Mr. Speaker, I move—

We supported this measure at the Second Reading and we support it now. The clause of overriding importance is the one dealing with the aid centres. In 1964 we originally opposed the provisions in that Act dealing with aid centres. I think it can be said that the Government, by the steps they are taking today, is conceding the wisdom of our opposition then. For that measure contained provisions in regard to aid centres as places of a very different character from those before us at present. At that time it smacked of a place of detention, had other unacceptable features and, indeed, was very little used by the Government in the eight years that have elapsed since 1964. Now we have before us a Bill which makes these aid centres very much more like an advice bureau, an advice bureau with all the facilities and powers of the State to back it up. I think unconsciously the Government has paid a tribute to those various advice bureaux which have grown up and which have in fact been the friend of the Bantu who has not known what to do about his pass and influx control matters. The spirit which will imbue this new legislation, the hon. the Deputy Minister has assured us, will be a spirit of friendliness and helpfulness, and this we welcome. We welcome also that there will be, on his say-so, a man of senior standing and of high calibre at the head of these aid centres, and this indeed is most necessary. In the past such a man has not always been available at police stations and elsewhere to handle the affairs of these people in distress. This Bill, therefore, should relieve the Police of considerable investigating work. It should reduce the number of people detained in cells and other places overnight and it should reduce the convictions for pass and influx control offences, and this we welcome. It should do this partly because there will be a careful sifting out of these problems by people with special knowledge of these matters, people whose first concern will be to achieve an unravelling of these problems. In the past it has often been left to the Police and others, who have had sterner duties to contend with and perhaps had little heart for this work.

It is pleasing to see that the Government appears to be discarding some of the red tape which has bedevilled the supply of labour and the opportunities of Bantu to get jobs. We welcome this very much. For example, it seems that it is unnecessary for the Bantu to be sent back to a homeland, whether mythical or otherwise, so that he may be signed out there before coming back to the place where he has found a job. It would appear that there may be an exception in the Western Cape in this regard. There is not complete clarity and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will still clarify the matter further. I think it is fair to say that this is another cautious step by the Government in the direction of United Party policy to use influx control to relate the labour offering to the jobs available. This is an important advance. For this reason, too, we welcome it. There would seem to be an attitude to helpfulness that will imbue the administration of this legislation. That we welcome as well. There is one possible fly in the ointment, it seems, namely that a Bantu cannot obtain a job unless there is housing for him. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us something about what the housing policy will be. We know, to our regret, how great the housing backlog has become for the Bantu. I refer only to Bantu in this regard. It is important to know that that backlog will be tackled with great energy because it will clearly otherwise frustrate the hon. the Deputy Minister’s best intentions. I hope that he will be able to give us some assurance that this aspect of housing will not frustrate the good work which this Bill could otherwise do.

In conclusion I would merely say that the proof of the value of this Bill, like of any pudding, will be in the eating. The mixture, however, is far more promising than the 1964 mixture. In the circumstances, we shall support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, because, as I told the hon. the Minister at Second Reading, I am prepared to give the aid centres a chance of reducing the number of Africans—the incredible number of 2 000 per day—who are convicted as a result of pass law offences. Like him, I am prepared to do practically anything to try to reduce the enormous prison population due to technical offences, people who really go to gaol for the crime of looking for work in areas where they do not have permits to be. I must say that after hearing the hon. Minister talk yesterday, I am not as optimistic as I was at Second Reading in thinking that the aid centres are really going to accomplish very much. As far as technical offences are concerned, there has always been a directive to the Police that they should not arrest Africans who are in possession of valid permits allowing them to be in urban areas but who simply cannot produce them on demand. Since 1954, there has been a directive to the Police not to arrest those people but to give them a reasonable chance of producing their documents. This could have been achieved without any amending legislation. But if as the result of the hon. the Minister’s aid centres at least those people are going to be spared spending ten days to two weeks in gaol or paying a fine of R10 one would be grateful. What worries me is what the hon. the Minister said yesterday in reply to a question I put to him at the Committee Stage. He emphasized that there was no intention in this Bill for the aid centres in any way to lessen the impact of the influx control regulations. He made it quite clear and emphasized this fact. I have always been of the opinion—as a matter of fact it is self-evident—that unless the influx control laws are amended quite radically, there is little chance of the prison population being reduced. I understand that the aid centres, for instance the aid centre at Langa in Cape Town—the one which has probably been longest in operation and which has dealt with a large number of cases—in fact does not allow people already in employment to remain in employment simply by fixing up the registration book in such a way as post hoc to ratify the entry of such people into the urban areas. What happens to these people is that they are endorsed out. Therefore this has nothing to do with a correlation of labour requirements, the jobs available to the labour offering, which is the phrase used by the hon. member who has just sat down. Thousands of people are already in employment in the urban areas and these are the people who are picked up by the police, and if they are women they often cannot prove that they have been in the urban area since before 1959. Although all these people are accommodated, although they are housed either on the employer’s premises or elsewhere, they lose their jobs and they are sent back home —whatever “home” may mean, since these people have lived in the urban areas for a long time, some of them for over 20 years—but they cannot produce the necessary documentary proof to show that they have been in Cape Town or Johannesburg, or whatever area it is, for the requisite time. What the hon. the Minister fails to take into consideration, is the fact that the law which was introduced in 1964—the law that makes it necessary for women to prove that they have been in the urban areas since before 1959—was implemented in such a way and at such a time that women had to prove registration before there were registration centres in existence. In other words, these women who could not track back their old employers to get affidavits to prove that they had been in the urban areas for the required length of time had been given an impossible task. I was hoping that at least these people particularly would get sympathetic treatment at the aid centres, instead of which they are simply presented with tickets and told to go home. When they get home there is no question of available jobs at the other end; they are unemployed. Women are not allowed to return to the urban areas even as contract workers, except under very special circumstances. What is the hon. the Minister going to do about these people? The aid centres, as far as I can see, are only going to affect those people who technically do not have their books properly fixed up, while those people already in employment and already accommodated but who cannot prove that they have been in the area for the requisite amount of time, are still either going to go to gaol or pay a fine or be sent home. So the over-all problem is not going to be tackled, nor is the overall problem of those people coming in from the rural areas seeking employment in the towns without the necessary permits, going to be tackled. These constitute the bulk of the people who are picked up under the pass offences. As I say, I am afraid, or rather I am really not optimistic that there is going to be a big reduction in the prison population for bona fide workseekers who come to the areas without permits. I am afraid the basic problem is not going to be tackled, for with all the good intentions in the world, which I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister has, unless there is some radical change in the attitude towards those people who are coming into the urban areas and those people who are already in the urban areas and who have found employment, without permits. As I have said, I am certainly prepared to give this new system a chance.

I shall be visiting these aid centres as the hon. the Deputy Minister has stated we can. I shall certainly be asking many questions next year to see how the aid centres have worked or have not worked.

Finally, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give some really deep consideration to the particular case of African women who are suffering very severely from a law which was introduced at a time when there was no provision for them to meet the requirements of that law. In other words, there were no registration offices where women could register and therefore prove their right, at a later stage, to be in the urban areas. I hope he will give this matter some urgent consideration.

Mr. Speaker, when these two hon. members rose and said that they supported this Bill and that neither of the two Opposition parties were going to vote against it, one wondered for a moment what had gone wrong for this to be so. We in this House have grown accustomed to this situation that when the Government comes forward with something good and the United Party is obliged to endorse it, they give us to understand that that allegedly was United Party policy the Government was taking over. [Interjections.] If this is the case, it is amazing that in fact there still is such a deep-rooted difference between the Opposition and this side of the House on such important matters.

Having said that, I also want to express my thanks and appreciation to both the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands, and through them, to the Opposition for supporting this measure. I myself think it is a good measure; I think it is a measure that deserves general support. I want to express the wish and hope that the effect of this legislation will be such that these aid centres will in fact be developed into what they are envisaged to be.

Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member aimed a smart political slap in the face in our direction you must allow me to defend myself and not expect me just to sit back and take it. The hon. member left a very wide gap when he said: “The only fly in the ointment is the question of housing.” This House will remember that with regard to Bantu labour in White South Africa I stated very emphatically in my reply to the Second Reading debate that it was the Government’s view that if there were vacancies for Bantu labourers, those vacancies would not simply be filled because we on this side of the House believed that Bantu labour in White areas should always be coupled to the necessary provision of housing. From the history of this country we have learned only too well what hardship is brought down on the Bantu and particularly on the Whites as well, if the question of housing is not taken into account as priority No. 1 as far as it relates to the provision of Bantu labour in White South Africa. If housing is not provided, that must give rise to conditions of squatting, and chaos and all the other miseries that are known only too well in this country, must arise from those conditions. For these reasons it is this very side of the House which has chalked up the biggest achievements in respect of housing for Whites, Bantu and non-Whites during its 20 years of government. This is one of the most important reasons why peace and order and quiet prevail in this country. The Government will continue to take the necessary steps in respect of this question of housing.

Then there is another aspect to which I want to refer. Both hon. members referred to the question of influx control measures and related it to these aid centres. The success of these aid centres is highly essential and already there is proof of special success in this regard. This morning I was informed of the latest position in respect of the aid centre in Johannesburg which was established at the beginning of this year. For the month of February, the position is that 3 636 technical offenders applied for aid to that centre. On the recommendation of the aid centre the cases against no fewer than 2 481 of them were withdrawn. This is a success factor of 68,25 per cent for the month of February. In other words, 68,25 per cent of the 3 636 Bantu who were picked up for technical offences in February were dealt with in such a way by the aid centre that they did not land in court or in prison. I think this is an outstanding achievement.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned 2 400 cases that had been withdrawn. Do they include people who have been placed in employment and whose documents were possibly not in order beforehand?

Mr. Speaker, they undoubtedly include people who have been placed in employment, because this is one of the most important aims of the aid centres. However, that is done through the agency of the labour bureau.

However, this is not all that I want to say in this regard. The highest percentage on different days during that month was, for example, a success factor of 79 per cent on one day. What is important, is that 118 Bantu detainees in Johannesburg were assisted in February by the aid centre in respect of the issuing of reference books. In other words, they were people who did not have reference books previously. We are particularly proud of what has been done at the aid centre in Johannesburg, because we have in fact been waiting to see how the aid centre would work in this big city with its big concentration of Bantu labour. During the month of February no fewer than 206 Bantu voluntarily applied to the centre for aid which they were given. It is very heartening that this is so, and I am not afraid to come to this House next year to talk about this matter, because it has been placed on a very sound basis. Having said this now and wishing to mention real successes, I want to emphasize that there is a very deep-rooted difference between this side of the House and the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands on that side of the House in regard to this matter. The effect of this Bill will accentuate that difference. What is that difference? I have already mentioned the difference in the approach to housing. The second and most important difference is the one in the approach to influx control measures. There should be no misunderstanding about the fact that the aid centres, while they are there to render aid to technical offenders, are not there to condone contraventions of the law on the one hand, and neither are they established for the evasion of influx control measures. It must be clearly understood that the influx control measures remain. The aid centres are there to help only within the framework of technical offences.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? How do you correlate what you are now saying with the statement you made earlier about Africans being allowed to bring newly married wives from the rural areas? Are you going to adjust the laws in respect of these newlyweds?

It is not at all necessary to change the laws in respect of them. The matter the hon. member raises now, has absolutely nothing to do with aid centres.

But when they get arrested?

The kind of cases the hon. member is mentioning now, are not ones which will be aid centre cases in the normal course of events. I should not like to elaborate on that aspect at this stage, because what we are concerned with here is specifically aid centres. The hon. member will realize that in the normal course of events that Bantu woman is not in the prescribed area, but in the homeland or in a rural area.

Order! That matter is not relevant now.

The aid centre becomes involved only when that position arises.

Order! That matter is not relevant now!

I understand. That is why hon. members on the opposite side should not confuse aid centres—I must emphasize this most strongly because it is clear to me that there is some misunderstanding about this—with measures aimed at abandoning or suspending influx control measures. If we have clarity on this second point, we understand each other very well as regards the establishment of these aid centres. The effect of this measure which is now being passed unanimously in this House will really be a beneficial one to the Republic of South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

I want to reply immediately to certain statements the hon. member for Albany made in his Second Reading speech about this legislation. I do not now want to accuse the hon. member of having provided the House with incorrect information, but I cannot but question the source of his information.

In what respect?

I shall reply to that immediately. In anticipation the hon. member discussed the amendment in his speech. He remarked that in the first place he had obtained information about the amendment as printed, apparently from an undisclosed source. The hon. member made a few statements. You will find that he actually made contradictory factual statements in the same speech. I am going to explain this to the House. He asked (translation)—

But he goes further and says—

Then he referred to the fact that the farmers within the Paarl urban area have to pay double rates for their farms. He alleges, inter alia, that in certain cases they have to pay ten times more than their colleagues farming outside the urban areas. But what are the facts, specifically in respect of the farms in Paarl? Let me say immediately that Paarl was used as an example of an urban farming area with agricultural units. At the same time there are numerous other local authorities, urban in nature, that ought to be dealt with on a similar basis to Paarl.

Oudtshoorn as well.

I think we now have the explanation of the hon. member’s standpoint concerning this legislation. With him it is therefore not basically a matter of the protection of agricultural land within and outside the compass of our urban local authorities, but a matter of the effect he can gain in Oudtshoorn with his standpoint that quite incidentally relates to the legislation. His interjection confirms my conclusion in that specific connection.

