Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last night, I was dealing with some of the arguments against passing this Bill raised by hon. members of the Opposition. Before I continue in this vein, I think it is necessary to reply to a few accusations made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti about the hon. member for Pretoria East. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti was highly upset that the hon. member for Pretoria East had discovered signs of hatred of the NP and the Afrikaner in some of the arguments advanced by that side of the House. It is really remarkable how touchy those people become when a blow strikes home. It is just like a referee being asked to send off the player who openly struck a blow, but the calculated, provocative, vindictive, blow below the belt in the scrum either goes unnoticed or is glossed over. I just want to quote a few extracts for the edification of hon. members and then they can tell me what these quotations insinuate. In the first instance I refer to the speech of the hon. member for Sandton on Wednesday, 2 February (Hansard, col. 635)—

Who remains? It is a good question. What is the insinuation contained in those words? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I go further and refer to what the hon. member for Durban Central asked in connection with the decision taken by the Natal Provincial Council—I think it was in 1975. I quote (Hansard, col. 650)—

Mr. Speaker, I also refer to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said. Everyone will remember that it was this hon. member who referred to blue vitriol and attached an incorrect meaning to words on the Vrouemonument. I quote him (Hansard, col. 670)—

Is it unfair of my hon. friend to infer that certain people are inspired by motives other than the logical arguments regarding the legislation put before the House? In their overhasty zeal to find favour in the eyes of the PRP, certain UP speakers forgot what the basis, what the actual motivation of the PRP was. Their only goal is to criticize; as long as they can do so, they are in their element. That is why they take the greatest pleasure in confronting us, not so much with the Oppenheimers, as with the Wassenaars; not with the Blackwells, but with the Kowie Marais’ and the Fagans.

What has this got to do with the Bill? [Interjections.]

… not with the Mills’ and the Dallings, but with the Beyers Naudés and the A. A. Geysers.

We have now reached the Third Reading of the Bill and are reflecting on it. I am still waiting for an Opposition speaker to refute the argument relating to the history of this type of Bill. Briefly what it amounts to is that from 1838 in the Cape, until 1950 in the Republic of South Africa, the central legislative body has concerned itself with Sunday legislation. If, over a period of 1½ centuries, we agreed that it is quite in order for the central authority to introduce legislation of this nature, why is it that now, in 1977, it is considered to be bad?

But it is not like that in Natal.

Right from the outset there has been legislation on matters relating to Sundays in Natal. The principle is the same, whether it be film shows on Sundays, open shops on Sundays or commercial practices on Sundays.

Then I want to know from hon. members why this specific legislation should be left to local authorities. Why, in the case of drive-in bioscopes, which fall within the jurisdiction of provincial councils, should they be left to provincial councils? Therefore in South Africa we have the situation where, in the 123 communities represented by Nationalists, there will no film show on Sundays, while in some of the 42 other communities there will indeed be film shows on Sundays. Say for argument’s sake we were to rule the country according to the hon. Opposition’s argument in regard to the Bill. Were we to do so, there would be separate development in the NP communities and integrated schools, swimming pools and residential areas in Sea Point, Bryanston and Bezuidenhout. This is how absurd the central argument of the Opposition is in this regard. Were communities to have to decide on matters of this nature at the local authority level, why then should they not decide on all other matters which intimately affect the local communities? Where does the jurisdiction of the local communities end and the jurisdiction of the House begin? After all, we represent our communities in the House, and we are here to interpret the feelings of our respective communities. What difference does it make if elections are held annually, bi-annually or every five years? Another inconsistency in the Opposition’s argument is that, according to them, the House may elevate Good Friday, Ascension Day, the Day of the Covenant and Christmas Day, but not Sunday itself, to the status of Sunday; this must be left to the local authorities. After all, this is spring madness on a warm February afternoon.

An interesting article appeared in the The Argus of 8 February, written by a certain Brian Stewart in regard to film shows on Sundays. He found that—

Let us take it for a moment that this view is correct. Then, surely, this Bill definitely does fit within the framework of that injunction. By introducing this Bill the State is not telling its subjects to go to church. It is merely saying that it is going to do its utmost not to put any obstacles in their way as regards going to church. The hon. member for Umbilo quoted evidence given at a session of a Select Committee in 1964. Certain evidence submitted by the Anglican Church was as follows (Hansard, 3 February 1977, col. 760)—

At the same time, however, he quoted statistics from the Yearbook for 1975, which indicates that 93,8% of the White population profess to be Christians, in spite of the fact that we in South Africa have fairly strict legislation on how we should spend our Sundays. As regards Christian ethics and doctrines, one does not trim one’s sail to the wind; surely one proclaims the Gospel as it is.

We must consider Calvin’s view together with this. He said that the function of the governing body was to be the watchdog of all ethical and religious virtue.

What did he say about Sunday?

This is the basic statement he made, namely that it is the function of the State to be the watchdog of all ethical and religious virtue. This is precisely what is done by this legislation.

I want to conclude by drawing an analogy and referring to the law in South Africa relating to blasphemy. The Roman-Dutch lawyers have already identified it as a crime for someone to deny the existence of the Almighty or speak contemptuously of God. In the Appeal Court judgment of Rex v. Webb (1932 A.D.), the leading judgment in this connection, the meaning attached to God the Father is also extended to include Jesus Christ in Christian countries. When one is guilty of blasphemy one has committed a crime. One does damage to only a section of the population, namely those who profess the Christian faith, when one blasphemes. Mr. Justice Wessels says on page 496—

Public opinion is therefore the criterion and because the NP interprets public opinion in South Africa correctly, we sit on this side of the House. If one despises public opinion, or disparages it, or does not bother about it, it can lead to a breach of the peace. We may not intervene in the private religious activities of others. However, if the commercial activities of others cause damage to certain people, on a Sunday, or if a certain act is in conflict with public opinion, it is the function and duty of the State to intervene. For these reasons I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, and I support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we opposed this Bill at the Second Reading and we will certainly oppose it at the Third Reading as well. The hon. member who has just taken his seat obviously thought he was in Brakpan in some sort of organizational rally to try to boost the morale of his own party. He spoke for very little of the time on the Bill itself, although I am glad that he came back to it towards the end. There was an interesting article in last night’s edition of The Argus, written by a somewhat colourful and provocative figure, Mrs. Joyce Waring, who is well known to members on that side of the House. In the article she made certain very interesting remarks about the future of the Coloured people in South Africa. She then went on to say something that I think sums up our attitude in these benches, i.e. that Parliament is wasting valuable time discussing a Bill prohibiting the showing of films on Sundays instead of getting on with the vital matters facing South Africa today. That is the point we made in the Second Reading debate and we think Mrs. Waring is absolutely right in this regard. [Interjections.] She agrees with this side of the House. [Interjections.] We wish we did not have to waste our time, but if there is a Bill before the House, we have to reply to try to help educate that side of the House. In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Sandton made it clear that it is only a very small proportion of the total population in South Africa who are actually interested in this kind of legislation. However, the hon. the Minister made it very clear why this legislation was brought before this House at this time. The issue is quite simple. He made it very clear when he said that five successive Nationalist congresses had asked for this legislation. Of course, how he has resisted them up to now and retained his position in that party, I do not know. Now, however, we know why this legislation is before this House. It is not a matter of conviction, nor because he really believes …

Right! Five consecutive NP congresses.

That is right. The NP once against seeks to impose its will upon the vast majority of the people who are not Nationalists. [Interjections.] I am not even sure whether the hon. the Minister really believes in this legislation, but he has to follow …

What are you doing with your congress decisions?

We try to analyse the mistakes that party has made, and that takes us all our time. The basic thrust of this Government is uniformity, and as I have stated in the Committee Stage, I find it very difficult to understand how it is possible for this hon. Minister to impose uniformity right throughout South Africa, irrespective of very real pluralistic differences in South Africa, and yet when a question was put to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, he said that one has different legislation in Johannesburg and Cape Town because two different communities are involved. Well, we have been trying to say that Brakpan is different to Cape Town, Cape Town is different to Krugersdorp, etc. In consequence, we support the amendment that has already been moved. [Interjections.] I have very little time indeed to address the House, but let me just make the following point. In the United States of America I noticed last year, considering the people attending church in relation to the total population and the number of churches that are there, that the United States unquestionably has the enviable—if you like—reputation of having more people in church on Sundays than perhaps any other nation in the world, and yet at the same time there is the necessary freedom for those people who, possibly for many reasons, either do not belong to a church or are prepared to go to church and to enjoy a movie on a Sunday. That has not affected church attendance. There has been no rallying around from Washington to protect the churches, a phenomenon we are witnessing here now. They know that the church does not need this kind of protection, and we know that this is absolutely true. There are two major points I want to make here. This Bill will be counter-productive for the very reason that the hon. the Minister himself has advanced. It will certainly increase the antipathy towards the Church. It suggests that the Church cannot take care of itself. With all due respect, I want to say that the Church’s privilege and responsibility is to try to persuade and move and not impose restrictions by means of civil legislation.

I want to make two points in closing. First of all, here again we have an example of double standards. One has but to look at all the golf courses that are open on Sundays where people have to pay in order to play. One has but to look at the swimming pools, that of Sea Point included. One has but to look at the Durban beach, which is an absolute example of commercialization. Yet no hon. member opposite who still happens to retain a seat in Natal even mentioned that. That shows the kind of double standards we have. Or is this the thin end of the wedge? Is this merely the first of a series of pieces of legislation of a similar nature? I suppose we shall have to wait for the NP Congress to decide whether or not this is going to come.

Finally, if the hon. the Minister had only come with a reasonable Bill—if he had said, for example, that as a result of a lot of complaints being received that certain clubs are showing certain movies on Sundays during the period of time that is normally set aside for worship, he was going to introduce legislation to the effect that cinemas would have to be closed between, say, 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.—he would have been surprised at the kind of support he would have received from a great number of us on this side of the House. But, on the contrary, he comes with a great big whip and decides that, because the Nationalist Congress wants it this way, South Africa has to accept it. Sir, we will not support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Pinelands believes, as he suggests, that only a very small percentage of the public support this Bill, it simply proves to what extent he and his colleagues are out of touch with reality. It proves to what extent they are out of touch with public opinion. I shall have more to say about this in the course of my speech.

There is also the question of uniformity. I do not think the hon. member can in any way accuse this side of the House, the Government, of trying to bring about blind uniformity although a certain measure of uniformity in respect of matters of cardinal importance is certainly desirable. In fact, under certain circumstances it is even essential. I shall come back to this matter if time allows me to do so.

It is regrettable if the hon. member is of the opinion that the churches will hide behind this legislation, and then suggests that this legislation makes their task more difficult and that as a result they will not achieve the spiritual results they ought to achieve. What it would really amount to is an evasion of their responsibilities. They cannot hide behind this legislation for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of a small minority wishing to enforce its wishes on the majority. In this connection the hon. member is completely out of touch with reality.

