Mr. Speaker, during the debate yesterday afternoon I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister what the fate of the present surpluses standing to the credit of the Bantu Services Levy Account in the various urban areas was to be. He told me that the surpluses in the Levy Accounts “will be used in terms of the Levy Act as long as that specific Act is still on the Statute Book”. He said he would refer to this in his reply to the Second Reading. I should like him to be a little more specific when he replies. As we know, the definition of “local authority” has been changed in this Bill which is now before the House. Whereas in the past it has retained its normal meaning, viz. that of a local authority as we know it, in terms of this Bill a local authority area becomes the area of a Bantu Affairs Administration Board. What I want to ask the Deputy Minister is whether the funds standing to the credit of the Bantu Services Levy Fund in Johannesburg, for insance, will be used only in Johannesburg, as is the case now, or whether he proposes to use the funds generally in the area of the new Bantu Administration Board which is being created.

Some surprise was expressed from this side of the House yesterday afternoon at claims from the Government side, and especially from the hon. the Deputy Minister, that there have been no objections to this Bill. The hon. member for Albany referred to a very pointed objection that came from the Midlands Chamber of Industries, and I am surprised that there should have been such ignorance on the Government side. I shall tell you why, Sir. I have now had an opportunity of finding out to whom this memorandum was sent. Apart from the hon. the Deputy Minister, it was sent to the hon. member for Aliwal, who spoke in this debate. The Midlands Chamber of Industries covers the area of his constituency, and unless he tells me that he never received the memorandum, that something went wrong in the post, it is rather strange that he should have ignored it completely in his speech. There is something else which points to the fact that there could not have been such sublime ignorance on the Government side; I am informed, in a document emanating from this Chamber of Industries, that this memorandum was sent not only to the hon. member for Aliwal; it was also sent to the hon. member for Algoa and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is the member for Beaufort West. It was also sent to the hon. members for Cradock, Graaff-Reinet, Humansdorp, Port Elizabeth North, Queenstown, Somerset East and Uitenhage.

What about it?

Is it not strange, Sir, that there should have been such ignorance on that side of the House, and that it should have remained for an hon. member on this side to be the first to make mention of it? I trust that these hon. members are going to be able to account satisfactorily to their local representatives of Industry. This applies to all hon. members on the Government side.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Langlaagte does not appear to be in the Chamber, because just before business was interrupted yesterday afternoon, I mentioned that I had given considerable thought to some definition of what this new tax really is. To refresh the mind of the hon. the Deputy Minister, I said—

The hon. the Deputy Minister has remained stragely silent about how variable this tax is going to be. When he was asked specifically to refer to it during his introduction of the Second Reading, he brushed the questions aside and simply said that he would deal with the matter later. We are still waiting, and I trust that when he replies to this debate, he is going to tell us exactly what he has in mind. In fact, I want to ask him why he was so coy about it. Why could he not have told us what he had in mind so that we could have debated the matter at Second Reading? After all, this is the proper time for that to be done. He has not told us whether it is going to be applied to housewives. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is going to apply it to the housewives of Brakpan, but then he must tell us now, so that we can go and tell them in turn. Is he going to apply it to the hon. the Minister of Transport? This is a very interesting case in point. In fact, I wonder whether he has even bothered to discuss this tax with the hon. the Minister of Transport. If he does get around to discussing it, and if he does go to that Minister, to find out what his attitude will be to such a tax, I can tell him here and now what the reply will be. He will be told by that hon. Minister: “Go away; go and find your money elsewhere.” You see, Sir, on 9th February last year the hon. the Minister of Transport gave us some figures about the number of Bantu employed by him. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Yeoville, he told us that on that date he had 96 845 Bantu working for him on the Railways, in the Harbours and for the Airways. We can take it that under normal circumstances, and if these undertakings were not Government undertakings, these would be precisely the types of workers in respect of whom this tax would be levied. If the hon. the Minister of Transport were an ordinary industrial employer, he would be very severely taxed. The maximum payable by an employer, as we know, is to be R2,50 per month, or R30 a year. That is what is proposed by this Bill. It has been suggested by that Deputy Minister that this figure is merely academic, and that it is not going to be imposed to that extent. He suggested that it is something which belongs to the distant future. In fact, in his recorded newspaper interview he talked about “10 years’ time”. He modified that slightly when he came to this Chamber, and said “perhaps 5 years, perhaps 10 years, and even perhaps a little longer”. I am sure that he will forgive us if we smile just a little cynically at that sort of promise that is made to us. Sir, that promise smacks very much of piecrust. He used significant words here when he talked about when the maximum might be reached; he said that he “hoped”. Sir, if we are to rely on the hopes of that Government, I can tell you here and now that this maximum will be applied promptly within two or three years. [Interjections.]

Just coming back to the example of the hon. the Minister of Transport, if he were called upon to pay the maximum in respect of every one of his Bantu workers, that hon. Deputy Minister would be sending him a bill for R2 905 000 a year. I could just imagine what his reaction would be. The Minister of Transport will be able to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister to get lost, or he could use some more pointed colloquialism. But what is the position of the ordinary industrialist? Returning for a moment to the hon. member for Langlaagte I must say it is strange that this hon. member, who had so much to say the day before yesterday about this Bill, was not here when it was debated yesterday afternoon, and again he is not here this afternoon.

He is at Brakpan.

I want to ask him—perhaps in this I could visit his sins on the hon. the Deputy Minister—and I want to challenge him to tell this House whether in fact this is nothing more or nothing less than a selective employment tax. Is it not a tax imposed on employers just because they employ people of a certain race or a certain class? Of course it is, and nobody on that side of the House can argue otherwise. Just because it has the added refinement to allow the amount to be made more cumbersome or burdensome in the case of some employers or employers in some areas, does not detract from the fact that this is a selective employment tax and something far removed from the Bantu services levy orginally introduced in the days of the late Dr. Verwoerd.

One point that has been made very vigorously by hon. members opposite, is that this new tax is in effect merely a consolidation of existing levies. Nothing, Sir, could be further from the truth and I will tell you why. In the first place we can accept that it does consolidate the two minor aspects of present taxation. The first is the labour bureau fee of 25 cents, which is paid once only in the case of a Bantu employee, and the other is the monthly registration fee of 20 cents. But by no stretch of the imagination can it be held to consolidate the Bantu services levy of 20 cents a week or roughly 85 cents a month which has been paid since the Bantu services levy became law just under 20 years ago. What it does is to supplant this levy. It abolishes it when the new tax is applied.

You have advocated the abolition of that levy from your side for years.

If the Deputy Minister will be a little patient, I do not think he will make interjections when I have finished with him. [Interjections.]

Several references have been made to the assurance given by the late Dr. Verwoerd when he first introduced the legislation for the original Bantu services levy and I think it would be useful if that hon. Deputy Minister were to go back to the original debate, which he obviously has not done. He should go back to the original debate to see what exactly was said. Speaking in this Chamber in introducing the Second Reading of that Bill on the 11th June, 1952, Dr. Verwoerd affirmed his undertaking that it was nothing more than a temporary measure to remedy what was then regarded as a temporary problem: the adequate provision of services for Bantu in urban areas. Using Cape Town as an illustration, this is what Dr. Verwoerd said at the time (Hansard 1952, col. 7766)—

That is the original Bantu Services Levy Bill—

And now they are increasing it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to quote the words of Dr. Verwoerd and the undertaking which was given at the time—

He gave two undertakings to this House and we can put it this way: In the first place, the levy was temporary and would be ended as soon as the services were supplied, and, secondly, that it would be used only in the areas in which it was raised. He went a little further than that. Dr. Verwoerd went on to add that employers of Black labour would be able to judge for themselves what areas had already been supplied with services or largely supplied with services so that they would be able to choose where to site their industries if they wished to avoid paying the new tax or levy. [Interjections.] So even in those far-off days we had the beginnings of the idea that employers could be persuaded—if that is the correct word to use—to site their undertakings in certain areas by the imposition or non-imposition of this tax. The principle nevertheless remained that the money would be used only in the areas in which it was raised.

As recently as last year this hon. Deputy Minister when he spoke on the Bantu Affairs Administration Bill in this House gave an undertaking that Dr. Verwoerd’s original undertaking would continue to be honoured. Speaking in this House on the 26th March, 1971 …

Who is he?

The hon. the Deputy Minister.

This is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said (Hansard 1971, col. 3675)—

This was an amendment to a clause of the Bill—

And this present Bill before us deals intimately with that Bill—

What a far cry from what we had before us last year! How can the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Langlaagte, who I am glad to see has joined us, claim so loudly that the old tax, the Bantu services levy, is merely being consolidated into this new tax? They are obviously two entirely different things. If they are right and it is merely a consolidation, I want to tell them that what they are doing today amounts to a repudiation of what Dr. Verwoerd said. They cannot have it both ways. If their claim is correct, namely that it is merely a consolidation, it will mean one thing and one thing only, and that is that every hon. member on that side of the House who votes for this Bill, will be breaking a solemn pledge which had been given to this House and to the country by Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjections.] I think the time has come to call their bluff in this matter, and say that it is a new tax that is being imposed by this Bill. All the evidence before us points to the inescapable fact that this is not only a new tax, but that it is the tax most dreaded by businessmen anywhere. It is in fact a selective employment tax which can be used to strike deep at the heart of industry in this country. This can cause industrialists to move their enterprises wherever that hon. Deputy Minister or his Minister want them to go. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, in an extremely naive manner we are expected to believe that this legislation is merely for the consolidation of all the old amounts paid in the form of levies. The hon. member for Langlaagte, in particular, wanted to make us on this side of the House believe that this was the intention of this legislation. If this were so one would, in the first place, expect the hon. the Minister to have tabled legislation in which the amount which the hon. member for Transkei mentioned, an amount with a maximum of a little more than R1, would have been included so that we could see that it was a plan to consolidate all these amounts. It would be just as futile for those hon. members to think they could get the United Party to believe this as to think that the industrialist and the businessman outside would believe that it is not a new form of taxation. Again the hon. the Minister has tried extremely naively to tell us that the Bantu will now obtain his vocational training in the Bantu areas and that the industrialists will reap the benefits when these people come to the White areas. Everyone knows that the industrialist, or whoever employs them, will in the course of time reap the benefits if these people are trained. If the hon. member is using this as an argument, I want to bring to his attention how many Whites leave universities, technical colleges and vocational training schools annually. They are all employed either by the business sector or the industrialists. I now ask the hon. the Minister whether a tax has been levied on those people. The hon. the Deputy Minister now wants to make us believe that this maximim levy of R2,50 will be employed to provide better vocational training for the Bantu in his own areas. If this is not a discriminatory form of taxing the employer one could, after all, also expect the same kind of tax to be levied in respect of the entrepreneur who has in his service anyone other than a Bantu. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot, therefore, come and tell us that the main object with this money is to pay, inter alia, for the vocational training of the Bantu. I think that what the hon. the Deputy Minister did not say in his Second Reading speech was, in fact, of more importance than what he did say. I shall tell the hon. the Deputy Minister why he obscured his speech in this manner.

The reason is that over the years this Government has been criticized by its own people for supposedly doing too much for the Bantu and because the taxpayers’ money is used for that. With this legislation the Government will be in a position to announce to its electorate that it is no longer the taxpayer’s money which is being applied for the needs of the black man, but that it is the industrialist himself who pays for it. To try to create that impression, or to create an opportunity to counteract that argument of its own people, will be tantamount to a taxation on productivity in this country.

Today I want to lodge a special plea for certain industrial areas, particularly the Cape. The two industrial areas I, have in mind are Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, the broader Western Province. These two areas already suffer as a result of the implementation of the Physical Planning Act. We have repeatedly asked the hon. the Minister of Planning to make it easier for us to expand and to employ Bantu labour. That was the appeal that was made. We were therefore glad when the Riekert Commission was appointed and relieved those areas to a certain degree. But while taking one step forward the hon. the Minister now comes along and takes two steps backwards. These two steps backward can again have a greater influence on the present and prospective industrialists in the Port Elizabeth and Cape Town areas. That is why I say that this tax is so unfair. It is unfair because under these circumstances we specifically need these people. Every day the Government appeals for more to be produced, and here the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education comes along and places a premium on increased production and productivity in South Africa. He places it specifically on those people whom he and the Government and the whole of South Africa need so much to launch our future development and to maintain a decent growth rate in South Africa. He asks none other than the entrepreneur, the employer, to pay this tax. It can therefore be nothing but a taxation on future growth and develpment. Why must certain people, certain groups, be singled out for the payment of this tax? It is surely the responsibility of the whole of South Africa; the whole of South Africa is concerned with whether we develop or not. Now this hon. Deputy Minister comes along with legislation to place an additional burden on those peoples’ shoulders under the pretext of having to give the most wonderful services to the black man in the urban areas.

The hon. member for Langlaagte also told us that consultations were held with the Federated Chamber of Industries. By implication the hon. member said that they also had the body’s approval. Anyone in touch with these people, anyone who is himself in business or industry, knows how the industrialists are struggling today to keep their production costs as low as possible; they are already struggling with reduced profit margins and they are struggling to sell their products, their manufactured articles. It is specifically this Government’s policy that the people of South Africa must purchase less. Now this hon. Minister comes and says that this tax is necessary. We all certainly know and expect facilities to be created for the black man around our cities. No one has ever denied that fact; it is absolutely necessary.

Who must pay for that?

The hon. member asks who must pay for that. Is it important for him to ask that question. I believe that since these people are serving South Africa and playing an important role in our development, it is unfitting that only one section should be singled out to pay for that.

What section?

The hon. member asks me what section—most certainly the businessman and industrialist, the people employing these people. It is the employer who must pay it. If it is in South Africa’s interest the money ought to come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is where it must come from, as the hon. member for Transkei also said. In connection with this legislation which the hon. the Minister has now come forward with, I want to claim that it is going to do untold damage to the industrial areas of the Eastern and Western Cape. Since the hon. the Minister is apparently not prepared to withdraw this legislation and the Second Reading will be passed with the majority on that side, I want to ask the hon. the Minister that when he determines the amount he should not allow it to approach R2,50 and should adjust it more or less to the total of the levies now being paid. At least then the burden on the entrepreneur will not be as great as it would be under the circumstances envisaged by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. gentlemen on that side are also surprised at our criticism of the R2,50 maximum. This Government has certainly never been reluctant to pass legislation. If at a later stage they feel that that amount is insufficient they can, if they think fit, come to this Parliament in subsequent sessions, take Parliament into their confidence and say they need more.

Then you will again make as much noise.

The hon. the Minister could then come forward with a simple amendment Bill. With this legislation he immediately wants the power to levy an amount of up to R2,50 or, in the case of the man who is self-employed, up to a maximum of R1 per month. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to strongly consider whether during the Committee Stage we should not considerably reduce this amount of R2,50. Such a step would give greater peace of mind to the industrialist and the businessman who have any doubts about this matter. I fear that if the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to levy the full amount of R2,50, there is only one other group in the country who will have to bear the consequences, i.e. the persons buying the products from the industrialist. The industrialist will not be able to absorb these additional costs himself. Instead of decreasing the cost structure in South Africa, the hon. the Deputy Minister is increasing it. This will lead the people of South Africa to only one conclusion, i.e. that we do not only have one Minister of Finance in the country, but also a Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education who acts as a Minister of Finance. For these reasons I am opposed to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was very inclined to think that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was making the speech he had wanted to make last Friday during the no-confidence debate but was unable to because he had been prevented from doing so by his Whip.

I want to say right at the outset that hon. members on the opposite side made quite a number of extremely irresponsible statements in regard to this legislation. The hon. member for Newton Park, as well as the hon. member for Kensington did this. This is not political legislation but is legislation dealing with the sound administration of Bantu in White areas. Why hon. members on the opposite side saw fit to make a political issue of it here, they will know better than ï. I think it was extremely irresponsible of them and I do not expect a responsible Opposition to try to make so much political gain as hon. members opposite tried to make out of this measure, which is a purely administrative one and which needs to be debated with extreme expertise. I am not going to waste the time of the House this afternoon by replying to those political aspects. I just want to point out the extremely irresponsible statements which were made here. The hon. member for Newton Park said that we are now, with this tax, as they call it, placing a premium on productivity in this country. Surely that is an extremely irresponsible statement to make. He also said that we are imposing a tax here on the future growth and future development in this country. Can a responsible person and a frontbencher of the Opposition make such a statement in this House if he knows, as he must know, that it was the United Party which introduced this labour bureau fee and the registration fees as long ago as 1923? He knows that every employer in South Africa today pays the three levies with which this Bill is concerned, i.e. the labour bureau fee, the registration fee and the levies. Through this measure we are trying to consolidate these three into one. Hon. members on the opposite side then levelled the accusation at us that this is a tax on future development and future growth, a premium on productivity. This is such a ridiculous idea that one cannot imagine that a statement like that could be made for general consumption. I reject this statement with all the contempt I can muster. The hon. member for Houghton said that this levy would encourage inflation. However, I want to say at once that the Government will endeavour to do everything in its power not to encourage inflation in this way. In other words, we shall do everything in our power, where the three existing levies already apply and they will now pay only one monthly levy, to make it less than they are paying at the moment. It did not occur to one hon. member on the opposite side that the amount could possibly be less. That is beyond the reach of the United Party—definitely. In any case it could be more on the one hand and less on the other. However, we shall do everything in our power, since these separate amounts are now going to be replaced by one amount, to reduce the amount as far as possible under the present circumstances, depending upon the requirements in a specific area. Why should we expect people to pay more if they could pay less to meet the requirements of Bantu administration in a given area, in whatever area in White South Africa it may be? That is the first point I want to emphasize very strongly.