Let us look at what the position is in respect of the agricultural land in the Paarl urban area. In contrast with hon. members, the Cape Provincial Administration not only welcomed the legislation in the first place, but also requested it. In fact, Sir, after the Second Reading debate had been concluded and I had given an indication of the proposed amendments, the M.E.C. entrusted with local administration in the Province not only reacted favourably to the expected amendment, but actually expressed his pleasure and welcomed it; what did the Paarl local authority have to say in the person of their Mayoress? They reacted immediately and said that the amendment standing in my name would enable them to take the protectional steps with respect to agricultural land within the area of jurisdiction of the Paarl municipality. But what did the Paarl municipality itself do in co-operation with the Cape Provincial Administration to make it possible for the farmers with agricultural units within the urban local area to conduct their industry on an economic basis? It made a special arrangement in respect of the ratability of farmers within the area of jurisdiction of Paarl. If the hon. member had rather consulted more effective sources, he would have found, inter alia, that a special proclamation was issued on negotiations between the local authority and the relevant farmers to reduce their burden in respect of municipal rates. I refer him to Proclamation No. 361 of 1968. By the way, this proclamation is valid for a period of 10 years. In that proclamation it is stated—

What is the reduced rate which makes this possible? It is 33⅓ per cent on land and everything used for agricultural purposes, and not already exempt from rates, calculated on the site value of land only. Secondly, it is 100 per cent on the dwelling and all rateable improvements not used for agricultural purposes. In other words, the Paarl Municipality and the Administration as the controlling authorities have already, with the differentiated rate allowance on agricultural land, confirmed the point that within the area of jurisdiction of this local authority there is land that must be protected for agricultural purposes and used for that purpose. The hon. member went further and referred to the fact that irrigation can only take place late at night. But what are the actual facts? The fact is a further confirmation that the land must be preserved for agricultural purposes, because the Paarl municipality decided to supply water, within their area of jurisdiction, to agriculture at a lower rate than the ordinary domestic consumer must pay for it. Thirdly, the municipality supplied additional services to these farmers in respect of their labour and the availability of labour. The hon. member says that those farmers have problems because their labourers cannot be housed on their land. That is not correct, Sir. The fact is that the number of labourers they may house is limited. However, there is no absolute prohibition whatsoever on the housing of labourers. I want to claim that if the hon. member endorses a specific standpoint, which it is his positive right to do, I believe he should also state the factual information correctly.

In conclusion I just want to remark that the hon. member is correct in respect of one statement only—in respect of all the others he is wrong—and that is that the scope of the measure is being extended by the amendment. In that respect he is correct, but it is being extended specifically because a particular shortcoming exists, i.e. that where a local authority, the provincial administration and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are agreed, and all are prepared to preserve land in respect of this and other urban local authorities with large and fertile agricultural land surfaces, they do not have the power, in terms of their own legislation, to adopt the same norms as in the case of the test for sub-division. The department was asked whose authority it is to protect agricultural land, and therefore steps were taken to extend this legislation in accordance and in co-operation with local and provincial authorities, and therefore, in my opinion, there is no reason— in any case, not with an agricultural basis —why the scope of the measure should not be extended in this specific case. That is specifically what I am advocating and also proposing here. I just want to emphasize that the purpose of this legislation in respect of the sub-division of land lays down a specific test if and when it is approved or rejected, and that the local and provincial authorities must apply another norm in respect of requests for the subdivision of land within their area of jurisdiction and within the compass of their powers …[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for False Bay has endeavoured to reply to what I said during the Second Reading debate in regard to his proposed amendment, of which he had given notice. However, I believe that he has succeeded only in substantiating what I had to say. He said firstly that I had said that the farms in Paarl were doubly taxed, as far as fixed property tax is concerned; they are taxed by the Divisional Council and by the Municipality. That is what I meant.

That is not a double tax.

Of course it is. Then the hon. member questioned my statement that some farms in Paarl had to pay a fixed property tax up to ten times as much as other farms. This, of course, depends on the size of the farm and the development of the farm, but it is a fact that some farms in Paarl pay up to ten times as much. He can check this with the South African Agricultural Union, and he will find out that that is so.

Then he came to Proclamation No. 361 of 1968. I am fully aware of that Proclamation, but if he would care to check the latest Provincial Auditor’s report, he would see the taxation figures in respect of Paarl. If he then takes into account the morgenage and value of property, he will find that I am quite correct; the farmer in Paarl has to pay more in fixed property tax than the farmer outside Paarl. That is a fact. Then, Sir, he made a “groot gebaar” and said that the Paarl Municipality are letting the farmers in Paarl have water at a cheaper rate than the house-owners. Quite obviously they must. Those farmers in Paarl must use millions upon millions of gallons more than the householders; therefore the householders must be charged more for their water. The farmer in Paarl cannot be charged at the same rate. Sir, I think this hon. member has the bull by the tail completely.

There is a Group Areas Proclamation in respect of Paarl, and it is a fact that a very limited number of servants, household servants, are allowed to stay on the property, but not the agricultural workers. Another point which the hon. member missed entirely is that although this is agricultural land, there is a municipal regulation which prevents one from keeping livestock on that land. What kind of farming can you have without any livestock? Where do you get your manure from? Not a chicken, not a rabbit, not a horse and not a cow may you keep on that land. You can only develop that land agriculturally. It is very beautiful, and I believe that the owners of that land in Paarl should have the right to decide what they are going to do with their land themselves. Furthermore, I still believe that I was correct when I said during the Second Reading debate, that this amendment extends the scope of this measure, and can therefore not be accepted by this House. I do not believe we need discuss it any further.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support this clause as it will read after the amendment, as well as the amendment moved by the hon. member for False Bay. I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Albany said in respect of the position in Paarl; in fact, I think it was an incomprehensible argument.

No one understands it.

I welcome this idea because as far as the provinces in particular are concerned, the following sometimes created problems for the provinces: It was difficult for the provinces to decide which criterion should be applied in respect of which subdivisions fell within the limits of their authority, and which were the province of the Central Government in terms of the provisions of Act No. 70 of 1970. Sir, the position has become progressively complicated as these provincial powers were delegated and were applied by the local authorities, and the local authorities were indeed confronted with a major problem because they had to cope with the fragmentation of smallholdings which really created a perpetual problem; they were neither flesh nor fish; they were not in the town nor were they farms. That is why I say that this idea is a welcome one. We have this position in the Transvaal, for example, and therefore I welcome the amendment in the Act where a provision is now being inserted to the effect that that area is included which is incorporated under the Peri-urban Areas Ordinance. Sir, in the Transvaal you have the two areas, the general area and the special area, in respect of peri-urban areas. The position has therefore arisen that as long as it is a general area you may in fact apply the provisions of Act No. 70 of 1970 through the Central Government, but the moment it is converted into a social area, when a village council or an area committee is appointed, other norms are applicable. That is why you found that special areas were established where the primary, underlying purpose was not to establish a township, but where the area authority was established solely for other purposes, such as the control of the Bantu of the area, and you have the position that some of the areas have been demarcated in an arbitrary way as many as 16 to 20 miles beyond the township. This entailed that the subdivision of those lands did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Government in terms of the provisions of Act No. 70 of 1970, and this has created a terrible position. I am thinking for example of my own area, the area of Lothair, an area with a very high rainfall where trees are being planted. This area has been proclaimed as a special area for the sole purpose of controlling Bantu, while the control falls under the area committee for a radius of 20 miles around Lothair, and you could therefore have subdivision of land there by means of the special area committee. Sir, we regard this as undesirable and therefore I welcome and support the idea that it can now be excluded and controlled by the Central Government.

It is interesting to hear from the hon. member for Ermelo that in Ermelo he has these problems to which he has referred and which he describes as abuses of subdivision. The problem, of course, is due to a weak or bad provincial administration in his province. If he were living in Natal, which is subjected to a United Party provincial executive committee, he would find no such problems as he has described. The very point made by the hon. member for Ermelo emphasizes one of the main points that we have made throughout the various debates on this legislation relating to the subdivision of agricultural land, and that is that where a provincial authority does its job properly, there is no need for the Central Government or the department of the hon. the Deputy Minister to step in and, in fact, it is undesirable because provinces are in a better position to say what particular areas of the province should be maintained either for particular agricultural purposes or for other purposes such as future residential development or future industrial development. However. I leave the hon. member for Ermelo at this point.

I want to come now to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for False Bay. The House has not been told yet whether the hon. the Deputy Minister intends accepting this amendment. It would be surprising if he did. [Interjection.] No, he says he will. Perhaps, Sir, it is after all not surprising. Anything that a Nationalist on that side of the House will propose, the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept. But if the hon. the Deputy Minister is serious in his intentions to produce good legislation—and one begins to doubt whether he is in view of the lackadaisical and casual way in which he replied to the Second Reading debate on this Bill—but if he is interested in producing good legislation I would suggest to him that he gives further thought to this amendment of the hon. member for False Bay. It is a most curious amendment. It produces, first of all, double exceptions. Has the hon. the Deputy Minister given thought to that? It produces a double exception because the definition clause deals with the definition of agricultural land and provides that agricultural land is any land except the land which is then referred to. That is the first exception. Now we come to the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay, and we find another exception at the end of the clause. What exactly is the net result of a double exception in a definition clause? Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us because the hon. member for False Bay has not told us. I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he is not aware of the position, and perhaps those members on his side of the House with some legal background will enlighten the hon. the Minister as to the effect of a double exception in a definition clause— but I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that this will give rise to quite a lot of litigation. But apart from that, if the hon. the Deputy Minister intends accepting this amendment, perhaps he can tell the House what exactly he means when he does accept it. Sir, I will wait until the Whip and the hon. the Deputy Minister have finished their private conversation and the Deputy Minister is in a position to pay attention to the Bill which is before us and which he is piloting through the House. I specifically directed my remarks to the Deputy Minister and he proceeds to have a conversation with one of the Whips. [Interjections.] What I wish to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I hope we will have a straight answer from him and not just the sort of casual and evasive approach that we had in the Second Reading, is this. What precisely does he intend achieving by the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay? Is the effect of the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay that the Deputy Minister will be in a position to declare some land within these areas mentioned as being specifically excluded from the definition of agricultural land—will he now be able to declare some of these areas to be agricultural land despite the initial exception? Is that the intention? I get no reply from the Deputy Minister.

Do you want to have a running commentary all the time? I will reply later.

It is a simple question. He apparently cannot give a simple answer now to that simple question, so I will leave it and wait for him to reply. But if that is the intention, then we can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that we will be very firmly opposed to that amendment, because it is quite unreasonable to start by excluding from the definition of agricultural land, land situated in these local authority areas and then to proceed to give the Deputy Minister a sort of blanket power to re-declare some parts of these areas to be agricultural land. There is no justification for such a provision. We will certainly be very much opposed to this. I suggest that a lot of the local authorities will be opposed to this and so will the provinces who control these local authorities. It means that the local authorities can never be secure in the knowledge that the area which has been declared to be under their jurisdiction is going to remain. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in terms of that amendment, will be able to exclude from local authority areas, any land which he now thinks should, despite the fact that it falls within a local authority, be regarded as agricultural land.

I want to deal with another aspect of this clause, namely paragraph (f). As the Act stands at the moment and as it was passed only two years ago at the request of this Deputy Minister, land zoned for any particular purpose under a town planning scheme which is in force in terms of any law, is excluded from the definition of agricultural land. That surely is a sensible and reasonable approach.

I have changed my mind.

I am interested to hear why the hon. the Deputy Minister has changed his mind. Since he did not tell us during the Second Reading debate why he has changed his mind, I hope he will tell us now where we are dealing with a specific clause …

I have told you three times.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says he has told us. Let us see what he told us in the Second Reading debate. This is what he said—

Well, that is an obvious statement to make which the hon. the Deputy Minister should have known when he introduced the Bill in this form. Of course most town planning schemes are within the area of jurisdiction of local authorities. He then went on to say—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave expressed his concern about powers being adopted here in terms of this envisaged legislation that he regards as undesirable. He says it is the task of the provincial administrations to do the planning because they have the necessary knowledge. That is specifically what is being envisaged. The hon. member’s point of departure is altogether wrong. Provincial administrations do not have authority over this land. Their authority is limited to 25 morgen and no more. In terms of the envisaged legislation an extension of powers will be granted to them with the necessary permission. That is the most important task being entrusted to them. Here their powers are being extended. Then there is something else the hon. member is concerned about, i.e. that local authorities, with a view to future planning, will be uncertain whether they may use particular land.

Then the hon. member for Albany objected to the restrictions on available land and to the fact that thousands of morgen of agricultural land are being taken for future industrial development. The fact that the land that must be taken in future must be covered by proper planning, serves as a further proof of how important this envisaged legislation is. In this legislation provision is being made for proper planning, and when municipalities want to extend their boundaries, they must obtain permission to do so where this involves agricultural land. Clause 1 (f) creates the opportunity for the envisaged steering committees to establish timely planning for our urban areas. I do not think hon. members have read the legislation properly, because this legislation chiefly envisages the establishment of timely planning, and when a municipality wants to extend its area it must obtain permission to do so. Then every person knows what land is going to be included. None of the provincial councils have these powers, and in that respect the hon. member for Musgrave is altogether wrong. The provincial administrations have not had the powers to do this in the past and they could only grant approval to developments of up to 25 morgen. Through this legislation the provincial administrations can obtain permission to include that area in the planning if they contemplate certain areas for future development. Then the hon. member for Newton Park objected to the use of land …

I have not spoken yet.

You spoke the other day.

That was in my Second Reading speech.

The whole reason why the hon. members object is that they are opposed to control being exercised over the subdivision of land. We know they oppose the principal Act and now the idea is that they must also oppose this legislation, because here more powers are being adopted to prevent the cutting up of land. It is important that we take steps to prevent this cutting up of land and that there is proper planning to allow future development to take place on an orderly basis. The phenomenon of small land ownership around our urban areas is one of the greatest of evils. It should have been prevented years ago. Unfortunately the legislation only came along at a later stage, but this small land ownership is probably one of the major causes of the impoverishment of many people round the urban areas and elsewhere. This was the largest contributing factor towards making conditions difficult for these people in the past. Even the sympathetic aid on the part of the Government in the past was only aimed at delaying the evil day further. It is impossible for a person who is farming on an uneconomic piece of land to make a living, and that is why I think that the United Party’s standpoint, i.e. to oppose this legislation that prevents the cutting up of land, is very foolish.

Mr. Chairman …

Just before I call upon the hon. member for Newton Park to speak, I want to point out that hon. members are inclined to continue the Second Reading debate here. Here we are in point of fact dealing with this specific clause only, and I shall be glad if hon. members confine themselves to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, completely missed the hon. member for Musgrave’s point. He did so for the simple reason that the hon. member for False Bay came along with an amendment that now wants to include agricultural land that fell under a village management board’s area and was excluded. In other words it has nothing to do with those smallholdings that circle the town beyond the urban limits. We know it relates to this legislation, but not to this specific clause. Clause 1 has to do with that…

The hon. member himself must not go too far either.

