Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation, I should like to effect a correction of an error in my reply to the Third Reading debate on the Post Office Appropriation Bill. Because of the misinterpretation by my Department of information received from Pretoria per telex report, I referred to 13 and 688 non-white post offices, whereas it should have been 13 and 688 posts at non-white offices. I regret having furnished incorrect information, but I want to point out that it does not alter my argument in any way.

I move—

Sir, we have no objection to the Bill at this stage. The only query that we raised during the Committee Stage of this Bill was the apparent position that the Minister would no longer be obliged to consult with the Administrator of South-West Africa when he appoints Judges to that division. The hon. the Minister explained why in fact it was that this provision was there. It is because it would otherwise create an anomaly in the sense that the South-West Africa Affairs Act of 1969 provided that a reference to an Administrator in any law should be a reference to the Minister in charge of that Department. He pointed out that this was so unless it was a particular case where it was obviously inappropriate. Now in law one cannot say, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, that it is obviously inappropriate. But what we do suggest to the hon. the Minister is that while in law it cannot be said to be appropriate, because the law was changed in 1969, I think in practice it is appropriate and desirable that in appointing Judges in South-West Africa the hon. the Minister should consult as far as he can with the Administrator in Executive Committee. I hope that the Minister can give us the assurance that he will.

The reason for the Administrator having been consulted previously, was that the funds for the remuneration of Judges and the staff of the South-West Africa Division came from the South-West Africa Fund, whereas this is no longer the case at present. If the hon. member will look at clause 5 of the Bill, he will see the same thing is happening there. In that clause the provision relating to the South-West Africa Fund is being deleted, and the Republic Revenue Fund has to make the payments. That is the reason for it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I think we may enter into a compromise as far as this clause is concerned. There is much in what was said by hon. members opposite. At the same time the legal advisors are standing by their view that “pretend” is the correct word. Now, I cannot see that it will make any difference if we say “professes or pretends” in the English text and “te kenne gee of voorgee” in the Afrikaans text. In my opinion it will meet this case, and for that reason I move as an amendment—

The amendment is quite acceptable to this side of the House. May I say at the same time that we are indebted to the hon. the Minister for the attitude he displayed here yesterday and to-day. It is a reasonable and proper attitude towards arguments put forward from this side of the House and I hope it will serve as a very good example to other hon. gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Benches. In the circumstances, with the leave of the Committee, I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Ball reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

There is one point I should like to raise with the Minister in terms of the definition of land in paragraph (a), i.e. land which is situated within the area of jurisdiction of a municipal council, etc. Now there are in the course of preparation in Natal sub-divisional plans for townships which have received the approval of the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission and the Private Townships Board. They have been approved and I believe I am correct in saying that the subdivision plans have been approved, but I am not quite sure as to the status of those areas in terms of the powers the Minister is now taking. Have townships which have been approved by the Town and Regional Planning Commission now to be taken under inspection again by the hon. the Minister and his Department for any further processing? They have received the approval of the authorities in Natal which were set up to control the subdivision of ground for private townships; it is agricultural land outside the boundaries of present urban areas. Do the Minister’s powers under this new Bill imply some further restriction or some further satisfaction to be provided by the authorities to the Minister in order to be allowed to proceed with the subdivision of that ground?

There is no intention whatsoever of causing any disruption. Neither is it the intention of the legislation to exclude any further township development, because we must establish additional residential facilities for the people there. In that specific case I can tell the hon. member that if the planning has already progressed so far, there will be no further interference at this stage, and the planning will continue.

At the Second Reading we made our attitude very clear and in respect of this clause 1, under definition (b), which reads “land of which the State is the owner or which is held in trust by the State or a Minister for any person”, we made it very clear that this Act exempts the State from any obligation. In other words, if the clause is accepted as it now stands here, the Act only has a bearing on bona fide agricultural land, while the State also has large portions of land. In other words, the hon. the Minister may divide up as he wishes without himself coming under the provisions of this Act. We think this is unreasonable and unfair, because if there is such an argument to the effect that the ordinary farmer is doing all the subdividing, there is surely also proof that the State has in the past divided up land in parts where the land has become altogether uneconomical. Except, of course, if the hon. the Minister gives us the assurance that it is going to be his future policy to ensure that uneconomic subdivision will not take place; then one can understand it, but then he can also include the State under the same provisions of this Act. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the answer to this, because we feel unhappy that this is still leaving the State free to subdivide good agricultural land according to their likes, while if the Act is passed we expect the farmers of the country to subdivide according to the Minister’s provisions.

It is an altogether strange argument the hon. member for Newton Park is using there. The State is introducing a Bill to put a stop to this practice. In other words, it is the State’s policy not to subdivide agricultural land. In fact, the State’s whole policy is aimed at consolidation, and at helping people to consolidate. There are the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Acts, which the State established to help farmers to consolidate agricultural land.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to clause 1, which is now under discussion; he must not make a Second Reading speech.

With respect, it was to explain what the hon. member said there and to explain the spirit in which the State is approaching this Bill before the Committee. The State is constantly consolidating, and the State must surely have the power to classify certain land, which is to-day classified as agricultural land, for other purposes in the future, and for that reason the State must be exempted. If the State were to come under this clause, it would have to apply to the Department of Agriculture for the right to subdivide, to the same Department that administers this Act. I therefore cannot see how the hon. member could really have any objection to that.

During the Second Reading I asked a question about the position of divisional councils in the Cape which act as health committees, and that it could be argued that the words “health committee” could be used to exempt an entire divisional council area. In his reply the hon. Minister made no mention of that. I should very much like to know whether he has an answer for that, because in the Cape most of our divisional councils do, in fact, function as health committees over their entire area, and not only in a small locality. In other words, they cover all the farms in that district and there they function as a health committee. We have not yet had a reply to that, and I will be glad if the Minister would give us one.

I think the hon. member for Fauresmith replied conclusively to the hon. member for Newton Park’s question about State-owned land. As far as divisional councils are concerned, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the divisional councils, the provinces, the bodies concerned and the municipalities are all defined in clause 1, and that land is excluded. But we are going to co-operate and co-ordinate where a divisional council perhaps possesses a tremendously large area. I am thinking of a town in the Karoo, for example, where the commonage alone is 3,000 morgen. According to the provisions of clause 1 that 3,000 morgen can be cut up to form a township area. But we are going to co-operate with these people. If you look at the date of commencement of this Act, it has specifically been determined so that we can synchronize with the Department of Planning. The one is going to co-operate with the other. I have repeatedly said that there would be no disruption. Where there is a need for the establishment of a new township, this can take place after consultation with the Department. With a view to food production we shall in any case have to establish more townships. All these things will be dealt with on merit and without disruption.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment of which I gave notice, as follows—

We have no objection to this amendment. All it is doing is to clarify that areas in the Transvaal will also be included.

As far as the other point is concerned, we cannot accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation as to why the State must not be subject to these provisions as well. Therefore I move as an amendment—

I cannot understand the hon. member for Newton Park’s argument. He speaks of an explicit Act, but this paragraph is there specifically to clarify the legislation. Without this paragraph in the legislation the department would be saddled with a lot of additional administrative work. The Department would then have to apply to itself and would in any case have to approve such applications. A few years ago we passed the State Land Disposal Act here. It provides that where the State gives land to private individuals, that land may never again be sold separately if it is uneconomical. It would have to form a unit to give the purchaser an economic unit. I therefore do not see what spectre the hon. member is seeing in this paragraph. In my opinion it is necessary, and as such it is altogether logical that it should be here.

I want to point out to the hon. member that this is not merely a question of division. The Deputy Minister made it clear that any division must be economical. In other words, he foresees that norms will be laid down. If we now expect this from the farmer, is it then unreasonable to lay down the same norms for the State, when it distributes settlement lands, for example? How many times has it already happened that the State bought up large areas and subsequently subdivided them? Under the Orange River scheme, for example, the Government is going to do exactly the same thing. Why, if this is expected of the farmer, cannot the same be expected of the State? If the Deputy Minister could give us the assurance that the same norms are also going to be applicable to the State, we shall accept his word for that. And if he does, in fact, give us such an assurance, why could he not include it in the legislation?

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member is now making politics out of this. In his Second-Reading speech he already accused the hon. the Minister of wanting to take good agricultural land and to use it for non-agricultural purposes. There he already wanted to accuse the hon. the Deputy Minister of underhand dealing. In any case, the hon. member surely ought to know, after all his years in Parliament, that this kind of thing is not applicable to the State, and surely he knows what the position is under the interpretation of statutes. In case he does not know, I want to quote him a portion from the “Uitleg van Wette” by Chief lustice L. C. Steyn (translation) —

The hon. member therefore surely knows what the position is. Why does he then want to make politics out of this? He surely knows that the State will act responsibly, that it is expected of a State body to act responsibly in the application of all laws the State makes. It is therefore not necessary for the State to indicate in a law that it shall be subject to it, and neither is it necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to give the assurance that he will apply this legislation to State land. This is included in the inherent dignity and status of this House, of which we are all members.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Potchefstroom for having stated this point so clearly. The hon. member for Newton Park spoke of settlements. At the moment we are saddled with irrigation lands that are too small, and we are spending millions of rands to consolidate two plots into one. I have said repeatedly that the days when a man would be given an uneconomical piece of irrigation land are past. Now the hon. member comes along and wants the State to be included here as well; what applies to the individual he wants applied to the State as well. What do we do in the case of the Railways, for example? If all Government Departments must be included in this, the planning of every item, for example a road, would have to be referred to the Department of Agriculture. Here we are concerned only with agricultural land, and not with State-owned land. I should like to be reasonable, and I am perfectly prepared to accept reasonable amendments, but in this case, unfortunately, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments proposed by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. D. M. Streicher put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 2:

The same argument we advanced on the previous clause also applies to this clause because here under paragraph (a) it is provided that this shall not apply to any subdivision of land for the purpose of transferring a portion thereof to the State. Of course, this clause excludes quite a number of subdivisions, but why is the State being excluded? Hence I move as an amendment—

Of course, if the Minister is prepared to give us a satisfactory answer then this amendment would not be necessary.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to give a satisfactory answer in this respect to the hon. member for Newton Park?

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment for the same reason as I could not accept the previous amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

We on this side of the House are now becoming really impatient with the Opposition. Clause 3 contains the crux of the whole matter. This provision is here in the light of recent agricultural history. From experience it has become clear to us that the subdivision of land as a result of a system of hereditary tenure which applied and still applies in South Africa has brought us face to face with this problem. Both ourselves and hon. member of the Opposition want us to divide the land up fairly between our people. But to-day we must accept the consequences of that. That is why we want this clause as it stands here. The Opposition is adopting this standpoint of theirs because they know that the Government has the courage to carry through this apparently far-reaching measure. They know we are going to carry it through, and they also want this, and yet they have been attempting these past few days to make a little political capital out of it.

The hon. member is quite right—this clause is the gist of the matter. We do not now want the Second-Reading debate all over again, but I just want to point out to the Minister that paragraph (a) provides that agricultural land shall not be subdivided. This provision is going to result in developments round our urban areas becoming more expensive and more difficult. It will become more difficult to subdivide land, except for agricultural purposes.

That is the object.

The hon. member confirms it. But I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that here we are not only concerned about agriculture, but also about the position of existing plots.

Order! This clause has nothing to do with “other plots”. This clause is concerned with agricultural land only and the hon. member must please confine himself to that.

Your ruling is quite correct, but I just want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister …

Order! It is not necessary. This clause has nothing to do with any subdivision other than the subdivision of agricultural land.

This clause could cause a tremendous scarcity of land.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I urge the hon. the Minister that when this clause is implemented, it be done with the greatest circumspection. May I use that argument?

Yes, that is another matter.

I say this for the simple reason that there is already a tremendous scarcity of land. We are here to ask the hon. the Minister how he is going to implement the clauses concerned. We cannot vote for a clause unless the hon. the Minister gives us the answers we want, and tells us how he is going to do this. Once the hon. the Minister has these powers, he must know that he has to implement this provision in such a way that he does not prejudice the farmer or any other interested parties.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a town such as Stellenbosch as an example. The municipal land around Stellenbosch, which is sufficient for township development for the next five years, is excluded from this Bill. It is already municipal land and it is excluded. After five years that existing township land will already be taken up by plots and houses. If the municipality then wants to develop the town further, or if a township developer wants to establish a Stellenbosch suburb, the Department will tell him that after we have investigated the matter he will still have to go to the Town Planning Council and to the Department of Planning, etc. He only asks us for permission to do so. He will have explained to us that the situation has arisen that an additional residential area is necessary. We can then give him permission to go ahead, or we can tell him that we must see if we cannot put it somewhere else. Why would we use good viticultural land when we could perhaps use sandy soil? That is what is really going to happen in future. We do not want to delay or obstruct anything.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what his policy is going to be now, because in terms of this clause the right to allow or prohibit subdivision will be vested in his Department. I should like to know what his policy is going to be in relation to subdivision of ground which is still classed as agricultural ground and which is in fact divided into 50 acre subdivisions but fall outside the areas indicated in clause 1. I ask this in the light of the fact that there has been a limitation placed on the size to which agricultural ground may be subdivided. The ordinances of the Province of Natal, for instance, provide that the minimum shall be 50 acres. As a result of that provision people have been buying ground in 50 acre subdivisions which in effect is more ground than they want. In my own constituency there are people living in town who have bought subdivisions of farms, that is, agricultural ground, in lots of 50 acres which is more than they want. They would have been satisfied with ten acres. They would to-day still be satisfied with ten acres because what they want is land outside of town where they may have the holiday homes which were referred to so disparagingly in this House yesterday. These are people who want to live in an area such as Underberg, which I mentioned yesterday, because it has the finest trout fishing in the whole of South Africa. It has without question the best trout fishing in the whole of South Africa. The point I wish to make is that it now lies in the power of the hon. the Minister to allow subdivisions of these 50 acre pieces of land in terms of this clause. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to consider that, he will relieve to a considerable extent pressure on that sort of holding which is being experienced in Natal to-day. I say this because many people have 50 acre subdivisions which they were forced to buy in terms of previous legislation. If they are now allowed to subdivide those into smaller areas, they will be able to satisfy to a considerable extent the demand for a place in the country which many people in towns would like to have. I should be interested to learn the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this. I should like to know whether he is prepared to consider this. An existing area which has been subdivided does not come under the provisions of this Bill at all. In terms of clause 3 this Minister is taking from the provinces the power to decide on all subdivisions. I want to point out again that this is agricultural and not land which has been subdivided into plots and bounded by streets or anything else. It is farming land in the countryside and it is now going to fall under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister is going to virtually stop the subdivision of land for the purpose I have mentioned, people are either going to find a way of sailing round this law as they will find a legal method somewhere or other of getting around this provision of this Act, or the Minister is going to have to provide in some way or other a satisfaction of that demand. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might be able to do it in this way in that people in those resort areas, who have bought more land than they really want because they were restricted by the law and who are prepared to subdivide, will then be able to do so. I made this point yesterday and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister again. There are areas of growing importance for recreational purposes. We have agreed that these areas constitute agricultural land, but it is acquiring another purpose to-day. It is not only agricultural land. It has a further significance in the social life and the community life of the country. I think this hon. Minister must give his attention to the matter because it is becoming a pressing problem. It is already a pressing problem in Natal.

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 states very clearly that agricultural land may not be subdivided. These 50 acre or 25 morgen plots are surely agricultural land, and for various reasons it cannot be subdivided further. One considers, for example, that if the Minister were to give permission for these 50 acre or 25 morgen plots to be subdivided further, it would specifically lead to all the evils that we want to combat by means of this legislation. There are evils such as the illegal establishment of townships. One also thinks of soil conservation. This year we are having a Water Year.

Order! Hon. members must confine themselves to this clause. The discussion is becoming somewhat too wide and would eventually amount to a Second-Reading debate.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked that the hon. the Minister should give permission for the further subdivision of these small 50 acre pieces of land, since it is agricultural land. My whole argument is that we want to protect agricultural land and that we do not want to subdivide it further. I therefore cannot actually see what the hon. member’s argument in this connection is.

Mr. Chairman, clause 4 also grants the Minister fantastic powers. For instance, subsections (2) and (3) provide that the Minister may refuse such an application or enforce his conditions. Our attitude in respect of this clause is, once again, in keeping with the attitude we adopted at the Second Reading of this Bill. We think that the powers the Minister is assuming, are outrageous. That is why we are opposed to clause 4. We regard it as an additional principle of this Bill.

The Minister’s actions, in terms of this clause, need not necessarily be determined in accordance with what he would consider to be an economic or uneconomic unit. He can enforce any condition. In terms of this clause he can even go so far as to claim to himself powers which do not exist anywhere in any legislation, and then to say why such a condition will be applicable to certain land.

How can you say such a thing?

The hon. member wants to know how I can say such a thing. Subsection (2) of the clause reads as follows—

There is no definition of what is meant by “conditions”. He can even go beyond the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act and the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act. That is why we are so opposed to clause 4. Hon. members on that side of the House did not advance any arguments pointing to the fact that the Minister would exercise his powers with a great measure of discretion and circumspection. As the clause reads at present, the Minister may apply any conditions which he deems At. For that reason the Opposition cannot vote for clause 4. It is simply impossible.

Mr. Chairman, as far as this clause is concerned, it is once again strange to follow the hon. member’s point of view. Surely, the hon. member knows that the legal draftsmen do not incorporate into special clauses arguments of the kind he advanced a moment ago. The position is by implication that it is expected that a Minister of the State will act in a responsible manner, that he will apply his discretion in a responsible manner, and, furthermore, that the conditions which the Minister may deem At to lay down, may only be conditions falling within the framework of certain statutory provisions and certain statutory uses. He will not apply any kind of condition which falls outside that framework. What is more, the Minister is responsible to this Parliament as well. The hon. member knows that, if any Minister were to act in such an irresponsible manner, it is his right to lay before Parliament, at its next session, such actions on the part of that Minister. The hon. member is wasting the time of the Committee with the arguments he is advancing in regard to this clause.

This clause provides that—

In this regard I just want to make this appeal to the Minister and to his Department, i.e. that, when an application for subdivision is made, in a case where it affects the settlement of an estate, the machinery should be adapted so as to prevent the settlement of the estate from being delayed. As it is, there are so many factors which contribute towards delaying the settlement of an estate, that we hope that the Department will not leave us in the lurch in this respect, but that it will assist in expediting the settlement of estates. There will be cases which will be border-line cases to the Minister and his advisers, and my appeal to him is that, where border-line cases occur, he should give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. Every border-line case in which the application meets with success, will perhaps compensate for three applications which will not meet with success.

Sir, this clause does not give us an indication of the machinery which the Minister is going to establish for the purpose of advising him when he has to consent or when he has to refuse to consent to subdivision. Here I want to make this appeal to the Minister, i.e. that, in putting that machinery into operation, he will really and truly make use of the services of our agricultural credit committees in this regard. In every district these people have more or less been placed in such a manner that they are thoroughly conversant with the district and its productivity. Furthermore, they are usually the people who are serving on the managing boards of agricultural co-operative societies. They know the district and its farmers very well. They know whether the farmer on a certain farm is utilizing the productivity of his farm properly, or whether he is not doing so. In view of the experience they have and the good work they did for us in the past, I can assure you, Sir, that we can definitely make use of their services in this respect.

When we come to the conditions which the Minister may lay down in respect of a particular subdivision—the matter which the hon. member for Newton Park mentioned a moment ago—then it is my view that this is a very important matter. I can imagine a father bequeathing his farm to two sons, subject to subdivision which may perhaps be considered favourably. These two sons may perhaps be persons who are not living on the farm at all, who are living in the city and who are now coming back in order to farm, but who may not be very familiar with the circumstances of that farm at all. One of them may perhaps be a son-in-law who has never been on a farm before. If we have to impose conditions on such people in order that they may make a success of farming, which is actually what this measure seeks to do, then we can do nothing but lend our wholehearted support to this clause.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Mossel Bay that in terms of subsection (2) the Minister may either refuse or grant consent. There is no form of appeal against the ruling made by the hon. the Minister.

What do you propose?

If the hon. member for Mossel Bay is of the opinion that the Minister will lay down such good conditions, let him then give us an indication of what those conditions are to be. The Minister may in his discretion refuse or grant any application, and he may do so on such conditions as he deems fit. The hon. member may be prepared to stand for that kind of provision in an Act, but we on this side are definitely not prepared to do so.

A blank cheque.

This does not mean that we mistrust the hon. the Minister, but to-morrow or the day after there may be someone else in his position, and he would be able to lay down any conditions he pleases. If this were a condition in connection with good agricultural methods to be followed by the farmer, it would be quite a different matter, but these conditions are not being defined anywhere. I think that we as an Opposition would be rendering a disservice to South Africa if we were to agree to a clause of this nature. Sir, you cannot expect the farmer to accept simply everything on good faith. Once this clause has been agreed to, the Minister will have absolute power when it comes to the subdivision of land.

A judge in his own case.

He can take such steps as he pleases, and nobody can lodge any form of appeal against his ruling. Admittedly, the Minister may, in terms of subsection (4), withdraw any such condition.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Suppose there might be a hundred different conditions which could be laid down in this manner. Is it the hon. member’s point of view that all those conditions are to be defined in the Act?

Sir, that is not necessary. We do not want the Minister to be an encyclopaedia and to be able to tell us here what all the conditions are, but he can, after all, give us an indication of what is meant by “conditions”. The hon. member for Potchefstroom is an attorney. He can think of many conditions which can be laid down and which will not be acceptable to the farmer. I can think of dozens of conditions which will not be welcomed by the farmer of South Africa. The Minister and his helpers should at least be able to tell us what conditions they think will be accepted by the farmers. They are here to convince us of the advisability of clause 4. We have had previous experience of legislation being introduced by the Government, legislation in respect of which we found, when we reached the Committee Stage where the legislation was dealt with clause by clause, that they could not reply to our questions but nevertheless wanted to implement the Act. They want to gain experience and correct errors as they go along, and we are not prepared to lend our support to legislation of that nature.

At the moment the hon. member for Newton Park is carrying on in exactly the same way as he has been doing throughout the debate on this legislation. He said that there had to be some right of appeal, but he himself did not put forward any constructive suggestions.

The Minister will not accept anything.

