who own such land, possibly having for many years to continue their farming operations, while being prevented from carrying out certain developments they may have wished to do on a particular site because it had been earmarked as a dam site for the future. Such farmers were not paid out. The site had to remain there, earmarked, and held in terms of the law. Sir, as hon. members will see in the new section 59 (4) (b) which is added by clause 3, there is a prohibition on certain developments in a dam basin control area, such as the construction or alteration of a road, building, waterworks or any other work or structure of a permanent nature. However, this is qualified by the following words: “Excluding any activity connected with the ordinary carrying on of farming operations”. The ordinary carrying on of ordinary farming operations is therefore excluded, and such farming operations may be carried out in that area. A farmer, carrying out bona fide farming operations in an area where the department has discovered a dam site, is free to carry on. Why was it necessary to try to protect these dam sites? It was necessary because the department, in the fullness of time, may have found itself being charged an enormous sum in compensation for other developments which have taken place in the meantime. Such other developments could include the laying out of a township. One could find, after the houses in such a township had been built, that the Department would discover that the township had been built on a dam site they had earmarked. The Department might for instance say in 1979: We earmarked that dam site in 1959, 20 years ago. Now look what has happened. It is in the middle of a town. We shall now have to expropriate all these houses. The Department may have to do so because there may not be another suitable site on which a dam can be constructed with certainty and safety for miles and miles. Whom would such a dam supply with water? Such a dam would be built to supply water for the people of South Africa. This is not a hole in the comer business. This is for the benefit of the generality of our people, of all kinds and cultures and colours. It was to prevent this enormous cost of compensation, which might have to be paid in the event of developments taking place on such a dam site, that this provision was included. The question of the control of a dam basin, as it is called here, is to my mind, one of the most important provisions in this Bill.

Does that protect the farmer?

Yes. The prohibition upon development in a dam basin control area is contained in the new subsection (4) (b), but this is qualified by the words “excluding any activity connected with the ordinary carrying on of farming operations”. This proviso permits ordinary farming operations. We did not want to define them too closely, but whatever can be construed as ordinary farming operations which may even necessitate temporary buildings, etc., is excluded from the restrictive provisions of clause 3. There may be some people who will feel that their rights have been reduced again. They may feel that their unrestricted right has been a little curtailed. We are sorry if that is so, but we fall back on the belief, as I have said, that in this matter we are dealing with an element which is fundamental to the existence of our nation. Take away or limit the fresh water supply for South Africa, and you limit the population. You then limit our economic growth, our industrial growth and the growth and existence of our people. Sir, I believe that there will be further amendments. They will be more restrictive. But let us hope that this Bill will itself bring closer to the minds of the general public the need to utilize carefully the water supplies of this country, and to control and to conserve that water.

Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasant privilege to act as Chairman of this Select Committee that had to consider the legislation referred to us by the House. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank all the members of the Select Committee for the dedicated and efficient way in which they did their work on the Committee. I also thank the hon. the Minister for the much appreciated sentiments he expressed about this Committee this evening. On this occasion it is also fitting for me to pay tribute to a very senior official of the Department. The hon. member who spoke before me also referred to him. Very early one morning, just before the Select Committee was to commence its business, he suddenly died of a heart attack. This official had rendered truly outstanding assistance to this Committee. His work was highly appreciated. The Committee sorely missed his assistance during its subsequent deliberations.

Before dealing with the merits of the Bill, I should also like to express my gratitude to the members of the Department who assisted the Committee so admirably, because extremely involved discussions were conducted. Discussions which lasted for many hours were conducted on involved and technical points in the Water Act. Officials of the Department assisted us to a very large extent. The Select Committee found it necessary to amend certain of the clauses in the original Bill referred to it, as it appeared that certain of these clauses could create real problems in practice.

Before I come to that, I should like to refer to one or two matters raised by the hon. member for South Coast. What I want to refer to is that we most definitely are unanimous as regards the whole idea that water in South Africa should become priority number one. This is not the time to go into this matter in detail, but one need only think of the fact that even now we are using more than 60 per cent of our total water resources. Only approximately 40 per cent remains, and our population is going to double itself between now and the year 2000. For this doubling in our population we have at our disposal 40 per cent of our available water resources. Consequently it is really necessary for the importance of proper water conservation and the conservation of our water resources in South Africa to be brought to the attention of the public in and out of season. It is also true that far-reaching staff improvements have been effected in the Department over the past year or 18 months. One has in mind particularly the improvement as regards engineers in the technical division. I think I am correct in saying that approximately 126 students are studying this year at our South African universities on bursaries arranged during the past year by the hon. the Minister and the Department so as to enable them to further their studies as engineers and technical staff. In addition there are other matters, such as hydrological research, etc., which I do not want to deal with in detail now. But the importance of this aspect simply cannot be overemphasized.