No, Mr. Chairman, I shall not go too far. The hon. member for False Bay referred in particular to Paarl.

As an example.

As an example. My point is specifically that Paarl is not the only example of agricultural land in an urban area. In all the south-western districts one has it. Bonnievale, Swellendam, Calitzdorp, Ladismith, Montagu and dozens of other places have agricultural land within the urban area. Now the hon. member wants to prevent those people from perhaps dividing up their land for a purpose other than agriculture. I think this is a totally wrong principle, because those pieces of agricultural land within urban areas, are already small pieces of land. They are usually not big, with the exception of Paarl where a very large piece of land, of 15 or 20 morgen or more, could perhaps be obtained in the town, but in the majority of small rural towns those agricultural smallholdings are small pieces of land. However, people still try to supplement their incomes from that land. Frequently one finds that people are completely bona fide farmers on those pieces of land.

We are not going to take that away.

No. The hon. gentleman wants to protect those people. That is the reason why he is moving this amendment. After all, he says that the reason why he is moving it is that he wants to protect these people. I now say that this is wrong, because the municipality of that specific town is already under the impression that when it is perhaps necessary to develop it will have that land at its disposal for urban development. Now the hon. the Minister, if he accepts this amendment, wants to prevent something of this nature. It might happen that as a result of industrial development round, such a rural town there are a large number of newcomers. Because the hon. the Minister can say that this land may not be used because it is good agricultural land, he will be able to restrict any development in a direction other than that of agriculture. I now want to state my objection to this. Previously it was provided by law that that land would be excluded from the provisions in the legislation we are now discussing. In other words, the hon. gentleman originally thought he did not want the power to interfere even with agricultural land lying in such an urban area.

What has now made him change his mind?

Yes, that is one of the foremost points. What has happened since that legislation was passed that the hon. the Minister must now obtain the authority to prevent the subdivision of this land while those powers were vested in the provinces? If one wants to subdivide land into areas smaller than 25 morgen, one had to have the approval of the provincial administrations to date. In other words, there was already a form of control. But I believe that when such an application for subdivision is made to the province, it will immediately take the difficulties of new development into consideration and that permission for that development will be granted. But if I have a five morgen erf in Montagu that is planted with grapes, why must the hon. the Minister be able to tell me that I may not subdivide it if Montagu is perhaps to become an industrial area in the course of time? I believe that the majority of farmers, even these small farmers in a town —and there are not many of them after all —will not like this kind of legislation.

But forget about that steering committee now.

Since the hon. member for False Bay is so serious now about this question of Paarl, why did the hon. member for Paarl not propose it? Why did the hon. member for Paarl not come forward with the amendment? He is not even here today. [Interjections.] He could not be here today. One would have expected the hon. member for Paarl to have moved that amendment. If he was deeply convinced of the necessity of ac cording the hon. the Minister of Agriculture these powers, he would surely have placed the amendment on the Order Paper.

I should never like to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In clause 1 certain words are being deleted, and the justification for the amendment I am moving on behalf of this side of the House is that we originally lodged an objection with the Minister, when the Bill was submitted for the first time, to the effect that certain government departments will be excluded and that they can subdivide at will, while it is expected of the individual farmer first to obtain the approval of the hon. the Minister. This Bill also makes provision for applying these provisions to South-West Africa; in other words, if the administration wants to subdivide land there, there is no provision of this measure that will be applicable to them. Whether this is economical or uneconomical, the hon. the Minister is giving them that power. What justification is there for involving the private land-owner more and more in the provisions of this legislation, as the hon. member for False Bay’s amendment also indicates, while the hon. gentleman is not prepared to also include Government bodies in the provisions of this measure. I cannot see that there is any justification for this at all. Yet it would have given the appearance of fairness if other Government departments, whether it be the Department of Land Tenure or whatever, were made subject to the provisions, and this also applies to Government administrations, for example in South-West Africa, while now only the private individual, the owner of the land and the farmer are being affected by the provisions of this legislation. We are of the opinion that the words “land zoned for any particular purpose under a town-planning scheme which is in force in terms of any law” of paragraph (f) of the definition of “agricultural land” in section 1 of the principal Act, which is now being deleted by this clause, should remain, because we really cannot see why the hon. the Minister wants to delete this portion. We are also prepared to allocate the words, which the hon. the Minister wants to add to the relevant paragraph, to a new paragraph (g). As far as the Provincial Administration in South-West Africa is concerned, we feel that they must also be included in the provisions of the Bill, and that this should not only relate to private individuals.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back to what the hon. member for Musgrave said. Apparently the hon. member has problems in connection with understanding the amendment in its context. It is possible to explain to him what is contained in the amendment, but it is unfortunately impossible to give him the comprehension with which to understand it; but this side of the House does not actually have much to do with that. He spoke of Natal, which controls the sub-division of land effectively, but in reply to that he will surely allow me to quote what the Leader of his party said in the Cape Provincial Council. In passing I can just mention that the Cape Provincial Council or rather Administration requested the amendment that I moved. He said in the Provincial Council, (Hansard of 1969, vol. 52, col. 160): “We in the Cape are better governed than in any other province”, also Natal. What is the gist of the matter? The gist of the matter is that we are dealing with a definition and that this must be traced back to the particular object the legislation envisages.

What is the date of the quotation?

1969, Vol. 52. This definition, as it now stands, and traced back to the amendment I am moving, includes certain land for control and in (f) excludes other land from control. The included and the excluded parts are related to a specific norm. The norm that is being laid down in this legislation and which falls within the powers of the department and the hon. the Deputy Minister, relates to the control of agricultural land for agricultural-economic purposes. We can now try, as hon. members opposite did, to make a debating point of this, but the fact surely remains that the hon. member for Newton Park’s suggestion is untrue, that when the area is included within the urban area, there is now an absolute and static prohibition and restriction on the sub-division of land. We surely do not live in static circumstances.

What do you want to do then?

The fact is that in terms of existing legislation urban local authorities can extend their boundaries. For what purpose? Because new circumstances lay down new requirements in respect of town planning for residential purposes. They lay down new requirements in respect of the extension of boundaries for industrial development purposes. In other words, we shall surely be exercising control over land ad infinitum from various angles and with various objectives according to the changes in the needs of society. When the hon. the Minister has drawn up his guide plan in terms of this legislation and proclaimed certain areas for agricultural purposes, as he foresees himself doing in paragraph (f), along comes an alternate control authority who must judge that released area according to the requirements for which it is responsible and in accordance with its powers. The opposite is surely also true. This amendment and the legislation itself allocate powers that must be implemented by the hon. the Minister in consultation with other bodies. The amendment states that if he wants to include urban agricultural land in the Act, he shall not do so dictatorially. He shall do so in co-operation with the executive committee of the province in which the land is situated. The province in turn makes its recommendations in consultation with the local authorities under it.

We are not complaining about paragraph (f).

I am not speaking about paragraph (f); I am speaking about the amendment. The amendment provides that the Minister can declare certain land within an urban area for agricultural purposes in consultation with the executive committee of a province.

It has nothing to do with the farmers of Paarl.

The hon. member must please not interrupt me now. He can control the sub-division of the land within urban local areas when the norm applied is an agricultural norm. But now the hon. member for Newton Park comes along with a mere generalization and states that the small farms in Bonnievale and the South Western Districts cannot be obtained by municipalities that need the land for urban development as a result of the arbitrary actions of the Minister in terms of the powers the legislation now gives him …

No, within the town.

I am speaking of the area within the town The municipalities will then not be able to obtain this within the urban areas for housing purposes But, Sir, that is surely not true The local authority can surely expropriate land within the town for housing purposes. Why must the hon member—and I ask this in all reasonableness—read things into the legislation, as printed, and into the amendments, that are not there? That hon member for Newton Park …

May I ask a question? If his amendment is accepted, will a farmer in the Paarl urban area be able to sub-divide his land without the permission of this Minister?

The answer to that is: “Yes, he can”, unless the Minister, in consultation with the executive committee of the Cape Provincial Administration, has proclaimed specific agricultural land in Paarl or in any other urban local area, as agricultural land in terms of the Act.

No, he cannot.

Sir, I cannot give the hon. member for Albany the intelligence to understand this; I was not there when his intelligence was given to him. In terms of existing legislation, a local authority at the moment surely has the right, in respect of land within its area of jurisdiction, to determine the use of land and to zone it. With that right the local authority surely also has the right to affect the rights of individual owners. It is surely a principle, Sir, that when one exercises rights and when one serves general interests, the individual’s rights may be affected for the sake of over-all interests. The function of the urban local authority and the provincial administration is not agricultural in nature, and the norms they apply cannot be applied according to agricultural considerations. They can only apply them in accordance with the powers granted to them by way of legislation. Now I cannot understand why the hon. member for Newton Park, who is actually their speaker on agricultural matters, and who probably shares with us this general concern for the preservation of our agricultural land, is now adopting this standpoint.

I have enough faith in the farmers.

The hon. member says he has enough faith in the farmers, but why did they draw up an Act in 1944 prohibiting the farmer from dividing up his land into units smaller than 25 morgen? Did they not then have confidence in the farmers? Sir, the hon. member must not make such childish remarks. They do not suit him—or perhaps they do.

Sir, I want to reiterate that the land is being included according to the amendment because there is another norm that must be applied in forming a judgment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for False Bay, who has just resumed his seat, has frequently in this House and on numerous occasions quoted from the Niemand Commission’s report, as an authoritative work. I want to say to him now that if he wants to have an answer as to the problems which exist in various provinces, he will find them in the Niemand Commission’s report.

I did not quote that.

No, not today, but you have quoted it frequently.

I have never quoted it.

Well, Sir, then I shall quote it for the hon. member’s edification. This is a finding in the Niemand Commission report—

Sir, that is the very issue which was raised as a result of the amendment by the hon. member for Newton Park, which was aimed at the retention of paragraph (f), namely that any land which is subject to an approved town planning scheme, should not be regarded as agricultural land. The hon. member for False Bay will know that every municipality is obliged to provide a town planning scheme within that municipality and that his Paarl case will be covered by the town planning scheme of the municipality. But he does not want to leave it there. He wants the Minister of Agriculture to come in and say what must be done with regard to the development of that town. Sir, I am very glad the hon. the Minister of Housing is here. The Minister of Housing is sitting here with an enormous problem with regard to the provision of housing. He gave us certain figures recently in this House to indicate what the problem is. He indicated to us that there are something like 80 000 families on waiting-lists for housing—Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics—under the Group Areas Act. The hon. the Minister himself at this very moment has announced that there is to be a symposium on high density housing. Sir, this is all to deal with the urban development which is taking place. Where there is land within an urban area, the hon. member for False Bay wants to give this Minister the right to say, that it will not be available for housing even if the owner of that property wants to make it available for housing.

If it is good agricultural land.

I hope the hon. member for False Bay is not going to lead the hon. the Deputy Minister along this wrong road. Sir, the whole problem that we have is the movement of people from the rural areas into the urban areas and their housing, and if that is so, then surely we must look at what was found, for instance, by the Niemand Commission. The report of the Niemand Commission, dealing with the requirements within the urban areas and dealing with land of the nature to which the hon. member for False Bay has referred, had this to say, and I quote from page 29 of the report—

Sir, the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay is to put this exactly in reverse …

That is not true.

… and say that because there is an agricultural unit within a municipal boundary, it may not be used, or the Minister may prohibit its use for housing purposes.

That is not so.

It is so.

What is the purpose of his amendment then?

The hon. member has stated in his amendment—it is quite clear—that the Minister can determine that certain land within a municipal area is in fact agricultural land; in other words, it cannot be divided without the approval of the Minister of Agriculture. He has said it may be designated as agricultural land even though it is within a municipal area. I take it that that is correct. Land within a municipal area can be designated as agricultural land.

Yes.

And if it is designated as agricultural land, then it cannot be subdivided …

That is not correct either.

It cannot be subdivided without the approval of the Minister of Agriculture.

That is correct.

What is the hon. member doing?

What is the purpose then?

Why is he setting the clock backwards? Because he knows that in every urban area in South Africa there is a growing need for housing. It is this very fact and this attitude of the hon. member for False Bay—I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to be misled by his colleague—which is the cause of the revulsion of the voter against the attitude of that Government towards the interests of the ordinary man. That is what is happening, but they do not see it. Sir, we are trying to help hon. members opposite. For heaven’s sake, let us give the hon. the Minister of Housing an opportunity at least to achieve something in regard to housing; let us not have his own colleagues putting stumbling blocks in his way.

I would rather do without your help.

For those reasons I believe that the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay is a retrogressive amendment; it is unnecessary; it is not required in legislation of this sort. We should be looking forward to providing more land for housing, not less land for housing, within the municipal areas. Secondly, Sir, when one realizes the time, the money and the energy and the man hours that have been spent in devising the town planning schemes of our major municipalities and local authorities, it would be a waste of time, a waste of energy and a waste of that money if the hon. the Minister can override those town planning schemes in directing how land should be used. I believe the hon. member for Newton Park is quite correct. Put subclause (f) back into the Bill; let it stand there so that town planning schemes can be carried out where they have been approved according to existing laws.

Sir, there is one major point which hon. members of the Opposition do not see correctly. They say: “Two years ago you passed this Act; why are you now coming forward with amendments?” It often happens that you find, when you are implementing a law, that there are difficulties and that adjustments have to be made. As far as the amendment by the hon. member for False Bay is concerned, I want to say that I am grateful to him for that amendment. The hon. member for Green Point must not tell me that that hon. member is leading me astray; I am not that blind. But I shall definitely not allow myself to be led by the Opposition and by the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park. What happened in practice when we were implementing this Act? The hon. member for False Bay mentioned his experience in Paarl. We may just as well take places like Krugersdorp and Kempton Park; everywhere there is land which is excluded under this Act because it is economic agricultural land. From Krugersdorp up to the Hartebeestpoort Dam and across to Pretoria and round to the other side of Babsfontein and back again to the Johannesburg area, there is a need for the subdivision of agricultural land. The Act gives us the right to control agricultural land, but if there is a need for land which has already been subdivided—some pieces of land are 100 morgen in extent—then we no longer have control over that land, and the Provinces have said that if that land is subdivided into 50-morgen smallholdings, they have no control over it. I stated emphatically in the Second Reading debate that we do not want all these unsatisfactory conditions around our cities as we already have. We want development to take place in an orderly manner. Sir, the hon. member for False Bay knows more about local authority matters than any hon. member on that side; he was an M.E.C. He has the necessary practical experience.

