Mr. Speaker. I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, clause 1 of this omnibus Bill makes provision for a change in the method of calculation of the amount which will be paid to the Transkei Government. This change relates both to the so-called statutory amount and to the subsidies which will be voted by this House at a later stage in the session. The principle embodied here has been accepted at Second Reading and, as we indicated during that stage, we are not opposed to the principle which is embodied here. That principle is that, in terms of this legislation, the Transkei Government will be able as of right to claim certain moneys. As the hon. the Deputy Minister stated when he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill, this refers only to the amounts to which they are entitled. We agree with him. It is only fair that they should have the taxes, both direct and indirect, which are paid by their respective citizens. However, Sir, we are not happy with the situation as it exists in terms of this clause at the moment. I want to quote from the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister when he introduced this measure yesterday afternoon. He said—

The hon. the Deputy Minister went on to refer to the question of customs and excise duties, and to the fact that it was also reasonable and desirable that the Transkei should receive its share of the customs and excise duties which are paid. And, particularly, he made the point that they should receive what customs and excise duties are paid by citizens of the Transkei. I want to stress this particular point: What customs and excise duties are paid by citizens of the Transkei. He went further and said—I quote again from Hansard:

I want to repeat this, because it is important:

From this it is quite clear and apparent that what I said yesterday is quite correct. What I said was that it is not a simple matter of arithmetic to arrive at the amounts which which will be due to the Transkei Government. This is an amount which can only be arrived at by negotiation. This is why I submit that we have this clause phrased the way it is, viz. in every case that it shall be an amount as determined by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in consultation with the Minister of Finance of the Republic. It is apparent that these amounts are not fixed amounts. The second point is that these amounts cannot be easily determined. They are amounts which can only be arrived at by negotiation. That is why I suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday that the Government of the Transkei should be known and recognized in this legislation and that the Government of the Transkei should, in fact, be consulted when arriving at the amount which should be given to them in terms of this legislation; in other words, the actual statutory amount which is to be voted for them. It is for that reason that I now move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 14, after “in” to insert “joint”;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 15, after “Republic” to insert “and the Government of the Transkei”;
3. (3) on page 4, in line 22, after “in” to insert “joint”;
4. (4) on page 4, in line 23, after “Republic” to insert “and the Government of the Transkei”;
5. (5) on page 4, in line 24, after “Ministers” to insert “and the said Government”;
6. (6) on page 4, in line 38, after “in” to insert “joint”;
7. (7) on page 4, in line 39, after “Republic” to insert “and the Government of the Transkei”;
8. (8) on page 4, in line 40, after “Ministers” to insert “and the said Government”;
9. (9) on page 4, in line 51, after “in” to insert “joint”; and
10. (10) on page 4, in line 52, after “Republic” to insert “and the Government of the Transkei”.

It will be apparent to hon. members that the object of these amendments is to make provision for joint consultations between three parties: the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the hon. the Minister of Finance of the Republic and the Government of the Transkei. By the admission of the hon. the Deputy Minister himself this is not an amount which is easily ascertainable. We on this side of the House believe that it is only fair, honest and correct that the Government of the Transkei should be recognized and consulted when these amounts are arrived at. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that the amount is made up by means of an extra statutory subsidy which is granted by the Parliament of the Republic. That is not at issue, because I believe that we at least want to give these Governments, particularly the Government of the Transkei in this instance, the trappings of economic independence. When this Parliament says to the Government of the Transkei: “We will give you something”, I believe we must be seen to give the Transkei what is their due. The only way in which this can be done is to follow the example of what the hon. the Prime Minister has given to us in this House when on Friday he moved an amendment to the no-confidence motion in which he asked this House “furthermore to note with appreciation what the Government has done and intends doing in this field”. It is past history that we voted against that amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister for precisely the same reason that we have here this afternoon, viz. that here we have a Bill which offers an opportunity for this Government to show and to establish its bona tides, to actually do something instead of just talking about it, to actually say to the Transkei Government: “Come with us and be part of the decision-making process and let us show you our bona fides, we do in fact wish to share with you in the Transkei and we do in fact acknowledge that you are entitled to what is your fair share and we want to give you the opportunity to share with us when we decide what the amount shall be”.

I believe that the amendment I have moved here this afternoon is a reasonable amendment. I believe that its acceptance by the hon. the Deputy Minister on behalf of the Government would be in the interest to the whole country because it could only improve the race relations within South Africa. In the words of the hon. the Prime Minister himself, it could only lead to better race relations in this country, and this could help him and his Government in the efforts they have made towards détente in Southern Africa. After all, this is so important to all of us. I believe that the amendment I have moved this afternoon is a reasonable one. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister must apply his mind to it, and once he has applied his mind to it, he will find that it is, in fact, reasonable and, consequently, accept it on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South repeated the argument he advanced in the Second Reading debate yesterday afternoon. I think it is necessary for us just to state a few things very clearly. Firstly: Clause 1, which is now under discussion, has nothing to do with the question of customs and excise. It deals with the statutory amount and the supplementary amount. Customs and excise is dealt with in another clause. I take it that when clause 7 is discussed, the hon. member will employ the same kind of argument in regard to the other homelands. In this case, however, the hon. member feels very strongly about the Transkeian Government. What should not be lost sight of here, however, is that the say with regard to this measure has already been given them. This was done in the first place when the various Bantu homeland governments acquired self-governing status, when certain duties and activities were transferred to them and they consequently acquired certain rights and privileges on an account of this statutory amount that has been allocated to them. The statutory amount was allocated on the very basis of the amount of work taken over by the specific homeland government. Even at that stage, therefore, a basic formula had been found. Now, however, there is a situation which this clause is intended to rectify. On various occasions, various homeland governments have taken over certain functions and in the first place we now want to have a fixed basic year since these people have progressed from time to time and because certain functions are transferred to them from time to time. Not all the functions transferred, are therefore in respect of the same basic year.

The first main idea behind this measure, therefore, is that as far as the Transkei is concerned, the same basic year should apply in this instance to the functions already transferred to the Transkei. Where there must be consultation is, in the first place, in determining the basic year. This legislation determines that basic year, and the hon. the Deputy Minister has given the assurance that discussions were held with the homeland governments concerning this matter.

We accept that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister gave the assurance that a decision was taken on the basic year after discussions with the homeland governments concerned. That is where the consultation must take place. We cannot allow further consultation to take place concerning this matter, because when a decision has been taken concerning the basic year, then in point of fact, the basic figure has been agreed on. This clause makes further provision for possible adjustments that could be made and also for possible supplementary amounts which could be allocated later as circumstances demand. The consultation has, therefore, already taken place and is not repeated every year at Budget time. It is unnecessary because the basis has already been determined. This basis is determined in the figure of the basic year agreed upon. For that reason it is unnecessary to make provision, as the hon. member wishes, for consultation between the homeland governments and the Government, more specifically the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. We dealt with that yesterday in the Second Reading Debate. We just want to emphasize that once the Department of Bantu Administration And Development and the Minister of Finance have agreed on these figures, the money, the amount of which is determined in terms of this formula, becomes the money to which the Transkeian Government is entitled and according to which they may budget. Then those people have the figure that is available to them and they are then able to budget. They then have a say in the way in which they budget in their own Legislative Assembly on the basis of this figure that has been made public and has been based on the figure for a basic year with the necessary adjustments made by means of mutual consultation. Whereas the hon. member, through his amendment, wants to drag in the homeland government—the Transkei in this case—I cannot see why he wants to do that because the Transkei has already been consulted and this is no longer necessary because the basis has already been established. Surely we cannot take the adjustments to the Transkeian Government every year.

Mr. Chairman, concerning what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said, I want to say that it is, in fact, true that when provision is made for the transfer of functions to the homeland governments, the amount issued in the previous year is taken as a basis. What we should very much like to have seen was that there should have been consultation even with regard to that amount and that it should not have been done merely by means of a budget. However this does not fall within the ambit of this Bill and consequently we cannot propose an amendment relating to that cardinal point on this occasion. What I am trying to say is that that specific point is not at issue here. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke spoke about supplementary amounts which may in any event come under discussion. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister opened the door when he said in his reply that possibly the principle that we should stipulate this somewhere by way of legislation, is acceptable. For that reason we want to plead today that he utilize that opening he has left because it is in the interests of all of us and in the interests of the relations between us and the homelands.

The hon. the Deputy Minister employed three arguments in his reply. The first was that as far as the finances of the Republic of South Africa are concerned, the point at issue is whether amounts are available or not. The second argument was that to involve a Minister of a homeland in a discussion which only concerns the finances of the Republic is not quite relevant. The third one was: “The issue of consultation is sometimes taken out of context and in my opinion this has occurred again this afternoon.” Mr Chairman, I am not scoring political points off the hon. the Deputy Minister; I am not making things difficult for the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is my honest and sincere desire that we should prove, both in practice and in proceedings of this nature, that we are in earnest in this regard. As regards all three points I have just mentioned, I want to say that this does of course concern the Republic’s finances. After all, that goes without saying. The contributions come, for the most part, from the Treasury of the Republic, as is also the case with the Coloureds. Surely that is not in dispute; that goes without saying. After all, we are not contesting that. Then it is said that we cannot involve these people in the finances of the Republic. But it is this very Republic that has to carry the development of those areas. If we take this standpoint further, then it is stated by implication that even any form of consultation would be ridiculous because in whatever way money is made available by means of these grants, they come from the Treasury of the Republic. The hon. the Deputy Minister will understand if I then say that I am honestly unable to comment on the third point that the question of consultation is being taken out of context. I only want to put it on record as my conviction that there cannot be too much consultation. Particularly where finance, the vital artery that must keep these homelands operating, is concerned, it seems to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to say that he would welcome any form of further consultation and attempt to give it a trial. If it did not succeed, he could come back to the House after a few years and say: “We tried it but it does not work.” Let us at least prove that we tried to do it.

With reference to the analogy used here by the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the Coloureds, each of the points mentioned here applies equally and with equal force in respect of the position of the Coloureds. The Minister of Coloured Relations has precisely the same functions with regard to the Coloured Council as the Minister of Bantu Administration has in regard to the homeland governments. The finances of the Republic are involved in this, too. This, too, is a fact and it has been very clearly stated here that the Coloureds are not present in this House and that they cannot, therefore, have a say. It has also been very clearly stated that, for the reasons that are understandable to the Government in terms of its policy, they may not have representation here. That is why we are pleading that there should be representation at that level by way of consultation, as in the case of the Coloureds. Because it is acknowledged by the Government that the function of the Minister of Coloured Relations as a link between the Coloured Council and the Cabinet is not adequate, we ask for the same principle to apply here.

In conclusion I want to mention three points. Firstly there is the question of symbolic significance. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that under these circumstances the symbolic significance of this nature has some value. It is not merely an empty shell; it is a proof of our good faith in this matter. In the second instance this is really proof of how serious we are about this matter. In other words, we do not want to apply White supremacy here. If we say, with reference to all the speeches that have been made here—including that by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke—that we see this as an instance of the execution of the policy of separate development with a view to independence, then it implies the rejection of the principle of White supremacy. Now I just want to say that we should indicate in this way, indicate practically, that it is not a question of White supremacy and that we want to give those people, a say at the level of those highest authorities deciding on these matters. When the homelands are independent, it will be an entirely different matter because then such consultation will obviously be totally out of the question. However, as long as they form part of the Republic of South Africa, it seems to me obvious, also in terms of the earnest with which the policy of the Government is implemented that this simple point be conceded.

In the third place, the final decision still rests with the Cabinet. In this regard we have been told here that it has never occurred in the history of this House that a financial motion coming from the Government has ever been rejected or amended. In other words, we are losing nothing. In the final instance it is this House that must decide and, as far as financial measures are concerned, must in fact do so in an unqualified way on the recommendation or proposal of the Cabinet.

Under these circumstances I want to associate myself with the amendment proposed and address an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give it serious consideration in the spirit in which we moved it here. This is really an honest and an earnest attempt to prove to these people that we want to consult them also in terms of the finances we want to make available in the execution of the policy of the Government.

Mr. Chairman, it was with pleasure that I listened to the arguments employed here, particularly those employed by the hon. member for Edenvale. I also noticed that this afternoon he advised the hon. members for Sandton and Bryanston in regard to their problems with great sincerity. He also tried to advise the Government in the same spirit and I shall reply to his arguments presently.

Are you still playing politics?

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is also, of course, a little upset still and consequently he is making a bit of a noise as usual in order to try and lend force to his arguments We just see this in passing. I shall try to reply to the arguments advanced in connection with this amendment that has been proposed.

I want to say that there have been quite a number of blunders made in regard to this matter. We may regard them as divergent interpretations, but I want to tell hon. members that their arguments do not have an entirely sound basis. The argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is that it is not a matter of calculation that to a certain extent, as he said, it is “not a simple matter of arithmetic” and that “it must be arrived at by consultation or negotiation”. These amounts are a matter of calculation by the Department of Finance of the Republic of South Africa. The existing Act also states this. They must calculate it. In other words, in the first instance it is a question of calculation. If such a calculation produces certain amounts, then the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development must consult with each other in regard to those amounts.