I am grateful for the attitude adopted to this Bill by the hon. member who spoke before me. I am also grateful for his cooperation. Since this measure is not a contentious one as a result of which there will be no difference of opinion between us, I regret that I have to upset the expectations the hon. member has for the future to some extent. I am sorry but I cannot see the hon. member ever having the pleasure, even in the most distant future, of discussing water affairs in this House under a United Party Minister of Water Affairs. He simply has to accept that. It will definitely not happen in our lifetime that a United Party Minister of Water Affairs will sit in this House.

The chances are nil.

Yes, as the hon. member for Christiana says, the chances are nil. In any event, as long as the hon. member for South Coast is a member of this House, we shall definitely have positive contributions in the field of water affairs in this House. I am grateful for that.

As far as this Bill is concerned, I am satisfied that the result of the work of the Select Committee, which is before this House at the moment, will, for various reasons, be conducive to more effective water conservation. The first reason is that this Bill, which the hon. the Minister is now submitting to this House, embodies more effective planning than that which was embodied in the 1956 Water Act. It embodies more effective planning in the field of the use of water by local authorities which, inter alia, will now have to consult the Minister first in regard to certain matters under certain circumstances. It embodies more effective planning as far as the proclamation of dam basin control areas is concerned and also as regards control over the use of water and the construction of waterworks in certain public streams and in natural channels.

The Bill this House is considering at the moment will also be conducive to better administration. Better administration is being brought about by means of the further regulation of the activities and the constitution of irrigation boards in that provision is being made for the vesting in the Minister of the control of certain water works belonging to or controlled by irrigation boards. All these things will be conducive to better administration. Another aspect of better administration is that criminal liability in the case of the contravention of certain provisions of the legislation is now being put into operation. This is a positive step in the right direction. Here I have in mind particularly the theft of water and the failure to execute certain works. In the third place this is a positive step as it also contains an important provision in respect of the regulation of the use and the conservation of water in the territory of South-West Africa.

As the hon. member who spoke before me said, this Bill grants the hon. the Minister certain additional far-reaching powers. However, the Select Committee deemed the granting of these powers to the Minister essential in view of the fact that here we were dealing with such an extremely serious matter.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, the new subsection (3) of section 13 is a completely new insertion into the existing legislation. This is a far-reaching provision. This insertion is applicable to new works and the enlargement of existing works under certain circumstances. The hon. the Minister already referred in part to this matter in his Second Reading speech. But another important aspect I Should like to emphasize is this: A municipality draws water from a river for use and then finds at a certain stage that the consumption exceeds the supply. That municipality then goes to the water court and asks for a dam in the river concerned or in a second river in the same area or even for a second dam in the same river. The Department of Water Affairs then finds itself in the position that it has no legal status enabling it to go to the water court to put its objections unless the Department already has an existing Government water scheme situated lower down on the river. Therefore the position is that if the Department goes to the water court with such an application while it has no Government water scheme situated lower down on the river, it has no particular status which can be of assistance to it. If, for example, the council wants to build a dam lower down on such a river, that again interferes with the policy of development as planning in respect of the river is undertaken from the upper reaches downwards. Now the position is, however, that the Minister and the Department of Water Affairs have increased legal status as far as the regulation of these matters is concerned when these matters reach the water court. This principle is already contained in section 11 (3) of the Act. Section 11 (3) is applicable to the industrial use of water. When a town council wants to use more than 50,000 gallons of water per day, a permit first has to be obtained from the Minister of Water Affairs before the Town Council may go to the water court with its request for a larger allocation of water. Therefore this is not a new principle. It is essential, however, for this principle to be embodied in legislation as a means of assisting the Minister and his Department.

An extremely important clause in this Bill is clause 3 which deals with dam basin control areas, to which the hon. member who spoke before me also referred. This is a drastic measure. This is a measure which will most definitely be applied judiciously by the Minister. I can only give the assurance that we are satisfied that this measure as embodied in the Bill at present before this House will produce an absolute minimum of problems. This does not mean, however, that provision has been made in that for all problems. Practice may show in future that changes have to be effected. Problems which arise at this stage and to which we try to find solutions in this Bill are, for example, the question of what the position is in respect of extensions. One may find the case of two farms situated on either side of a hill near an urban area. The urban area is now going to be extended in that direction. Farm A, which is situated nearest the urban area, is developed as a township. Before Farm B, which is situated just over the hill can be developed as a township, however, the area concerned is proclaimed a dam basin control area. If provision had been made otherwise, such a dam basin control area could have been kept in operation for an indefinite period. In that case the owner of Farm B would in fact not have been able to claim compensation in due course for the township he was unable to establish as a result of the proclamation. Serious questions arose with regard to the payment of compensation, questions such as for what kind of damage a person could claim compensation when could his claim arise and, the most serious question of all, when would such a claim become prescribed? Another question which occupied our attention was whether the State could maintain such a proclamation for an indefinite time.