I come now to the hon. member for Albany. The hon. member referred to farms which pay double taxes—divisional council tax and municipal rates. Sir, I ask the hon. member to take a look at clause 3 (f). What is the intention of clause 3 (f)? The intention is that no municipality can, to its heart’s content, extend its boundaries for purposes of taxation. We are aware that some farms are paying double taxes. The hon. member for Ermelo told us about a practical problem which he is experiencing; that problem relates to peri-urban health boards. There is no co-ordination in the Transvaal as far as these things are concerned; they can subdivide land as they wish.

I come then to the hon. member for Musgrave. Sir, I do not know why the hon. member for Musgrave wants to insult me in such a Cassandra-like way by saying that I went through the Second Reading too rapidly and that I only touched upon the Bill here and there. Must I today repeat for his edification everything the hon. members for False Bay, Ermelo and Bloemfontein District said? After all, I said that I agree with those hon. members, but should we not endeavour to achieve efficiency? The hon. member repeated one point three times in his speech, and I certainly do not want to suffer from the same ailment. The hon. member was almost insulting, and I say that he achieves nothing by that. I can just say, in passing, that I am disappointed. The other day the shadow cabinet of the Opposition appeared in the Argus, but I did not see his name there, and he will never get there either if this is the way he conducts himself. I explained to him in the Second Reading why this amendment is here, because this is the way this works in practice. He asked whether land which has been excluded is now being included again. That is correct. What was previously excluded is now being included. The hon. member for Newton Park said that newcomers who wanted to live around the municipal area and wanted to subdivide …

Within.

But he realizes that there can be an uneconomic unit of 100 morgen within the municipal area. I am not talking about Paarl, for in Paarl there are people who have an economic unit of 10 morgen under vines. But there are some municipal areas where a person has 100 morgen which is completely uneconomic, for example in a dry country area without any irrigation. Now he can subdivide this land into 50-morgen plots and want control over that if the municipality with the Guide Plans Committee, in consultation with the province, states that they want to subdivide this land in a certain way.

Why cannot it be subdivided if it is uneconomic? Why do you then want control over it?

Are you in favour of his subdividing it into one, two and three morgen plots? The provinces come to us and say that this is in fact a method used by these people to avoid paying municipal rates.

But that is in the township.

I repeat what I have already said three times, even if this is in the township, he has the right to subdivide it into one-morgen plots, and there are no sewerage facilities or any order in this whole matter. Why not incorporate it, as the hon. member for False Bay has requested? Now the hon. member has asked why certain State departments are being excluded. Now I have to repeat this. I said this legislation does not apply to Bantu, Coloured or Rehoboth land. I stated expressly that this is the case because they have a different system to ours; they have a system of chiefs, and it is their own land, and our department does not want to exercise control over the work of Bantu Administration and Development. This is the third time I have said this now.

But they can subdivide?

That you must discuss with that hon. Minister. They have a completely different system—a system of chiefs, etc. The hon. member said he had confidence in the farmer, that the farmer would not subdivide, but I think the hon. member has far more confidence in the land speculators in our country than in the farmers, for I have stated repeatedly that the municipalities and the provinces tell us that they do not have the machinery which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has to determine what constitutes an economic unit. He asks why the municipalities cannot determine this. But here there is a department with highly trained technicians who are determining this, and both the provinces and the municipalities are requesting us to help them with that staff.

I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that he should not in any way insinuate that the hon. the Minister of Community Development had said there were 80 000 people waiting for houses, and that this matter would delay everything. It is not in any way our intention to cause a delay in the establishment of housing amenities with this legislation. We will go out of our way to facilitate matters as much as possible when townships are being established, because we realize that the prices of plots are going up, and the fewer delays, the better. The department of the hon. the Minister and the hon. Minister himself have also told us that when it comes to the establishment of townships we must do so as quickly as possible. So do not create the idea that we want to put machinery into operation here which will delay the establishment of townships, etc. That is not the intention. But if only you can get one thing into your head. This matter is not concerned solely with the areas around the towns. The legislation as a whole deals with subdivision in an orderly and correct manner in a fine country, because we know that we must find 50 million people a place to stay within the next 30 years. We are not so stupid as to say that this is agricultural land, and that it will always remain agricultural land. We do have the intelligence to know—something the hon. member for Newton Park cannot realize—that if you have wonderful loamy soil near Stellenbosch, which is among the best vineyard soil in the world, and right next door to this farm you have a rocky outcrop on which nothing can be produced, and if the farmers themselves are asking: Protect this jewel of ours which can result in agricultural production, and establish the town on the unproductive sandy soil or on the rocky outcrops, then we say we are no longer considering the money individuals are able to make; we are considering posterity. That is why we have a clear conscience as far as this Bill is concerned.

Mr. Cahirman, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s closing remarks were the most eloquent that could be said to support our view that the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay should not be accepted and that the hon. member for Newton Park’s amendment should be accepted. I see that the hon. member for False Bay is waving his hand. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is really concerned with not imposing any hindrance on the provision of housing, why then must he accept the amendment to the section as it now stands in the Act? The Act as it now stands excludes property which is within municipal or local board areas, or very broadly, local authority areas. There are two amendments: the one which is in the draft of the Bill before us, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for False Bay, aimed at extending the net with regard to what is agricultural land so as to cover, in certain circumstances, land which is within a municipal area. What astounds me is that the hon. member for False Bay—I do hope he will respond to this—who has had experience in the provincial administration with the establishment of township, town planning, etc., can believe that these two amendments namely the deletion of section 1 (f) and the extension of the powers over land which is agricultural land within a municipal boundary, are not going to inhibit the development of townships to provide housing within municipal areas.

I shall reply to that.

This is bound to create one more obstacle. Obstacles already exist for anybody who wishes to establish a township or subdivided estate for housing. There are enough authorities he must go to already. Now there is another added, namely the Minister of Agriculture, who is not primarily concerned with housing of the urban population, but with the agricultural prosperity of the country and assistance to the farmers.

I want to mention some figures which are material and relevant here. I have said before and I want to repeat that the Government is putting the clock back by introducing this. I say this for a reason. According to a report in the Volkshandel a year ago:

If that is the growth of our urban population, surely it cannot be contradicted that more and more land is required for housing in the urban complexes. If more and more land is required, surely one does not want to introduce on to our Statute Book legislation which can—I shall not put it any stronger—withdraw from those local authority areas land which could otherwise be used for housing. This situation concerns me, because I know the problems the hon. the Minister of Community Development and his department have. They have untold problems. One of the greatest problems, which was found by his commission and reflected in his own statements, is the uncertainty experienced by persons who wished to establish townships for residential purposes. They do not know when they are going to get the authority, or how long it is going to take. With the interest rates as they are at present, every month of delay in the approval and the making available of land for housing purposes pushes up the price of the erf concerned. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister really conceive any circumstances even in Paarl itself, or in any of the other towns that he has mentioned, where the land which is within the town itself is not more likely to be required for individual housing purposes? There is a demand, an insatiable demand, in every urban area for more land for housing purpose. By all means, let the hon. the Minister take these powers—and he has them under the present Act—to deal with agricultural land which is agricultural land at the moment and not land which has already been enveloped in a municipal area. It has already been enveloped in the process of time. Surely that is land, that is property, which should be excluded. This is not a matter of attempting to put hindrances in the way of the hon. the Minister, because if a man knows that he is in a municipal area and if the municipality has approved of a town planning scheme, this land of his can be used for residential purposes and he can go ahead and subdivide the land into plots available for housing purposes. By the amendments which are proposed to this clause, we shall introduce two further hindrances and stumbling blocks—“struikelblokke”—which will cause persons to hesitate in the investment of money in housing projects. It will cause them to hesitate because they will now have another authority to go to. Within a municipal or local area there is another authority to go to for the establishment of housing. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give this serious consideration. I have not heard of any argument which, in the realities of today’s growth and the realities of today’s population movement into the cities justify one to say that any city, that any municipality is likely to be able to give up land rather than to acquire more land within its boundaries to house the people who are moving into the cities. I want to make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to accept the amendments which have been moved by the hon. member for False Bay. I would appeal to him not to proceed with the deletion of the existing subsection (1) (f) as it stands in the law at the present moment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the hon. the Deputy Minister really appreciates the problems that he is creating. Therefore I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is in the House. I hope he will pay attention to this debate and perhaps discuss this matter again with the hon. the Deputy Minister before this Bill goes to the Other Place, because it is obvious that we are unlikely to have any success with the hon. the Deputy Minister in this Committee. I would like to develop the argument which has been presented to this Committee a moment ago by the hon. member for Green Point. Land which is already in a local authority area is obviously land which is intended for future residential development or perhaps future industrial development. However it is, above all, not intended for future agricultural activities. It may continue to be used for agricultural purposes for a few years to come, depending on the growth of that particular town or city, but the very fact that that land has been incorporated within the area of jurisdiction of the local authority implies necessarily that it is intended, that it is earmarked, for future expansion of that town or city for future residential or industrial development. In those circumstances I cannot see how the hon. the Deputy Minister can justify his interfering. He is now taking the power to be able to take from that local authority area certain portions and declare them to be agricultural land. The hon. the Deputy Minister may think that this is a simple matter. He merely earmarks that particular land within the local authority area as agricultural land and that is the end of the matter. The local authority then knows that that area cannot be dealt with for future expansion and that they must look elsewhere for future expansion. But does the hon. the Deputy Minister realize what that implies? A local authority is obliged to prepare a town planning scheme for its area in which areas are zoned for future residential development, for single residential development, for high-rise development, for industry, for playing fields, for schools, for churches and so forth. That plan is prepared so that it is a co-ordinated whole, so that it is a cohesive whole and so that it is able to be developed in the future in the best interest of that community. If you now extract portions of that plan and say that that particular land which has been prepared for future urban development of one sort or another, is now earmarked for agricultural purposes, in many instances you destroy the plan completely. You then have to start afresh to devise a new town planning scheme for that town. It does not always necessarily mean that that will be the effect. I concede that. But in many cases —and I would go so far as to say in most cases—if a substantial area is declared to be agricultural land, it will mean that that local authority will have to start again and reconsider its whole town planning scheme with a view to establishing whether or not the zoning of that particular land changes the plan to such an extent that they will have to start again. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister realize what position he is placing the local authorities in? Whenever they spend time and money on preparing a town planning scheme, at the back of their minds all the time there is the possibility that this work may be wasted, the time spent may be useless and they may have to start again because of the actions of this Deputy Minister. Does the hon. the Minister of Community Development think that that is a situation which is in the best interests of the future planning of this country? The hon. the Minister of Community Development knows already the problems that not only township developers face but that local authorities face in regard to proper planning for the future of their towns and cities. To have another problem of this sort intervening, will create even greater delays, even greater problems and above all, will be discouraging for local authorities because they will never know whether a plan that they have spent a great deal of time and money on conceiving and preparing will be ruined by this Deputy Minister.

I want to come to another matter which was raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He said that a number of these local authorities are expanding their areas, taking agricultural land just to increase their rates. He made a great point of this. He now nods his head. If there are some instances, I suggest that those are rare and exceptional because a local authority cannot expand its area without the …

They do in the Transvaal.

They cannot expand their area without the approval of the Provincial Executive Committee. If, in fact, in the Transvaal local authorities are expanding indiscriminately, the Deputy Minister must speak to his own Nationalist administrators and the Executive Committee in the Transvaal and get them to do their job properly. It is nonsense to suggest that a local authority is going to expand its boundaries indiscriminately just to earn greater rates. Very few local authorities would be so irresponsible, and I again reiterate that if they were to do so irresponsibly, the provincial administration will not allow them to do so. For the hon. the Deputy Minister to suggest this as an argument to justify these amendments is nonsense. The hon. the Deputy Minister completely overlooks the delaying factors that he is introducing. Already the problems of township development are subject to inordinate delays These have been improved since the Niemand Committee’s recommendations are beginning to be put into operation, but there are still long delays The hon. the Minister must not suggest to this Committee that when applications are made to his department, that they are dealt with promptly. They are not dealt with promptly and there are long delays, in the same way as other applications that are made to the Department of Planning for example Not only are there long delays, but his department, because he has no knowledge of what is involved, is imposing ridiculous conditions I will put one to him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister is a very nice chap, and I am quite sure that he is motivated by very high principles. He has, however, come to this House with the wrong legislation and is also very badly informed on the Cape Province. In reply to what I said about the double load of fixed property taxation in Paarl, he referred me to the new section 3 (f) added to clause 3, which reads as follows: “No area of jurisdiction, local area, public health area, peri-urban area or other area referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of ‘agricultural land’ in section 1 shall be established on, or enlarged so as to include, any land which is agricultural land, unless the Minister has consented in writing to the subdivision, vesting, registration, sale, offer, advertisement, establishment or enlargement concerned.” Now what has this to do with the specific farms that we were talking about in Paarl which are being affected by the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay? Those farms are already within the municipal area and are already paying municipal tax and divisional council tax. How can the hon. the Deputy Minister then tell me that the new section 3 (f) is going to help them in any way whatsoever? If he is going to accept this amendment he must guarantee to those farmers and to this Committee that they will have sufficient deductions on fixed property tax to bring them into line with farmers outside the municipal area. If necessary, he will have to subsidize the municipality or divisional council for their loss in revenue. I believe that this is absolutely necessary. You cannot make fish of the one and fowl of the other.

I now come to a further point in connection with this amendment. This amendment has an absolutely opposite effect to what the hon. the Deputy Minister says he has in mind in this legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that he is trying to prevent subdivision in order to encourage consolidation. I believe that is correct and that is what he is trying to do, but what will he be doing if he accepts this amendment of the hon. member for False Bay?