This matter has its merits. The merits of this matter were set out fully and very convincingly in this House last week. They were spelt out quite convincingly. Apart from the merits of the case, there are also other important considerations as to why it is justifiable for this Government to place this Bill on the Statute Book. It is definitely the case that this Government is expected to place this legislation on the Statute Book. For three or four days we conducted a debate on this Bill in this House and the majority of the hon. members of the Opposition participated in the debate. However, when one takes a closer look at their contributions, one will see that it really amounts to only one thing: It is clear that the hon. members opposite simply do not like this measure. It is as simple as that. They suggest and imply that a large section of those on whose behalf they speak do not like this legislation either. Why not? I think the reason is obvious. Of course this Bill is an unpopular measure in certain quarters. This is nothing new. It is also very easy to furnish the reason for this. The reason is that we are dealing here with legislation which makes certain demands, which lays down certain norms, which prescribes certain patterns of behaviour and sets certain standards for the community. We know that it is a general phenomenon today, not only in our country, but in fact throughout the world, that there is hostility towards norms, standards and codes. It is as simple as that. For that reason this is not a popular measure, and hon. members opposite want to be popular among those they represent. For that reason they are opposed to unpopular legislation.

Attempts have also been made here to draw a parallel between cinema shows on Sundays on the one hand and certain activities which have become general practice in our country, activities which are already being practised and allowed, explicitly or implicitly, on the other hand. This phenomenon too takes into account the term used by the hon. the Minister when he said we were in danger of finding ourselves on the slippery slope of permissiveness. In this regard the finger was pointed at one phenomenon in particular i.e. the tendency in recent times of a relaxation of control in respect of Sunday trade. This is certainly also true, and there is certainly reason for us to be on our guard against further relaxations of this nature. Even at this stage the hon. member for Pinelands is conjuring up spectres, even at this stage he foresees a whole series of measures of this nature, but it is a fact that we should be on our guard. But if this phenomenon of a tendency towards a slackening in respect of Sunday trade is advanced as a reason as to why we should lift all restrictions in respect of the showing of films on Sundays, and that we should exercise no control over it, I want to point out in all fairness and reasonableness that important differences exist between these two measures. As far as the relaxation of control over Sunday trade is concerned, the point of departure was—and this is on what the emphasis has been placed throughout— not so much the wishes and the interests of the traders, but in the first place and mainly the needs of the public, and more specifically the travelling public, and the reasonable needs of tourists in particular. As a matter of fact, no representations were made by commerce for these measures. They came about without their asking for it and, according to my information, very few are making use of them—by no means all of them; in fact, a very small minority is making use of them today. This emphasizes and proves that the motivation for those measures was not commercialization; it was not to satisfy the needs of commerce, but it was solely meant to promote the growing, increasing needs of the tourist industry. Also, very strong representations were made on the part of organized tourism in favour of these measures. I believe that as far as legislation of this natur is concerned, we should be careful and approach with circumspection any further concessions, any further relaxation of the control measures in respect of Sunday trade in future. We should rather move in the direction of stricter control and not think in terms of further relaxations.

We in South Africa make great claims. For example, we claim to be a bastion of the Western Christian civilization here at the southernmost tip of Africa, one of the few remaining bastions and therefore a very important one. We also know that the Opposition would very much like to be associated with such claims. The difference between the Government and the Opposition in this regard is that the Opposition is not prepared to pay the price with regard to those claims. The Opposition wants to share in those claims, but they are not prepared to make the sacrifices and to comply with the demands they make. The Government believes that even the legislation of a country should bear the stamp and breathe the spirit of claims of this nature and of convictions it professes. The Government believes that it should be prepared to stand up and be counted, that it should be prepared to make itself known also by means of its legislation, for those things in which it believes and professes. As against that, the standpoint of the Opposition is difficult to define. What it really amounts to, is that everything should simply be allowed, that there should be no directions with regard to codes of behaviour, qualities of life and similar things. There should be no directions. Everything should simply be left to the wishes and the whims of every individual.

Fortunately the Government is not ashamed of its convictions. It does not shrink from the demands and implications of what it professes, and will not neglect its duty and evade its responsibilities either. What are the demands of the declared standpoint of the Government on these matters? It is quite clear: If we want to be true to what we profess, we should be prepared to accept legislation of this nature today. Because this is so, the Government’s reply to this demand is an unequivocal “yes”. However, what about the Opposition? Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the Opposition does not want to say “no”. The NP says “yes”, but the Opposition is not prepared to say “no”. If only the Opposition would say “no” unequivocally it could at least have been interpreted as a standpoint which testifies to their conviction and the courage of their conviction. Unfortunately there is nothing of this. For that reason the reaction of the Opposition is: “Yes, but” … The attitude of the Opposition is: “Yes, we want control. We believe in control. We believe that nothing should be done that impairs the Sabbath. We believe that we should observe the Sabbath, that we should attach great importance to respect for the Sabbath, but …” It is always “but”, and so it goes on. The Opposition is not prepared to face up to the implications of the matter. For that reason it should imply be left to every individual to do as he thinks fit.

Mr. Speaker, even the Holy Scripture passes damning judgment on those who act in this way; those who are neither cold not hot. “I would thou wert hot”, declare the Scriptures.

Mr. Speaker, we find the very same thing in this amendment. “Let there be control. We are quite in favour of control, but not on our level, not on the level of this House”. The Opposition is shuffling the responsibility onto the shoulders of the lowest and the weakest level of government. They want to wash their hands of any undesirable and unpleasant conditions which may arise as a result of this, but the Government is simply not prepared to go along with such a clumsy form of control. If the Government were to allow such a clumsy form of control, it would amount to gross dereliction of its duty. It would be clearly dereliction of duty by the highest authority in the country. Furthermore, it would create impossible conditions. Conditions would arise in which it would in fact be impossible to have any control, conditions in which everyone would be able to do just as he saw fit. Hon. members say we should leave this to the local communities, but I want to put it this way: Do not we as representatives of the people also have a responsibility towards the local communities? After all, we are, in the last instance, the representatives of the local communities. We know what their needs are and we know what is good and seemly for those communities, and we have to bear the responsibility. We have to be prepared to discharge that responsibility in this House, because the alternative would be utter chaos. We are dealing with a matter of cardinal importance. We are not arguing about trivialities. It is certainly desirable, if not essential, that when a matter of such great importance is at issue the Republic should, as much as possible, speak with one voice. The hon. member for Pinelands makes a mockery of uniformity. We do not say there should be blind uniformity, but we believe it is nevertheless desirable that there should be a sound measure of uniformity. If we, in our country, were to have as many laws on Sunday observance as there are local communities, it would simply create an impossible situation. Imagine the silly image this would give us abroad! I am not even referring to the confusion this would create among people visiting the country.

I want to come back to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands again. I want to take issue with him with regard to his suggestion that this legislation is supported by a small majority. I say this is not the case at all. To my mind we are justified in claiming that the Bill enjoys extensive support among the public—in any case more extensive than hon. members opposite want to accept. We have already taken note of the standpoints of the various churches, but before dealing with the churches, I want to point out that the hon. member for Pinelands would certainly have been interested to take note of a letter which was published in this morning’s Cape Times. The author of the letter, Major Allister Smith, differs very strongly with the hon. member for Pinelands. The letter reads—

It goes further—

The author deals extensively with what happened in England because of the fact that they have adopted a course similar to what hon. members opposite advocate, and then has the following to say—

We also took note of the very strong and consistent standpoint adopted by the organs of our churches and the Afrikaans churches in particular. I want to quote from one organ briefly. This is what Die Kerkbode had to say on 10 September 1975—

On 23 June 1976 the publication stated that it was regrettable that something of this nature should be rectified by means of legislation, because it would have been so much more fortunate if it could have happened by the sanction of the community. I quote—

In conclusion, I want to quote one sentence from a subsequent edition—

Surely, Mr. Speaker, a Government such as this one would be acting in an irresponsible manner if it did not take serious note of such a strong public opinion as that represented by the churches. There is still further evidence. Those of us who keep ourselves informed about matters, are probably aware of the fact that there is a growing feeling among our communities that we—as has been said by the hon. the Minister—are moving down a slippery slope of permissiveness. We should take note of this and certainly not allow matters to go any further. We should see that feeling among the public as motivation for a new approach to matters of this nature. If in the past we have allowed certain things such as sport, property transactions and other phenomena which have impaired the Sabbath to be practised, it is now the appropriate time to call a halt and to say: “So far and no further”. We should rather move in the opposite direction.

In conclusion I want to say that the Government has a mandate for legislation such as this. The Government has a mandate in this sense that the voters have elected the Government on the basis of what they expect from a government. One does not only take a clinical look at an election manifesto and voters’ mandate; one should also consider the surrounding circumstances. The voters, who place a particular political party in power, do not do so purely on the basis of those particular statements of policy and undertakings which appear in the election manifesto, but also on the basis of what is known about the party. A party has certain features, as in the case of the National Party, which are known for an image of conservatism. Therefore the voters have reason to expect that when they vote for a particular party, particular legislation will be placed on the Statute Book. This side of the House regards it as a firm undertaking which it gave the voters, i.e. that it would support such legislation. As against that the hon. the Opposition believes in letting things take their own course. One can appreciate that they, particularly in their present situation, find themselves in a state of complete weightlessness in respect of any matter of principle and for that reason one can perhaps not expect too much of them. This legislation bears the image of what this side of the House stands for. It gives effect to the undertaking we gave our voters, i.e. a positive reply to the mandate we received from the voters.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Algoa, but I should just like to refer to one matter. The hon. member attempted to summarize the Opposition’s standpoint on this Bill. I cannot speak for the Opposition as a whole, of course, but as far as we are concerned, I do think he may be wide off the mark. According to him, the Opposition’s standpoint is that people should be left to their own devices, i.e. a laissez-faire attitude. I think that the hon. member is wrong, because that is not the standpoint we in these benches adopted. Our standpoint is not to leave people to their own devices, but rather, as far as their spirits are concerned, to leave them to the churches in South Africa, which in our humble opinion are performing a mammoth task. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no proof whatsoever that the spiritual methods which are being used to reach people have failed. In fact, the only proof which has been offered, shows that the Church is being very successful in this regard, in spite of difficult circumstances.

I should like to give a brief summary of the standpoint we in these benches adopted with regard to this matter by saying that we have adopted our standpoint as a result of definite questions. The first question which we put to ourselves was: Does a Parliamentary debate offer the best method of reaching a decision on a delicate issue such as this? The conclusion we arrived at was that we did not believe that the Parliamentary debate—in which accusations and counter-accusations are slung across the floor of this House—was the best way of dealing with such a delicate issue. We would have preferred the matter to have been referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading, so that the matter might have been thrashed out by people with expert knowledge of a matter such as this. Secondly, we asked ourselves the question: If the matter has to be dealt with here, is it essential that a standpoint be adopted in the Parliament of South Africa on a prohibition of the exhibition of films on Sundays? I have listened to the debate for hours and have found that just as many points have been made against the Bill as have been made in its favour. I would have preferred to see a matter so profound as this being thoroughly investigated by people who are properly qualified to do so. That is why we felt in the first instance that a Select Committee be appointed.