The second point I want to emphasize is that the Government, and I specifically, realize that we are dependent on the cooperation of the industrialists, the businessmen and all employers in White South Africa. This is of great and cardinal importance. That is why we saw to it, since an inter-departmental committee was appointed as long ago as 1964 to go into this complicated matter of consolidating these separate fees into one levy—and I saw to this personally—that talks were held with the responsible organizations representing the employers and the local authorities. Not one, but numerous discussions actually took place with organizations such as the Instituutraad and the United Municipal Executive. So, for example, I call to mind that we held discussions on four occasions during the past six months with the Federated Chamber of Industries, at which I was personally present and act as chairman. There were also discussions with Assocom, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Instituutraad, etc. This is not therefore a mere irresponsible Bill which we have before the House. It is a Bill which is important for South Africa because we need sound Bantu administration. However, to make sound Bantu administration possible one unfortunately requires funds, and now we must obtain those funds in the most sensible way. We are not trying to encourage inflation, and are not trying in the least to tax the employer beyond his means.

Apart from the discussions which were held in regard to this matter, I saw to it personally that pains were taken to have this Bill published on the 24th December for general public information in the Gazette. We invited people who wanted to comment on it, this was a general invitation, to come forward with ideas and proposals in regard to this very important matter, one which after all affects most of us intimately. I went further and arranged a Press Conference immediately upon our arrival here in Cape Town for the session. Apparently it was the first of its kind, at least in our Department, for such a purpose. I then discussed this Bill specifically and extensively with the Press, and they expressed their appreciation at my having done so. On that occasion I told them that if there was any organization which would be affected by this Bill, it was at liberty— and they can still do so at the present time —to make suggestions, because we do not want to antagonize the employer with this measure, we want the co-operation of the employer in regard to this matter. In this way I consequently had occasion to hold talks with the Federated Chamber of Industries yesterday. I want to express my greatest appreciation towards them and Assocom and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Seifsa and all the other organizations, for the responsible way in which they held talks with me. They requested more than once that we should discuss this or that aspect with them, and yesterday I held another discussion with the Federated Chamber of Industries. I want to express my greatest appreciation for that. They did not come forward with destructive criticism; in fact, they did not have any destructive criticism; that came from the opposite side of the House. They came forward with practical, positive proposals, as I shall now inducate to hon. members.

Sir, there were three important objections in particular in regard to this matter. The one objection was in regard to the utilization of the funds. (Clause 4 (2)). On a number of different occasions here I requested hon. members to read that clause. The second objection which was put forward related to the maximum amount of R2,50. I want to emphasize again that this is only a ceiling; that is the maximum amount which may be levied. There were objections in regard to this. The third important point was this: If a Bantu employee works for an employer and then absconds after working for only one week of that month, or if his agreement is terminated, then, as clause 2 reads at present, that employer must pay the full monthly amount in respect of that employee. These were the three major, basic objections which were raised, and I shall deal with each one of them at length. I want to begin with the last one.

When we reach the Committee Stage of this Bill, I shall cause an amendment to clause 2 to appear on the Order Paper, in which it will be stated very clearly that the monthly amount in respect of a labourer who has absconded, or whose services have been terminated, will be payable on a pro rata basis. In other words, I am meeting the employer here by providing that if the employee only worked for a week, they will be assessed only on a pro rata basis. In other words, if the employee has worked only for a week, they will not have to pay the full monthly amount. Sir, it gives me great pleasure to be able to announce this. Hon. members on that side will perhaps ask me why this was not done in the first place. Sir, we gave much attention to this matter. We also discussed it at length with these organizations at the time. This amendment which is now going to appear on the Order Paper, constitutes certain benefits for the employers, but it also constitutes certain specific and important disadvantages for them. One of the greatest disadvantages is that it is going to result in a considerable amount of additional administrative work for the employers. There is no doubt whatsoever about that, but the employers have clearly given me to understand now that they prefer this additional administrative work, which we very much wanted to simplify, to the payment of that additional amount. It is really a tiny amount, but I will concede that if one employs a 1 000 Bantu it could add up to quite a considerable amount if you have many employees who abscond or whose contracts are terminated. The employers gave me to understand that they would prefer to have it on a pro rata basis. My Department and I honestly thought that the reverse would have been better, but since they wanted it like this, I am quite willing to comply with their request, in spite of the fact that it is going to entail more administrative work, etc. This was one of the things we wanted to eliminate in respect of the Bantu Services Levy Act, in terms of which the employers now have to pay on a weekly basis. Sir, employers will tell you —and this is true—that this results in a tremendous amount of additional administrative work for them. We went into that objection of theirs thoroughly, and this is how we can satisfy them in this respect, and we are grateful that we are able to do so.

The second aspect is the utilization and application of the funds. Sir, by this time the opposite sides of this House know one another well enough for them to know that we try to keep our word once we have given it. There is probably no example which could be mentioned in this House which emphasizes this better than the kind of statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kensington who quoted what Dr. Verwoerd had said previously in regard to the Levy Fund. We are still going to keep the Opposition to that attitude they have been adopting in this regard for a long time now. They must have no illusions about that. They have themselves stated in this House—and last year, when the Bantu Affairs Administration Bill was being discussed, they used the same kind of argument—that there is an accumulated surplus of R26 million in that Fund. In the case of Johannesburg alone the accumulated funds amount to R5 or R6 million. The Act provides that those funds may be utilized only for basic services; that is what the accumulated surpluses are there for, but in many of these Bantu residential areas there is no longer any need for basic services. Consequently we are left with this situation. That Act was passed in 1952, and contained certain provisions in terms of which the levies must be spent. Dr. Verwoerd did in fact give that assurance at the time, although the hon. member did not quote fully what Dr. Verwoerd said. Dr. Verwoerd also said, although he foresaw that it would be a temporary measure, that when that provision was amended, it would only be done after consultation. Sir, it is not possible to do more consulting than I did. You can go and ask all those organizations. I personally, who am standing here as representative of the Government in this important sphere of Bantu affairs, say: “The Government’s word, believe you me, is its bond.” Hon. members must have no illusions about that. I, together with my Minister here on my right, have seen to it that that promise given by Dr. Verwoerd has been kept, in spite of the fact that we already have a rather ridiculous situation where we have R26 million in accumulated funds in this Fund, which we cannot really apply and utilize. Now they are reproaching us with this. We will abide by that promise, and I repeat, as I said yesterday and last year: That Levy Fund Act will be administered as it reads at present until such time as it is amended or abolished by this House. If we are not in that way keeping the promise given by Dr. Verwoerd, then I do not know what we are doing. Those hon. members cannot therefore accuse us of jeopardizing a promise given by Dr. Verwoerd here, and those hon. members know it better than I do. Let me say this to hon. members today: I try never to drag the United Party City Council of Johannesburg into this House, and I am not going to do so now, either, for these matters concerning Bantu administration are important. I think that we should try in this connection to confine politicking to a minimum. I am trying to do so; my deeds testify to that. I may just say that the Johannesburg City Council has been to see me on more than one occasion, as some of the members opposite ought to know. They came to ask me: “Cannot we utilize that Levy Fund, amounting to R5 or R6 million, which is just lying there now, for other purposes?” I replied: No, it must go through the Central Levy Council, because Dr. Verwoerd gave his word in this connection. I said this because I would not have liked to break that promise. If it is broken, it will have to be done with their co-operation.

The interest on R26 million is a very considerable amount, and let me admit it now that it never was the intention to utilize that amount for the Bantu Homelands. It was, as the Act in fact reads, intended to be utilized for administrative purposes in White areas in the first place. Up to now that is what has been done. In addition I said yesterday: As far as I am concerned that is what will in future be done in terms of that Act.

I come now to the Administration Boards. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to say that we are experiencing wonderful cooperation in regard to those Administration Boards. Let me now say this to those hon. members: An accumulated surplus of R5 or R6 million is a useful nest-egg for such an Administration Board to have, with a view to the interest which is being earned. We shall remind you of this politicking. We do not want this politicking of hon. members on the opposite side. As regards the application of the funds, the following was stated in the original clause 4 (2), which appeared on 24th December last year. Clause 4 (2) then read as follows, and I am now dealing with the matter in regard to which I would be very grateful if there is no misunderstanding—

That is how it read. As you will see, it contains the important principle that the Minister may literally be empowered to take money from say Cape Town’s Bantu Revenue Account and utilize it in Johannesburg. That is how it read. The reason for that is very simple. There are many old, smaller towns in South Africa which find it very difficult, as a result of low wages and local circumstances, to provide proper administration for their Bantu Employees there. There are many places like this in the Western Cape and in South Western Natal and elsewhere. In such places the wages in some cases are such that you cannot even borrow money for housing over a period of 30 years from the Department of Community Development at the ordinary rate of interest so that it can be recovered, capital and interest, within 30 years. That was the intention of clause 4 (2) as it stands— my Department felt very, very strongly about this matter and even now feel very strongly about this matter, and at the same time you also realize how difficult the administration of Bantu affairs really is and why it is so essential that there should be a sound, sensible understanding among our people of matters of this kind, for what is at issue here is really in the interests of South Africa. That is what is at issue here, and nothing else. That is what I am trying to do to the best of my humble ability, and the same applies to the hon. the Minister on my right here. But let me tell you this now. That clause was worded in that way because we argued that we want to give those little places, which really did not have the necessary funds—and you know what some of their Bantu residential areas look like; you know how it is. Under such circumstances I do not know where the money should come from, to make improvements there, but we would so much like to do so. In a civilized country it ought to be the case that we can do this to rectify matters. As a result of the circumstances, however, the matter was a difficult one and then we said that if you do in fact give the Minister this power, in those cases where there would be a surplus, then the Minister would after all, after consultation with the local authority that did in fact have a surplus, lend assistance to those less well-off places, in the interests of South Africa. But, Sir, let me now tell you that as a result of the machinations of that side of the House, and as a result of the circumstances arising out of that, the politicking which arose from that, we were compelled to amend clause 4 (2) so that it no longer reads as it did on 24th December of last year and as it was published. It now reads as follows—

Then he may do what follows. You see, this is the big difference. Now we can no longer lend assistance to those little places as we would have liked to do because the provision has now been introduced that the Minister is now being empowered to do so only in respect of a local authority which has rendered services to another local authority, and no one can take any exception to that. I say that I am certain that this is not entirely in the best interests of the administration, because clause 4 (2) as it stood would have been in the best interests of the administration. I am absolutely convinced of that in my own mind, but for the sake of orderliness and for the sake of good co-operation, I was then confronted with the choice, after consultation with Minister Botha, and we then decided that we would insert that provision. Owing to the problem which industrialists raised and because there was not every confidence that these moneys would in fact be spent in such a way in the interests of the local authorities, we amended it in that way, and therefore met entirely in that case the second major objection from industrialists, and they have expressed their appreciation in that regard to me and the Department. A second part of this same question of the utilization of funds is contained in clause 9 of the Bill. It deals with section 19 of the Urban Areas Act. That section of the Urban Areas Act provides that the moneys should be paid into a Bantu Revenue Account, and aforesaid section provides further how that money may be applied. This Bill which is now before the House, contains in clause 9 an insertion which has elicited considerable comment from that side. That insertion provides that the Minister may certify in writing that the application of those funds is in the interests of the Bantu, irrespective of whether or not it relates to a matter in the area of the urban local authority.

I want to state something here in regard to which I hope there will be no misunderstanding. Nor need there be any misunderstanding about this. Clause 9 is in fact simply a corollary to clause 4 (2) as it has now been amended.

That is right.

Yes. That is why I repeatedly asked hon. members to read clause 4 (2) out loud in this House, for then no one will be under any misunderstanding regarding it. Thus clause 9 is in the first place a consequential clause to clause 4 (2). In the second place, I want to make it absolutely clear that clause 9 of this Bill, as I read it to you, provides that the funds may also be utilized outside a local authority area. This may now be accepted or not, but this clause does not envisage taking local authority moneys or administration board moneys as well, when the administration boards are established, and utilizing these for the purposes of development in the homelands. Those moneys are primarily intended for administration in White areas; it is not the intention that they should be utilized in the homelands. Consequently that is not the intention of clause 9.

But it makes it possible.

Why clause 9, one may justifiably ask, as that hon. member is in fact asking now. It is a fair question. The reply is very simple. The reply is that during the past few years, as a result of the dynamic implementation of the policy of multi-national development … [Interjections.]

And now comes the “unfolding” (ontplooiing).

I wish the people outside could hear and witness this painful laughter; really.

As a result of this dynamic implementation of the policy of multi-national development, with the co-operation of the Bantu in White areas as well as in the Bantu homelands …

They listened to Fanus this morning.

As a result of that the position is such that there are more and more local authorities in this country who are saying of their own free will: Here we have a surplus in our account; we should like to utilize the surplus in the interests of development in the homelands where the families of our workers living and working here in our area live. That is why clause 5 was included in the Bill, and surely it is a sensible argument, but those hon. members will probably not be able to understand it.

You are dead right.

They do not want to either.

Of course they do not want to. However, over the past twelve months several million rand have become available from local authorities who want to utilize that money in that way. I may as well tell you now that the United Party City Council of Johannesburg is also doing this. They have seen the light —hon. members on the opposite side will probably see it afterwards.

There are conditions; what about the conditions?

They are one up on these hon. members. What can now be more sensible than this? All that clause 9 makes provision for is to legalize that position, which has in actual fact existed for 12 to 18 months already. Hon. members may as well examine section 19 of the Urban Areas Act now, to establish why we have to legalize this position. If a local authority wants to utilize its surplus moneys for this purpose voluntarily, such action is now being legalized here, so that no one can one day turn around and allege that it is illegal in terms of the provisions of the Urban Areas Act. It could easily be illegal and we also have legal advice to the effect that it may possibly be illegal in terms of the provisions of section 19 to do it in this way. We are therefore coming forward with clause 9 simply in order to legalize this. Now I want to reiterate that I also had a telegram from the Midlands Industrial Council, but I say that all their objections have been eliminated.

The tax is …

I am still coming to the others. I have now explained two … [Interjections.] Wait a minute. I have now explained two the most important ones to hon. members and …

The heavy taxes are the principal objection.

I am keeping that for last because it seems to be the most important one to those hon. members. Those two objections I have now eliminated. Before I come to certain questions asked by the hon. members, questions I promised to reply to—and the hon. members know that I shall do so—I just want to refer to the third and most important objection, i.e. the question of the maximum amount of R2,50. It is of course difficult to levy an amount on any person, and I may as well admit candidly to hon. members that it is very difficult for me. I would have liked to do it for nothing if that were possible. However, one must have that money for the administration costs; that I have already dealt with in my Second Reading speech. The inter-departmental committee of 1964 devoted many pages of their report to that matter. If one wants to consolidate these separate fees which employers pay, into one levy, it is impossible to determine one amount for the entire Republic of South Africa. It is impossible to say that everybody will pay R1 or R1,50, because one must have the principle of differentiation. The United Party introduced this principle donkeys’ years ago and it cannot be rejected now. It is impossible to do so. They are now criticizing principles they introduced themselves. If one accepts that it is impossible to pay one amount, you find yourself confronted with the following situation. If you were to refrain from mentioning any amount in this legislation, I should like to hear what those hon. members on the opposite side of the House, and the hon. member for Houghton, would have to say about it. Then all hell would break loose in this House of Assembly. Do hon. members know what would have happened then? They would have accused this Minister of having carte blanche by means of which he could have levied any amount, R10 or R20—some of the hon. members in the back benches on that side of the House would say the Minister would levy R100 per month if it were possible. One must therefore mention an amount. If you are committed to mentioning a specific amount, the question arises, quite understandably, as to what amounts should be mentioned. In the Department of Bantu Administration and Development—the finest Department in this country—we have built up a wonderful tradition, together with many other fine traditions, e.g. in respect of fees. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. The former U. P. Government levied a registration fee in 1923 which is still the same today. This is proof of the fine tradition which this Department has built up in respect of levies. That levy which was determined before my birth, is still the same today. In those days it was a terrible amount, because I think one could at that time still buy a donkey for a tickey. The amount which was levied, was a large amount, far beyond the requirements for administration under those circumstances. I told the Federated Chamber of Industries yesterday that those people, from an administration point of view, were wise and sensible people. They laid down an amount which was too high under those circumstances, but it could remain unchanged from 1923 until today. We are also trying to establish a ceiling of R2,50, but although we know that it is too high for the present, we hope that it will remain at this level for a very long period of time. There are very good reasons for our having done this and we have discussed them at length with these organisations. It is also a very great pleasure for me to state now that I will move an amendment in the Committee Stage in respect of this matter, because we want the good co-operation of the employers. What this amendment will amount to is that where an amount of R1,50 has already been laid down, no increase of more than 20 per cent will be introduced unless a 12-month period of notice is given. I hope it is clear. We are doing this to give the industrialists and the employers certainty, for the argument raised by hon. members on that side of the House, that we should not create uncertainty, weighed very heavily with us. Now we are giving that assurance. Now I want to ask hon. members opposite, although they know much better than I do, whether they think the Federated Chamber of Industries, with all its subsidiaries, can speak on behalf of the employers in this country? I just want to inform hon. members now that the Federated Chamber of Industries, acting under instructions which reflect the majority opinion of its members, has informed me that they welcome and support these three amendments which I have here submitted to the House.

Of course they would.