All he will be doing then is to force farmers to remain on the land whether their properties remain economic or not. This is far more restrictive than any other part of this legislation that he is trying to force upon these people. He deprives them of their right of freehold, because if the Minister declares this land to be agricultural land in terms of this Bill they will still be in a municipal area because they cannot get out of it. There they will sit, with the town around them, with their houses in the main street, unless the hon. the Deputy Minister gives the guarantee I mentioned earlier, namely that he should give a balancing of taxation to these people. It must be done. You cannot expect one farmer to pay an excess of fixed property tax.

The hon. member for False Bay said that the Cape Provincial Council welcomed his amendment.

The Administration.

Yes, I believe it was welcomed by the Hon. M.E.C. in charge of local government, Mr. Frans Conradie, M.P.C. Now, if he is so keen on preserving these farms, why does the Cape Administration not purchase those farms at an economic price and retain them as a living agricultural museum? Perhaps they will be able to make a little bit of profit out of it.

Nonsense.

No, that is not nonsense. Why must they inconvenience the individual farmer in Paarl because they want to keep a monument? I believe they want to preserve the beauty of those farms. They are beautiful, but it is a nonsensical idea to force certain people to do things simply because certain people in authority would like to preserve the beauty of the farms. I also believe that we should try to preserve the beauty, but for heaven’s sake, let the individual know what he is doing. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the case of Stellenbosch, but it was at the request of the Stellenbosch people that it was done. Surely, the farmers of Paarl can do the same. The Stellenbosch farmers asked that the agricultural land be preserved. I believe that this is the way it should work. Let us not work from up above; let us not restrict people.

There is another point. Many towns in this country have huge commonages which are municipal areas. Now the Minister, in terms of this amendment, will have the right to declare all those commonages agricultural land. He can, for instance, declare the 3 000 morgen of commonage in Bathurst, to be agricultural land.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether he knows how many farms are situated within the Paarl urban area of jurisdiction alone.

It does not matter how many there are, whether there are 10 or 100; it is the principle I am talking about. The owners of those farms have a right to their property, just as any other farmer. What will the norm be now? Suppose the Minister declares those farms to be agricultural land. If it is subdivided, what is the norm going to be? Is it going to be that R4 000 story again, that there must be an economic income of R4 000? There is no argument for that R4 000 story, because the progressive, economic farmer will never show a R4 000 profit on his balance-sheet. He ploughs that money back into his farm and he shows a small profit. Some of them show a loss year after year. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that himself. He is a big farmer, and he probably does it himself; he develops his farm. How are you going to apply that norm of R4 000? How are you going to know whether or not that farm is economic? No, Sir, I reject this amendment of the hon. member for False Bay completely.

Mr. Chairman, when I last rose to speak, I made the point that the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department were causing delays and I reiterate it now. But apart from it, they are imposing conditions which are unreasonable, clearly because they are inexperienced in the field of township development and they do not appreciate what is involved. This is the only explanation that can be given for the sort of conditions imposed in this particular instance. I quote—

1. 1. (a) the subdivisional diagram for the portion of Farm … measuring approximately … hectare, which represents the outside figure of the proposed township may only be approved by the Surveyor-General after the Administrator—
   1. (i) has granted permission in writing for the establishment of a township …

That is perfectly all right, but then it goes on—

1. (ii) has issued conditions of establishment.

Anyone who has had any experience at all of township development will know that there are a great many steps that can be taken before the issue of conditions of establishment, to reduce the delay. One of the normal steps that are taken before the issue of conditions of establishment is to obtain the Surveyor-General’s approval of the subdivisional diagrams. Whereas this is the normal procedure, because of this condition imposed by the Deputy Minister’s department, it cannot be done. It means that the delay up to the stage of the issue of conditions of establishment is even greater, because the applicant can only lodge his survey diagram for approval by the Surveyor-General after the conditions of establishment have been issued. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to look into this matter and to discuss the conditions that are being imposed with, possibly, provincial administrations, who know a lot more about the matter than the Department of Agriculture, which has only just started to become involved. His department is creating more and more frustration, delays and annoyance to people who legitimately wish to subdivide their properties for one reason or another, and especially to those who wish to subdivide for the purpose of township development.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that the hon. member for Albany amazes me. The hon. member says that these people have freehold title. Apparently he suggests that there should be no control whatsoever over the property where the person possesses it in terms of a freehold title. What really upsets me is the fact that the hon. member for Green Point charges me with having quoted from the Niemand Report, which I did not do. But I want to go further. The hon. member’s standpoint is that the legislation and the amendment which I moved would militate against the interests of the township developer, with prejudicial effects to the housing situation as it exists at present. That is the core of the argument put forward by the hon. member. Other hon. members repeated his argument on the same point in other respects. Sir, what are the facts? The fact of the matter is that land can be utilized for various purposes, regardless of whether it is situated in an urban or rural management area. I think hon. members agree with me on this.

I think there is a second matter in regard to which hon. members on the opposite side agree with me. This is that in respect of the utilization of land there should be some or other form of control. I think the hon. member for Green Point agrees with me on this. Town planning is only another form of control over the utilization of land. As soon as hon. members accept the principle that land is from time to time required for various purposes, this presupposes that the authorities to whom certain powers have been entrusted will make proper arrangements for the rights owners have in respect of the use of that land. Surely the hon. member for Albany is completely out of step when he advocates absolute freedom of the rights owners have in regard to the use of their land. Surely this does not happen anywhere, except as advocated by people with a laissez faire attitude, such as that hon. member, who became an exponent of that this afternoon. I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that I personally reject the attempt he made to play off the needs of the town dwellers in respect of housing against the needs of our agricultural industry. [Interjection.] Yes, that is what the hon. member is doing.

But it is a fact.

Sir, the hon. member would do well not to speak on the basis of the limited knowledge he has. The fact of the matter is that there are urban local authorities along the Orange River with thousands of morgen of commonage which have not been zoned for any purpose in terms of any town planning scheme. Ask the hon. members for Colesberg, De Aar and Vryburg whether this is correct.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member for Greenpoint must not make of this a peg on which to hang an idea which does not exist. I said, when I gave notice of my amendment, that there were lands within the areas of urban local authorities which were being utilized for agricultural purposes, and should be so utilized, but that this should not be a static situation. Why are hon. members on the opposite side not prepared to admit that there are different needs for people which have to be accomodated within a planning situation, of which housing requirements are one, of which industrial development is another, and of which recreation is a third, and of which agricultural development a fourth? We will never make progress with orderly planning, where the necessary evaluation of all these requirements has to take place, if we are not prepared to get away from the idea that all we have to do is score debating points off one another and make a political issue of a matter which is a very serious one. That is all the hon. member wants to do. The hon. member for Musgrave is a know-all and he stated here in bombastic language that all urban areas had been planned. Sir, surely not all urban areas have been planned. I do not know in what century the hon. member is living. Do you know, Sir, that in the Cape with its extensive areas, there is essential planning of towns—that is true. But within its own area of jurisdiction there are large tracts which do not form part of its planning scheme and which have not been zoned at all for any specific purpose. The point I want to emphasize, in reply to what that hon. member said, is that within urban areas land has also been zoned for agriculture by the local authority? Is that wrong?

Leave it like that then.

I say there are such areas; I did not say that they are all like this. Does that mean now that they have to zone that land for a specific purpose ad infinitum? The answer is obviously “no”. Then the hon. member for Green Point made the generalization that in every urban area there is an urgent need for plots, and that included townships. But, Sir, it seems as if he is concentrating on Cape Town, for surely that statement is not true.

I want to conclude by saying that I think that this amendment, and the legislation, empowers this department to control and for the purpose for which it is responsible and that it will do this in a responsible way, in conjunction with other organizations which control land for purposes for which they in turn are responsible. This Department will, together with the other departments, draw up guide plans, undertake the evaluation process and establish what interests in a particular area or a particular town are decisive. If there is a need for residential development, that will be the prevailing principle, and if it is agriculture, that in turn will be the prevailing principle. In other words, for the first time we have an opportunity, with this amendment and this legsilation, to acquire, in conjunction with the provincial administrations and local authorities, an orderly plan for the rights in respect of the use of land, in accordance with the needs which will from time to time prevail.

I should like to refer to the remark made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e. that we, in our opposition to this clause, are in fact siding with the land speculators. Sir, we on this side of the House are not siding with the land speculators; we are in the first place siding with the farmers. In the second place, if any person wants to sub-divide his land, he must now go hat in hand to a certain party and say; “Please, may I subdivide my land for this or that purpose?” As the hon. member for Green Point was quite right in saying, there is not only one organization involved in this matter: there are also the provincial administrations, the Minister of Planning, the Minister of Community Development and now the Minister of Agriculture as well. The argument of this side of the House is that in terms of the present legislation in the Statute Book we have the provincial authorities and the local authorities which can deal with this type of thing.

They say they do not have the power.

Sir, is there such a thing as a townships commission?

Yes, but it has nothing to do with agricultural land.

If agricultural land is situated within the area of jurisdiction of a town, who is responsible then if that municipality wants to lay out a new residential area in that town? Surely application has to be made to the provincial authority and the townships commission and if they approve of it, it is allowed. The hon. member is saying now that they do not have the power. Our standpoint is that it is not necessary also for these organizations to have a say in regard to agricultural land which is situated in a township. The farmer must be able to do what he likes with his land. If he wants to set aside a portion of his land for industrial development, for township development or for residential area development within that township, why should the minister have the right to say whether the farmer may do that or not? I could to a certain extent understand this if it was an agricultural area outside the jurisdiction of a municipality, but within a municipal area it is to my mind simply impossible to understand this. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us in his reply that the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are the people who can give the answers in this respect, as if the local authorities do not co-operate today with Agricultural Technical Services. Many of the local authorities have commonages; they lease that land; soil conservation work has to be done on that land, and who does the hon. the Deputy Minister think gives them advice? No one but the local extension officers. The services of the local extension officers are already available to the local authorities. If they think it is good agricultural land and that it should not be used for township development, then there is nothing to stop them going to the local extension officers and asking their advice. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now advanced that as an argument as to why he agrees with the amendment moved by the hon. member for False Bay. I also want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he omits this paragraph (f), as he intends doing—it reads as follows: “Land zoned for any particular purpose under a town planning scheme which is in force in terms of any law”—it means that the hon. gentleman can wipe out any township planning scheme which is already on the drawing board, in respect of which plans are being drawn up, and which is on the verge of being put into effect, if it were to be situated on good agricultural land. He can do this in respect of land in regard to which decisions have already been taken.

Order! That argument has really been used very extensively now.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must give us the justification for his wanting to omit this paragraph (f) from the clause.

Unfortunately I have not heard the whole debate in regard to this clause and if you rule that I am out of order, Sir, I will abide by your ruling as I usually do. But I want to deal with the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay. Unfortunately he is not here, but I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister can handle it without his support. I want to say a few words to the hon. member for False Bay in connection with his amendment, and his defence of this amendment, where he refers to thousands of acres of land which is unzoned in local authority areas. I guess that what he is referring to is the commonage areas of these small townships and villages. I am sorry the hon. member is not here because I would have liked to put this question to him pertinently, but perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can answer the question. Is he asking that the Minister of Agriculture should take control of this land even to the point of putting a farmer on it? Because the object of the Act which is now being amended is to retain land for the purposes of producing food, or for agricultural purposes.

Butter.

Yes, butter included. Is this the intention of the hon. member for False Bay when he moves this amendment? I would like a reply to that question, because if that is so I believe that the local authorities must know what is happening on the Government side in regard to this amendment before it is passed by this house. I am sure that if it is the intention that the hon. the Minister should take control of the land for agricultural purposes, it would also mean, in terms of a further amendment in this Bill, that the Minister could determine the use for the land as well, and is it the Minister’s intention to put farmers on that land to farm it?

But there is another aspect to this amendment as well. The Pietermaritzburg Corporation owns vast areas of land which is under agricultural use at the moment. There are hundreds of acres of timber planted on commonage land which belongs to the Pietermaritzburg Corporation. But that is land which is earmarked and used for extensions to the residential area of Pietermaritzburg as and when required in exactly the same way as the commonage land to which the hon. member for False Bay refers has been set aside for further development of the local authorities concerned, but they need not encroach on the land which the Minister of Agriculture has already taken control of, i.e. genuine farm land. Now, is it the object of this hon. Minister to take over the control of that land from the Pietermaritzburg Corporation? Is it his intention to say to the Pietermaritzburg Corporation that they may do this on that land but they may not do that? All this must be known before this House is asked to approve of this amendment of the hon. member for False Bay.

I want to come also to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park, and this is to introduce this new paragraph (f) which reads “land zoned for any particular purpose under a town planning scheme which is in force in terms of any law”. The effect of the amendment of course is to withdraw land which is the subject of a town planning scheme from the control of this Minister. Now I submit that we already have control of that land through the hon. the Minister of Planning in terms of the Physical Planning Act. But I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister of his words when he introduced the Second Reading debate on this particular Bill, where, in dealing with paragraph (t) he said—

What does he mean by that? He means that he has not been able to take control of those areas which are the subject of a town planning scheme. He is prepared in terms of the further amendment which he moves now to forgo the control of an area which is the subject of a town planning scheme when it falls within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, but what about those which are outside the area of jurisdiction of a local authority? We have a township developing in my constituency at the moment on a piece of land, a farm, which up to four years ago was producing, but which was sub-divided in 1850. In 1850 a town planning scheme for that particular farm was approved. In terms of that town planning scheme, only within the last four years has the development taken place and has the township now developed, providing much-needed homes for the hard-pressed people of Pietermaritzburg, because it is in close proximity to Pietermaritzburg. But if this amendment of the hon. the Minister had been in force and the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park had been rejected, the Minister would have been able to prevent that development. Now, what does he want to stop that kind of development for? Over the years we have had various authorities and bodies which have had control over this subdivision of land and in their wisdom I believe that they have done an excellent job of work. But there are in Natal, at least, many such farms which have been subdivided, at least on paper, if not actually surveyed, to which a town planning scheme applies in terms of the Private Townships Ordinance of Natal, and which is a valid town planning scheme. This hon. Minister is now taking the power to wine out any benefit which a landowner may have in terms of that town planning scheme. Sir, that landowner has gone to considerable expense to obtain approval for the establishment of a private township in terms of the Private Townships Ordinance. He has had not only legal expenses but also surveyors expenses. If this hon. Deputy Minister is now going to take the power to wipe out any approval which a landowner may have in terms of such a town planning scheme, is he prepared to compensate such a landowner for any potential loss that there may be?