When one considers these questions, it is clear, as the hon. the Minister also indicated, that this drastic measure, as embodied in clause 3, will have to be applied with great circumspection in future, but is, for various reasons, an extremely essential one. One of these reasons for example, is that this clause in its present form will obviate land having to be acquired at absolutely excessive prices at a later stage. Compared to what the prices are at present, for example, the prices would be excessive as a result of an increase in the value of land but mainly as a result of improvements effected on the land concerned in the course of time. Another advantage which arises from this is that the Minister will now be able to expropriate land at a much earlier stage than was possible in terms of existing legislation. What flows from this is that such expropriated land may subsequently be leased to farmers within that proclaimed dam basin control area. Furthermore, the practice we have at present is that it is not possible to commence the acquisition of 1and for the purposes of constructing a dam before a White Paper has been tabled, or, in the case of smaller schemes, before funds have been provided on the Estimates. Details in this connection have already been furnished in this House. The other important aspect to be found in this is that the right of the owner in respect of prescription is now being protected.. In paragraph (d) of the new section 59 (4) it is stated very clearly that any debt coming into existence by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (c) shall not be prescribed.

The hon. the Minister already referred to the permit question. I should just like to refer in passing to the whole problem of irrigation boards. The hon. member who spoke before me dealt more in detail with this matter. I only want to point out one aspect, however, which is not very clear from the Bill and that is that in the event of an equality of votes in the election of a chairman in terms of the provisions of the clause at present applicable to irrigation boards, there are applicable regulations in which provision is made for what procedure is to be followed by the Minister to cope with such an equality of votes. A matter which cannot be over-emphasized either as far as this clause is concerned is that in spite of all the problems created by irrigation boards for the Department and for the Minister and in spite of the fact that a great deal of patience was exercised in the past, as will be exercised in the future, the fact should not be overlooked that all these provisions in respect of irrigation boards were introduced mainly with a view to water conservation in South Africa. That was the main object. In this legislation no punitive measures are being made as far as irrigation boards are concerned. Another important aspect is that it has happened in the case of many irrigation boards that the irrigation board, with the present system of electing members, was dominated by the larger irrigators. The small irrigators did not get their rightful representation on these irrigation boards. The legislation at present under consideration makes provision for proportional representation.

In addition there is another aspect which is of importance. This is as far as clause 8 is concerned. Clause 8 provides that the hon. the Minister may take over certain waterworks under certain circumstances. But what is important here and what should not be overlooked is the fact that the word “may” is used and not the word “shall”. The hon. the Minister does not want to take over these boards or these works permanently. The irrigation farmers and the irrigation boards should keep this in mind. When inefficient boards are taken over, for example, because they are not doing their work and do not want to hold their meetings, and I have already given particulars of this to hon. members, this is done not with the motive of being autocratic but simply and solely in the spirit that if there is any improvement in the situation, the work may be handed back to such a board. In terms of existing legislation the hon. the Minister may also abolish a board if the board is making things difficult for him. Here I am referring to section 95 (2) (iii), as it is applicable at present. The position is in fact that the hon. the Minister may take over the works of a board and may abolish a board. The Minister may also take over its works without abolishing the board, but the important aspect which arises from this is the attitude with which this will happen. If the necessary co-operation exists, those works will be handed back. If the necessary co-operation does exist, no board in South Africa need be the least concerned about the operation of this Act. Another important aspect which arises from this legislation is a matter which may again be argued under the Vote of the hon. the Minister, and that is the increased provision of stock-watering schemes in South Africa. There are very large areas in South Africa which could be used very fruitfully if Government stock-watering schemes could be provided. The subsidy applicable to stock-watering schemes is being increased in terms of this legislation. The subsidies are not being increased with regard to water used for irrigation schemes but for agricultural purposes, including grazing purposes.

Clause 12 is one which on the face of it seems to be drastic as it has the effect that the owner of land who uses Government water or water which is subject to the operation of this Act has very little chance of being acquitted in any prosecution brought against him. But even from this an innocent person has nothing to fear. The provision contained in clause 12 is one which has been in our legislation for many years. The same clause is contained in the Liquor Act, in the Price Control Regulations, which used to be in operation, as well as in the Penal Code. This clause is an extremely essential one because water is being wasted to an alarming extent in South Africa by people who do not want to observe the provisions of the Water Act as they do not want to make the necessary repairs to their canals and do not want to carry out the instructions they receive from their boards, or from the Department or from the Minister. They are criminally liable under certain circumstances. Water is also being wasted to an alarming extent by people who steal water. When one starts talking about cases of water theft, the tales are as legion as those about diamond thefts. I am no authority on the methods applied by them: there are irrigation farmers in this House who may have more knowledge about those methods than I have. Perhaps it is not a good thing to discuss the methods as other people may become more clever. The fact remains, however, that as a result of water theft there is a tremendous wastage of water. Consequently it is necessary for this House to tell those people that they will no longer be able to get away by putting the blame on Piet, Paul and Klaas; now the blame will simply be put on the person responsible in the first plase, i.e. the owner of the land. He must realize that he will have to exercise proper supervision to see to it that his employees carry out the necessary works on his farm. He must also see to it that his employees use only the water to which he is entitled and that he does not use water belonging to another. Although on the face of it this clause may seem very drastic to the layman, the innocent person has absolutely nothing to fear. It is necessary for this clause to be in the Act, and it has been introduced by the Department as it is an essential one in view of the fact that the main object of the legislation is the promotion of water conservation in South Africa.

Clause 13 of this Bill now before this House relates to South-West Africa. This clause is also a particularly important one as in terms of the provisions of this clause the first four sections of the Water Act of 1956 are being made applicable to South-West Africa. The first four sections are extremely important ones. These sections deal, firstly, with the word definitions, secondly, with the powers of the Minister which are set out in detail, thirdly, with the appointment of the Secretary and staff and, fourthly, with the protection of certain rights. The Water Ordinance of South-West Africa is not being repealed by this legislation. There are many reasons for this and the most important one is that the existing Water Ordinance of South-West Africa was drafted on the basis of all the finest provisions in our Water Act; if I am not mistaken, this Ordinance was drafted in 1968. These provisions were taken over and in addition to other fine provisions already applicable to South-West Africa, they were made applicable by means of an ordinance of the Territory itself. The clause as it stands, will also ensure the maintenance of the status quo in South-West Africa until such time as the necessary regulations are promulgated. There is no hurry to promulgate these regulations immediately or to repeal everything in South-West Africa as the existing legislation and the provisions of the regulations provide that this may happen in due course. It is extremely important for this part of the re-adjustment to be effected as well. When one has regard to the fact that the water resources in South-West Africa constitute only one-twenty-sixth of the resources of the Republic, it is essential for the water legislation of South-West Africa to be very strict and to be applied even more strictly than in South Africa. When one has regard to the fact that in the whole of South-West Africa there is not a single permanently flowing stream of water, one realizes why this is necessary. As the hon. the Minister indicated, this legislation is in the spirit of the re-adjustments as set out in paragraph 110 of the memorandum tabled earlier this year. Consequently it is essential for us to proceed with these things in the same spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I have referred in broad outline to a few of the most important provisions of the Bill, and I should like to confirm once again that this Committee, of which I was the Chairman, was convinced, as I am sure this whole House is, that every provision in this legislation is extremely essential because of the urgency of our water position in South Africa and that everything should be put into operation so as to ensure the highest possible degree of success as far as our water conservation endeavours are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on what was said by the last two speakers who discussed this Bill as they have covered it fairly fully and have dealt with the important principles and main clauses. I believe they have covered the subject well. I must say that I believe the hon. the Minister took a step in the right direction when he referred this Bill to a Select Committee. The subject of the Bill in itself, as we know, and as we have heard, is very important, namely the water of our country. A Bill of this kind should follow the lines of long-term planning, and this is something we have needed for a long time. The country has experienced serious droughts during recent years and this resulted in a serious shortage of water over the whole country. It is therefore necessary that we consider long-term planning in this regard to-day, especially in a country such as South Africa where we have an irregular rainfall. While we have an irregular rainfall, we also have a very large catchment area, but this large catchment area again creates problems too. Our storm-water has to be conserved, and it carries a large proportion of silt with it. There is also the problem of a growing population and a growing economy requiring more and more water.

The main provisions of this Bill are to provide for more effective control over the use of our public water supplies and for better planning of future water conservation works. In clause 1, I am satisfied that with the evidence we on the Select Committee were able to collect and with the able assistance and guidance of our officials, we were able to produce a good provision, in that local authorities, provided they seek the permission of the Administrator concerned, and that of the hon. the Minister, are able to tap more than 1 million gallons per day from a public stream. Not only this, local authorities will be able to take water from a public stream on which an owner of land may have riparian rights. What satisfies me is that the local authority concerned shall pay to such owner such compensation as may be agreed upon, or failing agreement, determined by a water court. Dam sites, or dam basin control areas have already been mentioned and I believe the clause relating to this, namely clause 3, is one of the most important clauses of the Bill. I believe it is the crux of the whole matter. It is something which has been a problem for many years. We have so frequently seen that certain areas are developed by the South African Railways as well as the provincial administrations, the construction of railway communications and national roads, buildings and structures too numerous to mention. What I want to impress on this hon. House to-night is that so often we find that when a defined area is declared a “Dam basin Control Area”, this area has to be expropriated at tremendous cost, due to lack of long-term planning.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.