Yes, of course they would. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite want to enjoy themselves now, but let me also enjoy myself a little. Do hon. members know that the Federated Chamber of Industries, which represents the employers in this country, were here yesterday. They did not go to the United Party, but came to us to settle their case for them. [Interjections.]

They did not even know about it.

Yes, they did not even know about it—they are hearing it now for the first time.

They were complaining about you.

I am just mentioning this because it is a fine thing to have such co-operation between the employers and a Department like the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I have now dealt with the most important points. There is a great deal to be said about this matter.

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

I think I am now going to deal with what the hon. member wants to ask. In conclusion I just want to reply to a few of the most important questions which were asked. The hon. member for Transkei asked me whether the Public Service—he could have included the Railways and the provinces as well—are also going to pay. The hon. member referred to the hon. the Minister of Transport. The position at present is that the provinces and the Railways pay a 20 per cent registration fee per month and the ordinary service levy in respect of their Bantu employees. But in the case where the Railways itself, provides its Bantu employees with housing, it does not pay the levy. It is not necessary that it should do so, for this levy was in fact introduced for the provision of Bantu services.

That is in terms of the present Act.

Therefore, the Railways, the Public Service and the provinces pay those amounts. In future, therefore, this position will remain basically unchanged. The Public Service will pay as it is paying at present. That amount will be adjusted from one area to another in terms of the requirements of the administration of the areas in question. It will be clear from the reply I shall now furnish to the other two aspects mentioned by the hon. member, and also those aspects mentioned by other hon. members, that it is at best a half-truth—it is in fact three-quarters untrue—to say that the result of this Bill is going to be that there will be many thousands of additional Bantu in respect of whom fees will have to be paid.

In respect of the farmer I want to say that it is quite true that this Bill provides in principle that the levy may also apply to farmers. That is true. But now I want to make it quite clear that this levy will not apply to bona fide farmers at least not for the present. In the case of company farmers or farmers who have extensive farming operations, this will be determined by the circumstances which apply in that specific area. In respect of these people I cannot give any categorical assurances now. We shall take the circumstances very carefully into account. We shall also take into account that we do not want to encourage inflation and we shall try to maintain the amounts which are at present being paid, as far as this is practicable.

I now come to the position in respect of domestic servants. At present employers of domestic servants pay an initial amount of 25 cents as a labour bureau fee, plus a registration fee of 20 cents per month. In other words, the principle that they should pay has already been established. No service levy is paid for servants. The fees payable for domestic servants will at present not be much higher than they were before. The amount which will be paid in future, will depend on circumstances, as these differ from one place to another. However, I want to emphasize that it is expected that the amount which is going to be paid in respect of domestic servants, will not differ from the present amount, and that there will be no immediate difference whatsoever.

As regards Bantu women employed in industries, no service levy is being paid for them either, but they do in fact pay the other two levies. After this legislation has been passed, their circumstances will be considered according to local requirements and circumstances on a fair and equitable basis and in conjuction with the local government area concerned it will be decided in terms of proclamation and requirements in the local authority’s area whether and how they will have to pay, again taking into consideration the basic facts I stated a moment ago. This is the position in respect of the categories I have mentioned. With that I think I have now furnished a reply in regard to that important matter.

What about the colection of money? What will the total amount be, more or less?

As far as the collection is concerned, I think that that is the last important point to which I should reply. If I have omitted any questions, I would welcome it if hon. members could remind me of them. I shall outline briefly the position in respect of how the money will be collected. We will go to the local authority whenever it is deemed that this amount which is going to replace the three separate levies is to be levied in an area. We shall then say to the local area or to the Administration Board, if it has already been established: “Look, we think that these fees should now be levied in the local authority area in question. Submit proposals to us stating what you think the income and expenditure will be in the local authority area in terms of your programme of administration for the area, and make a recommendation to the Department as to what the amount should be which, in your opinion, should be levied in that area. Also make a recommendation in regard to how that amount should be levied in the various categories for employers in respect of their employees.” I told the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and the other organizations that we will also consult them when this amount is determined for a specific area. What could be fairer than that?

I hope that I have with that replied to all the questions.

How much does the hon. the Minister expect to collect?

I am pleased the hon. member has asked me that question, and reminded me of it. The position in respect of the expected income is not at all what was predicted. During this debate hon. members on the opposite side, for example, predicted an amount of R100 million. It is very difficult to mention a specific amount, as hon. members would probably have deduced from the replies I have already given them. However I want to keep my promise that I would give a reply to this question. Hon. members must not misunderstand me when I do so now. I am doing this to the best ability of my Department, but hon. members will realize that it is very difficult to mention a definite amount. If the amount is levied in terms of the three separate amounts which are being paid at present, the amount in round figures will be in the region of R15 million. I cannot go into details, and shall therefore leave it at that. We can return to this again during the Committee Stage. Hon. members must remember that there are local authorities where large amounts are levied from the Revenue Account—i.e. the White Revenue Account—which are used for Bantu administration matters. Depending on how this amount—which in round figures is in the region of R6 million—is included in the calculation, and since there are other factors as well, hon. members will realise that they cannot keep me to this amount of R15 million. Hon. members must realize that the amount could possibly be R22 million, although my Department and I think that for the time being at least it definitely will not amount to more than approximately R22 or R23 million. However, I want to emphasize that it is very difficult to mention an amount, but in any case we hope it will not exceed the amount I have just mentioned.

I want to conclude by saying that I am grateful to hon. members for the measure of responsibility they displayed in the discussion of this measure. I just want to say that employers outside and their representative organizations can be absolutely sure of one thing, i.e. that our door will always be open to them in regard to this important matter, and that we would like to have their co-operation and that we will go out of our way to administer this matter in a way which will be in the interests of the Republic of South Africa and of sound administration which will be worthy of our fine country.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As can be seen from the long title of the Bill, the intention with the Bill is to amend the Bantu Resettlement Act of 1954, the Bantu Beer Act of 1962 and the Bantu Labour Act of 1964. Before dealing with the specific amendments of each of the Acts mentioned above, I shall give a very brief introduction depicting the background which gave rise to the amendments of that particular Act, and the necessity or desirability to amend the Act as it now stands.

*I first want to discuss the amendment to the Bantu Resettlement Act, 1954. The Bantu Resettlement Board, established under the Bantu Resettlement Act, has a provident fund, which is a pension fund, established for the benefit of the employees of the Board and approved by the Minister in conjunction with the Minister of Finance and the Treasury. The books, accounts and balance sheets of the Bantu Resettlement Board are audited by the Controller and Auditor-General in terms of section 2 of the Bantu Resettlement Act. Uncertainty has arisen as to whether the Controller and Auditor-General is legally authorized to undertake the auditing of the Provident Fund.

†Clause 1:

†Amendment of the Bantu Beer Act, 1962.

My department received representations, inter alia from organized commerce to the effect that general dealers, and not only bottle stores, should be allowed to sell Bantu beer powder. These representations were referred to the Standing Ad Hoc Committee on Bantu beer for investigation and report. This Committee, I may explain, consists of representatives of the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs, the S. A. Bureau for Standards, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the Bantu Development Corporation and senior members of my department. Its purpose is to advise me on matters concerning Bantu beer.

After investigating the proposals submitted to them, the Committee pointed out that there was a definite need for Bantu beer in rural areas but that no breweries were allowed in such areas which could cater for the needs of the Bantu. They also pointed out that malt and yeast, from which Bantu beer is brewed, were freely obtainable from any general dealer with the result that any further prohibition on the sale of either Bantu beer powder or Bantu beer would be pointless. All their other relevant recommendations are included in the amendments of this Bill.

*Very earnest representations have also been made to my department by various bodies for better control to be exercised over the supply, for resale purposes, of packaged Bantu beer within areas of local authorities by other local authorities. Not only had this resulted in unhealthy competition but it was not conducive to the orderliness especially in the very large urban areas. This principle was also referred to the ad hoc committee on Bantu beer, the recommendation of which forms part of the amendment contained herein.

†I shall now deal with the separate clauses.

Clause 2: As I pointed out, it is deemed expedient that general dealers, outside urban areas, be authorized by the Minister to sell and supply packaged Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder in order that Bantu beer may be more readily available to the Bantu in remote areas not situated near a Bantu beer supply point. This clause now amends clause 5 of the Bantu Beer Act 1962 to give effect hereto.

Important points contained in the amendment are:

1. (a) that general dealers shall only purchase Bantu beer from local authorities, the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation for resale;
2. (b) it enables the Minister to have the same control over Bantu beer sales points of general dealers as is the case with local authorities and prohibits general dealers to sell Bantu beer to any person under the apparent age of 18 years;
3. (c) it institutes a levy of 1 cent per 500 gram Bantu beer powder payable by the manufacturer who delivers Bantu beer powder to a general dealer outside an urban area. The levy is payable to the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development and will be deposited into a special account, to which will be chargeable any expenditure certified by the Minister as being in the interest of the Bantu.

*The motivation for the 1 cent levy per 500 gram of Bantu beer powder is the fact that an excise duty of 1 cent on a similar quantity of Bantu beer is already being levied. In order to eliminate any unfair competition between Bantu beer powder, which is produced by private concerns, and Bantu beer, which is brewed by local authorities, it has been decided to introduce a levy of 1 cent per 500 gram of Bantu beer powder as well.

An authority granted to a general dealer to sell Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder has to be renewed yearly.

Clause 3: In order to give effect to the recommendation that local authorities should obtain improved control over the supply of Bantu beer in their areas and to effect a greater amount of orderliness in this respect and, furthermore, curb unhealthy competition, section 2 of the principal Act is being amended to provide that an authorized seller of Bantu beer may acquire Bantu beer only from, or through the agency of, the local authority in whose area his business is situated.

†Clause 4: The Act is not applicable to farms, according to a legal opinion obtained in 1967. The intention was that the Act should be applicable to farms as well. This clause now amends section 13 to regularize the position.

Clause 5: This clause is only a consequential amendment emanating from the provisions of section 16 (1) (j) of the Act which prohibits any person to deliver Bantu beer powder to any person other than a person authorized by the Act to sell such powder, or to a local authority.

Clause 2 (a) (section 5 (i) (b)) now authorizes a general dealer outside an urban area to sell Bantu beer powder subject to the Minister’s authority and it is now necessary to indicate that the relative paragraph is applicable in an urban area only.

*Substitution of section 25 of the Bantu Labour Act, 1964. Although the original provisions in respect of the establishment of aid centres have been on the Statute Book since 1964, very poor progress has been made with an institution which, in essence, embodied a very important new approach towards persons who were guilty, on technical grounds, of minor offences. It has therefore become necessary to take a fresh look at these provisions, as I indicated in this House last year.

I shall only mention briefly a few of the principles which have to be rectified and I shall deal with them in greater detail when referring to the relevant clauses. The first principle in question is the fact that an aid centre should not be a place of detention. It should therefore not be labelled in terms of provisions and terminology which projects such an image to the outside world. Furthermore, an aid centre is not a labour bureau; it is not established to replace labour bureaux, but to render legal and administrative assistance to persons who need such assistance. Furthermore, an aid centre is not a charge office either; neither is it there to protect wilful transgressors of the law. It is there to render legal and administrative assistance to cases who are otherwise, through ignorance, guilty on technical grounds. Care will therefore have to be taken that, although the intention with the aid centre is a praiseworthy one, it does not become a channelling point for Bantu to stream into the urban areas, but on the other hand it is a forum which should be known for its willingness to help and an institution in which the Bantu should have great confidence. For that reason, this amendment is now being effected.

I shall now deal briefly with the clause and its subsections.

†Clause 6: This clause is substituted for the whole section 25 of the Bantu Labour Act, 1964, and reference herein is made to the subsections of the new clause 25.

*Sir, allow me just to say in this connection that this excellent idea of aid centres in 1964 was the brainchild, of the hon. Minister M. C. Botha, and I should like to pay the necessary tribute to him on the occasion of this amendment.

The Minister is thanking the Minister.

Oh, please!

†Subsection (1) (a):

1. (a) When the clause was originally introduced it was the intention that aid centres should also serve as depots where persons could be detained, from which the concept of “admittance” to an aid centre emanated. During the debate in the House at that time this intention was abandoned—see subsection 6 (a) of the Act—but the concept was retained in the Act. In order to rectify the matter the “admittance” concept is now substituted by “reference”, in other words a Bantu can be “referred” to an aid centre by various authorities, which is the real intention. Hon. members will observe that “Secretary” is substituted for “Director”. In the new Head Office organization of my Department this is appropriate and it further ensures that the most suitable arrangements for aid centres will be made.
2. (b) An aid centre shall be managed by either an officer of the State or an officer of the local authority.

*Subsection (2):

The old subsection (2) is being omitted altogether as it is contrary to the spirit of an aid centre, as I am going to explain in greater detail later on, and the old subsection (3) becomes subsection (2); this also applies to the old subsection (4) which becomes (3).

†Subsection (3) (b):

The only significant amendment here is that the Secretary may now issue instructions on specific action to be taken in respect of Bantu in certain cases.

Subsection (4):

This subsection changes a long-standing practice. As is known, a person arrested without a warrant shall immediately be taken to a police station. This subsection now provides that such a person may, for an offence referred to in subsection (1), in other words a technical offence, now be referred direct to an aid centre instead of being taken to a police station first.

The reasons for the deletion of previous provisions are—

1. (a) The old subsection (2) could create confusion and an erroneous concept of an aid centre’s powers and functions, in that the reference to a police station intimates detention and prosecution, which is not the case or the intention at an aid centre.
2. (b) In the normal performance of his duties a Bantu Affairs Commissioner is already invested with adequate powers of admitting a Bantu to a settlement or rehabilitation scheme in consequence of which the provisions now deleted from the old subsection (4) (b) are regarded as superfluous. Furthermore, the old subsection (4) (c) gave too much power to the manager of an aid centre, especially if viewed against the background that he need not necessarily be a judicial officer.
3. (c) The old subsection (5) is a consequential deletion emanating from the new subsection 1 (a) to give expression to the new concept of “referring” a Bantu to an aid centre instead of the possible (and wrong) concept of detention in a reception depot.

*Mr. Speaker, this is the essence of the amendments we seek to bring about.

Whose brainchild are these amendments?

It makes no difference. It is the Minister’s brainchild. To our way of thinking these amendments embody considerable improvements, not only from the point of view of fairness, but also on the level of human relations. I am aware of the fact that persons in charge of aid centres and their personnel must be persons who excel in their inter-personal relations and whose general disposition must be outstanding.

Are you not going to thank the United Party?

I am quite prepared to do so, but I want to ask hon. members for their unanimous support for this fine cause; I ask the whole of the United Party, except Japie, for their support, and they will have to work on their sister as well. I bet she is not going to be able to vote against this measure.

Sir, I trust that with the proper image, the proper disposition and the proper legal provisions, these aid centres will now be established throughout the country in the near future and that they will always come up to high expectations and will eventually —and I hope as soon as it is practicable— provide a 24-hour service.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been believed that a leopard cannot change its spots, but I am beginning to doubt it after listening to the performance of this Deputy Minister in this House this Session. He paid tribute to the hon. the Minister and said that the aid centres were his brainchild. Well, I must say that this child was not a very happy child up to now, and I am glad to see that the foster parents have taken the child away from its parents. It hurts to do so, but I have to compliment the hon. the Deputy Minister on being able to take away this measure from the hon. the Minister.

Do not give me the kiss of death.

He is not changing his spots; he is shedding his veils, all seven of them!

This Bill gives relief and therefore we will give it our support, although we have some questions to ask in regard to certain things, such as the beer. I want to set the hon. the Deputy Minister’s mind at rest at once by saying that we will support the Bill. The Minister will find that the more of our suggestions and measures he accepts, the more we will be compelled to give him support in this House. I shall deal with the aid centres first, because the provisions in that regard are the most important part of this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that we opposed the aid centres and he will remember too that our main objection to the aid centres was that such a centre was a place of detention, and he himself has now said that that was the original concept, that it would be a place of detention, but now the Government has changed its mind and it is no longer to be a place of detention. [Interjections.] For that we thank him.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will know too that we objected in the past to the harsh application of these measures against technical offences. The Police arrested these Bantu and took them to the police stations, as they were compelled to do, but now the Police are being given relief from the harsh application of these measures and they can take these people to the detention centres.

We are grateful to one of the officials who came to us to explain how the aid centres are operating at the moment. I must say that we are very grateful to the official for the time he spent with us. The way they are operating now, as was explained to us by the official, is certainly not what was conceived at the time the original Act was passed.

That was in 1964.

Yes, the 1964 Act. The way they are managed now is quite different from what we were told and what the Act in fact contained at the time of its enactment.

But we do manage them in terms of the Act.

The hon. the Minister says they are managed in terms of the Act; the Government is certainly not doing that.

We do not apply those …

They do not apply the law? You see Sir, that is typical of this Government. [Interjections.] They pass an apartheid law for publicity purposes and then do not apply it. It is like the church clause which they passed to prohibit people of different races going to the same church, but they never applied, it.

It is a preventive clause.

The position with this Act is that not only have they not applied it, but they are running away from it completely; they are changing the whole concept. I wonder what other surprises we are going to get during this Session of Parliament from this hon. Deputy Minister. I am glad to see the hon. the Minister is handing over more and more of his duties to the hon. the Deputy Minister; we can look forward to his taking over the portfolio from the Minister and applying more and more of the United Party’s policies.

[Inaudible.]

As far as the amendments to the provisions in regard to the aid centres are concerned, we support them and we are very pleased to see them being introduced.

With regard to the beer, I want to ask a few questions. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill provide for additional distribution methods for Bantu beer or Bantu beer powder. Although the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that because of the distance from breweries in the rural areas, general dealers are to be allowed to sell their beer powder in the rural areas, I should like to point out to him that some of the smaller villages, which are urban areas, are also far away from the distribution points. Why are general dealers in those areas not also allowed to sell the Bantu beer powder because the same hardship applies to the Bantu living in those areas as to those living in the rural areas?

They can sell Bantu beer. They can get a licence in a town under the original legislation.

Can a general dealer in an urban area …

Oh, I see; you mean a general dealer?

Yes. There may not be a liquor distribution point in an urban area. The Minister also pointed out that it is now intended to limit the supply from a brewery which acts as the agent of the local authority, and that anybody who buys the beer has to get it through the agent of the local authority. We are afraid that this is going to lead to monopolies. The Minister did not give us a satisfactory explanation as to why this is being brought about. In his reply I would like him to explain to us how he will avoid bringing about monopolies in the different local authorities. If the hon. the Minister can satisfy us on those questions, we shall certainly give this Bill our blessing.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. the Minister’s introduction to this Bill. In a previous debate last week, he mentioned that he had actually thought up a Bill which he thought even I would welcome. I think he was referring to the Aid Centres Bill. I think he based his judgment on the fact that there was a report in one of the newspapers in which it was said that I welcomed this Bill. I must tell the hon. the Minister that it is true that I said that I welcomed this Bill, but unfortunately the report did not add that I also said that I had very many reservations about it and that I was rather hoping that the hon. the Minister would be able to set my mind at rest so that I could welcome this Bill without any reservations whatsoever. The reservations are exactly the same as those I expressed last year when we were discussing the quetison of aid centres. The hon. the Minister has now come forward with an amending Bill which to some extent makes it clear that the aid centre is not to be a place of detention. I welcome that without any reservations.

The hon. the Minister told us this afternoon what an aid centre is not going to be; he told us that it was not going to be a place of detention; that it was not going to be a labour bureau and that it was not going to be a charge office. However, he has not told us what it is and this is what I am still trying to establish from the hon. the Minister. Last year I said—and I say it again—that I welcome anything that is going to cut down on the number of people who go to gaol for what is known as technical offences in South Africa, that is, under the pass laws. Unfortunately the majority of people who go to gaol under the pass laws do not go there for a technical offence per se, but they go because of the pass laws; they go because of the existence of influx control and of laws which make it a crime for a citizen of this country to move around freely from one place to another within South Africa. Why that is called “technical” I would not know. The point is, as the hon. the Minister of Justice has pointed out, that those are the laws. The fact that nearly a quarter of a million people went to gaol in 1970 for pass law offences is not because it is a technical offence, but because they had broken the pass laws or the influx control laws. This can happen in one of several ways. For example, it can happen if a man fails to produce a document. That is one of the offences under the pass laws, or the “Abolition of Passes Act” as it is so extraordinarily named. As I pointed out last year, and in fact long ago, the Police were given a directive not to arrest and prosecute people for the mere non-production of documents. They were asked to give them every reasonable opportunity of producing those documents. This directive was issued in the fifties; I think it was in 1954. We do not need an amending law now to protect people against arrest for the non-production of documents, or we would not need it, if the Police were following the directives which have been issued to them. In point of fact, they do not follow their directives. One still finds policemen picking up Africans outside the very gates of the houses where these people are employed because they cannot produce a reference book on demand. But, as I have mentioned to the hon. the Minister before, we do not need aid centres for these people. What we need is for the hon. the Deputy Minister to liaise with his colleague the hon. the Minister of Police to see that the Police follow the directive which was issued many years ago. We would cut down on thousands of so-called offenders if the Police would only follow this directive. When we say that something like a quarter of a million people go to gaol under the pass laws, many more of course are prosecuted and many thousands more are never prosecuted because they pay spot fines. One does not know how many hundreds of thousands fall into that category because the figures are never revealed. When we say that a quarter of a million people are convicted under the pass laws, we must realize that among these people are not only those who do not produce passes on demand, but also those who have broken the influx control laws and are in the cities for longer than 72 hours without permission. Presumably it is this category of offenders which the hon. the Minister is trying to assist. I want to try to establish how the aid centres will do this. If these people are in fact in the cities without permission, will this aid centre official be able to provide him with the necessary papers to be in the city for longer than 72 hours? If he cannot do that we are back to square one, and the African cannot look for work and he cannot remain in the city without breaking the influx control law. The alternative is to say to this man: “I will send you back to the homeland and you will go to a rehabilitation centre.” This is, of course, the won’t-work type; these rehabilitation centres, of course, do not exist. To the best of my knowledge—and the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell me if I am wrong— no rehabilitation centres have as yet been set up in any homeland. Am I wrong?

No. The plans for two are being drawn, but none has been established as yet.

The plans are in the making for the erection of two, but I am correct in saying that as of now there are in fact no rehabilitation centres. I can only hope that the erection of the rehabilitation centres will not take as long as the erection of the aid centres, because it is nearly eight years since the original Act was passed. To the best of my knowledge there is one aid centre operating at the present time, namely the one at Welkom.

No, there are more.

Well, this is the information I have.

You have the wrong information.

I tried to go and visit the one in Johannesburg which, according to a newspaper, was functioning. When I tried to get there, I was told that it does not exist.

When were you there?

I tried in November.

It is there, but it was not there in November.

Oh, not in November. I am sorry that I have not been in Johannesburg for the purpose of visiting aid centres since then. I will make it my business and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will assist me to visit an aid centre as soon as possible to see how it is functioning.

You can go there.

Thank you; I accept that offer. I am going to go there. However, the aid centre in Welkom is, as far as I know, certainly the only one mentioned in that Press report, which also mentioned that many others were about to be set up. Since the one in Johannesburg has now been set up, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell me whether the aid centres which this report mentioned, have also been set up. Incidentally, this is a report of an interview given by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in October of last year. In this report it was mentioned that the Welkom aid centre was operating and that other centres would be set up in Johannesburg and other places. The one in Johannesburg has now been set up. The report also mentioned Benoni. Is that one up yet?

I will give you the full picture.

The report also mentions Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, Kimberley, Krugersdorp, Germiston, Klerksdorp, Brakpan—I am sure Brakpan has one—and Boksburg. I should like to know how many of those have now in fact been set up.

Do you want one in Houghton?

If it will keep people out of gaol, yes. I would rather have it than the Police barracks they have set up in Houghton. They have erected a very large Police barracks which, I understand, will house about 900 policemen. I would just as soon have an aid centre there as a Police barracks. Anyway, what I am trying to establish is how the aid centres are going to help the people who are in fact breaking laws which are on the Statute Book. I have mentioned the non-production of passes and I have said that we do not need aid centres for that. We need policemen to follow the directives. If a man is in a city for more than 72 hours, he must be legalized. I do not know whether the aid centre official will be entitled so do that or whether he will have to send the man back to become a contract labourer, so that he can then return legally. I am trying to obtain the exact, practical implications of the aid centres. As I have said, I gather that the “won’t works” will be sent to the rehabilitation centres which will be set up in due course.

What about the “will works”? What about the men of whom the hon. the Minister rightly said that they are not really criminals, but people who are looking for work? What is he going to do about them? Is he going to see that they are provided with the necessary papers to allow them to seek work in Johannesburg, Cape Town or wherever they have come to, or are the aid centres simply going to refer them straight back to the homelands to nonexistent jobs—as one African put it “to die of poverty in the homelands”? Alternatively, are those people going to be sent to White farms? I am sorry to hammer this point, but I must do it, because I want to know what work is going to be provided for these people. I cannot help but remember the previous system which was in operation, viz. the “in lieu of prosecution” system where people were told, when they were arrested, that they could either go to court where “they were told” they would be sent to jail for two years—which was of course not true—or they could go and work on a farm for four months. Many of them “volunteered” to go and work on farms. Very many abuses arose out of this system. People simply disappeared. Eventually this system, which was illegal, was abolished. I hope that this is not going to prove a legalization of a system which has proved to be a system leading to serious abuses. I want to know how the hon. the Minister is going to prevent the aid centres from simply channelling labour off to farms where no one hears subsequently how these people are treated. My major concern in connection with the aid centres is how they are actually going to function. I cannot see any way of making people’s presence legal when laws do not allow them to be legally in the urban areas. Unless there is a radical change in the actual laws that prevent these people from coming into the cities, I wonder how these aid centres are going to work. However, I am going to give the hon. the Minister the benefit of the doubt because I do believe he is anxious to do something about the appalling prison population. I only hope that his anxiety to do something about that, does not lead him to reintroducing a system which, as I have said, has led to very many abuses. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt because I really do believe he is trying to do something about this big problem. Therefore I am not going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, he will be glad to hear. I am going to ask him though, whether he will clarify either now or during the Committee Stage the points I have raised during this Second Reading debate.

I think there may be one or two points I have forgotten to mention which I will mention now. First of all, will the man who has been arrested—actually, he is not arrested, but taken to the aid centre by a policeman or someone else …

He is referred to an aid centre by a policeman …

All right, by the police …

Not only by the police.

Can a man go to an aid centre voluntarily?

Of course he can.

All right, he can do that. Now let us assume that the man who is in a town illegally, does not go to the aid centre voluntarily but is stopped by a police officer, who is the only person entitled to stop him. The policeman tells him that he is going to take him to an aid centre. Can the man refuse and say he would rather go to an ordinary Bantu Commissioner’s court, or is it the intention to abolish the Bantu Commissioners’ Courts, which are dealing with pass offences? It is important to know this because, if the Bantu Commissioner’s Court …

He will not be such a fool as to go to the court.

He might be, because quite a lot of people get cautioned and discharged at a Bantu Commissioner’s Court. What worries me is that one of the amending provisions, as I read it, in the Bill, is doing away with the aid centre’s right to do that. Am I right in saying that, with the removal of the present section 25 (4) (c) by clause 6, the power to impose a suspended sentence, to caution or reprimand, is removed from the aid centre?

I will reply to that, but not across the floor.

All right. Anyway, this is how I read it and this is what worries me because, again in the interview given about the plan “om Bantoes uit die tronk te hou”, the hon. the Minister or whoever it was told us that in the first month of the existence of the aid centre in Welkom, in 145 cases of people who had broken the law in respect of influx control and who had been sent to the aid centre, 55 were warned and, of the rest of them, a further 33 had the charges against them dropped. What worries me is whether the aid centres can still do that, because 55 out of 145, plus another 33, is a big percentage. It is over half of the cases. Why has the hon. the Minister withdrawn the powers of the aid centres to exercise all such powers as are conferred on a court under section 352 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955? This subsection deals with the power to impose a suspended sentence, a caution or a reprimand. The removal of this power worries me, and I want to know why it has been done. I would also like to know whether a man can decide to go to an ordinary court rather than to an aid centre. He might do this if he hears via the grapevine that people who go to aid centres are sent off to farms. [Interjections.] I am very suspicious, am I not?

I am a mind reader.

I should hope that after all these years that we have sat in this House together the hon. the Minister and I really understand well how each other’s minds work. I want to know, if as a result of the grapevine a Bantu decides that he would rather go to a Bantu Commissioner’s Court than to an aid centre, whether he can do so.

Yes he can. I will give the hon. member the information when I address the House.

I want to take the opportunity of asking these questions now because the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply later on. I want him to know all the little worries that are bothering my twisted little brain and to set it at rest if possible.

I am interested to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is getting himself a little nest-egg in terms of clause 2. He is busy building up nest-eggs left, right and centre. I am talking of the Bantu beer now.

Oh, yes.

“Oh, yes”, the Deputy Minister says with a gleam in his eye …

But it is done in the interests of the Bantu.

I know. All the nest-eggs are going to be used in the interests of the Bantu and the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister decides what sort of interests. I have, however, no objection to that. I shall now sit down in the hope that all the questions which I have asked the hon. the Deputy Minister are going to be fully and completely answered.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton supported this Bill, as did the official Opposition in the person of the hon. member for Transkei. She did so, however, with frightful verbosity. It appears to me that if the hon. member for Houghton supports a Government measure it is done with such verbosity that there is actually a longer speech than when she opposes such a measure. The hon. member stated that the hon. the Deputy Minister did say what the aid centres were not, and she reproached him for not telling the House what the aid centres would, in fact, be. In this connection the hon. member saw a number of spectres and made interpretations from her reading that did not exist at all in the intentions behind the establishment of these aid centres. She also asked the hon. the Deputy Minister why certain powers, which had been granted to the aid centres, were now being withdrawn. However, the hon. member for Transkei agreed with these changes. He said that in the past they had objected to the aid centres because they are places of detention. The Opposition’s basic view is that they do not actually want control over the movement of Bantu and their presence in the White areas. Basically that is the actual policy of the United Party.

I should like to make a few remarks in connection with clause 6 of this Bill, which deals with the aid centres. With influx control and the pass book system, on which influx control depends, orderly development has in the past been, and still is, envisaged. There have never been “thinking” persons who have doubted the necessity for these measures. I do not know whether I can include the United Party in the concept of “thinking” people. Amongst thinking people there has never been any doubt about the necessity for these measures. But with the passage of time the implementation of these measures has come under the closer scrutiny of critics. Particular concern has been expressed—and this is really the case—because as a result of technical contraventions of the pass book measures—I emphasize the word “technical”—dozens of Bantu have landed up in gaol annually. Consequently we can, of course, accept that the Bantu’s attitude to the Act as such and to the Whites has been affected and that small areas of friction have developed. The question then was how to eliminate disadvantages of this nature while still retaining the benefits of influx control and not throwing it overboard. Consequently this bright idea of the establishment of the aid centres was brought to the fore.

Let us now state clearly that it remains the Government’s standpoint, and of course also that of the Department of Bantu Administration, that in White South Africa the Bantu have ethnic ties with the area from which they came, i.e. that they are citizens of one or other of the homelands. I say that this continues to be the view and also forms the subtle basis for this Bill. It is not desirable that the Bantu, as a citizen of that homeland, should be treated harshly if he merely commits a trifling offence in the White area. For example, if he does so out of ignorance and not on purpose, it is not necessary for him to be treated harshly. That is why the intention and the watchword of this proposed arrangement is to grant assistance to that Bantu who is an honest seeker of work and an employee. In this connection the aid centres would play a very large role.

One of the obvious functions of these aid centres will be to assist those Bantu who call there if they are experiencing problems in connection with legal requirements or prescribed control measure procedures, pass books and labour matters. Bantu can also be referred to these centres by their employers, because even employers in the White urban areas are not always acquainted with the implementation of all the measures and procedures. In such cases they can be referred to those centres and obtain guidance there. But I should like to emphasize that the Bantu can go there of their own free will merely if he be ignorant of the facts or because he requires information. Those who have committed offences in respect of control measures can, however, also be referred there. In the case of a mere technical offence the aid centre may recommend that the case be withdrawn. I mention here the case of a pass book that has been lost. There could be cases where stricter action is recommended, for example reference to a rehabilitation centre. That would be the case where that Bantu was a rascal, a vagrant, a loafer or where he is obviously a burden. This is nothing untoward, Sir, because action is taken by the authorities even against a White man who becomes a burden in his environment.

The object of the aid centres—I say this for the information of the hon. member for Houghton—is also to activate all local bodies which deal with urban Bantu so that the policy can be implemented on a coordinated and sound basis. Here I particularly have in mind questions such as the illegal entry of Bantu into White South Africa, illegal residence, illegal employment, work shyness and particularly a reluctance to do certain types of work, which one encounters to a great extent among Bantu coming to seek work in the cities. Such Bantu are only disposed towards a specific kind of work; they only want to do a particular kind of work and do not lend themselves to other work.

Sir, the aid centres will also collect and process statistics that can serve as aids for overall control. It could perhaps be said that there is a danger that the aid centres could be abused, but I am convinced that the Department of Bantu Administration will continually be on the alert, and if this were to happen steps would be taken in future to prevent the abuse. These aid centres will firstly approach offenders from a socio-economic point of view and, secondly, act by way of legal steps and detention in a statutory institution if the other methods fail.

In conclusion just this: The establishment of the aid centres can make an important contribution to sound relations between Whites and non-Whites; i.e. they could contribute greatly to the promotion of improved mutual attitudes. Great praise has already been accorded the department, by various Bantu leaders, for these aid centres. They would also help to promote good administration. As a representative of an urban constituency I should also like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the establishment of the aid centres.

Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has once again thanked and praised the hon. the Deputy Minister for the whole concept of aid centres which—we must put this on record— was introduced eight years ago by the hon. the Minister. This is a concept of which hon. members on that side are very proud today, but what have they done in the last eight years? Surely this is one of the questions which the hon. the Deputy Minister must answer when he replies to this debate. Why have they done nothing in the last eight years during which we have been urging them to do something to alleviate the suffering of the so-called technical offenders? We have repeatedly urged them in this House to do something, and they have done absolutely nothing until now, and now they come along with a tremendous fanfare and say, “Look what we are doing”. Sir, I associate myself entirely with the comments made by the hon. member for Transkei, when he pointed out how much we welcome the fact that at last something is being done, but then again I must say that this something which is being done is a bit obscure and it has become even more obscure this afternoon after the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister, words which the hon. member for Koedoespoort praised, because the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon told us a lot of things which these aid centres are not going to be. I want to go through them briefly. He said that an aid centre was not going to be a place of detention. Well, if it is not going to be a place of detention, what are these aid centres going to do with those Bantu who arrive there? Where are they going to accommodate them? What are they going to do with them? The hon. the Deputy Minister has not told us this. Sir, there are various avenues open to the aid centres that they can use to help these unfortunate Bantu who are referred to them, but the hon. the Deputy Minister went on to tell us that the aid centres would not be labour bureaux. They are not going to find employment for these people therefore. Is this honestly his intention? The hon. member for Koedoespoort said something different; I grant that, but that is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said; he said that they are not to become labour bureaux. Are they not going to assist the Bantu to find employment? I sincerely hope that they are. I sincerely hope that this was not the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister when he said this.

That it is not the intention to do what?

I hope it is the intention that the aid centres will find employment for these Bantu who are referred to them. I sincerely hope so. This is not the impression the hon. the Deputy Minister gives when he says that an aid centre is not to be considered as a labour bureau.

The aid centres will assist in giving them employment as far as possible.

It will assist, and it will find them employment? I am very glad to have that assurance, Sir.

But they will not take over the job of the labour bureaux.

No, but that is the impression the hon. the Deputy Minister creates when he talks like this.

No, that is the wrong impression.

AH right, let us go further. What else did he say? He said that an aid centre is not to be a charge office. Very well, we accept that; it is not to be a charge office. But, Sir, if it is not to be a charge office, what is he going to do with it? He has not told us.

It is an aid centre.

Yes, but in which way is it going to aid these unfortunate people, Sir? This is what he has not told us. He says further that this aid centre is not to be considered as a place for the protection of wrongdoers. Now, the aid centre is not a charge office and it is not a place for the protection of wrongdoers. What is he going to do with these people?

Assist them.

We sincerely hope he will assist them, Sir, but how will he assist them and what avenues are open to him to assist them? Is this assistance going to consist almost solely of repatriation? This is the fear we have. We hope these aid centres wild work. We have pleaded for them and we shall give them all the assistance we can. We sincerely hope they will work, but these doubts persist, after what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said.

Just show me one instance where you or anybody else pleaded for these centres before the Minister introduced them in 1964.

But what has he done since then, Sir? That is the point. He was given this power in 1964, and he obtained it with this assistance of this side of the House. He obtained that power in 1964 to establish these very aid centres, and he has done nothing about them for eight years.

No, that is not true.

But the hon. the Deputy Minister himself said that in November there were none, and that there are some now. It is nearly eight years since the Minister received that power. I may be exaggerating by a few months, but it is almost eight years since the hon. the Minister was given that power, and he has done nothing about it.

Sir, I really wanted to discuss with the Deputy Minister this afternoon the provisions contained in the first half of this Bill, namely those provisions dealing with the Bantu Beer Act. I must say that I am somewhat perturbed at one particular aspect of this matter, and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would be so kind as to tell me where I can find a definition of “Bantu beer powder”, or whether he can indicate to me what exactly is meant by “Bantu beer powder” in this legislation which is now before us.

Have you looked at the original Act?

Yes, I have looked at the original Act, and with all the deference due to the Deputy Minister, and with all the courtesy in the world, I want to say that there is no definition of Bantu beer powder in that Act. There is a definition of Bantu beer.

Well, that powder is the powder out of which the Bantu beer is made.

Very well, Sir, but let me put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister this way: If we accept that as a broad definition of Bantu beer powder, then every single general dealer and every Bantu trader throughout the country has been committing an offence for I do not know how many years, because what exactly is a Bantu beer powder? Is it kaffir corn malt? Is kaffir corn malt a Bantu beer powder?

No, obviously not.

Is maize malt a Bantu beer powder? [Interjections.]

I beg your pardon?

I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not think the Minister of Sport knows anything about this kind of beer, Sir.

I know a little more than you do.

All right, I shall not comment on that point. Sir, I am in deadly earnest in regard to this matter, because these are powders to which water is added and from which the kaffir beer is brewed. Now I should like to know whether these are Bantu beer powders.

But you know what it is. It is ground corn.

Yes, it is malted corn. [Interjections.] Yes, it is ground, malted corn.

No, it is not malted corn.

Yes, it is malted corn.

No, it is not.

Mr. Speaker, we are back to where we were in 1968, when the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget. At that time he introduced a tax on kaffir corn malt, and he did not know what he was taxing until I drew the matter to his attention. The hon. the Minister of Sport does know what it is, but he did not tell his colleagues what kaffir corn malt was. When I drew this to the attention of the Minister of Finance, that tax was withdrawn immediately. Now we are in exactly the same position. Those hon. members do not know what they are talking about. What is a Bantu beer powder? Is it the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to tax every 500 grams of kaffir corn malt or kaffir corn sprouts or maize malt or maize sprouts? Because these are the products which are used for the production of kaffir beer. Sir, this is important, because we have no definition of “Bantu beer powder”, and until such time as we get that, we do not know what we are dealing with. Here is the hon. the Deputy Minister asking for the power today to allow general dealers under permit granted by the Minister to sell packaged Bantu beer—which we know; we all know what that is; it is Bantu beer in a plastic bottle or bag—and Bantu beer powder. But I want to put it to you, Sir, that every Bantu trader in the country has sold Bantu beer powder since before South Africa became a Union, and now all of a sudden we have to apply to this Minister for a permit to sell it.

Quite right.

Quite right? I am very surprised to hear that from the hon. member. After all this time he is now taking this away. Is he going to tell the general dealers in his constituency that they can no longer sell kaffir corn malt or any powder which is used for the manufacture of Bantu beer, without a permit from the Minister? [Interjections.] Is that the way it should be? No, I frankly do not believe that this is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but this is what the hon. member for Vryheid says. Perhaps the Deputy Minister will tell us. And while we are dealing with this, I must say that I take exception to the levy of one cent per 500 grams on Bantu beer powder, whatever it may be, supplied by any manufacturer to a general dealer. I take the strongest exception to this in the same way as I did in 1968, when the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced a tax on exactly the same products, as far as I can make these out to be, because this is a tax on the food of the Bantu people. That hon. Deputy Minister should know, if he does not know, that Bantu beer as it is brewed from the product which they purchase, is a foodstuff which is shared by the whole family, and not consumed only by the husband, the father; it is shared by the whole family. He will know that medical evidence has been put forward that kaffir corn malt has a very high protein content which prohibits pellagra, a deficiency disease which is prevalent among the Bantu. This now amounts to a tax on the food of the Bantu and I believe that as such it is discriminatory. Therefore, I register my strongest protest at the introduction of this levy of one cent on every 500 grams. But to make it even worse the Minister is now taking this one cent, which he is levying on the food of the Bantu and he is putting it into a fund and he is asking this House for carte blanche on what he shall do with that money. He has not even given us the slightest indication of what he is going to do with it.

The money will be spent in the interests of the Bantu people.

Anything can be in the interests of the Bantu people. It may be in the interests of the Bantu that we should purchase a jumbo jet, because one of them might want to go overseas at some stage.

It might be used to commute between the homelands and the urban areas.

Then it would be in their interests. But for the Minister to say to this House just that it will be used in the interest of the Bantu people, is not enough. He is asking for a blank cheque. I think that this House, before it is asked to pass this measure, should have some indication from the Deputy Minister as to exactly what it is he is after when he levies this tax on the product which is called Bantu beer powder, something which we do not know.

In clause 3 we find a strange provision and the Deputy Minister justifies this in his introductory remarks by referring to “ongesonde kompetisie”. What does he mean by “ongesonde kompetisie”—unhealthy competition? Since when has competition been unhealthy? Surely in a country of free enterprise such as this, this is what we require. We require competition; we do not want monopolies. My first impression when I read this was that it was creating a monopoly and now the hon. the Deputy Minister confirmed my thoughts. I thought I just had wicked thoughts, that I was being unfair to him …

But De Beers have a monopoly on diamonds …

I do not know what the hon. the Minister of Sport is saying; why does the hon. the Minister of Sport always stick his nose into something about which he knows nothing?

But the hon. member is talking such nonsense.

And Frankie has a monopoly on sport. [Interjections.]

I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can explain to me what exactly is meant by this “agency of a local authority”. As the law stands at the moment any proprietor of a bottle store can purchase Bantu beer from any local authority who brews it or from the Bantu Investment Corporation or from the Xhosa Development Corporation, but the effect of this amendment is to compel the owner of a liquor outlet to purchase his beer either from the local authority in whose area he is situated or through the agency of that local authority. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister create a monopoly like this? Is that local authority going to be able to charge a commission on channelling the orders for these liquor outlets to the BIC or the XDC or to some other local authority which is brewing beer? This is monopolistic, noting other than monopolistic, and I am sorry; I cannot agree to that sort of provision.

I thought you were not opposing the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has potential for a lot of good in this country. We sincerely hope it will alleviate the suffering of an awful lot of people.

There is an aspect of the provisions in respect of the aid centres which worries me and that is that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not seen fit to amend the beginning of section 5(1), which provides that any Bantu who “is arrested or convicted” on a charge under the Urban Areas Act, the Abolition of Passes Act, etc., will be referred to the aid centre. This implies that it is not every person who is apprehended for a technical offence who will be referred.

I did not catch that.

Sir, I think if the other hon. members would give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to hear, it would help.

I say the opening words of section 25 (1) (a) are:

The implication here is that not every Bantu who is apprehended for a technical offence is to be “referred” to the aid centre. The implication is that certain of them will still go before the courts and will be convicted and only thereafter “referred”. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider this implication and either introduce an amendment or give us some assurance that they are going to take all of these unfortunate Bantu to the aid centres.

Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to make a speech, but I have been caught by parliamentary procedure and therefore I will have to ask the hon. the Minister a couple of questions. My difficulty is that my questions range over clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5. In the Committee Stage it is extremely difficult to put a question clause by clause and so I would like to put the matter briefly to the hon. the Minister in this form.

On which clauses?

On clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5. Where these clauses deal with Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder, it is quite clear that there is a differentiation between the provisions in the law dealing with the sale by a general dealer of Bantu beer and the sale of Bantu beer powder. To name an example, Bantu beer can only be sold on premises outside an urban area which has been approved of by the Minister, but that restriction does not apply to Bantu beer powder. Bantu beer cannot be sold to a Bantu under the age of 18 but that restriction does not apply to Bantu beer powder. It is clear that there is a differentiation between Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder. The first question I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is whether in both cases the approval of the Minister has to be obtained for the sale of Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder if they are sold outside an urban area? Does the Minister anticipate that there is going to be a quota system for the issuing of permits to sell Bantu beer powder? If so, under what circumstances? What will be the determining factor? Is it contemplated that the Minister will delegate authority in this regard for the issue of permits to any of these officials and, if so, under what circumstances? The point I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us clarification on is, seeing that there is this differentiation between the sale of Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder, what will be the procedure, what policy will be followed in respect of the sale of Bantu beer powder in those areas outside an urban area.

In other words, in a rural area.

Yes, in other words, in rural areas, because once again we find that even on the farms there is a prohibition regarding Bantu beer sales, while there is no prohibition regarding the sale of Bantu beer powder. It is this differentiation right through that interests me and I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give me clarity on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. members on the other side—and I am including the hon. member for Hougton—for at least supporting this Bill in principle. I appreciate that very much. The thought that has occurred to me, is that it is in fact better if we differ, for then it is at least more interesting than when we are so unanimous on a matter. However, I want to record my appreciation in this regard. I must admit that this has been something of a surprise to me.

I want to try to reply briefly to the most important questions put to me. I want to follow the hon. member for Transkei by starting off with the most important aspect in this amending Bill, i.e. the aid centres. In that regard I want to say, in the first instance, that whilst this is a fine and a good idea, an idea that appears to call forth unanimity in this House, and whilst it was raised and laid down in legislation as far back as 1964, it is very wrong of hon. members opposite to infer from the fact that it has only reached the development stage recently, that this is so because of a lack of interest on the part of this side of the House or because we, as it was put in one case, did nothing about this matter. That is not true; the fact of the matter is that in the existing set-up of the South African economy and with the best will in the world it was not easy to reach in respect of aid centres the stage we have reached now. As a matter of fact, it was terribly difficult. Why was it difficult? It was difficult for many reasons. To my mind the main reason was that so many different departments were involved. Every department has its own circumstances, its own set-up, its own laws applicable to it in respect of this very important matter which does after all affect the maintenance of good order in South Africa most closely. The Department of Police is involved here. The Department of Prisons is involved here. The Department of Justice is involved here. Local authorities are involved here. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development is also involved here. To obtain the co-operation of all these departments in such a matter, is no mean task. This afternoon I wish to record my highest appreciation to all these departments I have just mentioned, i.e. the Departments of Police, Prisons, Justice and also local authorities, for their assistance and co-operation, for the way in which they have really gone out of their way, especially recently, to render assistance and, by doing so, to bring this matter to the stage it has reached now. In this regard I want to add that in section 25 of the 1964 Act mention is made of a place of detention. If these aid centres could be places of detention, it would in certain respects have facilitated matters considerably. It would then have been easier for us to achieve the objects we have in view. In a moment I shall state these objects briefly and succinctly. But can hon. members imagine what problems would come to the fore if these aid centres, as was the idea originally, were to be used as places of detention? Prisons are places of detention. At police stations there are places of detention. If an aid centre were also to be a place of detention, we would have a third body. I do not want to go into all the difficulties now, but if one had a place of detention, matters such as the distance between the court in which such a Bantu would appear and the aid centre to which he might be referred, would have to be considered. Regard should also be had to the distance between the police station to which such a Bantu might in the first place be referred and the aid centre to which he might be sent. Who would bear the transport costs? In addition there are other aspects that come to the fore. If such an aid centre were to be a place of detention and say, five Bantu were detained on one evening, who would feed them? If one wants to detain them, there has to be sleeping accommodation for them as well. Where are the buildings going to come from? Who is going to bear the cost involved? Various departments would be involved in the matter. I am just giving you a cursory outline of the real labyrinth of problems that have come to the fore in regard to this matter during this period of eight years. I do not want to overemphasize them, nor do I want to take up the time of the House by going into the details of the difficulties experienced in regard to this matter. Suffice it to say that any hon. member on that side of the House who claims that nothing has been done about the matter since the Government placed this legislation on the Statute Book, does not grasp one jot or tittle of the problematical nature of this matter. Such a person would be talking absolute, sheer, downright nonsense. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is the one who said so. Whilst the hon. member has agreed with me on this matter, I do not want to bully him, but I would really have enjoyed doing so. But let us leave that for another opportunity. I say that statement is downright nonsense, and any person who makes such a statement does not know what he is saying at all. Just discuss this matter with the heads of Police, or with the heads of Justice, or the heads of Prisons, and then come back and discuss it here. But now I want to leave this matter at that.

Tell us what you have done.

No, I am just stating the facts in regard to the matter.

In the second place, in connection with the aid centres I want to appeal to all hon. members to help us to make a success of them. It is something fine and it will mean something to the country if we can make a success of this matter. We have now reached the stage where a few aid centres have been established. We have already reached a stage where it is clear that these aid centres can operate successfully. However, it must be appreciated that we cannot implement these aid centres successfully overnight. We must give this matter a chance to develop normally, but as rapidly as possible. My department is very enthusiastic about the matter, and the same goes for me. We shall do everything in our power to make it an unqualified success.

I want to tell hon. members that an aid centre was established in Cape Town on 7th August, 1969. In a certain sense this was therefore the first aid centre established in the country. In Brakpan they do not have an aid centre as yet; they are engaged in making alterations to buildings, and we hope that Brakpan will in fact get its aid centre before long. In Nigel an aid centre has been in operation since 1st May, 1970. I want to point out to hon. members that as regards aid centres, buildings are a major problem. There are many aspects to this question. For instance, is it proper that an aid centre should be situated near the commissioner’s office, in other words, in the White area—for example, there is one like that in Carr Street—or should aid centres rather be situated in the Bantu residential area? There are strong views on these matters. It is not easy to solve these questions simply overnight. As I have said, there has been an aid centre at Nigel since 1st May, 1970; at Sebokeng there has been one since 3rd January, 1972. Hon. members must appreciate that at the start these things develop gradually, but we hope that the rate of development will increase. Boksburg has had one since 3rd January, 1972; at Benoni there has been one since January, 1972—they have a place near the Department of Prisons; in Carr Street, Johannesburg, there has been one since 3rd January, 1972. Specifically for the sake of the hon. member who wants to pay a visit to Carr Street, I want to say that both she and other members are welcome there. An aid centre has not yet been established in Pretoria, but they are engaged in getting the buildings ready and an aid centre will therefore be in operation there before long. At Welkom an aid centre was started with great success on 9th August, 1971. In Port Elizabeth a great deal of progress has been made in this regard, but the aid centre is not in operation yet. In Bloemfontein there has been one since 1st October, 1971, and in Kimberley since 1st February, 1972. At Krugersdorp, Alexandria, Germiston and Klerksdorp, where alterations to buildings are in progress now, aid centres will make their appearance soon, and at numerous other places aid centres are under consideration at the moment and will be established as soon as possible. Small as this baby is at the moment, it has already accomplished the following exceptional feats, namely …

Another Botha baby.

I shall reply to questions in a moment. With all due modesty I should like to put the matter in its proper perspective so that, on the one hand, too much will not be expected, whereas it would, on the other hand, also be wrong to think that these centres are not meeting with success, for they have been successful. One is very grateful for that success that could in fact be achieved. Therefore all praise should go specifically to those officials who are making that success possible. Hon. members all know the figures that were furnished when the hon. Minister Botha and I paid a visit to Welkom some time ago. Those figures were splendid. I am not going to repeat those figures now, as an hon. member has already done so this afternoon. Since those figures were furnished at Welkom, i.e. from August, 1971 to 31st January, 1972, the following position has emerged at the aid centre at Welkom: There have been 248 suspended sentences through the agency of the aid centre; only 16 fines have been paid, whilst there have only been 81 cases of people landing in difficulties in the courts because of control offences. Hon. members will remember how favourably these compare with the first set of figures. It has therefore been proved beyond all doubt that, with the proper attitude and approach, this matter can be an exceptional success. Therefore I am making an appeal, and I think I am doing so on behalf of the whole House—for this matter enjoys unanimous support—to everybody involved in this matter throughout the country, to establish these aid centres as soon as possible and to take cognizance of the success that can be achieved by establishing them. We shall be rendering a great service to our country if that is done. In spite of the fact that the development of the aid centres is still in the initial stage, the number of persons referred in 1971 to this small number of aid centres, was 36 619; 2 910 of those persons were warned and discharged. The number of cases that were withdrawn altogether was 3 671, i.e. more than 10 per cent. Of the 36 619 cases referred to these few aid centres, 27 800 were in fact sentenced. As a whole, therefore, the percentage of success appears to be in the region of 25 per cent. In the case of Welkom it is considerably higher, but that is the percentage in general. Many of the cases were also dealt with in Cape Town. I think the numbers I have just mentioned are not quite a true reflection of the success of aid centres, and that in actual fact they may be higher than appears to be the case at the moment.

In view of the risk of misconceptions arising in regard to these aid centres, I feel I must clarify a few facts now. In the first place, it must be borne in mind that the laws in regard to influx and the other so-called restrictive laws for maintaining the necessary order in regard to this matter, are remaining in operation. There has been no change in that respect. In the second place, the aid centres do not act as courts; they assist in putting such a person’s case to the bodies established for the purpose of acting as courts. This also answers the question of the hon. member for Houghton as to why paragraph (c) is falling away. That provision is worthless, because the aid centres have been established for the purpose of helping people to secure suspended sentences and the withdrawal of cases. The aid centres should therefore be seen for what they really are. The aid centres are, as the name indicates, places of aid for technical offenders, and have a number of clear objectives. They seek to reduce as drastically as possible the number of Bantu appearing in our courts for technical offences, as well as the number of Bantu landing in our prisons for technical offences. I have here an aid centre manual, and if I had had the time I would gladly have dealt with it in full detail here. I shall not do so now, but any hon. member who is interested in this manual, is very welcome to it. I shall gladly make it available to him. It deals with, for instance, the kind of cases that may be handled at aid centres, the procedures that are to be followed and the way records are to be kept of cases where Bantu have reference books and where they are without them. All these matters are dealt with in detail. In reply to the question put by the hon. member for Houghton I want to make it very clear at once that if anybody should have the idea that an aid centre has been established for the purpose of channelling Bantu from a prescribed area to farms, he would be under a misapprehsension. That is not the intention of an aid centre. That is not the intention at all. The intention is as I made it clear to the hon. member in my general statement. This manual reads (translation)—

This also answers the question put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District—

Do you see? Surely this is proper. The manual goes on to say—

In this manual that has been sent to the aid centres, and will be sent to those that will be established, this excerpt is followed by a detailed description of how control offenders are to be channelled and how every kind of case will have to be dealt with, such as with those from a homeland and those in a prescribed area.

Will you send me a copy of that?

Yes. Reference is also made in it to those who are outside a prescribed area, and everything is therefore covered in detail. Therefore I cannot enter into details now. This manual also makes it very clear that an attempt should be made to make a success of the objectives of the aid centres. On the other hand, this is also stated very clearly here: “Under no circumstances may the acqutital of control offenders be permitted or pleaded,” for if that were done the aid centre would not be serving its purpose. Then it would become a channel through which people from the homelands could flock into the White area. That would, in turn, create new problems, and then other bodies would have to be established in order to meet those problems. That we may not allow. I quote again—

This is followed by a detailed explanation of monthly reports that have to be sent in, forms that have to be filled in, and so forth. I think I have said enough to the House to make hon. members realize, in the short time at my disposal, that this matter has been placed on a sound foundation, that it is being launched in an ordered manner and that we therefore have reason to hope and to think that it will be a success in the future.

In regard to the Bantu beer matters that were raised by the hon. member for Transkei, I just want to tell the hon. member, in the first place, that in spite of the fact that there are general dealers in small local authority areas, it is customary for the urban areas themselves to handle, through their local authorities, the sales of Bantu beer there. However, in spite of that we shall have to see whether it will be possible for us to comply with the hon. member’s request. In that case we may come back to it at the Committee Stage in order to see whether it will be possible for us to investigate the position of the retailers in those smaller places as well. I do not want to commit myself at the moment, but I am prepared to look into the matter.

The second important point mentioned by the hon. member was the possible question of monopolies. We anticipated that monopolies could possibly develop as a result of the arrangement that a dealer could only obtain his Bantu beer from the local authority in the area where the sales point is situated. We anticipated that, but other than introducing a proper control measure, there is actually nothing more that we can do about the matter. If a tendency towards monopolies does develop, the Minister will see to it that this is prevented as far as possible. Therefore the real object of that specific clause is, in essence, that it will be a control measure to prevent monopolies from developing. We may discuss this again at the Committee Stage, if the hon. member wishes to do so. But in this regard I just want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District that there are many, many good reasons, into which I do not wish to go now, why this clause is being inserted in this Act so as to force general dealers to buy their Bantu beer from the local authority in whose area the sales point is situated. The hon. member also discussed the question of competition. I do not know what adjective he used in this regard. There were many possibilities of grave abuse, where a dealer could buy Bantu beer from any local authority. I shall leave this to hon. member’s imagination, without entering into the details. I do not consider it necessary to do so now, but I want to content myself with saying that there are many more good reasons for this clause than those that meet the eye.

Sir, with these few observations I think that I have replied to most of the questions. The only other point I want to reply to, is the one raised by the hon. member for South Coast in regard to the differentiation between Bantu beer powder and ordinary Bantu beer in the rural areas. I want to state honestly and frankly that before replying to the point raised here by the hon. member, I would prefer to investigate the matter properly, and then I shall give him a proper reply at the Committee Stage.

I was rather astonished to hear the hon. member making the inference from this Bill that there was a difference between Bantu beer powder and ordinary Bantu beer in the rural areas. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member. I say that I was astonished to hear that, but first of all I must make very sure what the factual position is, and I promise the hon. member that I shall give him a full reply on this point at the Committee Stage. If the Difference the hon. member considers there to be, really exists, then I think he has made out a very good case for his request that we should remedy the position, because that seems wrong to me, and I promise him in anticipation that I shall have the courage of my convictions to remedy the position, but at this stage I cannot accept that the position is in fact as it was put by the hon. member. Sir, I thank hon. members once again for their unanimous support for this Bill; I appreciate it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, which came into operation October, 1966, provides uniform and comprehensive measures in regard to the establishment of credit facilities to farmers from the Government on a continuous and purposeful basis, certain shortcomings have been found in its application. The purpose of the Bill before this House is to eliminate those shortcomings.

The amendment to section 10 of the Act relates to the granting of financial aid to land-owners for the purposes of commercial afforestation. This is a new form of assistance which the Government decided on in the past year. The purpose of this is twofold in nature; on the one hand, to help a farmer who normally qualifies for assistance under the Agricultural Credit Act, to utilize the full potential of his farm and, on the other hand, to contribute in this way towards meeting the country’s future timber needs. Afforestation matters are the responsibility of the Department of Forestry. Therefore, the Agricultural Credit Act is thus being amended so as to provide that a loan for the establishment or management of a private forest as contemplated in the Forest Act, shall be granted only on the recommendation of the Minister of Forestry or his deputy.

In the second place, the Bill provides for the amendment of sections 12 and 14 in regard to the consolidation of debts. One of the principles which was incorporated in the Agricultural Credit Act at the time of its passing, was the consolidation of debts. This means that in negotiating a new loan, whether big or small, the farmer is obliged to consolidate his debts with the State. Seen from an administrative point of view, such a consolidation of debts holds many advantages. Where an old loan was subject to a rate of interest lower than 5 per cent, as for example in respect of amounts which were recoverable in terms of the Land Settlement Act, this has resulted, however, in the farmer being prejudiced. In the first place, he forfeited the lower rate of interest which applied in respect of the old loan. In addition the capitalization of overdue interest has resulted in the payment of interest on interest. In the case of a farmer who has a big loan at a rate of interest of less than 5 per cent and who negotiates only a small new loan, for example, for cattle fodder in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, the compulsory consolidation definitely has disadvantages for him. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to do away with the compulsory consolidation of debts. The provision is framed in such a way that the Agricultural Credit Board will be able to lay down in the terms and conditions on which assistance is rendered, which amounts, if any, should be consolidated. Therefore, for the purposes of the consolidation of debts, the Agricultural Credit Board will be able to consider each case on its merits.

Provision is being made also for the amendments of section 15 in so far as it relates to the rate of interest which applies in respect of loans for the construction of larger water works which are granted to persons who normally do not qualify in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act. During the last session of Parliament an amendment to this section was passed with retrospective effect as from 1st December, 1970. The purpose of that amendment was to make provision for three things. In the first place, that loans for larger water works above a specified amount, would be subject to the current State rate of interest (at present 8¾ per cent). In the second place, that the Minister of Agriculture, after consultation with the Agricultural Credit Board, may determine the amount in question from time to time. (The amount determined for the present is R9 000 which amount is linked to the subsidy for water works in terms of the Water Act). In the third place, the intention of the amendment was that farmers who normally, at the discretion of the Agricultual Credit Board, qualified for assistance in terms tance in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, would not be subject to the current State rate of interest even though the amount of the loan were to exceed the determined amount. In other words, the so-called category three farmers would continue to enjoy the benefit of the subsidized rate of interest of 5 per cent in the Republic and 4 per cent in South-West Africa. The wording of the provision, however, raised doubt as to whether provision had in fact been made for the exception referred to. The proposed amendment now puts the intention in this connection beyond any doubt.

In addition, section 15 is being amended so as to authorize the Minister to differentiate in respect of the Republic and South-West Africa in regard to the determination of the amount of a loan for larger water works, after which the current State rate of interest will apply. In terms of the Promotion of Farming Interests Ordinance, 1952, of South-West Africa, loans for water works in the Territory could be granted to a maximum of R10 500 and a more favourable rate of interest applied. Therefore it is the intention to fix the amount concerned in South-West Africa at R10 500 which means that only where the amount of a loan for a water works exceeds R10 500 and the Agricultural Credit Board, in granting the loan, so determines, will the current State rate of interest (at present 8¾ per cent), apply. It is also being provided that the rate of interest which should apply in said cases should be that which is applicable on the date when the loan, advance, or instalment is paid out, and not the rate which is applicable on the date of the approval of the loan. This is in accordance with the Treasury’s most recent policy which applies throughout the Public Service in this respect.

We on this side of the House will support the hon. the Minister’s motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. I think that the amendment to clause 1, where provision is being made to grant loans to farmers if they want to cultivate forests, for example, is one of the best amendments with which the hon. the Deputy Minister has ever come to this House.

Say “thank you”.

Surely I am doing that. If there is a step that South Africa can profitably take, it is surely in the direction of the cultivation of more forests. In several parts of the country there are areas which pre-eminently lend themselves to the cultivation of plantations but, Sir, it is also a costly process and frequently farmers do not have the necessary capital at their disposal. I consider it a very good thing that the hon. the Deputy Minister is now prepared to grant those people assistance with the approval of the Minister of Forestry, and we therefore have no objection to this Bill, particularly with a view to this specific clause. All the other amendments which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned, are merely aimed at helping the farmers to consolidate their debts. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that we on this side of the House have never thwarted him when he has acted in the interests of the agriculturalist. But I think there is one thing that is not quite right, and that is this differentiation that can exist between the farmers of South Africa and those of South-West Africa. It is a good thing that the hon. the Minister can furnish them with loans at a reduced interest rate. I do not mean that those people should have their payments increased now to coincide with what we are paying here in the Republic, but just the fact that there is that difference shows one that there are certain groups of farmers in this country who ought to have an interest rate of, say, 4 per cent, or 4½ per cent, and why must the rest of the Republic then pay 5 per cent? I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether it is not possible in the course of time to align us with the farmers in South-West Africa, instead of having this differentiation between us. This is not the first time we have come with this type of amendment. It has been done before. I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to this specific point. We understand the particular position of South-West Africa. Their agriculture is probably still their chief source of income. It is the primary industry in that area. The other types of industry, except for mining, are still of lesser importance. Therefore one can expect the agricultural industry in South-West Africa to get special attention and preference in this respect. But there are many areas of the Republic of South Africa where conditions differ very little from those in South-West Africa. Let us take an area such as the North West, parts of Namaqualand and other parts, such as Vryburg, etc. There are many parts in South-West Africa which have exactly the same climatic conditions, if not better, and yet they have the benefit of a reduced interest rate. In the south of South-West Africa they have cattle farmers similar to the farmers one would, for example, find in Prieska, Upington and Gordonia in the Republic. What then is the difference between those people and the farmers of South-West Africa? And here we give them the difference. The difference of 1 per cent, or ½ per cent, in the interest rate is a big difference these days. Although we support the hon. the Minister in this, I want to tell him that as long as this differentiation exists, we shall continue to lodge pleas with him to see if we cannot have it changed, not to the detriment of South-West Africa, but in favour of the farmers in the Republic, those haying more or less similar farming undertakings as the people there. We support the legislation.

The United Party’s support of this Bill is, of course, to be welcomed. We remember that in previous debates they also advocated this matter. The hon. member for Newton Park is, however, very worried about the low interest rate in South-West Africa.

I am not worried; I think it is a very good thing.

We would, of course, very much have liked a lower interest rate for the whole country, but the fact is that there are existing agreements that cannot be changed that easily. If a change must come to pass it would have to be an equalization which would mean an increase for South-West Africa, even though one would then also save to obtain an average figure. To bring about an immediate increase for everyone would completely change the entire structure of our agricultural credit position and I simply cannot see us going that far at this stage, even though we would very much like to.

I welcome this legislation, particularly because it contains the clause waiting to give land owners financial assistance for the cultivation of forests. I remember that as far back as 1969, when the present Minister of Forestry made his first speech in that capacity, he held out this possibility. He then said that small scale timber growers would have a definite future claim to financial assistance at a low interest rate. Today we have here the fulfilment of what he then proposed. He announced at that stage that he was appointing an inter-departmental committee that would consist of officials of the Department of Forestry, Agricultural Technical Services, Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Agriculture and Economics and Finance, and that they should investigate this matter of assistance to timber farmers. They had to investigate how necessary it was, the interest rates that had to be charged, and the conditions that had to be laid down. Now we see that in this legislation definite conditions are laid down, i.e. that such requests should meet with the approval of the Minister of Forestry. One would think this to be an unnecessary condition, but I want to allege here that it is a very necessary one. One cannot go into a matter such as this precipitately. The planting of trees is an important matter. In view of our water catchment areas that need protection, the correct utilization of our land and our country’s water, it is necessary that such matters be properly investigated and that a recommendation should then come from the Department of Forestry which is acquainted with such matters.

I believe, in addition, that forestry has a place in our agriculture, and not only for the large-scale owner who cultivates extensive forests on a commercial scale. I hope this legislation will now encourage our small farmers to plant more forests for shelter for his animals, embellishment of his farm and firewood for his people and himself. There is even the possibility that the climate could thereby change. This is not excluded either, even though the project would then have to be a very large-scale one. A farm with trees immediately creates a very different atmosphere to a farm without them.

But there are also many other possibilities. The farmers could plant for commercial timber production, and I foresee this Bill perhaps holding great possibilities for us. It could, for example, contribute to the decentralization of our industries, because it could initiate industries at points where no industries exist today. Small industries in the rural areas could bring new life into our rural towns, for example, where sawmills and timber factories would start up. It could also open up marginal regions for forestry, since people would now obtain assistance for experimentation where first they would not have wanted to do so. It could also create possibilities for border area development in parts where up to now this was not possible. There also it would prove a very profitable field because forestry is a labour intensive industry. It could hold very great possibilities. We also welcome the other amendments brought about in the Act. There is only one question I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e.: If a farmer has farms at various places, perhaps in various districts, would such a farmer be able to make use of this facility on all the farms?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down made special reference to the provisions in this Bill for assistance to timber growers. As he quite rightly said, that has been advocated from this side of the House for a long time, and here I think of the hon. member for Mooi River, who for many years over and over again has made a particular point under the Forestry Vote to plead for this assistance.

He was not the first one to have raised this; this side was.

When did you wake up?

Sir, I take it that the hon. member may get up to make his speech? Hansard is there for all to read. You can see in Hansard that year after year the hon. member for Mooi River made this plea. Do not let us quarrel over the help that we are getting.

I want to come to the point that on the face of it, this appears to be a financial measure for consolidation, and we are in this difficulty that it is not really clear under what conditions loans can be made to timbergrowers. Is this in fact a financial measure with a view to making loans available to what was called the wood-lot farmer, or to farmers who go in for forestry on a large scale; what precisely are the conditions? There is nothing in the Bill to help us in that regard and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with that now, because we are very anxious indeed to find out what the details are. I think he nodded his head.

If he can do so, that is going to assist us tremendously; otherwise when we come to the Committee Stage, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister would arm himself. That particular clause does not merely consolidate provisions regarding loans, about which the Bill purports to deal, but for the first time we find here a provision for the granting of loans to timber farmers. We should like to have details of the conditions under which those loans are to be made, the limits, the interest rates and the priority which applications are to receive, or whether they are to run pari passu with other Government loans. We should also like to hear by which department loans are to be granted after they have received the approval of the Minister of Forestry, which is now called for. That is the kind of actual practical detail which is going to be asked for by the farmers who may be going into timber growing, but who may be held up through lack of finance and see an opportunity now to proceed by reason of this measure. They will want to know all the practical details in the application of this particular provision, which is being made now for their financial assistance. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us that explanation now, we shall be most grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the hon. member for Newton Park who, while saying on the one hand that he has no objection to this Bill, adding that they support it, tries at the end of his speech to make a little political capital out of the question of the difference in interest rates between South-West Africa and the Republic. It is very clear that when that hon. member stands up and speaks about matters such as agricultural financing he does not actually have an idea of the position of our agricultural financing. The principle of differentiation of interest rates within the whole agricultural financing pattern is not foreign to us in South Africa at all, and the hon. member ought to know this.

I did know it.

The hon. member may say at a later stage whether he knew it or not; I have nothing to do with that now. I am just telling him that he ought to have known it, because two recognized sources of financing in South Africa, specifically with respect to agricultural financing, i.e. the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, differ in their interest rates. Since the interest rates at the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure differ, and also differ with respect to the interest rates in South-West Africa, the hon. member must stand up and say whether he wants the Land Bank, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and everyone to decrease their interest rates to the level of interest rates in South-West Africa. The hon. member must also stand up and say where the Land Bank must get its money from and where the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure must obtain the necessary funds to deal with the necessary administration.

The hon. member must also say that it is the taxpayer in general who must provide those funds in South Africa. He could just as well stand up and say why do we not decrease everything to 2 per cent. That is the type of political opportunism with which this member comes along to this House. He can advance absolutely no argument against this legislation and he therefore comes along with a story about the difference in interest rates between ourselves and South-West Africa. Let us take the matter further. That hon. member ought to know that interest rates are not imposed uniformly on all loans of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The interest rates on fodder loans are not the same as interest rates on loans for the purchase of land or loans for the consolidation of debts. The hon. the Deputy Minister said clearly here that there is a difference in interest rates on loans for the erection of waterworks.

We all know that.

That hon. member may have known it, but not the hon. member for Newton Park, who is the main speaker on agricultural matters on the Opposition side. He stands up here making such statements. We cannot let that pass because the hon. member does so quite purposely. He purposely tries to tell the South African farmers that this Government benefits the South-West African farmer at the cost of the South African farmer.

You are talking nonsense. I said …

Did the hon. member not mean it? If he did not he must very clearly say what he did mean. The hon. member goes further and says that here in South Africa there are also areas where the same conditions prevail as in South-West Africa. Since the hon. member specifically mentions those areas, why does he not speak specifically to those farmers in those areas and tell them they are being neglected as compared with the farmer in South-West Africa? It is time that we in this House stopped using such tactics for the sake of a few votes that could possibly be obtained in the process.

I just want to put forward a second matter. I want to say that personally I am very grateful for the amendment in the legislation to provide for funds for the erection of waterworks. We all know that agriculture is one of the greatest consumers of water in South Africa. We also know that in future we shall probably have to withdraw water from the agricultural industry to make it available to other areas. Therefore it is necessary that we enable the agricultural industry to store, in good time, whatever water can be stored. The hon. the Deputy Minister took a very big step forward when he made this provision. He did so at a time, in fact, when we were not yet compelled to withdraw water from the agricultural industry. It therefore shows hon. members that the hon. the Deputy Minister is conscious in advance of the fact that in the future problems with respect to this matter can crop up. We in the Western Transvaal, where there are restrictions on the water sources we may have, are particularly grateful for this provision introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the fact that the Opposition has decided to support this amendment to the Act. I should like to give an assurance to the hon. member for Newton Park. If we were to look at the benefits of the farmers in the Republic as opposed to those of farmers in South-West Africa, we would see that for years, and even today, they could not borrow more than R20 000 from the Land Bank, whereas no such restriction applied here in the Republic. The maximum loan a man in South-West Africa could obtain from the Land Bank, was R20 000. After the readjustment those farmers could for the first time obtain a 55 per cent subsidy when they wanted to fence an inside camp or erect a fence or construct a drinking trough. They have never had this privilege before. We should like both to be equal, and in that respect I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park. At the time of the readjustment, it was said that existing privileges which the farmers in fact had, would not be removed.

Our problem is not the 5 per cent rate of interest of the Department of Agricultural Credit. Farmers are perfectly prepared to pay this. This is not our problem. Our problem is sufficient funds to be able to meet the demands. The hon. member for Newton Park feels that we should place both on an equal footing, but it would mean that many of the benefits our farmers in the Republic have today, would be taken away. Therefore we shall have to be careful as far as that request is concerned. We assured the farmers that they would not be in a worse position as a result of this readjustment. For this reason their rate of interest remains 4 per cent as against ours of 5 per cent.

The hon. member for Humansdorp spoke about afforestation by smaller farmers. It is in fact the intention to enable the smaller man to become active in forestry as well.

†The hon. member for South Coast asks whether the idea is to help farmers to go is for forest planting on a big scale. The hon. member knows who the customers of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are. It is only those people who cannot get financial aid from the commercial banks, other financial institutions and the Land Bank. If a man is not in a financial position to get financial aid from any other institution, the Department of Forestry will recommend that he be given a loan for afforestation. Only those farmers who cannot get loans from other institutions will qualify for loans for the planting of forests.

Whether they are big or small growers?

Whether they are big or small growers. We have big farmers who are at the moment in financial difficulty. They are the customers of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The hon. member cannot go to his constituents and tell them that they can now get as much as they want in the way of loans.

But I want to.

Yes, I would like to do the same. However, we do not have the funds. We cannot take away the business of the commercial banks and the Land Bank. During the few years that we have had this Department, loans to the amount of more than R100 million have been granted at 5 per cent interest. Last year alone loans granted to farmers totalled more than R30 million. Funds are not as freely available as we would like them to be.

*The hon. member for Christiana expressed his thanks for the assistance the farmers are going to receive in obtaining loans for water works. I am pleased we have heard these positive ideas, and I once again thank the Opposition for its support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 2 of the Land Tenure Act, 1966, establishes a board known as the Land Tenure Board. The Act provides that the board shall consist of four members of whom—

1. (a) one member, who shall also be the chairman of the board, shall be the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board established by section 2 of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966; and
2. (b) the other members shall be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture.

The functions of the board are set out in section 3 of the Land Tenure Act, 1966, and are defined as “to advise the Minister in regard to the value of land and any rights in or over land, the alienation and allocation of State land and in regard to any other matter which the Minister may refer to the board”. As seems to be generally known, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, through his Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, to acquire any private land, or any rights therein, which may be required for most of the purposes of the Central Government. What also seems to be generally known is the generally accepted, and for the most part statutorily prescribed principle that when the State acquires land, and more specifically so when it expropriates land, it need not pay more for it than the market value plus an amount to compensate for any actual financial loss or inconvenience caused by such acquisition. Where the issue is the expropriation of a right in respect of land, the compensation shall not be in excess of an amount for compensation of any actual financial loss or inconvenience caused by the expropriation of the right.

One of the most important functions of the Land Tenure Board is to advise the Minister and the Department in respect of the market value of land which it has to acquire and what amount would be fair compensation for the actual financial loss and inconvenience caused to a seller through the expropriation of his freehold title or an interest therein.

Hon. members will understand that when the diverse requirements of the State are to be met a great variety of properties will be involved. It may be purely farming land which lends itself, for example, to large and/or small livestock farming, agricultural and/or horticultural crops under various climatic conditions and under dry land or irrigation conditions, or it could be land which lends itself to some or other form of specialized farming, for example citrus or sugar cane. Urban land, industrial land or land for other purposes or with other potential may be involved.

For determining the value of properties, the State makes use of assessors. Hon. members who have had experience of the utilization of the services of assessors will know that even when the services of outstanding persons are used it very frequently happens that two different assessors assess the same properties at amounts which differ considerably. It is the function of the Board, inter alia, to analyse the valuations which have to be properly motivated, and to furnish the Minister with expert advice. To do this the Board must consist of real experts, particularly as far as the principles involved in the determination of market values and the statutory provision and legal principles involved in the determination of assessments are concerned. It is obvious that the Minister endeavours to appoint persons to the Board who are really competent to perform the advisory function.

It is the task of the Agricultural Credit Board, established in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, to render assistance to farmers. Assistance is rendered on an economic basis, i.e. it must relate to the production potential of agricultural land. In order to perform their task properly the members of the Board must be orientated to agriculture and agricultural economy. They need not necessarily have a very good grounding in the principles involved in the determination of market value—these days generally an inflated value for agricultural land. Usually they are in no way experts in regard to the factors determining the market value of urban or industrial land. Their function does not require such specialized knowledge of them.

In the circumstances it is an anomaly that the Minister should be bound by the Act to appoint the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board as the chairman of the Land Tenure Board as well. Circumstances may well exist where it is possible to use one and the same person in both capacities. But it must not be compulsory. Under the circumstances it will be clear to hon. members that the removal of the statutory provision concerned is indicated.

It is also deemed advisable to provide that the chairmanship shall in fact be vested in an officer of the State. The board, in its deliberations, must always manifest sound judgment and care. What is involved is the spending of State funds on a large scale, and the official approach to such a matter must be accorded its legitimate place. Apart from other experts serving on the board, it is therefore considered that an officer possessing wide experience of the acquisition of immovable property for the State, who is well grounded in the statutory provisions and principles involved in the determination of compensation and who manifests the responsibility and caution which may be expected from an officer of the right calibre, should act as chairman of the Board.

Since it will happen in practice that the officer who is appointed as chairman will not always be available for meetings of the board, the proposed amendment provides that another officer may be appointed to act as deputizing member and chairman. Since the appointment of such a deputy may sometimes be immediately necessary in order to prevent a delay in the activities of the Board, provision is also being made that the Minister may delegate this power to a senior officer of the State. The intention is that the Minister will approve of more than one officer for such appointments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the very detailed manner in which he explained this Bill, which on the surface appears to be a very innocent one. Recently a word or two has been dropped every now and then about the Land Tenure Board as a result of certain steps they took in the past and wrong advice the hon. the Minister apparently obtained. I am therefore glad the hon. the Deputy Minister explained this measure in the way he did. I want to agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister wholeheartedly that the Land Tenure Board is probably one of the foremost possible statutory bodies in existence, if one bears in mind that the State is the institution which is compelled from time to time to purchase land and is the most extensive purchaser of land. If the hon. the Minister, under specific circumstances, is obtaining the wrong advice, which I believe to have been the case in the Agliotti affair, it is absolutely necessary that the chairman of this board be someone who pre-eminently knows his job. I believe that we do not want any repetition at all of what we had a year or two ago. I do not want to say anything more about the matter; I think it would be inappropriate because there is still another case pending in this connection. From the evidence it remained very clear that not only was the Minister wrongly advised, but that at that stage the chairman of the Land Tenure Board did not regard his task very seriously. Had he then regarded his business in a more serious light, I do not believe that such a thing would have happened. If my memory does not fail me, the amount was increased from R5 million to R6,5 million in a question of two or three days. An official told the Minister on a Friday that a certain amount would be paid, but in reality that amount was increased by an additional R1,5 million. Who was the man responsible in this case, since not even the chairman of the Land Tenure Board could have given the Minister the correct advice at that stage, having only obtained it three days before? Had he known what the position was, he should surely have been able to give the hon. the Minister the correct information at that moment. I therefore think the Deputy Minister’s amendment, that the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board need not necessarily also be the chairman of the Land Tenure Board, is quite in order. The hon. the Deputy Minister is also correct in his endeavour to look for someone with expert knowledge about the purchase of land, over and above that which the other members of the board have. We just find it strange that in this clause it is merely stated that only an officer from the Public Service can, from time to time, be designated as chairman of the board by the hon. the Minister. As this clause stands it is altogether desirable that it be put like that, i.e. that it shall be a public servant. We must not forget that amongst the public at large in this country there have still always been doubts about this matter. Would it not be better for the hon. the Deputy Minister to change the clause in such a way that a senior official of the Public Service shall be designated as chairman of this board—most probably we shall also move such an amendment in the Committee Stage? I think that immediately that provision is laid down in the Bill we shall eliminate the doubts that people might have because this case is still so fresh in their minds, and that immediately there would be greater confidence that something like this would not easily happen in the future. This afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed to the urgency and importance of the provision, indicating that the State wanted the best advice in this respect. We want to help him, and we agree that he does not need to take the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board as chairman. The change he wants to make is a good one. But then he must just go one step further. I think that he would then gain even more sympathy for his amendment and that he will to a large extent, even if not completely, eliminate the doubts that people might have. I make this plea to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will give consideration to our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, since we support this legislation I want to say something about why I think the legislation really should enjoy support. It is gratifying to see that in spite of the few reservations he expressed, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Newton Park, is also inclined to support this legislation. He referred here to the Agliotti case, and I did not think it was necessary to have mentioned that matter here again. But he expressed a few thoughts here that I think must be refuted.

In the first place the hon. member claimed that the hon. the Minister was wrongly advised on that matter. I think that is a mistake, because in connection with that matter the hon. the Minister of Agriculture was not advised or consulted or even asked for his opinion. It is a fact, according to the evidence we have already read, that action was taken without the Minister’s knowledge and as a result of the delegated powers certain officials had and normally do have. It can very easily happen that a senior official, however responsible he may be, could possibly exceed his authority. I therefore think that the hon. member for Newton Park should withdraw that statement he made, because not nearly does it approximate to the actual state of affairs.

About our gladness at the Bill now before the House, I do not want to say much, but I should like to mention one matter to the hon. the Minister and tell him what my experience has been. In my constituency, where the Sterkfontein Dam is being built, certain properties are being expropriated in the dam basin, and the State is then compelled to determine the value of those properties. The normal procedure followed up to now, a good one in our opinion, is that valuators of the Department of Agricultural Credit evaluate those properties. But apart from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure there is no board that can pass a judgment on those valuations. We know it for a fact that a person who relinquishes his property to the Stat 3 wants more than the maximum value for that property, and this creates a tremendous problem. Since in terms of this legislation there is now going to be established an outstanding board that can examine and analyse those valuations, I think this will eliminate a tremendous number of problems. Our experience has been that valuations of properties taken over by the State and others, are made on the present value, with due regard to certain factors, but the problem I wish to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister is this: In the last few years throughout South Africa we have found that the property market is continually rising and that buyers willingly pay much more for farm properties than they would have paid a few years ago. The problem that comes to the fore here is this: The value of a property that must be expropriated, for some purpose or other, is determined, but with that evaluated amount the owner, whose property is being expropriated, cannot obtain property equal in value to that which is being expropriated, and this is so as a result of the fact I mentioned here a moment ago, i.e. that land values have increased. In our vicinity we have had the experience that agricultural land is offered and purchased at R160, R180 and R200 per morgen. We feel that the valuators of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure evaluate properties at lower rates than the prevailing land prices. I do not want to say that the valuations on those properties are not realistic, but we find that the evaluations on those properties are in any case lower than the prevailing land prices, and the owner of the expropriated land is now faced with the problem that he cannot obtain agricultural land of equal value for that price, and it is specifically in that connection that this board, which is now going to be instituted, is going to overcome a tremendous number of problems for the Department of Agricultural Credit, agriculture itself and also the State. Sir, with reference to this problem that I myself have in my own constituency, I hope and believe that with the establishment of this board a tremendous number of problems will be ironed out. I consider it an excellent idea that the chairman of the board should not be appointed for a long term, as would be a member of the board, for example. Since a member is appointed to the board with the necessary knowledge, it is a good thing that he be appointed for a longer term than the chairman, particularly in the case of the chairman being an official. And in that connection I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that he need not be concerned about the official being a person that will not be able to hold, his own. Sir, I welcome that idea and look forward to the establishment of the board in order to try ironing out the extensive problems in those specific cases.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the hon. member for Harrismith touched on a subject which I am sure every one of us has had a complaint about at one time or another, particularly those of us who represent rural constituencies. That is the question of the valuation of a property when it is expropriated. I must support the hon. member wholeheartedly. I have repeatedly heard people complain that they have been paid out for their properties, but that it is not the replacement value. I would commend the thoughts of the hon. member for Harrismith to the hon. the Deputy Minister on this particular matter. The farmer, when his property is expropriated, should be put in the position where he can rehabilitate himself to a position which should not be any worse than that in which he was before his property was expropriated. The hon. the Deputy Minister is a farmer and he understands, and I am sure he will help us in this matter.

I have risen to support my friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, in his representations to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should consider an amendment in clause 1, to the effect that power should be delegated only to a senior officer. We have had an unfortunate occurrence in South Africa in this connection and I do not want to see a repetition of it, nor do I believe the Deputy Minister does either. To satisfy the people outside I would suggest to the Deputy Minister that he accepts this amendment.

I also want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has another look at clause 2 of this Bill, which amends section 9, which deals with the delegation of powers by the Minister in terms of the Act. In terms of Section 9 the Minister has power to delegate certain powers which are conferred upon him in this Act, to other persons, and in this case to “any officer of the State (including the Administration of the territory)”. But certain powers are excluded, which the hon. the Minister may not delegate to such an officer, and those are the powers, firstly, to appoint members of the board. The Minister must do that himself. He cannot delegate that power. Then there is the power to appoint additional members of the board for a specific purpose. He cannot delegate that power; he must retain that power himself. Further, there is the power to determine the period of the appointment of members of the board and to terminate the period of office of members of the board. That power he cannot delegate. He must keep it to himself, and he may not delegate the power to determine the allowances, the remuneration, the leave facilities and other conditions of the members of the board, and he may not delegate the power to make regulations.

Those powers he may not delegate, but what can he delegate? This is the important thing. We find that in terms of section 4 of the Act, the Minister may, out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, purchase any land which he considers suitable for or for use in connection with farming purposes. Sir, that power he may delegate and he may delegate it to any officer of the State, not just to a senior officer, but to any officer. Sir, is this not what happened in the Agliotti affair, that he delegated that power, and because he delegated it and did not look after it, and did not keep a check on it, we had this unfortunate scandal? Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister say that the Minister may not delegate the power to appoint a member of the board or to determine the conditions under which he may remain a member of the board, but that he can delegate this important power, to use money voted by this House, and that he can delegate that power to any official? I think there is something wrong and I think this Deputy Minister must have another think about it, particularly if he wishes to retain or to regain the goodwill of the public. [Interjection.] I am not against the Bill at all, but I am asking that the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider some way of improving it.

Let us go further. We accept the principle, as the hon. member for Newton Park has pointed out of the appointment of a senior civil servant as Chairman of this Board. We believe that is the right thing to do, but let us have a look at these other powers which the Minister may delegate to any official of the State; and the evidence is that he has done so in the past. All we are asking for is a safeguard to protect the money which is voted by this House. Incidentally, while we are talking about this, surely the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should have realized that this was a matter of such importance and such magnitude that he ought to have known that it was going to be debated by this House this afternoon, but yet I do not see him in the House. Has he now abrogated all his responsibility to the hon. the Deputy Minister … [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Deputy Minister really going to carry the can for this Minister? This shows a disregard of what goes on in this House today.

We go further. Let us look at the further powers which the hon. the Minister is now going to delegate to “any official of the State.” There is the power to exchange any State-owned land for any other land which he considers suitable for or for use in connection with such purposes and issue a deed of grant in respect of any land so exchanged. This is a very wide power, a very important power which is granted to the Minister. It was granted by this House, but the Minister wants to delegate it to “any” official.

I think I have made my point. I do not think I need go any further. I can see from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he understands the point I am trying to make. We, on this side of the House, will move certain amendments in an attempt to assist him to try to improve this Bill, to improve the control of his department. I ask that he at least gives them consideration when they are put before the Committee when we discuss this matter in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable, after all, that when one is dealing with legislation such as this one must always have backchat for the sake of making political capital. The hon. member for Newton Park supported this Bill in a very nice way; I would go as far as to say in a way that we do not actually associate with him, and only here and there did he make a sidelong reference to the Agliotti matter. Apparently there were no mutual discussions among them and apparently this legislation was never discussed in their group, because the hon. member for Newton Park supports the Bill with perhaps a small amendment, while the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District comes along with a very big amendment to the principle of the Bill.

But the hon. member must remember that the one leads the team from the front and the other from the rear. [Interjections.]

It is a matter of the delegation of powers. I wonder whether the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is aware of the proportions assumed by the purchase of land as far as the State is concerned. I wonder whether he now wants to imply that in the purchase or exchange of land the Minister may not delegate his authority at all; in other words, all purchases and exchange of land in the country must now specifically be laid before the Minister for approval.

I never said that.

But of course the hon. member did. The hon. member objects because the Minister can delegate his powers to officials or to the board in the purchasing or exchange of land; in other words, the Minister must retain those powers for himself. I really do not think that is acceptable. I think that in coming forward with this amendment the Department is sincere in its view that we want order. We are all unhappy about the Agliotti matter. [Interjections.] We are unhappy about it, but the fact remains that legislation is now being introduced here to perhaps prevent this in the future …

To prevent?

But now the hon. member specifically wants to bring about the opposite. He now wants to make political capital out of an amendment of the law, and I really do not think this is the right approach.

We welcome this Bill because in the past there was perhaps a shortcoming in the fact that there were people serving on the Land Tenure Board who perhaps did not have a specialized knowledge of these matters, but now with this amendment this can definitely be eliminated; one will be able to use people with specialized knowledge, and where land is bought up for the State one will have the assurance that this will find general approval amongst the various parties involved. We therefore welcome this Bill, and I want to repeat that we really did not think that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District would, at this stage, drag in the Agliotti case and foist certain unnecessary matters on the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet listened very carefully when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was speaking, because all the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was trying to indicate was that he was not opposed to the principle of delegating the powers of the Minister, but only that he wanted the powers delegated to a responsible senior Minister or to somebody who is responsible, as the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has interpreted him.

A senior official.

I beg your pardon, he said a senior official. That is all he wants. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is in fact endorsing the very points this hon. colleague of mine had been making. I think that such a good case has been made for it that I have no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept this very wise proposition of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet also took exception to the fact that we mentioned the question of the Agliotti affair. Now he shakes his head. He is seeing things. The point is that that affair was an unfortunate affair; we all agree with that, but it was that very matter that has probably precipitated the introduction of this Bill. I think it was therefore perfectly in order for the hon. member to raise it here. We are glad that this Bill has come so that in future the people outside are satisfied that the people expropriating or buying their ground are experienced and reliable people.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the proposal made by the hon. member for Newton Park, I must say that I am not disinclined to consider any positive proposals. In the Committee Stage he would like to move that we delegate such powers to a senior official. The legal draughtsmen do not allow us to say “senior official” unless one defines a “senior” and a “junior” officer. If such a provision could be conducive to greater safety, we shall consider it. The hon. member must also remember that the officer mentioned in the Bill will have the support of experts. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District also asked why we do not impose certain specific conditions in respect of the officers. However, we do not want any delays; we want to appoint a person who can deputize as chairman. As the legislation reads at present, we cannot do so. I feel free to say that we will go into the designation of this chairman in the Committee Stage, so that we can try to satisfy everyone. I should like to refer to the problem of land purchases with which this Department has to cope. Land purchases extend over the entire country, from Karoo land and all kinds of other types of land to urban and industrial land. This means that a person who is an expert in the field of all the various types of land has to be appointed. Such a person does not exist. There is no such person. For example, you cannot take a person from the Peninsula to determine the value of land in Karasburg. As far as this matter is concerned, we have our problems therefore and that is why we want this specific legislation so that we have the power to appoint people who can make a contribution in every particular sphere. This board is not the alpha and the omega in determining the value of land. This board is also advised by committees. I want to refer briefly to delegation. I want to give the hon. member for Walmer a practical example. While he is sitting here, he has given a person authorization on his farm. This morning that man sold 5 000 of his sheep while he knows nothing about it. That is what delegation implies. The hon. member appointed the man in good faith to take care of his affairs, but that still does not make the hon. member a poor farmer. The Minister of Agriculture has many officials under him who are at present, for example, certifying seed potatoes where an amount of between R12 million and R15 million is involved. A tremendous amount of money is involved in the grading of beef. There, too, the Minister leaves certain matters in the hands of officials and he believes, as any business man believes, that the man can be trusted. You must delegate powers; you have no choice. It is impossible to have a ministry which has to do everything itself. There may be unfortunate incidents and the hon. member is right— we want to prevent this in future.

But it must be borne in mind that there are other provisions as well. These cannot be written into an Act. If a piece of land is purchased for more than a specified amount, the Minister’s consent is required. It does not matter Who the chairman is. But now there is another little matter I want to set straight. It was said here that the hon. the Minister did not do his duty. But the fact of the matter is that he was not consulted. The hon. member for Newton Park said that if he remembered correctly … [Interjections.] Yes, but the hon. the Minister was not consulted. Before he could do anything about it, the damage had been done. But what is involved here is not only this one case. A case like the Agliotti affair can only occur once in a country’s history, but now every loophole is being closed so that nobody can do a thing like that again. But we would prefer to leave this matter at that.

The hon. member for Harrismith referred here to the prices we pay with expropriation, the hon. member must remember that we are not dealing with the Expropriation Act here, but with the Land Tenure Act. I just want to mention in passing that we cannot pay the replacement value of land, for no one can tell you what the replacement value of a thousand morgen farm is; it varies from one farm to another. As I have said we determine the value of land by calculating an amount for the inconvenience and that is then added to the present market value. We are all taxpayers. When the State buys land it is quite a different matter to when a private transaction between one individual and another takes place. People always think: Here is the rich boy; now we can charge what we like. The criticism levelled at us is not so much in regard to prices which are too low when we expropriate land, more often in regard to prices which are too high. I have letters written to me by farmers stating that land in their part of the world was worth R100 per morgen, but after the Government bought up land for a dam or for the Department of Defence, or for the Department of Bantu Administration or for any other purpose, and paid such an extremely high price plus a certain percentage for inconvenience, land prices were no longer R100 per morgen, but R120 and even R150. That is the criticism which is being levelled at us. I am simply mentioning this in passing; to determine the correct value of land requires a great deal of good judgment and correct conduct.

I think that I have with this replied to all the points which were raised. I should like to thank the hon. the Opposition for joining me in supporting this statutory amendment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of the Bill at present before this House is, in the main, the removal of a few administrative problems which have arisen, since the coming into operation of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act.

I have pleasure in giving a brief explanation of the following measures:

Clause 1:

Paragraph (a): This amendment has become necessary in order to bring the position in respect of municipal areas of jurisdiction in South-West Africa into line with that in the Republic.

Paragraph (c): State-owned land in the territory of South-West Africa is transferred in the name of the Administrator, and consequently this amendment is necessary.

Paragraph (d): In view of the fact that the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970, is not applicable to the Bantu areas in the Republic, it is only logical that the same principle should apply in South-West Africa.

Paragraph (e): In view of the fact that the area of land falling under the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963, is excluded from the provisions of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970, it is essential for the same principle to apply in South-West Africa in respect of land controlled by the Rehoboth Investment and Development Corporation Act, 1969.

Paragraph (f): Because most town planning schemes are situated within the areas of jurisdiction of municipal authorities, the object envisaged in the original measure is not being achieved. In terms of the proposed amendment the Minister shall be able, after consultation with the provincial authorities, to demarcate areas, especially around larger towns or cities, and to exempt such areas from the provisions of the Act.

The Guide Plans Committees, in cooperation with the Department of Planning, will draw up plans for the peri-urban areas, which will serve as a basis.

This arrangement has become necessary as applications for small subdivisions in peri-urban areas have begun to assume tremendous proportions. Land in peri-urban areas have been subdivided into such small units that they can no longer form economic units. The proposed measure will make it possible to make a beginning with the creation of a larger degree of orderliness in the future use of land.

Clause 2:

Amendments proposed in this clause are of a purely consequential nature.

Clause 3:

Because of the fact that there is an ever-increasing number of cases of people using long-term leases in order to circumvent the Act, it has become necessary to close this loophole.

In the same way it is deemed necessary to curb the sale of plots in respect of which transfer cannot be given. At present it happens that land speculators sell plots, knowing full-well that applications for subdivision can never succeed. This exploitation of the general public cannot be allowed.

Because local authorities tend to extend their areas of jurisdiction arbitrarily, it is deemed necessary for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to obtain control in order to ensure that any extention will not take up only the best agricultural land.

Clause 4:

In terms of the Act as it stands, conditions concerning consolidation and joining may only be laid down when approval for subdivision is laid down. It has proved to be very essential for conditions to be laid down affecting also the purpose for which or the manner in which the land in question may be used. What is contemplated here is the number of dwelling-houses on any specific piece of land or a restriction that a dwelling may not be built closer than a specific distance from a river (for example, the Vaal River).

Clause 6:

In view of the fact that the registration of a servitude may have the same effect as a long-term lease, the Registrar of Deeds is being given a discretionary power to act as a watch-dog in the event of the Act being circumvented in this way.

Clause 7:

At times it happens that the senior officer to whom the powers under the Act have been delegated, is absent from office. So as not to delay applications, it is the intention to delegate the powers to more than one officer.

Clause 8:

It has become necessary to extend the section dealing with offence and penalties with regard to people who fail to comply with the conditions laid down or in cases of a continuous offence.

Clause 10:

The intention is to confer powers to the provincial authorities to regulate subdivisions of any size in areas excluded from the provisions of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act—particularly those referred to in section 1 (f).

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister will remember that when this legislation first came before this House a year or so ago, we on this side stated our objections very clearly to him. I believe that no one can have any illusions about the attitude adopted by this side of the House at the time. Since that time nothing has happened which has made us change our minds in any way. When it comes to the subdivision of Agricultural land, this legislation is something which will influence us even less to change our minds. I want to tell the hon. the Minister immediately that we are not willing to support him in the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to inform the hon. the Minister at once that we are going to move the following amendment—

1. (a) confers further drastic powers on the Minister of Agriculture, which may conflict with the individual rights of owners of agricultural land in respect of the use of such land;
2. (b) encroaches upon the powers of provincial councils in respect of the division of land; and
3. (c) excludes certain agricultural land in South-West Africa from the provisions thereof.”

The hon. the Minister will recall that the amendment we want to move is in agreement with the attitude we adopted a year or two ago. One of our principal objections at that time was that individual owners of agricultural land were being placed under obligations but that when it came to the State itself, it had the power to make subdivisions or to take land which had been subdivided, whereas everyone knows that the State is one of the biggest culprits when it comes to the subdivision of agricultural land. Why should only individual landowners be under the obligation to prevent the so-called uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land, while Government departments go scot-free and are not subject to the provisions of this Bill?

Why “so-called”?

I shall tell the hon. the Minister why I call it “so-called”. For the simple reason that neither he nor I know what an economic or an uneconomic unit in South Africa is. That is why I speak of the “so-called” uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land. The hon. the Minister should not try to lead me away from the argument I am trying to advance. In this Bill the original Act is being amended so as to include the territory of South-West Africa. In this case, too, subdivisions may be made if they are made by the provincial administration. Similarly, they may be made in the Rehoboth Gebiet and in other areas controlled by the Department of Bantu Administration. In this regard the hon. the Minister washes his hands of it. However, when it comes to the individual farmer he says that he may not subdivide.

This Bill contains a very important new principle, one which has never before been discussed when we dealt with this legislation. In this regard I want to refer to clause 9 of the Bill. This clause amends the long title of the principal Act so as to read, “to control the subdivision and, in connection therewith, the use of agricultural land”. The words “and, in connection therewith, the use” are being inserted now. In my humble opinion the hon. the Deputy Minister is now extending the principle contained in the original Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act to a fantastic degree. Nowhere in this Bill is there any definition of what the hon. the Deputy Minister means by the words to control “the use” of agricultural land. According to him it may happen, if I were a fruit-farmer and were to decide for some reason or other that I should change my farming altogether and carry on a new kind of farming, that the suspicion may exist that the hon. the Deputy Minister will exercise this power even in that regard, in view of the fact that he will exercise control over the use of agricultural land as well. Or does this “use of agricultural land” simply mean that there is a change in the use of the land for agricultural purposes? If that was the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, surely one ought to have had a very clear definition in this legislation of what he means. Because this is a completely new principle which we never discussed a year or so ago, we cannot tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are prepared to give our support to this.

Furthermore, we believe, as stated in the amendment, that clause 10 is not an extension of provincial power. It is much more a question of an encroachment upon those powers. When one studies the 1944 Act, one sees that the provincial administrations had the right to prohibit the subdivision of agricultural land into holdings smaller than 25 morgen in extent. Where a person wanted to subdivide his land into holdings larger than 25 morgen in extent, it was not necessary for him to obtain the approval of the Provincial Administration; however, when such holdings were smaller, approval was required. Now I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why it is necessary for him to remove in clause 10 this right which the provincial administrations obviously had?

In the second place I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that it seems to us on this side of the House, on studying clause 4, as though the Deputy Minister now wants to prevent even the incorporation by a local authority of land which has been subdivided, if such land can still be used in any way for agricultural purposes. Is that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention?

Yes.

In other words, it seems to us as though the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to take further powers to prevent a local authority from incorporating land for the purposes of new residential areas. Originally we had the objection that this legislation would have the effect that farmers who owned agricultural land in the environs of urban areas would find themselves in a position of not being able to realize their capital if they wanted to do so.

But surely the people cannot live in the sky.

Of course the people cannot live in the sky. That is the whole point. But now the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to take this drastic power. Let us say, for example, that A has a fine piece of land under vines and that B has a piece of land covered by Port Jackson only a few miles awy. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to have the power to prevent A, whose land borders on the town, from selling his land for residential purposes, whereas B, who has that useless piece of land covered by Port Jackson, will be in a position to become a millionaire because that land is not good agricultural land. Even if A is a fine wine-farmer, even if he has a thousand morgen under vines, everybody knows that he may be placed in a position, because of a low yield, when he would like to realize his capital. Now, however, it will be within the power of that hon. Deputy Minister to prevent him from doing so, whereas B, who has purchased that piece of land of 1 000 morgen covered by Port Jackson, will be in a position to realize his capital. Because the hon. the Deputy Minister is now going a step or two further than he did in 1970 with his original legislation, I must tell him that we on this side of the House cannot support him in taking those steps.

In the third place, this legislation has been on the Statute Book for a considerable time, i.e. from 1st January, 1971.

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