But he goes even further. If this hon. Minister is going to take control of all the land outside the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, and even some of the land within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, where are the local authorities going to expand? They can only expand with the approval of this hon. Deputy Minister, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Newton Park, together with a whole host of other Ministers who also have a say in the matter. Who is going to have the final say? The Minister of Community Development has unfortunately left again. I have here a statement which he made to the Press in connection with the commission which he established to go into the high price of residential land. This is a statement on the report of that commission. What is the first item, the very first and the most important item, which the Minister of Community Development puts forward as a recommendation from this commission, which he accepts?—

1. (1) Geordende en gekoördineerde gidsbeplanning in en om die groot stedelike komplekse. Hierdie aanbeveling met sy verreikende implikasies is deurgaans geesdriftig ondersteun.

Here we have the Minister of Community Development accepting that we need these regional plans for development, but this hon. Minister is going to stymie the Minister of Community Development. Why do we need control by Agriculture as well? To me this is incomprehensible. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has quoted from Hansard what I said during the Second Reading. I have already replied to a question in this connection. The hon. member must understand that we have been busy for about 2¼ hours now while he only came in 20 minutes ago. I cannot reply to all those questions again, because that would be a repetition of what I have already said. I want to ask the hon. member to read my Hansard instead, because those very words of mine were quoted by another member. Therefore I have already replied to it.

The Chair would have stopped me if I was repeating an argument. You are trying to run away.

The hon. member also spoke of land in the possession of the Pietermaritzburg City Council on which forestry is practised. Many farmers have land adjoining a municipal area. I have already replied to that as well The hon. member for Green Point spoke of areas which were specifically excluded. I see that the hon. member is not here— then I shall leave it.

The hon. member for Musgrave referred to delays. There is the pilot plan committee under the Department of Planning. The hon. member referred to delays in connection with a series of applications for subdivisions made in the past and said: “I know it is a waste of time.” Let him bring me one case where we did not act promptly. I gave the figures yesterday in connection with applications for subdivisions, appeals received by us and the speed with which it is dealt with when there is an application for subdivision. Most of the applications for subdivision are cases which can go through unaltered where the Surveyor-General has our norm himself and can refer them to us very quickly. I have not encountered delays. The hon. member must just give me an example of how long the delay was in getting through an application for subdivision.

The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Albany, said that I was talking nonsense when I said that the proposed new section 3 (f) would help to ensure that a man was not doubly taxed. The Bill specifically provides: “… shall be established on, or enlarged so as to include, any land which is agricultural land, unless the Minister has consented in writing to this subdivision, vesting, registration, … or enlargement concerned.” I want to give the hon. member a practical example.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

When I have given my example the hon. member may ask his question. I received a letter from a chap called Pieter Knoesen. He said that he was farming next to the town and that he had received a letter from the municipality in which he was informed that the municipality was going to enlarge the town area and include 600 morgen of his farm and that he had the right to object within 14 days. And he did object, but they told him that his objection would not be heard and that that land was going to be incorporated with the town area. Hon. members on that side are so fond of the farmers! This chap then received an account for property tax amounting to R704 from that town council, and this was approved by the province. Now he is paying a double tax. This is prohibited by the proposed new section 3 (f). Pieter Knoesen is getting neither a road, nor sewerage, nor a rubbish-cart; he is getting sweet blow-all to help him. Hon. members say that they want to help the farmers and I have now given a practical example of a man who pays R704 in taxes to help that particular little municipality with additional revenue. That is why we have the proposed section 3(f).

Now I come to a further point of the hon. member for musgrave, namely the permission of the Surveyor-General. That is so. Let me tell the hon. member that the province of Natal was also consulted in this matter. I am being honest when I say that the province of Natal is favourably disposed towards this matter. We corresponded with them in connection with requests for subdivisions. They may not be so hot as M.E.C.s, but I think they have very competent officials. Natal is the garden province of our country and they want to keep it that way. That is why they agree with us in regard to most of these matters. They ask us to see to it that our soil is subdivided in an orderly way.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has missed my point completely. The question which I put to him is why does his department stipulate a condition such as the one which I read out, because the effect of that condition is that there must be delay. No application can be submitted to the Surveyor-General for the approval of the diagrams until the issue of conditions of establishment. The point I made is that that is quite unnecessary and that it causes delay. That is the question that I would like to put to him.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member can bring me one example of a delay …

I have quoted you that one example.

The Surveyor-General has more or less the idea, but he must bring it back to our department which has the experience. The hon. member for Newton Park does not believe me, but the Surveyor-General must bring it back to us. He must find out whether it is an economic unit or not. There might be a delay of two weeks, but I would like to have a definite example and then I will go into the matter.

I just quoted one example.

You must not try to be popular by saying laissez-faire. I told you yesterday that a good Government is a Government which can tell a man “no” or “yes”, and it does not matter if we make an enemy along the way. Our children will thank us one day for not allowing the country to be ruined. The hon. member for Albany must be careful as well. He says we cannot define an economic unit because you will never get a farmer who shows a profit of R4 000, because he is … In other words, the farmer is dishonest because he does not pay income tax. I want to tell the hon. member that I do not want to catch him out; I wish it had been said by another person. I should not like to be at loggerheads with him because he is a decent person. I say that there are many farmers who pay there taxes and now the hon. member for Newton Park says he does not want the farmer to go around asking hat in hand. He says he is on the side of the farmers, but I have repeatedly said that we were asked to introduce this measure by all five agricultural unions, the wool growers association—every body, in fact. The hon. member wants to be popular among the farmers and he wants to follow the policy of laissez-faire. Is the hon. member prepared to grant a Land Bank loan to a man with a small-holding? No, he will not reply to that, but he will allow that land to be subdivided without exercising any control. We say we cannot allow that sort of thing to go on. That hon. member admits himself that you cannot grant a Land Bank loan to a man with 25 morgen.

But you know why the farmers are subdividing.

That is beside the point; we are considering this clause. Be careful, or the Chairman may stop you short again.

Order! I just want to confirm that.

Mr. Chairman, I think this …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member has spoken three times already.

No, only twice. In any case, if I was not allowed to speak, I rise to ask a question. I think the hon. the Minister completely misunderstood my point. He quoted the case of Knoesen in connection with the enlargement of a municipal area. I am now talking about the farms which are already within a municipal area and which can now be declared agricultural land in terms of this legislation. Is the Minister prepared to guarantee that there will be a balancing of their fixed property tax if he declares his land to be agricultural land?

It will be balanced, but as far as this amendment of the hon. member for False Bay is concerned, I am sure that this only applies to three municipal authorities at most. I believe that it will only apply to three municipal authorities in the whole country, but I can give hon. members that undertaking.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. C. Heunis put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the proposed definition of “agricultural land”, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. D. M. Streicher in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) accordingly negatived.

Proposed new paragraph (f) put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. D. M. Streicher accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2:

Sir, the original Act provides that under certain circumstances the Act will not be applicable to Government bodies. In terms of this clause the Act is now made applicable to South-West Africa as well, and that means that any person may subdivide land, without having regard to the provisions of this Act, and hand it over to the Administration of South-West Africa. Sir, it is by no means my intention to repeat arguments that have been advanced before, but I should like to propose, in keeping with what our attitude was in the past, that this clause be rejected because it is our feeling that a Government department should not be excluded from the provisions of this Act.

Order! The hon. member may not propose such an amendment; he may only vote against the clause.

In this case it means, therefore, that an individual who wishes to cut off any portion of his land and make it available to the Administration of South-West Africa, need not be at all concerned about the provisions of this Act. To us it is quite inexplicable why the individual land owner is expected to comply with the provisions of this Act, but when he hands over the land to the Administration of South-West Africa, he is free to subdivide, irrespective of whether this is done in accordance with the requirements laid down by the hon. the Minister. That is why we are opposed to this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3:

This clause provides that before any agricultural land may be subdivided, the Minister has to grant his consent to such subdivision. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister very clearly told us what the three fundamental matters were which are involved in this clause. I should like to mention these three points, and then I want to come back to them and deal with the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. the Minister said, in the first place, that this clause sought to prevent persons from using long-term leases in order to evade the Act and, in the second place, that this section was being introduced in order to prevent the exploitation of the general public, and, in the third place, that he wanted to prevent good agricultural land from being used unnecessarily by township developers. These are the three very clear points which the hon. the Deputy Minister made. But now I have a problem with the hon. member for Newton Park. Whether he has wilfully twisted the words of the hon. the Minister or …

Onder! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I am posing the question as to whether he wilfully twisted the words of the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member may not suggest that at all.

Then I withdraw it. Now, what did the hon. member for Newton Park say? He said that this clause now meant that no farmer could lease any portion of his farm. Sir, surely this is not correct. He said that the Minister now wanted to interfere with what a farmer could earn. He went on to say that the clause was much wider in scope and interfered with those local authorities which might require certain agricultural land for township development, and he also said that the Minister could now prevent any further development. Sir, this clause is very clear, and the Minister told us that he would only prevent good agricultural land from being used, and that as far as it was in his power, agricultural land should be retained for agricultural use. But now the hon. member comes along and he actually says things which I honestly believe are things he did not mean, or perhaps he did not understand the hon. the Minister, but he says that the object of this clause is to take a firm grip on the owners of agricultural land, and then he calls it the worst form of socialism. I think that is outrageous. Whether the hon. member for Newton Park made this speech with a view to Oudtshoorn, I do not know, but I am sure that the story will now be spread there that this side of the House and this Government now want to prevent a farmer from leasing his farm or a portion of it. Sir, it often happens that one farmer leases a portion of his farm to a neighbour or to another person for farming purposes, and therefore we just want to ask him to make it very clear that this section does not seek to prevent one owner from leasing a portion of his farm to another person or another farmer for agricultural purposes.

As I have indicated on the Order Paper, we intend opposing this clause because it appears to us that this again is legislation brought in by the Minister to legislate for a problem which arises mainly in the Transvaal, and that is this question of plots. We have no real problem of this kind in the Cape Province: in fact it is very limited here, but he always mentions certain areas that he knows of in the Transvaal when he talks about plots in reply to the debate. We have our problems about this, as I mentioned in the Second Reading. I do not want to name these areas again, but there are instances where stands in the past have been leased to people for a long time, over a long period of time, and where temporary structures have been put up on the private properties and these are not surveyed. I should like the hon. the Minister to pay attention here because I am repeating something that he nveer adequately replied to in the Second Reading. There are areas, holiday resorts along the coast-line of the Cape, which have never actually been surveyed. They are on private property and temporary structures are allowed to be erected on these properties as holiday houses. These temporary structures are sold from time to time by one family to another. Now as I read (e) this can also upset the resale of this type of property and there are many of these areas which have traditionally been there, some of them for over a hundred years, and of various sizes. Families have got used to going down to them and enjoying their holidays once or twice a year, for the health of the family. These are simple holiday resorts. They are cheap places to go to and spend a holiday at. We know that with the classification of our hotels today it is almost impossible for the average family man to go and spend a holiday in a hotel. Consequently he acquires a caravan and our roads are cluttered up with caravans. I appeal to the Minister to be very careful about this (e) because it will cause complications which will cause unnecessary hardships to people. These holiday resorts are not in fact taking up agricultural land; they take up part of private land along the coastal area, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will reply and that he will tell us that he will deal sympathetically with any such cases. We feel that there is an extension of powers here in regard to controlling the lease of land. The hon. member for Worcester attempted to reply to that, but here too it says that no lease in respect of a portion of agricultural land shall be registered in a deeds registry. There are so many that are not registered. Are these allowed or are they not, because it starts off by saying that no lease in respect of a portion of agricultural land can be registered. Is this only in terms of long leases, that have to be registered over a period of 25 years or 99 years, or does it apply also to short-term leases where a widowed woman lets her farm to somebody to help her through a difficult period.

Those are excluded.

I am glad to hear that. Then we come to (f). I would say that no local authority may extend its area of jurisdiction without the Minister’s approval. In the last debate he spoke under the first clause about this question, and the question of Stellenbosch was raised, but Stellenbosch itself said that they wanted to go that way. If the local authority approves, and knows what the position is in its own area, why must we now poke our noses in there? We feel that this is not a clause we can vote for and therefore we will oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, there are several reasons why we cannot support this clause. The hon. member for Albany has given some of them. I want to deal more closely with paragraph (f). This is a curious provision, as I pointed out during the Second Reading debate and again I must point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he did not answer the arguments which I advanced in relation to this matter. This Bill, as it stands at the moment, purports to deal with the subdivision of agricultural land; it purports to curb the subdivision of agricultural land. In terms of paragraph (f) the Minister is now introducing a power which will enable him to have a say not only in regard to subdivision, but in regard to any dealing with an entire farm so far as a local authority is concerned. It is not limited to subdivision only but (f) provides that no area of jurisdiction of a local authority may be extended by the acquisition—I am now summarising—of land which is agricultural land. In other words, a local authority will not be able to extend its boundaries to take in an entire farm, let alone a subdivided farm. A provision dealing with entire farms is quite out of place in a Bill which only deals with subdivision as the title itself makes clear. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister should reconsider that aspect of the matter. It is misleading to have a clause of that sort in a Bill which is termed “Subdivision of Agricultural Land Amendment Bill”. This paragraph has nothing to so with subdivision at all, but is enabling the Minister to step in and to prevent a local authority from expanding even to the extent of acquiring a whole farm and not merely a subdivided farm. I want to look at the reason given by the hon. the Minister in introducing this bill for the provision in paragraph (f). His reason was, and I quote—

In passing, I emphasize once again that this has nothing to do with the subdivision of land. He is now suggesting that this power should be taken to prevent local authorities from extending their boundaries to take in what the Minister describes as “the best agricultural land”. Several questions arise out of this and I hope we will get an answer from the hon. the Minister. First of all, will he give the House examples of local authorities that have extended their areas of jurisdiction arbitrarily? This is a bald statement without any proof, without any example and without any motivation. Mr. Chairman, I reject this statement of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that he would not be able to substantiate it. He may perhaps be able to give some examples where a local authority has extended its area of jurisdiction, as he puts it, arbitrarily. But as I have mentioned in relation to clause 1, if that is unjustified, if a local authority expands its boundaries by taking a greater area than it requires in the reasonable future, the provincial authorities have powers to stop that. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to dispute that. It is illogical to suggest that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services should have the power. In my submission, it is a power which should properly be exercised by the provincial authorities who are in a position to decide whether a local authority does need to extend its boundaries or not. What does the Department of Agricultural Technical Services know about the needs of a local authority or a town? It has no experience of matters of this sort. All it can do is to seek information and it can arbitrarily, to use the word used by the hon. the Deputy Minister, decide that the particular local authority in question is acquiring too much land. Why does this Government have a Department of planning if the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is going to interfere in this way? I use the word “interfere” advisedly, because this is an interference and it is an unjustified interference. I ask pointedly this question of the hon. the Deputy Minister: Why is he asking for this power in view of the fact that his Government has a Department of Planning? Has he no faith in the department of the hon. the Minister of Planning? I wish the hon. the Minister of Planning would wait for a while, because I should also like to know from him why he is prepared to divest himself of this power and to hand it to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister of Planning in what way he regards the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as being more competent than his department to decide whether a local authority is expanding its area unreasonably, or arbitrarily, as the hon. the Deputy Minister puts it.