We adopted our third standpoint as a result of the following question: If a prohibition had to be imposed on films on a Sunday, ought the Parliament of South Africa to impose the prohibition or not? Once again we adopted the standpoint that if we made a joint effort, with tolerance—in our opinion this is one of the basic principles of Christianity—to bring the matter to a decision stage, the smallest possible number of people must be adversely affected by our decision. In order to reach such a level, we felt that it would hopefully have to be delegated to the local authority level. Once again, however, we were completely prepared to listen to people who were properly informed with regard to the matter. This was our standpoint all along. The hon. the Minister felt he could not accept our idea of a Select Committee, but despite this, we feel that we have a good case and that we have made out a case on the basis of these questions. Consequently, to my regret, I must say that we cannot accept the Bill as the hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to accepting our recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, we have now arrived at the Third Reading of this Bill, a Bill which has been discussed at some length. It would hardly be possible to advance any new arguments. We have often heard the reproach from the Press as well as from hon. members in this House who oppose this legislation that it is an attempt of the NP, of the Afrikaner, to force its will upon the English-speaking people. I think that the time has arrived for the Opposition to realize that they will gain nothing from this sort of wedge-driving. A great many English-speaking people appreciate the fact that the NP has the courage of its convictions in adopting a standpoint, even if it is not always popular with the so-called vociferous public.

Many English-speaking people feel that, even though they do not want to support the NP publicly in respect of matters such as this, they are quite satisfied to have the NP proceed along the road which it has chosen in adopting a standpoint on moral or religious questions. I readily concede that there are many Afrikaans-speaking people who would also be prepared to allow film shows on Sundays. Consequently, in my opinion, this is not a matter which is concerned with Afrikaans-speaking people or English speaking people as such. In my opinion, what we are doing here is to prevent any further lapse into a situation in which Sunday would seem like an ordinary weekday. Every day we see in the Press that people are always fiddling about on the edge of what is permissible so that things are always being pushed a little closer to permissiveness. This is done by way of the photos and articles which appear in newspapers. People are always fiddling about on the edge in this way in order to deviate a little further from the norms which are accepted by the majority of the population and of the electorate.

In regard to this matter, it is a fact that it was not the general practice in Natal— perhaps in a few communities, but not throughout the province—for film shows to take place on Sundays for commercial purposes. Perhaps there were a few cases, but it was not the general practice. Because it is now being realized that this is an opportunity for doing business on a Sunday, all sorts of underhand methods are being employed to push things further in the direction of permissiveness. However, this has not been limited to Natal, but has spread to the other provinces as well. Nor has the practice been confined to English-speaking firms, for in any case the cinemas are, to a great extent, in the hands of Afrikaans-speaking business concerns. Consequently, the Government has a bounden duty in this regard to guard against the slippery slope down which the country is moving as far as moral standards are concerned. I want to appeal to the hon. Opposition to refrain from always trying to be popular by making concessions to the vociferous opponents of the Government. By doing so, they will be making a great mistake. If people such as the former President of the Methodist Church, who is sitting in this House, think they are popular as a result of adopting this standpoint, they are making a big mistake because all they are proving is that they are truly at home in the camp of the PRP, that they take no notice of moral standards. It is very clear that the Government had no intention of forcing a standpoint on the general public of South Africa. The hon. the Minister stated quite clearly in his reply to the Second Reading debate that he had tried his best by way of negotiations and discussions to obtain the co-operation on the one hand of the parties which show films commercially on Sundays and on the other hand of certain committees and organizations. From some of them he got co-operation, from others he got the typical attitude: “I am not interested as long as I can make money.” The cinema owners said: “I am not showing the films; I am simply leasing the theatres.” With that sort of attitude, we will eventually reach a stage in South Africa at which absolutely no norms will be accepted as a standard, because it is those people who are not interested in norms who always push the matter a little further. The general public is prepared to go along with this and many of them accept the position and if it is the Government’s standpoint or the standpoint of the authorities—not necessarily the NP’s standpoint—they are prepared to fall in with it. However, if openings are left for those who are weak of spirit, so that they are allowed to take part, there will always be weaklings taking part. It is not the Government’s attitude, however, always to allow the weaklings to determine the norms of the community. After all, it is most certainly the Government’s duty—not only the NP Government but also the members of the Opposition who form part of the authorities, of Parliament and of the government structure—not always to be negative, but to be positive as well. I am convinced that the vast majority of the public is grateful that the Government has the courage of its convictions to adopt a standpoint in regard to these matters. It is not true at all that we are asking for absolute uniformity, as the hon. member for Pinelands alleged.

It is absolutely true.

Every individual still has the freedom to do whatever he wants on Sundays, as long as he does not disturb other people. In spite of this legislation, every individual is still granted that opportunity. This legislation limits only the commercialization of Sunday by way of film shows. If the Government were to be provoked on a grand scale by the commercialization of Sundays by a business undertaking, how would the hon. member for Pinelands react if shop-owners consequently decided that if cinemas could do business as usual on Sundays, nothing could prevent them from keeping their shops open on Sundays either? Of course, there are many shop-owners who would very much like to do so. All that is stopping them is the shop assistants’ trade union. These are the people who are stopping them. But does the hon. member for Pinelands ever think about the people who, as employees, are obliged to work on Sundays as a result of these practices of cinema owners? Does he ever think of them?

Well, close down your golf courses and your swimming pools as well.

Ah, shut up!

Why do you not do that? Be consistent!

Order!

Close down your beaches!

Order!

[Inaudible.]

One has got to help him, Jimmy.

Nor does this legislation have the aim of protecting the churches as such. In my opinion, there is, in any case, a religious revival taking place at the moment, not only in South Africa, but also in many other countries of the world, and churches are again getting across to the public. Consequently, I am of the opinion that this legislation is not aimed simply at protecting the churches as such but rather at exerting an influence on the general idea of how Sunday ought to be observed in South Africa.

In other words, it ought to be a quiet and peaceful day. The objective is to bring this home and to preserve it in the communal life of South Africa. I think it would be a sad day if South Africa’s Sunday became the same as Sundays in many other countries in Europe. I think it would really be a sad day for the community of South Africa. The churches can continue with their work because this legislation is not there to protect the churches as such. It is there to preserve the pattern of Sunday as it was in the past and to prevent us from sliding further and further down the slippery slope of permissiveness, and this could very easily happen because we have such a multinational and multiracial structure in South Africa. I really and truly want to make an earnest appeal to the Opposition, and particularly to the Opposition members of Natal, not to attempt to drive this legislation in as a wedge between English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with it.

That will not be necessary.

This is something which is desirable in order to preserve the status of Sunday in the communal life of South Africa and in order to preserve good co-operation and a good understanding between English and Afrikaans-speaking people.

Mr. Speaker, one thing has emerged clearly in this debate and this is that cinemas on Sundays is not a very important issue. The hon. the Minister himself has made the point that it is the commercialization of Sundays they are against. Cinemas are not important but what is important is the fact that the Bill forces the will of one section of the population on another—and I am not talking about the English-speaking people at all. I am talking about Natal. In fact, it has been pointed out in this debate that Nationalist members in the Provincial Council in Natal were against this sort of Bill. On this point I must take issue with the hon. member for Klip River because he will know very well the Nationalist member of the Provincial Council in Natal who was against this sort of Bill.

I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Klip River that it is not a question of English versus Afrikaans, an issue in which I have no interest whatsoever. It is just that Natal believes that it should determine its own non-political local behaviour.

The hon. the Minister of Justice in his argument posed two questions. He asked where local authorities got their power from—from provincial councils. Then he asked where the provincial councils got their power from—from the Central Government. That is of course correct and, naturally, no one takes issue on that legal point. However, the next question the hon. the Minister of Justice ought to have asked is: Where does the Central Government get its power from? The Central Government got its power from a solemn agreement at the time of the National Convention in which four contracting parties came to the solemn agreement that there would be no compulsion on the parties to that agreement in purely local affairs.

Where was that said?

I have all the quotes here. They are by Sir Frederick Moore, Morcom and various other delegates who spoke when the agreement was reached. However, I do not want to go into that because I have very little time at my disposal. The fear was that the more powerful parties would not respect the customs and wishes of the smaller ones. How right Natal was— because that is exactly what is happening here! That side of the House is forcing upon Natal what Natal does not want. It is not prepared to respect Natal’s wishes in a matter which would cause no harm to any one of the supporters of that side of the House.

Government rests, finally, either upon the support and respect of its citizens or upon compulsion, backed by the threat of violence. South Africa at present finds itself in troubled times with the threat of war developing on its borders. Almost without exception our defence force chiefs have said that we, as a country, will not continue to exist unless we have the full support, the full co-operation and the goodwill of all our citizens. By forcing this measure upon Natal, nothing is being done to encourage the goodwill, the support and co-operation of Natal. In fact, this displays the Government’s contempt for Natal’s wishes. Sir, with respect, it is a question of respect for separate identities.

What is the Devil quoting now? The Devil is quoting the Scriptures.

The whole measure is a naked display of power directed at Natal. There are, for instance, hundreds of thousands of Indians in Natal who are engaged in the economic sphere and who serve in the police force here in South Africa and on our borders. I know many of them who do. I have heard no argument explaining why they should not go to cinemas on Sundays for their relaxation. The hon. the Minister of Justice and members of his party are and will be quick enough to enlist Natal’s co-operation in defending South Africa. They will be quick enough to expect Natal to co-operate as a matter of right. However, are they prepared to co-operate with Natal? I suggest the answer is: Not at all. I want to bring forcibly to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Justice the fact that co-operation depends upon mutual respect. I want to suggest to him, firstly, that he respect Natal’s wishes and, secondly, that he will do South Africa and himself a favour by displaying a similar spirit of co-operation in respect of the people of Natal. Sir, we oppose this legislation.

That was a good speech, Harry.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a long time over this Bill, a Bill which should never have been introduced in this House and in respect of which the House should not have had its time wasted. Sir, the hon. the Minister, in justifying this Bill, has, I believe, gone to quite extraordinary, in fact, ridiculous lengths. He has, for example, spent a long time explaining to the House that one can buy quite a lot of things from shops on Sundays. He went to great lengths telling us about this, as pages and pages of his Hansard show. None of that has got anything to do with this Bill at all. Then he told this House that we are living in difficult times, and I want to quote his words. He said—

Mr. Speaker, these are a few of the words which the hon. the Minister used during this debate with which I can agree. There is no doubt that this is so, and I ask him: Why waste the time of the House?

You chaps are wasting the time.

The hon. the Minister must not say that we are wasting the time of the House. He is wasting the time of the House by introducing a Bill of this sort. I shall point out to him that he is wasting the time of the House both because the Bill is unnecessary and because there are already powers to control what he is trying to control in terms of this Bill. So, if ever there has been a waste of the time of this House, it has been by this hon. Minister through this Bill. If he will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to the wife of a former Cabinet Minister on his side of the House. I want to quote what Mrs. Waring had to say in last night’s Argus. She was dealing in this article with the future of the Coloureds, a very important subject indeed. She had this to say—

There is no doubt that Mrs. Waring is quite right when she says this. She was referring, as I say, to the Coloured community, and I agree that the time of the House would have been far better spent in discussing their future than in what we have been doing in the past few days with this Bill.

The time of this House would have been far better spent also if, instead of wasting so much time on a Bill of this sort, we had discussed the future of South Africa in the light of what the hon. the Minister himself said about the pressures on the country from without, the pressures and undermining from within the country and the general onslaught on the spirit of South Africa. Surely the time of this House would have been better spent in considering such important matters and determining what we are going to do about this serious situation. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us when the Government will take time to consider this very serious state of affairs which is confronting South Africa and will give adequate time to considering the situation and discussing what in fact the Government and the country as a whole should be doing in the face of these serious onslaughts.