In fact they must agree on them. The hon. member for Edenvale raised the question of the Coloureds. I want to tell him that that is an entirely different matter. It is an entirely separate case and I take it that legislation in this regard will be introduced to place discussion of that kind on a fixed basis.

As far as the Black homelands are concerned, we are dealing with people who are on their way to independence. The hon. member rightly said that they are not yet independent. When amounts are determined, as is being proposed in this legislation, the request originated from them in the first instance. In the first instance, therefore there is consultation by them. After further appeals and requests the legislation was drafted and submitted to them again. They perused it, discussed it and then came back and said that they were satisfied with legislation in this form. We have, of course, the enthusiasm of Whites in this country to speak on behalf of the Blacks as well, not only as to how they conduct their politics, but also as to how their affairs ought to be handled by this Government. Those people have already indicated their agreement with this Bill, but hon. members now want us to change this Bill because they are dissatisfied with the manner in which discussion takes place and they want this approach to be stipulated in this legislation.

Sir, I now come to the following point: I told hon. members yesterday that the principle was correct; I concede that. Perhaps we can stipulate somewhere in legislation that we do consult with these people, but we so often hold discussions with them that in my opinion it would be superfluous. Hon. members on that side should not insist now, because I said that I accept the principle that it could perhaps be included in legislation somewhere, that it must be included here where it definitely does not fit. In the first instance, the Transkei Government must discuss this matter when they compile their budget. They compile their budget according to their own problems and their own requirements and they make provision for those things which they see their way clear to doing. There is no interference on the part of the Government of the Republic in the compiling of their budget.

In the amendment moved here, hon. members opposite request that the Transkeian Government as such—not the Minister of Finance, but the Transkeian Government—should consult, as it were, about the budget of the Republic of South Africa with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development of the Republic. In my opinion that does not make sense. Those people hammer out their affairs; they then come to this department and the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, then decides in so far as the Whites are concerned. If this amendment were accepted, then one would be giving a Minister of the Transkei and the Government of the Transkei a degree of executive authority in regard to the Budget of the Republic of South Africa; to a certain extent it would amount to division of power, because one would then clearly be giving authority to another government over the affairs of the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

The homeland governments have been given authority over certain matters and they alone decide on them. But now hon. members on that side want to involve them in discussions concerning matters which rest solely in the hands of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Sir, discussions in regard to these matters occur in any event, but this cannot be provided for in legislation as proposed in the amendment. These matters are discussed by the Transkeian Government with the Minister whenever they deem it necessary.

We are dealing here only with the Transkei now, but there is also an amendment to the following clause, where the same basic principles applies, and if that amendment were accepted, then this Government would have to involve seven Black Governments, which would then eventually have a say in the compilation of the Budget of the Republic of South Africa. In other words, hon. members on that side want to give the Black Governments a direct say in the affairs of the Republic of South Africa through legislation. While I have sympathy for the enthusiasm of hon. members that discussions should be conducted with the Black Governments, I cannot see how it can be done in this way. It is not practical and as I have said, it would amount to division of power. The hon. member for Edenvale states that the adoption of the amendment would have a symbolic meaning and that it would do away with any idea of White supremacy which may still exist. The only way in which the homelands can do away entirely with White supremacy is by accepting independence, and the door to independence stands open to all of them. We cannot involve them here and give them a say in deciding on our affairs and then say that that does away with subservience. There is one real way of doing away with White supremacy and that is for these people to accept full independence and then they alone can decide in regard to their own affairs.

Sir, I do not think it is necessary to argue this matter any further. Hon. members opposite have referred to an honest and sincere desire, etc., but I think that this Government, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Prime Minister have proved over and over again how easy it is to conduct dialogue with these people. Dialogue with them does in fact take place continually. When visiting these areas my colleague, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and I never do so without informing the Chief Minister of the area concerned of our visit, and if there are matters which they want to discuss, then they are discussed. As a result there is constant liaison. It is only because hon. members opposite are unaware of the extent to which liaison does in fact take place that they feel we should insert the proposed provision into the legislation as a symbolic gesture. Sir, I do not want to dwell on this any further. I think I have stated this matter very clearly and I want to put it clearly to the hon. member that owing to the argument I have employed and my reasons this amendment is not acceptable.

Sir, I have listened with interest to the hon. the Deputy Minister and I should like to seek an assurance from him. When you come to the end of this clause there are a number of provisos which leave a discretion to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and to the hon. the Minister of Finance of the Republic. In the explanatory memorandum one gets the clear impression that there is no intention to reduce the actual amount paid to the Transkei as compared with last year. I would like an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that those provisos are put in so that if inflation continues in this country that amount of money will be adjusted so that the Transkei will not in effect and in real terms be worse off. I would assume that that is the meaning of this provision.

Sir, I should like to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in the sense that this is obviously of very great importance to the Government of the Transkei, and even if it is simply a question of arithmetic, it would certainly not be anything more than polite that they should be consulted. What worries me about this clause is that at the end of sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) we find the rather telling and ominous words “in the Transkei”. What the Deputy Minister and his department are proposing here relates to excise duties and customs where they are appropriate, and in this connection they use the phrase “in the Transkei”. Now this is the dilemma of the hon. the Deputy Minister because when you turn, as we will later, to clause 7—and I refer to this because it is relevant in relation to “in the Transkei”—it says “in the area concerned”. Therefore I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. the Deputy Minister how that will apply to the Coloured population of this country.

Sir, I have listened with great interest to the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is quite clear—and I say this in all modesty—to anybody in this House that the arguments he advanced cannot serve as a reply to the points raised by this side of the House. I nevertheless want to say that the whole question of the enthusiasm which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to, as well as the question of the Blacks and the way they should think politically is quite irrelevant here. What is at issue here is a very simple fact, and if I as a newcomer to this House may say so. I must say that I think it is somewhat unworthy the hon. the Deputy Minister to have dragged in ulterior motives of this kind. This is not what is at issue. May I just furnish a reply in connection with the way in which these amendments are phrased, the way in which they are drafted. We spoke about the Transkei Government and not about the Minister of Finance of the Government of the Transkei for the obvious reason that we, if we are in earnest about the policy, cannot prescribe to the Transkei Government or another homeland government whom they have to designate to conduct negotiations of this kind. This is not our duty. Likewise, the Transkei Government cannot say that it does not want to have discussions with the Minister of Bantu Administration, and that it would much rather prefer to have discussions with our Minister of Finance. It is not for the Transkei Government to prescribe to us whom we have to designate in this Parliament to conduct those discussions. Neither is it our duty to tell the Transkei Government that it has to designate its Minister of Finance. It could designate its Minister of Economic Affairs or probably someone else at the appropriate time. Even the Prime Minister could be designated should the portfolios be separated. It seems to me quite obvious that, if we have honest intentions with the policy, the decision should be left to the Government concerned. That is all. In other words, for no particular reason other than this one have we referred here to the Government of the Transkei and not to the Minister of Finance of the Transkei. Logically and rationally it seems to me to be the only criterion we can put forward here, because otherwise it means that we want to prescribe to them whom it is they have to send.

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the sharing of power. I must tell you in all honesty now that I have a major problem with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Who spoke of the sharing of power? I cannot understand how the hon. the Deputy Minister can equate consultation with the sharing of power. After all, the sharing of power means that people have to decide jointly and that no decision can be taken other than jointly. This is sharing of power. What we are referring to here is consultation, and that is something quite different. I have indicated that the final decision lies in the hands of the Cabinet and, consequently, of this House. No mention was made of the sharing of power. In all honesty and fairness, I cannot understand how the hon. the Minister can use the concept of the sharing of power in this regard. It is not relevant. It seems to me we are using arguments again to spoil a sound matter while there is no need to do so because it does not concern the sharing of power here, but consultation.

After all, the hon. the Deputy Minister also mentioned the question of their being dependent or independent, but once again I indicated that there is a real difference between the two. If a territory is independent, such a territory would have no say, it would have no right to consultation as far as the finances of the Republic are concerned. I take it amiss of the hon. the Deputy Minister for mentioning in the same breath whether they are independent or whether they are not independent. There is a fundamental difference, in terms of the finances of the Republic, between a territory being independent and a territory not being independent. This I have already indicated and I cannot understand the hon. the Deputy Minister not being able to understand this. With the Coloured people the process is exactly the same. The Coloured Representative Council also draws up its budget and discusses it with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations. In spite of that we found this inadequate. For that reason the Government itself decided to go about the matter in a different way as far as the Coloured people are concerned.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister refers to the seven Black Governments, it is surely an implementation of the Government’s policy. I do not want to suggest that it is wrong, but then the Government has to accept implications thereof. Surely the Government cannot say, by way of inverted argument, that they have established seven governments, and that we are now asking them to consult the seven governments. Surely, there is no logic in that attitude in this regard. If we are in earnest to establish seven governments, we should also be in earnest to consult all seven of them. Surely, the number makes no difference. I do not say this for the sake of scoring debating points and for that reason the hon. the Deputy Minister should not try to score debating points off me; it does not help us and brings us no nearer the truth. The hon. the Deputy Minister talks of a direct say in the finances of the Republic. This is the same story we had about the sharing of power. Surely it is not a direct say they acquire. After all, we say “after consultation”.

You are talking nonsense, man. Read the legislation.

I beg your pardon; I am discussing the amendment. The hon. (the Deputy Minister must not get annoyed with me. After all, there is a vast difference between consultation, a direct say and the sharing of power. The hon. the Deputy Minister is a very intelligent person, and he cannot expect me, to use the old saying, to believe that the moon is made of green cheese. If we want to be honest in this matter, it is essential, for the sake of the practical position and for the sake of the symbol, that we should make it clear that we have to give those people, as in the case of the Coloured people, and especially, also, in the light of the previous provision referred to by the hon. member for Johannesburg North in connection with clauses 1 and 7, a real say in this manner as well as proof that we want to give it to them.

May I ask the hon. member a question? After these homelands have become independent, would the hon. member still like these independent countries to have a real say in the finances of the Republic?

I made it quite clear, and I therefore regret if the hon. member did not follow me. When a country is independent there is, of course, no right to any real say. This goes without saying. If we want to make a grant to Lesotho, Botswana or any other country such as Malawi for the development of a capital like Lilongwe, naturally we would do so in a very sincere way and by means of a loan or a grant and not as a result of any real say which those countries would have. I made it quite clear, and therefore I also said that this was a totally different situation.

I do not want to repeat myself, but I want to say in conclusion that the hon. Deputy Minister suggested that we are not aware of all the consultations. It stands to reason that I cannot say that we are aware of every detail. However, we know that consultation does take place. All I want to say, is that that consultation is inadequate. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister again to give serious consideration to the acceptance of these amendments. He does not lose anything by it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I have come to the conclusion that the hon. the Deputy Minister has gone up tremendously in the estimation of the hon. member for Edenvale in the course of his speech, because initially he called him the Deputy Prime Minister and towards the end of his speech he called him the Prime Minister. I think the Deputy Minister should continue in this vein because he is commanding respect from that hon. member. The hon. member said that the hon. the Deputy Minister should not look for motives in the United Party where no such motives exist. I think the hon. member should keep those words in mind when arguing with the Deputy Minister. He, too, should not look for motives where no such motives exist. As far as I can see, the point at issue is that hon. members on the opposite side want consultations to take place with the homeland leaders and that this should be written into this Bill as a symbol of the recognition of the authority of the homeland governments. I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that it is gratifying to see that they are beginning to attach value to the authority of the homeland governments. They have not recognized the homelands and their governments through all these years. But now, after they had changed their policy two years ago and came forward with the geographical contents of the federation, they are beginning to recognize the homelands. Now they want to persuade the National Party to recognize something we almost had to force them to accept in the end. Surely it is not an argument to come along and tell the Government it should recognize the authority of the homeland government. It is being recognized. The hon. member says discussions should take place. We know that no government has ever had more discussions with the homeland authorities than this Government. However, the hon, member said it was not necessary to prescribe to that government who had to conduct the consultation. I want to agree with the hon. member. Let us leave it to those governments. The situation in this respect is that consultation did take place, and that the homeland governments accept this legislation as it reads at present. What is more, they accept the basis on which these grants are made. If the member is in earnest when he says that they have to decide themselves, why does he not want to allow them to decide that this legislation is sound? Why does he want to suggest here that the legislation should be changed and should be written into the legislation that they have to be consulted? Surely, there is no need for this to be done.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member? If I were to ask the Transkei to choose between the present basis and the possibility of having a say on the basis we propose, does the hon. member want to tell me that the Transkei Government would reject the latter possibility?