All areas of local authorites are excluded from my jurisdiction.

Local authorities are excluded?

All local authorities are excluded.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister misses the point. The areas which the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to deal with are precisely areas that are not at present within local authority areas.

No, they fall under my department.

They are precisely those areas that the hon. the Minister of Planning should be dealing with. This is the nonsensical situation, the ridiculous situation, that we get into under this Government, because its various departments are pulling in opposite directions. The Government has a Department of Planning which is asked to deal with the future planning of the country in all respects.

Not subdivision of agricultural land.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Planning whether in fact he is not responsible for the regional and guide plans which were recommended by the Niemand Commission and which were adopted by the Government. The hon. the Minister nods his head. Of course, his department is responsible for that. I ask the hon. the Minister of Planning further whether the object of those regional and guide plans is not precisely to determine areas which are to be reserved or zoned for future agricultural purposes, for future industrial purposes and future residential purposes?

At present that is done on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with the hon. the Minister of Planning. He does not seem to appreciate the function of his department. This is not on a voluntary basis. These committees have been appointed by the Cabinet. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a rather interesting contribution which the hon. the Minister of Planning made in this debate from a sitting position.

I wanted to leave the Chamber.

We do not want the hon. gentleman to leave the Chamber. Our point is that there are powers which certain Ministers have today. On the strength of my own good knowledge I know that the hon. the Minister of Planning has exercized those powers of his, for instance in the Transvaal, where he froze the division of agricultural land.

Precisely.

Very well, then; why did the hon. gentleman do it?

I had that power for two years.

He had the power enabling him to do so for the simple reason that it was necessary for steps to be taken there. The whole point made by this side of the House, is that if a local authority may find it necessary to extend its boundaries …

Under what Act do I have the power to which you are referring? I should like to know.

The hon. the Minister most definitely has that power under the Physical Planning Act.

I had it, but in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act I surrendered it to that department as from 1st January, 1972.

The point made by this side of the House is that when a local authority finds it necessary to extend its area, the Department of Planning, through its overhead planning, is definitely in the best position to pass judgment on such a matter …

That is correct.

… or the provincial administrations.

No, but you are seeing the light now. We said “through that guide plan”.

That is why we say …

That is, after all, what we are saying.

Why must permission be obtained from the hon. the Minister when agricultural land is required for the extension of a town?

My department is going to decide on the whole guide plan.

If the hon. the Minister of Agriculture deems it fit to throw a spanner into the works, he may do so; that is the object of this change.

Oh, come on now!

What other object can there be? No other than to impose restraints upon a local authority or a provincial administration. The hon. the Minister mentioned to us the example of Mr. Knoesen, who found all of a sudden that a few hundred morgen of his land had been claimed by the local authority. If this is an example of what is happening, I want to agree with the hon. member for Musgrave that this was most certainly an exception to the rule.

No, not in the Transvaal.

Then I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in the Cape Province it will almost not be necessary for him …

Almost not, but it may in fact be necessary.

Let me rather say that it will be absolutely unnecessary to have this power, for the simple reason that the record built up by the Provincial Administration and the local authorities in this respect is quite unquestionable. I am not aware of any instance where they took good agricultural land without consulting anybody, but where they did so arbitrarily just because they felt that that municipal area had to be extended. I do not believe that if they had in any way stood a chance of getting land of a less agricultural nature, it would not have been their policy to do just that in that manner. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister holds up the example of Mr. Knoesen so as to impose restraints on every province and local authority when it is necessary for them to allow township development to take place naturally.

However, I want to bring the hon. the Deputy Minister back to this point of the leasing of certain pieces of land after they have been subdivided. I am not so sure that the case mentioned in paragraph (d) can be prevented, and that a farmer who may find it necessary to lease certain portions of his farm, may not be prosecuted in terms of paragraph (d). In this clause it is stated very clearly that no lease in respect of a portion of agricultural land shall be registered in a deeds registry. The question I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister is whether, if a person takes the leasing of land seriously and wants to be covered in all respects, he will not find that in nine out of ten cases such a farmer will in fact register such a deed of lease. In that respect he can in fact find examples to the effect that, because a farmer wants to protect himself as well as his income when he leases land or a portion of his land, he will in fact register it. In the case of registration the Minister may then prevent something of that nature. In the Second Reading debate my point was that one often found farmers who had no heirs, but who retired from farming and then found it necessary to lease that land or portions of it to a neighbour, a friend or another relative. If such a person wants to enjoy the protection of the registration of that deed of lease, it will be possible to prevent him from doing so, unless he has obtained the consent of the hon. the Minister.

In 99 per cent of such cases he will obtain consent.

He has never been able to do so before.

Now it is getting even more interesting, for, in that case, why is this paragraph (d) here? Surely, in that case it means absolutely nothing.

I shall reply to the hon. member on that point.

If it has never been possible to do it, and if it never takes place in practice, why then make a legal point of it and insert here a paragraph to provide that no person may lease land unless that deed is registered and the Minister’s consent is obtained for that purpose? If that is not necessary, then I understand this paragraph (d) of the Bill even less. Or is it aimed at stopping people who, through hire-purchase, tried to subdivide land and then to get past the subdivision of land as a result of such hire-purchase? If that is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention, he should state it very clearly to us.

During the Second Reading debate I explained the whole matter to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park has once again tried to come forward here with legal interpretations. Whenever he has to give a legal interpretation to a clause, it is dangerous. In a subtle manner he tried to suggest, for the sake of the propaganda value it has, that if, for instance, a farmer wanted to lease a stock enclosure for a year or six months, this would be prohibited in terms of clause 3 (d).

I know about people who leased land for 25 years.

But then it falls under a long-term lease, as it is more than 10 years. That is the kind of lease this clause deals with. The hon. member for Newton Park wanted to suggest just now that this clause related to any lease. He made the ridiculous statement that, if a farmer wanted to make sure that he was covered in every respect, he wanted to register a lease. The hon. member for Newton Park does not know what he is talking about. Short-term leases are concluded in writing between lessor and lessee. They are not registered, and the lessor and the lessee are absolutely safe. This clause only relates to long-term leases, which in terms of the Act must be for periods of 10 years or more. Now, what is wrong with this being controlled? This is a typical case of evasion of the Act of 1970, i.e. to lease land on the basis of a long-term lease instead of selling. I want to make the statement that the Opposition is moving the amendment that clause 3 be omitted as a whole merely for the purpose of retaining loopholes which the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to eliminate. The Opposition is very illogical as far as this matter is concerned. Only the other day we discussed in this House a private motion of mine in which the Government was requested to give serious attention to the more rapid consolidation of land. The hon. member for Newton Park was so kind as to follow me in that debate and to say that he did not find any fault with that motion. In other words he associated himself with it.

With consolidation, yes, but that is not what is envisaged here.

With consolidation, precisely. How on earth can one proceed with a process of consolidation, which is the positive aspect of the matter, if one blatantly wants to allow certain obvious loopholes to remain. The entire clause 3, which the Opposition now wants to be omitted, deals with those obvious loopholes which must be eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, I move, first of all, the amendment printed in my name, as follows—

This is merely to comply with the legal aspect of the matter.

For the most part the hon. member for Worcester replied to the member for Newton Park and pointed out how the latter had apparently not understood the Second Reading speech correctly.

Then he also referred to socialism. I do not think there is any need for the hon. member for Worcester to be concerned about the voters of Oudtshoorn giving any thought to those stories about socialism to the effect that the Government now wants to deprive a person of the right to lease land. That was the tenor of the words used by the hon. member for Newton Park.

No, I referred to the use of land.

I should like to reply to the hon. member on the question of leasing land. All the farmers on this side of the House lease land. One can have the lease registered at the Deeds Office if the period of lease is more than 10 years and up to 99 years. But if it is under 10 years, it is not necessary to have it registered. The hon. member and I myself are leasing land without any deed of lease. There is no problem. Now the hon. member wants to create the impression with the farmers that there should in fact be registration at the Deeds Office and that we may refuse the lease.

One should see it from the point of view of the lessor.

From the point of view of the lessor, too. If one draws up an ordinary lease for a period of less than 10 years, and the other person dies, that contract remains valid. The hon. member for Kroonstad replied very well. Here I have one shining example that one finds in the newspapers—

In this article it is explained how one can make money—the hon. member says he wants to protect these people—but the person never reads the fine print which says that he will never get a title-deed. Does the hon. member want to protect the public, or does he not? That is the object of this clause.

The hon. member for Albany said here, “Mention to me more places in the Cape Province where there are small holdings 25 morgen and more in extent, for you are only referring to the Transvaal.” Sir, there are places such as Kimberley, Vryburg and Mafeking. I am sure that in the vicinity of those places I shall find small holdings that are 25 morgen in extent.

Of course.

That is a problem all over the country, but the hon. member says it is a problem which only affects the Transvaal. Sir, the same applies to the holiday resorts or “holiday homes” to which he referred; we are not going to step in there if it does not create a problem. There are many cases where leases have been in force for as many as 30 and 40 years, but where there are no registered deeds of lease. If such a person wants to register the lease, he has to refer it to the guide plan committee. If it is not going to result in subdivision, it will not create a problem in the future, and what is more, this did not create a problem in the past, for the person in question does not obtain a title-deed to that specific piece of land. If he is going to build up that piece of land, then he has to fall in with the rules for pollution, for which hon. members opposite asked and with which we are just as concerned as they are.

The hon. member for Musgrave referred again to clause 3 (f). He said that clause 3 (f) had nothing to do with subdivision, as one could cut up half a farm or an entire farm bordering on a town. If it is the entire farm, then, of course, it is not subdivision. The Minister of Planning, the provinces, Agricultural Technical Services and Community Development are meeting in order to draw up a plan for the entire country, from area to area, and we are going to work according to that guide plan so as to have orderliness. I have said repeatedly that there are certain parts in respect of which we will find, as a result of the advice given by this specialized body, that there is a need for “holiday homes” if it is necessary to cut up Mooi River, if we want to cut up Mooi River into small pieces, it is earmarked …

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? If he intends to rely on these guide plans, why does he need this provision?

Sir, I mentioned the example of Knoesen, and I could mention more examples. You find, Sir, that a municipality which is struggling financially, a farmer is fleeced to the tune of R704 a year, and he gets nothing for it. These are not statements for which we have no grounds. The next question put by the hon. member for Musgrave was, “What does Agricultural Technical Services know about the needs of a local authority?” Sir, when it comes to the subdivision of land, surely it is impossible for the mayor of Pampoenfontein to know as well as Dr. Hugo of that area does whether a piece of land constitutes an economic unit. The hon. member wants to know what the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has to do with the whole matter.

What has an economic unit got to do with the local authority?

What have you got to do with intelligence?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take up where the hon. the Deputy Minister left off. He gives as his justification the reason that a local authority is not in a position to decide what is an economic unit, but, Sir, I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister and he conceded that (f) entitles the Minister to step in even if the local authority is not attempting to seek to extend its boundaries by obtaining a subdivision of a farm but by obtaining the entire farm. If the local authority is acquiring the whole farm, what has that got to do with an uneconomic unit? It is not a subdivision. It has nothing to do with an uneconomic unit at all.

But that is precisely …

Order! The hon. member will lose his turn to speak if the hon. the Deputy Minister interrupts him now; the hon. member must first continue.

I thought he had finished; it seemed as though he was going to resume his seat.

Sir, I would like to know this from the hon. the Deputy Minister. He misses the point altogether. Either the Government is going to rely on these regional and guide plans, or it is not. If the Government is going to rely on them, then the hon. the Minister does not require the power which he is taking under (f), for the simple reason that under the regional and guide plans, there will be established—this is the object of these plans—areas which are for future agricultural purposes, areas which are for future residential purposes and areas which are for future industrial purposes. Once you have that plan, then surely it does not matter if the local authority is acquiring land in areas which are zoned for future residential or industrial expansion. Obviously they will not be able to acquire land which is zoned and reserved for future agricultural purposes, but they will be able to expand in those areas which are specifically set aside and zoned for residential and industrial expansion. The hon. the Minister is taking the power to step in even in those cases, and this is why I keep asking the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the Government intends to rely on these regional and guide plans and, if so, why he requires this power, and he keeps on telling me that they are serious about these regional and guide plans, but he still wants to be able to interfere to prevent local authorities from even acquiring land which will be in areas zoned under the regional and guide plans for future residential and industrial expansion. It just does not make sense; not only does it not make sense, but it is becoming increasingly frustrating to people who have to work in these spheres to find this interference from various departments which are all pulling in different directions. The department of the hon. the Minister of Planning has taken a very good step forward by creating regional and guide plans for the various parts of South Africa. This is in the process of being implemented. Despite that, we find the Department of Agricultural Technical Services wanting to step in and tell the local authorities that they cannot acquire farms even though those farms are situated in areas which the regional and guide planners have zoned for future expansion of their township. It not only does not make sense, but it is extremely frustrating and it nullifies the work of the local authorities in preparing their town and regional plans.