We on this side of the House have made our standpoint towards this Bill very clear. In view of the fact that there has been such a lot of rubbish spoken by Government members as to what exactly our stand is, I want to repeat it quite briefly. They are well aware of what we stand for; it is quite clear from the amendment. Why, therefore, do they misconstrue what we have to say and argue on the basis of those misconstructions? I shall tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is because they realize that the case which we have put forward is unanswerable. That is why they have had to find another basis which we did not put up and then attack that.

Mr. Speaker, we have said that South Africa is a Christian based nation. I use the word “Christian” in the broad sense, in the sense of a nation which accepts the sovereignty of God, whether they be Christians, whether they be Jews, whether they be Hindus or Moslems. South Africa is basically a Christian or God-fearing nation in that sense. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we accept that Sundays have a special context and that Sunday is a special day. We also accept that there should be as little commercialism as is possible, having regard to the modem circumstances in which we live. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. members must not get agitated. The hon. the Minister himself pointed out that there were many people for whom Sunday was the only day upon which they can relax, play a bit of sport and carry on such activities, and in the modern context one has to accept that situation. That is why I say, within the limits of the situation as it is in the present day, one accepts that there ought to be as little commercializing of the Sunday as possible.

Mr. Speaker, having said this, I come to the Bill itself. And what does the Bill attempt to do? You know, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the ridiculous things about the debate on this Bill. We have heard such a lot from hon. members on that side of the House about the principle of maintaining Sunday as a holy day, and yet, Mr. Speaker, this Bill does one thing only, and that is to prevent the showing of films for commercial purposes. It does not prevent the showing of films for non-commercial purposes. Now, where is this principle which hon. members are talking about? Where is it?

[Inaudible.]

No, Mr. Speaker. Let us confine ourselves to the Bill, which is, as I have said, aimed at the prevention of the showing of films for commercial purposes.

Can you imagine any big film concern showing films for nothing?

Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about what cinemas will do. I am talking about the principle, and the principle as enunciated in this Bill does only that. So, hon. members should not come and talk all that nonsense about the so-called general spirit of the whole thing. Let us confine ourselves to what the Bill says. I will commend the hon. member for Vereeniging, because he was one of the few who pointed out that, in fact, this is what the Bill was about. But then, of course, he also went on to deal with other matters which had nothing to do with the Bill, because he had not very much to talk about if he confined himself to the principle of the Bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come to the principle of the Bill, which is, as I have said, the prohibition of films on Sundays for commercial purposes, whether it is direct or indirect. Mr. Speaker, which is the best body to deal with a matter of that sort? In our view there is no doubt about it whatsoever. The only proper bodies to deal with matters of that kind are the local communities, the local authorities, because they have the feeling of their community. They know what their community wants and what their community does not want, within the principle of maintaining Sunday as the Sabbath. Within that principle the local authority knows what its own people want and what they do not want.

We have heard from the hon. the Minister and others on that side of the House that they do not wish to impose uniformity. Well, if they do not wish to impose uniformity, then why do they not leave it in the hands of the local authorities? The hon. member for Brakpan has told the House that there has been legislation by the Central Government since 1918, legislation which has concerned itself with the Sunday. He is quite right, but he has not told the House that Parliament has delegated the Central Government’s powers to deal with Sunday observance to the provincial authorities. The Acts to which he has referred have precisely that effect—they have delegated to the provincial authorities the power and the right to deal with Sunday observance. We believe that that is partly right, but is not going the whole way. It should not be in the hands of a provincial authority because there are different parts of each province which view matters differently. We have had the example of Natal throughout this debate, and in Margate in Natal films have been shown on a Sunday for years. It is not only the “scandalous English” who have no respect for the Sunday who attend those cinema shows …

I never said that.

… but it is also the visitors from the Transvaal and the Free State, many of whom are good Afrikaners and churchgoers, good members of the Dutch Reformed Church. However, they are able to attend their church first and then go to the cinema after that if they wish to. What is wrong with that? It needs only be stated in this way, I would think, to justify the logic of our attitude and the amendment which we have moved.

Before I sit down I should like to deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Algoa. I am sorry he is not in the House, but I shall have to say what I want to say in his absence. He is a new member of this House although an experienced politician because he is a former M.E.C. of the Cape. I hope that we will not hear distorted arguments from him again, because this is what he has done …

Order! It is not in order for the hon. member to say that another hon. member used distorted arguments.

Mr. Speaker, I shall change my words and say that he distorted our attitude to the Bill.

Withdraw what you have said.

I have withdrawn what I said previously, and I say that he has distorted our attitude to the Bill.

Order! I am afraid that is more or less the same thing. The hon. member must withdraw that too.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to argue with you about it, but I do not think it is the same. Nevertheless, I withdraw the word “distorted”. I say that he has misrepresented what our attitude is to the Bill. He said that we do not like this measure.

But you said so too.

Yes, we are agreed on that.

He added, however, that we are opposed to any code of conduct; everything must be allowed and there should be no control. According to him our point of view is that things ought to be left to each individual. Finally he ended up with the argument: “Die Opposisie glo in ‘laat maar loop’.” Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa, as an experienced politician and a former M.E.C., ought to know that none of these statements accurately reflect the attitude of this side of the House, because we have made it clear that we accept that a measure of control is necessary in respect of what may or may not be done on a Sunday. We have not said that it should be left to anybody to do what he likes, as the hon. member for Algoa suggests, but that it should be left in the hands of the local authorities to determine the position.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister objected to our attitude because he said we would then have a situation where there would be “’n totale Babelse verwarring”.

Do you deny that?

I most certainly do deny that, Sir. In any case, I see nothing wrong if some local authorities adopt one attitude while other local authorities adopt a different attitude, provided that in allowing films on a Sunday they do not do so at a time which conflicts with church hours.

They are doing just that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister was challenged by the hon. member for Durban Point, I think it was, to name one example. I do not think he did so. [Interjections.] In respect of Natal, the hon. the Minister referred to Newcastle and Vryheid, which had decided that they would allow no films on Sundays.

And Durban as well.

Yes, even the very enlightened city of Durban, which has many English-speaking people, decided not to allow any films on Sundays. Yet, Sir, there are other local authorities in Natal that have taken a different standpoint. I refer to the example of Margate. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us in his reply what is wrong with different local authorities adopting a different point of view towards this matter, provided—and I emphasize this proviso—that in allowing the viewing of films for commercial purposes on a Sunday, they do so at times and under circumstances that do not jeopardize the spirit of the Sabbath and the attendance of church-goers at church.

That is a tremendous proviso!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister comments on this, but I think there is one thing that has been overlooked by this House throughout the debate, and I think it is a valid one. If Christian churches and communities require legislation of this sort in order to maintain their position in this modem world, then they are facing an impossible task. I believe that the churches which have confidence in themselves and in their ability to draw people to them would take the view that they do not require the State to legislate in order to get people to attend their services. Be that as it may, our attitude is that we accept that some measure of control is necessary and that such control should be in the hands of the local authorities.

Finally, I want to deal with the motion of the Natal Provincial Council. I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Klip River is not in his bench, because the motion which was passed in the Natal Provincial Council was debated at some length and the position during that debate was that the MPC for Klip River was one of those who spoke in support of the principle that the matter should be left in the hands of the province or the local authority—I am not sure which.

Did he vote for it or against it?

He said that he was voting against the motion because it went too wide in his opinion, and because it attacked the hon. the Minister; he did not like to attack the hon. the Minister. He made it quite clear, however, that he supported the principle that the Central Government should not step in to legislate in this matter.

If it was accepted as a principle by the Natal Provincial Council that these matters should be left entirely to the local authorities, why did they debate a motion like that at all?

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a simple question to answer. As the hon. the Minister knows, it was because he was using the big stick and was making a lot of threats in this regard. That is why they debated it. I see the hon. member for Klip River is back again. I want to tell him that his MPC was not impressed by the hon. the Minister’s threats and that he was not having anything to do with them either.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasize at this stage of the debate that our attitude is quite a simple one and that it must please not be distorted. We do not mind the Government arguing against us on the basis of the arguments which we present, but they should please not misconstrue our arguments and then argue on the basis of their misconstructions. Our attitude is simply that we accept that a measure of control is necessary in respect of the Sunday and that, in our opinion, the best authority to deal with that control is the local authority, because the local authority is sensitive to the wishes of the local people.

The hon. the Minister said that one of the reasons for this Bill was because some of the existing legislation did not go far enough and did not enable the authorities concerned adequately to control what was taking place. If it is so, for example, that the law which deals with Sunday observance in the Cape and the Transvaal does not give sufficient powers, the matter is simple. It does not need the Central Government to step in and to take over all the powers itself; all it needs to do is to introduce a Bill through this Parliament which will give the provinces or the local authorities adequate powers to deal with the situation. Has the hon. the Minister not heard of that way of dealing with things? Instead, he says that the local authorities do not have sufficient powers, that the provinces do not have sufficient powers, and that therefore he will take all the powers which they have away from them. Surely the right way to do it is to say that if they do not have the powers they need to control the situation, we shall give them the adequate powers which they do require. This is our standpoint and we are therefore opposed to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this interesting debate for a very long time and I agree with Mrs. Joyce Waring that the time spent on this debate was by far too much for this type of legislation. However, this does not mean that the legislation should not have been introduced in this House. What it does mean is that one would have expected a responsible Opposition to have made a proper evaluation of the Bill, as I did. Then they could have decided that each of them would not discuss it for longer than five or ten minutes, since they would not like to waste Parliament’s time. However, what do we get here?—a “Natal Stand”! There was not a single member from Natal who did not have the opportunity to say that he opposed this legislation, because this debate has been a “Natal Stand”. I hope, however, that this is the last “Natal Stand”. [Interjections.] I cannot summarize the Third Reading stage any better than it was summarized this morning in a letter that was written to The Cape Times by an English-speaking person. I assume that since he signed his name at the bottom of the letter, he will not take it amiss of me if I read it out here. The letter is from a certain Major Allister Smith of Tamboerskloof.

†The opening paragraphs read as follows, and these are paragraphs which I heartily endorse …

I am sure you will agree …

Yes, I am sure you would, because certain names are mentioned. I quote—

He has not read Calvin.

It continues—

I cannot put it more succinctly than that. This is properly and clearly put, and this is the whole principle of the Bill. I think this gentleman was quite right in dealing out a gentle cut towards the hon. young parson from Pinelands.

*First of all I should like to reply to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. This hon. member did not participate in the debate before; this was the first time that he did so. In point of fact he advanced two arguments. The first argument of the hon. member was that films had been shown on Sundays in a town in his constituency, viz. in Margate for 20 years. I know Margate very well and I want to assure the hon. gentleman that films are not shown in Margate because, as he suggested, it is an English tradition to show films on Sundays, but rather because Margate, as a seaside resort situated on the South Coast, tries to provide for its visitors every possible form of entertainment on earth. That is the real reason why film shows are allowed there on a Sunday, only to keep the hotels full. The things we are discussing now does not enter into the picture at all.

Do you mean that the local people do not go to the shows?