The hon. member for Newton Park wants to suggest here that the Minister will act in a quite fickle manner. He does not pay any attention to clause 10, for instance, which explicitly provides that regulations will be made as well. Regulations will be made, and steps will be taken in accordance with those regulations. Hon members opposite said that there had to be committees and boards which had to consider this matter first. In addition, there had to be a possibility of referring to the Minister on appeal, but at the same time other members of the Opposition complained that there was such an extensive manpower shortage and wanted to know why this measure had to be passed at all. They have been contradicting one another. Sir, it is after all very clear that in terms of clause 4 it is not possible for us to lay down at this stage rules, in terms of which the Minister is to act in refusing or granting his consent, for the very simple reason that new circumstances may arise tomorrow or the day after; one may have a new region in which a subdivision is to be approved or disapproved. For that reason the hon. the Minister should have the right to be able to exercise some discretion in terms of clause 4. As has already been said, politically it is still the responsibility of the Minister to report at all times to this Parliament in respect of his actions. That is why I regard the objections raised by hon. members of the Opposition in this regard, as being frivolous.

Sir, it would be a sorry state of affairs if we were to guide the destinies of South Africa by the yardstick of the shortage of manpower, to which the hon. member who has just sat down has referred. He says that if we made provision for an appeal board it would entail the use of additional manpower, and he says that the country is woefully short of manpower, a statement with which I fully agree. But I cannot see how that can be the yardstick by which one should measure the purpose of this particular clause. He therefore comes to the conclusion that the right thing to do is to leave this matter purely in the hands of the Minister. Sir, this clause uses a term which is very often used in legal phraseology where you want the person in whose favour that particular term is used to be given completely unfettered power. I refer to the term “in his discretion”. Hon. members in this House who are lawyers know that that is one of the loopholes which is very often used where you want to ensure that a particular person is not bound; that he does have a certain amount of mobility in his thinking and in his course of action. That is exactly what is happening here. Sir. We are not dealing here with the Minister as an individual; we are dealing with him as an office of the State. Here he is being given complete and absolute discretion. In the Transvaal where land is rezoned or where there is a change in the conditions of title, the matter is usually directed to the Director of Local Government.

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon. member to discuss that.

I am giving you an example, Sir. to show how the matter can be dealt with where an application is made to the hon. the Minister and it is then deflected to a board which deals with it.

Order! The title of this Bill deals with the subdivision of agricultural land only.

Exactly, and the clause says that the Minister can decide in his own discretion as to what he should do. It provides—

And then it goes on to say—

This is almost the principle of the Bill itself. Admittedly the mechanical and physical process is subdivision but the subdivision takes place through human motivation and it is entirely subject to the discretion of the Minister. It is very unsatisfactory in any legislation to leave the fate of people and their possessions within the absolute discretion of an officer of the State. My point is that the hon. the Minister himself must realize that legislation, once it is on the Statute Book, is something which is very difficult to move and very difficult to interfere with because many other things flow from it and because it establishes certain practices and procedures. Here the hon. the Minister is allowing a procedure which is going to do great harm to the tremendous farm holdings throughout the country.

What else do you suggest?

I fully accept what the hon. the Minister has in mind namely to try to avoid the misuse of agricultural land; but surely that does not mean that absolute discretion must be placed in the hands of a particular officer of the State to decide upon the fate of people. Surely in this matter there should be consultation, discussion and representation to a board consisting of people who are able to assess the merits of the application, who can go into the whys and wherefores and the pros and cons. Surely the Minister should be prepared, for his own protection, to accept an amendment to provide for a board of appeal, because, after all, man is vulnerable in many senses; man is not absolute in his own thinking. Provision for a board of appeal would provide a safety valve which we find in many statutes on our Statute Book. Wherever an important decision has to be made, we find in very many of our statutes that provision is made for a right of appeal which is an inherent right of the citizen in case the Minister errs in exercising his absolute discretion. I do not think that any body of people can be completely satisfied, no matter with what goodwill they approach this matter, to leave absolute discretion in a decision of such magnitude in the hands of an office of the State. In these circumstances we must oppose this clause.

It is not a new principle that conditions are being laid down when land is being subdivided. It is necessary for this clause 4 (3) to exist, and I shall give you examples of such conditions that were laid down. Up to now, whenever land was being subdivided into small pieces, conditions such as the following have always been laid down, i.e. that the land may not be subdivided further in the future, that a business may not be run on that piece of land, or perhaps a third condition to the effect that no more than one or two dwellings with the necessary outbuildings may be erected on that site. These are conditions which we have had up to now in regard to the subdivision of land, and they are conditions of which one can think. One could also think of mineral rights, which is such an important aspect of our land in the Republic nowadays. If land is subdivided into a great number of small pieces, should every person now reserve mineral rights on five or 10 or 20 morgen? In the past conditions were laid down to the effect that the original owner was to reserve the mineral rights in one block, and that those who acquired these small pieces of land did not obtain mineral rights. These are obvious conditions, and provision has to be made for them once again, just as the other laws have up to now contained provisions allowing the subdivision of land. In the same way, such provision must be incorporated in this legislation.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat was quite wrong when he said that there was no new principle involved in this clause other than the principles which apply to the subdivision of land at present in an urban area. There is a vast difference between the provisions of this clause and the law relating to the subdivision of an area into townships, for instance. In this clause the sole say is in the hands of the Minister. We know very well that before an Administrator can impose conditions for subdivision, there are processes of law which are followed whereby the whole scheme is sifted by the Townships Board. The other matter which alarms me, apart from the Minister’s silence as to what he intends to cover, which is a warning sign in itself, is that the hon. member for Potgietersrus now suggests that the Minister can go so far as even to impose conditions relating to mineral rights. In the words of that hon. member he can now say: I will allow this subdivision, but the mineral rights must be reserved to the State. Sir, one is terrified to think of the conditions that can be imposed unless they are circumscribed by law. One knows the multitude of conditions that can be imposed. Does the Minister, for instance, contemplate that there will be endowments to provide for irrigation works in the neighbourhood, or the payment of some fee or charge for irrigation or general agricultural use in the area? Does the Minister contemplate having power to say: You may subdivide but you must make provision for a piece of land for a new highway without compensation? What does the Minister have in mind? That is our difficulty. There is no reason why this clause should not be amplified by inserting restrictions, in other words that the Minister may impose conditions relating to use, but that is not what is in this clause. I think the Minister owes it to the House and to the country to indicate what he feels his rights are under this clause, because one is frightened to think that he may go to the extent of the restrictions that are imposed on the subdivision of areas into townships. It can affect the cost of the land; it can affect the viability of the property if those conditions are too extensive.

Those hon. members would now like to know what the condition is. Let me say this in simple language. The condition is that the person who is going to live on that land, should not die of misery. [Interjections.] That is, in normal circumstances. The hon. member for Green Point should appreciate what the approach of the Department of Agriculture is; it is a department which is there for the purpose of rendering assistance, of rendering service to the farmer, and not for the purpose of depriving him of privileges. We are not prepared to allow a person to remain on a piece of land where he cannot make a living.

How are you going to enforce that condition?

When he cuts off a piece of land, we demand that that piece of land should be an economic unit, and that is something one cannot define in any law. In the Western Province nine morgen constitute an economic unit, and in the Karoo 4,000 morgen constitute an economic unit. There are so many factors which play a role, such as irrigation, the type of farming, vegetables, etc. Do hon. members want me to define everything? In my constituency the most prosperous farmer of all is a farmer who is cultivating flowers on two morgen, and last year he paid R12,000 in income tax. How can I define in legislation when a piece of land will qualify as an economic unit? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to borderline cases, but in borderline cases we tend to say: Let it pass to the benefit of the applicant. You want to know what machinery we are going to use. The country has been divided into eight regions in accordance with its agricultural circumstances, with extension officers who are already serving on the agricultural credit committees. Those committees always ask the extension officers for advice, and this is how it will be in the future. When a subdivision has to take place, the matter is immediately sent through to the regional chief, who summons his extension officer and tells him to ascertain what the position is. I discussed these matters with the Department, and they said these matters can be settled within three weeks, and this is how it was done while Planning did the work. Planning told the Department: Advise me; may I permit subdivision? And there were no delays or difficulties.

The hon. members for Potchefstroom and Kroonstad replied to the hon. member for Newton Park. If it were to appear that we had unjustly deprived one person of his rights or had done him an injustice, I now ask that hon. member: Stand up in Parliament next year and mention to me one case where we interfered with the rights of a person in an unreasonable manner, or where we treated him in an unreasonable manner. And I am telling you now that you will not bring me one case of that nature. Why do you want machinery for an appeal? While Planning did the work, there were no cases where people wanted to appeal, nor was there any machinery for lodging an appeal. But if one told a farmer that, for the sake of his survival, we do not allow this, he would be satisfied.

Hon. members say that they want these conditions to be defined. Let me mention another example. Suppose we have a man who wants to subdivide a piece of land, and we have our conditions which we cannot incorporate in legislation. In that case we would tell him: This piece of land is now going to be uneconomic, but we shall help you, through Agricultural Credit, to obtain another piece of land. I know that in my constituency a farmer bought a piece of land which was situated five miles away from his farm, and both pieces were consolidated in his title deed. This is the assistance which is being offered by the State, but now the hon. member is referring to unreasonableness; and the person obtains the money at 5 per cent and is given 25 years to pay it off. After all, you do want to hear the conditions. Here I am mentioning the conditions. When the unit is uneconomic and one wants to help that person, one tells him: We are looking for another piece of land for you, and then we shall consolidate the two. On matters of this kind I can elaborate for half an hour on end, but I am coming back to what I said yesterday. When my conscience does not trouble me as regards the property of a farmer, I am perfectly happy, and that is also the way I feel about this clause.

When the hon. the Minister talks about conditions, he says the conditions will be such as to prevent hardship and suffering. I wonder whether the hon. members opposite who have taken part in the debate and who are “regsgeleerdes” could tell me what sort of conditions are these that the Deputy Minister speaks about that you can put in the title deeds, that you can register against the title deeds? What sort of conditions are those? Perhaps the hon. members will explain what the hon. the Minister means, or perhaps the Minister himself will explain. The Deputy Minister says: You can give no examples of where I was unreasonable.

That is right; you cannot.

Is not that exactly the point? You have not had this power yet.

We had it. Planning had the power.

You mean under the Physical Planning Act? Is that the sort of power you mean? At least under the Physical Planning Act there is an absolute discretion, but the Minister is supposed to have regard to something when he exercises his discretion. But here there is nothing against which you have to measure; there is no yardstick for the Minister or anyone to whom he delegates this power as to how he should apply his mind. There is no yardstick whatsoever; it is entirely within his discretion, and surely this is the crux of the whole matter.

The Minister talked about helping people so that there would not be an uneconomic subdivision of land. He says that is what he will apply his mind to, but he does not say so in the Bill at all. As it stands here there is no yardstick at all. One would have expected it to say something like “If the Minister considers that it is an uneconomic subdivision, then he may in his discretion do so and so”, but that does not appear here. It merely says that the Minister may decide something within his discretion. According to what norm or yardstick? Because he has blue eyes, or because he wears brown shoes, or because he is a Sap or a Nat., or what? What is the yardstick by which one measures this when one exercises one’s discretion? I cast no reflection on the Deputy Minister, but there could be someone else who is entirely unreasonable in future. Apart from that, the Minister may delegate to the Secretary, or any other officer in the Public Service, any power conferred upon him by this Act except the power to make regulations. When the Minister delegates to his official or any official in the Public Service the power contained here, what is he going to say to them? That is what we want to know. Is he going to say: When you consider these matters, this is what you must have in mind? What is it that he is going to tell them that they must have in mind when exercising these powers? That is what is missing from this clause and that is what should be in this clause. One wonders whether the Minister would consider an amendment along the lines that if he considers it to be uneconomic, then in his discretion he may do certain things. Then there will at least be a yardstick and then one knows that not only the Minister, whom we can question here in this House about it, but the persons to whom he delegates these powers and whom we cannot question in this House, will exercise this absolute discretion in terms of the law, namely having regard to the fact that it is uneconomic and no other factor. I think that is fair, if that is what he is getting at, and you will find that in many other laws.

But if I may say so, subsection (3) is extraordinarily drafted. Having made the condition, it says the Minister may enforce such condition. What does that mean? How is it thought that the Minister will enforce this condition? By taking the law into his own hands or by applying to court, or what? Then the next paragraph contains another extraordinary provision, i.e. that the Minister can withdraw any such condition, and if it has been registered against the title deed he may direct that it be cancelled. Does the Registrar of Deeds now take a direction from the Minister, or does he have to go to court first? Does he have to give notice? What exactly is anticipated? I have never seen anything drafted in such an arbitrary and extraordinary manner. How does he enforce it? Why does it not say that he may apply to court to have this enforced? That would be the normal provision. How does he propose to direct that the conditions in the deed be cancelled? Perhaps he can explain just how he thinks this will be done.

Before calling upon the next speaker, I just want to point out that there has been a great deal of repetition, and that in the event of any further repetition I shall call the hon. members to order.

I regard the hon. member for Durban (North) as being a very capable man when it comes to legal matters. It is a pity he was not here when I explained this matter during the debate on the Second Reading. In any event, the hon. member wanted to know about the conditions and why the words “uneconomic unit” are not included. But the moment we use these "words, hon. members will ask me to define the term, and that is not possible. The hon. member also wanted to know how we were going to enforce this. Well, we shall do that by refusing to authorize a subdivision. It is easy—when a man asks authority to subdivide, he will just be told that we cannot approve of it. The "Registrar of Deeds will be told not to carry on with the subdivision.

But you can grant it subject to conditions.

We have discussed all these points at length during the Second Reading also.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that we had already discussed these matters. We are dealing here with the mechanics of the implementation of this legislation in practice; hence our desire to know these things. Although this clause provides that the Minister may enforce a condition, the hon. the Deputy "Minister has now said that he is going to do so by directing the Registrar of Deeds not to carry on with the subdivision. But iby that time the subdivision will have taken place and that person will already be living on his land.

On application.

Fine. Certain conditions are laid down on application, for instance, that the person concerned has to buy another piece of land for himself. If that person has still not done so after a year, for instance, the Minister may intervene and tell him that the conditions that were made to him, will nos be enforced. This is what is involved in the argument advanced by this side of the House. The replies of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his helpers are absolutely inadequate, and it will be impossible to implement this clause unless the hon. the Deputy Minister tells us what his plans are.

What the hon. member apparently wants, is for the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain at this stage every future problem that may arise, and to state how he is going to deal with each of those problems. The hon. the Deputy Minister has to explain, as well as state his attitude in regard to, every possible condition which he can call to mind. Surely, it is ridiculous of the *hon. member to expect the hon. the Deputy Minister to do this. All this provision amounts to, is that the hon. the Minister may lay down a condition. What the nature nf such a condition is, does not matter for the purposes of this debate.

Why not?

Because it has to be accepted that the Minister will act bona fide. It is the generally acknowledged principle in law that it has to be accepted this way; it does not imply any politicising; it is in accordance with accepted law and the interpretation of our law. If the hon. member does not know that, the hon. member for Durban (North) will advise him free of charge. The hon. member for Newton Park is, therefore, unreasonable to expect this of the Minister. Nor will every condition be registered against the title deed. In any case, such conditions as may be laid down, can function in exactly the same way as, for instance, the enforcement of provisions in contracts of lease or other agreements.

Another matter to which I want to draw attention, is the fact that hon. members Opposite are passing remarks by means of which they want to make political capital outside. For instance, they are suggesting that the Minister may grant a man a piece of land on condition that he sets aside a piece of land for a national road for which he is not going to be compensated. Die hon. member for Pot-gietersrus did not say that the Minister was now going to deprive people of their mineral rights without compensating them. But the hon. member for Green Point wanted to know whether they were to expect this of the Government, i.e. that they would deprive people of their mineral rights without compensating them. You see, Sir, hon. members opposite are not arguing this matter in a serious manner, but they want to make political capital out of it. I want to object to that. They should not make such loose remarks and expect them to pass unnoticed. They are implying mala fides.

Does the clause, as it stands, not permit the Minister to do exactly what I said? Of course, whether he would is another matter.

No. The hon. member is being wilful again. On the basis of the interpretation of laws and all the principles relating to them, that argument is irrelevant here. That kind of mala fides …

Not mala fides.

… may not be read into a provision of a statute, unless it is the wilful intention of hon. members to make political capital out of it. The hon. member for Jeppes is a lawyer himself, and he knows this only too well. This is the general terminology being used in statutes. It is into this terminology that hon. members now want to read mala fides in order to steal a march on the hon. the Deputy Minister. That is what I am objecting to. Hon. members should rather try to help by giving examples of where this thing is not going to work. However, an argument such as the one they are in fact advancing, does not fit in with this problem with which we are dealing.

Another point about which I want to say something, is the board of appeal which has been proposed toy hon. members. For how many years have we not had the Natural Resources Development Council in operation? For how many years have we not had conditions concerning the subdivision of land which were laid down by other legislation? In none of those cases has such a board of appeal appeared to be necessary. If something of that nature were to toe established here, it would merely be a place to which everybody could run with their objections, no matter how insignificant they might be. Something of that nature can only cause delays. That is why I cannot see such a board of appeal serving any useful purpose. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already said that, if in the year that lies ahead there should toe one instance where he did not exercise his discretion bona fide, hon. members would be able to raise that matter here in Parliament. A second remedy is that of appealing to the courts. These are two acknowledged remedies, and people should avail themselves of these remedies instead of our establishing here an administrative colossus which could only cause confusion.

The hon. member is the last person to suggest that arguments from this side of the House are aimed solely at obtaining one or other political advantage. The principle of this clause which we oppose and will continue to oppose, is government by discretion of a Minister without any restriction whatsoever. The hon. member for Potchefstroom is quite wrong because this clause is quite clear that the Minister may in his discretion grant an application on such conditions as he may deem fit. These conditions can be any one of those I have mentioned. I shall be happy to have the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he does not intend using these wide powers.

But I want to come back to the wording of the last subsection, a wording which I do think is unfortunate. It concerns the removal of a condition registered against this title deed. The hon. the Deputy Minister is no doubt aware of the normal procedure in terms of which one consents to cancellation of an endorsement on a title deed. I believe the Minister and his department may find themselves in difficulties with a mere peremptory directive that an endorsement be cancelled. How will he do it? Will it be done by means of a letter to the Registrar of Deeds or will it be done according to the normal process? Here I move as an amendment—

This will be the normal procedure of dealing with the cancellation of an endorsement on a title deed.

We cannot understand the difficulty which the Deputy Minister has. In Natal the townships board has control over the subdivision of land. Before any subdivision can take place, there are a whole number of conditions which have to be complied with. This is essential, specifically for the purpose of controlling the subdivision of land. I think there are eight or nine conditions which are being laid down by the townships board, purely for the purpose of controlling this matter. If anybody in Natal investigates the possibility of subdividing land, those conditions have to be complied with. The Deputy Minister is welcome to ask the townships board what those conditions are. This applies to the whole of Natal. I cannot understand the Minister’s difficulty, i.e. why he cannot incorporate those conditions here in this Bill. The public in Natal are perfectly satisfied with these conditions. I have never come across any objection to them. Last year it was resolved to increase the minimum size of 25 morgen, without defining the size.

Order! The hon. member made that point in his first speech.

I just want to tell the Minister that the people in Natal are familiar with those conditions. These conditions were publicized amongst the people by this board. Why, then, can the hon. the Deputy Minister not incorporate such conditions in this legislation as well?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooiriver said yesterday that these were holiday farms. If there are conditions which are acceptable to us, and if this refers to a specific area where 50 acres constitute an economic unit, he may bring his proposals. I should like to discuss those conditions with him myself, in order to see whether we may not find a reasonable solution. We cannot use his definition in this Bill, because the definition may be applicable in Natal and not in Namaqualand. He and I can discuss his case in an attempt to find a solution, provided that it is going to be a farming unit on which one will be able to make a living. If we should find at Underberg that it has become essential for that area to be subdivided for township purposes, as the hon. member said here yesterday, we shall do so if it is to the advantage of the country and if there is no other place where we can do it. In this Committee we cannot deal separately with every specific case.

As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, I want to say that I consulted my legal representative from Potchefstroom. His suggestion is that we should consider the matter properly and then effect an amendment in the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the United Party really cannot object now to extensive powers being In 1947 they placed the Natural Resources granted to the Minister in terms of this clause. Act on the Statute Book.

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon. member to repeat those speeches of 1947 here.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that in terms of the Natural Resources Act of 1947 exactly the same far-reaching powers were granted to the Minister.

Order! This argument was advanced before.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment in view of the assurance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister that he will consider introducing it in the other Place.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, we have already made it quite clear that we on this side of the House object most strongly to this clause. Our criticism is based on the fact that the farmer who wants to leave land to his descendants is here being discriminated against. If he wants to subdivide that land, he can only bequeath it if the hon. the Minister is able to give his approval to that in terms of clause 4. Our point is that it is unnecessary discrimination against the farmer since that type of discrimination is not being made in any other act against a man who wants to bequeath anything, whether in the form of shares, in the form of other property, in the form of livestock, and so on. But when it comes to land, the farmer cannot bequeath it unless he has the approval of that hon. Minister. I am not trying to say that a person’s will has to be open to inspection by the hon. the Minister. That is not necessary, but if a farmer wants to subdivide his land, he must at least submit the plans to the hon. the Minister. I said in the Second Reading that that legacy can be invalidated in the case of land if the hon. the Minister has not given his approval. Where are the same requirements being imposed on any other person? I consequently think that this clause is not only unfair, but also drastic and wrong. It will not be understood and it will not be welcomed by the farming population of South Africa. If a person should die intestate one could perhaps still understand that the land, etc., shall be sold and that the hon. the Minister shall make a decision in that regard. It is perhaps possible to concede that argument, for then unusual circumstances would be prevailing. The fact that these plans have to be submitted to the Minister in advance, however, is in accordance with the other powers which he is taking, and therefore this is also too far-reaching and drastic. Consequently we cannot support clause 5.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the argument of the hon. member for Newton Park at all. He tells us that, in comparison with other sectors of our national economy, the farmer is being discriminated against. I shall accept that he is now talking about the subdivision of shares, when we are dealing with a business, etc. Sir, what is the spirit of this legislation? The spirit of this legislation is the protection of the soil of South Africa. When it comes to a share market or a business, we are not dealing with the soil which can go to rack and ruin. We are dealing here with the subdivision of agricultural land, and the entire spirit of the legislation is aimed at preventing the soil from going to rack and ruin. As a result of the fact that when a subdivision takes place, the danger may arise that the soil will be ruined further, measures must be taken to prevent this. I really cannot understand the argument of that hon. member. To tell us that the subdivision of shares or a business are similar cases, really does not hold water.

The hon. member sees problems in regard to testation. He says that we are now giving the Minister drastic powers. I want to repeat now what I said during the Second Reading debate. After all, it is customary, particularly among farmers, to consult someone when one wants to draw up a will. It is customary among our farmers to consult some or other person or body, for example an attorney or a financing company, so that that person or body can be of assistance to him in drawing up a will. Such a person or body will advise the farmer in his own interests, saying to him: “Before you draw up this will, first consult the Minister or your agricultural credit committee to make sure that the land which you want to subdivide and bequeath will in fact consist of economic units.” I can see no problem in this. The hon. member said that the farmers of South Africa would not accept this point. It was in fact written into the original Bill, which was referred to a Select Committee. All the evidence which was given before the Committee, indicated that our greatest problem in regard to the subdivision of agricultural land, lay in testation.

No, that is not true.

It is true. The other day I quoted from the report of the Select Committee to indicate that persons who have intimate knowledge of this matter, said in evidence before the Select Committee that our major problem lay in testation. The testator inevitably wants, as a result of his ties with the soil, to give every son a piece of land. After all, this is a problem. The purpose of this Bill would be obstructed if we were to omit this provision, for in the case of testation I think people should be compelled to draw up their wills in such a way that when land is bequeathed to a son, or when a subdivision must take place, it should be possible to establish beyond any doubt that those subdivided pieces of land will be economic units.

Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a good reason for rejecting this clause, it is the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. He suggested that the 90,000 farmers in South Africa should consult the Minister to find out whether their wills are in order. [Interjections.] The hon. member himself said that the Minister was one of those who should be consulted when a farmer draws up his will. That is the type of nonsense that one gets from that side of the House when one deals with the practical aspects of this Bill in the Committee Stage. When I read this clause I find that there is a restriction on the vesting of an undivided share in a property. What is the purpose of a restriction of that nature? It is an undivided share. It has no relation whatsoever to the subdivision of the land. Is this what the Minister wants? Let us take the case of a son and a daughter who are left a farm in undivided shares. The daughter may get married and leave the farm, while the son decides to carry on farming. Must the daughter then surrender her undivided share in that property? What is the difference between such a case and the case of an owner who has a manager running a farm for him? In the latter case there are also two persons interested in the farm, namely the manager who derives his interest in the farming concerned in the form of a salary, and the owner, who is not resident on the farm. The provision seems to me to be a quite unnecessary one, applying, as it does, a restriction on an undivided share. Surely it is of no application, even in respect of the principle of this Bill, which has to do with subdivision, unless the Minister is going to take it upon himself now to take powers to say how many people can live on a rural property. That is in effect what he is going to have to do if he wants to restrict ownership to undivided shares. After all, Sir, the number of persons who own the property can cause no concern. The question which must be settled is whether that property is being farmed and used as a unit. Does the Minister now contemplate that, in terms of this clause and the clause we have just passed, he is going to say how many people can live on a farm property? Will he, for example, say that there may not be more than one residential building on a certain farm property? That is in fact what he will have to do if he is going to take this line in regard to the ownership of undivided shares by more than one person. It seems to me to be quite an unnecessary provision, a provision which does not fall within the principle of what is aimed at in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, what hon. members of the Opposition are not taking into account is the fact that wills have for years now been framed under the circumstances which this Bill is now creating for the entire country. The only difference is that in the past that control was only applicable in certain parts of the country. Wills have already been made under the same circumstances, and the system worked well. There were no problems. It will happen that in respect of certain regions of the country certain norms will arise, which will be standardized. Fanners in a specific vicinity will subsequently come to realize that if they have a farm which is typical of their region, they cannot make a bequest to a child of less than 200 or 300 morgen for example. In many cases a testator can draw up a will without consulting anyone. I will concede that there will be certain borderline cases, but in such cases the proposed subdivision must simply be presented to the authority concerned. No secrets of the testator will be disclosed. A farmer need not at that stage say that he wants to give a specific piece of land to a specific child. Years before the testator dies, the decision will have been obtained from the authority concerned, for example that the farm may not be divided into so many parts. Surely a sensible testator will plan his testamentary disposition systematically and long before the time. He will not leave it to the last minute. Sir, I do not want to go into what I said about this clause in the Second-Reading debate again. I just want to request from the hon. the Minister—I am not insisting that a decisive answer be given in this regard before this measure is passed—that his Department should in due course give attention to making the provisions of this clause more elastic, so that an heir who is desirous of buying out his co-heir, will be given a reasonable space of time. I am not even saying that provision should be made for this in this Act. Provision can, if need be, be made for this in the Administration of Estates Act, but his Department is the Department which will have to take the initiative, and I am therefore asking the hon. the Minister to take up this case either with his own Department or with the Department of Justice.

I have never heard a greater condemnation of a clause than the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet’s explanation of this clause. If there were members who thought that there was something good in this Bill, then he has just disillusioned them. I am asking the hon. the Minister, in all reasonableness, to give us an explanation of this clause in the light of the provisions of clause 4 (1). Sir, we have 90,000 to 100,000 farmers in South Africa, and some of them die every day. If the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet wants to tell me that every farmer, when he wants to draw up a will, must ask the Minister what he may do with his possessions, then I say it is an impossible task. The hon. member next to me here said a moment ago that in the case of testamentary dispositions the Minister must be consulted to find out whether the land can be subdivided. We shall find that scores of farmers will, while they are living, flock …

They are not sheep.

… to the Minister through the Secretary and say: “I have here a piece of land which I want to subdivide; it will probably be uneconomic, but I have received an offer from a few of my neighbours who are each prepared to buy 500 morgen or 5 morgen or whatever it is from me.” That is an uneconomic subdivision. Surely the Minister will give his consent …

Of course.

… because those uneconomic units will then be consolidated. I want to go further, Mr. Chairman. If the testator has not asked the advice of the Department of Agriculture or of the Minister in regard to the testamentary disposition, then surely the same procedure will be followed. If the Minister says that the land involved in the testamentary disposition may not be subdivided except for the purposes of consolidation, then precisely the same procedure will be followed. If the executor finds that other persons want to purchase some of the land in the estate—at least those parts which are too small to comprise economic units—then permission will be given for subdivision, provided consolidation with other parts takes place. After all, every person who wants to draw up a will is not obliged to consult the Department in advance.

Nobody said that.

Yes, but the clear indication is there.

Are you advocating the acceptance of the clause or are you opposing it?

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and the hon. member who spoke immediately prior to me, proceeded from the assumption that if the unit is so large that it can be subdivided, it is not necessary for the testator to ask for permission to subdivide. But there are many thousands of properties where it is uncertain whether they are economic units, and in those cases the person who wants to make a will will first have to consult the Department. Sir, it will take years before all these consultations have taken place, and now I am speaking only of existing farmers, not future farmers. If that is the Department’s approach, the sooner we vote this clause down, the better.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat put forward the best plea here for accepting this clause. He virtually advocated the acceptance of the clause. One does not know whether he is for or against it.

He does not know himself.

Sir, it is customary for any sensible person—and our farmers are sensible people—to consult his friends, people who know something about business, his attorney and his bank manager, before he frames a will. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for East London (City) does not do that, then I exclude him from the category I have just mentioned here. I know of cases where even extension officers have been consulted. What is wrong with a testator going to the Department of Agriculture, through his extension officer, or any other person for that matter, to make sure whether the proposed subdivision of land is in order.

If there is any doubt.

Yes, if there is any doubt.

May I ask you a question?

No, in a moment the hon. member can have an opportunity to speak himself. The Opposition is now telling us that the Government is going to fee snowed under with 90,000 applications of this nature, but in the Second-Reading debate the hon. member for Newton Park said that there was no problem and asked what we wanted to achieve with this Bill. Sir, we find ourselves in a dilemma because hon. members of the Opposition do not want to adopt a standpoint on this Bill. That has been their attitude throughout; they are still evading the basic principle of this Bill. They are hiding behind arguments which really have nothing to do with the Bill. They have not come forward with any constructive suggestion as to how to put a stop to the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land, and the arguments they put forward here, bring us no closer to a concept of what their standpoint is.

The hon. member for Cradock put the question: What is wrong with a man asking for advice from the extension officer or from the Department as to how his will should read?

Order! No mention is made of this in the clause. The hon. member is outside the purview of the clause.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, the consent of the Minister has to be obtained in terms of clause 4.

Order! The Committee is now discussing clause 5.

Yes, we are now discussing clause 5, but this is what happens if the approval of the Minister is not obtained. The point I want to make in reply to the hon. member for Cradock is this: He says that if there is any doubt about the subdivision, advice can be obtained. That is not so. If any person, according to this clause, wants to bequeath agricultural land, then he must obtain the Minister’s approval on subdivision. If the Minister does not consent to specific agricultural land being subdivided in terms of a testamentary disposition or intestate succession, the following things can happen: They can reach a mutual agreement or the hon. the Minister can decide in terms of the provisions of the Expropriation Act that that man’s estate will be sold and that the money will be divided among the children. In other words, here we undoubtedly have interference in a person’s will. I want to point out that this will give rise to all farmers in South Africa who want to subdivide land having to approach the hon. the Minister before they draw up their will and inform him of their intentions.

That is not so.

I am very sorry, Sir, but that is how all of us on this side of the House understand clause 5.

You are reading it with opaque spectacles.

If the hon. the Minister, after the will has been drawn up, agrees that the land is being subdivided into economic units then the subdivision may proceed, but if the land is not being subdivided into economic units, the hon. the Minister intervenes and he can either have the land sold and the money divided among the heirs or he can decide that they can negotiate among themselves to decide who is going to take over the land. Am I correct or not?

Yes, that is correct.

What is wrong with that?

My point is that this provision will lead to our interfering in the freedom of any person to do with his possessions what he wishes. [Interjections.] Sir, that hon. member, the hon. member for Coles-berg, is not only a farmer; he is also a businessman. Nobody can dictate to him what he must do with all his other possessions; he can decide on that himself, but when it comes to his land, then he must go to the Minister before the time and say: “These are my intentions,” and if they do not do so, they run the risk of someone else deciding what should happen to their possessions when they are no longer living.

Sir, I feel that we are going round in circles now. The hon. member for Newton Park maintains that it is only in the case of the farmer that we are prescribing what he should do with his possessions, while the industrialist and the businessman can do with his shares exactly what he pleases. Sir, that is not so. The farmer is still at liberty to frame his will exactly as he wishes, but when it comes to the execution of that will, it is a different matter. If an industrialist in Johannesburg bequeaths an industrial stand on which there is a factory and he stipulates in his will that a part of the stand must be cut off, then surely that will will not be executed. Hon. members on that side now want to create the impression that we are in an unreasonable way, depriving the farmer of a right here. In practice we will find, in one case out of a thousand, that the testator wants to subdivide his land into uneconomic units, and in this Bill we are now suggesting how the testamentary disposition can be realized so that the heir can still benefit from it.

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point is concerned about undivided shares. We will discuss the matter with our legal advisers and I shall then see whether we can amend this measure in the Other Place. He made a quite reasonable request, and we will go into it.

Yesterday the hon. member for Kroonstad put a few requests to me in regard to companies, and he also asked this morning for greater elasticity in this clause. This will perhaps necessitate our having to reconsider the Administration of Estates Act to see whether we should not effect amendments to it. He also made an entirely reasonable request to the effect that we should not stipulate an unreasonable time for the administration of the estate, and I can see that there may perhaps be cases where we may have to allocate a more reasonable period of time for the benefit of the heir. In regard to the question of the French system which he raised yesterday, I want to tell him that we will make a study of the French system and will in due course see to what extent we can implement it here.

To the hon. member for East London (City) I want to say thank you very much for seeing this matter as a practical farmer would. I think that if his approach yesterday had been the same as it was to-day, he might perhaps have voted on our side at the Second Reading. Sir, I think we could mull over this matter for many hours still, but I think that we have discussed the principle sufficiently. We could always amend the measure again if we found that there were hitches with the implementation of the Act.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has made the point that we tried to make when we said that this was a restriction on the rights of the individual to frame his own will. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the man can draw up his will as he likes without having to go to him, but then the man passes out of this sphere of ours and the Minister then decides whether the terms of his will are going to be carried out. If that is not an interference with the right of testamentary disposition, then I wonder what is. Sir, what I am concerned about is this: The Minister now finds himself in difficulty under this clause because he was so obstinate under the previous clause. If he would accept that it is the economic viability only that is his concern, he would not be in this difficulty with this Bill. The Minister has excluded subdivisions in terms of wills up to the commencement of this legislation so that whatever subdivision is contemplated in every will dealing with a farm property is now subject to scrutiny by the hon. the Minister, whether the farm is thousands of morgen in size or 100 acres. Every one of these becomes subject to the scrutiny of the Minister and he must now sit in judgment and decide whether there shall be subdivision or not. What happens when a farmer sits down to make out his will and to plan his estate for his family and his children? He has no idea and no certainty as to whether the Minister will allow his plans to be carried out after his death. He has no knowledge whatsoever as to whether this will be permitted. If he knows that the hon. the Minister is going to refuse a subdivision of a property, if he knows there is any doubt, he can circumvent this matter having to come to the hon. the Minister, whether it is an undivided share or a divided share, by ensuring that it remains registered in one name only. The Minister is going to find that by having a clause of this nature in the Bill, all he is going to do is to instruct every farmer indirectly, and very soon directly, to devise ways whereby he can avoid a formal subdivision and can obtain the same results in so far as his estate is concerned. And that is what is going to happen. I think the hon. the Minister will be well advised to delete this question of succession from the Bill entirely and to leave people to deal with their estates as best they can. What is the evil? The evil is a man who owns some property trying to cash in by cutting it up into uneconomic units. If a man dies and leaves his property to his four sons, those people are farmers themselves and they are not going to try to sit it out on property which will not give them a living. Those matters sort themselves out in the succession to an estate. Where the Minister might well have difficulty is where there are subdivisions at times when property prices are high and these subdivisions are into units which are too small. But I believe there also the law of supply and demand and the market will solve the problem and people will not go on buying properties which are not viable. But to come back to this question, I do hope the Minister at this stage will think again and that he will remove this interference with the testamentary rights of farmers.

The hon. member for Green Point will agree that one of the worst problems in the past has in fact been testamentary dispositions, which created this problem. I can mention a case in my own district where, 90 years ago, a farm of 24,000 originally belonged to one owner, and the position now, as a result of testamentary dispositions is that land 33 morgen in extent can already be bought. You see where that is heading. But now I want to put it to hon. members like this. Suppose an ecological survey was made and suppose all the other conditions which you would like to have read in here are complied with. In clause 4 you would have liked only the principle of economic viability to apply before the Minister instituted an investigation. Suppose all these provisions were there and you agreed with us in principle that there should be some or other form of control over the subdivision of agricultural land, what would you then have done in the case of testation? If everything they were concerned about was remedied, and they were now confronted with only the problem of testation, what would they do about it? Then they would still have to concede on that side of the House that it is a problem which we have to face up to and that we have to make provision for it. And it is not a case, as the hon. member for Newton Park said, of simply saying to the farmer that he cannot do with his assets what he wishes, but that the industrialist can do what he wishes with his. An industrialist cannot transfer his share in a white company to a non-white. [Interjections.] There are so many cases which the hon. members do know about where we as individuals are prevented by certain statutory provisions from dealing with our assets in terms of testamentary dispositions. It is no use therefore the hon. member becoming emotional and saying that the farmers are being told that they cannot do with their assets what they wish. Of course the farmer is just as much a member of the population of South Africa as any other person. Therefore the objection which the hon. member raised in respect of the individual cannot be a valid one. and all that this provision amounts to is that a testamentary disposition must be submitted to the Minister for consideration. There is no alternative. If only the principle of economic viability applied, then this too must be submitted to the Minister. So, in any case, even as far as the argument of the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, it must be submitted to the Minister.

On this aspect I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister what the position would be if a testator were to decide, when framing his will, that he was going to obtain the approval of the authority concerned to the effect that his subdivision will in fact be economic. This takes place now, and 10 or 20 years later, he dies. Then one finds that another Minister and another person controlling this matter decides that it is no longer an economic unit, measured against other criteria and other norms which are then being applied. If one is honest with the testator and is not trying to mislead him, one must say that once it has been approved by the authorities, after discussion, he will have reason to believe that it will always remain this way. For as I see it here, it is not even going to help him to hold discussions and obtain the approval of the authority concerned when framing his will.

The Opposition has again proved to me now that they can only live in the past. They live for the testator, but they do not think of those who will receive the land; they do not think of the heir. When they are trying to play with words as they have been doing, they must also think of that young man who is one day going to inherit the land. This is not only a drastic measure for the farmer, as the hon. member for Newton Park said; it is also an instructive measure. When this clause has been passed, our people will from time to time be educated to make a testamentary disposition in such a way that the sons or daughters who have to inherit the land will be in a position to cultivate that land on an economic basis and will be able to make a living from it. But now the risk is being placed on the hon. the Minister. The Opposition says that every time there is any doubt, they must run to the Minister.

But there will be doubt in any case.

This Minister is a Minister of Agriculture. After all, he will not express an opinion or make a provision if it is not in the interests of agriculture.

Where do you get it from that this will only happen when there is any doubt?

You suggested it. I just want to say that the United Party, if they do not help us to pass this clause, will be doing the young farmer and the youth a disservice. The onus rests on them and the situation will be watched.

I just want to deal with the one aspect that was raised by the hon. the Minister when he gave as an example as to why the Opposition did not put up a case, the fact that in regard to urban property a person might inherit land and may find that a portion of it has been expropriated for road-widening, etc., so that in any event even the urban owner’s land may be affected. He gave that example in order to illustrate that it was not only the farmer that was affected by this particular clause. But that is a very poor example because problems of that nature in any event apply generally, irrespective of whether it is farm land or urban land. It is not something where a man’s rights can be dealt with at any specific stage purely in the discretion of a Minister. The norms that would apply to-day could change very easily subsequent to the death of the testator and the land has to be divided. But basically only the farmer is affected, because in the disposition of any other type of property, especially urban property, no one can interfere with the disposition. The other things that could occur, occur generally in the life of the community; they are of general application to everyone, irrespective of what the land is being used for. But here it applies specifically to the farmer because his disposition can be interfered with in that the Minister may say: You cannot divide this land as provided for in the will, because I do not think I want it done at this particular stage. But with urban property that attitude cannot toe adopted. A local authority may request that land be reserved for road widening, but that is not a parallel; it is a very poor parallel, if I may say so to the Minister with all respect. The question which arises here is not a political issue; it is a fact that an inherent right which is part of the law of this country for centuries is being interfered with.

Order! That argument has been used before.

I cannot understand why we should still be debating this point of whether land should toe subdivided or not. This has been accepted already. During the person’s lifetime he decides that he wants to give his children the land during his lifetime or he decides, also during his lifetime, that he wants to give it to his children after his death. So, the only problem which arises here, is that the time is being shifted. If the Opposition now wants to argue here about what we can do to change the clause to make it easier for a testator to have the administration of his will function as smoothly as possible, I could understand it, but they are now arguing here that a man does not have the right now to make his will as he wishes. He has already decided to make his will in a certain way, and that decision he can only take while he is still living. So the only factor which is at issue is the time, and I think in this clause the Minister is in fact presenting to us the easiest way in which such a decision, taken by a man while he was living, can be carried out after his death.

Mr. Chairman, it became very clear this morning that the Opposition had not mastered this proposed legislation, particularly clause 5 thereof, completely. Apparently they do not understand the entire set-up of wills and estates very well either. It also appeared that the Opposition placed the interests of certain individuals above the interests of the Republic of South Africa and the future of its people. The hon. member for Newton Park said for example that the farmers would not understand this clause. But yesterday, during the Second Reading debate those hon. members put forward a different argument. They then said that we should leave this to the common sense of the farmer. So in point of fact the hon. member contradicted himself. Worst of all, they apparently want to suggest that all 90,000 farmers will die in one year. Surely that cannot be the case. If they had taken the trouble of examining the report of the Secretary for Inland Revenue they would have seen that the number of estates involving agricultural properties amounted to 2,265 in 1962. In 1966 it was 1,736 and in 1965, 2,053. Every year, therefore, there are approximately 2,000 estates involving agricultural properties. In addition one can accept that most of these 2,000 estates were bequeathed to the surviving spouse. Of the remaining 1,000, it could toe said that most of the properties were bequeathed in their entirety. Subdivision therefore would be out of the question. The arguments of the Opposition in this respect are therefore very flimsy. But that is not all.

They have no substance.

It is as the hon. member says. Those arguments really have no substance. Suppose a will was drawn up in which land was bequeathed to two sons. It will not be necessary to approach the hon. the Deputy Minister in advance for the necessary consent. The will can perhaps remain until the testator is dead. Suppose it is then referred to the Deputy Minister for approval, and he rejects it. Then it will not be necessary for that property to toe sold. If hon. members had studied the Administration of Estates Act, they would have found that it makes provision for a redistribution account. In other words, the executor in that estate can reach an agreement with the heirs to the effect that the one takes over the entire property and the other is paid out. This is known as a redistribution account. Actually this clause is very necessary and is in the interests of the spirit of this entire measure. We cannot manage without it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister agreed with our views in regard to the question of an undivided share in the case of the preceding clause. The same expression occurs in this clause, which deals with the registration of the vesting of an undivided share. I want to repeat briefly in regard to this clause that the registration of an undivided share means exactly that— ownership of an undivided share. It does not denote subdivision of the property concerned. It also does not denote separate ownership of a separate portion of a property. I believe that the hon. the Minister will find himself in considerable difficulty if he were to proceed with this restriction on the registration of undivided shares. It may be a question of a husband and a wife. It would mean that every one of these cases would have to be referred to him. I trust that as far as this clause is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister will give the same consideration to amendment that he undertook to give in regard to the previous clause, and will delete this provision in regard to undivided shares.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister asks the Committee to approve of a provision which provides that the Secretary may authorize either generally or in any specific case any person to enter any land at reasonable times and to carry out investigations or to perform such acts as are necessary for achieving the objects of this Act. What sort of person does the hon. the Minister have in mind? Whom do they mean by this “any person”? One can understand the investigations, but what are the acts which he anticipates might be performed on that person’s lands? What does he have in mind in this clause?

“Any reasonable person” might be an extension officer or he might be a member of the soil conservation committee. They will be responsible people, however. That is all I can say. We cannot define the specific person.

What acts are they going to perform?

Inspections of the farm. At the moment there is provision under the Soil Conservation Act that that person can go to a farm to have a look at it. The same applies here. There is nothing different in this Act to what we have had in previous Acts. These people will be responsible people.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but it says that investigations may be carried out or such acts may be performed. I understand the fact that you have to have investigations if you want to administer something like this, but “to perform such acts”, what acts could there possibly be that they could perform on that land? As I have said, investigation is one thing, but performing an act is another. One wonders why the Minister wants the power. Which acts does he have in mind?

Mr. Chairman, surely it is very clear that certain acts can be performed. I want to give an example. If one takes samples of the soil, surely one is performing an act. I think the hon. member is trying to split hairs now simply to see for how long we can delay this legislation.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have no objection to this clause, as it just about is the best clause in this entire piece of legislation. This clause provides that no duties or fees of office will be payable in connection with any documents which have to be submitted to the hon. the Minister or to a registration office. Consequently we support this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 12:

According to my interpretation of clause 12, clause 12 means that he will interfere in the powers the provinces have in terms of the Provincial Powers Extension Act of 1944. I want the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation of precisely what his intentions are as far as this clause is concerned. The 1944 Act does, in fact, authorize the provincial authorities to prevent the subdivision of land when, in the case of the Cape Province, plots have to be subdivided into units of less than 25 morgen. For subdivisions into portions of less than 25 morgen people must have the approval of the Provincial Administration. Therefore, what is the real intention of clause 12? Is the hon. the Minister going to interfere in the powers the provinces have, or is he taking away the powers of the provinces altogether? Is the subdivision of land into portions of less than 25 morgen also going to fall under him now? As I see the matter, it seems as though the hon. the Minister is going to do away altogether with the power the provinces have to make decisions in cases of the subdivision of land into portions of less than 25 morgen. After this clause has been passed, he will have that power. Am I justified in saying that? I think the hon. the Minister should give us a reply in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the provincial authorities were empowered to regulate the subdivision of land into pieces of less than 25 morgen themselves. The proposed legislation is now providing adequate control, and the powers given to the provincial authorities in respect of the subdivision of agricultural land in terms of the said sections of the Provincial Powers Extension Act of 1944, may now be revoked. The Provincial Administrations will still be able to regulate the subdivision of land in urban areas: something which is essential. The provincial authorities welcome this step, because the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will be best able to determine the size of economic units. The provinces will still have the power to regulate subdivision of land in the areas mentioned in clause 1 (i) (a), (b) and (f), in other words, in the areas of jurisdiction of cities, towns and everything which is the equivalent thereof. This is a provincial matter which falls within their competency. The provinces are not competent to decide on agricultural land, as they do not have the necessary professional staff. In the past they also consulted the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, in other words, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, in co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, is the only recognized body as regards this task. I think I have replied in sufficient detail to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this particular clause was submitted to the Provincial Administrations, and whether they accepted it as such.

I said the Provincial Administrations had welcomed the step. It was submitted to them and what is more, they welcomed it.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

1. 13. A permit issued under section 8 (1) (a) (ii) or (iii) of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act, 1967, prior to the commencement of this Act and still of force and effect at such commencement, shall be deemed to be a written consent granted by the Minister in terms of section 3 of this Act, and the conditions (if any) subject to which any such permit was issued in terms of the first-mentioned Act, shall be deemed to be conditions imposed by the Minister in terms of section 4 (2) of the last-mentioned Act in connection with such consent.

Mr. Chairman, this clause makes this measure applicable to South-West Africa as well, and because we on this side believe that the inhabitants, and particularly the farming population of South-West Africa will welcome this legislation just as little as the farmers of South Africa, we believe that this clause should be opposed. In the first instance, South-West Africa mainly is a territory in which the livestock industry is the major source of agricultural revenue. Therefore we find that the size of land in South-West Africa is vast in any event. In other words, the farmers of that territory do realize that if they want their children to farm with any degree of success on those farms, the land must be as large as possible when it is bequeathed to them. For that reason the amount of subdivision of agricultural land in South-West Africa will be limited to a minimum, and it is being limited to the minimum at present. Therefore, we on this side of the House see no reason for the provisions of this Bill to be made applicable to South-West Africa as well and we shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments which are proposed in this Bill are mainly administrative measures which have as object to adapt the registration of births, marriages and deaths to die proposed new system of population registration and identification which was fully explained during; the course of the Second Reading debate on the Population Registration Amendment Bill.

As hon. members will note, it is proposed that the principal Act be applied to the territory of South-West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. Because the Population Registration Act, 1950, does, however, not apply to the Territory it is stipulated that sections 7A and 42 (4) of the principal Act, which relate to classification, will not be applicable there. As in the case of the Marriage Act, the administration of the provisions of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act pertaining to Bantu, has already for more than ten years been undertaken by officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development who have been authorized to do so by the Minister of the Interior. It is therefore likewise proposed that the administration of the last-mentioned Act—in reflation to Bantu in the Republic and the Native nations in the territory of South-West Africa —be assigned to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The necessary amendments in this regard are contained in clauses 1 (definitions of “Bantu”, “Minister” and “Secretary”) and 4. Section 37 of the principal Act will then be superfluous and is being repealed (clause 36). A further provision which is made is that separate regulations may be made to provide for the special needs of the Bantu and Native nations (clause 35),

Mr. Speaker, a departure from the present system is that the registration of deaths and still-births of persons who are not Bantu or members of the Native nations in the territory of South-West Africa will in future be Undertaken by the Police (clause 3—section 3 (2)). This arrangement will, however, make it more convenient for the public to register deaths and still-births and to obtain removal and burial orders. Furthermore, the Police are responsible for investigations relating to deaths which result from irregularities, unnatural causes or foul play. A further advantage of this arrangement is that the population register can be advised immediately of the death of any person, Which will ensure that the records can be kept up to date.? The Commissioner of Police concurs in this arrangement.

In respect o& the births of all races and the deaths of. Bantu the position remains unchanged. Such occurrences will still be registered by officials designated for this purpose (clause 3—section 3 (1)). Such officials are at present called “district registrars” and “assistant district registrars”, but in view of the fact that these designations will then be inappropriate, it is proposed that they be defined as “registrars” and “assistant registrars” and that the Act wherever necessary be amended accordingly (clauses 1—definition of “registrar” and “assistant registrar”—and 3, and the consequential amendments contained in subsequent clauses).

Mr. Speaker, where executive administration at present is the responsibility of a “registrar-general”, it is suggested that the Secretary for the Interior be assigned therewith in respect of persons who are not Bantu and that the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development be responsible in respect of Bantu. It is furthermore proposed that each such Secretary may designate an officer in his Department as chief registrar for the respective population groups, to whom he may delegate any function or duty assigned to him under the Act. Officials who will be subject to the direction and control of the chief registrar, may also be appointed by the Secretary concerned (clause 2).

Additional provisions are made for the registration of births and deaths outside the Republic of all South African citizens, and of the deaths outside the Republic of other persons who are ordinarily resident in the Republic (clause 3—sections 3 (3) and 3 (4)). Provision is also made for the registration in appropriate cases in the Republic of a birth or death which occurs on an aircraft as is the case with such occurrences on board a ship (clauses 37 and 38).

Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain that the amendments proposed in clause 19, namely those in respect of the registration of deaths of members of the military and police forces, are considered essential because the present provisions are inadequate.

Hon. members are aware that a difference is at present made in the Act between an urban area and areas situated outside an urban area. The difference is that in an urban area a birth must be notified within seven days and a death within 24 hours, whereas in an area outside an urban area both such events must be notified within 30 days. For a burial in an urban area, a burial order must be obtained, but no such order is necessary in respect of a burial which takes place outside an urban area. For the removal of a body from an urban area, a removal order must be obtained, but for the removal of bodies in other areas, no such orders are necessary. It is proposed that in general the difference between urban areas and other areas be done away with. Due to the vastness of some regions of South Africa and South-West Africa it is, however, necessary to provide that births, deaths and still-births which occur outside an urban area be notified within 14 days. A burial order will not be necessary where a body is buried in a rural area, but where a person dies outside an urban area and the body must be removed from one magisterial district to another, a removal order must be obtained. For the removal of a body from an urban area a removal order will, as at present, have to be obtained (clauses 1— definition of “urban area”—21, 22, 33 and 34 and the consequential amendments contained in other clauses).

In respect of all population groups, except Bantu, birth, marriage and death certificates will in future not be issued locally and the keeping of district registers in this regard is therefore abolished (clause 7). The present system in respect of Bantu will, however, for the time being remain in operation.

It is the intention, as hon. members should know by now, that a birth certificate will be included in the proposed new identity document to be issued to every person except, for the time being, a Bantu. Such a document will be provided by the Department’s head office to every child whose birth is registered after the proposed system comes into operation and to every other person whose name is included in the central register after that date. A death certificate will immediately at the time of the registration of death be affixed in the person’s identity document and in the event of such a person not being in possession of such a document, be handed to the informant of his death. Similarly, marriage certificates will be provided in the identity document or handed to the parties concerned when a marriage is contracted. Provision is also made that certified extracts of such certificates may be given, inter alia, by magistrates. Should further certificates be required, such certificates can be obtained from head office. Instructions in this regard will be issued by means of regulations and provision therefore is made in clause 44 (section 50). These arrangements will bring about considerable savings for district offices and will most certainly be generally welcomed.

Mr. Speaker, it is furthermore proposed that the power to make regulations be assigned to the Minister concerned. At present this power is vested in the State President (clause 44). Such regulations will, however, be promulgated in consultation with the Minister of Finance. I gather that this pertains to regulations where the Department of Finance is directly or indirectly concerned.

Mr. Speaker, certain other amendments to the principal Act are also proposed. These are of minor importance but I wish to refer to a few which can be discussed during the Committee Stage of the Bill if necessary. These amendments are—

1. (a) the definition of “birth register” (clause l);
2. (b) the provision that a birth shall not be registered unless a name has been assigned to the child (clause 12);
3. (c) the clarification of the procedures regarding notification of deaths at the conclusion of an inquest or summary trial (clause 16);
4. (d) the amendment of the provisions regarding the registration of the death of a person who presumably died from other than natural causes (clause 17);
5. (e) providing also for the mother of a child to register its birth (clause 23);
6. (f) the provision that an undertaker is also qualified to register a death (clause 26); and
7. (g) providing for a registrar to report a death to the magistrate if he is not satisfied that the death was due to natural causes even if a medical certificate to that effect is produced to him (clause 28).

The amendments to sections 17 and 176 of the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, section 189 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, and sections 80 and 81 of the Children’s Act, 1960, are purely consequential amendments. The Departments concerned were consulted.

In conclusion it must be mentioned that the proposed amendments shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation, as it cannot at this stage be determined when the new system will become operative.

Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset offer our congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister on this the occasion of the introduction of his first Bill in this House. May I assure him immediately, in case he has any anticipations as to how long this Second-Reading debate is likely to last, that we propose to support the Second Reading of the Bill. But at the same time. Sir, may I warn him that we need a great deal more information as to certain details of this Bill and that we will be looking forward to a very long and detailed discussion in the Committee Stage when we deal with its various clauses. Once again, as in the past, we have had the benefit of discussions with the Secretary of the Interior and Mr. Fourie, who have been of great assistance to us because, as one knows, these bills which deal with matters of an administrative nature are complicated and somewhat difficult to follow purely as amending legislation as it comes before this House from time to time. Sir, one senses in this Bill and from the discussions that we have had, that it is a Bill that we can support because we have always advocated from this side that we should have a smaller, more efficient and, if I may add, a better paid Civil Service, and we will always support steps which are taken towards that end, and to the extent that this Bill moves in the direction of providing more efficient means of handling the registration of births, deaths and marriages and the elimination of the necessity of keeping somewhat unnecessary decentralized registers, which in fact merely duplicate the contents of a central registry, we: welcome this Bill. We also realize that in dealing with this Bill we must deal with it in the light of legislation which has been approved by this House, although it has not yet been promulgated, and that is the establishment of the central registry and identity documents. It is in that light that we will deal with this Bill from our side.

Sir, there are certain queries which I wish to direct to the hon. the Deputy Minister and upon which we would welcome some enlightenment. The first is in regard to the disposal of the contents of district registers which at present exist. Will these records be taken up into the central registry and will they refer also to the records of persons who are already deceased or persons who have not been taken up into the population register as it is now constituted. Sir, you are aware of the fact that there is still a vast amount of information which is still stored in district registries and one wonders in what manner that information is to be collated and still held available for the general public.

Sir, there is a second question that arises and that is the separate procedures and departments to deal with the registration of Bantu births, marriages and deaths. We have opposed this approach in other legislation and we are not at all satisfied that the separation of this responsibility from the Department of the Interior and its transfer to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is not going to negative the reduction or possible reduction in staff to deal with the one by creating a duplication of staff to deal with Bantu affairs. Because, after all, Sir, the processing of information on births, if done by one centre, can be done more speedily; it can be done with fewer hands than if the processing of the information is to be separated into two distinct registries and two distinct departments and in this regard we would appreciate information from the hon. the Deputy Minister that will convince us that this hanging on to the idea of separation between the records for Bantu and the records for non-Bantu is not in fact going to mean a proliferation of departments within this particular sphere of the life of our country.

Sir, the third point which concerns me is the question of the duties which are now going to devolve upon police officers. Every police station will in fact be a registry office for births, deaths and marriages. This no doubt comes about through the adoption of a five-day week by most departments of the Civil Service, leaving the police force as the one department which is providing service and facilities to the public for seven days of the week. Sir, the police are already very much overburdened with duties which are outside mere policing, and one wonders how they are going to cope with this added burden because one feels that in effect they are going to do all the registration of births, deaths and marriages because it is more convenient for the father to go to a police station after office hours or during the weekend rather than to the department. I wonder whether the Deputy Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Police is satisfied that this is not imposing a very heavy burden on the police force which is already overworked and is suffering from a considerable staff shortage. Sir, what will be required of these police officers? Will it be merely a matter of completing a form in duplicate or triplicate, pasting one into the identity book of the individual concerned? Who issues the original identity document for a new-born baby whose birth is registered? There will not be an identity document available to take the copy of the birth certificate. Is the police officer then to issue one loose leaf to the person who registers and does he then send up the duplicate and triplicate to the central registry where the identity document will then be issued containing the birth certificate? What procedure is to be followed? It has been indicated to us that the first page of the identity document is in fact the birth certificate, but what is given to the parent who registers the birth? When he or she goes in to register the birth, is he or she to receive a certificate of some sort, and what happens to that certificate when the identity document is issued? These are practical matters which will concern the ordinary man and woman in the street, and there is no clarity as to just how that is going to work. Sir. is every police station going to keep permanent records of every birth, death or marriage that is registered there, or will they merely have an in-and-out book with the name and the date and then send the birth registration document to Pretoria? Sir, these are practical aspects on which the Bill is silent but which can lead to a considerable amount of additional work for the police or for some other department. The result may be that we will not achieve the streamlining that we want except in the sense that people can have a particular number which can be processed through a computer eventually in Pretoria.

Sir, clause 5 of the Bill deals with another matter which is not quite clear to us. Although the Bill before us merely transfers responsibility from district registrars to assistant registrars, there is a duty which is placed upon the registrar and an assistant registrar to inform himself as far as possible of every birth and death which occurs within his area. Sir, what is contemplated? How does a district registrar or an assistant registrar inform himself of births or deaths that might take place in his area? The clause continues by providing that if he has informed himself he must then in-form the person who should have informed him originally that he must now register that birth or death. Whether this is merely a pious wish or not, it seems to me that in fact this is going to turn out to be a pious piece of legislation because I do not know, for instance, how the registrar in the Gape magisterial district is going to keep himself informed of births and deaths that take place, apart from those which are reported to him. There is no means of ascertaining and keeping a check on such births and deaths, and I wonder what is contemplated by the hon. the Minister in that particular provision of the Bill. Then, Sir, in clause 6 the Bill deals with the duty which rests upon the registrar or an assistant registrar on receipt of a notice of a birth or a death. The proposed new subsection (3) provides that the completion of such form shall constitute the registration of the birth or death recorded thereon, and it is then proposed to delete the remaining words in the existing subsection, which lays down what is to happen to such form when completed. Sir, what is contemplated there? What is the district registrar to do? At the moment there is a district registry and that information in the district registration is available to the general public. Is it intended now that as with the police the district registrar will merely fill in the details on the forms and then dispose of them by post to the central register in Pretoria and that no further records will be retained in the office of the district registrar? That appears to be what is intended because if that is not so, Sir, one would have thought that the provisions about retaining a district registry would remain. What concerns us again in the practical working of this aspect is what records still have to be kept and what documentary proof is given to the father or parent recording a birth to prove that he has recorded it? We have been told in the debate on the legislation which introduced the identity document that the birth certificate will be the first page of that document, but that document is not available to the parent when he registers the birth. That document must stil be drawn up and written up in Pretoria. On the question as to what is to be given to the parent who records the birth, this Bill is quite silent.

Then there is a further provision, which was referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing this Bill, in terms of which power is given to the Minister instead of the State President to promulgate regulations. Sir, we do not like that procedure; we do not think it is necessary. The issuing of a proclamation is an important act. It has always been traditional and accepted in this country that proclamations are the responsibility of the State President-in-Council. The effect of this new trend of vesting those powers in the Minister and not in the State President is, I believe, reducing the sanctity of proclamations to something which is a pure administrative act; because the next stage is from the Minister to the head of a department. These proclamations should at all times, we believe, remain the responsibility of the State President-in Council, functioning to the extent that Parliament has entrusted to him in that capacity to proclaim the details and the mechanics of legislation which has been approved in principle. We shall therefore certainly oppose this amendment which again appears in this Bill and which furthers what we believe is a tendency to govern by decree and not by the normal processes of legislation.

That is an old story.

Yes, it is an old story, but it is a story which is becoming too frequent, because we find this happening in every piece of legislation coming before this House. We would rather, if Parliament delegates any power to any person or authority at all, that it should be to the State President-in-Council.

Clause 47 deals with the linking of this Bill with the electoral laws. Here I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that although he now has provision in this Bill for a monthly rendition of returns by the Secretary for the Interior to the Chief Electoral Officer of deaths registered, what is happening in effect is that this responsibility is now being centralized and passed to the Secretary for the Interior instead of being the responsibility of every district Registrar of Deaths as in the past. I think every one of us in this House has had experience of this, Although it was the law in the past, that there should be monthly returns to the electoral officer for the purpose obviously of having monthly deletions recorded on the voters’ roll, we all still have the experience of large numbers of deceased persons still appearing on the roll long after they have passed from this earth. The hon. member for Parow, I know, was embarrassed by the number of ghost voters who appeared in his constituency.

Why mention me and not Simonstown?

The hon. member talks about the hon. member for Simonstown. If the roll had been kept up to date, that mistake which took place, and which was accepted by the courts and the authorities as a mistake, would not have occurred. The query I am raising here is whether, with this authority now being vested in the Secretary for the Interior to advise the chief electoral officer, the procedure is likely to be more efficient than it was in the past. It certainly has not resulted in the rolls being kept up to date in so far as the registration of deaths was concerned. [Interjection.] It is a matter which has always embarrassed me and I wondered for some time, until I studied the voters’ roll, why so many members were keen, when delimitation took place, to see that a graveyard was included in their constituency!

The last point I want to mention is the question of the provision now being introduced to deal with deaths of military and police personnel while on service. Clause 19 is a very wide one. In effect it leaves entirely in the hands of the Secretary for the Interior the power to stipulate the procedure to be adopted at places nominated by him in circumstances indicated by him by the person indicated by him in regard to the particulars furnished. In other words, this clause, whilst appearing to make provision for the handling of deaths; which includes not only the recording of the deaths but the using of certificates for the disposal of the body, in fact leaves the whole procedure in the hands of the Secretary for the Interior. One appreciates that at the present time we are involved in unorthodox warfare on our borders and outside our borders but in close proximity to our country. One can appreciate that there are difficulties in dealing with the normal provisions of this Act, but at the same time the difficulties are not as great as they would be if the country were involved in orthodox warfare. But I wonder whether it should not be obligatory in this law to ensure that the registrations of deaths aTe accompanied by medical certificates. I am sure that no armed unit will be without a medical officer available and I am sure the same position applies to our Police Force and military personnel who are engaged on these border patrols. There should in any event, I think, be a medical certificate from a medical officer dealing with the registration of the death or the removal of the body for burial or the disposal of the body for burial in situ. One knows that there are difficulties and that time is of the essence in these matters and a decision must be taken, but I wonder whether that should not be a safeguard in the Bill, although we can discuss it better in the Committee Stage.

I have raised these points. They are not exhaustive of the questions we will raise, but I raise them because I think it is necessary as this is a departure from the present procedure adopted in this country. It is linking with a new procedure and one can realize how very vital the record of a birth and a death may be for a multitude of reasons in the life of every one of our citizens. If there is a breakdown in the machinery it can have very serious consequences and cause very serious difficulties for our citizens, But we support the Second Reading of this measure and I think we can deal with these problems more effectively in the Committee Stage.

I am rising merely to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Green Point, and we on this side of this House would also like to convey our congratulations and appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior in connection with this first piece of legislation handled and piloted through this House by him in that capacity. We also want to assure him of our wholehearted support in this matter, not only because of the loyalty of this side of the House towards him and this matter, but because we are convinced that the provisions of this Bill not only seek to eliminate shortcomings, as he indicated in his introductory speech, but also seek to streamline the registration of births, marriages and deaths. To the hon. member for Green Point I want to express my appreciation of the fact that we shall be unanimous in our support of the principle of this Bill. As regards the misgivings expressed by him about particular clauses, I agree with him that we can sort out those misgivings more satisfactorily in the Committee Stage, because what his misgivings are about is not the broad principle, but more particularly certain details. He expressed his misgivings about certain clauses, and one of these misgivings concerned the volume of work which this would bring about for police officers. I trust that there had been consultations between the Minister’s Department and the Commissioner of Police, and I assume that agreement was reached in this regard and that the Police will, in fact, be able to undertake that work. In any case, it will ease the obligation which rests on the public.

I do not want to anticipate the Committee Stage in my discussion as the hon. member for Green Point did, but allow me to say, in brief, with regard to his misgivings about the division which is being introduced into this registration in that Whites will be registered by white registrars and part of the registration of Bantu births and deaths is to be transferred to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. It is a fact that in terms of our traditional policy, South Africa is progressing dynamically on the road of separate development, and it is necessary that this work be done by the Department of Bantu Administration. But I agree that this is not an objection on a matter of principle, and therefore I believe that we shall be able to discuss this matter much more thoroughly in the Committee Stage.

We should like to wish the hon. the Deputy Minister a very fruitful and long term of office in his present capacity in the service of this House, and we want to convey our congratulations and appreciation to him for the way in which he introduced this Bill.

In the first place, I should like to express my thanks towards the Opposition for its good wishes conveyed by the hon. member for Green Point, as well as for the support we received from the Opposition for the resolution of principle embodied in this Bill. I also want to express my thanks and appreciation towards my colleague on this side for his good wishes and for the fact that we shall have the support of this House as a whole. I am pleased about this, because as a result of certain aspects of this Bill, I feel that we and the Opposition should work together for special reasons. I shall mention some of those reasons later.

The hon. member for Green Point raised a few questions. I do not think it fitting to anticipate the Committee Stage now, and I do not believe he expects me to give detailed replies to some of the matters which he raised here, but I should like to reassure him briefly in some respects. Perhaps we can bring our ideas into line beforehand.

He spoke about the contents of the district registers and asked what would be done with them and whether those contents would be incorporated with the central register. The position in this connection is that the contents of the old district registers will be kept for a number of years, but as you know, the population moves around rapidly and a time will arrive when the contents of these registers will no longer be really useful. At that time they will be taken up in the archives. Then, he spoke about the various procedures which are followed in the implementation of this Act and the transfer to the Department of Bantu Administration of registrations in respect of the Bantu people. We know that the Opposition is opposed to these measures as a result of our experience with other Acts. Seeing that we now agree about the principle, I think we can cross swords about this matter in the Committee Stage. But I want to mention to him that the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Bantu people as a group should be given the opportunity of developing further and perfecting in their own way this new system which is being made applicable to a more developed section of our people. They should be given the chance to achieve their own kind of streamlining gradually.

The hon. member was concerned about the many duties which would come to rest on the Police. I can assure him that they have been doing much of this work for many years and since we now have longer week-ends as a result of the five-day working week—about which he and I may differ as to the question whether it is a good idea or a bad one—many more people come to them for the urgent registration of deaths and other specific cases. In the past it was not really their duty but something which they did as an essential part of the duties entrusted to them by the existing district registrar who was the magistrate. Now the Police’s duties are to be reduced to the receipt of documents. They will fill in the documents and issue death certificates and burial orders in some cases. In that respect, they will render a service to the public which the public has found increasingly difficult to obtain in recent times as the population increased, as the problems increased and as the week-ends became longer and longer. The hon. member was also concerned about the registration of births, marriages and deaths of Bantu by the Department of Bantu Administration. I have already referred to that. The Department cif Bantu Administration has been doing this work for many years. It has been done on the authority of powers delegated by the Minister of the Interior. I Now these powers are being transferred to them. It simply expedites their work. Now they themselves will exercise control over that work.

The hon. member was concerned about the matter of the registrar being kept informed about deaths in his vicinity. I do not want to argue with the member about that now. Here we are concerned with a principle which was accepted seven years ago. At this stage I do not want to raise the whole issue anew. The principle has existed in legislation for many years, and it will be of no avail for the hon. member and I to argue about it. However, it was not introduced in 1963. It has been in force for many years. The number of deaths of which the registrar does not learn or in connection with which the Police does not eventually institute an investigation if something unnatural is present, is an absolute minimum. It has been done for many years. It has been perfected and everybody co-operates. I do not think this is a fear about which we need concern ourselves.

Then there is the question of the form to which the member referred. The district offices, which will, in fact, represent the registrars in terms of this legislation, will only keep proof of registration. They will have duplicates of the documents which will be used to forward notices to the head office. The person concerned will be given a receipt and will therefore have proof that he has delivered it there. It will still be possible to obtain details. It will be possible for anyone to obtain details if he takes his identification document to the magistrate. The magistrate will extract the details he wants for him. The member was also worried about the monthly returns. The details of the procedure which will be followed to make this matter operate smoothly, were determined after a thorough study by the O. and M. division. It is a voluminous report. We can obtain the details, but it will not really serve a useful purpose. I may just mention that the details of this will be clearly laid down by regulation. Therefore the hon. member need not have any great fear about the matters he raised. The opportunity to debate the matter further will, however, arise in the Committee Stage.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we are moving forward in a century in which man’s abilities, physical and spiritual, will be put to the test to an ever-increasing extent. Ever growing demands are being made on him. Since we have to adjust in other respects, the legislation, too. should be adjusted accordingly. We cannot fall behind. This legislation links up with other legislation and it is essential to achieve order as we progress and develop new systems. This is not mere regimentation. It would be negative to label this as regimentation or regulation, without linking it to the idea that we should take what is good from the past and use that for building the future. The question is whether we should allow the continued existence of our outmoded systems, either in designations, procedures or in the structure of our administrative hierarchy and systems, because they exist and have been serving their purpose reasonably well throughout the years.

I agree.

I think the hon. member and I agree in certain respects. I do not always know whether we have the same intentions. The position is that one may find forms of unhealthy conservatism. They could, of course, not be conservatism in the true sense of the word. We do not want the mentality of a Rip van Winkel and create the impression that we are not well-informed about new demands from day to day. Therefore we must amend laws so as to adjust them to the changing times. I have now mentioned these few adjustments to hon. members. I have not mentioned all of them, because we shall come to them again. I want to mention one or two more which are clear proof of how we should adjust to and meet the demands of this time and the demands of legislation. In bygone days in remote areas one had 30 days in which to report a death. Any one of us who reflects on this for a little while, will realize how many abuses resulted from this. Because of improved means of communication, we are now reducing this period to 14 days. In this century in which the sound barrier has been broken so many times and in which man has landed on the moon, we still do not have a provision in our legislation which lays down that if a child is born on an aircraft, its birth must be reported when the aircraft lands. The same position obtains in respect of a death. In these times in which we are living, a man may still report a birth merely by giving the surname of the child, i.e. a nameless birth.

Then there is an exceptionally interesting aspect of this legislation. Up to now we have not really had any provision in our legislation for the registration of the births or deaths of South African citizens or of persons usually resident in the Republic, when such births or deaths occur abroad. In other words, this Bill is a mixture of the old that is good, and the new that is better in the era in which we are living. I am pleased that to a certain extent the Opposition is getting into step with its election slogan, i.e. “If is time for a change.” It is time for this legislation to be changed. [Interjections.] Now that those hon. members have had their fun, I just want to tell them that it is time for a change in this legislation. I want to tell those hon. members this: Do not, perhaps by splitting hairs or meeting troubles halfway, show that you cannot change at all, because that can do you a great deal of harm. Show that you can move along with the times and form a fine rear-guard for the National Party, and we can assure you that we shall lead you well in the years which lie ahead. I want to content myself with these words of advice and gratitude to the Opposition.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Mr. Chairman, clause 12 lays down the procedure as regards applications for approval. Subsection (3) reads, inter alia, as follows—

1. (f) the use of the fresh produce market concerned by persons or classes of persons.

I think it is absolutely essential for us to point out to the hon. the Minister that great care should be exercised with the provision in subparagraph (f) owing to the fact that at some of the markets in many of our cities members of some of our non-white races not only take part in the bidding when fresh produce is being sold, but also play an important role in the distribution of the products from the market to the housewife. It is not in my nature to turn a question of this kind into a controversial issue, but I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that when regulations are framed in terms of this subparagraph, very thorough regard should be had to the role some of the non-Whites, that is the hawkers, play in regard to the distribution of fresh produce. I want to say therefore that we do not object to paragraph (f), but that this is an example of that kind of paragraph which could perhaps be misinterpreted. I simply want the hon. the Minister to use his power very discreetly in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that one needs many kinds of people at a fresh produce market to assist in the distribution of produce. I take note of the warning he has sounded, and we are all aware of it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the clauses in respect of which we have raised certain points during the Second-Reading debate. This clause confers upon the Minister, after he has had an opportunity of consulting the Minister of Finance, to appropriate certain moneys to be used by the local authorities or by whoever wants to establish such a market. The principle that the hon. the Minister may offer aid and assistance, has been laid down here. I think we should accept that it costs a tremendous amount of money when such a new market has to be built under modern circumstances. Usually the local authorities are not in a position to incur large capital expenses unless they are assisted. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not furnish us with an adequate reply yesterday as to what he was contemplating in this regard and how far they were prepared to go in order to assist such a local authority. It was strongly recommended by the Slater Commission that one-third of the capital expenditure would have to be regarded as some form of subsidy to be granted by the State. That is also what the commission recommended. They were of the opinion that this would help considerably in the establishment of fresh produce markets. We would welcome it if the hon. the Minister would be kind enough to do this. We would welcome it if the hon. the Minister would envisage that the subsidy would amount to slightly more than the 5 per cent for two years on the capital expenditure, because to my mind this is not sufficient.

Mr. Chairman, I also wish to refer to clause 16 and I would like to take the opportunity of bringing it to the attention of the hon. the Minister. One of the problems that faces the national markets is the fact that large outlays of capital make impositions on the finances of these markets, resulting in applications from time to time for the increasing of market dues in order to balance their budgets. The result, as I need hardly mention, is that it then becomes a financial imposition on the consumer whose cost of living begins to rise because of the greater expenses involved in the management of the market. This of course results in a rise in the cost of produce. The committee recommended a subsidy of one-third. Their suggestion was that the State, which, after all is going to lay down the siting, the type of building that is to be erected, the equipment that it should have, the modern methods which it should use now in order to improve the conditions of markets generally and assist the producer with regard to the better presentation of fresh as well as fruit produce, should undertake part of the risks and so encourage these local authorities by sharing the financial responsibility. When the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second-Reading speech said that a subsidy was being provided, he hoped, in terms of the powers given to him under this clause, to the extent of 5 per cent of the capital, he did state that it would be in order to meet losses only., According to the White Paper, it is suggested that financial assistance for the erection of new municipal markets in the nine larger areas can be justified. The Government accepted the following recommendation—

It goes on further as follows—

Actually, according to what the hon. the Minister said in his Second-Reading speech, which was borne out, I think, by information conveyed to the United Municipal Executive, it was to meet any losses. In a case like the City of Johannesburg, where about R12½ million is going to be spent on a market and assuming there were losses, the hon. the Minister would meet it to the extent of about R1,300,000 for two years. But I understand authoritatively from the Johannesburg Municipal Market which I use as an example, because they do sell 40 per cent of the total produce and fruit that is sent to the various national markets of the country, that they have now twice within the last two years been obliged to increase the market dues in order to meet the expenses of running the market. They have never yet run at a loss. It has been their pride not to have run at a loss. They want to maintain that position. But it is going to be at the expense of somebody, because it is accepted by the Slater Commission that all these national markets initially are going to suffer losses for some years because of the enormous capital that is involved. Johannes-burg does not yet know the full extent of the expense that it will incur as a result of establishing the biggest market in the history of the country.

Another factor which should be borne in mind, is that there is the question of the market being run under a much more modern economic system, more particularly with regard to agricultural economics, I think it is called, which brings about better equipment and better handling and proper preservation of the goods. This will enable it to compete with what is taking place in South Africa today, namely the establishment of big distribution organizations like Dewhurst which, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, is heavily financed by the Anglo American Corporation and which is, I understand, now even buying up farms in quite a number of parts of the country. They are responsible themselves for their own distribution. So, in view of that competitive undertaking, our national markets will have to be an attraction to the producer, i It will have to help the producer and present goods in a very much better way than we have been accustomed hitherto. The hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware of the tremendous surpluses that we have from time to time resulting in prices dropping often within a week by about 50 and sometimes 60 per cent The hon. the Deputy Minister knows, for instance, that when goods are brought to a market where there is not sufficient equipment for properly conserving perishable goods, we get what is called “gluts” and these goods have to be disposed of to avoid having a considerable amount of perishable goods on hand in a bad state of decay. The tomato market is a first-class example of the position in the Transvaal. Under all these circumstances we feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister must give greater consideration to assisting than merely providing a percentage in respect of the losses. I think that even if he was to go as far as to say that he will give a subsidy for two years at the rate of 5 per cent of the capital expenditure, it will only be a ninth instead of a third but it would be something which would help to alleviate the enormous expense which will arise. I then think that over a period of time the whole matter will settle down and the establishing of a national market will become a national institution which will not drive the producer away, but will attract him and will also avoid his going into channels outside the national market to sell his products to private entrepreneurs. When presenting its report and recommending the establishment of national markets the Slater Commission stated that the presence and competition of these private entrepreneurs cannot be denied. It made a special point of the fact that it cannot in any way limit the competitive right of the private entrepreneur. We know that in the interests of the agriculturist it will be better to channel everything through our national markets, properly controlled and properly distributed. The producer is a very important factor here. Very often he does not get as square a deal as he would like to get in relation to the price at which the goods are sold to the consumer. In their interests it is therefore important that we must enable our national markets to assume the stature it deserves in the agricultural economy of the country.

Those are the matters I would like to press to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and to inquire from him whether it is not possible to go beyond assisting only in the case of losses. One finds that municipalities, particularly in Johannesburg, ask for an increase in market dues to prevent these losses.

Mr. Chairman, because of the lateness of the hour last night, I was unable to reply fully to the question of the hon. member for Newton Park. As a result, hon. members misunderstood me when I said that the Slater Commission had recommended one-third of the costs of the market. One cannot commit the Government to something of this nature, however, because a municipality may, for example, build a market costing R20 million. The Government will then be obliged to contribute one-third of the costs. We now say, however, that 5 per cent of the capital cost of the market will be used to compensate for losses, if any. The cost of the market in the case of Johannesburg will exceed R600.000, because the market there will cost approximately R12,500,000. The hon. member should bear in mind that no assistance was given in the past. An amount of R414.000 has been earmarked for this purpose in this Budget. I, as a producer, am grateful for the fact that we have made a start in this connection by offering this assistance. But hon. members cannot expect me to say “one-third of the erection costs of the market”. The costs may run into millions of rands. After all, the undertaking has already been given for two years. But I am not in a position now to tell hon. members what is going to happen when it is found that circumstances are such that that market does not show a profit during the third year. Sir, the market the Municipality of Johannesburg intends erecting at Kazerne is going to be as good, if not better, than that at Epping and that of the Municipality of Pretoria. These undertakings are going to cost millions of rands. Even though I differ from the City Council of Johannesburg as far as politics is concerned, I want to agree with the hon. member for Jeppes that the producers are quite satisfied and grateful for the service the Municipality of Johannesburg has so far rendered to us as producers in spite of cramped facilities and the fact that the market is situated in the wrong area and is bursting at its seams. It will be the task of the commission to eliminate certain bottlenecks as regards the forming of cartels, and so forth. The hon. member for Jeppes referred to Dewhurst. Sir, the question whether this is not perhaps going to be a white elephant, is a question which will disturb anybody who has to establish a market. Will the consuming public not later on perhaps tend to move away in the direction that is now being envisaged by Dewhurst, that is, the provision of produce directly from the producer to the consumer without the markets as the intermediaries? These are all aspects the commission should bear in mind and investigate. Personally, I have no fear that this is going to happen and I agree with the hon. member for Jeppes that if one could develop those nine large municipal markets and if the farmers are offered the opportunity of selling their produce on a competitive market where there is a concentration of buyers, we are going to make good progress with this scheme. I can recall that there was some concern in the canning industry a few years ago over the question whether the canning industry should continue spending money in view of the fact that frozen foods had appeared on <the scene, but by applying the new system of pre-packing and in view of the increased consumption, the canners found that the consumption of the canned product was increasing at the rate of 7 per cent every year. We are aware of these cases mentioned by the hon. member but this should not lead now to our tackling the fine market which is being envisaged by Johannesburg in a half-hearted manner. As the hon. member has said, what we should rather do, is to encourage the farmer to make a point of expanding this one market into one huge undertaking.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In order to keep pace with changed circumstances, both at home and abroad, it has once again become necessary to propose certain statutory amendments which are of the utmost importance to the wine industry of our country. In dealing with the Bill now before this hon. House, I should like to mention the few most important aspects which led to these amendments. Firstly: As a result of metrication, several adjustments have had to be made as appears from the amendments in clauses 1, 5, 7 and 10. South Africa’s membership of the International Wine Office in Paris means that methods of determination which receive attention on an international level, ought to be accepted for the benefit of the local wine industry as well. Hence the amendment of certain definitions. Secondly: Section 3 has been adapted to provide for a new supplementary provision, namely, the designation of vine cultivars which may be used for the preparation of wine for drinking purposes. This principle already enjoys such a wide application in wine-producing countries overseas that its incorporation in our legislation has become essential, especially with a view to our export market In fact, the situation has already arisen that certain importing countries demand a guarantee that imported wines are not derived from cultivars which are prohibited for winemaking purposes in the country concerned.

Apart from the abovementioned considerations, the designation of only approved new cultivars have inestimable long-term advantages for the wine industry in future. This should serve as a damper on the smuggling in and unauthorized increase of new types which also leads to the spread of diseases. Furthermore, it will contribute to a general improvement of reproductive material and the existing Cultivar Committee of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will be able to function more efficiently by recommending only thoroughly pre-tested new cultivars for addition to such an authorized list.

Another supplementary provision in this new section is the imposition of a prohibition on the unauthorized extraction of flavouring substances from wine. This is aimed against the manufacture of artificial enriched wines and the resultant misleading of the public by treating cheap low-quality wines with flavouring extracts and selling them as quality products at high prices. Although such practices are not yet known in our country, they can of course have serious disadvantages for the wine industry as such in respect of the danger that the generally accepted image or concept of wine as being a pure natural product may be seriously marred by such practices. For this reason it is therefore regarded as a serious danger in the traditional wine-producing countries.

Thirdly: In terms of the proposed amendment of section 4, provision is also being made to extend the Minister’s powers in the sense that the existing section 4 is actually applicable only to the present prohibition of the use of certain French wine names which has been in force since 1935, and which is a result of a trade agreement concluded with the French Government at the time. The said extension, read in conjunction with that in section 23A, is however aimed at making further specific provision for imposing a prohibition on wine names or descriptions which, for example, may result in confusing or misleading the consumer. I may add that the prohibition now being placed on the use of false or misleading descriptions for liquor must in no way be regarded as something new, but simply boils down to its having been taken over from the Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act (Act No. 13 of 1929), in terms of which it was always applicable to liquor. Its inclusion in the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act is based on obviously practical considerations, which in the main amount to the fact that the relevant provisions in regard to liquor can naturally be administered and applied much more effectively under one Act and by one Department.

As a result of representations by the liquor trade, however, a proviso has been added to this section which in effect means that the continued use of names which may possibly be affected by the provisions of this clause, may nevertheless be allowed at the discretion of the Minister, on condition that they were in use for a Period of at least three years before the implementation of this Act.

Fourthly: Although the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the export interests of the wine industry have for several years been aware of certain tendencies in the international wine trade, the various aspects embodied in two new sections, 19 and 22, pertinently came to notice with the recent publication of the new German Wine Act. which provides, briefly, that bottled imported wines will be accepted as quality wines in Germany only if they bear such distinguishing marks as in turn enjoy recognition and legal protect on in terms of the law of the country of origin. A further requirement is that such distinguishing marks will enjoy recognition only if they have been certified as such by a recognized statutory body in the country of manufacture.

Because of the recent finalization of the agreement in regard to wine marketing within the European Common Market, however, the whole matter has become even more urgent and, in fact, of immediate importance, since the relevant E.E.C. requirements go much further than the German Wine Act in certain respects, and are already in operation at present. The last-mentioned requirements boil down to this, that imported wines from third countries will be able to lay claim to certain concessions within the Common Market only if they carry an official guarantee in respect of name, origin and quality, with the further proviso that any such indications enjoy the same measure of statutory protection in the country of origin. Under the abovementioned circumstances it is clear that the introduction of the proposed control measures are in the first place regarded as essential with a view to our export market, especially in the light of the possible entry to the E.C.C. of Britain, which is by far the most important foreign market for South African wines. In this respect very strong representations were received from the K.W.V. as our largest exporter. Provision is therefore being made for the official constitution of a Wine and Spirit Board, which will be charged with the classification, grading and certification of wine, other fermented beverages and spirits which are destined for export. Further powers are also being conferred upon the Board in order to enable it to fulfil all the additional functions and duties in this connection. In passing it may be mentioned that a similar body has existed since 1944 under the name of the Wine and Spirit Advisory Export Board, which was charged with the selection and certification of all liquor exported in bottles. Such selection, however, takes place only on the basis of quality in terms of the present Liquor Export [Regulations issued under the Agricultural Produce Export Act, 1959 (Act No. 10 of 1959). Apart from the official members, export interests also enjoy representation on this so-called Advisory Board, which is therefore well known to the wine industry. In effect, however, it consists only of a panel of inspectors appointed in terms of the last-mentioned Act, while the newly proposed board is being granted statutory status.

In compliance with the E.E.C.’s requirements in regard to indications of origin, section 22 in turn makes provision for the use of specified names for specified wines and spirits which are produced in defined regions or areas, as well as for the protection of the use of such names.

At this stage it is desirable to refer to the supplementary provisions for extending section 39. Provision is made for regulations in regard to the procedure to be followed in the classification, grading and certification of liquor by the Board, as well as the limitation of the use of such names and/or indications or origin and quality, except on the authority of a certificate issued by the Board. Attention must also be drawn to the proposed paragraph (iD) of section 39, which is specifically intended for the making of regulations in terms of which additional provisions can be laid down in order to comply with further possible requirements which may he set by importing countries. As regards the effect of the abovementioned control measures on the domestic marketing of liquor, it must be emphasized that their application is not at all compulsory, but will be applicable to it only in cases where claims are made in respect of indications of origin and quality linked with a specific name; for example, in the case of estate wines or special wines referred to in subsection (6) of section 5 (clause 5).

In addition, the Wine and Spirit Board will fulfil an important function in the evaluation of certain imported wines of special quality which, although they do not satisfy the requirements of the Act in all respects, may nevertheless be considered for domestic sale, especially on the grounds of high quality.: Apart from the fact that the introduction of the above-mentioned control measures is essential with a view to export, their effect will undoubtedly have great advantages for the industry in the long run, especially in regard to the establishment of a sound basis for orderly future development in the field of wine marketing, both locally and overseas.

In the fifth place: Adjustments have been made in section 26, which now makes statutory provision to make possible the importation of certain special kinds of liquor on certain conditions. This especially creates the opportunity to deal with cases where such spirits are not allowed to be sold locally. This concession in respect of imported wines also links up with the special provision in section 5 of the Act in terms of which certain locally produced wines which do not comply strictly with the requirements of the Act, are allowed on specific conditions and especially on the grounds of exceptional quality. Section 27 of the Act is being further extended in order to make the indication of either the full business address or a registered number of the responsible importer compulsory as well. This is deemed necessary in order to exercise better control over imported liquor offered on the domestic market.

The new section 27A envisages the introduction of more effective control over imported liquor by means of an amended system of submitting samples and clearing imported consignments. This has become necessary because the present system leaves much to be desired. This arrangement will also be of great benefit to the Department of Customs and Excise.

In the sixth place: Further amendments or additions result mainly from deficiencies or shortcomings which are experienced and which present problems in the administration of the Act. In conclusion I may mention that the Bill was published for general information in the past parliamentary recess. Various discussions were held with the K.W.V. and other interested parties. Apart from a few less important matters, complete agreement was obtained. Because the Bill concerned is exceptionally technical in nature, officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services were requested to explain the details to hon. members, and I understand that this was done.

We on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill and in order to link up with the words with which the hon. the Deputy Minister concluded, I want to say that the legislation was in fact fully explained to us by officials of his Department, and we want to thank him and the Department for such assistance which is given to us from time to time. I may just say that it is pleasant to have officials coming to one’s group who are fully conversant with the position and who know especially the technical side of things as well as do the officials whom the hon. the Minister lent to us on this occasion. The Deputy Minister quite rightly said that this legislation is urgent, for the simple reason that certain requirements are laid down by the European Common Market and South Africa is also improving and increasing its liquor exports within that framework, so that it must also satisfy those people’s requirements. Some of the clauses in this Bill are intended to adjust us to those circumstances. In the second place the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that the object of this is to adjust to metrication, and this one can also accept. In the third place there is provision in this Bill which will improve the quality of wine and brandy for domestic consumers, and therefore we have no objection to this either. Lastly, the object is to establish a Wine and Spirit Board to replace the old Advisory Board. The main purpose of this board will be to see to it that wine and brandy of the right quality are exported from South Africa. One can have no objection to the establishment of such a board, because they will undoubtedly see to it that only the best is exported from South Africa, and the farmer and the liquor dealer will have to satisfy their requirements. Any country is usually proud of the products which it exports, and if this board can help South Africa in that respect to build up a good name overseas, we on this side have no objection. Seeing that discussions are to be held shortly and the first consignment of wine which must be classified by this board will be exported soon, we just want to say that we wish the officials in charge of this endeavour everything of the best and we hope they will have success in protecting both South Africa’s name and the product on the foreign market.

The wine industry is one of the oldest agricultural industries in South Africa and is also responsible for one of the best ways of making South Africa known to the outside world. In the very earliest years of the wine industry, the wines of the Cape, and especially those of Constantia. became well known in the outside world and helped to make our country known. Whereas South Africa often has problems in gaining admission everywhere, I believe that the product of the vine can play a very important part in the future in telling the story of our country and being a good ambassador for South Africa. But if this is to be the case, it is necessary in respect of wine, just as much as in respect of other export products of South Africa, that our exporters take into account and keep pace with the requirements which are laid down in those countries. This legislation embodies adjustments in this respect, in order that South Africa should not drop into the background, but may keep pace with developments abroad in this industry, and may do so in future as well.

I want to congratulate the Minister on this piece of legislation, which makes provision for a Wine and Spirit Board, which, in terms of the statutory powers being conferred upon it, will keep a close watch on the quality, names, and everything associated therewith, of our South African wines, both at home and abroad. Talking about the naming of export wines, which is specifically referred to in this legislation, I think it affords an opportunity to our wine industry, which has already achieved a great deal, to give special attention to this aspect as well, and to use all their ingenuity to give names to our characteristic wines which will not be a mere echo of names which are known elsewhere in the world, but which will in fact have the effect of making South Africa so much better known overseas. In this connection it is therefore gratifying that this legislation makes special provision for a development which has taken place in recent times, i.e. that our estate wines are again receiving special attention for export purposes. To-day the tendency is towards larger and larger undertakings, and as far as the character of his own products is concerned, the ordinary wine farmer is, as it were, being pushed into the background. In spite of this, however, there are a considerable number of estates which have decided that they have a particular function to fulfil in firmly impressing the name of the South African wine industry. These estate wineries have now organized themselves into an association. I foresee that they will play a special part in the export drive of our wine industry. That is why I am so grateful that special provision is being made in the legislation to create that new opportunity for our estate wines to compete overseas. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Seeing that this measure is not being opposed by the Opposition, I do not wish to take up the time of this House unnecessarily, but there is, however, one aspect of the Bill to which I should like to draw attention, and this is that the Bill provides that cultivars, the kinds of grape which are intended for and may be used for wine-making, must now be specifically approved on a special list. Mr. Speaker, you have a very wide knowledge of affairs, but I am certain that you will not know that one cannot use every kind of grape for the making of good wine. For example, one definitely cannot use some of our best table grapes, such as Barlinka and Waltham Cross, to make good wine, and therefore it is essential that: these cultivars which may in fact be used for the making of good wine be specified. Of course, one cannot once and for all draw up a final list, because this list will have to be adjusted from time to time, for the simple reason that phytogeny is developing so tremendously nowadays that new cultivars are constantly being bred which often produce better wine than cultivars which are already in use. I can mention a very interesting example. A former Minister, who sat in this House for a long time, planted a cultivar on a large scale on his farm at Stellenbosch, and to-day it is producing one of the best-known red wines. It was bred in this country from two different parents, which were originally imported, but the new cultivar was bred here in the Western Cape and to-day it is the basis of our best-known red wines. Accordingly I forsee that the list provided for in the Bill will continually have to be adjusted as new cultivars are bred, and we shall be able to produce a more genuine South African wine in this way because the cultivars themselves were bred in South Africa and are particularly well suited to our conditions. I just wanted to draw attention to this particular clause, because I foresee that it will also be an incentive for our plant breeders to develop our own characteristic South African types which can produce very good wines for us in future. I gladly support this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Matters concerning the survey of land constitute one of the affairs of the territory of South-West Africa which became a function of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure at the coming into operation of the re-adjustment on 1st April, 1969, and since the change-over the administration of the Land Survey Ordinance and the Surveyors’ Ordinance of the territory has therefore been vested in this department.

As is evident from the White Paper containing the decisions of the Government on the financial and administrative relations between the Republic and South-West Africa, it was decided, inter alia, that the Land Survey Act and the Land Surveyors’ Registration Act, of the Republic would be applied in the territory instead of the existing two ordinances. As is indicated in the long title of the Bill now before this House, the main purpose of the Bill is to apply the Land Survey Act, 1927, in the territory and to repeal the Land Survey Ordinance. Provision is also being made, however, to amend the principal Act as regards the duties of a Surveyor-General and the appointment of surveyors.

Application of Act

As regards the application of the Act in question, it ought to be mentioned that the Director-General of Surveys conducted a full investigation into the matter in co-operation with the Surveyor-General of South-West Africa and in consultation with the surveyors’ institutes concerned, and found that this would not entail any real problem as the provisions of the Act and those of the territory are by and large in agreement and the few adjustments which would have to be effected would, in fact, result in uniformity.

In applying the Land Survey Act to the territory and in bringing in the office of the Surveyor-General of South-West Africa under this Act, it is, from the nature of the case, necessary for provision to be made for the Surveyor-General concerned as well as a member of the Institute of South-West African Land Surveyors to serve on the Survey Regulations Board, as the Board will also be responsible for the making of regulations relating to survey matters in the territory. Provision is being made accordingly.

The existing Land Survey Ordinance of the territory is being repealed in its entirety, as it is, in fact, a repetition of the provisions of the Land Survey Act. The application of last-mentioned Act is to the effect that the provisions regarding trigonometrical survey will also apply in the territory.

Modification of duties of a Surveyor-General

In terms of the present provisions of section 3 (1) (c) of the Land Survey Act, the Surveyor-General is obliged to subject all survey documents to an exhaustive examination in order to ensure that the survey is correct in all respects, despite the fact that a surveyor is held responsible in terms of the provisions of that Act for the accuracy of any survey performed by him or performed under his supervision.

The tremendous increase in survey work and the shortage of sufficiently trained land surveyors necessitated the appointment of a departmental committee to investigate to what extent the present functions in the examination of survey documents could be curtailed. This investigation revealed that certain functions could, in fact, be eliminated, provided that the relevant section of the Act was amended so as to make provision for the examination of survey documents to be restricted in the normal course of events to essentials for protecting the system of registration and for ensuring the preparation of diagrams and general plans in agreement with statutory requirements or conditions to which a property, or a portion thereof, was subject. Therefore, in brief, the amendment embodied in clause 3, has the effect that it will not be necessary for a Surveyor-General to check the accuracy of a land surveyor’s calculations to the minutest detail, but that the basic aspects of diagrams and plans will still have to be examined by him in order to ensure that the interests of the public are enjoying sufficient protection. In this regard the Survey Board may, in terms of section 6 (6) of the Act, lay down efficacious rules.

As regards the amendment embodied in clause 6, regard should be had to the provisions laid down in section 12 of the principal Act in connection with the qualifications for recognition as surveyors. In addition to academic training, practical training, as prescribed by regulation, is required before a person may be recognized as a land surveyor. The present provision, as contained in section 12 (1) (c), is much too restrictive in the case of a land surveyor who has practised abroad and has immigrated to South Africa. If the letter of the law is applied to such a land surveyor, his practical training may only be recognized as from the date on which his degree is declared equivalent to a South African degree. In other words, his previous experience as a practising land surveyor abroad cannot be taken into account at all for the purposes of recognition as a land surveyor. Therefore, the object of the proposed amendment is to eliminate the anomaly. The regulations will then be amended so that the Survey Board will be able to give proper and appropriate recognition to previous experience.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has no objection to the passing of this legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will notice in the long title, the Bill has as its object. as in the case of the Land Survey Act, also to apply the Land Surveyors’ Registration Act of the Republic to the Territory of South-West Africa and for that purpose to amend that Act as well as the Land Surveyors’ Ordinance which applies in the Territory at present. This will result in the registered land surveyors of the Territory being brought under the control of the Central Council of Land Surveyors of the Republic, and therefore bring about uniformity in this respect as well. The whole matter has been investigated in consultation with all the institutes of land surveyors, which have agreed to the proposed amendments. Provision is being made, inter alia, for increasing the membership of the Central Council of Land Surveyors from seven to nine members, so that a member of the Institute of South-West African Land Surveyors will also have a seat on that council, while the purpose of the ninth member is to relieve the member elected as chairman of the duties of an ordinary member of the council.

The Land Surveyors’ Registration Act deals mainly with the registration of land surveyors in the Republic and the disciplinary powers of the council in regard to such land surveyors. The Land Surveyors’ Ordinance of the Territory also contains provisions in connection with the registration of land surveyors in the Territory and grants disciplinary powers to the Institute of South-West African Land Surveyors regarding members of the said Institute, but includes further powers regarding the determining of particular fees in connection with non-cadastral surveys and the regulation of certain procedures. The amendment of the Land Surveyors’ Ordinance therefore has as its object to provide that the Institute shall retain such powers and privileges as are not contrary to the provisions of the Land Surveyors’ Registration Act. It will amount mainly to this, that the Institute will be deprived of its disciplinary powers and that those powers will then be vested exclusively in one controlling body, namely the Central Council of Land Surveyors.

The definition of “land surveyor” in the Land Surveyors’ Ordinance is being amended in order to bring it into line with the Acts of the Republic. Furthermore, the definition of “work of a land surveyor” is being deleted, and in order to bring that concept into line with the rules issued under the principal Act, the concepts “cadastral surveys” and “non-cadastral surveys” are being inserted.

Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House having consulted certain land surveyors, we are satisfied that they will welcome this legislation, which mainly affects them. They also agree that it should be applied to South-West Africa. Consequently we have no objection to the Second Reading being accepted.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill Read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments as printed, namely—

1. (7) If at any time the municipality does not require any portion of the commonage for a nature reserve or for transfer in terms of subsection (4), it may, with the approval of the Administrator and subject to such conditions as he may determine, let for agricultural purposes any such portion which the municipality does not so require, to any owner of land adjoining the commonage, for any period expiring not later than 50 years after the date referred to in subsection (1).

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister where these amendments come from. After all, this measure was the subject of an investigation by a Select Committee. I have no real objection to the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister. However, we would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain to us why the provisions regarding the 100 morgen and the grazing are now being omitted and why provision is being made for a portion or portions of that land to be inserted. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should explain this to us.

Mr. Chairman, the request made by the hon. member for Newton Park is a reasonable one, as he has not been fully informed in connection with this. I shall therefore give him an explanation, just to put the record straight. After that the hon. member for Paarl will go into the matter further. The object originally was to transfer the mountain to the Municipality, subject to the reservation of water rights, that is to say, any grazing rights would have been terminated. The amendments as proposed, inter alia, by the Select Committee, entailed that existing grazing rights would be retained. That would mean, however, that all inhabitants of Paarl in the area concerned would, as in the past, still have a right to grazing, which would of course hamper the development of the proposed nature reserve in all respects. Indeed, the petitioners, who are neighbouring farmers, are not opposed to the proposed nature reserve as such. But they are concerned about that portion of the mountain which will not be immediately used for the proposed nature reserve, which portion they want to use for farming purposes. The Municipality and the farmers concerned have in the meantime reached a compromise as regards the letting of such portions. The amendment I have now moved is to enable the Municipality to let that portion of the mountain which will from time to time not be necessary for the nature reserve or for the purposes of the Language Monument, for agricultural purposes to the neighbouring farmers, provided that their period of lease will not terminate later than 50 years after 30th November, 1966. The latter is the date on which the Bill was originally published for information. The period of 50 years is the period on which the Municipality and the farmers concerned have mutually agreed. As regards the amendments proposed by the Select Committee in connection with the donation of 100 morgen of the land to the State for the purposes of a Language Monument, there is some doubt at this stage about the specific portion or portions which are necessary for the purpose in question. This may also give rise to problems if it is subsequently found that the land so required is slightly more than 100 morgen. In the circumstances it is therefore proposed that the provisions be amended in such a way that the Minister of Agriculture may designate the necessary portion or portions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has dealt with the matter reasonably fully, but perhaps it will be a good thing if I just further explain to the hon. member for Newton Park what the position there is. The position is that this commonage, i.e. the entire mountain of approximately 3,000 morgen, has belonged to the inhabitants of Paarl and the Agter-Paarl ward all these years. Because the Municipality applied to be given control over the mountain, rights naturally had to be expropriated. The most important rights that were to be expropriated were grazing rights and water rights. In exchange for waiving those rights the farmers who in reality were the owners of the mountain, originally asked that certain land should be given to them. But the State would not agree to that. After lengthy negotiations between the Municipality and the farmers concerned who still made use of those grazing rights, it was agreed that the entire upper part of the mountain, the summit, would be used as a reserve under the control of the Paarl Municipality. One cannot enclose a reserve with a zig-zag fence and for that reason a straight line had to be drawn. All the pieces of land falling outside that line will be let by the Municipality under a long-term lease to the farmers concerned, who are quite satisfied to receive this land on lease in exchange for their rights which are now being expropriated. We therefore have complete agreement.

As regards the portion for the Language Monument, I may say that the Municipality has plans to build certain roads on the mountain. Depending on where those roads will be situated, the area which will then be set aside for the purposes of the Language Monument will be indicated later. For that reason a portion of 100 morgen cannot now specifically be set aside as was originally the intention. It may eventually perhaps be a little more or a little less than 100 morgen. It is left to the discretion of the Minister to indicate at a later stage the portion which is required for the Language Monument.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Preamble:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, few new members must have entered a debate in this House with more trepidation than I do to-day for, having sat in the precincts of this Chamber for seven sessions but out of the arena in which I now find myself, I know only too well what anguish such members endure when they make their maiden speeches. For me, however, there is one particularly warming aspect, namely that among my new hon. friends in this House, I can count so many old and honoured friends of my former days.

The very full preamble to this Bill sets out two most commendable steps that are being taken, both of them intimately linked with the rich past of our country and with our future, which, I am sure, we all hope and we all believe will bring us even greater things than our illustrious and industrious forebears achieved. From the preamble it will be seen that the measure and what it deals with, namely Paarl Mountain, which bears the distinctive description of Erf No. 1, Paarl, reaches far back into our traditions. Daniel van Ryneveld, who as principal magistrate of the district into which Paarl fell in 1838 and to whom and to whose successors in office the 3,380 morgen under discussion were transferred in freehold for use as a commonage, would himself be pleased, I think, with the measure that is before the Committee to-day, as its background and precepts are outlined in the preamble.

The two main purposes of this measure, to which I have already referred are, firstly, to transfer title to this mountain to the Municipality of Paarl and, secondly, the main guidance given to the Municipality in the preamble in this respect, is that the commonage will be capable of being developed by the municipality “as a nature reserve and pleasure resort, not only for the inhabitants of Paarl but also for all other inhabitants of the Republic”. This is clearly a conservation Bill in the main and this is an aspect of the preamble to which I should like to refer in a few moments. Before I do, I wish to record that I believe that it will be to the general satisfaction of our South African public that portion of this historic mountain is to be set aside for a language monument, the projected “Taalmonument”. Here, side by side with the fine concept of conserving a most beautiful piece of our South African countryside for the use of all our people, townsmen and countrymen, we have the equally fine concept of enshrining in a most appropriate setting a monument that will hark back deep into our cultural past. Paarl can count itself fortunate indeed to have been bequeathed these two things.

Mr. Chairman, the preamble, which is full and fairly specific, indicates that with certain exceptions that part of the mountain not especially set aside for the “Taalmonument” shall not be alienated by the Municipality in any way and that it shall be used only as a nature reserve. In other words, the Paarl Municipality has been charged with accepting certain obligations in respect of this commonage and I am sure that it will discharge them fully and in the spirit in which they are being placed. In this task I should like to think that the Municipality will turn its attention to an aspect of conservation that is looming over all other consideration of this topic throughout the world to-day. This is the preservation or the protection of our environment from the manifold assaults upon it through the usages of man and, unfortunately, the permanent damage that can be done and is being done through abuse of the God-given heritage that is nature. Even at this comparatively early stage in the development of our country, we are already beginning to see the danger signs that foretell of potentially harmful pollution of our environment. In its planning to discharge the obligations placed upon it by this Bill as set out so clearly in the preamble, the Paarl Municipality will, I am certain, heed the warnings that have come from many parts of our land. Perhaps after having studied the facts and assessed the damage elsewhere, it might take a lead in pressing for something that could assist significantly and could have as profound an effect as our cultural heritage on the lives or our people. It could press for the formation of a body along the lines of a national conservation council, which could coordinate and where necessary govern all the activities concerned with the future wellbeing of our natural environment, drawing to its ranks not only the present water and soil conservationists but enlisting the active support of commerce, industry and the professions in such a worthwhile cause. Already, apart from dedicated public servants in various Departments of State, we have several ad hoc groups of public spirited citizens—in the Paarl area I know a few—who have gathered to try to initiate a national movement to preserve our environment from the ravages of such widely differing things as smoke, pesticides, indestructible containers, industrial effluent, the encroachment of unwanted, man-introduced weeds, shrubs and trees to the detriment of our natural flora, pollution of our seas and despoiling of our seashores, the damage caused by veld and forest fires and erosion caused by incorrect farming methods. They have witnessed at dose quarters the sad, steady decline of such unique natural wonders as Lake St. Lucia in Natal, and are looking apprehensively at the possible adverse consequences to the flora and fauna that might result from our coastal road building programme.

The Paarl Municipality will now have an opportunity to pay particular attention to some smaller, yet no less significant, matters which have been raised and which have been brought to the attention of the public during the last few days. Only yesterday the wife of a former member of our Cabinet, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, drew attention to a growing evil in our midst, namely the habit of more and more people to discard litter at our places of beauty and nature. Here it should be noted that some of this litter is not only unsightly but also extremely harmful. Broken bottles, as we all know, are a notorious source of the veld fires that destroy so much of our countryside each year. Earlier this week an hon. gentleman in the Other Place drew attention to the fact that discarded plastic containers can and do prove fatal to animals that swallow them. These matters call for both the education of our people and for rigid controls, if necessary, if we are to preserve the wonderful heritage that has been bestowed on us.

It might be wondered why I, who represent an urban constituency in the Transvaal, should pay particular attention to the future of Paarl Mountain. The answer is simple. This mountain is as much mine and as much the property of every person elsewhere in our country as it is the property of the people of Paarl. It is, however, their privilege that they are being made the custodians of this national asset. Indeed, without attempting to detract from all that has been done by our farming community in the interests of conservation, I think I can fairly point to the tremendous contributions that have been made by townsmen in the field of nature conservation in South Africa. Here I should like to commend the zeal and ingenuity that have been displayed by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and his staff in emphasizing water conservation in this Water Year. Some of our greatest lovers of nature and some of our greatest authorities on flora and fauna as well as our ecology generally, have been city dwellers who have dedicated themselves to the preservation of the country and countryside. I just want to mention that one of my predecessors in the Press gallery, Mr. T. C. Robertson, when he left journalism, became a powerful force for several decades among those who were striving to do what is embodied in this legislation, namely, to provide for the proper conservation of our resources. I think his efforts are well known to many hon. members on both sides of this House. My immediate predecessor in this House, Mr. Philip Moore, who gave great service to this House, to his constituency and to his country in the many years he was here, was also known as a man who relished the open spaces of our land and who delighted in travelling to meet new people and new places.

As I have already indicated, I think that the Paarl Municipality, in taking over Paarl Mountain in terms of this Bill and as outlined in the preamble, and preserving it for posterity, will be allying itself with what must become one of our greatest and most important national movements of the next few decades, that is, the preservation of our environment. I appeal to them, in doing this, to consider the possibility of pressing for legislation to form a national conservation council to assist them in their work and in similar work throughout the country. In doing this, they would ‘be falling into line with what is being done by wise, far-seeing and prudent bodies elsewhere in the world who recognize only too well that heritages of nature, when once sacrificed, can seldom be recovered.

Finally I want to venture a suggestion to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is responsible for this Bill. I have watched the progress of this Bill from the Press gallery above ever since it first appeared on the Order Paper in 1967, and have never failed to be disturbed at the apparent clash of semantics between what seems to be intended and what clearly is intended by the preamble to the Bill itself, and its short title. Its present title, namely the Paarl Mountain Disposal Bill, is jarring and suggests summary and even harsh treatment for so fine a place, and I think it might be an idea if the hon. the Deputy Minister at some later stage were to give it a more appropriate name. He may perhaps consider renaming it in the Other Place. It could be renamed, for instance, the Paarl Mountain Conservation Bill, a title which would act as a trendsetter for future legislation, while at the same time gracing it with a far more suitable sounding name.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very appropriate for the hon. member for Kensington to make his maiden speech in this House on a subject such as this. He was praising the idea of conserving a place for a monument for Afrikaans, speaking in English and representing Kensington. Then he pleaded for the conservation of our soil and our nature. I wish to congratulate him on this idea. That is the way we want it. He is representing a constituency named Kensington, and when I hear the name Kensington I see “Old oom Flippie”, a man whom we all liked and loved. I hope that he-will follow in the footsteps of Oom Flippie. I hope that he will have a happy stay in this House with us. I wish to praise him for the idea of making his maiden speech on the subject of his attitude towards soil conservation and our nature.

I wish to reply to the matter of the title “Paarl Mountain Disposal Bill”. It gives the impression that we want to dispose of the mountain, but the Afrikaans version is clearer in that it reads “Paarlbergbeskikkingswetsontwerp”. It deals with the question of what to do with the mountain. In this respect I differ with the English version. But I can still see the point.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Preamble, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Title of the Bill, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Vanwyksvlei Settlement in the division of Carnarvon was established by the State towards the end of the last century. The settlement consisted of three kinds of lots, i.e. sowing lots, garden lots and building lots. Between the years 1894 and 1897, 50 sowing lots, 26 garden lots and 53 building lots were allotted. These allotments were confirmed under the Van Wyk’s Vlei Settlement Act, 1908, which also made provision for the issue of new title deeds subject to conditions in regard to the allotment of irrigation water to sowing lots and garden lots and the moneys payable, the i control over and the maintenance of water furfows by the State and the preservation of water and the protection of water against pollution. Under the title deed conditions in respect of building lots those owners were granted the right each to keep four head of cattle or horses or mules and/or donkeys on the commonage at the payment of 10 cent per head per month.

In 1929 the Van Wyksvlei Settlement (Local Board of Management) Act was passed, which resulted in the establishment of the existing Settlement Board and the transfer to this Board of the control and management of the settlement. Furthermore the Board was vested with authority to control and maintain the irrigation works constructed for the service of the settlement, and to regulate the distribution of water from such works. Inter alia, the said Act also entailed that certain portions of State-owned land be transferred to the settlement, one-eighth of which was reserved as a commonage for the exclusive use of the owners of garden lots and building lots, while the remainder was divided among the owners of the sowing lots.

The vacant building and garden lots as well as adjacent streets and open spaces which were State-owned land were surveyed as one piece, and this piece of land, which had a total area of 122 morgen in 1934, was transferred to the Settlement Board as lot 159 under the provisions of the Act. This land was again surveyed into garden lots and building lots, and a number of them were alienated to various persons. The remainder was approximately 75 morgen in extent when the Bill was promulgated last year, while the commonage covered an area of approximately 11,417 morgen. The commonage consists largely of grazing, and a large part is being let by the Settlement Board. The community at Vanwyksvlei, especially the occupants of the garden lots and building lots, in the course of years assumed the form of a small village, and the local authority, i.e. the Vanwyksvlei Settlement Board, is not equipped to provide essential public services such as electricity and water supply, sewerage and housing for the large number of Coloured workers.

Consequently the Board, with the support of the large majority of the inhabitants concerned, made representations for measures to be taken—

1. (a) upon the establishment of a village management board for the area consisting of the garden lots and building lots as well as the open spaces and streets and the commonage, to relieve the Settlement Board of the control and management of that area except in so far as such control and management relate to the control and maintenance of the irrigation works situated on the commonage, and to regulate the distribution of the water from such works; and
2. (b) to transfer the commonage and the remainder of Lot No. 159 of the settlement to the village management board to be established, without adversely affecting any rights the registered owners of lots may have in respect of the commonage or the right of the Settlement Board to control and maintain the irrigation works.

The necessary measures are now embodied in the Bill before the House, and the provincial authority concerned has also agreed to such measures.

Mr. Speaker, the village of Vanwyksvlei is a picturesque little village situated between Carnarvon and Pries-ka. I think most hon. members who have passed through there would have noticed how severe droughts have had their effect on Vanwyksvlei as well during the past few years. Consequently Vanwyksvlei is to-day a changed place. There are few farmers who go to stay in that village. It is to-day mainly inhabited by people who have reached an advanced stage of life. That this legislation has to be passed in order to dissolve the old Vanwyksvlei Settlement Board and to turn it into a Village Management Board is an obvious development. We on this side have no objections to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s making these adjustments, as the rights of the people at Vanwyksvlei will be properly protected, and it is merely a question of who will now take over control.

As I have said, Vanwyksvlei is a little village situated in the Karoo where there cannot be many changes in agricultural development, mainly as a result of the fact that it is a sheep-farming area. But there is one prospect for Vanwyksvlei at least, and that is that copper was recently discovered in that area. This may cause Vanwyksvlei to undergo enormous development in the future. Consequently it is also necessary that the old Vanwyksvlei Settlement Board be replaced by a village management board. Great developments may possibly take place in that village. More people will be attracted there. Consequently the duties of such a Settlement Board will become quite redundant and it will be more advisable to leave it in the hands of a village management board. With these few words we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Prieska, who as a result of unavoidable circumstances unfortunately cannot be present, I have the honour to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department for the concessions contained in this Bill. It was a long-felt wish of the community at Vanwyksvlei to dissolve this Settlement Board. Everybody realizes that the hon. the Minister has had a great deal of trouble in making this concession. Now that Vanwyksvlei will for the first time have a village management board which will exercise control and administer the village, the people feel that the Minister has done them a great favour. I am honoured to thank the Minister on behalf of my colleague and his constituents.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the commencement of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, on 1st April, 1969, the function of the granting of credit by the authorities to farmers in South-West Africa became a function of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. To obviate confusion at the change-over, such financial assistance provisionally continued to be granted in terms of the existing laws of the Territory, with the aid of the two existing boards, i.e. the State Settlement and Farmers’ Assistance Board, and the Farming Interests Board.

As envisaged at the acceptance of the readjustment, it is necessary for the sake of uniformity that the two Acts of the Republic which, inter alia, make provision for the granting of any form of assistance to persons who carry on or undertake to carry on farming, and for the acquisition and development of land for or for use in connection with farming purposes, i.e. (a) the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, and (b) the Land Tenure Act, 1966, be made applicable to the Territory and be suitably amended for that purpose.

The main purpose of the Bill before the House, as indicated in the title, is to apply the Agricultural Credit Act to South-West Africa. However, provision is also being made for supplementing a few deficiencies in that Act, and I shall now proceed to explain a few aspects briefly.

Representation on the Agricultural Credit Board of South-West African Farmers

In terms of the present provision of the principal Act, not more than ten members may be appointed to the Agricultural Credit Board. Thus far only eight members have been appointed. In order to give the farmers of South-West Africa representation on the Board, it is necessary to amend the relevant provisions so that 12 members may be appointed to the Board, in other words, so that at least two farming members of the Territory, as well as the regional representative of the Department in the Territory, will be members of the Board. The latter is at present chairman of the existing two boards, i.e. the State Settlement Board and Farmers’ Assistance Board.

The Act already makes provision for the appointment of a committee of the Board and for the delegation of the powers of the Board to such a committee. The intention is therefore to appoint a committee of the Board for the Territory, with its seat in Windhoek, which committee will be able to deal with applications locally and will be composed of the farming members of the Territory on the Board and the regional representative of the Department, who will also serve as a member of the Board and will act as chairman of the said committee of the Board. This officer is also being authorized to issue a protection certificate to stay legal proceedings where it appears from an application that there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant will be granted an extension.

Appointment of agricultural credit committees for South-West Africa

The principal Act makes provision for the appointment of an agricultural credit committee consisting of at least three and not more than five members for a magisterial district or portion thereof, under the chairmanship of the local magistrate, except in the case of the Pretoria committee, which functions under the chairmanship of an officer of the Department.

Agricultural credit committees in the Republic act mainly in an advisory capacity in the investigation and consideration of applications for assistance, but are also used for the purpose of the valuation of land and movable property when assistance is granted. In particular cases powers are delegated to committees, for example, to grant stock fodder loans in emergency grazing areas.

In South-West Africa there are no such committees at present, and applications for financial assistance are dealt with by the existing boards. Use is made of inspecting officers, and in addition there are two non-statutory committees, i.e. the Hardap Committee and the Emergency Grazing Committee. Both are advisory, the first in connection with Hardap Settlement matters, and the latter in connection with the consideration of applications for emergency grazing on State-owned land. Both are regarded as essential, but these functions could also be carried out by an agricultural credit committee. The existing provision is being supplemented so that an agricultural credit committee may also be appointed for an area consisting of more than one magisterial district. As far as South-West Africa is concerned, agricultural credit committees could then be appointed as the need presents itself, i.e. for a district or a portion thereof, or for more than one district.

Interest Rate

In the Republic, farmers who make use of assistance under the Act already enjoy the benefit of a uniform and fixed interest rate of 5 per cent. This is lower than the prevailing State interest rate, and consequently an equalization amount is voted annually by Parliament on the Agricultural Economics and Marketing Vote. Loans to farmers in the Territory, which are made in terms of the Farmers’ Assistance Ordinance, 1952, and the Land Settlement Acts, are subject to an interest rate of 4 per cent. In respect of loans under the Promotion of Farming Interests Ordinance, 1952, i.e. for soil conservation, water conservation and fencing, an interest rate of 3½ per cent applies at present. However, where debts in respect of the lastmentioned loans are consolidated upon the granting of a Farmers’ Assistance loan, the 4 per cent interest rate also applies.

For the sake of uniformity in respect of the granting of assistance to farmers in the Republic and South-West Africa, the obvious step would have been to make the interest rate of 5 per cent applicable to the Territory as well. Here it must be borne in mind, however, that the granting of assistance to farmers in the Territory is financed from funds voted by Parliament from the South-West Africa Account, i.e. funds of the Territory. One of the principles taken into account in the readjustment was that as long as South-West Africa itself could finance State loans to farmers in the Territory, the interest on such loans would not be less favourable. This principle also applies in respect of loans made to farmers in the Territory by the Land Bank after the readjustment. It has therefore been decided that assistance to farmers in South-West Africa will remain subject to an interest rate of 4 per cent.

It is true that upon the abolition of the Farming Interests Fund, loans for soil conservation purposes will also be subject to an interest rate of 4 per cent instead of 3y per cent. However, this is compensated for by the higher subsidy rate made applicable in the Territory in respect of soil conservation. As in the case of the Republic, farmers will, in addition, enjoy the benefits of free mortgage bond registration.

Repeal of existing Acts

Although the relevant existing laws of the Territory are being repealed, they are being kept in force for the execution of existing agreements and for the protection of existing rights. The powers vested in the two Boards, or in someone else, with regard to the recovery of existing loans, control over securities, etc., are being vested in the Minister, with the power of delegation to officers of the Department. Provision is also being made for all funds of the Farming Interests Fund to be transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the. credit of the South-West Africa Account. This will also apply in respect of funds received in terms of the old Acts by the continuing Administration in respect of outstanding obligations.

Assistance to company farmers

The extension of the concept “white person” in the principal Act is mainly to provide that particular forms of assistance in terms of Government policy can also be granted to a deserving private farming company. Here we particularly have in mind the granting of assistance in order to combat emergency conditions, for example for the preservation of livestock. The shortcoming that two or more persons farming as a company do not qualify for such assistance is therefore being eliminated. In addition, it is being provided that the estate of a deceased farmer can also qualify for any form of assistance.

Amendment of conditions of repayment

The power to determine the conditions of repayment at the termination of a loan is vested in the Agricultural Credit Board. After the loan has been accepted by the applicant, the power to recover the loan is vested in the Minister or in an officer of the Department who is authorized thereto. Section 18 of the principal Act only confers the power to grant an extension of time where a farmer cannot meet his obligations. However, circumstances arise where consideration must also be given to extending an existing loan period or altering the due date of yearly or half-yearly payments to a date which, considering the seasonal income of a farmer, will be more convenient to him. The amendment contained in clause 7 is therefore aimed at granting this authority.

Mr. Speaker, when the Agricultural Credit Act was before the House in 1966, there was general unanimity about it. There were no differences on principle, although this side of the House would iust have wanted to give it a different name. With the amendments the hon. the Deputy Minister is now moving, no drastic change is being made to the Act. It is now merely being made applicable to South-West Africa. The majority of farmers in South Africa will be sorry that they cannot pay the same interest rate as their colleagues in South-West Africa, i.e. 4 per cent. That the provisions of this Act are now being made applicable to South-West Africa is proof to us of the signs of our times. South-West Africa has had a very difficult time the past few years as a result of the lengthy droughts. Consequently there are many farmers to-day, chiefly livestock farmers in South-West Africa, who are finding themselves in difficult straits. It is therefore a good thing that those people are also obtaining the assistance of the Agricultural Credit Board.

A provision which is particularly welcome is the fact that companies may now also apply to the Department of Agricultural Credit for assistance. While the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is providing assistance schemes at present, for example in the Sundays River Valley and elsewhere, there are also some private farmers’ companies that are experiencing the same difficulties as the ordinal farmer. They also have the same obligations to their workers, white as well as non-white, However, at the present moment they cannot receive the same assistance as the ordinary farmer. I may be wrong, but as it appears to us those people could now also be entitled to assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit. When such a private farmers’ company finds itself in difficulties, the same legal provisions that apply to the ordinary farmer will also be applicable to them.

However, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question in connection with clause 4, which concerns the composition of the local committees. The hon. the Minister may now unite more than one magisterial district and appoint members from that. The new subsection (1) reads, inter alia, as follows—

When two or more districts are united, how is the hon. the Minister going to ensure that all the magisterial districts will, in fact, be represented on the committee? All the members of the committee could, for example, originate from only one of the districts, while the other magisterial districts would then have no representation. The local agricultural credit committees do, in fact, fill an important role in agricultural credit activities. The entire system would come to a standstill if the local agricultural credit committees did not honour their obligations. Therefore, in order to carry out good work, it is necessary that magisterial districts enjoy proper representation on that committee.

In addition, the entire Bill is, as we interpret it, only applicable to companies. In cases where problems arise as a result of a person who cannot pay, agricultural credit takes a hand, and it would appear that that procedure will now also apply in respect of companies. In general we therefore welcome this measure, and we are glad that it will also be applied to the Territory of South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, deserving private companies will henceforth also be able to qualify for loans for the preservation of livestock. Previously they could not do so at all. This applies not only to South-West Africa, but also to approved, deserving private companies in the Republic. I just want to add that additional provision is also being made in the case o: estates. When the son of a deceased person applies for a loan, assistance is also still granted.

With regard to the question the hon. member asked about the committees, I may just say that this amendment was inserted on account of the vastness of the Territory of South-West Africa and on account of the fact that the two committees to which I referred already exist. There may be overlapping, and we may perhaps not be able to provide each district with a committee, as is the case in the Republic, but I do not think that the hon. member need be concerned that there will be areas that will not be served or in which the farmers will not be sufficiently represented. Magistrates will, in any case, act as chairmen of the various committees. Sir, I am very grateful to the Opposition for supporting this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As was explained when we considered the Agricultural Credit Amendment Bill, in terms of which the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, is to be applied to the Territory of South-West Africa, this must be accompanied by the application of the Land Tenure Act, 1966, in order to ensure that there will also be uniformity of action in respect of the acquisition and development of land for or for use in connection with farming purposes. The purpose of the Bill before you is therefore to bring about such application.

Although in terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, the Minister of Agriculture has since 1st April, 1969, had the power to deal with the Administration’s land under particular circumstances in terms of the laws of the Territory, the administration of which is vested in him in terms of the re-adjustment, the proprietary right in respect of such land remains vested in the Administration. Land which is obtained in the Territory by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure from funds of the Territory, i.e. funds voted for that purpose by Parliament on the South-West Africa Vote, is also transferred in the name of the Administration, while the Minister may deal with it on the same basis as already mentioned.

The application of the Agricultural Credit Act and the Land Tenure Act to the Territory and the simultaneous repeal of the relevant laws of the Territory, require that the power the Minister already has to deal with the relevant land for agricultural purposes should be retained, and provision is being made accordingly. Indeed, the difference is that action may now be taken in terms of the two relevant Acts of the Republic instead of in terms of the laws of the Territory which are being repealed.

Land which is obtained in terms of the two Acts from funds of the Territory provided on the South-West Africa Vote will be the property of the Administration, as is the case at present, and land so obtained as well as land already possessed and being developed with the aid of the said funds for or for use in connection with farming purposes, will also retain the status of land belonging to the Administration.

In order to distinguish land belonging to the Administration which is or is made available for the purposes of the application of the Agricultural Credit Act and the Land Tenure Act from land with which the Administration may deal for its own purposes, an agreement will be concluded in this connection by the Department and the Administration.

Upon the repeal of the Settlement Laws of the Territory the State Settlement and Farmers’ Assistance Board will cease to exist. It will be replaced by the Agricultural Credit Board and, as explained when the Agricultural Credit Amendment Act was dealt with, a committee of the Board will have its seat in Windhoek. While the Administration previously made use of the advice of the State Settlement and Farmers’ Assistance Board in connection with the administration of, for example, the Crown Lands Disposal Ordinance, 1903, as applied in the Territory, it will now, if necessary, be able to make use of the services of the Agricultural Credit Board or its committee.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is almost the same as the previous one. It is also being applied to South-West Africa, and we have no objection to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The members of the National Parks Board of Trustees are appointed by the State Presi dent. Except in the case of a member who is appointed to fill a casual vacancy, a member occupies his office for a period of five years. A member cannot simply be removed from office. The age limit for members of statutory boards is usually 70 years, with the result that someone who is older than 65 years can be taken into consideration for membership of the Parks Board only if this unwritten rule is disregarded. This has in fact been done on various occasions, but no person who is already older than 70 is appointed. With a view to future appointments of persons who are older than 65 years, an amendment of section 6 of the National Parks Act is being proposed to the effect that a member may be appointed for such period not exceeding five years as may be determined at the time of his appointment. This will ensure that persons over 65 years, but not older than 70 years, may, with due observance of the accepted rule, be appointed for shorter periods than five years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has already dealt with this legislation in the Other Place, and we on this side have no objection to it. I just find it strange that we have reached a stage at which we must tell some people that, because they have reached a certain age, they may no longer be a member of some particular council. On the other hand, the demands of the times are, of course, fantastically heavy, and it is perhaps necessary to insert such a provision. I am told that there are already many bodies and also companies in the country today who adopt the attitude that they would like a certain age limit. Therefore, if the National Parks Board itself felt that they wanted to take such a step, one can, of course, have no objection to it. They have now decided that a member above 65 years can be appointed for five years at the most, and that he must not be older than 70 years. Of course, it will be a pity if there is a member who has rendered good service, but who, on account of his age, can no longer be used by the Board.

Like Flippie Moore?

Yes, perhaps the hon. member for Brits will land in the same position in due course. We hope it will not happen to the hon. member. As I said, if it is their own wish to have such a provision, we on this side of the House will have no objection to it. It is probably a matter which was thoroughly discussed by the National Parks Board

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Where is the Minister?

Mr.Speaker, may I move that the House adjourn now?

No!

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House contains only one clause, which authorizes the Minister of Economic Affairs to prescribe fees to be charged by the Superintendent of Weights and Measures in respect of the examination and approval of new models of weighing and measuring instruments and weights and measures. When the Weights and Measures Act was amended during the 1969 session of Parliament with a view to the change-over to the metric system of weights and measures, the provisions of the Act in connection with the submission and approval for commercial use of new models of weigning and measuring instruments and weights and measures were also amended. In formulating that amendment to the Act, the provisions of the Act which authorized the Superintendent of Weights and Measures to charge fees prescribed by the Minister for the services which he must render in examining and approving new models of weighing and measuring instruments and weights and measures, were accidentally included in certain other deletions from the Act. Consequently the Superintendent is at present not legally authorized to charge the prescribed fees for these services. It is essential that this authority of the Superintendent be restored, as it is a traditional principle of the Weights and Measures Act that commerce and industry should make a contribution towards the cost of the services which the Superintendent has to render to them in examining and approving new models of weighing and measuring instruments and weights and measures. The Bill now being submitted to the hon. House for its approval, has only one object, and that is to restore these traditional statutory powers to the Superintendent of Weights and Measures.

Sir, it would appear that the Government made the same mistake in the case of this Bill as they made with the two previous Bills this afternoon; they forgot to put this particular provision into the legislation just as they forgot to see that the Minister was here. However, we have no objection to this Bill. We think it is fair and reasonable that there should be a tariff for these examinations and we support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, when the Government decided that we should change over to the metric system of weights and measures in the Republic, the execution of this task was entrusted to the Department of Industries. As far as the physical side of this matter is concerned, the Department is assisted by the S.A. Bureau of Standards, and the funds required are voted by Parliament. However, there is doubt in certain quarters whether the Bureau has the necessary statutory powers in terms of the present definition of its functions and duties in the Standards Act, 1962, in order to assist in this task, and the proposed amendment in clause 1 of the Bill is intended to remove any doubt that does exists.

Clause 2 proposes the insertion of a new subsection (4A) in section 12 of the Act, In terms of this new subsection the council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards may, with the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs, who in turn has to consult with the Minister of Finance, make rules prescribing the conditions of service of the director-general and the other staff of the Bureau. As the Minister already has the necessary powers in terms i of section 5 (1) to approve or reject the appointment of the director-general and to approve posts for the other staff of the council on the establishment of the Bureau, it is logical that he should also have the necessary,, powers to approve their conditions of service., The new statutory provisions will also eliminate extra administrative work and printing costs.

Clause 3 proposes to amend section 18 (1) of the Act. In terms of the existing section 18 (1) the Minister may at the request of the council of the Bureau of Standards appoint inspectors for the purposes defined in the Act, provided that such persons are so bilingual as to satisfy the Public Service Commission that they will be able to perform their duties efficiently. In the past, persons appointed as inspectors were subjected to the Public Service language test by the Public Service Commission. These language tests have been abolished, however, and language proficiency in the Public Service is now generally evaluated by senior officials on the basis of junior officials’ use of language in the work situation. In order to adapt to changed circumstances, the amendment therefore provides that the council of the Bureau must henceforth be satisfied as to the language proficiency of the candidates to be appointed as inspectors, and the Public Service Commission will therefore be exempted from conducting language tests on behalf of the Bureau.

In clause 4 two amendments to the existing section 27 of the Act are proposed. In the first instance, it is the intention that the Minister instead of the State President will in future make regulations in terms of the Act. This will eliminate a good deal of additional administrative work. Secondly, paragraph (c) of section 27, which deals with the making of regulations in respect of staff, is being omitted. This provision is being inserted in the Act in a somewhat amended form as section 12 (4A), with which I have already dealt. Furthermore, the latter amendment will place the Bureau in the same position as has already for some considerable time applied to the Atomic Energy Board and the C.S.I.R. in practice in terms of legislation.

Clause 5 contains the short title. The Bureau proposes to revise their staff regulations so as to bring them into line with those of other statutory boards as far as possible. However, until such time as this task has been completed, the existing regulations must remain in force, and the new rules, when ready, can be made known and put into operation in an appropriate way. At the same time clause 12 (4A) will then be put into operation. However, it is desirable that the definition of the Bureau’s objects must be rectified as soon as possible as envisaged by clause 1. The earlier proclamation of this clause can then take place in terms of clause 5 (2) of the amending Bill.

Sir, we will support this Bill. It is quite obvious that since the change to the metric system the Bureau of Standards requires the necessary authority to deal with the metric system of weights and measures. We welcome the take-over, if I may use that phrase, from the Public Service Commission by the Council of the terms and conditions of employment of those people engaged in the work of the Bureau of Standards. We have said in this House on many occasions—and I know it is a sentiment which is held also by the other side of the House—that we have to do everything that we possibly can to stop the brain-drain from South Africa. Our scientists are of world standing and we have to keep them here. We believe that with the council having the authority, in conjunction with the Minister, to set the terms and conditions of employment, this will serve a very useful purpose.

There is one clause that I want to refer to, and that is clause 4, where the Minister takes over functions which were previously those of the State President. Sir, we accept this in this case but I want to make it quite clear that we are not accepting this as a matter of principle. A number of Bills have been before us or are still due to come before us where the procedure is adopted of giving the authority to the Minister and taking it away from the State President. We will treat each Bill on its merits. In this case we have no objection to the Minister having this power but I repeat that it must not be regarded as a precedent, that we have agreed to take certain powers from the State President and hand them over to the Minister.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the Hire-Purchase Act, 1942 (Act No. 36 of 1942) was amended during 1965, provision was made in the Act for the Minister of Economic Affairs to exempt the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Coloured Development Corporation of any or all of the provisions of the Act.

It is the function of the said corporations, inter alia, to provide financial assistance to Bantu and Coloured businessmen. It is often difficult for these businessmen to comply with the prescribed redemption provisions of the Hire-Purchase Act. The Minister, after being granted the power concerned, then exempted the corporations from the said provisions at their request.

During 1968 the Bantu Investment Corporation Act, 1959 (Act No. 34 of 1959), in terms of which the Bantu Investment Corporation was established, was repealed by the Promotion of Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act, 1968 (Act No. 46 of 1968). The latter Act provides for the continued existence of the Bantu Investment Corporation and for the establishment of further development corporations in respect of the national units differentiated in the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, 1959 (Act No. 46 of 1959), as well as the establishment of other corporations such as industrial, commercial, financing, mining or other kinds of undertakings in the Bantu homelands.

The Xhosa Development Corporation was established in terms of that legislation and, in addition, the Rehoboth Investment and Development Corporation was established in terms of legislation passed in 1969.

Both Xhosa Development Corporation and the Rehoboth Investment and Development Corporation have, for similar reasons as the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Coloured Development Corporation, requested that they should also be exempted from the redemption provisions of the Hire-Purchase Act. Moreover, it is expected that development corporations established in respect of the other national units differentiated in the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act will also lay claim to the said concession.

The concession concerned cannot very well be given to certain of these development corporations and not to others. The Bill now before the House will empower the Minister of Economic Affairs to grant all the development corporations and other kinds of corporations of all the various national units exemption from the provisions of the Hire-Purchase Act if he deems it expedient to do so.

The Hire-Purchase Act, 1942, is at present not applicable in the Territory of South-West Africa, but certain matters relating to hire-purchase contracts are indeed regulated by the Hire-Purchase Ordinance, No. 7 of 1942, of the Territory of South-West Africa. In the proposed legislation, therefore, provision is also being made to make the Hire-Purchase Act, 1942, applicable to the Territory and to repeal the said Ordinance.

We will support this Bill because the main effect of it is really merely to extend the provisions of the Act to some of the new corporations which were not in existence at the time the original Act was passed. It also of course now makes the Act applicable to South-West Africa and this is competent in view of the new arrangements and the new basis we now have for South-West Africa. We support the Bill. However, there may be certain assurances we shall ask from the Minister when we come to discuss the Bill in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provisions of the Bill amend certain Railways Acts, and as the implications of the various clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum which was laid upon the Table, I shall simply enlarge on those explanations in brief.

Clause I seeks to extend the powers of members of the South African Railway Police Force. In maintaining law and order upon the railways and at the harbours, a member of the Railway Police Force is capable, in terms of existing legislation, of exercising the same powers and performing the same functions as are by law conferred on or are to be performed by a member of the South African Police Force. He is, therefore, liable in respect of acts done or omitted to be done by him to the same extent as that to which a member of the South African Police Force is liable in respect of his, and a member of the Railway Police Force enjoys the same indemnities as those to which a member of the South African Police Force is entitled.

Therefore, in terms of the law as it stands, the Railway Police is also obliged, inter alia, to safeguard the internal security of the Republic. The exercising of these duties has become very real in that subversive organizations and people use the transport system of the Railways for sending prohibited literature or articles by train, bus or air, with the express purpose of obviating the laws of the country and of achieving their ends by those means. In combating this offence, it may happen that persons have to be searched, and any package or receptacle in or on such a vehicle or in possession of such a person may be opened and searched.

The object of this clause is therefore to enable a member of the Railway Police Force to take immediate steps against any suspected person and to search him or to seize any package or receptacle which may contain documents pertaining to such activities.

The object of clause 2 is to ensure that the existing prescriptive periods may be applied at all times so as to avoid the Railways Administration being prejudiced through claimants, notwithstanding the expiration of the periods laid down, nonetheless being permitted to institute legal proceedings against servants of the Railways which the Department is then morally, if not legally, obliged to defend.

By including time limits in respect of. legal proceedings against servants of the Administration in section 64 of Act No. 70 of 1957, the Railways Administration will at all times and in all circumstances be able to settle claims on a fair basis, without its being exposed to a kind of blackmail, as often is the case, according to which claimants threaten the Administration with legal action against its servants if the Administration does not settle a claim which has already become prescribed. A similar provision is contained in the Public Service Act, 1957.

Clause 3 increases the maximum statutory compensation for which the Department is liable in respect of damage resulting from fires caused by locomotives or burning objects from trains, and the amount of remuneration to land-owners for making and maintaining firebreaks on land adjoining railway lines.

As a result of the mechanisation of permanent way maintenance, the Railways do not have sufficient labour gangs to undertake clearing work on the land of the permanent way or to make and maintain firebreaks outside railway fences, and in order to encourage the farmers themselves to make firebreaks on their land adjoining railway lines, the amount paid in recognition of this work is being increased from R6 per mile per year to R12.

The maximum statutory compensation for fire damage is being increased from R2,000 to R4.000 at the same time.

Apart from the fact that this revision will bring the amounts more into line with current values, it ought to make the provisions of the Act more acceptable to farmers and it ought to be sufficient encouragement to them to make firebreaks themselves.

Clause 4 amends the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund Act. Certain staff in the Catering Department of the Railways is entitled to free meals while that staff is on duty. The value of this food is regarded as pensionable emoluments and the servants make contributions to the new Superannuation Fund in that regard.

The value of free meals was taken into consideration in determining the wage scales of the catering staff, and in order to eliminate the administrative work which the principle of free meals involves, it is the intention to supply food free of charge to the staff concerned henceforth. The value of the rations will, therefore, no longer form part of the pensionable emoluments.

In clause 5 provision is being made for the ratification of certain changes in the conditions of employment of staff introduced by way of amendments, with retrospective effect, to the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to express the gratitude of the Opposition towards the Ministry for die explanatory memorandum which was made available to members. Where a whole number of sections of various Acts are being amended, it is time-saving and very worthwhile for members to have such a memorandum at their disposal. From a study of the memorandum, the Bill and the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech, it is very evident that what we are dealing with here is a Bill which does not contain just one principle, but a whole series of principles. This is a Bill which deals with matters such as the searching of people suspected of subversive activities, fire damage to veld, pensions and regulations. It is not fitting to discuss such a Bill during the Second Reading. However, there are one or two matters of particular importance which we should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. But that can be done to far better advantage during the Committee Stage. Therefore, we shall not oppose the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act, 1964, contains a provision in section 9 (a) which empowers the Minister of Education, Arts and Science to make regulations as to the quorum for and procedure at meetings of the National Study Loan and Bursary Committee, and section 5 (11) provides that such a quorum and that procedure shall be prescribed by regulation. However, no regulations were made in that regard, and consequently the Controller and Auditor-General inquired informally about the validity of meetings of the committee at which the committee decides on advice to the Minister in respect of the granting of study loans and bursaries. In order to place the validity of the meetings of the committee beyond any doubt, the said provisions are being deleted, so that the committee itself like the National Education Council, may make provision for its own quorum and procedure, for example. Section 5 (11) is being deleted by clause 4 (b) and section 9 (a) by clause 7, while the definition of “Minister” and other words or expressions in clause 1 are being rectified and obsolete descriptions or references are being substituted by clauses 2, 3, 4 (a) and 5. The intention of clause 6 is to amend section 8 of the Act in such a way that a company will be allowed to indicate which university, declared institution or school is to receive the donation for award to its students, and that the award may forthwith be so made available without the determination of a basis for allocation by, or the prior approval for payment of, the Minister. This proviso will serve as an incentive for companies to render financial assistance to all institutions of their choice and will at the same time simplify the secretarial and administrative work of my department as well as accelerate the availability of money donated by a company to a particular institution.

During the financial year in which the Act was passed, no donation was made to the Fund and in the four subsequent years amounts of only R2,325. R700, R1.200 and R13,340 were donated by companies. The latter amount is due to a campaign launched by a liaison officer, and in the past financial year this amount exceeded R100,000. The Act as it stands, allows a company to express the wish that its donation should, in terms of its provisions, be made available as far as possible to a particular institution. Now the intention is to make it imperative for such a donation to be made available forthwith to the institution indicated by the company.

My hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced in his last Budget Speech that a tax rebate would be granted in the near future to persons who make donations to this fund. Therefore I shall probably be obliged to move an amendment in this regard at a later stage. Mr. Speaker, this is what is being envisaged by this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the present Minister was a member of the House when we passed the 1964 legislation originally. He will remember that we gave our blessing to that Bill although we did have certain queries which we raised. The Bill was introduced right at the end of the session and we raised these queries in the Second Reading but moved no amendments in the Committee Stage. Our view on this side of the House is that it would be quite illogical for us to do anything except support the principle of this Bill as we are very much in favour of underwriting students financially at our universities to enable them to continue their studies. There is in fact no new principle involved as far as financing students is concerned, except for the one mentioned by the hon. the Minister in regard to companies and their designate having the right to what should happen to their donations. I must say that the list of moneys read out by the hon. the Minister a few moments ago as having been donated by companies, of course does not by any means account for the whole fund. He will appreciate that. He was kind enough to give me the total amount of the fund in reply to a question to-day. We have certain reservations with regard to this right of designation being confined to companies, but I shall deal with that aspect of the matter in a moment.

Most of the amendments contained in this Bill are consequential to statutes passed by this House since 1964, the three most important measures being the National Education Act of 1967, the Universities Acts of 1969, which deal with the non-White universities, and the repeal of the Vocational Education Act. The matter is now adjusted in terms of the new dispensation for schooling in terms of the National Education Act.

On the other hand, I am afraid that we have very real reservations which I must put here to the hon. the Minister and which concern the necessity to come to this House at this stage to make valid, retrospectively, the meetings held by the committee that has administered all these funds for thé last six years. This is done by clause 4 of the Bill. The 1964 Act laid down specifically that the quorum at meetings and the procedure to be followed at meetings, should be laid down by regulation in terms of this Act. The hon. the Minister made this quite clear in his speech. I do want to say on behalf of this side of the House that I have never in my brief experience, although perhaps other hon. members have, come across a situation where an Act was promulgated six years ago with the Minister having the duty to draw up regulations governing the administration of that Act and then finding that six years later the Minister has to come back to this House, at the request of the Auditor-General, and re-enact the section which gives him the right to make regulations. He is doing this in order to establish the validity of the meetings of this committee over a period of six years, when in fact the committee has administered R100.000 and more of public money. I am not suggesting that there is anything phoney about the manner in which they have administered the fund. That is not my point. It does seem to me a most unusual situation. I am rot ascribing it to the hon. the Minister himself. He is virtually a newcomer to this post, but this measure reflects very badly on his predecessors and the department generally, I regret to say, that in fact no regulations were made for six solid years while the committee, whose affairs were supposed to be governed by regulation, was administering public money coming from the tax-payers of South Africa. This really makes one wonder. It is another example of departmental or, I regret to say, ministerial inefficiency that it has taken six years for anybody to wake up to this fact. The Controller and Auditor-General unofficially had to tip the Minister off that it is time the regulations were made. In the meantime they had been administering all this money for all these people, as the Minister explained to me in detail to-day in reply to a question I had put on the Order Paper. I should like to say that one really wonders how many other statutes there are in terms of which the Government has failed to make the necessary regulations for the proper administration of a particular Act. I regret to say that the public will have some doubts about the integrity, not necessarily of the Minister, but of the committee concerned. It casts a very serious reflection upon the members serving on that committee, because at no stage did they approach the Minister or his predecessor, or whoever it was, and suggest that they should function under proper regulations since the Act which gave rise to their appointment made provision for this. In any event, we have now lodged our objection, and I want to do so very strongly indeed.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, we will have various suggestions to make and possible amendments to move in the Committee Stage. Before we do that I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what his views are on this particular issue. I should like to ask him whether he would not think in terms of including an individual as well as a company and an organization as well as a company, in this provision to have, giving them the right to designate what type of student they should subsidize and in respect of what subjects. I say that because these people are interested in and concerned about, different faculties at the technical institutions and at the universities. In his Budget the Minister of Finance has given individuals and companies the right to expect a 2 per cent rebate on donations made to institutions of this kind, as has been the case only with companies in the past. If a public-spirited individual who has, perhaps, been a professional man himself, feels that he would like to donate money or leave money in his will to one of these institutions, he would like to have the right to specify to which faculty this money should be devoted in whichever institution he happens to be interested. It may also be that he is very much concerned with a local institution, perhaps his local university or local technical college. I think that if we are going to encourage members of the public, who have sufficient money to support our educational institutions in this way and they are going to have the added incentive of a tax deduction of 2 per cent, we should think seriously of allowing the individual this right. We should think very seriously in terms of allowing the individual the right,; subject to certain conditions, to say whom he wants to back financially, perhaps a number of students in different faculties because there is a shortage of a certain type of personnel or because he wants the profession to go ahead, or whatever reason there may be. Obviously, anyone who is giving this money, is giving it for public-spirited reasons and a 2 per cent tax deduction is not really going to be all that attractive to a donor unless he feels that he is able to give a lot of money. Then comes the question of an organization. The hon. the Minister knows that there are many organizations like, for example Rotary, or Jaycee

Here is some water for you.

Thank you very much, it is very kind of you. Well, it is better than being called a vulture at any rate, as the hon. member did last year.

There are lots of organizations, both Afri-kaans-language and English-language organizations, who collect funds from their members. Many of these organizations are composed of businessman and are perfectly respectable organizations which do at this moment back students to send them overseas, irrespective of the troubles overseas. They also might like to be donors to this fund. Since the educational situation is as grave as it is and there are so many students who need this type of support, I would have thought that it would have paid the Minister and would have paid the country generally to think in terms of organizations as well as individuals who might be permitted to designate as well as donate funds for financial support of students in one particular faculty. I would like to say that if the Minister is afraid of giving the right to individuals to designate, which will not happen in every case, I might tell him that having this right need not necessarily deplete this fund to such an extent that it becomes in danger of running short of money. The 1964 Act, if the hon. the Minister remembers it, specifically laid down that Parliament may vote money towards this fund in order to support it and that such loans are then paid back on terms to be agreed between this Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think it would pay the country in general if the hon. the Minister would think seriously in terms of allowing both individual and recognized organizations to have the right to designate how and where their money should be spent. We can think how we are going to define it in the Committee Stage.

In specific areas you find that people want to give a certain amount to the university where they have studied, whether it happens to be Stellenbosch, Cape Town, Durban or any other university. In terms of this Bill a company can do that and designate, but an individual and an organization cannot. There are organizations which exist for the purpose of maintaining high standards in various fields, like the Law Societies and the pharmaceutical bodies and professional associations. They are recognized bodies with a proper constitution and they are properly run, but they are not in any sense profit-making organizations; some are also charitable organizations. I think they should have the right to have some kind of say in the dispensation of their own funds, particularly if they want them to go to local institutions which they want to back. [Interjections.] This is not a rugby match. They may even want to know that they are backing specific students whom they have seen progressing through their school careers, in other words young people whom they feel are intelligent and capable of doing a university course but who do not have the necessary money to go on. They should be able to subsidize this student financially so that he can go on and qualify in one or other of the academic fields. The rest of this Bill is quite innocuous, but let me say in conclusion that we really think it quite impossible that the Government could have allowed these funds to be administered for six solid years by that committee with no regulations governing their affairs. Everybody on that committee was appointed by the Minister. No account is made to Parliament as to how the money is spent. I refer to the question I had on the Order Paper to-day. Now the hon. the Minister—1 know it is not he, but his predecessors in office; unfortunately, however, he has to take that responsibility—has to introduce this clause, asking for the right to make regulations, because the Auditor-General tipped him off that he should do this in the public interest. That I think is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Wynberg rightly said, we support this amending Bill, but I accept that the original principle of any legislation should not be damaged as a result of further amendments which is effected to such legislation. It is common knowledge that the original object of this Act was to assist needy students to qualify at universities. It is in this regard that we say that, although we support the Second Reading of this Bill, we should like the hon. the Minister of National Education to investigate the possible effect which certain of the clauses in the legislation may have and which may possibly lead to the original object of the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act being adversely affected. In this connection I am referring to clause 6, which has been dealt with by the hon. member for Wynberg, and which I should like to discuss further.

The hon. the Minister said he was going to move an amendment so as to allow individuals to make donations to specific universities. We accept that individuals should be allowed to do so, and also that this right should be given to companies. We regard this as a means of making more funds available, which can then be used to assist needy students. But on the other hand we must realize that a special responsibility will rest on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister to ensure that the central fund will not, on the part of the Government, be adversely affected by this. I am now going to give hon. members an example. One finds that there are certain universities which the needy student must attend, simply because he is needy. There may be many reasons. It may be that he is living at home with his parents, etc. It may happen, as a result of these amendments which are being made, that companies and individuals will continue supporting specific universities. Let me mention an example of the situation which may possibly arise. Suppose a needy student in Pietermaritzburg finds that he has been placed in a position where the local university does not have sufficient funds to help him. But at the same time, as a result of this new concession which has been made, one may find that the university of Cape Town, because it is perhaps better known and more popular, has a large surplus of funds to help needy students. Now the situation arises where the needy student applies at his local university, but for some reason that university is unpopular. What is going to happen now? In this case there is not much point in telling him that he should go to the University of Cape Town because a surplus of funds is available at that University. He is dependent on the central fund. I think we should act with great caution here. We support the measure. We believe it is going to be of assistance and that it will possibly contribute towards the availability of more funds. But the distribution which will come about may possibly be disproportionate. We may reach a stage where we may find that there are needy students who, as a result of the application of these amendments, are placed in a position where they are deprived of opportunities. I really think that we must think of other possible ways of strengthening the central funds. We know that amounts are donated annually to this fund by the Government, but the question is whether these donations will be sufficient. In connection with the regulations which should have been issued a number of years ago, we should like to learn from the hon. the Minister in his reply why no regulations were, in fact, ever issued.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this amending Bill to the original Act because it seems to us that the Bursary Fund which was called into being in 1965 did not really get off the ground. We know that there was a generous State donation of R500,000 and that people had the opportunity of making tax free donations up to a certain point, but I think we can say that the response has been disappointing. To a certain extent the State has dragged its feet over this matter. I believe that the need for university education and for assistance to people of low means to avail themselves of Government and other forms of financial help are so serious that this fund should have been used to a much greater extent than it has. What are the actual results? In the year 1965-’66 there were only six donations which amounted to roughly R2,300. There were no payments from the fund. In 1966-’67 there were two donations amounting to R700. In 1967-’68 there were three donations amounting to R1,200, and in 1969-70 there did seem to be a burst of enthusiasm because the number of donors increased to 144 and the actual extent of the donations amounted to R44.000. I am glad to say that this progress has been continued, because so far in this financial year 52 donations have been received and roughly R22.000 has been collected. The point that distresses me, however, is that there is a lot more money in the fund at this stage than I believe there need be. In answer to a question I put to-day it was stated that the amount in the fund stands at R585.805. In a previous year the amount to the credit of the fund stood at over R600.000. Under these circumstances I feel it is just to say that the State has been dragging its feet, because it could have used the opportunity to help students who had not the means to help themselves.