What I can tell the hon. member, is that the homeland authorities have specifically been consulted in respect of the matters dealt with in this clause. This clause, as it reads now, was drafted after consultation. I want to say to the hon. member again what I said yesterday. A basis has to be found in regard to aspects such as company tax, customs and excise and indirect taxation those matters in respect of which they had objections. The contribution towards the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Republic of all companies operating in the homeland, has to be determined. Agreement should also be reached on the method of determination. Once an agreement has been reached on that, there would be no need to argue about these matters every time surely, then one would know. The basis has been determined, and on the strength of the basis that has been laid down, decisions could be taken from time to time. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister said—and this is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum—that this matter would be taken into reconsideration from time to time. I shall furnish the reasons why this is the case. In the first instance, a company probably does not only operate in the Transkei. It has branches in other homelands and in the Republic of South Africa as well. Only part of its total profit is derived from the Transkei. Suppose it is 10% of its total profit. In three years’ time it may be 12% or 13%. From time to time consideration will have to be given to all these companies which are active in the homelands to ascertain whether the initial ratio of their profits is still the same. For that reason a basis has been laid down and an agreement has been reached between these Governments and the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Surely, that basis is an acceptable one. The formula is then only applied arithmetically until the position is considered again. I also want to tell the hon. member that the discussions between this Government and the homeland authorities do not only take place once in a year. The discussions take place as often as is necessary, and not only on this matter, but on any matter. That is why there is no need for the hon. member to feel that his proposal would be an improvement of the present pattern. I do not believe this is the case.

I want to conclude by telling that hon. member that no government has ever done so much as this one to develop the status and the authority of the homeland governments. Therefore I think those hon. members would do well to display the necessary confidence in the homeland governments and accept that an agreement has been reached on this matter after consultation took place and that the homelands regard it as in their own interests. As far as the argument of the member is concerned to the effect that there is a difference between an independent state and these homelands, I want to say in all honesty that these things work well where customs unions exist between the Republic and independent states. Why should they not work just as well in the case of the homelands, especially since the Government is responsible for them and an additional amount could be appropriated out of the Government’s funds when there is a deficit? This is not done in respect of the independent states, but certainly in respect of the homelands. If it works in the case of independent states, why should it not work in the case of the homelands?

Mr. Chairman, after the last brilliant summing up of the hon. member for Edenvale, the thought went through my mind what the hon. the Deputy Minister was going to say because I feel certain that the hon. member for Edenvale has put forward an unanswerable case for the acceptance of this amendment. In English we have a saying about fools rushing in and here we had the hon. member for Lichtenburg. He has not done himself or the Government that he represents any good with what he has said here this afternoon. He says that the hon. member for Edenvale has pleaded that this should be inserted in this Act simply as a symbol to recognize the Transkei. He goes on to talk about how many years they have battled to get us to accept their policy. We have not accepted their policy yet, but …

Not yet.

… there is just one thing and that is that we must debate this Bill as the situation is today. The fact of the matter is that there is a Government in the Transkei which was established by that Government. They must be recognized or else, are they sycophants of this Government? Is this Government writing them off? Should they not have rights? The hon. member for Lichtenburg knows our attitude. The Transkei will be a constituent unit of our federation when we come to power. That is what it will be when we come to power. It will be acknowledged and it will be recognized and the Government of the Transkei as a constituent unit will be recognized by the Minister of the federation when the time comes when allocations of funds must be made. Therefore, the hon. member must not come with these arguments. He says that it is simply a matter of —as the hon. the Deputy Minister said— arithmetic. If that is so, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to have a look at his Bill and tell me why it is not drafted in the manner in which it begins. I want him to look at subparagraph (iii). I refer to line 5 of that subparagraph on the top of page 4. He will see that the amount is referred to as:

Here is an amount which can be ascertained. There can be no argument about it. All that happens here is that reference is made to the Controller and Auditor-General, who can be asked how much was expended. He then says “R6 million” and that then is the amount. It is definitely ascertainable. When we go further and look at the following subparagraph (iv) in line 20 we shall find that it is—

What is definite about that amount? Absolutely nothing. It depends on certain formulae, it depends on certain projections and it depends on certain estimates which are made by certain people, including the department of the hon. the Minister of Statistics. That is why we believe that it is only common decency that the Government of the Transkei should be known, seen and acknowledged in this legislation. Does this Government wish to “verneuk” the Transkei?

Oh, shut up, man!

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “shut up, man”. I want to say to him that that is exactly the response I expected from him, because he will not listen to reason. What we are seeing here this afternoon is a rejection of this amendment, a rejection which is not governed by reason but which is an indication of the psychosis which governs this Government, a psychosis of “baasskap”, that they will decide what is right. My friend, the hon. member for Eden vale, was quite correct in saying that the Cabinet will decide. The final decision in terms of this legislation before us today rests with the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa and they are not prepared to acknowledge the Government of the Transkei in this particular matter. This is merely a further manifestation of the thought that has been expressed so often by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, namely that he is the only one in this House who can speak for the Bantu people, that he is the only one who has any contact with them and that he is the only one who may consult with them. It is merely an extension of that psychosis —and I call it a psychosis advisedly. I believe it is time the Transkei was allowed to speak for itself. If the hon. the Prime Minister were sincere in what he said last week and if he were sincere when he moved the amendment to the motion of no confidence put by my leader, then I believe that the Government should accept the amendment which was put on the Order Paper today because the rejection of this amendment negates entirely all the beautiful words, the lovely sentiments, expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister last week and by the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister another question. In line 53 on page 4 of the Bill we find the following words—

I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell me what the “other factors” may possibly be. If I may go back to the first point we made in connection with this Bill, the trouble rests with the words “in the Transkei”. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister would consider it reasonable to include it as one of the “other factors” if, for instance, over 50% of the work force of the Transkei were to work outside the Transkei. If that is the case, can he assure us that he is then in a position simply to calculate arithmetically what would be due to the Transkei? I mention this because the gross inequity of this clause is included in the phrase “in the Transkei”. It is equally included in the phrase “in the area concerned” which appears in clause 7. Therefore I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us what “other factors” besides economic factors will be brought into consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He wanted an assurance that the amount would not be reduced. Naturally, I cannot give that assurance. The hon. member knows how much uncertainty there exists throughout the world as far as the economic position is concerned. I can give him the assurance, however, that, under normal circumstances, that amount ought to increase every year. That is all I can tell him. If I go beyond that, I shall no doubt exceed the limit of what we have control over. I think the hon. member will grant me that.

The hon. member also referred to the question of the Coloured people but I do not think that that is relevant here; so I shall not reply to that. Finally he wanted to know from me whether I could explain the words “and other factors as they may think fit”.

*Of course, it is essential, when dealing with the wording of a Bill of this nature, to take into account that certain factors other than simply economic factors may have an influence. I may tell the hon. member that neither I nor the Government has anything in mind at the present moment. The words concerned were inserted by the legal draftsmen to give a certain elasticity to the legislation to ensure that we do not tie ourselves down. I may tell the hon. member that we may consider this in future and may decide whether it is really necessary to have something of this nature in the Bill, but I nevertheless want to ask hon. members that they must not try and see any sinister ulterior motives in this. We on this side of the House are honest and frank with these people when dealing with this matter. We ask them what we can do for them and we tell them what we cannot do. If there is anything in which ulterior motives seem to be involved, I would be the first person to eliminate that sort of thing.

The hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South suggested here that our arguments were not logical and that we are inconsistent as far as these matters are concerned. I think I have already brought home to them my argument in this connection.

†In subparagraph (iii) of the proposed new paragraph (c) the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will notice that there is provided—

while the rest of those provisions are all “in consultation”. That makes a vast difference.

If you read a bit further you will see that it states “and corresponding to”.

Yes, I know that. I was not referring to that. I am merely referring to the question of its being “after consultation” or “in consultation”. As I say, in every other case it is a question of “in consultation” between the two Ministers. I should like to dwell on this point for a moment, particularly in regard to the hon. member for Edenvale.

*“In consultation” means that there should be agreement. If we were to accept the amendment as moved here, it would mean that there must be agreement. If we were to include the Cabinet of the Transkei or of any other homeland, it would mean that there must be agreement. In other words, the implication here is that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Finance have to agree. I think what the hon. member wanted was “after consultation”. However, it is stated here “in consultation”. This means that there must be agreement. “After consultation” means “after discussion of”. It does not mean that there must be agreement. What would happen if I were to accept this amendment and there is no agreement? In other words, one would have to re-write the whole of this legislation to provide for contingencies. I also want to put it to hon. members that we are dealing here with legal phraseology and, of course, it has to be stated quite clearly. “In consultation” means agreement and if we were to change this, it would mean that if we included these other people, all of them would have to agree, as I have already explained. Provision is not being made for cases where there is no agreement. I want to give the assurance again that we are very much in favour of consulting these people, but it would not be correct to write it into this legislation in this manner, in the first place, because the legal interpretation and the practical implementation of the legislation would be impeded and, in the second place, because it is not deemed necessary. As I say, all of us agree with the principle of discussion and the Government goes out of its way to make this possible. I think it was the hon. member for Edenvale who said that we should not try stealing a march on one another. I think what hon. members opposite are trying to do at the moment, is to score a debating point. It is really not necessary to have it inserted here; legally this does not belong here and it cannot be done either. I think we should stop arguing about it now. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for supporting this very strongly in his arguments. The hon. member needs a great deal of sympathy because it is not sure whether he will remain there.

Do not play petty politics.

If the hon. member is looking for hidden motives, it seems to me that something is afoot in their ranks. In any case, to come back to the matter under discussion, it is quite clear that there are no ulterior motives as far as the law is concerned, and that the amendment as it stands is simply not acceptable from a practical point of view.

I rise just to join issue with the hon. the Deputy Minister in the argument which he has put forward that “in consultation” means in agreement. I think that is quite wrong. It is a fallacious argument. Let us read the clause as it is here before us. I cannot follow how the hon. the Deputy Minister can make the suggestion that there must be a unanimous decision, because what does the clause say? In line five it says—

Surely that does not mean that the Minister of Finance and the Controller and Auditor-General must agree.

Read on.

The clause goes on to say—

That certainly does not mean that there has to be agreement; it does not mean “eenstemmigheid”. The determination is done by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development after discussing the matter with the Minister of Finance. Sir, the Deputy Minister’s interpretation, with the greatest respect, is quite wrong. There is no question of agreement. Does the Deputy Minister suggest that if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was accepted and there was to be consultation between the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance of the Transkei, no funds could be paid over unless there was unanimity between the three of them?

Yes, between the three of them.

Nonsense. “In consultation” means that you discuss the matter with somebody, but the decision here is in the hands of one Minister; and here it is in the hands firstly of the Minister of Finance, after consultation with the Auditor-General, and secondly it is in the hands of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in consultation with the Minister of Finance of the Republic. They are both Ministers of the same Cabinet; they would sit down and discuss the matter, but the decision is made by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and for the hon. the Deputy Minister to put this forward seriously as the reason for not accepting the very reasonable amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South makes a farce of debating the amendment, because an argument of that sort has no substance whatsoever.

I want to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the assurance that we do not doubt in the least his motives or his integrity in having consultations with these people. This I want to make quite clear. I also want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister, with reference to his last remarks about what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was supposed to have said about me, that I think he owes me an apology. Surely, I do not allow my actions to be determined by compliments of some kind or other. To suggest now that, because the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South might have said some flattering things about me he allegedly did so to commit me to a particular position in politics or, by doing so, to influence me so …

Mr. Chairman, this is irrelevant.

Sir, it is irrelevant, but the hon. the Deputy Minister used this argument.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2).

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the motion printed in my name on the Order paper, as follows—

1. (a) notes the effect that the ever more rapid industrial development is having on the agricultural resources of South Africa, with special reference to—
   1. (i) the occupation of agricultural land with a high potential; and
   2. (ii) the creation of uneconomic farming units; and
2. (b) is of the opinion that urgent steps should be taken to bring about coordination between industrial growth and the resultant increasing occupation of agricultural land.

It is important that I inform the House that a similar motion, or a motion to this effect, was introduced in 1967. However, the previous motion was mostly concerned with the withdrawal of agricultural land in general. Amongst other things, the question was discussed of the loss of agricultural land through erosion, roads, new townships, etc. The basic difference between this motion and the previous one is that this motion deals specifically with high potential agricultural land. But it is important to note, too, that since the introduction of the motion in 1967 quite a number of important steps have been taken.

In 1968 an inter-departmental committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the well-known Prof. Tomlinson, its terms of reference being to investigate the general use of agricultural land. In consequence of the report published by that commission, an amendment was introduced into the Soil Conservation Act in 1969, in terms of which greater powers were conferred by the Act to make it possible, for example, for a soil conservation plan to be served on a farming unit. A further outcome of this investigation was the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970. It is very important to note that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has since adopted optimum soil utilization as its policy. Since then the department has been organized to make a purposeful attempt, through its research institutes, to achieve optimum soil utilization. But since then new factors have come into play, to which we want to pay attention today.