That is what the hon. member for South Coast said. I can quote what the hon. member said. He said that the local people do not go to the Sunday film shows on the South Coast, but only the visitors. Now that I make the point, he tells me that I am wrong. Yet it has been said by the hon. member for South Coast, a member of his party. The hon. member did make an important point, which in my respectful submission requires a full answer from me. The hon. member says that I must not take up the attitude of an Afrikaner, but that I must accept the fact that the English-speaking people of South Africa has a different tradition as far as this is concerned and that I must respect that tradition. I want to tell the hon. member that I am an Afrikaans-speaking person while the hon. member is an English-speaking person. I want to tell him categorically across the floor this afternoon that there is absolutely no difference between my traditions and the traditions of the English-speaking South Africans. We are all South Africans. It therefore does not behove the Opposition to try to force the Afrikaner into being something other than an ordinary South African. The only difference between the hon. member and me, as far as I can see, is that I have occasion to speak English more than he has occasion to speak Afrikaans. That is the only difference; there is no other difference whatsoever, not in our traditions, our outlook, our attitude as far as threats to South Africa are concerned or whatever the case may be. I believe that the English-speaking South African and I stand on exactly the same platform when it comes to threats to our country and to those things appertaining to South Africa. There is no difference between us at all except that we speak two different languages.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not correct that this legislation is going to remove from Natal the right to determine things which Natal has enjoyed ever since Union?

The same applies to the Transvaal.

That may well be so, and in making my submission I want to answer the hon. member for Durban North at the same time. He went right back to the question of the National Convention. My point is that Natal is part of the Republic. This is my whole point. I am trying to tell the hon. members, the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, that they are part and parcel of South Africa. They are South Africans like I am. We belong to one part of the world. However, what have we been witnessing in this House? In this particular debate we have seen an attitude on the part of the Natal members implying that they should be left alone because they came into the Republic and into Union reluctantly. The implication is that they just want to be left to themselves and be allowed to do things their way. This brings me back to my Second Reading speech. Durban first prohibited film shows on a Sunday 18 years ago. I posed the issue to Mr. Ron Williams and asked him whether, at that time, there were any Afrikaners on the Durban city council. He answered in the negative, and that is so. We have a common heritage. What are my traditions are also the traditions of the English-speaking people.

That is not what we are arguing about.

Let me refer again to the letter I read from an English-speaking person. Here there is no question of tradition. There is nothing whatsoever of that kind.

*I asked the hon. member for Musgrave why it was necessary for the Executive Committee of the Natal Provincial Council to hold a debate in the Provincial Council if they felt so strongly about the matter. The M.E.C. concerned, however, told me throughout that we must keep our hands off Natal, since this was a matter for the local authorities. So why was it necessary to have a debate in the Provincial Council if he believed that those debates were to be conducted on local authority level? Why did they not adopt the attitude that the province was not to discuss matters of this kind as it was a matter for the local authorities to discuss?

That is really a weak argument.

No. The Executive Committee adopted exactly the same attitude that the Natal members are now adopting here. Their attitude was that the matter was one for the local authorities to deal with. However, they wanted to go for Kruger. That is why they had the debate. Let the hon. member read his motion again. If he does so, he will see that the motion has virtually nothing to do with films whatsoever. By means of his motion he went for me.

Why did he go for you?

Let me state quite categorically this afternoon that I am not going for anybody in Natal. I have told the hon. members that I do not at any time have a chip on my shoulder. I have no axe to grind at all with the English-speaking people of Natal. After all, we are all South Africans. That is the whole point I am trying to make. That is why I said I had to reply to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti on this particular point. He kept on isolating himself from me just because he is an English-speaking South African and I am Afrikaans-speaking South African.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Brakpan made a very fine speech in which he indicated very clearly that there was in fact a degree of “Boerehaat” in the debate on this Bill. He explained it very clearly.

Now I come to the hon. member for Pinelands. His attitude did not surprise me personally. I know what the general attitude of the PRP is. I know what their basic philosophy is. Their basic philosophy is socialistic. [Interjections.] Did not the hon. member who is laughing so heartily over there explain to us the difference between socialism and communism?

Yes.

That is correct. They are following a kind of socialism. What these hon. members are practising is a kind of value destruction. The hon. member for Sea Point even wants to redistribute wealth one day. He wants to take away the wealth of the rich and redistribute it to the poor.

You are talking your usual nonsense.

The hon. member mentioned the redistribution of wealth, but when the hon. the Prime Minister asked him what he meant, he clamped down. He still has not answered that question.

You know nothing about economics.

As I have said, I understand the position of the hon. member for Pinelands perfectly. He is wearing a clergyman’s vestment and he is most probably a clergyman—I do not know. He is one of the ministers to whom I have already referred as one of these people who are always involved with Black consciousness organizations through the Christian Institute and similar organizations. For that reason, too, he gave evidence before the Schlebusch Commission. But I shall leave it at that, because I can see, Mr. Speaker, that he does not like me to talk about that at this stage.

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

Let me just say in advance that I have noticed that I am beginning to offend the Chair and if I have to reply to a question put by the hon. member, we shall become involved in an argument. For that reason I think it would be better if he were to ask his question in another debate.

You fear my question.

The hon. member for Algoa said something which I want to repeat here, because I think it was a beautiful statement he made. He said a country should bear the stamp of what it professes. I think it is worth-while to say in reply to that that this statement is one which we must endorse, because a country must bear the stamp of what it professes. That is the very thing we are attempting with this legislation.

I now come to the hon. member for Maitland. After I had listened to what the hon. member for Maitland and his colleagues had to say prior to this debate, I said that their speeches blew like a fresh wind through this House. Unfortunately the wind has started blowing from a different direction and it does not smell as fresh as before either. The hon. member advanced two arguments. In the first instance he asked whether a debate in this House was the best method of dealing with a matter of this nature. He suggested that it would have been better for a Select Committee to have inquired into this matter. But surely a Select Committee does not replace the debates of this House. After all, a Select Committee has a completely different purpose. Therefore I don’t know what the hon. member was talking about. The purpose of a Select Committee is to thrash out a matter. It does not exist for debating a matter. Whether or not a Select Committee is appointed, a matter is still debated in this House.

In fact, only a matter about which there is a degree of consensus, is referred to a Select Committee.

Precisely. The hon. member also asked whether we should not have chosen a decision level where there was less heat. That was his argument, if I understood him correctly. In other words, the hon. member wants to multiply this debate, which has already taken up so many hours, by hundreds. Do you know, Sir, that municipal elections have already been fought about this matter. If he wants to remove this sensitive matter from the sensitive areas, we must debate it here so as to get it over and done with and to enact the legislation. We must not throw a matter like this into the laps of the local authorities where elections are fought year in and year out, elections in which some people stand as independents and others do not.

I think the hon. member for Klip River put the matter very clearly. He once more explained the Government’s attitude to the Opposition, namely that the issue here was merely Sunday rest and the commercialization of Sundays.

I have already replied to the argument of the hon. member for Durban North. I was amazed to hear him plead for different ethnic entities. To me that was like the devil preaching out of the Bible. The PRP does not believe in those matters of which he spoke. Now he wants to use our argument against us. See how the hon. member is blushing, Mr. Speaker. He is literally blushing, because he spoke against his own philosophy.

Finally I want to say something about what the hon. member for Musgrove said. He made a very interesting statement, as typical of the members of the UP as anything one may find. He said he did not like this legislation “provided the films do not jeopardize church times and the spirit of the Sunday”.

†Mr. Speaker, all I can say to that is “hear, hear!” That is exactly why this legislation is before the House, i.e. because they are jeopardizing church times and are upsetting the spirit of the country. [Interjections.] The hon. member must go and read his Hansard. He did make this proviso and then I said to the hon. member: “But that is a long proviso” and I wrote it down quickly. He said that he did not want this legislation provided the showing of films do not jeopardize church times. Am I right? Did the hon. member say that? He also said “provided it does not upset the spirit of the Sunday”. In my hand I have a copy of Sunday cinema advertisements. Let us have a look at these times.

But that is in the Transvaal.

It is just the same everywhere. The starting times of the film shows in Hillbrow are given here as 5.15 and 8.15 p.m. One can go through this list of times and see that they coincide with church times. That, therefore, disposes of the argument of the hon. member for Musgrave.

I do not want to devote more time to this Bill. In my humble opinion this Bill is absolutely essential for South Africa in these times. I want to repeat that it has not been introduced because I have a bone to pick with a province and it has not been introduced because I have a bone to pick with a particular person in a province. I am completely free and divested of that kind of pettiness. I was of the opinion that this legislation was essential and for that reason we have introduced it here.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, P. C. Roux, N. F. Treurnicht and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendment of section 3 of the Act became necessary because the need arose for it to be possible for the four partners, i.e. the central, provincial and local authorities and private enterprise, to have representation on the National Cultural Council. As a result of this need, the National Cultural Council recommended that the number of members on the council be increased by two and that the two members be nominated from the functioning area of the provinces and local authorities. In this way it will be possible to ensure greater co-ordination and that all the facilities which the various bodies have at their disposal, are made available for the dissemination of culture.

We should like to draw attention to the fact that eight members on the council are chairmen of the various commissions and that it is desirable to nominate other prominent people as well, over and above those who are nominated from the various sectors.

These are all the provisions contained in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising in order to say, on behalf of hon. members in these benches, that we support the Bill in principle. The legislation seeks to do nothing more than an increase by two the number of members serving on the council so that in future there will be 15 council members instead of 13. One often feels that councils and bodies should have as limited a membership as possible, but anyone who knows the background of this particular case, will agree that it is entirely justified to increase the number of members on the board by two.

Mr. Speaker, I have studied the Bill and tried to see whether there would be any advantage in taking up a standpoint in opposition to the legislation, but without saying anything more, I must say that we also support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also support the changes which will be effected by this Bill. I think that the hon. the Minister has made out a case for the necessity of the changes and therefore we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my heartfelt thanks to all the parties for their support of the legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill seeks to eliminate a few problems which the Government Archives is experiencing with the implementation of the Archives Act.

As the Archives Act of 1962 reads at present, it is not applicable to statutory boards. These boards are autonomous bodies and we wish to respect their autonomy. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that their records are of the utmost importance to our history—and particularly our economic history—and feasible steps must therefore be taken to ensure that these records are eventually, even if it is on a voluntary basis, transferred to the Government Archives where they may ultimately be made available to researchers and preserved.

Although these statutory bodies make use of the services rendered by the Government Archives, particularly in respect of the compilation and maintenance of an effective filing system, they are under no obligation to ensure that those records are ultimately transferred to the Government Archives.

Most statutory bodies have been consulted on the matter and have agreed to it. Wherever the need arises for a service to be rendered to such a body, these statutory boards may now apply to be declared government offices for the purposes of the custody of archives. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill now make provision for this.

The other clauses of the Bill are aimed solely at eliminating administrative problems. At present travelling and subsistence allowances paid to members of the Archives Commission are prescribed by way of regulation. At present the tariff which applies to departmental committees of inquiry also applies to the Archives Commission but, because the Archives Act requires the commission’s tariff to be prescribed by way of regulation, it means that whenever there is a change in the travelling and subsistence costs, the regulations have to be amended.

Clause 3 of the Bill will now make it possible for the tariff applicable to departmental committees to be determined once only as being applicable to the Archives Commission. Any future amendment of the tariffs of departmental committees will then apply to the Archives Commission as well. For the rest it follows that the existing arrangement has to be discontinued and this is being done by means of clause 4 of the Bill.

The Archives Act of 1962 makes no provision for the delegation of powers, duties and functions. Clause 5 of the Bill now meets this deficiency.

The idea is to delegate some of the functions entrusted to the Minister, for example the permanent deferment of the transfer of archives to an archives depot; the transfer, on a permanent basis, of archives from one archives depot to another; and the access of the public to archives which are not yet accessible to the public.

These provisions were included in the Bill after very thorough investigation. The object of the proposed delegation is therefore the speedy despatch of business by the person best acquainted with it.

Mr. Speaker, in this year, in which the archive service in South Africa is 100 years old, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this specific amendment Bill. However, there are one or two matters which I want to discuss further with the hon. the Minister in principle. The provisions in regard to travelling and subsistence costs are completely acceptable, and I can say nothing further about them. In particular I welcome the principle in terms of which certain statutory bodies—as a result of a change in definition—may now be declared government offices. In fact some of the members on this side felt that so many valuable documents were being lost that they would have liked to have seen such a provision being made obligatory. For practical reasons, however, this would not be possible, for the archive service is not geared to rendering this kind of service, and it will therefore be an entirely impossible task. Nevertheless I want to make an appeal to our government offices and to our statutory bodies to make use of these benefits. It would definitely lead to a far more orderly custody of documents. At present it is the case that in terms of the existing section 6 the local authorities, although they are not declared to be government offices, are also supposed to perform certain tasks after 30 years. Among our local authorities however, there are many cases of valuable documents which are lost, and we can only hope that the same situation will not develop in the case of these statutory bodies.

Clause 5 of the amendment Bill relates to the greater accessibility to accessions and documents in archives. In principle we support the idea that something has to be done to make the documents more accessible to the public. At present, for example, it is a time-consuming process to get to see a document in the Cape Town archives which is less than 50 years old, one first has to telephone the director in Pretoria, then he has to telephone the secretary and eventually one has the situation that the hon. the Minister may grant one the necessary consent. In our opinion the delegation of powers in this regard goes too far, since it is being provided here that the powers under section 6(a) dealing with transfer, the powers of section 9(4) dealing with accessibility to documents less than 50 years old and the powers under section 9(5) dealing with the withdrawal of consent, may be assigned to any officer of the Department of National Education.

We feel that in this respect it is going too far. There are many sound reasons for it having been decided in principle that documents should be at least 50 years old before they may be made accessible. I shall not take the matter any further now, but shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage which will try to limit these provisions. We are dealing here with documents, and once an officer has made the mistake and allowed a person to inspect documents to which he should not have had access, there is nothing one can do about the matter. One may attack the hon. the Minister in this regard, but the harm has already been done. I shall discuss this aspect further during the Committee Stage. However, we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the initial reaction of those of us in these benches was that there was nothing in this Bill which did not deserve our support. Having listened to the hon. the Minister and also to the hon. member for Durban Central, I also have to agree with their standpoints. I think the reservation mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Central deserves the serious consideration of the hon. the Minister, and I merely want to say that we have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members in these benches I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we support the Second Reading of this Bill and that we hope it will be a sound improvement which is being made.

Mr. Speaker, very little remains for me to do other than to thank the parties for their support of this Bill. I listened very carefully in advance to the hon. member for Durban Central who came to see me and said that they wanted to raise a certain point in regard to the question of delegation. I then discussed it with the law advisers as well as my department and I can now inform the hon. member that if he wishes to move such a motion during the Committee Stage, we shall come to an agreement with one another. We are quite prepared to omit certain words in clause 5. I am therefore able to accommodate him in this regard.

During the hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the archives, and in view of the outstanding work they have done, it is a very pleasant, fitting and good thing that this Bill, which will undoubtedly bring about an improvement in an facilitate the functions of the Archives, enjoys the support of all the parties in this House and that there is unanimity on the effecting of these amendments. I thank hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment which, for the information of the other hon. members, is not the one printed on the Order Paper, but the following—

In other words, in this respect only the director will therefore be empowered to give permission to people. The Minister’s powers in terms of section 6(a), 9(4) or 9(5) may accordingly only be delegated to him. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for saying in advance that he is going to accept the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to identify myself with the remarks made and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. I seek one assurance from the hon. the Minister, and that is in connection with the question of the granting of authority. I understand, from inquiries to the department, that it is not possible for anybody lower in rank than the hon. the Minister, who is delegated by the hon. the Minister to perform functions in terms of section 6(a), 9(4) or 9(5), to withdraw an authority given by the hon. the Minister himself. Is that correct? „

Mr. Chairman, let me give the hon. member for Berea the assurance that only the Minister is able to delegate authority in terms of this Bill. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban Central is quite acceptable to me as proposed and I am very happy that we can resolve the matter in this fashion.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a private Bill which you, Mr. Speaker, in your discretion have allowed to be proceeded with as a public measure in terms of Standing Order No. 1. The Bill is intended to tidy up the Universities Act. The University of Cape Town operates under two statutes, the Universities Act of 1955 and its own Act of 1959. Under the 1959 Act, section 11(3)—

In terms of section 13 of the Universities Act of 1955—

These sections are not mutually exclusive. Section 11(3) requires an approach to the Minister by the university before it can dismiss an officer, whilst section 13 gives the officer who has received the notice of his discharge a right of appeal to the Minister. The Minister may thus be called upon twice to consider the termination of an officer’s appointment. On each occasion he will be exercising his discretion on the basis of the information placed before him at the relevant time; this information need not, of course, be identical on both occasions. Furthermore, the Minister’s decision in terms of section 11(3) will not bind him in the making of his decision in terms of section 13.

It would, however, appear to be an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure for the Minister to be twice seized of the same matter. In any event, the most comprehensive range of facts and information relevant to a particular case will most surely be available at the time an officer, should he so wish, lodges an appeal.

This matter has been placed before the Department of National Education, and by letter dated 3 June 1976 the university has been informed that the Minister of National Education has no objection to the proposed repeal of section 11(3). In other words, the necessity for permission from the Minister before dismissal is being repealed.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I am an ex-student of the university under discussion, and I feel I should like to make some remarks on this particular subject, if for no other reason than that I believe such remarks should be on record. What I want to say is that there is, in fact, a right of many, many years’ standing that is being taken away by this Bill. The present section 11(3) appeared in the same form as section 11(2) of the original Act concerning the university, viz. Act No. 14 of 1916. The original subsection read—

The same subsection was retained in the Consolidation Act of the University of 1959.

The House is now being asked to delete that particular subsection. The effect of such a deletion will be that no prior consent by the Minister will be required when the university council dismisses a professor, a lecturer or a teacher. I asked myself what the objective is. I also asked myself what the reason for this step is. Is the argument perhaps that there should be uniformity, that the matter should be brought into line with the provisions governing other universities in terms of the Universities Act? If that is so, I am a little surprised, because Cape Town University has always prided itself on its individualism.

Spokesmen for Cape Town University invariably refer to its individual character and to their resentment of any form of regimentation. I wonder if the argument is perhaps that the Minister should not be worried twice in the same matter, firstly by having to give his consent to the council when it wishes to dismiss a member of the staff and then again in the event of an appeal by the dismissed member of the staff in terms of the Universities Act. If this is so, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is an “unnecessarily cumbersome procedure”. If this is the reason, I wonder why the University of Cape Town is so worried about relieving the Minister of the additional burden. I want to know whether the Minister made representations to the university in the light of the heavy burden that falls on his shoulders. I wonder what the real reason is. A longstanding right, which was perhaps much valued by members of the university staff, is being taken away. Did the council of the university ask for that? Did the senate of the university ask for it? Is there any specific reason for it? Is there perhaps another motive? Is there any intended victim? I think it is necessary for me to warn that in the event of this Bill being accepted—we in these benches are not going to oppose it, but we find it necessary that something should be said about it—this could lead to abuses.

Over the last 25 years the university has changed its public appearance very considerably. It used to be a conservative and uncontroversial university, but in recent years its public image has become challenging, radical and protesting and most of the university’s bodies have been involved in this process of change. There are many past students who, like myself, are most concerned at what has been happening at this university for some time and at the direction that has been taken. Many members of the staff are equally concerned at the direction that has been taken in recent years by the University of Cape Town. They know probably better than anybody else that there is no one more intolerant of the opinion of other people than people who profess to be liberals! The university always claims in public to be a liberal institution, a liberal university. I now come back to my original point. It is a right that is being taken away and I ask hon. members to look for a moment at what in fact is going to happen in future if a complaint against a staff member, perhaps on academic grounds or for other reasons, is introduced in the senate, in terms of procedure goes to the council and an appeal to the Minister is made against the decision. Suppose the member of the staff is then reinstated by the Minister after his dismissal. What an untenable position he can be in! He was dismissed by the council, for whatever the reason was, but is being reinstated by the Minister. What a position he would be in with his students and with his peers. Against that under the present law, before this Bill is accepted by Parliament, the Minister can refuse to give his consent before a staff member is dismissed. I sincerely hope, and that is why I have spoken today, that this Bill will not be used to enforce some other form of uniformity to the one to which I have referred, under the guise of removing what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has called an “unnecessary cumbersome procedure”.

Mr. Speaker, the most important reservation of the hon. member for Simonstown actually has to do with a tradition. I do not think it is valid to say that a right is being taken away here, because the rights in terms of the existing two sections in the Act are, after all, being maintained. The real motivation for the Bill, if I understood it correctly, is to do away with unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. In other words, this is an attempt at rationalization. I am not aware of any significant objection to this Bill on the part of the University of Cape Town. Surely there would have been objections had there been any dissatisfaction because of this Bill. I am not aware of any.

Amongst the members of the staff.

But surely not through the official channels of the university. Another question is in which way this can be abused. I cannot see how this can be abused, because in any case these staff members have the right to appeal after the … [Interjections.] Surely, this is not something hon. members are particularly interested in. Just give me an opportunity to speak. Hon. members must please calm down a little. It cannot be abused, because the members of the staff have the right to appeal after the decision has been made. I know from my experience of universities that a member of the staff is not summarily dismissed from a university. Usually an investigation is conducted. He has the right of access to various committees investigating any complaints against him, and an ultimate decision to dismiss a staff member who has been appointed permanently, is a very serious decision for the university. Substantial evidence is called for before a final decision is made. Thereafter all such evidence is in any case made available to the particular staff member in case he wants to appeal to the Minister subsequent to his dismissal.

I think the motivation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for the Bill is quite acceptable and satisfactory, and we in these benches support it.

Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to say that this side of the House has no objection to the amendment serving before us at present.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a request to elucidate the objective. As I understand it, it is to avoid an unnecessary and cumbersome procedure. It also amounts to tidying up provisions in legislation which seem to be contradictory. There are no intended victims that I know of. This is a request from the council of the university and is, I think, motivated by their desire for perfection for which the university is so well known. Hon. members have suggested that there is a possibility of public disclosure of the university’s intentions casting an unwarranted reflection upon an officer should his appeal succeed. I believe, and my information is that any unnecessary and unseemly publicity can be reduced to a minimum, if not avoided altogether, by the exercise of a reasonable modicum of discretion and tact on the part of both the university and the officer.

I think it only remains for me to thank hon. members on both sides for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Most South Africans have close ties with farm life. That is why even the city dweller longs for a piece of land of his own, to play a part in agriculture, for closer contact with nature.

The satisfaction of this need has caused valuable agricultural land to be fragmented injudicially into thousands of small subdivisions. No one can make a decent subsistence from agriculture on these small units and the result is that the potential of this land cannot be properly utilized.