The land about which the hon. member is feeling so frustrated is. being deproclaimed as agricultural land. We are preparing the guide plans for the whole of the country, but in the meanwhile, although we have the guide plans, we must have the necessary powers. The hon. member should just read the clause correctly; it reads as follows—

1. (f) no area of jurisdiction, local area, public health area, peri-urban area or other area, referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of “agricultural land” in section 1 shall be established on, or enlarged so as to include any land which is agricultural land.

It does not relate only to a whole farm,, about which the hon. member is so worried; it relates to all those things I have read out here; the Minister’s written consent to all these matters must be obtained. How can it be so frustrating if the entire matter will still be determined by the guide-plan committee? Surely it comes to the same; it is another pip from the same pumpkin. Either the matter is with the guide-plan committee, which refers it to the Minister, or it is not. I can see no difference in that.

Many arguments have been advanced with regard to the proposed new paragraphs (d) and (f). In regard to paragraph (d) the point which the hon. the Minister has failed to make is in regard to the question of a lease being registered, not just any lease. We accept this point, but at the same time the Deputy Minister must understand that our objection to this is the fact that before a lease can be binding against a third party it must be registered. What he is doing is insisting that before such a lease can be registered it must get his approval.

Of course.

What for? The Deputy Minister says “of course”, and later on he will take the power to say to the farmer that he may do only this on his farm or only that. But here he is doing the same thing. He is saying to the farmer that he may not lease his farm or portion of it to “John Smith” without the Minister’s approval. That is what he is saying. That is why we are opposed to it. It is all very well saying that the widow, as he said in reply to the hon. member for Albany, who needs a lease for a year or two to tide her over bad times, can go ahead without the Minister’s approval because it does not have to be registered. But who leases a farm for less than ten years today? [Interjections.] If it is his intention to farm on that farm, who leases it for a lesser period? And then, who else leases a farm today without registering the lease? [Interjections.] Who does not register such a lease? The hon. members on that side must be very trusting people if they do not have their leases registered because you know that we have a principle in law that “huur gaan voor koop” but if it is not registered …

You are talking utter nonsense.

It is not nonsense. I would like to refer the Deputy Minister to the General Laws Amendment Act of 1965. In order to be binding against a third party, a lease must be registered. That is the point that the hon. the Deputy Minister missed.

I also want to come to the new paragraph (e). Initially the hon. the Deputy Minister wanted to insert a new paragraph that “no plot, on agricultural land, which has not been surveyed, or any right to such a place, shall be sold or advertised for sale” without his consent. But now he wants to extend it even further with the amendment he has on the Order Paper to read that no plot on agricultural land, “whether surveyed or not,” can be dealt with. I want to come back to the question I put to the hon. the Deputy Minister earlier to which he did not reply. Is he going to compensate the owners of land for the rights which he is now taking away from them?

What paragraph are you talking about?

The new paragraph (e) which the Deputy Minister is introducing, which says that without the permission of the Minister of Agriculture no plot on agricultural land, whether surveyed or not, shall be sold or offered for sale. Well, I know he has a problem in the Transvaal, where a property developer, in order to establish the need and the necessity, will advertise and will produce a number of signed purchase agreements for plots before they are subdivided—I know he has that in mind, but he must at least safeguard the rights of those people who have gone through the proper authorities. As I pointed out earlier, there are in Natal innumerable properties, land which in terms of the definition of agricultural land is affected by this Act and which falls within in the purview of this Act, which has already been subdivided on paper, where the necessary authority has been obtained by the owner of the land to subdivide the land and to sell these plots, whether they are economic or not economic, in pursuance of what the hon. the Minister of Community Development wants, namely to provide more housing opportunities for the citizens of South Africa. This hon. Deputy Minister is now taking the power to render all those sub-divisions null and void. He now becomes the Lord High Chancellor of the land in South Africa. He alone is the Lord Pooh-bah who will decide who can sub-divide his lands after he has gone through the necessary details and after the approval has been received from the bodies concerned. This man will suddenly find that a whole lot of that is gone and that this hon. Minister will be the one to decide whether or not he can continue with the plans which he has possibly made a long time ago. Earlier on I named an example of a farm that was sub-divided in 1850. That private township of 1850 was only surveyed and worked on during the last four years. Is it the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to take those rights away from the land owners? If it is his intention to take those rights away from these land owners, is it his intention to compensate them for the potential loss which they will suffer as a result of this action?

Mr. Chairman, one cannot leave such questions unanswered. The hon. member told us he was a lawyer and had been a chief magistrate. [Interjections.] I was in this House when he said he was a lawyer, and now he comes along and tells me, a stupid farmer, that no lease is entered into without it being registered. This is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. Then the hon. member asked who leased land today for a shorter period than 10 years. You will find nobody in agriculture today who is prepared to lease land for longer than 10 years. The lessor is not prepared to lease land for longer than 10 years, because he has to increase his rental and consequently does not want to bind himself for 20 or 30 years. There is no such thing. I wish I could find someone who would lease land to me for longer than 10 years, because he would be done for (in sy swernoot) as a result of the constant increase in rental. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw the word “swernoot”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member says it is nonsense to say that leasing precedes purchase. There are members on this side of this House who have had to deal with leases in respect of which the owners have come to ask whether they could not cancel them. The lessee has the power to say, “go to hang, I am hireing it!” [Interjections.] I do not know how to express myself. I ask the hon. member not to make such statements. I do not want to devote any more time to this provision. But in respect of the other question which the hon. member put, I can tell him that he entered this House today after we had been dealing with this Bill for an hour and a half. When I was replying to this point, he was absent, and now I must reply to the question again. I say to the hon. member that he must not get annoyed with me, but that he may go and read’ in Hansard what I said.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite apparent from the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister that he did not understand a single word of what I said. It is quite apparent, because when he talks about the principle “huur gaan voor koop”, his reply is exactly what I have put to him.

No, it was not.

What I told him was that If it is not registered, it is not binding. [Interjections.] With respect, the hon. Deputy Minister must try to understand what I have put to him. He has completely reversed it and has said exactly the same as I have said. He did not give any answer to my question. He still has not answered the question of compensation, and this is important, because we are busy taking rights away, rights which are vested in and rights which people have earned in one way or another. That is the right to subdivide their land and to sell it. Whether the hon. the Minister and his department consider those subdivisions as economic or not, the fact remains that they have gone through the necessary authorities and that they have taken the necessary steps to have their land subdivided. He makes it even worse with the amendment … [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I do appreciate that protection. The hon. Deputy Minister takes the additional power by substituting the words “whether surveyed or not.” In other words, even if a land owner has gone to the extent of having his plot surveyed and pegged out, this hon. Deputy Minister can say “aikôna”. He can say: “No, you cannot sell any of your land and you cannot even advertise it for sale.” These are points which the hon. Deputy Minister has not answered.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Craywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, we want to indicate our opposition to this clause very clearly, because it introduces an amazing new power which the hon. the Minister wants to take for himself, namely to grant an application on such conditions as he may deem fit—

What does he require this power for? He has told us about this “gidsplankomitee” and the great “gidsplan” in the Second Reading debate and frequently in this debate. If he wants a guide plan for the whole of South Africa—we would like to see that too—why did he not bring to us the Act that he is amending and tell us what he has in mind? We could then have drawn up suitable amendments together in a Select Committee. But the hon. the Minister wants this amazing power in terms of clause 4 to control the purpose for which land is going to be used. This gives him very wide powers. He has powers under the Soil Conservation Act to control inefficient and bad farming. The hon. the Minister of Planning has powers under the Physical Planning Act to control certain subdivisions and the misuse of land. I am quite amazed that now he also wants powers to refuse or grant applications on such conditions as he may deem fit—

For whatever purpose one intends to use the land, whether to build a house on it, or put a “kleinhuisie” on it or graze cattle on it, the Minister is going to have control over it. If this is for the purpose of producing a guide plan, I think this world is becoming a very strange place. Both the hon. the Minister and I know farmers and landowners pretty well. He is a landowner himself. We, as farmers, are all prepared to accept advice and guidance from the department and from an efficient Ministry, but this is plain dictation. We cannot accept dictation. On behalf of the farmers I reject this provision wholly and totally. The hon. the Minister must clearly explain to us why he needs these powers.

*Mr. Chairman, the Minister wants very wide powers here.

You have already said that.

These powers are much wider than those granted in terms of the first clause. If a farmer sells his farm today, the Minister may determine how the purchaser may use that land.

But that is not true!

It is true. The clause reads—

Is the hon. member prepared to accept that? It is very explicitly stated here, but I am not prepared to accept it. I am certain that no farmer is prepared to accept it either. The Soil Conservation Act is a good Act in terms of which control may be exercised over bad farmers. A man may, however, be a good farmer and it may happen that not this Minister, but another Minister tells that man that he should not use the land for sowing wheat, which he is doing, but that he must use it for maize. Or the Minister may say that apple trees must be planted on that land. This is what the amendment in this clause means. We cannot agree with that.

†As I have said before, if the Minister wants a guide plan for South Africa, we agree that it is a good idea. He must not, however, come with this limiting, crushing and restricting measure that we have before us. Let us put these facts before a Select Committee and come with a decent redrafted Bill that can produce what we want in South Africa, namely the proper planning of our future.

Mr. Chairman, again it is very clear to me that the hon. member for Albany as well as the hon. member for Newton Park in his Second Reading speech definitely did not understand this clause. This clause deals solely with the subdivision of land. The hon. member for Albany has just said that the Minister wants to take powers to determine the use of agricultural land over the whole country. Surely this is not true. I just want to tell him that in terms of the Soil Conservation Act the Minister already has the authority to do so. This clause deals solely with the subdivision of land and the determination of the use of such subdivided land. I want to mention an example. If a person applies for subdivision and the cutting off of a small piece of land on which to build, for example, a shop or a filling-station, and he finds after a while that nobody is interested in building a shop or filling-station there, and he then wishes to use that land for something else, for example, for farming again, surely something like this cannot be allowed. In other words, because he obtained the right to subdivide that land for one purpose, the person should now be allowed to utilize it for another purpose. These people do not understand what these things are about. In his Second Reading speech the hon. member for Newton Park said on this clause that we were interfering with the rights of the individual. The hon. member made a speech at Graaff-Reinet in regard to another matter, but it also concerned the question of interference with the rights of the individual. He referred to certain provisions in regard to the stock withdrawal scheme and said: “He should be compelled to farm with the remaining 25 per cent of his breeding stock and the State should prescribe to him how to farm.” If this is not interfering with the rights of the individual, I should like to hear what it is.

Order! I cannot allow a Second Reading speech on this clause now.

I shall abide by your ruling, but I am speaking specifically about the question of interference with the rights of the individual with regard to this clause in terms of which the Minister is requiring powers to determine how that land should be farmed. I want to say to the hon. member for Newton Park, to the hon. member for Albany and to the Opposition that if the leader of the agricultural group is prepared, in respect of a certain matter, firstly, to compel a farmer to remain on his land and, secondly, to have the State tell him how to farm, I cannot see how they can have any objection to this clause. As far as I am concerned, that has a much more far-reaching implication than that which is contained in this clause. This clause specifically seeks this right for the Minister where subdivision applies, and I want to repeat, where subdivision applies. The Minister must retain the right to prevent a person who has asked to subdivide land for a specific purpose and who has not used it for the purpose for which he obtained permission, from using it for another purpose, and I say it is right that the Minister should tell him that he may not do so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has dragged something completely different into the discussion of this clause, but if the hon. member wants a reply to it, it is very simple. I was explaining our stock reduction scheme to those farmers at Graaff-Reinet. What I told them at the time, was that whereas in our case a farmer would be allowed to retain 25 per cent of his breeding stock, they should remember that it was a completely voluntary scheme. If one has a voluntary scheme and the State spends much more on the stock withdrawal scheme than this Government is prepared to spend, one can expect that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will prescribe to those people how they are to farm. This is the reply to that hon. member.

Order! The hon. member must not continue with that; it has nothing to do with this clause.

Definitely not, Sir. In the Second Reading debate we objected very strongly to clause 4 because, we said, it was an entirely new principle which was not previously contained in this Act. When the hon. the Deputy Minister came forward with his Subdivision of Agricultural land Bill, it was his object to prevent subdivision. In terms of this he not only wants to prevent subdivision, but after I, as a farmer, have applied to him to subdivide my land, he may tell me now by means of conditions he lays down, what I am to do with that land. This is an entirely new principle. We then asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it meant, for example, that if he had granted me permission to subdivide my land, I would simply have to keep to his directives and would not be able to devise any other plan at all with that land. In other words, if, for example, a farmer found an excellent type of clay on a piece of land and wanted to start a quarry there, would the hon. the Minister, with this power, be able to prevent that land being used for this purpose? It is stated very explicitly here—

Originally I described that as a form of socialism. The hon. the Deputy Minister should realize that he is not dealing only with the subdivision of agricultural land here, but that most farmers, as I know them, would have the strongest objection not only to the hon. the Deputy Minister wanting to prescribe to them that they should farm the land, because if they did not, he was not going to give them the right to subdivide—but also to the hon. the Deputy Minister perhaps going further and telling them that they should use it for no other purpose but agriculture.

Of course the farmer would object if you put it like that, but that is not our intention.

This is the reason why I say it is an entirely new principle which we want to apply to farming in South Africa. If the hon. the Deputy Minister had good reasons for this amendment, he would rise—I do not want to say “like a man”—and take this House into his confidence and tell us what motive is behind this. He should not come along and tell us the story of the “feed lots” along the Orange River or along the Vaal River, and that dirty water was flowing into the river. This is not the reason. The reason is to get a firmer grip on the farmer as an individual in the country and in the course of time to prescribe to him with what he should farm.

No, please!

The hon. gentleman says “no” to me now. He wants to lay down conditions for the use of that land after he has approved the subdivision.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed: