As we indicated at the Second Reading, the only objection that we might have to this clause is the use of the word “pretends” which appears in line 12. Sir, this is a Bill to deal with the suppression of witchcraft and this particular new clause is intended to deal with the witchdoctor himself. As we have indicated, when an offence is that you pretend to be something, the gravamen of that offence is that you pretend in fact to be something which you are not. This reads—

1. (b) in circumstances indicating that he pretends to use any supernatural power, witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration …

The implication, if one uses the word “pretends” in this context, is that if you in fact do use or can use supernatural powers or witchcraft or sorcery or enchantment then you are not guilty of an offence. The hon. the Minister has indicated that this word does appear elsewhere in the Act, and he is right. But section 1 of the Act which is here being amended, refers to “imputes to any other person the use of supernatural means, employs or solicits any witchdoctor,” etc., which is significant in the sense that there is an acknowledgment that there is a witchdoctor, which is very realistic because there are witchdoctors. But if you solicit a witchdoctor to name or indicate any person as a wizard, then you commit an offence; in other words, we acknowledge that there is in fact a witchdoctor. Then the new section 1 (d) uses the words “professes a knowledge of witchcraft, or the use of charms, and advises any person how to bewitch, injure, or damage any person or thing” etc. I think the word that should be used here is not “pretend” but the word “professes” which appears in the present subparagraph (c) of section 1 of the Act. Sir, I say that for the reasons that I have indicated and appreciating the difficulties in which the State is obviously involved in trying to prove an offence of this nature. But this is an amendment which, it seems to me, is getting at the witchdoctor himself. It seems to me that what we are really trying to say is that any person who is a witchdoctor—we acknowledge in other parts of the Act that there are people known as witch doctors—or any person who says he is a witchdoctor, commits an offence if he in fact imputes the disappearance of any person or the injury to property to any particular person. He does so because of the fact that he is a witchdoctor, not by pretending to be one; he is in fact a witchdoctor. What we are trying to stop, it seems to me, is a witchdoctor in fact doing the things that he does. He does not pretend to have these powers; he is acknowledged by the community to have these powers. Indeed our law acknowledges that there is such a person whom the community believes does have these powers, inasmuch as we use the words “witchdoctor”, “witch-finder” etc., in this Act. It seems to me, as the hon. the Minister has correctly said, that in Afrikaans you do not have this trouble because in the Afrikaans text it says, “in omstandighede wat daarop dui dat hy voorgee dat hy van bonatuurlike mag … gebruik maak”. So it is not a pretence; it is a profession; he professes or gives out that he does, and I think the correct word to use is “professes” as used in the present section 1 (c). I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would accept an amendment in that form? If he would, then we will move such an amendment.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has a problem with regard to the word “pretend”. We should satisfy ourselves as to the meaning of the word “pretend”. It is a derivation of the Latin word “praetendere”, and according to the accepted definition of the word “pretend” in the Oxford Dictionary, it has various meanings, i.e.—-

Sir, the English translation for the Afrikaans word “voorgee” can either be “profess” or “give out” or “pretend”. I feel that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has overlooked the fact that here we are dealing with two things: The first of these is where a man pretends that he has supernatural powers to cause injury to someone else and the second is where he does not pretend that he is that kind of person or that he has that kind of power, but in fact, is that kind of person or has that kind of power. We all use the words “witchdoctor”, “wizard”, etc., but what the hon. the Minister has in mind with this amendment to the Act is to make an offence of the “pretence” on the part of a person that he has supernatural powers to involve a third person in this way. That is what we have in mind here, and for that reason I cannot share the problem of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, i.e. that the word “pretend” is not applicable in this regard. Indeed, here it must be applicable so that one may differentiate between “pretend” and “profess”, as stated in paragraph (d).

Sir, the hon. member for Christiana has not understood the point made by the hon. member for Durban (North). He suggests that there has to be a difference in wording between the word used in the proposed amendment, which is “pretends”, and the word used in the present section 1 (c), which is “professes”. This is not the case. In both these clauses the suggestion is that the person concerned is “putting out” something, to use another expression; he is putting out either a knowledge of witchcraft or the existence of a supernatural power or something of that sort. In the Afrikaans version of these two clauses the same word is used, namely “voorgee”, i.e. “voorgee dat hy van bonatuurlike mag”, etc., in the one case, and “voorgee dat hy oor kennis van toorkuns beskik”, in the other case. The same word is used in both. On that basis it is very difficult to see what justification there is for a translation of the same word in different ways in different clauses. In fact, I would suggest that purely from the point of view of the normal rules of interpretation of statutes, it is undesirable that a statute should be so worded that on the one hand in Afrikaans one has the same word and on the other hand in English there are two different words. I suggest that it is in the best interests of the proper interpretation of a statute that if the same word is going to be used in Afrikaans, the same word should likewise be used in English. And I suggest that the correct word to use in these circumstances is “professes”. I do not want to labour the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban (North), but there is an important difference in English, as the hon. the Minister will readily appreciate and concede, between the word “pretending” and the word “professing”. One can pretend something which one is not. Therefore, as the hon. member for Durban (North) has pointed out, under a charge in terms of the clause which is now being introduced, it would be a good defence to such a charge for the accused to say: I am not pretending that I am exercising supernatural powers or witchcraft or sorcery; I am exercising supernatural powers; I am a witchdoctor. That would be a good defence under the section as presently worded and that is not what is intended to be achieved by this amendment, whereas if the word “professes” is introduced instead of “pretends”, that situation cannot arise. The accused cannot put up the defence that he is in fact exercising supernatural powers, because that is what the offence is, if the wording is changed, namely “to profess” to use supernatural powers. So I do think that this is a valid criticism of the proposed clause and I think the hon. the Minister should agree to alter the word “pretends” to “professes”.

Our problem is that the word “voorgee” in Afrikaans has two meanings, of course, and that the hon. members want to translate it into English with the word “professes”, whereas the word “pretends” is used in this clause. I went into this position very carefully with the law advisers, because they, after all, are the people who have to guide us. As I indicated yesterday, they drew my attention to the fact that the word also appeared in the new subclause (e), which reads: “On the advice of any witchdoctor, witch-finder or other person or on the ground of any pretended knowledge of witchcraft”; and in the new subclause (f), which reads, “for gain pretends to exercise or use any supernatural power”. This is an extremely difficult matter, but as I see the position, it simply amounts to this: If a charge is laid against a person it does not matter a great deal whether he has “pretended” or whether he has “professed”. Then it is a question of What has occurred. The witness will say,”1 was present; the accused threw bones, covered them with a cloth, and mumbled to himself. Then he indicated so and so as the one who had allegedly caused the injury, and my impression of that was that he was giving out to have supernatural powers”. That is how it will be put to the court, and if it is put to the court in that way, I really do not believe it would matter a great deal whether he was “pretending” or whether he was “professing”. I have to abide by the advice of the law advisers, and in view of the wording in other clauses as well as the explanation I have just given, I am afraid, although I am prepared to discuss the matter again, that I cannot accept an amendment to this effect.

I think the hon. the Minister conceded in the Second Reading that this was a semantic problem in English only, and not in Afrikaans. It is quite clear from the Afrikaans text, as I understand it, what is sought to be achieved. But by using the word “pretend” one introduces, as I have indicated, another element. Let us first get clear who this is getting at. This is getting at the witchdoctor himself. All the other sections of the Act do not deal directly with the witchdoctor. What one is saying is that if a person in fact points out—as happens all the time—someone as being the cause of someone’s illness or death or injury to property, he is committing an offence. Now the person who does that is the witchdoctor. Say you are defending someone who is charged with this offence under this clause and that the English version of this Act is signed. If there is a difference between the two, then the first point you would take as a lawyer is that he is not “pretending” to be a witchdoctor; he is a witchdoctor.

He pretends to have supernatural powers.

No. I will deal with that. The hon. the Minister dealt with two aspects which he says the law advisers have dealt with. In the first place he points to the new section 1 (e), which says—

There again appears the word “pretended”. But the significance is the word “or”. If you in fact on the advice of a witchdoctor cause to be put into operation any process which in accordance with such advice is calculated to injure or damage any person or thing, you commit an offence; or if, of your own pretended knowledge of witchcraft, you do something which is calculated to injure or damage any person or thing, you are guilty of an offence. In other words, if you do it on the advice of a witchdoctor you commit an offence. If you do it because you pretend that you in fact have the knowledge of a witchdoctor, you commit an offence. In other words, we acknowledge in that clause that the witchdoctor can say it and if you act on his advice you commit an offence; but if you pretend, without going to the witchdoctor, that you have that power, then you also commit an offence, if you act on your pretence. We recognize that there are two different things, that an ordinary member of the kraal can pretend something and then he commits an offence if he acts on what he pretends. But he also commits an offence if in contradistinction to his pretension that he has that power, he acts on the advice of a witchdoctor who, in contradistinction to him, does not pretend. That is the context of the new section 1 (d). A distinction is made between a witchdoctor and a man who pretends that he is a witchdoctor. Then in section 1 (e) of the existing Act, to which the Minister also referred, provision is made that any person who—

commits an offence. Does not the wording of this indicate the sort of legislation we have, for example, in respect of leases where attorneys are protected in the sense that they only are permitted to draw up leases? However, other people may also draw up leases provided they do not do it for gain. This is what we are trying to get at here. Here we have the missing link in the legislation for the suppression of witchcraft which does not get at the witchdoctor directly. One cannot say of a recognized witchdoctor, and I say, “recognized” advisedly because these people are recognized as such in the community in which they operate, that he “pretends”. If the Afrikaans text of this legislation is going to be signed, then we would know exactly where we are. If in English, then we have the position where any man pretending to be a with doctor can say he is a witchdoctor and that everyone in the community recognizes him as such.

It is not the denial of being a witchdoctor but of using supernatural powers.

Yes, but how does one prove that he has supernatural powers? Everyone in the community will come along, as they will, and say: “That is the man; he is the witchdoctor; he has got supernatural powers; we put in stakes where he said and lightning did not strike my hut,” and so on. Well, how does one say whether he has supernatural powers except by establishing it by evidence? He himself will say that he does not pretend to have such powers but would refer to his community who says that he does have such powers. Surely, what we are trying to do here is to get at the witchdoctor whom the community recognizes as being a witchdoctor and as having supernatural powers. And what we ought to say is that if he “professes” that he does have such powers, and not “pretends” that he does have those powers. Then if he professes to have those powers he will be committing an offence in the context of this. This is the difference. In that case you charge him with contravening this in the Afrikaans text and then call the community who will confirm that he is the fellow who professes to exercise these powers and that in fact they went to him because they believed he had those powers. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the following amendment which I now move—

Are you not bone-throwing with words now?

Mr. Chairman, as this is the Committee Stage and has to be followed by the Third Reading, I am prepared to consult the law advisers once again in this regard. Without accepting the hon. member’s amendment, I am prepared to move that we report progress and ask for leave to sit again. In that case, however, I should like to have the assurance from the Opposition that we shall be able to proceed with the Third Reading immediately after the Committee Stage has been taken.

Mr. Chairman, I think we can give the hon. the Minister that assurance. I should also like him to ask the law advisers what objection they have to the word “profess”. The hon. the Minister has consulted the law advisers in this regard. I should like to refer him to the new paragraphs (d) and (e) of the proposed section 1. In paragraph (d) mention is made of a person who “professes” a knowledge of witchcraft, or the use of charms. If it does not make any difference whether a person professes or pretends a knowledge of witchcraft the word “pretends” would have been used in the original Act because it has the same implications as it has in the new paragraph (b) which the Minister is proposing. The offence is the same. When a person professes a knowledge of witchcraft, he in fact says that he has a knowledge of witchcraft. In the original Act it is not said that he pretends to have a knowledge of witchcraft because there is a difference between the words “pretends” and “professes”. That is why “professes” is used in the original Act. In the new paragraph (b) which is proposed, the implications are the same. Such a person professes to use witchcraft, etc. That is what we want to get at. We want to get at the man who says: “I am going to use witchcraft.” I submit that the word “professes” in paragraph (d) is used for the same purpose as it should be used in the proposed paragraph (b). Paragraph (e) reads as follows:

Here the word “pretended” means something different. In this case it is not the witchdoctor, but another person, the person who pretends knowledge of witchcraft. I should like the hon. the Minister to bear this in mind. He should ask the law advisers what the objection is to the word “professes”. I submit that if the word “professes” is used, there should be no objection. That is why I do not understand why the hon. the Minister cannot use the word “professes” and satisfy this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, before the matter is concluded, I should like to draw to the hon. the (Minister’s attention further arguments for his consideration and for the consideration of his legal advisers before to-morrow. This is relating to the two paragraphs to which he drew the attention of the House, namely the present (d) and (e) which are to become (e) and (f) when the amendment is passed. The hon. the Minister drew attention to both these paragraphs in which the word used is “pretend”. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that it would be unfortunate if, when these original clauses were discussed, this particular aspect may inadvertently have been overlooked and that because of that a mistake should be perpetuated. That is the first argument I should like to advance for the hon. the Minister’s consideration. Secondly, I should like to draw his attention to the Afrikaans word used in paragraph (d), which is to become paragraph (e). This paragraph reads as follows:

I suggest that in regard to the word “beweerde” an inaccurate translation has been given in the English. “Beweer” suggests an allegation. Such a person is “alleging” knowledge of witchcraft, not “pretending” knowledge of witchcraft. Therefore, even in (d) as it stands at the moment, I think the word “pretended” is wrongly used. Rather than perpetuate the mistake that has previously been made, I think it would be far preferable to change the word “pretend” in the proposed amendment and also to change “pretend” in the other two paragraphs.

As I have indicated, with a view to considering the amendment, I am prepared to move that progress be reported and that leave be asked to sit again. In the circumstances I should like to have the assurance from the Opposition that we may proceed with the Third Reading immediately after the Committee Stage has been taken.

Chairman directed to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Mr. Chairman, as we indicated during the Second Reading debate yesterday we have no objection to the Bill as a whole. There is just one aspect in clause 1 to which we wish to give consideration. I indicated that we have had the advantage of hearing the hon. the Minister’s argument in the Other Place, as we have just had the Hansard relating to it. Clause 1 (a) proposes the deletion of paragraph (c) of section 10 (1) of the Supreme Court Act. Section 10 (1) (a) provides—

Subsection (1) (c) provides—

Prima facie there seems to be no good reason why in appointing a Judge in South-West Africa one should not consult with the Administrator in South-West Africa. This means a consultation with the Administrator in Executive Committee, in other words with the persons who are elected in South-West Africa, who know about South-West Africa and whose advice would obviously be valuable to the hon. the Minister. Now, Act 25 of 1969, namely the South-West Africa Affairs Act, in section 19 provides as follows—

Now, one of the scheduled matters to which this refers is contained in paragraph (2) of the schedule of the Act, which refers to “the administration of justice, including matters relating to legal practitioners” and so on.

The hon. the Minister’s argument, as I understood it—I may not have understood it correctly—was that because of this provision the reference to the Administrator now fell away. He said that it was in fact redundant and that he was now required to consult with himself. It seems to us that this is in fact not the position. Inasmuch as he is required to consult, the State President was required to consult before the passing of the South-West Africa Affairs Act with the Administrator of South-West Africa before appointing a Judge to the Division of South-West Africa. Our submission is that this part of the Act does not affect this at all. This refers only to the administration of the affairs of the Territory relating to the scheduled matter of “Justice”. The hon. the Minister’s power is not impaired at all in respect of the appointment of Judges. The Supreme Court Act gives the power to the State President to appoint those Judges obviously on the advice and with the guidance of the hon. the Minister of Justice. His administration in this respect is therefore unimpaired. It is left unimpaired by section 19 of the South-West Africa Affairs Act of 1969.

In the exercising of his powers when administering those matters which he continues to do, he is however required in terms of the Supreme Court Act merely to consult with the Administrator of South-West Africa. May I say that it is an important matter that in appointing Judges to various divisions one should have regard to the division in which that Judge is to be appointed. I suppose that of all our divisions South-West Africa is the most peculiar, not in the sense of being odd, but in the sense of being different from any other division, and that in appointing a Judge to the South-West Africa division one could not be better guided, inasmuch as one seeks advice, than by the members of the Administrator in Executive Committee in South-West Africa, as they are the elected executive of the representatives of the people in the Legislative Assembly.