The claim of agriculture to good land to be able to produce food was endorsed by this hon. House as long ago as 1970. The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, which was then placed on the Statute Book, effectively succeeded in putting a complete stop to the subdivision of agricultural land into non-viable units.

The 900 new units which have been established during the past five years were fully justified because they created completely economic units. Frequently subdivisions can only be granted if they are accompanied by consolidation. Consequently we have been able, during the past five years, to cause 2 300 existing subdivisions to disappear by means of consolidation conditions.

†It is, however, a fact that land is and will remain a good investment and, may I add, a good source of commission for estate agents. New ways and means to circumvent the objects of the Act, will therefore always be sought. Certain undesirable practices have recently been noted and necessitate the amendments contained in the Bill under consideration.

Many people have acquired rights of some or other kind in agricultural land whilst actually believing that they bought a portion of that land. A careful study of the fine print in their contracts would very often reveal that these people have no real rights of occupation on such land and would therefore never be able to take possession thereof. They could very well exert pressure for permission under the Act to obtain full ownership thereof. I must categorically state that this will never be allowed. Such permissions would not only be contrary to the interests of agriculture, but would actually undermine the very foundations of the Act. Effective control over the granting of rights in agricultural land is considered essential so as to ensure the optimal use of our limited agricultural resources. It is therefore proposed that the granting of such rights be made subject to Ministerial permission. Similarly, it is proposed that control over long-term leases of portions of agricultural land be tightened as such leases could have the same effect as subdivisions.

Urban and other developments on agricultural land are at present controlled reasonably effectively through the Act. It does, however, happen that local authorities do not pay the necessary attention to agriculture in the early planning of such developments. Ministerial permission to use agricultural land for such developments therefore frequently amounts to legislation of a de facto situation. As a result thereof valuable agricultural land is often permanently lost for food production. We fully realize that this is sometimes unavoidable, but it should be discouraged as far as possible. The retention of high potential land for agricultural purposes is of such importance that all available alternatives should first be thoroughly investigated. Each town planning scheme involving agricultural land, should therefore be compiled with due cognizance of the interests of the agricultural industry, in respect of which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is able to give expert advice. It is considered necessary to protect such interests. It is therefore proposed that a town planning scheme which involves agricultural land, may only be published with ministerial permission.

Although the Act grants Registrars of Deeds discretionary powers to register certain servitudes, they have no intimate knowledge of the agricultural approach towards the subdivision of land. As a result of certain difficulties which have been experienced in the past it is proposed that details be included of the servitudes which could be registered without permission under the Act.

*Consent to the subdivision of agricultural land is frequently granted subject to certain conditions. In cases where subdivision is granted for an hotel, garage or residential site outside the area of a local authority, for example, such conditions usually relate to building restrictions and water and sanitation requirements. These conditions have no bearing on agriculture and are only included at the request of provincial authorities. Since it would be more appropriate if these authorities imposed and enforced such conditions themselves, the various administrations were consulted in this regard. Arising out of that it is being proposed that the necessary power in regard to such conditions be granted to Administrators. Such power will naturally be applicable only where ministerial consent to subdivision is granted for non-agricultural purposes.

The way in which the person delegated by me has applied the provisions of the Act during the past six years indicates that all applications for subdivision were given thorough consideration and that decisions in this regard were well-considered decisions. Nevertheless it is a fact that objections to such decisions are received almost daily. Normally objections are investigated by officers not involved in the consideration of the original applications, because I believe that this promotes objectivity. We do not want to deprive anyone of his right to lodge an objection, but feel that the time is now ripe to create a measure of order in the lodging of objections. It is therefore being provided that regulations may be made as to how an objection shall be lodged. In addition it is being provided that a deposit shall be payable on doing this, a deposit which is forfeited if the objection is not upheld. It should be realized that a reinvestigation causes considerable additional expense, and that this measure is aimed at causing interested parties to bear their share of this cost if their objections are unfounded.

Mr. Speaker, the primary object of the Bill is to expand the claim of agriculture to good agricultural land further, so that sufficient land will be available on which food may be produced for us and our descendants. The Bill was drawn up in close consultation with all interested bodies, and has the wholehearted support of the South African Agricultural Union.

Mr. Speaker, we are faced this afternoon with the third amendment to an Act which as a Bill was introduced to this House seven years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, it was one of the first Bills handled by the hon. the Minister when he was still deputy to ex-Minister Uys.

The hon. the Minister will recollect that in 1970 we on this side of the House fought the Bill tooth and nail. We fought it through all its stages because we felt that the legislation was an infringement of the rights of individuals and also an infringement of the rights of the provinces in that it took away rights which the provinces had held for many years. In fact, we moved an amendment at Second Reading to the effect that we declined to pass the Bill, because it conferred far-reaching powers upon the hon. the Minister with regard to the subdivision of agricultural land, which needlessly interfered with the rights of the individual, and further, that the Bill laid down no criteria serving as a basis for the hon. the Minister’s decision to grant or refuse applications to subdivide land. Much water has flowed under the bridge since those days. We now have an Act which is being administered by this hon. Minister’s department. In 1972 there were amendments to this Act which were introduced by the hon. the Minister and which provided for further powers to be given to the hon. the Minister, as well as further inroads into the powers of the provinces. Again we opposed those amendments, and we opposed them with a reasoned amendment to the effect that we declined to pass the Second Reading, because the Bill conferred further drastic powers upon the hon. the Minister of Agriculture which might conflict with the individual rights of owners of agricultural land in respect of the use of such land, because it encroached upon the powers of provincial councils in respect of the division of land, and because it excluded certain land in South West Africa.

The hon. the Minister will recollect that in 1974 we had a short amendment to the Act which did receive the support of this side of the House. The hon. member for Newton Park, at that stage still sitting in these benches, presented the case of this side of the House and said that this was merely an administrative matter. I must, however, draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that during that debate he pointed out the problem of renewal of leases or agreements to enter into new leases. When asked whether he had taken this into consideration when he produced that amendment Bill in 1974, the hon. the Minister’s reply was that he was quite satisfied with the Bill as it was and that he had everything sewn up. In his usual way he was satisfied that they had thought of everything and that nothing good could come from this side of the House. What do we find today? In 1977 he brings an amendment Bill to provide for precisely what this side of the House asked for in 1974.

Are you against it?

Who asked if I am against the Bill?

You are always wrong. You might as well oppose it.

No; I have just pointed out to the hon. member that we were right in 1974, and that the hon. the Minister was wrong. It so happens that today the hon. the Minister happens to be right, or shall I say, in most provisions of this Bill he happens to be right. Today we shall give him the support of the official Opposition in the Second Reading of this particular Bill.

The hon. the Minister has introduced the Bill to remedy the shortcomings which were apparent after the 1974 amendment and to improve the administration of the Act to protect good agricultural land for future food production. I want to say to the hon. the Minister, apropos his comments in introducing this Bill, that I agree entirely with him when he says that land is a good investment. A slogan which has been adopted by many people is: “Bank in land.” When I was travelling in Greece, I was struck by a particular aspect of Greek society and that is that every Greek wishes to own a piece of land, not in the city, but in the country areas. I believe that we have a similar situation in South Africa, where every South African, whether he is an Afrikaans-speaking South African—I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has brought that particular aspect into it—or an English-speaking South African, has a desire to own a piece of land. It is for that reason that the speculators and estate agents to whom the hon. the Minister has referred, are able to make the profits which they have. This was also one of the reasons why the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill in 1970.

I must however, remind the hon. the Minister of what has happened in Natal. The Natal Provincial Administration is fully aware of its responsibilities in regard to the protection of good agricultural land. Does the hon. the Minister know that the Natal Provincial Administration, without any duress from the Central Government, has applied a policy which is referred to as the “urban fence” and that they have demarcated boundaries beyond which urban areas are not permitted to extend? The urban fence is to protect the very agricultural land which the hon. the Minister referred to. I did not hear the hon. the Minister thank the Natal Provincial Administration, or the Natal Provincial Council, which is a United Party controlled body, for having done precisely that. I do not know whether I must now call the hon. Minister an “Engelsehater” or a “Natalhater”. If one of us had done this, we would have been accused of being a “Boerehater”. At the same time I believe that the hon. the Minister, in his administration of the provisions of this Act, must be sensitive to and understanding of the ambitions of the city-dwellers—those people who wish, for a few hours a day after they have finished their work or for a weekend, to get away from the grime and smog of the cities and to get their bare feet on to the soil of South Africa, those people who crave for a smallholding. Again I want to quote the wisdom of the Natal Provincial Administration, in that they have made provision for smallholdings outside the urban fence. These smallholdings range from 2 ha to a maximum of 7 ha in a belt around the urban areas in order to provide for the needs of the city-dweller who seeks this outlet in order to get away from the smog and the rush and the hustle of city life. I believe that the hon. the Minister feels in his heart exactly the same as those people do. It is for that reason that I ask that he administers this law with sensitivity and an understanding of the needs of those people.

To come back to the provisions of the Bill …

[Inaudible.]

With respect to the hon. the Chief Whip, I think he must confine himself to his own business and that he should leave us, who know something about these matters, to discuss them with the hon. the Minister.

Clause 1 of the Bill amends certain definitions. I want to thank the hon. the Minister’s department for making available to us a certain document.

*It is an explanatory memorandum for the information of members of Parliament only. In clause 1 of the Bill a definition of the word “advertise” is being added. I want to quote, by way of illustration, the following from the memorandum—

At the moment there are three Bills coming from that hon. Minister’s Department before the House, with three definitions of the words “advertise” or “advertisement”, and all three differ. Why is that?

†The departmental officials in the memorandum say that they are using a definition which is in general use, but if we look at the definition of “advertise” in this Bill, it reads as follows—

If we look at the Livestock Improvement Bill, introduced by this same hon. Minister, we find that in the very first provision of the Bill the word “advertisement” is defined as follows—

1. (a) appearing in a newspaper or other publication;
2. (b) distributed to members of the public; or
3. (c) brought to the notice of members of the public in any manner, and which is intended to promote the sale or encourage the use of such animal, semen, ova or eggs …

We then have the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Amendment Bill, which also as its very first provision has a definition of the word “advertisement”. I shall not bore the House by reading this third definition, but it is completely different from the two which I have already read. I believe the time has come for the Government and for that hon. Minister in particular to make up their minds what definition of the word “advertise” or “advertisement” they want. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to provide one definition which can apply throughout.

You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that we have had Bills in the past years which have come from other hon. Ministers, which also had definitions of “advertisement” and “advertise”, and you will find that those also differ. I do not know whether this is because of the interpretation of different legal advisers or whether it can be attributed to the legal draftsmen that do not agree or what the reason is. However, I believe that this can only lead to uncertainty in the interpretation of the law, and I want to urge the hon. the Minister to look into this matter. I like the definition which is contained in the Bill which we are discussing now. I believe that it is satisfactory and that it will meet all requirements. However, I do ask the hon. the Minister to have a look at this with a view to getting some sort of conformity rather than to have this myriad of definitions of one particular concept.

How about the Committee Stage?

That hon. member need not be clever. I have heard him before.