Sir, the conservation and the development of agricultural resources with a view to providing in the future food requirements of humanity is today receiving unprecedented attention from ethnologists, scientists and even politicians. In 1972, as you know, a tremendous shortage of grain and oil seed suddenly developed as a result of climatic conditions in areas such as Russia, South-East Asia, America and Africa, and many people starved to death. Suddenly the world realized that food reserves had dropped to the lowest level in the past 20 years. A world conference in this connection was held in Rome last year to discuss, amongst other things, what could be done to replenish food supplies. But in South Africa, too, this subject has been discussed and attention has been drawn to it by people such as Dr. Verbeek, the Secretary for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, who read a paper in this connection at an annual meeting of the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns last year. This year he delivered the opening address at the congress of the S.A. Association for Crop Production, in which he said the following (translation)—

At the present moment South Africa is in a favourable position. We are producing enough food for our population in South Africa. In fact, we are producing so much food that we may be regarded as a food export country. But we must realize that our population growth is probably among the highest in the world, a fact which presents us with great challenges. But it is also a recognized fact that South Africa’s position in regard to food resources and production is not at all favourable. Our present favourable production supply may be chiefly attributed to three reasons. The first is the sound agricultural policy of the present Government, the second is the exceptionally high quality of agricultural scientific services in South Africa, and the last, but not the least, is the calibre of farmers that we have in South Africa.

What is the challenge with which we are faced? The challenge is that we shall have to ascertain how vulnerable our food resources in South Africa are. And then we are faced with the hard and sobering fact that our arable soil in South Africa is extremely limited. Fifteen per cent of the total area of the Republic of South Africa is arable. But, and this is so important, only 3,3% of this 15% is agricultural land with a high potential. Consequently we must guard this potential at all costs and reserve it for food production alone. Seventy per cent of our total agricultural production comes from the soil. We shall have to use the best planning methods to prevent this high potential soil from being withdrawn and occupied by heavy industries.

When we look at the reserve position, we find that we are already utilizing 90% of our total arable land, as against countries in Europe, which is a very densely populated region, where only 80% is being utilized, or Africa and North America where between 50% and 60% is being utilized, or Australasia, where the persentage is between 15% and 20%. South Africa, with its limited high potential agricultural land, also finds itself in the dilemma that this high potential land is chiefly situated in the areas of our country where the most important mineral deposits are also found. I say that this is a dilemma. As an example we may take the Witwatersrand/Vereeniging complex, a well developed industrial area—and industrial growth is still going on there. This development is chiefly owing to the fact that gold has been mined there since the earliest years. Growth points have been created. But it is also a fact that within this area, some of our best agricultural land in South Africa is situated. We may look, for example, at the fine deep red soil, especially in the vicinity of the East Rand. Today most of these mines have been exhausted and literally thousands of morgen of land are covered by mine dumps. So this land can never be utilized for food production for posterity.

The prosperity which gold has brought South Africa has also had a stimulating effect on agriculture, and we are grateful for that. But we have to realize that the mining industry itself is a dwindling asset, and that at the same time it may have an adverse effect on an appreciating asset such as land, particularly agricultural land, something which lives and can be developed and thus increases in value. The Witwatersrand is the most highly developed industrial area in South Africa today. As I have already said, some of our highly productive agricultural land is being occupied by these industries. This is also one of the oldest industrial areas, and planning in previous decades certainly did not take place on such a scientific basis as is the case today. In the second place the development there is site-bound because it took place chiefly as a result of the mining industry. Now the question arises, and this is the challenge to the modern town and industrial planner: Are we, for the sake of argument, going to allow a second Witwatersrand to develop, involving the withdrawal at the same pace of high potential agricultural land in particular, or should we, in planning such an extensive complex, also take into account the scarce agricultural resources? Can residential areas, big flat complexes and buildings for heavy industries and factories, for example, not be sited on land which is less suitable for agricultural production? If this could be done, we envisage a situation where land could be reserved inside, around and between urban complexes for agriculture and food production alone. There are powers in our existing legislation which enable us to do this, and I believe that this machinery can be set in motion. If another Witwatersrand complex were to develop in South Africa without these agricultural factors being taken into account, we would be living on the dwindling assets of the mining industry alone, and we would be completely destroying the limited reserves of productive agricultural land, with the catastrophic results which this would entail. At the end of 1973 the world found itself in a grave energy crisis. The result of this energy crisis is that coal has become a very important mineral in South Africa, probably one of the most important minerals. South Africa is dependent on oil for only 20% of its energy. But once again our coal deposits are situated in an area in which agriculture and crop farming in particular are practised intensively and in which some of our most productive land in South Africa is situated. These areas are, briefly, the eastern highveld of the Transvaal, Northern Natal, and large parts of the North-Eastern Free State. I should like to take the eastern highveld as an example, because I am personally very well acquainted with that area and particularly with its potential for agricultural Production.

The eastern highveld covers about 19 magistrate’s districts and occupies 5,4% of the area of the Republic of South Africa. According to the agricultural census of 1970-’71, this area contains 8 964 farming units, i.e. 10% of the total number of farming units in the Republic. On 5,4% of the area of the Republic, this 10% of our farmers produces the following in the field of crop farming (expressed as percentages of the total crops)—

As far as livestock is concerned, that area carries 13,6% of South Africa’s cattle. The pace of industrial development in this area is already rising. Seventy-five per cent of the power generated in the Republic is generated in this area. The new Kriel power station is already under construction and will be the biggest of its kind in the southern hemisphere. A second power station which will be even bigger has already been announced. The name of this power station will be Matla and it is to be built on the farms Haasfontein and Grootpan, which are probably among the best farms in the Bethal district. The second Sasol has already been announced. This project will cost one milliard rand and will be situated within this area. Big investments are being made in order to boost the mining and exportation of coal. The population growth in this area is already much higher than the average for South Africa. Consequently we shall have to give attention to the development of the mining industry and other industries in this area as soon as possible. Planning within this area must not be allowed to take place without the agricultural potential being taken into account. With proper co-ordination between agriculture and the other industrial interests, industries can be established and developed in this area without necessarily having to occupy the high potential agricultural land, because there is also low potential agricultural land in this area, land which is suitable for new townships, factories and mine dumps. As an example I take the farm Haasfontein, where the Matla power station is to be erected. I know that this particular farm has a production potential of between five and six tons of maize per hectare, and approximately 80 of the farm is arable. It is possible that, after thorough investigations, one may find a piece of unused land a mile or two away which does not have such a high production potential. Here one could then establish the heavy industries, factories and residential areas, in order to retain high potential land for agricultural purposes. In doing this we would be achieving what is known in agriculture as “optimum soil utilization”, which means that land is used for the purpose for which it is suitable. In this way, for example, low production land is used for heavy industries, while soft and fertile soil is retained for agricultural production. The ideal, therefore, is to utilize the available land as selectively as possible in order to prevent soil-bound agricultural resources from being adversely affected by site-bound industrial development.

I now want to make another statement from a long-term economic viewpoint. Escom power stations, Sasol fuel installations, and the mining in this area of coal for export, all depend on the availability of coal, which is necessarily a dwindling asset as against the agricultural resources, i.e. land, which has the potential to be a permanent and a growing asset, as I have said. For that reason every attempt should be made not to exploit the dwindling assets to the detriment of the permanent asset. If we could succeed in this, it would mean that we would have reached a position of balanced and co-ordinated planning. This applies to all sectors, including agriculture on the highest level. We concede that this may well be a difficult method of planning, but it certainly is a necessity which will have to be investigated timeously. We shall have to make a proper survey of these areas with a view to agriculture and to industry. It will have to be a detailed survey, which will mean that it will have to be done from farm to farm. We cannot decide what the position in the area is to be after having taken only a general look at it. It will have to be a very intensive survey to be able to meet this demand of agricultural production in South Africa. If in agriculture we want to talk about food, peace and prosperity, this is definitely one of the first matters which will have to receive our attention. The Department of Agriculture is already well equipped for making proper soil surveys, i.e. the statistics and particulars which will be required for this planning are already available. For that reason I move my motion. I hope that my good friends in the Opposition on the other side will not try to make political capital out of this important motion. We know they are experiencing political problems at the moment, but we believe that they will approach this motion with the seriousness it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that although South Africa encompasses a very vast area we are not over-endowed with land which can be used for intensive agricultural purposes. The hon. member said that only 15% of our soil could be regarded as arable soil. I must say that the advice I have had from other experts tell me that it is only something like 12%. It is also known that all the land that must be set aside for townships and industrial development will normally have to be allocated from this small percentage. We often find that some of our best and most fertile soil surrounds the bigger cities and our bigger centres. It is also true that this country faces large-scale development. The hon. member for Bethal made mention of that fact. We face large-scale development both in the direction of further industrial projects and an unprecedented growth in the population of South Africa. Therefore one can expect that the demands on our available arable land will increase in the years to come.

It does not need much imagination to realize that the least productive agricultural land should be used for urban expansion and for industrial purposes. We shall be cutting our own throats if we were to allow our best agricultural land to be used for purposes other than for primary production in this country.

I believe the hon. member for Bethal has acted wisely in bringing a situation to our notice which I believe should also be a worrying situation to those of us who are particularly interested in agricultural production. It is at the same time a motion of self-criticism. The Government has been aware of this problem and quite obviously the hon. member for Bethal is dissatisfied with the policy followed hitherto. If that is not the case, then I believe the hon. member is unhappy about the fact that the necessary co-ordination has not been developed up to now. These are possibly the reasons for his motion. I presume he expects a clear statement from the hon. the Minister or his deputy as to what the future policy in this regard will be.

One is entitled to ask certain questions at this stage. A Bill was passed in this House to prevent the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has some very wide powers under that Act. We on this side of the House would like to know whether or not this particular Act has failed in its objectives. If it has failed, does the hon. member or the hon. the Minister proposes that something else should come in its place?

There is another question one is entitled to ask. In terms of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act wide powers were given to the Minister of Planning and his department by means of which he or his department can prevent the use, or may I say the abuse, of good agricultural land for other purposes. Why then has there not been the necessary co-ordination between the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and his colleague, the Minister of Planning? When one goes through the provisions of the Physical Planning Act of 1967, an Act of which I again made a study, one is forced to admit that the general objects of this particular Act have been to prevent a haphazard use of land. One finds in this Act powers to control— no-one may do just as he likes—the use of land, including agricultural land, in this country. Why then is the hon. member for Bethal compelled to ask for co-ordination?

*Mr. Speaker, with industrial growth on an unprecedented scale, it may be expected that the existing industries will also attract others. In this regard the hon. member mentioned the development on the Witwatersrand and he requested that, since the planning in the past had perhaps not always been sound, the planning should in future be done more thoroughly when new complexes were being developed. In addition, it must be realized that the local authorities, particularly in the larger cities and towns, will also do everything to attract industries to their respective areas. It is also generally known that transport costs are an important factor in the planning of industrial areas, not only as far as the transportation of raw materials is concerned, but also of employees and labourers. Therefore attempts are being made to ensure that these industries are not established too far from residential areas, harbours, stations or main roads. This is why more and more arable land will be swallowed up. This side of the House is aware of the great contribution which industry has made to our national product. Consequently it is our attitude as well that our industrial upsurge should in no way be restricted, but should rather be constantly encouraged. The establishment of more and new industries is therefore inevitable if we want to provide employment for the annual increase in our population. Therefore this side of the House also believes that in order to counteract inflationary tendencies in the country, the further development of industries is the obvious step, for the greater the production, the greater the stocks, and the better we will be able to keep prices stable. Many raw materials and products derived from our agricultural industry are processed by industry. In addition our agricultural industry is, in its turn, also dependent on the secondary industries for its needs, its means of production. Therefore the two sectors must now co-operate and we should like to see that nothing is done to upset that balance between the two or the co-operation between the two. Good agricultural land taken up by factories, is out of agricultural production for good. It is forced out of agricultural production for good. The problem we are facing here, is also influenced by other additional factors. There is the question of township development, which cannot remain stationary, and there is the question of roads which have to be built. Therefore we should not like to see industrial development singled out as being the only major sector that has to make use of good agricultural land. This is not the only sector occupying our utilizing portions of our agricultural land.

What is our attitude on this side of the House? We are not going to oppose the hon. gentleman’s motion. We believe it is a good thing that the House pay attention to this matter. However, circumstances will require that agricultural land will, from time to time, have to be used for purposes other than agriculture. However, when it happens—and here I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Bethal—that land with agricultural potential has to be used for industrial development, township development or whatever the case may be, then this should be confined to the minimum. If one can prevent this completely, so much the better. The hon. member had a very good argument when he cited the example of the second Sasol which is to be built in his part of the world. The hon. member asked that, if there has to be township development, it should be in an area where this type of land will not be absorbed.

Furthermore, we on this side of the House feel that there should be proper zoning. In his motion the hon. member asked for a thorough investigation. He almost asked that we go from one farm to the next. We on this side of the House feel that the necessary planning can be done through the Department of Planning and the Division of Soil Utilization of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. We believe that this is already being done. We say that when zoning takes place, care should be taken to ensure that good agricultural land is used for that purpose only.

In the third place, we on this side of the House believe in a true approach to the question of the decentralization of industries. In particular we feel that the industries should be decentralized in such a manner that those areas which are perhaps not all that agriculturally intensive, but which nevertheless have other potentials, should be used for sound industrial growth. In that respect we would then be ensuring that good agricultural land will not be utilized for those purposes. It will in that way then be possible to preserve that land. For instance we have the position in a province such as Natal where, by means of their township and regional planning, they zone their areas well and ensure that a green belt is usually set aside which can be used intensively for agricultural or other purposes. When a start is made with the location or encouragement of industries in areas which are not agriculturally intensive, care should be taken that the zoning is done as soon as possible. There should also be discussions and consultation with the local authorities. We see this as the only way in which we can preserve our good agricultural land and at the same time prevent our industrial development from being restricted in any way. We support this motion which is now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I want to extend my sincere thanks to my colleague, the hon. member for Bethal this afternoon for having come to the House with this particular motion. I also want to thank him for the way in which he put his case. It is very clear to me that the proper utilization of our agricultural land, is a matter of great concern to him. I should like to associate myself this afternoon with what the hon. member said, i.e. that we should do everything in our power, in addition to what is already being done, to zone and utilize our high potential land in such a way that it will remain unscathed for agriculture.

Sir, I just want to return briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member, at the beginning of his speech, made the allegation that the hon. member for Bethal is worried and that this motion is really a motion of self-criticism. This was his conclusion. He also made the further allegation that possibly there had not been the necessary co-ordination and that this was the reason why the hon. member for Bethal introduced this motion here. Sir, I want to say to the hon. member for Newton Park that this was by no means the reason for the introduction of this motion. Later on in his speech, however, the hon. member himself emphasized the importance of high potential land which should be preserved for agriculture, and he suggested that certain measures such as zoning ought to be adopted; furthermore, he said that a true approach should be manifested in regard to the decentralization of industries, and that certain consultations should take place, and he mentioned the example of the Green Belt in Natal. Sir, I want to tell you that we on this side of the House are pleased that we have the opportunity this afternoon of being able to discuss this motion and, we should now like to point out what has already been done in this connection and what could possibly be done, and we want to advocate a “new approach”, a new sense of urgency in regard to this matter among our people as a whole. On the other hand we should give recognition for what has already been done. Sir, we on this side of the House realize the value of industrial development in a country such as South Africa and we do not want to detract from it in any way. We are thankful for what has been done by this Government, but on the other hand we also realize that good, sustained and balanced growth in all the other areas of our national economy, cannot be divorced from the important basic requirement, namely food production. South Africa, with its special position in the world and also, in particular, in Africa, with its millions of mouths that have to be fed, has a special contribution to make, not only in the industrial sphere, but also in the sphere of agriculture. As experts and leaders in Africa, it is imperative for South Africa always to be dynamically at the forefront in all the areas relating to development and the dissemination of knowledge to others, especially to our neighbouring states and other African States. The slogan “Food for peace and progress” is a banner which should be held high by South Africa and its people and the opportunities falling into our lap which we are able to make use of, we should utilize with glowing enthusiasm to the advantage not only of ourselves, but also of our own continent, Africa, and of the world as a whole. One is grateful for the exceptional achievements within the field of agriculture in recent times under the régime of a National Party Government. These are achievements which, in the first place, were made possible by a good and sound policy on the part of the Government and secondly, as my friend also put it there, by the untiring zeal on the part of our various departments of agriculture with their officials in planning meaningfully, analysing, identifying bottlenecks and trying to find the necessary solutions within our democratic set-up and without prejudicing the individuality and freedom of the farmer. This is important, Sir. To a great extent this has been accompanied by persuasion by means of knowledge. Thirdly, we are all aware of the quality of our farmers in South Africa. Although we really have a difficult agricultural country and have had to face many vicissitudes, production was able to keep pace with needs.

The available knowledge and the policy of optimum soil utilization can now be implemented fully in agriculture. It is my considered opinion that we as agriculturalists are at the moment able to give a clear answer to the repeated appeals which have been made from various quarters for higher productivity in agriculture.

The complexity of the agricultural industry as far as technical, economical and sociological aspects in South Africa are concerned, has been set out very clearly in the reports of the Commission of inquiry into Agriculture. A clear distinction has been made between the factors inherent in nature and the factors brought about by man. The greatest attention is being given to this so as to achieve the most purposeful planning and co-ordination. However, there are certain facts we have to bear in mind. South Africa has a small quantity of arable soil, as my hon. colleague put it. With the great quantity which has already been or is being used, and the small percentage high potential land, there is only a surface area of 0,57 ha per person available at the moment. When one considers the population increase, only 0,32 ha per person will be available by the year 2000. Furthermore, one has to bear in mind that a third of our agricultural land in South Africa receives less than 250 mm of rain per annum and that only a third of the land receives 250 to 500 mm of rain per annum. This is land which can in fact be used only for grazing and for the production of hay. The remaining third of our land receives more than 500 mm of rain per annum and it is this part which can in fact be used for agricultural production, apart from its potential. One should also bear in mind that by the end of the century, we shall have 50,3 million people in this country. This means that by the end of the century, we are going to have an additional 28 million people. If they had to be accommodated in cities, it would mean that there will have to be approximately 28 cities with a population of 1 million each or 56 cities with a population of 500 000 each. It is inevitably the case throughout the world—we have the examples—that where one finds good land, where the land is fertile, you inevitably find the heaviest industrial development. To a large extent this is also the case in South Africa. Because we know these things and have seen how matters are developing, we introduced this motion today to focus attention once again on this very important aspect of the preservation of our high-potential land. For this reason it gives me so much pleasure this afternoon to be able to state from this side of the House that we are grateful for the machinery which has been created by this Government, by means of which it has been possible for us to protect our good agricultural soil up to now. I am thinking for example, of section 2 of the Physical Planning Act which imposes a complete prohibition on the utilization of land for industrial purposes or town planning without the prior approval of the Minister of Planning. Furthermore, I am thinking of the Act we placed on the Statute Book in respect of the uneconomical subdivision of land. We know and we realize what the effect of these two measures has been, and we are very grateful to the Government for the fact that these measures were placed on the Statute Book. We are also grateful for the effectiveness with which it has been possible to apply them. But annually approximately 30 000 ha of agricultural land still disappears under tarred roads, cement foundations, etc. I think we can justifiably say that this is perhaps too much. We shall have to think again.

Because of the complex nature of planning, since we are dealing with a problem which is arising throughout the entire world, namely that development and industrial growth usually occurs on one’s best land and is usually concentrated, we are also pleased with the steps that have been taken in respect of the decentralization of industries. But we also realize that these industries have to be established on a basis which is economically justified. We simply cannot get away from that. That increases the complexity of the problem even further. Therefore it can do no harm this afternoon if we reconsider anew the urgency of co-ordination with a view to the protection and preservation of our high potential land. One could ask oneself whether high potential agricultural land should not be allocated irrevocably to agriculture. Should it not be regarded as an offence when high potential agricultural land is used for any other purpose? Sir, I want to say to you this afternoon that land is something that is alive, that creates life. It is a growing asset; it is a guarantee for our future. We may not misuse land. I believe that good high potential land, in exactly the same way as other economic factors such as the establishment of industries, decentralization, development, and so on, should also be taken into consideration. But I realize that this is saying a great deal. It is for exactly this reason that we have this motion before us this afternoon, to sharpen our minds, to bring this actuality of the preservation of our high potential land to our attention once again, and to accentuate this great task resting on the planner.

We are also pleased that the policy is being followed by other government bodies concerned with tarred roads, for example —our national roads throughout the country—to buy up land which is being uneconomically subdivided in order that it may be resold to other people on the other side of a road such as this which runs through the area. We are aware of this and we are very thankful for it. But the planner of the future has a great task, a task in respect of which we as agriculturalists should like to play our part by focussing attention on the urgency of this question of our valuable land, while giving recognition to what has already been done.

Therefore I am very pleased that my hon. colleague brought this motion to the House this afternoon. We are by no means expressing a lack of confidence in ourselves with this motion, and we do not feel concerned about the steps that have been taken, but we want to state positively to the hon. member for Newton Park that we owe it to South Africa and ourselves to champion this cause here this afternoon anew and, since we are dealing with highly technical and highly complicated matters, request the co-operation of all other bodies in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, one of the great difficulties with a motion such as this is that everyone practically agrees with it. When one is the fourth, the fifth or the sixth speaker, it is difficult to say something which has not already been said. However, I should like to bring one point to the attention of the House, i.e. that we on this side differ from the Government. This motion seems to us to have been moved with very good intentions by the hon. member on the other side, but something seems to be lacking in the co-operation between the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Planning. For us to come along to this House, in 1975, with a motion to draw the attention of the House to a matter on which we have been in agreement for all these years, i.e. the use of agricultural land, would seem to indicate that the hon. member is not quite satisfied that what is being done in our country today is quite correct.

This is a new actuality.

No, this is not a new actuality, for we have been entertaining this thought for many years, and this is a very practical problem.

†When we look at the question of production, we see that it is a question of striking a balance between agricultural production and industrial production. The hon. member calls for urgent steps and notice to be taken of this problem and it relates specifically to the use of agricultural ground. I think we in this House have been conscious of this problem for many years. The whole idea of the subdivision of agricultural land was designed to protect agricultural ground from being broken down, cut up and destroyed from the point of view of production. When you come to striking a balance between industrial production and agricultural production you face an inescapable fact, namely that the value that can be gained from a given piece of ground by way of industrial production is so much greater than anything agriculture can match. Not only that, but in the situation in which we find ourselves in South Africa today where agriculture is labour-extensive, we have to realize that industry is labour-intensive. To provide employment for the growing population of this country is one of the biggest priorities the Minister of Planning is going to have to face in the years that lie ahead. A person who is interested in agriculture starts off at a disadvantage straight away, because not only does one find that from a given area of ground one can have an immensely higher production, but from a sociological point of view one can have a tremendously greater rate of employment of people which is one of the priorities in our country. I do think that the question of co-ordination requires a very close matching of minds between those two departments. It has to turn on certain parameters which give the people in the Government an overall plan. The question of the subdivision of land in itself, something that is handled by the Minister of Agriculture, is handled, basically, from the point of view that agricultural ground should not be cut into sub-economic units and that it should be kept for agricultural production on a larger and therefore more efficient scale.

The hon. member for Bethal mentioned the new developments in his area. He mentioned the farm Haasfontein, which he says is one of the best farms in the area, on which a new power station is going to be built. He asked whether it is not possible to place that development and the housing to serve it somewhere else.

I think we have to realize that it all boils down to the sheer efficiency of population movement between the place of employment and the place of residence, the sheer efficiency of the construction of an enormous factory or a power station and the hidden costs that are going to be built in. The cost of development is something we have got to face. If it is going to cost an additional R500 000 or more to build a large project because of the unsuitability of the site for that particular development —foundations or floors may have to be reinforced, etc.—'the capital cost of the project will be increased, and in that way an invisible additional cost is added on to everything that is produced by that particular development. I think that we who are interested in agriculture and the preservation of agricultural land are behind in the race, as it were. Although the hon. the Minister of Agriculture can try to protect agricultural land as much as he likes, claims will always be made on agricultural land, in fact the best agricultural land, the flat land that is easy to develop. This land is a prime site in any developer’s eyes, whether for factories, housing or whatever, because it is the easiest and cheapest land to develop.

If the Government is deliberately going to decide to utilize the less favourable land for anything but agricultural development, higher costs are going to be incurred. Someone will then eventually have to bear the costs, whether it be the consumer or the Government. There is bound to be a built-in added cost. The balancing up of the importance of food and agricultural production is a thought which must constantly be in the minds of both those hon. Ministers because food is obviously of prime importance. It is the most important commodity we can produce in South Africa. There is no question whatever about that. I said this last year, and I also said so many years ago when Oom Jim Fouché was still Minister of Agriculture: Food is power. If we have food in South Africa today, in Africa today or in the world today we have the power to have all the friends and allies we need. I do not go back on that at all. Food is power. It is the most important commodity we can produce.

However, it is again a question of where one can find the balance. Food is a relatively important commodity when weighed up against industrial production. Strategically food is very important indeed. Here again there is the question of the employment of the Black population. If one is to consider seriously what the hon. member for Bethal is proposing, one might well ask the Minister of Planning why a great deal of our future industrial planning and the location of industries does not centre itself in the Orange River area below the dams, in areas which are not prime agricultural areas, where it has been proved that even the tremendous amount of water stored up in the H. F. Verwoerd Dam and in other dams cannot be used for agricultural production because of the quality of the soil in those areas.

Do you want to take the labour from the farms?

The hon. member asks if we want to take the labour from the farms. One has to strike a balance and determine one’s priorities. If one is serious about the best land in the best rainfall areas of South Africa not being utilized for industrial production and not being covered by concrete and lost for ever to agricultural production because of housing projects and similar developments, there is going to have to be a major deviation of thinking on the part of the Government, to allocate areas and redirect industrial development towards those areas where there is waiter and where power can be supplied.

I wonder whether the hon. member did not have in mind that there should be rethinking on this subject. When one talks about the preservation of agricultural land one should not be thinking along the lines of vast areas which are underpopulated or hardly populated at all, but where one has all the water one may need and adequate channels of communication that can also be improved. Water is a factor in production. The hon. member did not mention that. Water and agricultural land, however, go together. These are two things which go hand in hand. One cannot separate them. It has been established— some years ago it was actually proved in practice by this Government—that the production from the use of water by industry is something like 24 times as great as production from the use of water by agriculture. Hon. members will remember that the Government had to cut off the water supply to irrigators in the lower Vaal River at one time because there was a shortage of water in the Vaal basin. That is an unanswerable argument. Where one has the question of maintaining a balance, water allied to land will probably be the decisive factor …

Oh no, it will depend on the availability of other raw materials such as coal.

The hon. member talks about the availability of coal and that sort of thing. It is true that coal will be used at Sasol because it provides power, but power is transferable.

The power …

Order! It is the hon. member for Mooiriver who is making a speech.

Power is mobile. It can be moved. One can move labour and locate industries in areas other than the best agricultural areas. That is the point I am trying to make. I am trying to help the hon. member to give some point to what is otherwise merely a general sort of discussion on a motion of this nature. The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned the Green Belt in Natal. The Green Belt was established as a concomitant to what is called an urban fence. One of the points the hon. member for Bethal made was that we do not want the best agricultural land to be taken up for housing. The Town and Regional Planning Commission in Natal has established an urban fence around the City of Durban, stating that there shall be no further expansion. In other words, there will now have to be expansion further inwards from the outside boundaries of Durban which today extend to Drummond, Amanzimtoti and places on the South Coast. Now there will have to be redevelopment and intensification within the limits of that urban fence. This is going to solve a great deal of the problems of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, at least for a certain period, because there will no longer be continuous applications for subdivision upon subdivision beyond the boundaries of that fence. I think that this is something which ought to be looked into because it is quite obvious that far more intensive settlement and development could take place in every city of our country. It has already been said by the late Minister Blaar Coetzee that people are living on far too big plots in most of the main urban centres. If we are serious about saving ground, something of this nature should be implemented in all the major cities of South Africa. We should not allow continual expansion outwards. We should rather insist on closer settlement, whether by means of town houses or whatever the case may be. That is a thought which, in my view, will have to be adopted. The Green Belt itself is designed merely to maintain those open areas which are going to be so absolutely essential for something which the hon. member did not mention, namely recreation. Recreation is a vital factor in the use of ground, but fortunately it is an activity which can be engaged in less favourable areas such as the broken countryside, the hills and the mountains, etc. Recreation is something which is at its best in areas of that nature.

One of our problems is the production of food. The hon. the Minister is charged with the responsibility of seeing that there is enough food in South Africa. I think that we are going to see an intensification of food production in this country such as we have seen in Eruope. Furthermore, I think we are going to see higher prices because it is inevitable that higher prices will result from intensification. The question of the allocation of priorities in agriculture and industry is something on which, in terms of this resolution, these hon. Ministers will have to co-operate and which they will have to sort out. Then there is the cost of development. I mentioned earlier that if the Government is going to direct, by fiat virtually, industry or other developments such as housing to less favourable sites, there will be the cost of transport, construction costs, the cost of designing these developments, the cost of providing storm drainage and other hidden costs which are built into any decision of this kind. If a township is moved from flat land to sloping land, for instance, one promptly adds 25 % or more to the cost of every single plot in that new township. There is also the question of labour and the fact that sites are often allocated and industries directed to border areas by the hon. the Minister’s department. Incentives are sought to draw people to certain areas such as Black areas. One has to have an exceptional inducement to get industries to locate themselves at growth points. One thinks of tax concessions and so on. Is it not possible for the hon. the Minister’s department to consider offering inducements to people who are prepared to locate themselves on less favourable sites? Certainly, no one will settle for such a site unless he is absolutely forced to do so. I come back to the point that someone will have to meet the additional costs which this motion, if adopted and realistically implemented, is going to impose on every single development which is going to take place in our country unless, as I say, the hon. the Minister can direct the industrial development to a totally different part of the country. At a certain point this development becomes counter-productive, and all we can say is that a balance must be struck. At a certain point it becomes counter-productive to say that the best agricultural land shall be reserved solely for agricultural purposes.

I was interested to see in Scala, a publication we get from West Germany, that there they virtually have a movement embodying what they call citizen initiative. People come together and form pressure groups to try to stop certain developments, such as the establishment of oil refineries, from taking place. They also try to combat noise from airports and they try to prevent blocks of flats being built in woodland areas and so on. What is significant about this is that every one of these citizen groups which were formed to try to stop the development of flats, or whatever, in desirable recreation areas, lost the fight every time simply because of the pressure of population as such. One need only think how heavily populated a country such as West Germany is. That is why they are even developing sites for new townships and for flat development in the few remaining areas of woodland. They are even using places such as army training ranges for such development. Nevertheless the citizens who formed pressure groups in an attempt to halt that development, lost out every single time. I think it is immensely important that we should realize that when a decision has been taken and a major project embarked upon, it is too late for concerned citizens to come together to try to reverse the process.

Sandy Bay is also going to be used.

I am not talking about Sandy Bay. I have not even been to look there. I do think it is important that we should take steps in time, and I believe that this motion, coming before the House at this time, reinforces the urgency of this matter and the fact that every member here feels that we should always be ahead of development with our thinking.

I must say that we support the motion as such. I am merely trying to point out some of the very real practical difficulties we are going to face. If one tries to preserve agricultural ground, one is going to run into tremendous pressure from the many vested interests and the whole pattern of development in our country. I think it is incumbent upon the two hon. Ministers concerned to really get down to it and have a long-term look at the situation so that we shall be in time to save as much as possible.

Mr. Speaker, to start with I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Mooi River that it is extremely difficult at this stage of the debate to say something which has not yet been said. However, I want to differ with the hon. member when, like the hon. member for Newton Park, he tries to arrive at the conclusion that the hon. member for Bethal is dissatisfied about something, I do not think it is justified to deduce from the speech which the hon. member made a moment ago, and his motivation for this motion, that there is something with which he is not satisfied.

I think that the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Heilbron, pointed out the machinery which exists in South Africa to control this matter. I say that we are satisfied with that machinery. If one compares it with the machinery of other countries in the world, then this machinery of South Africa appears to be considerably better. These are definitely some of the best measures in respect of these matters which one can find anywhere in the world. Since these measures were introduced, very good results have been achieved.

I want to refer to the high potential agricultural land, within the municipal area of Paarl, which has been zoned for agricultural purposes. I think that what happened there was a very good thing and was in line with what all of us desire. I could also mention to you the planning of the Pretoria/Witwatersrand area and the green belt which is being indicated in that planning. On the other hand we can point out what happened in the past before these measures were applied there. One must ask oneself whether, if these measures had been in operation at the time, the Constantia Valley, or the Tygerberg Valley, or Durbanville would have been withdrawn from agricultural production. Would those residential areas not have been situated in another area of a lower potential here close to Cape Town, and still have served the same purpose? This is something one can argue about.

In respect of what the hon. member for Mooi River said about development below the Orange River, it would seem to me as though there has once again been progress in the ranks of the Opposition. There were times when they said that it was not possible to decentralize, but now the hon. member is saying that we should decentralize to that area. I just want to tell him that when we are again discussing decentralization on some other occasion, he must remember that for the same reasons he now wishes to decentralize to the Orange River area, we can also decentralize to the border areas.

When we come to the motion now, there are just a few points I wish to emphasize. The first is that land in South Africa is fully occupied and for that reason various sectors are competing for the utilization of land. Land in South Africa is utilized chiefly for agriculture, forestry, mining, recreation and to satisfy urban demand with its various aspects of industrial, residential and other uses. The first point I want to make is that there is competition for the utilization of land. For that reason it is important that we reconsider the finer points, as my hon. colleague said.

The second point I want to make is that agricultural land is constantly diminishing because it is being competed for. The hon. member for Newton Park said that we should not try to curtail industrial growth. That is not what this side of the House has in mind at all. Our point of departure is not that industrial growth should take place less rapidly. We think it is a hard fact that it will increase more rapidly and assume greater proportions in future. I also think it is a hard fact that agricultural land will in future be withdrawn more rapidly for other purposes of a non-agricultural nature than was the case in the past. This is a hard fact which we have to accent. This brings one then to the conclusion that increased demands will be made on the available agricultural land. Sir, this is not only the case in South Africa; it is the case throughout the entire world. In regard to the first aspect, i.e. food production, Sir, I just want to mention a few figures to you. The first billion people appeared on earth in the year a.d. 1830: in other words, it took from the time of Adam and Eve—i.e. a few thousand years before Christ, to 1 830 years after Christ to reach the one billion mark. To reach the two billion mark did not take so many thousands of years; it was reached a hundred years later, in 1930; then the number of people on earth was 2 billion. It took a hundred years to add another billion. The three billion mark was reached 30 years later, in 1960, and it is estimated that the 4 billion mark will be reached this year. In addition it has been estimated that by the turn of the century there will be seven billion people on earth. In other words, while it took the first billion people approximately 6 000 years, or let us say 4 000 years, to appear on the earth, it will, by the end of this century, take only four or five years for the number of people on earth to increase by a billion. Sir, this will make a tremendous demand on agriculture.

I then want to go further and say that in these times in which we are living we have had the first signs that the predictions which Malthus made almost two centuries ago could perhaps come true. I am referring to the fact that in the fifties and sixties the agricultural industry of the developed countries had to cope with surpluses, that they struggled to find a market, and that there were large stocks of grain. In 1961 the amount of the grain in stock was 140 million tons, and in the U.S.A, high potential land, which was used for field husbandry purposes, was withdrawn. The amount of land which was withdrawn in 1972 was 24,9 million ha, and, Sir, suddenly in the year 1972, owing to various causes, the situation changed from a surplus to a shortage. The position today is that agricultural land is fully occupied, and we are hearing reports from all over the world of people who are dying of starvation in spite of the aid which is being offered, and I am referring here to Ethiopia, Central West Africa and Bangladesh. In addition we find that an international team of scientists under the guidance of Meadows of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has investigated the five factors determining and limiting growth on earth. Those five factors are agricultural production, industrial production, population growth, natural resources and pollution. They set up a mathematical model and fed certain data into it, and the result of their investigation was that if the present tendencies in respect of these five causes of growth on earth continue unchanged, a collapse will take place by the year 2000. To bring mankind into equilibrium with the world’s resources, tremendous changes have to be effected in respect of population growth and industrial growth, otherwise mankind and its habitat will not be in equilibrium. Sir, I do not know whether mankind has given sufficiently serious thought to those things which according to this research team should be done to bring mankind into equilibrium with its environment. In any event, I do not at this stage see any signs that mankind is giving any attention to those problems.

Returning to South Africa now, Sir, it is estimated that the population of South Africa will, in less than 100 years, in the year 2070, consist of 700 million people. We now total 22 million. If this number of people utilize just as much food and other agricultural commodities per capita as at present, agriculture will, in less than 100 years, have to produce 35 times more than at present. This will make heavy demands on agriculture and on agricultural land. For that reason I want to say that in the past, in South Africa and in all the developed countries, but pre-eminently in South Arica, agricultural land was an important asset and agriculture was an extremely important sector in the national economy. We do not dispute that, but I just want to remind you of a few things.

The first is that agriculture has produced food relatively cheaply in South Africa. The gross value of agricultural production increased from R130 million in 1936-’37 to more than R1 700 million in 1972. At the same time that part of the economically active population of all races engaged in agriculture decreased, in other words, productivity increased and in that way agriculture made manpower available to the secondary industries, so that those industries too could grow and develop. In respect of labour, therefore, agriculture has made a very important contribution. Take the export trade. In 1972 the value of agricultural produce exported by South Africa was R754 million, while imports amounted to R51 million. This, therefore, earned foreign exchange. That money was in turn used to purchase machinery and equipment to be used in secondary industry. In addition agriculture produced raw materials which were used in secondary industry. There are thousands of production units in industry and in the services which are dependent on agriculture for their activity. In addition agriculture created a market for the products of secondary industry in the form of intermediary products which are used in agriculture. For that reason I want to say that agriculture was important in the past, but, if it was important then, it will be all the more important in future. I want to say that according to the Paddock brothers there were only eleven countries in the entire world in 1967 which exported food to any significant extent. South Africa was the only country on the continent of Africa which exported food. In other words, from that point of view I am convinced that the agricultural land of South Africa and what it produces will become of the utmost strategic importance to South Africa in the years which lie ahead because it is producing that essential commodity, i.e. food, and is the only country in Africa which is exporting it.

If we come now to the agricultural land of South Africa, we find that it consists of 88% grazing land and 12% arable land. This 12% arable land produces more than 50% of the total agricultural production. But of this arable land there is only between 3% and 4% which has a high potential, and that 3% to 4% of the land produces 40% of the total agricultural production in South Africa. And that is what is at issue in this motion, Sir, the protection of that asset, that high potential agricultural land which comprises only 3% to 4%, and which at this stage yields 40% of our production. Sir, I want to go so far as to say that in agriculture the most important asset which we have is the entrepreneurs, the farmers, but that the second most important asset is this at most 4% high potential agricultural land. We have machinery for dealing with the matters enumerated in this motion. I should just like to mention to you again that there are statutory provisions which exercise control over the alienation of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. Reference is made to this in section 2 of the Physical Planning Act. We have control over the subdivision of agricultural land in terms of the Act which appeared on the Statute Book in 1971, and we have control over the consolidation of agricultural land for farming purposes. In addition, there is research and extension services which are made available to farmers in order to utilize that land. This machinery and the aids which we have at our disposal are important, and I do not think there is anything wrong with them. When we arrive at the point where we find that this maximum of 4% high potential agricultural land is one of the most important assets which South Africa has, I think a reconsideration of that 4% on this occasion today is justified.

I should like to associate myself with what my colleague did, and I want to stress a few suggestions which were made. Firstly, I want to say that it is true that people acquired mineral rights many years ago. There are certain conditions attached to the way in which those minerals may be extracted from the soil. With the acquisition of these mineral rights, certain statutory provisions were included in terms of which people had the right to enter upon agricultural land to extract those minerals. When one comes to base metals, such as calcium, in regard to which large areas are occupied, it happens, as it did in the Western Transvaal, that a company has the right to exploit that limestone. It has to be exploited, for the country needs the cement which is manufactured from it. But then the company may proceed to cut up a farmer’s farm, and one or both of the portions with which the farmer is saddled are uneconomic units. All I want to advocate is that the principle should be inserted that such a company may be compelled to purchase those units, if they are uneconomic and if this determined to be the case by the Division of Soil Science, and resell it to other farmers, with whose land it can be consolidated and incorporated into an economic unit. Then that farmer whose land has become uneconomic will be able to buy himself an economic unit.

The second thing I want to advocate is that this 3% to 4% of high potential agricultural land should be identified and zoned as such. It has happened in America that in no fewer than nine states the high potential agricultural land has been zoned and recorded as such in the deeds registry. It would be easier for anyone who administers this matter, and would also serve a useful purpose if a person knows what the value of this asset is because it has been zoned as such. And when we lay out a town or a city, we will only use that land if we cannot do anything else. But all possible measures should be put into operation to prevent that land from being withdrawn from agriculture.

Prof. Groenewald of the University of Pretoria estimated that if there should be a 20% decrease in the supply of availability of food, the prices of food will increase by 115%. In addition to that I want to say that if we touch this high potential agricultural land we would be dealing South Africa’s production a blow in the most sensitive area. And what is more, if we are going to undertake the production of agricultural produce on low potential agricultural land instead of on high potential agricultural land, it must inevitably entail high costs. Of course, this in turn has an inflationary effect.

What is at issue in this motion, therefore, is that we are advocating that this high potential agricultural land in South Africa should not only be protected by us and the Opposition in the House of Assembly. We want the entire population of South Africa to realize, appreciate and perceive the value of that asset of South Africa.

I want to conclude by reminding you of the words of William Jennings Brian, who said: “Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will spring up as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country”.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Lichtenburg I should just like to say that the United Party has never opposed the decentralization of industries to this day. We have indeed opposed the restrictions which have been imposed on industries and the artificial decentralization to border industry areas, but to this day we have never opposed decentralization based on the normal economic needs, laws and requirements. At the outset I want to say that the United Party is in favour of the continual expansion of industries and their real development, because we realize how important it is to provide our young people with employment opportunities in the future, which will also lead to a raising of our standards of living and will carry such advantages for South Africa as a whole that it will make us economically strong and healthy. Industrial development promotes agriculture at the same time, because there are many areas in South Africa which are flourishing regions today, which they would not have been without the help of industries. I have in mind the Kalahari areas, for example, and the long plastic pipelines, iron pipes, pumps, etc., which are used to develop those areas to their full potential. Nor can the farmer do without the nitrates and phosphates produced by our industries. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is not a question of industry versus agriculture, but a question of a happy balance between the two. It is for this reason that I am able to support especially the last leg of the hon. member’s motion, asking for co-ordination and the good balance which is so absolutely essential. In my opinion it is absolutely essential that this agricultural potential and all the other natural resources which we have in South Africa, be carefully investigated and that their full potential be evaluated. Then the country must also be properly zoned in terms of those evaluations. This is already being done to some extent, and we see the results thereof in the guide plans of the Department of Planning. My problem with the guide plans is that they are not made applicable by legislation to those areas which are zoned for a particular use. In my opinion it is essential that this legislation be extended so that the development of a zoned area must take place as laid down in the guide plan. If, in the light of future development and experience, it is found that the original zoning of a certain area, whether as a mining area, an agricultural area, a nature conservation area or whatever, must be changed, the guide plans will also have to be amended. Last year we asked that such an amendment be effected to the legislation. I see this as one of the major shortcomings in our present legislation, because it does not give the Minister of Planning the necessary powers to make his zonings applicable to all the areas which he has zoned. It has now become really essential to introduce that statutory obligation. It has also become clear that the evaluation of the potential use of land must be done more carefully. In foreign countries, such as the United States and Canada, we see that professional private companies are used and that the services of specialists are employed to plan regions and to zone them for this kind of use. It is a real experience to see how these people go about it. To begin with, the climate, the geology, the water resources and the depth of the ground are all taken into consideration as basic factors. The best utilization of this land is based on these. The decisions are then made applicable to that community by legislation. When I look at the guide plans, it would appear to me as though areas in South Africa with similar gradients are recommended for the same use. It is very clear, however, that similar areas in different parts of the country, for example, actually ought to be utilized in different ways. Take the mountain slopes as an example. In the Transvaal the mountain slopes, especially in the Pretoria area and on the Witwatersrand, are highly sought after and suitable for housing because of the pleasant view of the plains. But here in the South Western part of the Cape Province, mountain slopes ought to be conserved for their agricultural potential as they often are of the best vineyard land and also excellent land on which flowers, for example proteas, may be grown. It is also very suitable for buchu, rooibos tea, etc. Simply to look at a mountain slope and to classify it in advance as suitable for housing or agriculture is not good enough. A careful in depth investigation should in fact be conducted. I feel a tremendous shortcoming still exists here in South Africa as far as that is concerned. We have many examples of housing encroaching on our most valuable vineyard land. There is a problem in Paarl at the moment. There are of the finest vineyards on the slopes of the Paarl mountain. But there is also a tremendous demand for that land for housing. The problem is that it seems to me as if neither of the two Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Planning, is in a position to conserve that land for future viticulture. The land falls under the local council and consequently neither of those Ministers have any jurisdiction over it. I also understand that if a provincial administration makes certain recommendations that land should be utilized for housing, the Minister of Planning may recommend in turn that the land should not be utilized in that way, but should rather be retained as agricultural land or for some other purpose. If the Administrator, however, decides that he does want to utilize it for housing, there is relatively little that the present Minister of Planning is able to do to prevent it. That is one of the problems. That is why I feel that we should give the Minister of Planning more powers. It is also clear the areas here in Cape Town, for example the Constantia valley, are not being utilized to their full potential. The Constantia area is pre-eminently suitable for viticulture. I think it is also one of the most wonderful advertisements for our country, and I think all of us in this House feel disturbed at the fact that houses are gradually creeping deeper and deeper into that area. This really is a loss for our country as a whole. That sort of thing ought to be stopped. One also finds other strange examples of towns with large commonages. Numerous township developers tempt many of these town councils to sell some of their land so that they may provide their own power or establish waterworks from the proceeds. There have been examples of such towns having been prepared to fragment their commonages for that purpose. I am happy to be able to say that the Soil Protection Division often acts and makes recommendations to try to retain that land for agriculture. There is the well-known case of Colesberg where they wanted to part with the commonage in this way. Eventually they abandoned the plan and today those lands are flourishing farms. There they did a good piece of work, but we still feel disturbed that this can happen so surreptitiously at many other places. For example, there are our wonderful beaches and similar areas which are slowly being swallowed up by housing of this nature. I want to ask whether this is really the best utilization of the land. There are numerous places where I know that this is not the best way to utilize those areas. After the evaluation has been made in order to ensure that the best production is obtained from the land, we eventually come up against the problem which we, do what we may, will eventually have to face, and that is the tremendous population explosion we are heading for. We must see how we can best utilize the land. At the moment we still have elbow-room and at the moment we can still determine the utilization of the land to some extent. In future, however, we shall have less and less elbow-room. That is why it is so imperative for us to decide now and for us to zone the land so as to determine its potential carefully. The real problem and the real challenge is how we are going to restrict that population explosion. I should like to hear what the Government’s policy is to contend with that.

Mr. Speaker, coming in as I am right at the end of this debate I feel rather like the hon. members for Mooi River and Lichtenburg who felt that virtually everything had been said already. Although much has been said this afternoon I tend to think that we rather pay lip service to this whole question of land usage and that it is not accented enough. I think the hon. member for Bethal is to be congratulated on putting forward a motion of this nature, but if I had phrased this motion, I might possibly have phrased it, a little more strongly. Nevertheless it is a very praiseworthy motion.

One of the greatest problems the world has to face is the problem of land usage. Feeding the growing population of the world is a pretty tremendous task. One listened with interest to the statistics produced by the hon. member for Lichtenburg when he talked about how fast the population of the world is growing. When one imagines what the situation will be in 50 years’ time, it is quite horrible. Already today 80% of the world’s population go to bed without having had enough food. The agricultural industry throughout the world and in South Africa as well has a tremendous responsibility resting on its shoulders because it is going to have to cope with the whole question of feeding people. Everybody knows that when you have this sort of poverty and hunger the result is political instability. If we cannot solve the problem of feeding the people in the world today we are going to be faced with political instability. It is interesting to note that had one given a piece of land to each member of South Africa’s population in 1970 each person would have had 5½ ha. of ground, of which approximately 1,5 ha. would have been arable land, developed land. In 45 years’ time, by the year 2020, each member of South Africa’s population will only have two ha. of land, of which something like 0.2 ha. will be arable land. Obviously a tremendous responsibility rests on the farming community to try to make that land as productive as possible. With every respect to the green revolution and advanced farming techniques—we in South Africa are not behind the rest of the world in developing modern techniques in farming—this is just not enough. We are going to have to do far more and specifically the protection of good arable land is going to demand absolute priority. Of the total of 122 million ha. of land in South Africa, only approximately 13% is arable. While this 13% is a fair area of land, it is interesting to note that nearly 19 million ha is in use by man for cities, towns, roads, railways, nature reserves, dams and so on, all of which takes away from the amount of arable land available for the production of food. I think it is very important to consider the whole question of planning and to put it in a far more important light than we tend to do at present. I believe that the Department of Planning must be given teeth. I said at the start of my speech that we tend to pay lip service to the whole question of planning. I do not believe that the Department of Planning is nearly large enough or given sufficient importance in the scheme of Governmental operations. I do not think it is given its rightful place because, if we fail to plan adequately right now, South Africa is going to be in considerable trouble one of these days. The Department of Planning must be given more teeth. I do not think it has the personnel yet to be able to examine what is going on in every area in South Africa. I do not believe planning is being done on a sufficiently intensive scale in every area of South Africa. In areas of major development, certainly, the Department of Planning is doing a very fine job indeed. It is ensuring that areas of development are well-planned and that a balance is kept between agricultural land and land which is put to other use. Nevertheless there are still many areas in South Africa which are not being looked at or controlled adequately in terms of planning potential.

One looks specifically at the question of regional planning. I realize that a lot of this falls under (the ambit of the provincial and local authorities. One looks at the considerable urban sprawl to be found right round our cities. One looks at Johannesburg, for example, where considerable areas of valuable arable land are being wasted by township development while central areas of the city which have already been developed, are not being used to their full potential as far as carrying an urban population is concerned. We must give much more consideration to the whole question of urban renewal. There are many, large areas of Johannesburg which are not carrying efficiently the number of people they could. I believe that new townships are being developed unnecessarily and thereby agricultural land is being wasted. This urban sprawl is, I believe, a highly important question and I hope that the Department of Planning in years to come will be able to give considerably more attention to this because, with its small complement of staff and its relative unimportance, it can in no way begin to cope with the size of the problem. One looks, too, at smallholdings. Around any big city such as Johannesburg, Pretoria or Bloemfontein one finds a proliferation of small-holdings all of which are wastefully and uneconomically operated. This sort of thing must be controlled even more than it is being controlled at present both through legislation and by the Department of Planning.

Well, join the United Party.

To find a balance is a very difficult thing. In this regard I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River, but in spite of the comment from the hon. member for Albany, I can tell him that I have no intention of joining the United Party. I would like some sort of thing to join, but there does not seem to be much of that party left. As I said, finding this balance is a very difficult thing indeed. Industrial development obviously always has the advantage. As the hon. member for Mooi River said, it is labour-intensive and the amount of money, the job opportunities and so forth that can emanate from a relatively small area are far in excess of the agricultural development that could take place there. However, I agree with him entirely that there are many occasions when industries can be moved without too much expense.

Hand in hand with this whole question of land utilization goes the question of the control of pollution. Considerable areas of our country are being ruined by pollution. There is a considerable area of land too which is being farmed uneconomically, which is over-farmed and over-grazed. This land is being wasted for our future because it would otherwise be land that could grow food for South Africa’s increasing population. I fully believe that unless we are prepared to put this whole question of planning and land utilization very high on our list of priorities—much higher than it is at present—within the next ten to 20 years we are going to reap the harvest of our neglect. We are all aware of rising food prices. Foodstuffs are in increasingly short supply and will soon be at a premium. One of the symptoms of the food shortage in this world today is that we are paying more for it. We are having to drop our standards in regard to sort of food and the quality of the food we eat. There are not many people in South Africa today who can afford to eat as well as they possibly did ten or 15 years ago. This, however, is a symptom of what is happening throughout the world. Foodstuffs are in increasingly shorter supply.

In supporting this motion I just want to say that unless the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Government of our country get together and pay more than lip service to what we are doing to try to conserve our land, the whole of South Africa as well as its political future is going to be prejudiced because hungry people are politically unstable people. All of South Africa’s future generations will suffer. We talk about the resources of South Africa. Our resources are diminishing all the time. Land once built on is spoilt for the future. Land once destroyed by inefficient farming methods is very difficult to reclaim. Every year the desert creeps further across the face of South Africa. Hectare after hectare of land is being swallowed up and becomes desert or semi-desert. This is happening fast. Year after year thousands of tons of good topsoil are carried into the sea. I want hon. members of this Government to be aware of just how serious this situation is. I do not believe that they are aware of this. If they are, they are certainly not doing enough about it. I know that in many instances this sort of thing costs money and it is difficult to do but it must be done. Our future lies in their hands. Unless the Government does more than it is doing at the moment South Africa will not be a very prosperous place in from 20 to 50 years’ time.

Sir, I should like to begin by setting the hon. member for Newton Park’s mind at rest so that he need not think the necessary co-ordination between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Planning does not exist. He said that this was the reason why the motion had been placed on the Order Paper. The hon. member for Bethal’s intention with this motion was to emphasize the importance of the production of food for the future. He mentioned various examples in the Eastern Transvaal. Hon. members will understand the one practical example he mentioned. If a second Sasol, which will require between 10 000 and 12 000 ha of land, is established, should this Sasol be located in the vicinity of, say, Devon which has clayey soil and a very low potential as regards the production of field, products, or should it be located in a high production area where 50 or 60 bags of mealies per ha can be produced, while the underground coal of the two areas is approximately equal? That is the question which the hon. member posed. Sir, in this connection the Department of Planning and the Environment co-operates very closely with us.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, asked here what the Sub-division of Agricultural Land Act had achieved in the four years we had had it on the Statute Book. Sir, since the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act has been placed on the Statute Book, we have lost only 4 030 ha of good land to township development precisely because the two departments get on so well. One of the hon. members on the opposite side, who is not here—I think it was the hon. member for Benoni—said that the Administrator had more powers than the Minister of Planning. Sir, the Administrator may stand on his head, but if the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Planning decide not to allow township development on land which is good agricultural land, the Administrator cannot approve the development of a township on that land. This Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act is the very Act which helps us to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen. I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove; he must repeat that speech on the day we come to Parliament with a Bill to give the Minister of Planning more powers, because when the Physical Planning Act was introduced here, hon. members on the opposite side of this House fought it tooth and nail. I agree that the Minister of Planning should be given more powers so as to help us to stop the subdivision of good agricultural land. I think the hon. member’s constituents in Orange Grove will tear his insides out because of what he said here this afternoon.

Sir, the hon. member for Newton Park said that industries should not be located in places which would push up the production costs of factories. By the way, where is he?

He is out as well.

No, I am sitting here.

Hon. members of that party change so quickly that one must first take a quick look around if a member is not in his seat to see where he is sitting now. I think the hon. member has a point there, but in practice one cannot apply it, because sometimes a factory is location-orientated. One cannot, for example, always locate a Sasol in an area which has low agricultural production possibilities, but one can select the area geographically to some extent. Sometimes we have to incur slightly higher expenditure to locate a factory in an area where it will not occupy any of our agricultural production land.

Sir, the hon. member for Heilbron spoke of the work which was being done to bring about higher productivity. In this connection the hon. member for Orange Grove disappointed me a great deal when he said: “We must stop this lip service.”

†Does the hon. member realize that 10 years ago a crop of 8 million bags of wheat was a record crop and that with fewer farmers this year we are harvesting 19 million bags of wheat? Ten years ago 40 million bags of maize was a record crop, but this year 80 million bags is not a record crop because last year we produced 110 million bags. This is not a case of lip service, of watching the desert creeping in and doing nothing about it.

*I think it is ingratitude, if a man can eat his fill every day in this country, if he has enough food to eat, to say that the desert is creeping in in this country, while we are just paying lip service.

†The hon. member can at least be a little bit thankful to the farmers of this country who produce enough for our own requirements and for an export market and for the rest of Africa.

I was not criticizing.

The hon. member said that all we got was lip service while the desert was creeping in.

*Sir, the whole aim of this motion is not to indicate that there is a difference between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Planning and that the necessary co-ordination between the two departments does not exist. Some of these things are still in their infancy; we are still making adjustments; it was only very recently that a Ministry of Planning and the Environment was created; it was only very recently that this Act was placed on the Statute Book. The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act has only been in operation for four years. We are trying to do these things in the right way as quickly as possible, but let us look at the picture as a whole. Food can be produced on 85% of the total surface area of South Africa. We speak of a country with wide, rolling plains, but have you ever thought how many morgen of the White area are in the Karoo, an area with an eight inch rainfall? The hon. member for Lichtenburg is quite right in saying that we have only 3,3% high potential land, which provides 42% of our production, and it is that land in particular which we must look after. Eventually we shall reach the stage where we shall have to cultivate marginal land, and what will be the result of that? We shall have to do it. We shall have to fertilize land with a very low production potential with fertilizer with applications of fertilizer three or four times that used on the high potential land, to be able to produce food, and what will the price of a plate of porridge or a loaf of white bread be then? It will no longer be 16 cents. [Interjection.] All right, the hon. members are not going to switch me off today.

In this motion the hon. member for Bethal and the hon. members, speakers on both sides, and I, recognize that there are needs. The Department of Defence needs land. The Department of Transport has to construct railway lines. Agriculture has to lose land. It is disappointing to say that from 1960 to 1965 we lost 4 million ha of land. That is a in alarming amount of land. The 91 million ha of agricultural land in the possession of the Whites decreased to 87 million ha in five years’ time. But on the other hand, we have to remember that these various departments need land. Recently I said to the hon. the Minister of Defence, in connection with a certain project of his which he had to expand for Defence Force exercises, that the land concerned could produce 22 000 bags of wheat. Then he said that he would speak to his department and let them look for alternative land, if it was practicable, and that he would also contact the Department of Planning to see what could be done to let these Defence Force operations take place on land which was not exactly highly productive, if it was practicable. Therefore it is not a question of a lack of co-ordination between the departments. It is estimated that, 4 ha of highly productive land is required per person for the production of food in the Republic today, and we need 0,08 ha per person for roads, for housing and for recreation, and if the population continues to increase at the rate mentioned by the hon. member for Lichtenburg, we shall simply not have land available on which to produce food as well. That is why this motion is before us today, so that we may examine these problems.

Sir, I have referred to the legislation concerning the subdivision of agricultural land, which was opposed. I do not want to be negative today.

†There is the hon. member for Mooi River. Does he remember that for three days I pleaded with him in regard to this Act dealing with the subdivision of agricultural land and he asked: “Why at Mooi River?” He asked whether we did not want people to have holiday homes. Does the hon. member remember that, three years ago? [Interjection.] But what did the hon. member say a few minutes ago? He said we must have this Act; we must stop this uneconomic division of agricultural land.

That was not what I said during that debate.

Sir, I like a man to be able to change his mind. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is collecting more detailed information regarding our agricultural resources, long-term production planning and an inventory of our whole agricultural industries, of how we are going to produce our food in future on the same scale as we have done in recent times. All these things are being planned. Then we have the Planning Advisory Council of the Prime Minister where organized agriculture and Agricultural Technical Services, in co-operation with the department of the hon. the Minister of Planning, are putting their heads together to examine these problems. The Physical Planning Act and the guide plans are discussed in co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I want to point out to the hon. member for Benoni that the agricultural potential is discussed in each guide plan. The matter of agriculture enjoys priority with the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment. The hon. member asked why one could not build on the mountain slopes in the Transvaal and suggested that the mountain slopes in the Western Cape be kept for the growing of buchu and rooibos tea.

Inter alia.

Yes, inter alia. The hon. member must not just say that the mountain slopes would look pretty if they were covered with proteas. The hon. member must bear in mind that towns must be built somewhere. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services always tries to determine which is the most important. It is a fact that buchu and rooibos tea can be grown on the mountain slopes, but what about the lower lying areas? Is it not perhaps better that houses be built on the mountain slopes rather than in the lower lying areas because it may possibly be more profitable to have a vineyard in the lower lying areas. However, it is not essential that vineyards be planted exclusively in the Western Cape, because it has been found by means of research that vineyards can be planted just as economically on the banks of the Lower Orange River.

The hon. member for Heilbron or the hon. member for Lichtenburg referred to Paarl, where we have kept small farms inside the town for growing grapes. Some people say we are stupid, because having farms inside a town means that people who work in town have to live in the suburbs and therefore have to travel a long distance to the central part of town. The answer to this is that the land in the suburbs is stony and not suitable for growing grapes. I am not saying that we do everything correctly, but I should like to refute the allegations of the hon. members.

The hon. member for Heilbron said that high-potential agricultural land must be irrefutably allocated to agriculture. We all feel this way, but to apply it in practice will not be so easy. Let me mention an example. Suppose that we were to do something of this sort in Heilbron and subsequently a borehole was sunk there and oil was discovered. Surely the land would then have to be withdrawn from agriculture.

I also want to point out that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, in co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, attempts to create economic units. For this purpose we have acquired certain statutory powers and have spent money. In co-operation with the Department of Water Affairs we have replanned the Hardap scheme into economic units. In the Sand/Vet scheme we have combined two plots into one. We have done the same in Rus-ter-Winter as well as in Gariep. We have also spent money in the Free State in the Opkoms soil conservation district in order to develop economic units. I can mention a great many similar examples, but the finest example of all is the Orange River Project where it will eventually be possible for us to have 220 000 ha under irrigation. It will cost a vast amount of money, but with a yield of 20 bags per ha it will make possible the production of an additional 4,4 million bags of wheat.

I am not mentioning these facts in order to tell the hon. member for Bethal that it was not necessary for him to have introduced this motion. I believe it was essential to have had this discussion. In any case we will be able to discuss these points at a later stage, when my Vote is being dealt with. This motion has not been introduced because there is no co-ordination, but because there is a unanimous conviction in the minds of Nat, U.P., Prog and whoever else we will still have here … [Interjections.] … viz. the importance of food production of food in this country. We must do everything in our ability to utilize every resource which can help us to produce food. The hon. member for Mooi River said: “Food is power”, and that is true. I say, not because I am a farmer, or because I want to belittle my hon. bench mate, that one can talk from the morning to night about the foreign exchange which we are earning with gold and the wonderful contributions of the mines. I am not the Minister of Mines, but the Minister of Agriculture. We must feel in this country that we are involved in a dynamic and growing undertaking which produces food. One can have all the gold in the world—in fact, we must have the gold and the industries —but I would rather walk around in rags and tatters and have a stomach full of food than have all the riches in the world and be starving. In the three departments which deal with agricultural affairs, the officials who work there, the researcher and the extension officer are the most important components in this matter. If I were in charge, they would ge three times the salary of any other man, because these people are doing a great job in feeding the ever increasing population, White and Black, in Africa. To my mind it is important, and therefore I should like to thank the hon. member for Bethal for his motion.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is perhaps important that I express my thanks inter alia to the members of the Opposition who supported this motion. As always happens, all matters of real importance are initiated by this side of the House. However, we are glad of their support. The hon. the Minister said that he felt that this motion was an appropriate one to have on the Table, and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister appreciates the necessity for this discussion and that he is giving his serious attention, by means of his department, in collaboration with the Minister of Planning, to this matter, and more specifically to the question of the conservation of our high potential agricultural land, and under these circumstances I therefore withdraw my motion.