It does seem to us that this in no way affects the right of the hon. the Minister to administer the affairs of justice, including the appointment of Judges. All that is required is that he consult with the Administrator. This in no way impairs his power to appoint. He may disregard entirely the advice which he gets but he must consult. It seems to us that this is a reasonable point and knowing the hon. the Minister as a reasonable person in this regard, I am sure that he would be only too delighted to consult with persons who have knowledge of that area and the suitability of senior counsel to be appointed in that area. These persons would have that knowledge which under the circumstances we in the Republic cannot have in respect of that area. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will not press this amendment inasmuch as it does not affect his power but does give to the people of South-West Africa at least the opportunity of telling the hon. the Minister what they feel about any appointment he wishes to make to the Bench there.

Mr. Chairman, whether I accept this amendment or not, the position will remain exactly the same. This is only a redundancy here. With the passage of the South-West Africa Affairs Act last year we already created the position that the Minister of Justice is under no obligation to consult with the Administrator. This is already the legal position to-day, and this provision is redundant. I shall tell hon. members why. When we passed the South-West Africa Affairs Act last year, wé did two things as far as the administration of justice is concerned. Firstly, we made the administration of justice a scheduled matter. In other words, the administration of justice is a matter which rests with the Minister of Justice of the Republic of South Africa. Secondly, we added a further stipulation. We said that any reference to the Administrator in any Act which is applicable in South-West Africa—and the Supreme Court Act is applicable in South-West Africa—must be construed as being a reference to the Minister concerned.

Where is that provided?

Section 19 (2) of the Act makes provision for this. In other words, we now have the position that an Act is already applicable there and that the Minister of Justice has to consult himself before making an appointment in South-West Africa. That is why I say the position has already been brought about. We are merely removing a redundancy in the Supreme Court Act. This is what is happening here.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was, under what may at times have been unparliamentary conditions of thirst, demonstrating the reasons why this legislation is unacceptable to this side, and why, under certain circumstances, it will be unenforceable. What is perhaps being overlooked, when one considers this legislation, is that there is a new status symbol in Johannesburg to-day. Among the industrialists, the mining magnates and the businessmen, the new status symbol is not a Rolls-Royce or a Mercedes-Benz. It is a bushveld farm. These people are rich and clever. They have a lot of know-how. What I did not find in the Bill was a definition of a company, or any provision which prohibits a company from purchasing an economic unit. This Bill, as it stands here, is wide open under these circumstances. It is admitted on both sides of this House that the speculator is really the person who has to be kept in check However, what is there to prevent the speculator from purchasing an economic unit of approximately 2,500 morgen at Bronkhorstspruit and selling shares to a hundred other persons so that each one of them has to farm on an uneconomic unit of 25 morgen? There is nothing in this legislation which prohibits that In my opinion, this legislation and any legislation of this nature is supposed to be aimed at the speculator, and not at the farmer. What does happen with this legislation which is being discussed to-day is that the trained, the educated, the practising bona fide farmer is being discriminated against. He is being discriminated against in this respect that there is interference in respect of his legacies and his estate. To return to companies now, what prevents a father who is farming with his sons on an economic basis, from handing over his shares to his sons in his will? What prevents those sons from doing what has been done in the past and bringing other persons, such as sisters for example, into the company? There is nothing in this legislation to prevent that.

We are now discussing the subdivision of land. This legislation is wide open for any man who wants to subdivide. The owners are not stipulated, and that is why I see the legislation as being completely unenforceable. I am not a jurist, but I have acquired a little wisdom because I grew up in the depression years. As I see this legislation to-day, it is nothing but a motion of no confidence in the farmer of South Africa to-day. Hon. members may say here that organized agriculture is in favour of it, but I wonder whether they really are in favour of it. Everyone in organized agriculture to-day admits that something must be done to place our farming on a sound footing. This has been proved to us by the drought, the drop in the wool prices, and the fluctuating market. The specific subdivision of Land has just about nothing to do with that. If legislation which is so full of holes is brought before this House a Mannetjies Roux will be able to run through it and score a try under the posts. I see it as a total motion of no confidence in the practising farmer of to-day. The farmer in South Africa has changed under the pressure of the past years. The incompetent farmer has left the rural areas and settled in the suburbs of the large cities and has found work in the industries. Some of them were quite good farmers. Those who are on the farms to-day, are trained farmers, farmers who know their business and farmers who, under the right circumstances, can all farm economically. Until there is something which definitely controls the speculator, and until there is something which can make the position of the farmer himself; economic, we cannot accept such legislation. This is proof, and everyone in this House admits it, of the shortage of technicians in our agriculture to-day. There is a shortage of veterinary surgeons, a shortage of extension officers, and so on. If there were enough of them to assist the farmer or to give him economic advice, we could perhaps have continued on an economic basis, but the fact remains that this emergency legislation before us to-day, proves what a desperate situation the State and the Government are in. This desperate situation is that they do not know what to do next with the farmer in South Africa. We on this side of the House cannot accept the legislation, and for this reason I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park.

Mr. Speaker, like his colleagues, the hon. member for Albany tried to make a mountain out of a molehill. He is correct in his standpoint that nothing in this Bill prohibits certain people from forming a company, with few or many shareholders, or prohibits the company as such from taking transfer of a farm. However, that is as far as my agreement with the hon. member goes. It is not so that those people may then go ahead and build as much as they like, place as many people there as they like and carry on as they want to. They cannot subdivide the land according to their likes. The 1937 Act is there to prohibit this, as is the Soil Conservation Act. I am certain that if the position is not corrected by that Act, and if abuses still occur, legislation will be introduced to plug those loopholes as well. The hon. member for Albany must now excuse me, because I quickly want to give my attention to the main speaker on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Newton Park.

The hon. member for Newton Park tried to belittle the basic motives, the problems and the background which form the basis of this Bill. In the first place he referred scornfully to “so-called investigations”. In addition he also said the following: “The Report on Eruopean Occupancy of the Rural Areas mentioned the problem and singled out certain parts of the Northern Transvaal in particular”. Here we have an example of a typically United Party trick, diminishing the problem by keeping silent about it. Why did the hon. member not take the trouble to quote us die entire chapter 21 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into European Occupancy of the Rural Areas? Why did the hon. member not read us paragraph 478 about the irrigation areas in our country, in which it is stated that 50 per cent of all farms are uneconomic? In paragraph 479, “The Highveld Area”, it is stated that more than 20 per cent of the farmers own less than 100 morgen. In paragraph 481, “The Drakensberg Grazing Area”, it is stated that 50 per cent of all farms are already smaller than 500 morgen. In paragraph 486, “The Cattle Grazing Areas”, it is stated that more than 30 per cent of the farms are between 101 and 1,000 morgen, with half of that group smaller than 500 morgen. I am now coming nearer to the hon. member’s area. In paragraph 487, “The Sheep Grazing Areas”, it is stated that it is surprising to find that nearly one quarter of the 12.000 Karoo farmers still operate on farms from 101 to 1,000 morgen. It is also stated that even with wool prices as high as those in 1951, farms of 1,000 morgen or less could hardly yield a remunerative income. Why did the hon. member not mention all these cases which are also mentioned in the Commission’s report? Why did the hon. member not read paragraph 525 of the Commission’s report as well, which recommends “that active steps be taken to consolidate uneconomic units and to prohibit the subsequent occurrence of such units”. Then the hon. member would have given a very honest indication of the background to the problem to which this legislation directly relates.

But the hon. member for Newton Park made the following ridiculous statement: “Sir, a person’s last wish has always been regarded with the greatest respect, and thus far no sound argument has been advanced either on the committee or before the Commission or by the hon. Minister as to why a farmer’s testamentary disposition must first be submitted to the Minister before it can be valid.” The hon. member for Newton Park makes a poor showing in agricultural debates in this House. But I want to say that if he ventures into the field of legal opinion it is catastrophic. Clause 5 of this particular Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of a will or a testation. Neither does it interfere at all with the validity of intestate succession. All that clause 5 provides for is the way in which testamentary dispositions of land shall be transferred to heirs, whether in the actual transfer of the land or in the realization of the land and the transfer of liquid assets. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of wills. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Minister first having to be consulted about a will or its validity.

I now want to deal further with clause 5 of the Bill, which is concerned with the case where a will does, in fact, exist and where there is going to be an uneconomical division of land which the Minister does not approve. As the hon. member for Albany rightly said, the children could then form a company which could then accomplish the transfer of that land. But, as I have already said, the 1937 Act regulates the occupation of that land. What could happen, in addition, if that testation would amount to the uneconomic division of the land, is that that land is realized, but division takes place in terms of the will in the same ratio in which the land was apportioned. There is therefore the minimum of difficulty and inconvenience for the heirs in such a case.

But, Sir, while I am dealing with clause 5. I do want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister that a little elasticity be given to this clause, and that in the Committee Stage he should consider giving a little more relief there.

What do you find wrong now?

The hon. member is interrupting me now. I am not trying to be negative like he is; I am trying to be positive and to help improve the Act.

I want to refer here to the French system. For example, under this system an heir has up to 15 years in which he is given a chance to buy out his co-heirs. This period is very definitely too long for our conditions, but as clause 5 reads at present it means that where subdivision will be uneconomical it will be the duty of the executor, where the one child who is a farmer wants to remain on the land—the other children are, for example, professional men, and are not interested in farming—to realize that land and to share out the money. I am now asking the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it would not be possible to protect that child who would like to remain on the land and purchase the whole property, by granting him a reasonable period in which to find the money with which to buy out his coheirs? I am thinking here of a period of two or three years.

Is that not in the Administration of Estates Act?

With all respect, I believe not. The hon. the Deputy Minister may investigate the position himself, but because it relates specifically to this Act I think it should be added here. He may tell me, however, if I am wrong. As the Bill now reads the co-heirs could force the executor to settle the estate within the minimum period laid down by the Administration of Estates Act, and this could mean that the one heir who wanted to remain on the land could be forced to vacate it.

Sir, throughout the protestations of Opposition members who have already spoken, runs the refrain that this legislation is too drastic in nature. I can understand their problem. At this stage they will clutch at anything in order to say that legislation is drastic, solely with a view to the provincial election. I want to tell them a little about what the present position is in a modern Western country such as France. In August, 1960, France passed the so-called “Orientation Law”. Part of this legislation comprises the appointment of an agency called Safer. This agency is, inter alia, entrusted with the consolidation of uneconomic units, and for this purpose it also has a pre-emptive right on land. I want to quote some information about this system from Foreign Agriculture of the 22nd May, 1967, in which it is stated, inter alia—

Sir, here we have a modern Western country. To a large extent they were fast asleep until I960, before they passed legislation, and then they had to pass the most far-reaching legislation imaginable. They even went as far as also restricting business men and industrial people in respect of the purchasing of land. Does the Opposition want us to accept this reasonable legislation before us, or do they also want us to remain fast asleep, like France, for another ten years or so, and then eventually inherit such a lamentable position that we have to pass the same far-reaching legislation? The Opposition is unfortunately not as far-sighted as their predecessors were. In 1947 we had a United Party Government in power with a little foresight, and that Government passed the Natural Resources Act, which contains provisions more or less similar in nature to those of this Bill. Not a single speaker on that side has any objection to that law, which they themselves made. I now want to say that hon. members of the Opposition continually juggled with all the supposed problems that the implementation of the Act would entail in this connection, but since 1947 I have been living under the restrictions of this Act, because I am farming near the Free State gold fields. During these 23 years I have been a practising attorney, a farmer and a member of Parliament, and this Act has functioned exceptionally well for the very simple reason—and that the Opposition does not see …

What more do you want then?

I shall come to that in a moment. It is a relatively simple way of letting this legislation work and succeed, and that is how the Act has worked here throughout the years. For a certain region one sets a certain norm for the size of the land. If there is a radical, or even a small deviation from that norm, one orders an ad hoc inquiry and one determines why there is a deviation from the norm, why there has been a request for a smaller subdivision. Then the applicant comes along and says: Here I do not only have 200 morgen of arable land, but I am requesting the subdivision of 100 morgen because I have extensive irrigation possibilities. Then it is investigated and granted or rejected. And in the 23 years on the Free State gold fields we have not had a single case where the Department has been unreasonable, and in my eight years as a member of the House of Assembly I have not had a single complaint about the implementation of the Act either. And all that is now, in fact, happening is that the provisions of the old Natural Resources Act are being made applicable throughout the country, and as far as agricultural land is concerned its application is being transferred to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services instead of the Department of Planning. Why should this not be the case? Hon. members opposite complained a great deal about the manpower shortage. What happened in the past under the Natural Resources Act and the Physical Planning Act? The Department of Agricultural Technical Services had, in any case, to give the Department of Planning advice about whether an application was justified or not. We are now just taking a shortcut, and instead of this Department now having to advise another Department’s Minister, it advises its own Minister. I want to say that I take the strongest exception to having been controlled by a United Party Act for 23 years, while the United Party will now not allow other parts of the Republic, where their constituencies are, to fall under this control.

There was a lot of talk here about ecological classifications and other types of classification which must first be made before this Act could be properly implemented. I just want to point out to the House that as far back as 1937 Dr. Neethling made an agro-economic classification of the whole Republic which could serve as a basis for the classification of the Republic for the purposes of the implementation of this Act.

I just want to make one additional remark before I resume my seat. I want to say that I welcome this legislation wholeheartedly and with acclamation, but because it is an Act which contains only prohibitions, it is, from the nature of the matter, only the extremely necessary but negative side of the matter. The positive side of the matter is, of course, consolidation of uneconomic units. I realize that I shall be outside the scope of this measure if I speak about that, but I nevertheless want to express a single thought about that. I want to advocate that serious attention be given in future to the question of consolidation. I want to ask whether we could not profitably study the French system, where they have a Safer agency which expressly takes the initiative upon itself and has a pre-emptive right in order to bring about consolidation. The Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit are institutions which are saddled with this, but in no case do they take the initiative. Therefore I would appreciate it if proper attention could also be given to this positive aspect.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just sat down seems to find a lot of good in this and also something which he can criticize in it. He was critical of members who did not refer to the report of the committee which sat on this matter for a long time. But I shall not deal with that report either. The subdivision of agricultural land in the Republic is a matter of very long standing. It is one which has given cause to a great deal of thought by many of our best intellects in South Africa. Very often I think the easy way out is to pay lip service to the principle that we want to stop the subdivision of good agricultural land. Agricultural land is subdivided for many different purposes. We have the trouble with the Railways, and we have trouble with roads, with urban development and other encroachments.

I thought you would never talk about Railways in your life again. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed; he need take no notice of these interruptions.

Mr. Speaker, with due respect to you, may I say, many a true word is spoken in jest? The position is that we now have to deal with the position as it is in 1970. We have had it in the past and we have had changing conditions. The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the rigidity of clause 5. What worries me is the rigidity of the entire concept. In the abstract, as an idea, it is good that we prevent the subdivision of good agricultural land to below a point where it is an economic unit. As an abstract thought it is good but when you go along and try to put this idea within the four corners of a statute, you make it rigid and land yourself in trouble. Conditions are not the same all over South Africa. Furthermore, it has already been said from this side of the House that there is no definition of an economic unit. We are fortunate in having a practical farmer as our Deputy Minister of Agriculture, a man who himself is used to dealing with farming matters and who has the concepts of fanners at his fingertips. There is, therefore, not only no such definition, but until we find such a definition the legislation such as we have will fail. I want to go back to the days when the Illovo farms in Zululand were cut up for ex-servicemen for sugar production. If my memory serves me correctly, these farms were cut up into 125 acre lots. The variety of sugar cane grown then and the difficulties of transport and the price led to the story amongst the other well-established farmers that this was the slum area for the new sugar cane farmers. The belief was that on the economics, which could be proved from the farmers’ books, a lot as large as 125 acres could not give a farmer a living. To-day, however, these people have a larger private aero club than anyone else in the Republic—these same people. That then was the size of the land. It was all good land and these were not sub-economic holdings when originally cut up, holdings which have since become economic holdings. Sugar was the crop then and sugar is the crop now. What has changed, is the circumstances. Let me give the House another example also in connection with sugar production which has been brought to my notice. If hon. members go to Mauritius they will see land below the mountains there which was so covered with stones and rocks that it was unfit for any kind of agricultural activity whatsoever. That was the position some 78 years ago. Meanwhile, however, the price of sugar went up in the world market and the good folk in Mauritius set to work. They moved millions of tons of stone, and a great deal of it by hand labour, in the absence of mechanical labour in those days. They built greater stone walls than in any other country of the world so as to get the stone out of the soil in order to cultivate it. The result was that they were able to produce some of the finest crops of sugar on some of the most highly priced sugar land in the world, from time to time and as the price of sugar went up. When the price falls, the price of the land drops, and as it rises, so does the price of the land. This is one of the things we are faced with from this side of the House in trying to take a strictly objective view of the object we have in mind, i.e. the cutting up of agricultural land into sub-economic units.

But what of the farmer himself? There is many a piece of uneconomic land with the wrong farmer. If you put on that identical piece of land the right farmer, it proves to be economic. You recall no doubt the tale of the American who with virtually no money went to the State department to ask for some land. They told him that if he wanted good quality land, he would have to pay a good price; on the other hand, if he wanted poor quality land, he could get it for next to nothing. He asked them to give him the poor quality land for next to nothing. He said he had a brain, strong arms, ability and he would get stuck into it. The story goes that after a few years that farm became the centre of a vast concourse of practical farmers who used to come to his farm to see what he had done with it, how he, out of desert and eroded land had built up this marvellously producing farm. One day he was showing a group of people around. When they came to a particular field he showed them a photograph of what the field looked like when he started on it. It was all desert, scrub and thorn. “That is how it was when I got it; you see how it is now,” he said. Amongst the group was a predikant who said, “With the help of the Lord”. “Yes,” the farmer said, “I did it with the help of the Lord”. When they got to the next field the same thing happened Again the predikant said “With the help of the Lord”. “Yes”, he said, ’’with the help of the Lord”. This repeated itself when they got to every other field. At the end of it the farmer took his photographs, laid them out on a table and said: “Ladies and gentlemen, that is what the farm looked like when the Lord did not have me to help Him”. So, you have one kind of farmer and another kind of farmer. This goes to file root of our farming problems in South Africa. My hon. friend who sat down just now referred with a good deal of appreciation to legislation existing in the Free State. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Government would not be well advised to leave this matter with the provinces. They already have certain powers. I think they would be well advised to leave it there. Let the Government consult with the provinces, give them additional powers if they want it and leave it in their hands. The hon. the Minister is taking on a big hedgehog. He is taking it willingly into his own arms. He might be well advised to hand it to somebody else and let them get on with the job. I think they may still be able to do just as good a job as he will be able to with the powers that he is seeking here.

There is another point I should like to come to. To-day with the rising economy in certain sections of our population there is a burning desire in the minds of ordinary people to own a piece of land. You find this all over South Africa. There are those who want a little bit of land down at the seaside or on a stream or up in the mountains. There are thousands of people to-day who want a piece of land which will be their own land on which they can build houses and which they may call their own. People want to get away from the town over week-ends and go out to their…

Holiday homes.

You may call it a holiday home. That may be a good name for it.

Do you want our agricultural land to be cut up for holiday homes?

My hon. friend wants to know whether I want agricultural land to be cut up for holiday homes. Nothing is doing the soul of South Africa more good than to get our people out of the towns when they can and to go out into the country. That is an absolute vital necessity. If we could do more of it, it would be a better country. My friend may be quite right if we are going to cut up good arable land for the purpose of holiday homes. This land need not necessarily be good arable land. And there again the provinces under their powers of town and regional planning could deal with it. There is no reason why land which is not really good arable land such as rocky land and so forth, should not provide just that area for a man who wants to build his own home. Let him get stuck into it.

Is there anything in the law preventing the hon. the Minister from giving permission in such a case?

My hon. friend wants to know whether there is anything in the law which prevents the Minister from giving such permission. This is one of the things that is worrying me. I do not think the hon. the Minister can carry this load. I say so quite frankly. He will have to push it on to officials and from those officials it will go to other officials. Eventually there will be a whole group of officialdom handling this question. Where do we go from there? The whole major concept gets lost and you will have the views of individual people taking precedence in regard to the question of the subdivision of land. This is a matter where there should be principles and policy. What is the position we are facing in South Africa if a man wants to cut up his farm into economic holdings, let alone uneconomic holdings. We cannot get away from it that we are a country based on private initiative and individual enterprise. We are a private enterprise country. We will allow a man to cut up his shirt, his sugar cane and everything he owns. He may cut the heads off his fowls, kill his livestock, carve up his livestock into joints, shoot his buck, cut down his trees, burn his grass and do what he likes. But now we are going to say to him that he must not cut up his land.

What about the holiday homes now?

I am talking about this Bill.

Eventually you will not have anything.

The remark of the hon. member for Colesberg that eventually you will not have any land is the biggest condemnation of the policy of this Government that I have heard in this House since they came into power 22 years ago. A farmer who is making a good living and can see his children after him making a good living is not going to cut up or sell his land. He is going to keep that land if he possibly can. I have said here before that the man who has grown up on a farm and has felt the mud of South Africa between his toes when he was a youngster does not willingly sell his land.

[Inaudible.]

No, it is no use trying to wriggle out of it. The hon. member has said that eventually you will cut up your land till there is nothing left.

That is because he believes that the farmers are not making a living and that therefore they will be only too pleased to sell and get out. These are all conflicting interests. There is the man who wants a little piece of land for a holiday home or what you will. There is the man who is a genuine dyed-in-the-wool farmer who is struggling to make ends meet. Eventually only the most dire economic necessity will drive him off the land. He will stick it to the bitter end. Then there is what I think my hon. friend who has just sat down called the business man who buys a farm and gets rid of some of his income tax. He does the Minister of Finance out of some of his income by spending his income as a business man on running his farm. He charges that to his expense account.

Like the hon. member for Colesberg.

I understand that the hon. member for Colesberg does that. I am prepared to accept that information. I believe that the hon. member for Colesberg claims to be a farmer but shall we say that that is a bit of bluff.

These then are the variables. I want to return to the point that there should be a standard set for the man who wants to sell his land. He should know before he starts whether he is going to be in a position to sell that land and whether he can comply with the conditions that have been laid down. If he cannot comply with them, then that is the law and that is that. But he ought to have a standard by which to judge. If he does comply with them he should know that he is going to obtain his permit enabling him to sell his farm.

I want to raise another point. We talk glibly about the preservation of our agricultural soil, economic units and so forth. Do you realize, Sir, that in the whole of South Africa at the present time with this desire for soil and water conservation, the whole of the cost of soil and water conservation, apart from the subsidies paid by the Government, has to be paid from these farms. Here I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister because I know that he is very keen on soil conservation. These farms range from thousands of morgen in the Karoo to the small holdings of an irrigation settlement and the small holdings we have for example on the South and North Coast of Natal where people have 25 or 30 acres of bananas and are making a good living out of this at the present time. I say at the present time because if the Government as a matter of policy decides to bring in a lot of bananas from Angola, they will do what they did three years ago, namely depress the price. The farmers on those small holdings will go bankrupt not because the small holding has become uneconomic and not because the farmer is a bad farmer, but because the Government’s policy has changed and it was decided to allow this or that to take place. There is then that competition with the farmers in their own market and they go to the wall.

Here then is the position as far as these people are concerned. At one end of the scale there are the small holdings of 25 acres and at the other end the farmer in the Karoo with his thousands of morgen. All over the Transvaal and elsewhere there are smaller and larger farms. That is our country. This is the dilemma of the Government—how do they find a formula that will cope honestly and fairly with the owners of all that land? The dilemma of the Government is that they cannot find such a formula so that they say through the law that the Minister or the Deputy Minister will have the power to say “yea” or “nay” as the case may be. This depends on some conditions which are not clear and which are not laid down. I believe that the measure will fail for that reason. Already you have the greatest difficulty in getting deeds through the Deeds Office if you want to cut up land and sell it. You have tremendous difficulty. You have endless delays because we cannot obtain surveyors. You have endless difficulties in the Deeds Office. You have endless delays even on the part of solicitors and conveyancers who have to do the work for you. I think that this Bill does not meet the situation in any way whatsoever.

There is one last point I should like to make, Sir. When a Bill like this is passed, what happens to a farmer’s credit? I shall mention my own case as an example. My lifetime’s work has gone into my farm and not into my work in Parliament, although I have spent a lot of time here and have put a great deal of thought, effort and so on into my work here. My farm is my capital and that is what I am leaving my three sons. If a Bill like this is passed, what happens to my capital? What happens to my creditworthiness? To-day I can go to the bank with my title deeds and obtain credit. I can subdivide provided that I comply with the laws of the province dealing with town and regional planning, and provided that I can obtain the goodwill of the Minister of Planning. Now I have to get another Minister’s approval as well. The Deputy Minister shakes his head.

You need no longer see the Minister of Planning.

What a promise, Mr. Speaker! Really, I am overjoyed. Does the Deputy Minister mean that? Can we forget the Minister of Planning?

You have to see the Minister of Agriculture now.

Oh, I thought that we were to bid the Minister of Planning goodbye. I was starting to rejoice. Sir, my capital and my security for a bond or a loan from a bank or the Land Bank or anybody else is my land, but it must be security that I can negotiate. Security that I cannot negotiate is no good to me. With one stroke of the pen and the passing of a measure such as this, my security is immediately reduced in value.

Why?

Because I may want to sell a part of my farm, which I believe is quite economic, and then maintain the rest, because I may need money to get me out of difficulties.

If it is economic, you can divide it.

Sir, the Deputy Minister says that if it is economic I can subdivide it, but that is exactly my point. How can I prove that it is economic? He is the only man who is going to say whether it is economic or not.

I shall tell you how just now.

Sir, that is going to be very interesting. I do hope that if the Deputy Minister has the formula, he will include it in the Bill. That is where we want it. I want to be able to go to the bank manager and say: This is the formula which will allow me to cut off this piece of land. When I sell this piece of land, I shall be able to pay your overdraft. Unless I can do that, I am faced with the position that, to get my money, the bank will have to sell me up bolus bolus. I will then lose my farm. That ground may be sold to one of these speculators we have been hearing about. Sir, this Bill strikes at the foundation of the capital of the farming community. The farmers of South Africa have their capital in their land. They have put it there with sweat and blood and tears over the years. We do not want to see that whittled away and diminished in value right under our eyes, by a Bill that is passed through Parliament because somebody has had the idea that this is a good way of preventing the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land. That is all this Bill is. It is an idea. On paper and in the abstract it is a good idea, but in practice it is completely incapable of fulfilment.

Mr. Speaker, to-day we once again heard a tirade in the old vein. In “You want it? We have it!” the United Party, in their exposition of their agricultural policy, even wrote these words as well—

What those people forget is that they only read small portions of the report on the impoverishment of the rural areas, just as that little hon. shadow minister of Land Bank affairs did.

What about the tomatoes and the eggs you threw?

One can produce as many tomatoes and eggs as one wants to. If I had got hold of you, things would have been worse for you. Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member spoke he said the following—

It is stated in that same report from which he quoted. The two things have the same effect. I quote from page 29, column 263 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into European Occupancy of the Rural Areas—

The commission is very forthright, and they say that as soon as land becomes too small and the people cannot make a decent living, we find that the spiritual, cultural and educational aspects of the people deteriorate. As soon as land becomes too small, poverty sets in, to be followed in turn by a low standard of living. The Opposition is not interested in the standard of living of the farmers. They come along here with gossip and random statements. After all, we know that hon. shadow minister of Land Bank affairs. He just gossips as much as he can and then comes along here making a great fuss in this argument of his that this legislation amounts to a farmer not being able to do what he wants to on his own property.

We still have the greatest respect for a person’s last wish. I want to tell the hon. member why a farmer’s testamentary dispositions must be submitted to the Minister before they can be finalized. That hon. member is the man who comes along here and complains about the privacy of the farmers. I accept the word of the hon. Judge who had to investigate the hon. member’s actions during the election that it was not the hon. member’s intention to implicate the Prime Minister. I accept this. The Judge does not know the hon. member, but I accept the Judge’s word. If I accept the Judge’s decision, what then was the hon. member’s intention? It could only have been in order to spread the private busines of private farmers across the public platform of the country.

Order!

What does that have to do with the Bill?

The hon. member asks what it has to do with the Bill. The hon. member for Newton Park complained of privacy.

What did you do at the Bloemfontein City Hall?

That is the way the legislation is attacked, and not on its merits. The merits of the case have been proved. The hon. member for Cradock yesterday quoted to the hon. member how he himself, in 1962, had advocated that something should urgently be done on this matter.

We asked for a commission.

Considering the problem, we find that it is an urgent matter. When we compare the potential of our agricultural lands with that of the rest of the world, we see that in South Africa all we have in reserve per capita is 0.3 morgen which remains for cultivation. Over and against that there is still 1.5 morgen per capita in reserve internationally. I do not think we can run away from the problem. The problem is there, and many of the hon. members have admitted as much. Some people are not quite consistent in their statements. Last night they spoke in pairs and to-day they are speaking in an altogether more moderate tone.

How must we then solve the problem? There are a few ways in which to solve the problem. One of the ways, as has been suggested frequently, is education. This problem is too serious and too urgent to allow time to be spent on education. A second way in which the problem could be solved is by means of financing. I do not think that this is going to be a satisfactory solution, because legislation would also have to be drawn up to ask the private financier to regulate his affairs so that he too does not finance certain units. Therefore, all that remains to us is legislation. What are the objections of hon. members opposite to this legislation? According to their amendment I do not think they know what an economic unit is. One can see why they object so strongly. In my constituency I would immediately be able to tell someone whether a unit is an economic one or not. I know my part of the world and my people. The hon. member for East London (City) knows Middelburg as well, but now he is sitting in East London. I would make a mistake now and then, but even if I were to do so I would still not have done anyone any harm. I have then made a mistake in the right direction. However, the farmers need not ask me. Extension officers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are all over the country, and they know the areas where they are working. They do not have extension officers in East London (City), but the people there do not need extension officers either. Neither is there one in Walmer.

Neither is there one in Graaff-Reinet.

The hon. member does not know what goes on in Graaff-Reinet. How could he know? The hon. member does not even have a farming constituency, and neither does he know the farmers’ problems. He thinks he can solve the farmers’ problems by gossip. Hon. members cannot carry on in this fashion. Hon. members opposite mention strings of factors that make a unit an economic one or not. All of us know that there is more than one problem in this connection, but have hon. members opposite already thought of the only single factor of them all that is unreversible, i.e. the subdivision of the land? The hon. member for Albany showed us a photograph last night and said that that man only needed rain and that his farm would then be an economic unit. However, if that farm were divided into two parts, it could rain as much as it wanted to. That is how hon. members opposite carry on. The fact remains that that unreversible problem must first be dealt with. A farm may be an economic unit after it has got a new manager, but after it has been irrevocably subdivided there is only one solution, i.e. consolidation.

Hon. members opposite say that the entire Bill is a negative one. I believe that after this measure has been passed and a person wants to subdivide his land or wants to make a testation, he will then go to an attorney and the attorney will then notify him of the existence of this Act. The farmer will then be asked whether his land would still consist of economic units after subdivision. I believe that after consideration he will, in fact, divide the land up into economic units, or otherwise that the transaction will end there. We will, however, preserve the soil of South Africa for the future. We must not run away or recoil from these problems. The National Party Government will not run away from these problems, because we believe in the words that were once uttered by John D. Rockefeller, i.e. “Every right implies responsibility, every opportunity an obligation and every possession a duty.”

Mr. Speaker, one of the most remarkable features of this debate, I suggest, is that the speeches we have heard from all members on the Government benches, from the hon. the Deputy Minister right through to all the others who have spoken, have been directed to justifying terms of a Bill which do not appear in the Bill before the House. Their speeches have been directed at proving to the House that there is injudicious and uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land taking place, on a scale which makes it necessary to introduce legislation to curb this evil.. This is the basis upon which they have argued their case to justify this Bill, right through from the hon. the Deputy Minister to the other speakers on that side.

But why is the Bill introduced?

I do not propose to react to a single interjection of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. He has done nothing but interject throughout the speeches of all the other hon. members on this side of the House. If he wants to hear what I and we on this side of the House have to say, I suggest that he sits quietly for a while and listens. I was saying that the speeches of the Deputy Minister and other hon. members on that side of the House were directed to suggesting to the House that there is injudicious and uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land taking place which necessitates legislation to control this evil. They have referred to existing legislation. They have referred to the fact that some farmers’ associations and other bodies that have investigated this problem, have suggested that the time has come when this problem needs to be looked into and controlled. But, Sir, I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister when he replies to this debate to explain to this House where in this Bill there is a reference to injudicious or uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land. This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with these matters as it appears in print before this House. What the Bill before us has to do with, is not injudicious or uneconomic subdivision of land, but simply and solely the subdivision of agricultural land, which is a very different matter altogether. This is perfectly clear from the long title, which reads simply “to control the subdivision of agricultural land”. It is perfectly clear if one looks at clause 3, which is one of the main clauses in this Bill. There is no reference whatsoever to uneconomic subdivision or to injudicious subdivision. What is the effect of that? The effect of that is that no criteria whatsoever are laid down in this Bill to determine when a subdivision may be allowed or when it shall not be allowed. If this Bill is passed by this House and becomes law, it may well be that if the hon. the Deputy Minister chooses to issue regulations to deal with this matter, he may choose to say that he is going to determine this matter on the basis of whether the subdivision is uneconomic or is injudicious and he may lay down certain criteria to assist applicants.

The hon. member for South Coastanswered that point. The position is always changing. You cannot have definite rules.

Sir, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will just be patient,he will realize in a moment what I am getting at. I do not dispute for a moment that he cannot lay down a norm for the whole country. This is the point made on this side. You cannot lay down a norm as to what is and what is not an uneconomic unit which will apply throughout the country and to all types of farms. This is the point made by this side and it has been conceded by the Government. I am not disputing that you cannot lay down a norm and I am not disputing the fact that what is an uneconomic unit in one part of the country would not be an uneconomic unit for some other type of farming, but what I am saying is that we are here dealing with an entirely different Bill from the one on which Government members are arguing. They are arguing on a Bill to curb uneconomic subdivision of land and this Bill is not that; it is simply a Bill to control the subdivision of land and, as I was saying, the effect is this: Whilst the hon. the Minister, when he issues regulations, may say that in dealing with applications under this Bill he will deal with them on the basis of whether the subdivision is uneconomic or otherwise and whilst be may lay down certain matters which have to be set out in the application to determine this issue, he is not bound to make his decision on that basis in terms of the Bill as it stands. Therefore if he decides that a subdivision should not be allowed there are no criteria upon which that decision can be taken on appeal or view. No dissatisfied farmer who has had his application refused can go to a court of law or to a board of review or to anybody else to say, “This decision is unfair because I can rorove to the satisfaction of a court of law or of a board of review that my proposed subdivision would be economic because of the farming methods that I wish to adopt and because of various other reasons.” No dissatisfied farmer would have any such right. The Minister’s decision, because no criteria are laid down, is absolutely final and cannot be challenged in any way. Even if the hon. the Minister makes a bona fide mistake—and I am not dealing now with mala fides I am not suggesting that the Minister may be male fides in his decision of the application— and the farmer is dissatisfied and wishes to have the matter reconsidered, there is nothing that he can do about it because no criteria are laid down.

The Minister, whilst he can himself decide that he will exercise the powers under this Act on the basis of whether a subdivision is economic or otherwise, is not required by law to do so. Therefore in the final analysis when he gives his decision, he does not give it on the basis of saving: I find that this proposed subdivision will give rise to an uneconomic unit. He does not say that because the Act does not require him to say it. All he will say is: I grant or I refuse the application for subdivision; and he need give no reasons whatsoever. Therefore I ask the hon. members opposite, particularly the farmers: Are they satisfied to give such far-reaching powers to a Minister, and do they think that their constituents will be satisfied that this Parliament gives such far-reaching powers to a Minister?

Let us face the facts as they are. We know that in South Africa to-day every single department of State is suffering from a manpower shortage. They simply do not have the personnel to handle all these matters. What has happened under the Physical Planning Act? We warned this House, when that Bill was being discussed, that it would be impossible for the department concerned to handle the various applications which would be coming to the Minister in a proper fashion; and what has happened in practice? Precisely that. There is general dissatisfaction from industrialists about the administration of that Act. I suggest that the position will be even more difficult under this Act in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture must in terms of this Bill consider every application himself. Obviously he cannot be an expert on every part of the country and be sufficiently au fait with conditions in every single part of the country to be able to give an expert decision on every such application. It would be quite impossible, even if he had the time, which he has not because this is not the only Act he has to administer. So what is going to happen in practice? The investigations will have to be made by the officials of his department and the hon. the Minister will have to rely more and more, the busier he gets, on the reports be gets from his staff.

Are you casting reflections on them?

For goodness’ sake, do not be ridiculous. I am dealing with the volume of work which is going to arise through this Act. If the hon. member who has just interjected represents a farming constituency, I suggest that be will have a lot of problems from his own constituents.

They do not like him anyway.

This is why we have said in one of the main legs of our amendment that this Bill confers upon the Minister far-reaching powers with regard to the subdivision of agricultural land which needlessly interfere with the rights of the individual—we say needlessly “because no criteria are laid down”. I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister when he replies and from other speakers on that side of the House whether they are satisfied that one man, the Minister of Agriculture, can handle all these applications, and whether they are satisfied to give him the power to handle these applications in an entirely unrestricted way. He does not have to deal with them on the basis of whether or not this is an economic unit. If there is a close dividing line between the one or the other and he is not sure, be does not have to say: I am of opinion that this will result in an uneconomic subdivision. He simply refuses the application. The hon. member for Kroonstad referred to the Natural Resources Development Act. He said that this was a very good Act passed by the United Party Government. Of course, he is quite right. But where he is entirely wrong is to suggest that this Act was, it has since been repealed, similar to the Bill we are now considering. Sir, it is entirely different; the two have nothing in common. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether the hon. member took the trouble of reading the Act because if he had, I doubt whether he would have made such a statement.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

I am only answering an argument advanced by a previous speaker, Sir. But I shall not say anything more about it except to point out that the Natural Resources Development Act stated its object quite clearly in section 3 thereof, i.e. to plan and to promote the better and more effective co-ordinated exploitation, development and use of the natural resources of the country. It, therefore, bad nothing to do with the subdivision of agricultural land.

What does this Bill envisage?

If the hon. member has read it, he would have noticed that it deals with the subdivision of agricultural land.

One particular aspect of this Bill I should like to deal with, is its effects on future development, particularly on township development. I want to point out to the Minister that in terms of the definition of agricultural land, land which falls within the jurisdiction of what I may loosely call a local authority is excluded. All other land falls within that definition, except those cases where there have already been a subdivision by the time this Bill becomes law. Speaking broadly, however, this measure affects all land in South Africa other than land within a local authority area. The effect of this, as I see it, is going to be the following. As our population increases, local authority areas must obviously expand and new local authorities created, as they already are in certain new border area towns that are being created. In any event, the increase in our population will make it inevitable that local authority areas shall have to expand. But as soon as that happens, they will fall under the provisions of this measure. It is true that they can ask the Minister to permit them to extend their boundaries in order to incorporate further land if they feel this is necessary and desirable.

One should look at the position from the point of view of the broad future of the country and not just the future of agriculture. Let me say immediately that I accept the fact that good agricultural land should be preserved and that it should not be possible to jeopardize the future of good agricultural land by allowing indiscriminate subdivision. The argument of this side of the House has been, and is, that this is not the type of measure to achieve that object because one cannot look at this problem only from the point of view of the agriculturists. One must also look at this problem from the point of view of the overall future of the country. If one does that, one is immediately faced with the problem of the expansion of the cities as well. I hope that I will not have as a counter argument from hon. members on that side of the House that I am suggesting that all land surrounding cities should be free for all and should be available for future development. That is not the point because some of that land may be vitally valuable agricultural land. How should that be dealt with? I believe that the only satisfactory way in which to deal with this problem which has these conflicting interests, is to do it on the basis of proper ecological study as has been suggested by hon. members on this side of the House. It should be an ecological study which will be regionally based and not nationally because there are different considerations which apply to different regions of the country. I believe that, if in fact there are certain areas where valuable agricultural land is being indiscriminately subdivided to the prejudice of the future, the proper way to tackle this problem is to do it on the basis of scientifically and soundly based ecological planning on a regional basis. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and his department, with great respect to them, is not the person and the department to handle this. This is the proper prerogative of the Department of Planning which obviously must work in conjunction with the other departments of State and particularly the Department of Agriculture. This is being done at the present time to same extent. But to place this in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, as this Bill is proposing to do, must prejudice the future because the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not a planner. His department is not specifically concerned with overall planning of different areas in the country. They are concerned with looking after the future of agriculture and agricultural land. What would the position be if one tackled the problem as we suggest on this side of the House? The position would be that one would look at particularly the land surrounding the cities. It is that land which is affected. Or one would look at the land in certain areas like the Drakensberg which is being cut up for holiday homes— this is an obsession of that side of the House —or coastal areas. It is not all the land in the country that is affected. There are certain areas which are the subject of subdivision, but particularly land surrounding cities. Surely, if one undertakes an ecological study on a regional basis, one then zones or designates land which will be allowed to be developed for residential purposes in the future. One establishes land which must be reserved for certain types of agriculture because of its particular circumstances, land which is suitable for industry and land which is suitable for various other purposes. But above all, for the purposes of the matter we are considering under this Bill, one arrives by this method to the areas of land which must be set aside for particular types of farming. Once one has such overall planning, which, I may say, has been undertaken to some extent very successfully in the province of Natal, one removes to a large extent the undesirable features which have been referred to in this debate. Then one is able to control subdivision of land which should be used for one purpose as against another. What is more important is that owners of land know where they stand and purchasers of land, not only developers, but also people who want a holiday home, will know where they stand. Are hon. members on that side of the House going to suggest that they are going to remove altogether the right of the townsman to own a little bit of land somewhere in the country? Surely not. What they want to do is to ensure that this is not abused. Under a regional plan one would set aside areas where there could be subdivision into small units and where the townsmen could purchase five acre or 50 acre plots if they wish to do so. There are plenty of areas in the country where land for this purpose could be set aside and zoned without jeopardizing the future of agriculture.

I want to deal very briefly with the question of wills and testamentary disposition before my time expires. The hon. member for Kroonstad suggested that under clause 5 a farmer or an owner of agricultural land is not prevented from making a will. That is so. He is not prevented from making a will. But what must he do in order to ensure that the will be effective? Having made a will to subdivide his farm for the benefit of his two or three sons, he must then submit his will, or at least that portion of his will, for the hon. the Minister’s consideration and approval. Two things arise from this. Firstly, if the hon. the Minister refuses to-day it may well be that in five years’ time the position will have changed and new facts may warrant it. This means that there may be continual applications to the hon. the Minister prior to the death of the testator. But it also has the reverse effect. The hon. the Minister may feel that under circumstances existing at the time, the subdivision is justified. All that the hon. the Minister would be able to say to the testator is that under circumstances as they existed at the time and as far as he could foresee in!he immediate future, it is justified, but tie is unable to tell the testator what conditions would be like if he were to live for another 20 to 30 years. The position is therefore that when the testator dies, maybe in 20 or 30 years’ time, conditions may have changed. The position therefore is that the man makes a will to-day which is approved by the hon. the Minister which may not meet with his approval at the date of death of the testator. The hon. the Minister even warned farmers about their wills during the Second-Reading speech. He then said this—

There is no doubt that this provision jeopardizes and restricts the free testamentary rights of a testator. And for what purpose? The hon. member for Newton Park pointed out how few farms in the Transvaal—I think it was 18 per cent—have heirs. This is therefore not a real problem.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of criticisms which can be levelled against this measure. It is a measure which tries to overcome the problem of being unable to define an uneconomic unit and therefore gives far-reaching powers to a Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I was definitely not destined for berating other people, but I do not think the hon. member for Musgrave, who has just resumed his seat, is as important as he professed to be at the beginning of his speech. He is a property agent. It is, therefore, understandable that he will be opposed to this Bill, for he wants to derive financial benefit from this matter. That is why I think that there are many hon. members opposite who are opposed to this Bill for that reason, i.e. they want to derive financial benefit from it.

I think that the hon. the Minister prefaced this matter very thoroughly in his speech, and that he explained this legislation very well to this House. I did not hear any solution being offered by anybody on that side. None of them suggested anything. Nor did I hear any member on that side mentioning that he wanted to investigate the matter. All we had, was contradictory and vague arguments. I think that the hon. member for Newton Park has over the past number of years rendered a very great disservice, not only to the farmers, but also to South Africa. I think that the hon. member, who is the shadow minister of agriculture on that side, should make an attempt at saving South Africa and its farmers by different means, i.e. not by these destructive means. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for East London (City) had a turn to speak last night. I shall not allow him to speak again at this stage.

The hon. member for Newton Park suggested that there were at present no parents who would subdivide land further. In the past it was a tradition and a way of life with our people to bequeath land and to subdivide it. This is still the case at present, and so it will undoubtedly remain in the future as well. Sometimes we cannot blame our people for feeling that way, for there is nobody who has as many ties with the soil of South Africa as is the case with our South African nation. It is because we are devoted to this soil of ours that we are defending this matter in this House to-day. But there are also, as the hon. member for Newton Park said in his speech eight years ago, land owners who are abusing the soil, not because they love the soil, but because they want to derive economic benefit from it by fragmenting and subdividing land into small pieces. Then they sell it to other people, the object being that those people are to make a living on it. We know that they then give these people the impression that they can make a good living on an uneconomic unit, and that it is possible for them to become rich there. Later on these people have to discover that they were deceived. I want to praise those people who have over the years been living and working, on these small pieces of land, and whom we still have in our midst to-day, for their industry, for the productivity they have been displaying and for the ability they have. We shall always be grateful for the fact that there have been and still are such farmers who, in terms of the new Agricultural Credit Act, will be afforded the opportunity from now on to acquire larger economic units and to make a bigger success of them. In my constituency there is a district comprising more than 422. farms. Of these farms 67 are smaller than 3,000 morgen, 69 are smaller than 2,000 morgen and 29 are smaller than 1,000 and even 600 morgen in extent. There is in my constituency an irrigation scheme such as no other member in this House probably has. Within a distance of 90 miles there are 211 farmers who have to make their living, and of those-211 farmers there are 164 who own irrigation land which is smaller than 14 morgen in extent and on which they have to make a living. During the last meeting of the water commission these farmers met of their own accord and stated in their evidence before the commission that if those pieces of land had to be economic units, they should not be smaller than 40 morgen in extent. The hon. member for Newton Park held a meeting in those same parts. Now I want to ask the hon. member what speech he is going to use when he holds meetings in that area again. Will it be the speech he made in this House in 1962, or will it be the one he made in 1970? Sir, members on the other side of this House are implicated in the position in which these people find themselves. The National Party is not to blame for it. The culprits are sitting over there. The blame for that state of affairs attaches to them. They are still refusing to-day to pass legislation which will enable those people to make a better living. Over the past four years we have guided 40 per cent of those people towards economic units. I am not saying that they own economic units, but they have been guided towards economic units. As hon. members know, this has already cost the State approximately R30 million. If, having reached a stage where that land consists of economic units, we were now to divide the land once again, so that we would have the same position as we do to-day, where would we eventually find ourselves? I want to read out to the hon. member what he said in his speech in 1962. This is why I asked the hon. member earlier on what speech he would use if he were to address a meeting in my constituency again. On 2nd February, 1962, the hon. member said (Hansard, Volume 2, column 557) —

Sir, since last night hon. members have been asking several nagging questions on how one determines an economic unit. Here the hon. member for Newton Park replied to those questions (column 558) —

After all, hon. members should now be able to understand and appreciate what an economic unit is, for he referred to it in this speech. He went on to say—

Why have those hon. members been asking all those questions since yesterday, if the hon. member for Newton Park knows these things already? The hon. member went on to say—

At this point I wondered whether I was reading correctly. I wanted to go to the Hansard reporters to find out whether this was not a misprint, for I thought the Minister was speaking here. I thought it was I who was making the speech here. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he admits to having made this speech. Surely, this must be the case.

Yes.

The hon. member said “yes”. He said—

I want to go on reading what he said—

He concluded by saying—

My question to the hon. member is whether he was being serious when he made this speech in this House. Was he being serious about the interests of the agricultural industry, was he being serious about the interests of the farmers, was he being serious about the interests of South Africa, or has he only become serious now? I want to ask the hon. member what his standpoint is. Must we, having been in a position over the years to help certain people to make an economic living, allow this land to be subdivided again? I should like him to give us a reply. He should tell us what his standpoint is. After all, he must have a standpoint in regard to the matter. I know that there is, on the other side of the House, something else which induced him to change his views. There must be something else. If he is really representing the farmers of South Africa, then, surely, he cannot possibly take up this standpoint.

Where did Lourens Muller vote?

There are figures available which reflect the world position in regard to the impoverishment of people. With the experience I have gained in my constituency, I feel that there is no better way of impoverishing people in our nation than by doing so by means of small uneconomic units. A duty has to-day been assigned to us, as the South African nation, not only by our own sense of responsibility, but also by our Creator, i.e. that we must preserve and protect our soil. As a Christian people we want to perform and obey this duty. It is regrettable, but it is a fact of life and also a fact of nature that we can never enlarge our surface area, but we are capable of making it smaller. We shall try to do everything in our power, and we are also making an appeal to the other side of the House to help us to take a long-term view and not only to concentrate on the short-lived existence or advantage of a party. That side of the House is to blame. I think that, as we have now reached the stage where it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the farmer, as the hon. member said in his speech eight years ago, to farm productively on a small piece of land, and as the fertility of our soil and its ability to generate growth has been reduced over the years, even in parts with a high rainfall, we must take up a standpoint in the interests of the South African farmer. We must tackle this problem to-day, and we must not do so with despair, but with the will which a government and a Minister have. A great deal has already been spent on this policy, and in the future we shall implement it further, as far as we possibly can. This party is prepared to look far into the future, unlike that party, which refuses to look into the future. That party only does certain things which are important for furthering the interests of the party for the moment. But what else can it do? It is no longer the United Party which I knew in the forties. It is no longer the United Party, but the United Grievances Party. It has to follow all the roads, railway lines and rivers of South Africa in order to look for grievances which subsequently prove to be unfounded. On these grievances it then has to build up a party, even with a view to the provincial elections. The United Party is living in the hope that in the months ahead it will find a few persons who have grievances against this Government. However, I can give hon. members opposite the assurance that I am living amongst the farmers and not in the city amongst people who are out of touch with the farmer. The farmers will be grateful to this Government, and to this Minister, for what it has done in the interests of South Africa and for the preservation of the farmer. We shall carry through this measure, because we know that it is in the interests of the South African farmer and of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I find the speech that the hon. member for Prieska has just made, rather difficult to fathom. He started off by making a reflection on the hon. member for Musgrave and said that he was only opposed to the Bill as printed because he was making financial gains from the present setup in South Africa. He then went further and said that this applied to many members on this side of the House and that we were only opposed to the Bill for reasons of our own financial gains. I think it is a shocking state of affairs when hon. members opposite make reflections of this kind in this House. People in glass houses should never throw stones. I want the hon. member to answer me one question. He accuses us of speculation and of only being interested in what we can get out of agricultural land financially. My simple question to him is the following: Is he a speculator or is he not?

I am not.

Since when did the hon. member stop being a speculator?

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

Yes, but people in glass houses should not throw stones. To-day we are discussing what we in agriculture regard as a very important Bill. I wonder how many farmers have had the opportunity to read this Bill and to study it as it is printed here. I wonder how many farmers outside this hon. House has had an opportunity to read this Bill. I also wonder what they will say when they do read this Bill. Make no mistake, they will have the opportunity to study it. They wall learn why we on this side of the House are fighting this Bill tooth and nail. By trade I am an agriculturist. I know what is in this Bill and I know what is not contained therein. I am looking forward to hear the hon. the Minister’s answers to the questions which we put to him. We on this side of the House have been toiling on agriculture for years and years, charging the Government with the lack of long-term planning and pointing out that the depopulation of the platteland is indeed a very serious problem. We have all maintained that there is no easy solution to it. We have pointed out the farmer’s problems, financial problems, where he has been running into difficulties and the reasons why he has been leaving the land. Here we have now, just in a few words, the Government’s suggesting that they are going to put everything right by controlling the subdivision of land. In other words, the Government is now putting up a smokescreen, after all these years, to camouflage their failings in regard to agriculture.

The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned in his speech, that way back in the year 1932, we were toiling with this problem of the subdivision of agricultural land. He mentioned different instances, he spoke about the report on the same subject way back in 1959. He mentioned a debate in this House on the 2nd February, 1962, a study group report of 1963 and a Select Committee of Parliament in 1964. He went further to tell us about certain resolutions of S.A.A.U. congresses. We know this has been a problem and that it has been discussed over and over for many years. It has become a hardy annual. But this Bill is not going to solve anything, because here we are only trying to close the stable door when the horse is gone. The damage is done. What has already been said concerns me as an agriculturist, namely that it confers upon the hon. the Minister tremendous powers. I wonder how much more red tape the farmers and agriculturists, who are battling, will have to put up with as long as this Government is in power. I believe that this problem started many, many years ago when agricultural land stretched for hundreds of miles and our cities and towns were small, and the farms were very, very large. We had many farmers. Then we were at the top of the cycle. Slowly and gradually, due to nothing else but farming economics, the farms became smaller and smaller and the farmers less. They have been flocking to the towns at a rate of no less than 2,500 to 3,000 a year. The farmers are leaving the land daily. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet knows it. To-day, I believe, we see the opposite happening. I want to take areas with which I am very familiar. Take any farmer; take myself for instance. I started on what I believed was an uneconomic unit, I built on, and built up by joining one uneconomic unit to another, with the result that I have now built up what I believe to be a sound business proposition. I built up from four uneconomic units into one large economic unit. My unit has become larger and economically stronger and this is happening all over the country, so much so that only a few years ago, at political meetings people were complaining that certain farmers were becoming too strong. We heard people referred to as “land barons”. This was the problem only a few years ago, and now the Government comes with a Bill to suggest that farms are too small. Any farmer who uses correct farming methods, Who has been educated to adopt the correct scientific agricultural methods has the opportunity of buying to-day. Let me put this question to the ground, he already owns, and this is happening to-day. Let me put this question to the hon. the Minister: If I, as an agriculturist have made one economic unit from several uneconomic units. I have consolidated, and I should die, can this unit which is now supposedly an economic unit according to the Soil Conservation Act, according to the extension officers and in terms of the Stock Reduction scheme under the Upper Orange River scheme which I have already subscribed to, be sold by my estate in small pieces again? Sir, I built up this economic unit from rock bottom, from virtually nothing.

Do you want to subdivide it into uneconomic units again?

Will my estate be allowed to sell off a portion of this unit in order to pay my estate duties?

Do you want to subdivide it into uneconomic units?

Sir, my time is very limited. I wish I had time to discuss this matter with the hon. member for Cradock. I listened to his speech last night, but I have no time to answer his questions. I have to curtail my speech to 20 minutes, he had half an hour, and I have to continue with what I have to say. There are many reasons why farms have been reduced to the sizes that they are to-day. One of the main causes is the estate duty on farm properties. We know of many widows who have had to sell portions of their farms or who have had to sell at least one farm to pay death duty or estate duty. You do not have to ask this side of the House what our policy is with regard to estate duty. This is one of the causes of the problem which we have been discussing here to-day and which the Government hopes and thinks will be solved by this Bill. Another cause is that there are not enough extension officers to assist and help the agriculturists to farm according to scientific methods. There are many other reasons for creating this problem.

The farmers are receiving much more education in scientific farming to-day than they did 20 years ago.

As I say, there is another problem which other provinces have not got but which we have in this province, and this is the Divisional Council Road Rate Tax on fixed properties. Before we come to Parliament with a Bill like this one all these other problems should1 be ironed out first. I know that there are people today who are buying small properties outside the towns, and they tell me that their reason for doing so is to avoid this unnecessary tax levied to property owners in the Cape Province by the Divisional Councils. There is no need to ask this side of the House what our policy is in this regard. There is a Provincial Council election pending and the people know what our policy is in regard to this unnecessary tax. This is one of the reasons why people in the towns prefer to go and live on smallholdings outside the towns—to avoid paying municipal rates and Divisional Council rates. The other provinces have not got this problem. This is something we in the Cape Province will have to iron out ourselves, but this is one of the reasons why the town folk are so keen and anxious to live on a farm. The hon. member for Ladybrand told us last night, to quote his own words, “die dorpenaar wil sommer buitekant die stad wees”. Well, the hon. member is a Free Stater. I realize that he does not appreciate our problems here, but here the “dorpenaar”, mainly wants to live out of town to avoid paying Divisional Council property tax.

’It is cheaper.

Yes, it is cheaper. The hon. member is a business man. If he can run a 25-acre plot on business lines, surely he should toe allowed to do so.

Not 1 per cent can do that.

Sir, I do not understand this Government. I have known them for over 22 years but I do not understand the philosophy of this Government. Basically the philosophy of this Government is to divide and rule. They want to divide the country into 22 small states, and they are not going to toe economic states either.

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

But now. under this Bill, the Government wants to prevent land owners from dividing the land any further. Sir, this is not the solution. We have confidence in agriculture; we have confidence in the farmer. No farmer to-day will subdivide his land if his young son cannot make a living on the subdivided portion. We realize what our responsibilities are and we have learnt by our forefathers’ mistakes. Now the pendulum is swinging back. What is the hon. the Minister going to do when he finds the units becoming too large? Are we going to pass more legislation to stop the farmers from consolidating, buying too much ground and developing these units into very large economic units? There must obviously be an end to that too, when the pendulum reaches the other end. Will the Minister then introduce more legislation to prevent the units from becoming too big?—I want to put this to the Minister: Assuming that I have built up my units into one strong economic unit. I know that there are no criteria as to what an economic unit is. You only have to look at your bank manager’s face to know whether your unit is economic or not. If when you go to your village or your town, you can greet your bank manager and he smiles at you, then you can say to yourself, “Now I have an economic unit”. This is the only criteria I know of. If you see your bank manager coming down the street and you have to dodge round the nearest corner, then you know that you are on an uneconomic unit.—Supposing I die and I have built up a large unit from small units. Three of my neighbours want to bid on this one unit to divide three portions as they do not want the whole farm intact. Three of them are interested and if they each buy a portion of the unit which I have built up …

But then they consolidate.

Yes, that is right. They come together and say, “Look here, we are each prepared to go up to R70 per morgen provided we can each take a third of the land and make our respective units stronger”. What will the hon. the Minister say?

What is wrong with that?

Only your neighbours can do it.

Does this apply only to neighbours adjoining my property?

Not necessarily.

Does it apply to anybody, no matter how far away his unit may be?

Within a reasonable distance.

I will accept that. If the Minister now has to decide—and he has no criteria as to what an economic unit is—that the property cannot be divided up and it is sold, to one interested buyer only, the estate will possibly get only R50 per morgen, whereas it could have realized R70 if it were divided up. This is curtailing the security which I have built up and, in addition, the widow has to pay estate duty on that property which the Minister refuses to allow to be subdivided. These are problems which we foresee and we have discussed them over and over on this side of the House I wonder what the Minister is going to do if a widow is in difficulties, and there will be many in future too, as there have been in the past—what will happen if people finding themselves in financial difficulties and not agreeing with the Minister’s decision go to the courts of law? We will find many Members of Parliament bringing their constituents to see the Minister; I can see the Minister being inundated with distressed land owners because of this legislation.

You see, Sir, if we tamper with the farmer as we are doing in this Bill, then he will have nothing left; his security is being endangered. Recently I bought a farm close to East London. This farm was in the process of being subdivided, but it has not become necessary because my method of farming on this particular land, is in accordance with the soil conservation officers and the extension officers, and with their sound advice, I am able to make an economic unit of it. But I am not farming it in the way the farmers used to farm this land. It all depends on the guidance we get and which we take from the extension officers, but this Government is not in a position to give us sufficient extension officers, and this is a real problem. It is all very well to say that the drought is another cause. We have had many droughts in the past and we will have many in the future. Droughts have led many farmers into financial difficulties, but basically it is due to the Government’s lack of guidance and lack of long term agricultural planning that we find farmers reducing the size of their farms. But this is not taking place to any great extent anymore. Everything finds its level in economics and it applies in agriculture too; provided we give the farmers the assistance they need and deserve, they will find their level. I regret there will be some who will leave the land, but many farmers will return to the land once we have a Government which can lead, a Government which can give sound advice, and provide the necessary extension officers.

I am convinced that when we view this legislation in retrospect in 10 or 15 years’ time and see its good effect on South Africa, we shall say that this was one of the most important agricultural laws which this Government ever piloted through this House; because with this we are going to lay the foundation of a prosperous and thriving agricultural community. In fact, we should have had it 100 years ago. [Interjection.] If we had had it 100 years ago or even 60 years ago—I want to meet the hon. member for Walmer halfway—a great deal of the poverty and many of the problems we are facing in agriculture to-day, would have been eliminated. I am glad the hon. member for Walmer made that remark. I believe that in doing so he was in principle agreeing with this legislation. I want to pay him the compliment that he is an example of a conservation farmer in South Africa. I cannot but believe that in his heart he fully agrees with us, and that it is only his loyalty to his party which will make him vote against this legislation. [Interjections.] Another example is the hon. member for East London (City) who is not present now. As I know as a farmer, I am also convinced that he wholeheartedly agrees with us on this legislation. Sir, I do not find it strange that the Opposition is opposing this legislation, because the Opposition has the bad habit of initially opposing all legislation which is of great importance to South Africa. I can mention to you Sasol, Iscor and all those undertakings, but that is not relevant now. Our agricultural industry is going through a very difficult phase to-day, and if one looks at the contribution which the Opposition has made lately, one must really use a magnifying glass to spot anything positive they have contributed. If a young farmer-to-be were to read and hear their speeches, I think he would think twice before taking up farming.

One can drive through this country virtually with your eyes closed and still see that, regrettable as it is, certain areas in our country are still overpopulated as far as the agricultural population is concerned. But having listened to the Minister during the Second Reading and having seen the figures which he gave, we know how many farms are so unproductive that even if the prices for agricultural products soared sky-high in the future the farmers on those farms would remain poverty-stricken for ever. They simply cannot get out of it; they cannot improve their position, because whatever they can possibly make out of those farms they need in order to exist. They have no prospect of enjoying the good things of life; and when such a situation exists, I do not think we should try to perpetuate it, but we should try to replace it with something else.

What happens so often to the man on that small, unproductive farm, particularly when there are two children in the family, is the following. He already had difficulties when he and his wife were living alone, but now there are two children and he really cannot cope any more. What he now does is to go to town, to the Department of Social Welfare, and to say to them: I have two children to bring up; this is the size of my farm and my income is this; I cannot bring up the children on it, and I am asking for a family allowance. Sir, he is fully entitled to such an allowance and he will get it—it is surprising how much this Government does to keep people in the rural areas. Now I ask you, Sir, if a farmer is in such a position that the State must keep him alive on his farm, is this a state of affairs we should perpetuate? Surely we should do everything in our power to put this right. It is infra dig for a man to have to go to the Post Office every month to receive a family allowance to maintain his family on the farm; it is beneath his dignity. It kills the sense of independence which we should like to see in the farmer. I believe any farmer who has any self-respect will do everything in his power to get out of such a position. I do not think the United Party, which is opposing this Bill, is aware of the fact that there are so many farmers living on such units who can remain there only if they receive a family allowance from Social Welfare every month. And in the process of Struggling to survive on the farm, one knows what the result is—the absolute maximum is taken out of that small piece of land. Surely he cannot apply conservation farming; he cannot divide his farm into camps, because the farm itself is not even the size of one camp. Travelling along the highway, one can point out these small farms from a distance. They are bare because all the bushes have been removed, and all the methods which will destroy that land are applied of necessity. They have to do so of necessity, in order to survive. This is a state of affairs which we cannot tolerate, and therefore we are putting forward this measure in order to improve the position.

In discussing a measure such as this, one comes up against the concept of an “economic unit”. One could probably speak at great length about what an economic unit is. In fact, hon. members spoke here of an economic unit of 5 morgen and one of 5,000. Managerial skill is a factor of importance, and the debt ratio of the farmer must also be taken into account. Actually I do not like using the expression “economic unit” in regard to agriculture. To my mind it is so uncompromisingly materialistic; it puts money first. I do not think one can inspire a young farmer with that concept. Furthermore, this concept lends itself very easily to exploitation and misrepresentation. When Minister Uys first used this term about 15 years ago, what did the Opposition make of it? Immediately they associated it with small farmers. Uneconomic units, they said, must disappear, and who are they but the small farmers? I attended a meeting at which the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of this misrepresentation, and his followers cheerfully chimed in. To my mind an economic unit is one which can support a family under normal circumstances and normal management. In times of emergency we must of course take emergency measures. But under normal conditions I think a father, a mother and two children ought to be able to live adequately on it. And with what the father can earn from the farm he should be able to put his children through high school without assistance from the State. One can add a third child, and even say that one child should be able to go to university without assistance, but there may be a difference of opinion on this. Basically, however, an economic unit must be able to afford a family consisting of a father, mother and two children a decent living. As the welfare of the family forms the basis, would did not be better to talk of a “family unit” instead of an “economic unit”? On that basis one can inspire a young man who wants to go farming, because he will have the prospect, if he wants to work, of earning a good future for himself and his family. Moreover, such a concept will not lend itself to suspicion-mongering and misinterpretation.

It is Striking that in our social set-up, no matter what sphere of work is concerned— whether it be the police, education, or the Public Service—the basic expectation is that the income from that occupation must be able to support a family. If this were not so, we would have no policemen and no teachers. And if we are so anxious to ensure this for the policeman and the teacher, why can we not ensure it for the farmer as well? Sometimes people seem to think that if only one were on a small farm, things would work out by themselves at some stage or other. However this does not always happen. In fact, one is faced with more difficulties there than in these other occupations in which one’s income is assured. Moreover, there are many risks attached to farming. Therefore I say we must ensure for the farmer as well that the unit on which he farms can guarantee his family a living, as is the case with other occupations. Any occupation which cannot provide a family with a living, has no right to exist.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay has made a most responsible speech, perhaps the most responsible speech we have had from the other side. If the hon. the Minister has listened closely to the arguments advanced by my colleagues from this side of the House, he will find that whatever they said was borne out now by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, and I am serious about it; I am not trying to score a debating point. I am looking at this legislation not from a political point of view but from the point of view of what is best for a community, for the people of South Africa. I am looking at it from a point of view from which the hon. the Deputy Minister, in his specific position, cannot look at it, i.e. the point of view of people other than people within the agricultural community. The hon. member for Mossel Bay spoke about certain parts of the rural areas being overpopulated. He could have said that also of parts of my constituency, parts which have been subdivided into 50-acre blocks and occupied to-day by people such as those referred to by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Mooi River and also by the hon. member for Musgrave. These are people from the urban areas, people with a desire to have their feet in the soil, people with the desire to own at least a small portion of this land of ours—a desire which is within every true South African because all of us at some stage have a desire to own a part of the soil of the Republic. I agree with the hon. member for Mossel Bay that there are parts which are dreadful and where families do require assistance. But I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is prepared to pass this legislation to protect the inefficient farmer? In other places smallholdings have been converted into oases. I can take him to my constituency and show him some of these, especially one which is only 35 acres in extent which no one in this House would claim to be an economic unit in any area. But these 35 acres support a family consisting of a father, mother and two adult sons and an immigrant family consisting of a man and his wife. They could do that simply because they used their initiative. They happen to have the water. Liberally every square inch of those 35 acres is utilized for a specialized type of farming. They are producing vegetables, and they are together making over R6,000 per year in clear profit. They are doing this on 35 acres, and this is the problem the Deputy Minister is going to have to face. This very problem has been raised by this side of the House. I know that piece of land. I have known it for 15 years. The two previous owners of that land went insolvent. They could not make a living. They could not eke out an existence on it, but the present owners can. This point was also raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He said that the managerial ability of the particular farmer had to be taken into account. He put his point very well, but I am afraid I did not make a note of it. His point was that it is not merely a question of a mundane reference to an economic unit.

While we are talking about the question of over-population, I want to say that I do not believe that this measure can be applied generally throughout South Africa, especially in the light of a statement such as that made by Mr. Coetzee of Iscor a few days ago, in which he claims that the white population of what he refers to as the “platteland” has decreased at the rate of 4 per cent per annum since 1960. He claims that to-day, within the Republic, only 7.7 per cent of the economically active Whites are in the rural areas, but these are not all farmers. He was referring to other occupations as well. Will this measure not have the effect of reducing that figure even further? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister really think that this is an admirable concept? Is this what he really wants? Is this what he is really aiming for?

Sir, we are coming to the end of this debate. At the beginning of the debate the hon. member for Newton Park moved a reasoned amendment, which had three legs. The first leg was that we decline to pass the Second Reading of this Bill because it “confers upon the Minister far-reaching powers with regard to the subdivision of agricultural land which needlessly interfere with the rights of the individual”. Sir, you have heard many arguments from this Side of the House on this particular leg. I do not believe that any of those arguments have really been refuted by speakers on that side of the House. I do not intend to deal with it any further. The third leg of the amendment is that we decline to pass this Bill because “it lays down no criteria serving as a basis for the Minister’s decision to grant or refuse applications to subdivide land”. You have heard many arguments on that point too. Sir, and I have just mentioned this one particular case in my constituency which substantiates this leg. The one leg on which we have, however, not heard very much argument, is the second leg, which states that we decline to pass the Bill because it “leaves the State free to acquire good agricultural land and to use it for non-agricultural purposes”. Sir, is it the intention of the Minister, in terms of the powers which he will receive, to control other Government Departments in their acquisition of agricultural land? If, for example, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration wishes to take over certain agricultural holdings which are producing, and then attach those farms to the Bantu areas, will the Minister of Agriculture use his powers to circumvent the Minister of Bantu Administration? Does he have the power, in terms of this Bill, to do so?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the price of eggs.

Sir, I want to read to that hon. member something which I happened to notice in a newspaper, The Daily News of 22nd January, 1969, under the heading “Farmers fight African homes plan”. It goes on to mention the Estcourt farmers. Estcourt, incidentally, is in the heart of the Klip River constituency where, I believe, a byelection is going on at the moment. The article reads as follows—

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister support these farmers in their attempts against the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration? Is his interest to look after the farmers? Is his interest to retain this land for agricultural purposes?

It is.

Then he will oppose the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. Then he must delete that subsection in clause 1. He must take the power to be able to say to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration or the hon. the Minister of Planning or any other Minister who wants to take over good agricultural land and use it for some other purpose: No, you cannot have it.

M. C. Botha is your big bugbear man.

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to do this?

I am only concerned with agricultural land.

The hon. the Minister says he is only concerned about agricultural land. That is exactly the point I am raising. Here is a case where the farmers alleged that this is valuable agricultural land. These farmers go further and say—

But apart from it being an undesirable situation in the first place, the hon. the Deputy Minister says his interest is to look after and to protect valuable agricultural land. Will he protect it under these circumstances? This is one of the reasons why we will vote against this Bill. We will not accept the Second Reading.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said that this measure was merely handing over to the Department of Agriculture certain powers which the hon. the Minister of Planning had under the Physical Planning Act. I want him to tell us how he can come to this conclusion. I see nothing in this Bill which removes this land from the control of the hon. the Minister of Planning under the Physical Planning Act. The Physical Planning Act has already been applied to most of the Republic. I have not seen any other legislation introduced in this House to amend the Physical Planning Act to remove from the control of that hon. Minister the land which this hon. Minister now wants to control. And if you look at clause 1 and see what land the hon. the Minister wants to control you realize that this is nearly the whole of the Republic outside of the Bantu areas. We have said before and all speakers on this side of the House are agreed that some form of control is necessary. There is a degree of control to-day. It is a degree of control which I submit is adequate.

25 morgen.

Not necessarily 25 morgen.

In the Cape Province.

In the Cape Province. That is under a National Party Provincial Council. Let us come to Natal. Natal is the only province which has had a full survey and is the only administration which can tell you exactly what is in Natal. It has planned Natal and has ideas as to what every section of Natal could be used for.

And they want this measure.

Who wants this measure?

The Natal Provincial Administration.

I do not know where the hon. member gets his information from. I do not believe that they do.

Read the report of the committee of inquiry.

Which report of which committee of inquiry? I want to refer to something else in the Minutes which will show that the provinces have not as yet accepted this. In fact this shows the provinces are rather surprised that this legislation ever came up.

Let us go back to the beginning. This legislation flows from recommendations made by the interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of Professor Tomlinson. That committee was appointed by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. There is an ancillary committee which is also investigating this. It is a committee appointed by the Planning Advisory Council under the chairmanship of Professor J. H. Moolman of Pretoria University. This committee is considering the whole question of the control over the subdivision of smallholdings for residential and agricultural purposes. This last mentioned committee has not as yet reported. It has not yet submitted its full report to the provinces. It has however forwarded an interim memorandum. In that memorandum the view is expressed that “the subdivision of land falling in this category, namely the land other than agricultural land, should be controlled by the provinces”. So it is no good that hon. member saying that the provinces accepted this legislation.

I want to go further. The whole question of the subdivision of land was referred to the Administrators’ conference and the Administrators’ conference did not come to a final decision on this matter. It was left in abeyance for further investigation. The Administrator of the Transvaal was to come forward with a final recommendation at the next conference. But this Government has jumped the gun. So it is no good the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet saying that the provinces have accepted this. None of them has accepted it. I want to say that this is a direct infringement of the rights of the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited. I want to say that this is a direct infringement of the powers of the provinces. It is another whittling away of what little power is left in the hands of the provinces to-day.

That “whittling away” sounds so dramatic.

The hon. Chief Whip is quite right. Their powers have been whittled away slowly and bit by bit. With all the whittling they have done, they might as well have abolished the provincial councils by now. Here we have another bit going. Apart from the infringement of the powers of the provinces and taking power away from them, there are certain people who are going to suffer because of this legislation. I believe that no legislation should be passed by this House which is going to cause damage to people and cause them to suffer unnecessarily.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is going to happen to applications for private townships on agricultural land which have already been recommended by the Private Townships Board in Natal, for instance, and its equivalents in the other provinces. I include those which have been subdivided but in respect of which no diagrams have yet been submitted to the Surveyor-General. What is going to happen to those applications in respect of which need and desirability have already been proved and which have already been granted by the Administrator in Executive Council?

We are not concerned about those.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he is not concerned about them, but that is not in accordance with what the Bill states.

It has been done already.

What has been done already?

Where provision has already been made we will not withdraw it.

But that is not in the Bill. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will amend the Bill suitably when he deals with this point. Clause 2 of the Bill provides, inter alia, that—

1. (d) any subdivision of any land in connection with which a surveyor has completed the relevant survey and has submitted the relevant sub-divisional diagram and survey records for examination and approval to the Surveyor-General concerned …

There are many steps which are taken before they finally go to the Surveyor-General. Months and months of work and much expenditure are involved. Approval by the Private Townships Board and by the Town and Regional Planning Commission and other Government Departments, including the hon. the Minister’s Department, must be obtained before the plans are lodged with the Surveyor-General. What about those applications? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister amend the Bill suitably to allow these applications to go through?

No.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says no. This is precisely the point I am making. No legislation should deliberately harm anybody. That is another reason why we will vote against this legislation. This is not playing the game. This is the point that was alluded to by one of my colleagues on this side yesterday. We have seen the vacillating policy of this Minister. Now he is introducing the Bill and now he is not. Then he publishes a draft Bill for information. Last year he introduced a Bill which was withdrawn because of the public outcry. He has caused this tremendous flood of applications and now many of them have not reached the Surveyor-General. Unfortunately I shall not be here to-morrow but I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he will not consider introducing or accepting such an amendment to-morrow at the Committee Stage, at least to take care of those people who have gone that far and have obtained certificates of legal desirability and the approval of the Private Townships Board and the Town and Regional Planning Commission where that is applicable.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there is any need for me to say anything more about this matter. I think we on this side of the House have made our attitude quite clear as far as this measure is concerned. I support wholeheartedly the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park and will vote against the measure.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has lasted since yesterday evening, and a great deal has been said about this matter. I should like to confine myself simply to the principle of the matter. During the Committee Stage replies will be furnished to questions which have been put. I should like to thank all the members on this side of the House who participated in the discussion. On that side of the House I want to thank the hon. member for Walmer for his contribution. He gave me the impression that he was concerned about the land of this country. That is what this whole matter is concerned with. To my mind what is at issue here is not a speculator who will no longer be able to make a few rand profit, or a person who is no longer going to derive advantage from the fragmentation of our country. To my way of thinking it is the principle that matters. This was also the attitude which emanated from the speeches of hon. members on this side of the House. To our way oif thinking what is at issue here is something much more important than the personal advantage which a person can to-day derive from the fragmentation of land.

I regret, therefore, that the hon. member for Newton Park actually insinuated in his speech that we on this side of the House are not sincere and that we want to force down the prices of the farmer’s land artificially. That is the last thing we want to do. I can also give hon. members the assurance that it is not our intention to cause a disruption. We only want to protect what is in danger. It is strange that hon. members on that side of the House want to derive political advantage from this matter by saying that we are interfering with the rights of the people. What is the attribute of a good ruler? A good ruler says that even if it were to make him unpopular, he would nevertheless pass a law to prevent that person who was causing the fragmentation of the land of our country from doing so. (Eventually that government will become popular. They will, however, gain nothing by trying in this way to (gain favour with the electorate. It will not help them to say that they tried to prevent this Government depriving certain speculators of the right to make money out of the fragmentation of land.

What is more, we let ourselves be guided by various bodies. The D.R. Church and the Hervorm de Church asked an interdenominational committee to go into this matter specifically. I should like to quote their resolution on Warmbaths, where one farm after the other has been cut up into plots. Their finding reads as follows—

That was the finding of an interdenominational committee in 1968. The report goes on to read—

The hon. member in whose constituency Warmibaths lies, can give hon. members further information about the situation in his constituency. That piece of land was cut up into a hundred thousand plots. The hon. member for South Coast is quite right when he says that every South African wants a piece of land; that is the way we are made; we are tied to the soil. Even if we could not have a stand in a city, we would still like to have a plot or a piece of land. We are aware of this and we are very sympathetically disposed in this regard. But we must also look further into the future. We cannot allow land which is at present under production to be freely used for, as the hon. member for Mooi River said, holiday homes for example. He referred yesterday evening to the Underberg area. I think the rainfall in that area is 40 inches per annum. The land in that area is among the best agricultural land in South Africa. He ought to be proud of such a constituency and to say that he wants to retain the agricultural potential of that constituency. He ought to say that he is not prepared to see that area, with a rainfall of 40 inches per annum, fragmented into holiday homes.

It is being controlled now.

After my Second-Reading speech in which I indicated what the feeling in regard to this matter in our country was, a leading article appeared in Die Burger which read as follows—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to quote that report? It is a comment on the debate.

Order!

I want to read further—

Order! From what is the hon. the Deputy Minister reading?

Mr. Speaker,

I am reading the leading article in Die Burger which appeared the day after I made my Second-Reading speech.

No, the hon. the Deputy Minister may not read that.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The Government has, during the short while the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has been in existence, i.e. slightly less than three years, used R30 million of the tax payers money to enable more than 1,000 farmers to purchase land, mainly for the purpose of consolidation. I think the Opposition agrees that the means and opportunities should be created to increase the size of small units. Surely it is stupid to make money available for consolidation on the one hand and to allow fragmentation on the other. Can we allow it? I cannot see why the hon. members have been kicking up such a fuss about it since yesterday afternoon. The hon. member for Albany spoke about what a status symbol it is for the rich man to-day to own a plot near the city; not to produce anything. therefore, but merely as a status symbol. There are many other things which one can acquire as status symbols. The hon. member must remember, however, that by the year 2000 we are going to have 50 million people in this country, and we are not going to acquire one additional morgen of land. We have a responsibility to the soil. This legislation is for the sake of our children. Now hon. members are criticising the legislation on the grounds of economic units. I am telling the hon. members bluntly, it is not possible to define in legislation when a piece of land is an economic unit and when it is not. The hon. member for South Coast said that conditions changed, for example that the price of sugar fluctuated. Our standard of living is changing. What is to-day an economic unit, will perhaps not be an economic unit in 30 years’ time. It is not sufficient to say that the situation will remedy itself, as the hon. member for East London (City) said. Surely that is not a solution for the problem. We cannot lay down in legislation that an economic unit is of a specific size. The hon. member for Mossel Bay made it clear that under normal circumstances our criterion will be the net income of an average farmer.

What are normal circumstances?

Any person realizes what normal circumstances are. The hon. member for Newton Park spoke about a nine morgen wine farm. With changing techniques those nine morgen can be an economic unit for years to come, but the hon. member will agree that one cannot to-day cut up those nine morgen into 4½ morgen parts. Hon. members must understand that there are a hundred thousand plots. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) spoke about lands which have already been subdivided. We know that the speculators, when they realized that this legislation was coming, climbed in. Must that be a reason now to say to the hon. members that we are prepared to approve of this? If the case is a valid one, we will not be unreasonable. We do not want to cause any disruption, but I want the hon. member to understand the principle of this matter. If they can understand that, they will understand that we could not have waited any longer. The hon. member for Newton Park and the other members of the Opposition took it very amiss of the hon. the Minister of Transport when he referred to a commission. Now the hon. member for Newton Park rose to his feet and referred to “so-called investigations by commissions”. He referred derogatorily to commissions which have been established over the years to investigate the problem. They were all mentioned. He mentioned the 1932 Carnegie Commission on the Impoverishment of the Rural Areas, and referred to it as a “so-called commission”. He also referred in this way to the Committee for the Reconstruction of Agriculture which was appointed by the U.P. Minister Strauss. This committee’s report was accepted, and one of its findings was that one of our major problems in agriculture was in fact uneconomic units. There was also the Commission on the Occupancy of the rural areas, the Frans du Toit Commission. The people who served on that commission, are people who treated this land of ours with respect. One of the members of that “so-called” commission, as the hon. member for Newton Park called it, is the present secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, a person who has dedicated his life to agriculture. Dr. Piet Vorster. But he calls it a “so-called” commission! There were other commissions as well, under Professor Tomlinson, Dr. Henning, and others. They all found that legislation was necessary to save this situation. Hon. members on the opposite side elaborated at length on the rights of the individual. According to the hon. member for Newton Park we are with this legislation going to deprive the individual of his rights. Why is he not complaining then about the Soil Conservation Act, or about the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act? They are drastic measures. Why is he not complaining about the Weeds Act? According to that Act, the Government can virtually take a man by the throat and compel him to do something, and can also prosecute him. Why are hon. members on the opposite side not complaining about those Acts? What is the experience of the farmer in our country? The situation in our country is such that the farmer in the rural areas does not listen to hon. members who do not represent rural constituencies. The Government, with many hon. members on this side who represent the rural areas and who know the way the mind of the farmer works, is introducing this measure. The farmer will say that it is necessary for steps to be taken. The hon. member for Newton Park said that he opposed this measure because “inter alia it left the State a free hand to acquire good agricultural land and to utilize it for non-agricultural purposes”. Surely that is not the case. The hon. member for Newton Park had an opportunity of studying my Second-Reading speech before the time. That was his reaction to it. There was one thread running through my entire Second-Reading speech, namely the protection of our land, not for your sake or mine, but for the sake of our children and our children’s children. The hon. member also said. “If the Minister were to risk implementing this legislation, there will be such an agitation on the part of the farmers themselves that it will be impossible for it to implement this legislation.” That is the contact the hon. member has with agriculture and with the practising farmer! I now want to quote to you the resolution of the South African Agricultural Union in regard to this legislation. The congress of the S.A. Agricultural Union sent the following written resolution to us in 1968—

The hon. member for East London (City) stated repeatedly in this House that we took no notice of organized agriculture.

No, I did not.

It is stated in Hansard. The only hon. member I ever find at agricultural congresses, is the hon. member for East London (City). I have never seen the hon. member for Newton Park at an agricultural congress. I attend almost all of them. The South African Agricultural Union is a non-political organization. An hon. member on the opposite side also referred to the byelection in Klip River and said that he should like to know how the people there were going to react. Hon. members on the opposite side must therefore not take it amiss of me if in future I say to the South African Agricultural Union that their requests are being opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition. If they want to make a political issue of something as noble as our land, then hon. members on the opposite side must bear in mind that we can do the same thing.

There is the matter of testation. An hon. member said yesterday evening that we were even going so far as to penalize a man in his grave. It has already been emphatically stated, and we shall repeat it in the Committee Stage, that the wills of persons who are already deceased will not be touched. As regards the will of a man still living, surely it is the case that he receives notification and is informed that he can rectify it. We are not going to be unreasonable. We are not going to catch fleas with this legislation and cause unnecessary disruption. If hon. members understand and accept the principle, they will see that we are going to cause very little disruption with this. That is the whole idea. But now hon. members must remember something. With all due respect, many people perhaps draw up a will when they are already senile. A man has four sons for example and 400 morgen of land, which in the Eastern Transvaal is probably an economic unit. He loves those four children of his, and now he bequeaths 100 morgen to each. I have seen wills which were drawn up with these conditions: The son who did not occupy that land, was disowned. We are going to help the people with that kind of situation and say that they cannot go on like that in future. I believe, and my conscience is quite clean, that I can defend this Bill, as hon. members on this side of the House said, at any time. The farmers will accept this legislation with acclamation.

I move—

In the memorandum published concurrently with the Bill, a brief survey is given of the causes which led to the preparation and submission of draft legislation in connection with fresh produce markets. From that you will notice that the fresh produce industry, and particularly the facilities which are necessary for the marketing of fresh produce, have been receiving attention for several years, and that certain attempts have been made to reduce the shortcomings in connection with the existing marketing and distribution arrangements for fresh produce.

Because of a variety of factors, the marketing and distribution of fresh produce are undoubtedly more difficult than that of many other agricultural products. Circumstances in connection with many sorts of fresh produce are of such a nature, for example, that it is not possible to introduce fully-fledged marketing schemes under the Marketing Act in respect of such products. The lack of the necessary stabilizing measures results in certain fresh produce being subject to surplus and other adverse conditions. However, hon. members will recall that during the 1969 session an amendment to the Marketing Act was proposed and accepted in terms of which it will now be possible to take measures in respect of these products which will counteract the present adverse marketing conditions, without introducing full-fledged and expensive marketing schemes in terms of that Act. This was a step in the right direction and should have a favourable effect on the stability of the fresh produce industry in future. It is also true, of course, that the orderly marketing of fresh produce at stable prices is very closely connected with and to a certain extent dependent on the presence of effective produce markets—effective in the sense, firstly, that properly equipped facilities are available and, secondly, that such facilities function in a sound, economic way. Merely to make provision for the promulgation of stabilizing measures is therefore not sufficient. One should also endeavour to improve marketing facilities in the last-mentioned two respects.

It is a historical feature that almost all fresh produce markets in the Republic are owned and controlled by local authorities. Some markets, namely those which are situated in the urban centres of the Republic, are to a large extent provided with supplies by producers who are spread over a wide area, while the products sold there are consumed over a much larger area than the city in which such a market is situated. This dispersal of the interests of producers and consumers deprives such a market of its local nature and, along with the profound influence which such markets have on the economy of the fresh produce industry, makes them institutions of national importance. However, the municipalities which run them are institutions of a local nature which are primarily expected to see to matters of mainly local importance, and this is possibly the main cause of the fundamental weakness of the present marketing and distribution arrangements, namely the fact that the wider aspect of the marketing economy of fresh produce is not given proper attention as regards the provision and management of marketing facilities. In the nature of things, the marketing economy is a national matter, so that local authorities naturally cannot be expected to accept final responsibility in this regard, and in order to ensure that such municipal markets will, in the wider sense of the marketing economy, serve their purpose adequately under rapidly changing circumstances, it is necessary that a central co-ordinating authority with the necessary statutory powers be established. After thorough investigation it was found that the Minister of Agriculture was best equipped to undertake this function.

In saying this I do not wish to create the impression that it is the intention with this Bill to disregard the local authorities as marketing authorities and to curtail their powers in this connection unnecessarily.

The proposed legislation deals mainly with the central markets in the larger urban centres of the Republic, and in order to identify these markets for the purposes of the Bill, the State President is being empowered to declare such a market a national fresh produce market. It is proposed that the executive authority in respect of the proposed central control be entrusted to the Minister. The problems facing the fresh produce industry are of such a nature, however, that they require careful and specialized study beforehand, and accordingly the attitude was adopted that a separate and expert body which would concentrate exclusively on matters concerning fresh produce would be best equipped to assist the Minister in the execution of his functions. A further object of the Bill is therefore to establish a commission which will be known as the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets. The purpose of this commission will be to advise the Minister on all matters relating to the siting, erection, extension, alteration, use, management and conduct of fresh produce markets and, in general, to assist the Minister to co-ordinate and rationalize activities connected with fresh produce markets.

It is proposed that the commission consist of three or more members appointed by the State President by reason of their experience in and knowledge of fresh produce industry and the particular problems connected with it. From the nature of the case, certain aspects of the management and conduct of fresh produce markets are very closely connected with internal municipal arrangements of which outsiders can hardly be aware, and therefore it is advisable that someone who has knowledge in this connection be appointed to the commission. Consequently, the Bill makes specific provision for the appointment to the commission of at least one person who has particular knowledge of the management and conduct of fresh produce markets of which local authorities are the owners. Although such an appointment should contribute a great deal towards a better understanding of the problems of local authorities, this member, however, must not be regarded as a person representing municipal interests on the commission. In fact, and this is an aspect which I should like to emphasize, it is definitely not the intention that the members of the commission will represent particular bodies or interest groups on the commission, A commission constituted on the basis of representative interest groups may have obvious advantages, but if these advantages are weighed up against the disadvantages involved in that, namely the problem of divided loyalty and the fact that such a commission would not be able to follow a stable and consistent policy, it becomes clear that a representative commission is unpractical in the circumstances. However, I want to give hon. members the assurance that interested organizations such as the South African Agricultural Union and the United Municipal Executive will be consulted in the appointment of the members of the commission.

It is nevertheless essential that there be adequate contact with the various bodies and interest groups. A fresh produce market is, of course, a valuable property to the municipality which controls it, but at the same time it must be borne in mind that it is also a vital link in the distribution network for fresh produce in which a variety of bodies and persons are involved.

In order to co-ordinate the market activities of the various interest groups in an organized way and to ensure the necessary contact with one another and with the central authority envisaged, it is therefore proposed that the Minister be empowered to appoint advisory committees in respect of the various national fresh produce markets. A market advisory committee will be a representative body on which the owner of the market, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the South African Railways and Harbours Administration, producers and other classes of interested parties will be represented. In addition, the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets will be granted the right to attend meetings of the advisory committees. In connection with the functions of the market advisory committees, I should like to point out that they will have no executive authority in connection with the functioning of a market, because such authority would create an untenable position for the market owner. The market owner or his representatives will also be the chairman of such a committee at all times.

As mentioned before, all the executive powers granted by the Bill will be vested in the Minister. However, adequate provision is being made to preclude the Minister from exercising any power before having consulted with the commission. I want to refer briefly to these powers and to explain the functions of the commission further.

The first aspect is the establishment of new market facilities. The Bill prohibits the establishment of new fresh produce markets or the making of substantial structural alterations to existing fresh produce markets in the controlled area without the permission of the Minister. The controlled area will embrace the larger urban areas of the Republic. Over the years a number of the urban markets have become so overloaded and therefore inadequate that they will have to be replaced or substantially enlarged in due course. I have already pointed out that these markets have to a large extent outgrown their character as purely local institutions, and it is therefore of real importance that the establishment of new market facilities in the areas mentioned should fit in with the broader national planning of the Republic.

It is proposed that all the existing tariffs payable to market owners for the use of national fresh produce markets be frozen at the rats which applied immediately before the coming into operation of the proposed Act and that the Minister be empowered to fix or revise such tariffs on the application of the owner of such a market or on the recommendation of the commission. Before any increase in market tariffs is approved, the commission will first carefully examine the economic effectiveness of the market concerned and report on it to the Minister.

In order to co-ordinate the tariffs of all fresh produce markets in the Republic on a national basis, it is necessary that the Minister be consulted when the Administrator of a province increases the tariffs of a market which is not a national market, or approves of an increase of such tariffs. Accordingly the Bill also provides that an Administrator shall henceforth not approve such increases except in consultation with the Minister.

So much as far as the Minister and the commission’s proposed powers are concerned. An aspect which is very closely connected with the provision of effective market facilities is the question of the possible provision of financial assistance by the Central Government. The committee which investigated certain aspects of the fresh produce industry under the chairmanship of Dr. W. J. B. Slater, found in this connection that a case can definitely be made out for the provision of financial assistance to national fresh produce markets by the State. The committee recommended that the State make a capital donation of one third of the total capital cost of the establishment of and/or improvements to all national markets. This comprises a donation in respect of all new markets to be established or improved, as well as those established or improved in recent years.

This recommendation was carefully considered by the Government, and it was decided that financial assistance for the establishment of new municipal markets in the nine larger urban areas is justifiable. However, the assistance will be granted in the form of a contribution towards losses which may be suffered by markets, equivalent to not more than 5 per cent of the capital costs of the market, for a period of two years after such market is taken into use. Parliament will be approached in this Session already to make funds available for new markets which were established in recent years, and it will of course be approached from time to time in future as well to make funds available for this purpose.

The successful realization of the aims of this Bill is to a large extent dependent on the way in which the Minister and the Commission will approach the persons concerned in the industry. I regard it as essential that the provisions in the Bill should be applied in a spirit of mutual consultation and co-operation, especially as far as market owners are concerned.

The provisions embodied in the Bill are based largely on the report and recommendations of the Slater Committee, to which I referred earlier.

On this occasion I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to the chairman and members of that Committee for the valuable services rendered by them.

Let me set the mind of the hon. the Deputy Minister at ease at once, by saying that the Opposition will not oppose this legislation. The legislation which the hon. the Deputy (Minister has just introduced, in this instance reflects the fine work done (by a commission which dealt with a matter involving various problems, and because the solution offered is, in the opinion of this side of the House, worth of support, we shall support this legislation. We on this side of the House want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to express also our gratitude to Dr. Slater and his commission for the excellent work done by them in this regard. You see. Sir, when it comes to our fresh produce industry, it is undoubtedly true that several changes have taken place in this industry over the past few years. Not only is it essential for us to think in terms of the future increase in our population, but it is also undeniably true that there will be an enormous increase in our consumption of fresh produce. Consequently it is absolutely essential when it comes to the marketing of our fresh produce, that the marketing thereof will be regulated in as orderly a fashion as possible, not only so as to allow the farmer of South Africa to obtain a decent price for his product, but also so as to establish the necessary facilities for the consumer, so that the consumer may obtain the product of the farmer in the best position possible and in the best condition possible. Over the years our municipal markets have come to be accepted as one of the easiest channels through which the farmer, the vegetable farmer, the fresh produce farmer, is able to bring his product to the consumer. But over the years another tendency has been manifesting itself, which means to-day that the consumer is not only interested in the fresh produce which the farmer supplies, but is also becoming progressively more interested in the production and the processing of our fresh produce. Consequently one finds to-day that the housewife is becoming more and more interested in frozen foods, and, similarly, is becoming more and more interested in frozen vegetables. But my sincere conviction is that the average housewife of South Africa will always want the fresh product, as it is the easiest, and most certainly the most wholesome, to prepare for the family. Therefore we may expect a considerable increase in the fresh produce industry; the consumption of fresh produce will increase as well as the demand for fresh produce.

If this commission succeeds in creating the best possible opportunities for marketing, we on this side of the House will have no objection. This side of the House shares the wish of the Deputy Minister that the marketing of the farmer’s product should be regulated in the best and most orderly way possible. If this is done, the consumer will be able to obtain products of the best quality in a fine condition and the farmer will be able to obtain the best possible price for his product. This legislation is an example of how this may be arranged, and we are moving more and more in the right direction. Various cities in South Africa changed their markets in the past few years. New ones were built and extensions were made. Other large urban markets will be changed in the future. Some cities are giving consideration to the building of completely new markets. Therefore it is necessary to have a commission of this nature, just as, for example, an Abattoir Commission was established a few years ago, in order to give these people the right guidance and the right advice.

In this legislation there are, however, a few points which immediately give rise to questions. The Deputy Minister will remember that he said in his speech that the Slater Commission had recommended that municipalities which incurred capital expenditure in connection with the building of markets, should receive one-third of that capital in the form of a subsidy. This is not stated in the Bill, but according to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and according to the memorandum as well, it is envisaged that municipalities will receive 5 per cent on that capital for a period of two years. This will serve as a subsidy on the capital expenditure incurred by them. If a municipality spends, for example, R200,000 on building a market, it will receive 5 per cent interest on that capital amount for a period of two years. Sir, this Slater Commission did excellent work. Therefore, could the hon. the Minister and the Treasury not see their way clear to accepting the recommendation of the Slater Commission in this regard as well? It will be of considerable help to the local authorities, and it will improve to a considerable extent the facilities they want to create. In this respect, I think, a change may possibly be made. Clause 16 lays down the principle that the hon. the Minister may assist them. However, no fixed formula is laid down. The hon. the Minister will most certainly be sympathetic towards such a local authority. For example, if a local authority were to approach him at some later stage to tell him that it regretted the fact but that it had incurred expenditure and was of the opinion that 5 per cent interest on that expenditure for a period of two years was insufficient assistance, I think the hon. the Minister would most certainly open his heart and his purse to those people. We want the hon. the Deputy Minister to realize that although that 5 per cent is being appreciated, it differs too greatly from the recommendations made by the Slater Commission. In addition to the fact that the Slater Commission had a former secretary of the Cape Provincial Council as its chairman, outstanding experts on the agricultural industry, the vegetable industry and local markets, served on that commission. Why would those people have made that recommendation if they had considered the one-third they recommended as being outrageous? I think they recommended it for the very reason that they realized the difficulties of the farmer and the difficulties of the local authority. If the Deputy Minister does not see his way clear to granting a full third of the capital amount expended, he should at least be prepared to go further than just granting 5 per cent for two years.

There is another question I want to put to the Deputy Minister. This Commission will have the power to impose tariffs, or rather to make recommendations to the Minister with regard to the tariffs to he imposed. I am now referring to the tariffs relating to the services rendered hy a market. The agent receives his commission, and, of course, the market as well, for the service they render to the farmer. What I want to know now, is whether the three or four members who are going to constitute this committee, will be paid their salaries from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or whether those salaries will have the effect that an additional tariff or levy will have to be imposed on the vegetable farmer? I want to repeat that the attitude we adopt in this regard corresponds to the one we adopted with regard to the Abattoir Commission. This Markets Commission is not going to exist to serve only the interests of the farmer. It is going to exist to serve the interests of the consumer as well. It is a service which the State can render. I think they are prepared to render this service, but when it comes to the question of paying for this service, is it necessary that the farmer has to be the only one who has to pay for it? I do not know whether it is the intention to pay these salaries from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Possibly this is, in fact, the intention, but it is not stated in this legislation. I do not know where this is stated. I want the Deputy Minister, if he will be so kind, to give us a reply to this question.

In conclusion, Sir, I just want to say that we believe that this legislation is essential. This is good legislation. It will help both the consumer and the farmer, and I think that this is legislation in which a sound view is taken of the future. That is why we on this side of the House have no further objections to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the support of the Opposition for this measure, especially after we have had to struggle for a day about an equally fine Bill. The hon. member for Newton Park raised a number of matters, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister will definitely reply. I should like to point out, however, that municipalities and local authorities have always rendered the farmers a major service by placing markets at their disposal. On the other hand, I also want to point out that the farmers have always paid for those services. Most municipalities have not suffered any losses on their markets. In the end the farmer is the one who pays. The municipality does have to make large sums of money available, but on the other hand the farmer is the one who in the end has to pay for that service which is being rendered to him.

We want to thank the commissions that have been working on this matter throughout the years. I have in mind, for example, the De Klerk Commission of 1951, which made certain recommendations at that time already, and definitely brought about improvements. They recommended the establishment of the National Markets Advisory Council. That Council was established and did fine work. In the course of the years, however, we found that the powers of the Council were inadequate. It had no statutory powers. Now the Slater Commission has recommended the appointment of a stronger body. Consequently I welcome this measure by means of which we are now giving this body more powers. This is what we need in the marketing of our products. I should have liked to have seen this body having powers similar to those of a board of control. The marketing of our primary products is a matter of great importance to our farmers. If we should find at a later stage that the powers we are giving this body in this Bill to-day, are inadequate, I should like to see these powers being extended even further and even more being done by us in the future in order to strengthen this body. Only through exercising strong control is it possible to regulate marketing properly.

We have seen throughout the years that boards of control have been doing a fine job of work. We are now establishing this market advisory body to perform a major task for us. It has to see to the siting, designing, planning, erection, alteration, extension and the use of the markets. Here I have in mind new trends which are manifesting themselves, especially overseas. In South Africa, too, we are already finding to an increasing extent that produce is being sold by private contract and that the auction system is being used less frequently. There are, therefore, new trends to which we must have regard. It will be the duty and the function of this new body to consider these new developments, especially in respect of the management of the markets and the performance of services at the markets. We are giving these people a major task, but we are giving them only advisory powers. It is in this regard that I think that we shall possibly have to go a little further in future. They will, in fact, have additional powers, which I welcome whole-heartedly, i.e. the power to institute investigations, the powers to call for witnesses and to go into possible marketing problems. I should like to see emphasis being placed on this aspect in particular, because we shall definitely have to proceed in new directions in order to make progress. I do not know whether the Act contains any provision in this regard, as I might have overlooked it, but I should like to see some provision in the Act for staff and for research funds.

Whereas advisory powers are being given to this body, the Minister, too, is being given vast powers. We believe the Minister will act on the recommendations of this body. Another reason I have to welcome this legislation is that our vegetables and fruit have always been neglected to some extent. Fifty-two per cent of our farm produce is being marketed through a one-channel marketing scheme. Of these products, prices are fixed for maize, winter grain and industrial milk, which represent 32 per cent of our produce. This is what our farmers want. Then there is a further 20 per cent of our farm produce which is dealt with in terms of a pool system. I have in mind tobacco, wine, sugar-cane, deciduous fruits for export, citrus fruit, dried fruit, chicory, oil seeds, lucerne seed, rooibos tea, fresh milk, cream and bananas. Therefore, most of our products do have protection. We went further and gave protection to certain perishable products as well. In this way we have given protection to a further 37 per cent of our products under the surplus removal scheme. I have in mind meat, wool, potatoes, eggs, dried beans and kaffir com. This leaves 10 per cent of the produce, namely fresh fruits and vegetables, which do not have any protection as yet. For that reason I welcome this body, as it is going to look after the interests of this remaining 10 per cent of our agricultural produce. I should like to see this body meaning a great deal to these products in the future, finding new directions for the marketing of these products, and, eventually, possibly even arranging the supply of products to the markets. This remains a major need as far as I am concerned, i.e. that there is no arrangement as yet with regard to the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables to the markets.

Perhaps we shall eventually also have fixing of prices. Perhaps it is wishful thinking to express the hope to-night that we shall be able to fix prices, but we find, especially as a result of private sales on markets which are increasing progressively, that we already do have fixing of prices to a large extent. We on this side of the House welcome this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the previous speakers. We on this side of the House certainly welcome this Bill; we believe this is good legislation. It is in the interest of both the producer and the consumer that you have well-established markets where the produce can easily be bought by those who are requiring it. This position has not prevailed in all our big cities. In the Eastern Cape, our market at Port Elizabeth has certainly been overcrowded and this does not enable a free flow of produce to take place. For this reason we welcome this legislation and I think we will be one of the first big municipalities to establish a market on the basis of this particular legislation.

There is another matter which has not been referred to by other hon. members who have spoken. That is the question of supplying the large non-European townships around out big cities. I have seen municipal markets in the cities which have created depots in these non-European areas and which are functioning very well. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister, when he consults with the commission that is established by this legislation, to bear in mind that the functioning of these markets should be able to be adjusted with the use of depots in the non-European areas. These people who to-day create a tremendous demand for fresh produce are prepared to buy the very best and we should see that supply depots are created to make it easy for these people to buy the produce which they are very keen to get hold of nowadays. This can be a big factor in solving the problem of surpluses, which is always haunting the farmer. We often find that when he becomes efficient and when he is able to produce the foodstuffs required, he is landed with a surplus. I believe that when we investigate properly and provide the proper facilities, there is no real need for us to have surpluses, because the demand is always there.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before this House represents such an important milestone that I deem it necessary to turn it over in my mind to some extent in an attempt to find fresh lines of thought in this regard. As a result of my bonds with a particular part of this country, i.e. the Lowveld of the Eastern Transvaal, where large quantities of vegetables and subtropical fruits are produced which are sent to the fresh produce markets, I should like to express a few ideas in this connection. First I want to refer to what the hon. member for Newton Park said in connection with financing. I do not think the hon. member has read the White Paper on this Bill, otherwise he would have seen that the Slater Committee, and not, as he said, a commission, recommended a capital grant as well as a grant of 5 per cent to meet losses. I welcome the fact that some elbow-room is being left in this legislation in clause 16; it does not prescribe the exact way in which financing is to take place. I think here we are dealing with something we will still have to learn a great deal about. The recommendations of the commission to be appointed for dealing with this matter, may throw more light on this matter and may enable us to see in what way financing should be undertaken. If one finds that one is bound by legislation in advance it will only complicate instead of facilitate the matter.

When I say this is a milestone, in fact, a special milestone, I first want to mention to this House that we generally accept that the farmer’s only function is to produce. In point of fact the farmer has two basic functions; first as a producer and secondly as a marketer of the produce he has produced. We are inclined to think that the farmer simply has to produce, and that his task is completed when he has done so. Now, as other hon. members on this side pointed out, for example the hon. member for Hutnansdorp, there are various kinds of produce, and by means of the Marketing Act we have created a whole number of marketing channels which facilitates this marketing function which the farmer has. These two functions of the farmer, i.e. production and marketing, are both subject to a great number of risks. Here we are not concerned now with the risk of production, of which we always hear in this House when we are discussing the problems of the agricultural industry and of the farmer.

We are also inclined to forget that the risk is to be found not only in the production of that commodity, but also in the marketing of the commodity. Fresh produce, in particular, involves a great risk in this regard. If tomatoes or beans have to be picked to-day, a farmer cannot wait until to-morrow or the day after while some of them are ripe to-day, because otherwise the tomatoes may be overripe or the beans may be to hard. In other words, he simply takes matters into his own hands and hopes that if he harvests the crop to-day and puts it on the market, he will obtain the best results from that.

This is one of the inherent weaknesses in the agricultural industry, i.e. that we have approximately 90,000 farmers, each competing individually with the other. In the case of the fresh produce market, the biggest problem is created by the fact that we are not organized, because it is not practicable to communicate with all farmers and, secondly because the product does not lend itself to that. If a farmer has to put his produce on the market he is in most circumstances obliged to harvest and market the product immediately, otherwise the risk that the product might go to waste is very great. There are approximately 30,000 farmers who supply fresh produce to our various markets. The total value of this produce is considerable; it is in the vicinity of R200 million per year. What we are concerned with here, i.e. the produce that goes to the fresh produce markets, mainly consist of vegetables, tropical fruits and small quantities of other kinds of fruit. The value of that varies from R70 million to R85 million per year. Therefore, a considerable amount of money is involved here. But it does not end there.

The position is that the consumer of the produce supplied to our fresh produce markets for approximately R80 million per year, easily pays R300 million to R350 million for that produce when it reaches him. There are a great number of links in the chain. The most important link is the fresh produce market, the point at which the produce is brought together and from where other distributors can undertake its further distribution. It is important to know that the costs of the marketing of fresh produce may be considerable, even for the producer. I read in the report of the Department of Economics and Marketing that one of the bursary students had conducted an investigation into the marketing of tomatoes. In the first place, mention is made of the fact—and this is interesting—that two-thirds of the overall tomato crop is produced in the northern and eastern parts of the Transvaal. The production there has become so important that it is already undertaken throughout the largest part of the year.

However, we now come to the costs of marketing that commodity. Where it has to be put on the Cape market, it involves a much higher transport cost. If we analyse the costs, however, we find that a container suitable for transport over that long distance and for proper and attractive presentation on the market, is much more expensive than the transport from the Eastern Lowveld to the Cape.

All these aspects show that here we are concerned with a very important function, firstly for the farmer, who is the producer, and secondly for the consumer. He cannot simply accept that this merely amounts to R70 million or R80 million per year; what the consumer pays for it is what is important. The more cheaply and the more efficiently the farmer is able to put his product on the fresh produce market, the better the service will be which he will be able to render to the consumer of that product. I just want to mention that it is important that the farmer should move as far as possible along the marketing channel to the consumer; also as regards this produce. Where we now have legislation for appointing a commission to exercise control over fresh produce markets, or to advise the Minister on such markets, I hope that we shall be able to get our farmers’ communities, who are producing so independently of one another, to organize themselves so that they may move closer to the consumers, because the closer one is able to move in the direction of the consumer, the greater is the percentage of the profit made on that product which goes to the farmer himself.

The Bill before this House at present does not offer a solution to all problems, but it does represent an enormous breakthrough and milestone. I want to thank and congratulate the Minister and the Department concerned. There are many who worked on the matter before them, inter alia, the Slater Committee, and I hope that with the appointment of the commission as envisaged in this Bill, we shall eliminate to a great extent all the evils on our fresh produce markets, i.e. the forming of rings, market speculators, poor planning, poor management and everything related thereto. I want to plead for the 30,000 farmers concerned in this matter, as well as for the consumer. Here we now have something which will make a positive contribution. I feel that this kind of legislation is in the interests of our farming community. I want to conclude—perhaps the Deputy Minister will still have time for his reply—by expressing my gratitude and good wishes to him and his Department.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start with the hon. member for Newton Park. He referred to the 5 per cent, the fact that the period is a little short and that the Slater Commission initially asked for one third. I just want to tell him that there is one municipality which is contemplating the establishment of a market which will cost at least R5 million. If we use 5 per cent of the capital cost for the redemption of losses, the yield will be R250,000 a year. As regards the question of the two years, I cannot give him a reply; I just know that when the two years have elapsed and the market still shows a loss, we can ask the Minister of Finance for additional assistance. But it is a considerable amount. The hon. member referred to a market which cost R100,000. Such a market is only a very small one. Not one of the nine controlled areas can build a market for R100,000.

I merely mentioned the money by way of example.

Yes. As regards the salaries, I may just say that they will come out of the State coffers. He is quite right; we are concerned that they will also be loaded onto the shoulders of the producer.

The hon. member for Humansdorp suggested that we expand the fresh produce control boards. We just have to be very careful. There are, for example, 43 different kinds of vegetables that are marketed on the Witswaters-rand—things may be overdone, and then we may even have a pumpkin board and a radish board. We can have too many of these boards. In any case, some of his suggestions will be useful in the future.

The hon. member for Walmer mentioned supply depots and said that we as producers were all seeking new markets for our products. I am glad he put it in that way.

The hon. member for Nelspruit represents one of the constituencies which produce the most vegetables in our country. I am glad that he brought these few points to our notice. I should like to thank the Opposition for being so intelligent as to support this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.