We have a provision in clause 4 that I believe needs clarification before we come to the Committee Stage. Here we have a new provision, a new thought, which for the first time shows that the hon. the Minister is prepared to allow the provinces, by way of the Administrators, to have certain rights when it comes to the administration of the subdivision of agricultural land. The clause provides that where an application for the subdivision of agricultural land is received and the Minister is satisfied that the land is not to be used for agricultural purposes—in other words where there is to be a change of usage, after the subdivision, from agricultural use to some other use—after consulting with the Administrator of the province concerned the Minister may allow the subdivision to be approved subject to conditions which shall be imposed by the Administrator. These are not conditions that he will lay down, but conditions which will be determined by the Administrator. I welcome this provision because I believe that it is right that the provincial authorities should be recognized and consulted in matters of this nature. There is a further provision in this regard. The very next subsection provides that the Minister, or in a case where there is a change in the land usage, the Administrator concerned, may alter the conditions under which the subdivision was allowed. This is a provision which worries me, because in the one case the Administrator is allowed to determine the conditions, and the Minister has no control over the conditions imposed by the Administrator when the subdivision is approved. Let us remember that this land is taken out of agricultural use and that it is now being used for some purpose other than agriculture. Where there is an amendment or a variation in the conditions imposed on the subdivision, the Minister is the one who has the final say. I say this advisedly, because if the hon. the Minister will look at the new … [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, it is impossible to conduct a responsible discussion with the hon. the Minister when one has a bunch of parrots uttering stupid parrot cries …

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. the Minister has been able to follow my argument in the face of the barrage of nonsense that comes from the members in that corner.

You are ridiculously naїve.

That hon. member is ridiculously naive. He came earlier to collect the Butterworths from me, and I believe he is just as worried about this provision than I am. I hope that he will be able to give the hon. the Minister some sound advice on the matter. The new section 4(4), which appears on page 6 of the Bill, provides that—

1. (4) The Minister or, in the case of a condition referred to in subsection (2)(b), the Administrator concerned in consultation with the Minister may vary or withdraw any such condition …

The implication of the words “in consultation with the Minister” is that the hon. the Minister shall have the final say. However, I think the hon. the Minister must take two things into consideration. Firstly he must consider that the land is no longer agricultural land. It is now land that is being used for a non-agricultural purpose. Under those circumstances, the Administrator has been allowed to impose the conditions on his own, without any restriction from the hon. the Minister, after consultation with the hon. the Minister, I grant you. Why does the hon. the Minister, however, now take it upon himself to have the sole power to vary those conditions? Unless the hon. the Minister can give us a satisfactory answer to this question in his reply to the Second Reading debate, we on this side of the House will move an amendment at Committee Stage to provide that the Administrator, who imposed the conditions in the first place, shall have the right, after consulting with the hon. the Minister, to vary or remove the conditions under which the subdivision is carried out.

In clause 7 of this Bill we have two new principles. If those hon. members who have been so noisy before can understand that at the Second Reading stage we can only discuss principles, which cannot be discussed at Committee Stage, perhaps they may be quiet and just listen to what I have to say about these two new principles. The first involves the fact that the hon. the Minister is now requesting the power to delegate to more than one officer in his department certain of the powers vested in him in terms of this Act. In addition, he is now requesting the authority to delegate this power to different officers in respect of different regions of the Republic. This is a completely new departure. We have not had this sort of thing before. However, we do not oppose this. In fact, we welcome it because there have been problems in the administration of this Act. There have also been some considerable delays and persons have been frustrated beyond all endurance in waiting for approvals to come through. The first point, therefore, involves more than one officer being delegated the authority to handle these applications. Secondly, perhaps the most important aspect of this new principle can be illustrated as follows. Let us consider the two regions I have the closest association with, i.e. Natal and the western Cape. We find that there are such divergent conditions pertaining in those two regions that it would really be unfair to expect one officer, sitting in Pretoria, to decide such an issue. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will restrict this delegation of powers to persons of high rank in his department, and here I am thinking particularly of the regional directors. Let them administer this legislation. Let him restrict this delegation of powers to persons larly to those who are fully aware of the circumstances peculiar to the regions they administer.

I must say that we welcome the second new principle that is introduced as well. For the first time provision is being made for an appeal against a decision. In the past, when an application for subdivision was refused, that was the end of the story. Now there is provision for appeal to the hon. the Minister within a certain period and at a prescribed fee. Of course, the hon. the Minister very magnanimously provides that if the application is successful, the fee or a portion thereof will be refunded.

There is just one other matter I must mention. I want to refer to the provisions in clause 8 which provide for an increase in the penalties which may be imposed for an infringement of the provisions of this legislation. At the moment, anyone found guilty of an offence is liable to a fine of R400. It is the hon. the Minister’s intention that the amount should be increased to R1 000.

I believe this is reasonable. The value of the rand has devalued, thanks to this Nationalist Government. The hon. the Minister himself said that much money is being made by speculators and estate agents from the sale of land, and Sir, they are the ones who have caused him the problems he has in the administration of this Act. I believe, therefore, that a fine of R1 000 would be reasonable in the light of that. When we look at the period of imprisonment for which provision is made, we see that it is the Minister’s intention to increase the period from one year to a maximum of two years. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the value of time has also devalued. I do not believe that the period of time should be increased in the same ratio as that in which the money is being increased. I agree that the Minister has not done that exactly, but he has almost done so, and I wonder whether he could tell us if he considers that the value of time has been devalued in exactly the same way as the value of the rand has been devalued.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we believe that the intention of this Bill is to help with the administration of this Act. We believe that if it is properly administered, it will help with the administration of the Act, and this can be to the benefit of the country. For that reason we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the support which the opposite side of the House is giving this Bill. We find it unfortunate, however, that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to some extent buried his support under a lot of unnecessary detail which he could possibly have discussed at a later stage. Nevertheless, we welcome the support which has come from that side.

If we look back over the six or seven years during which this legislation has been in operation, we can say today, without fear of contradiction—and I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will admit it—that this legislation was not only necessary, but was also a good piece of legislation. In a country such as South Africa, with its limited agricultural land and a growing population which relies on our farming community for its food, it is very important that we adopt the necessary control measures to ensure the production of food for a growing population in the future. It is my opinion that the Act, which is now being amended by this Bill, has made a very great contribution to the protection, development and utilization of our agricultural land. Now it is a fact that, over the years, circumstances, phenomena and practices have emerged which have made it essential for the hon. the Minister to introduce this amending legislation in the House today. I have had experience in my own electoral division of the tendency for impossible situations and practices which are contrary to the whole aim and objective of the original Act, to emerge. For example, we have the phenomenon that at one stage, people still believed that they ought to bequeath their land to all of their children. They could not see their way clear to subdividing that land so that each one could get his share. They simply made all the children or heirs partners in the property concerned. In practice, this had many disadvantageous consequences for those who were actually entrusted with the practical carrying on of agricultural activities on those particular properties. Since the introduction of the original Act, the situation has undergone a further development and we have found that even people who were part-owners of a particular property, have continued the practice of selling it to outsiders.

As the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South rightly said, it is a fact that people are eager to obtain ground. One comes across the phenomenon that there are people here in Cape Town who have a few hundred morgen of land somewhere in the form of a share in a farm and who go there occasionally for a holiday. They say that they have the right to take a holiday there, they have the right to drive wherever they please and they have the right to hunt when the hunting season is open. The actions of those people are often not only a great handicap and hindrance to the occupants and the farmers on those farms but they are also contrary to the aims of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Soil Conservation Division and so on, who are attempting to make our agricultural units as productive as possible. Often the farmer in question has incurred considerable costs in an attempt to implement farm planning, only to have a spanner thrown in the works in this way.

I was pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister was able to state today that in the course of the past six or seven years, 2 300 subdivisions had already disappeared. I am sure that the Bill which has been introduced here as an amendment to the original Act will make a further contribution, not only towards preventing uneconomic subdivisions but also towards clearing up quite a few other matters. More often than not, it also happens that where such co-ownership exists, families simply fall out with one another. They cannot get along with each other and one brother, although willing to sell out to someone else, is unwilling to sell to his brother. In some cases the property is sold to someone who actually goes out of his way to make sure that no actual economic farming takes place. This is the sort of phenomenon which, unfortunately, still occurs sometimes. In general, I think that our population, and specifically our farming community is very conscious today of the necessity for the preservation and the judicious utilization of our agricultural land, but this type of phenomenon still occurs, even if it is an exception to the rule. However, there are many such exceptions. Consequently, I am very pleased that by way of the Bill—I am referring here to clause 3 in particular—the hon. the Minister will be able to prevent further transfers of this kind. Attorneys who draw up wills and people who make them will have to take cognizance of the fact that they are no longer free to transfer property to whosoever they wish, whenever they wish. There will now be control over this so that action will be taken in the interests of agriculture and of the future of our agricultural land as well as in the interests of South Africa and its population, even if people have to be compelled just a little to discipline themselves. In my opinion, this sort of discipline is very good. We need it badly and for this reason, I welcome this amendment.

A further point which I find important, is that we must hold ourselves accountable for the use to which we are putting our agricultural land. We encounter the phenomenon, particularly here in the Western Province, that too much agricultural land is continually being affected by housing development and the expansion of our urban areas. In many cases, it is absolutely necessary and it cannot be prevented. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will not be blind to other interests such as the necessity for the expansion and establishment of towns. In our planning, we must often give attention to the matter and ascertain whether it is desirable to allow towns to be developed on good agricultural land when there might be other inferior agricultural land available. For this reason, it is very important that we should then make the choice of using the inferior agricultural land for township development. I think that the development of Atlantis, north of Melkbosstrand, where a considerable amount of land will eventually be utilized, a great surface area of thousands of hectares, is an example of an area which has a poor agricultural potential. It is close to the sea and there is a cool climate which makes it pleasant for people to live there. That land has few possibilities as agricultural land. It would be very wrong to allow township development to expand at will in the Paarl and Stellenbosch districts, for then I foresee that by the end of the century hardly any agricultural land would remain in the existing districts, which are recognized agricultural districts. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has also made provision for this in the Bill and that there will be adequate control. I am sure that this will be done in a judicious and sensible manner. But if it is time, and it must be so, that agricultural land has to be protected as much as possible, we must realize that this is not being done, in the first instance, to restrict people, but that it is a consequence of the fact that we are earnestly thinking about and planning out the future of South Africa and are making serious attempts to make provision for the requirements of the people of the future.

Mr. Speaker, there is just one other matter to which I should like to refer. We encounter the phenomenon that, wherever expansion takes place as a result of some undertaking or scheme of the State, there are people who all of a sudden, through none of their own doing, receive tremendously large sums of money for their farms. It happened here on the West Coast and I do not begrudge those people that money. What does interest me and what seems to me to be a shortcoming, is that provision must then be made elsewhere, as for example in the case of the West Coast, for a water supply. As a result of this, certain farms are expropriated with a view to the storage of water in the area concerned. Now we find that the people whose ground has been expropriated for this purpose receive a relatively meagre compensation for the agricultural value of their land, while the aforementioned people receive R1 million or R1,5 million for a farm which was worth perhaps R50 000 or R100 000. As far as I am concerned, there is a shortcoming here. I hope that the hon. the Minister or the Government will give some consideration to this matter. In my opinion there ought to be some sort of levy in cases where an extraordinary appreciation in value takes place as a result of State undertakings, so that other people may also receive reasonable compensation when their land is expropriated as a result of the development of new schemes by means of which the whole new set-up must be put into operation and properly completed.

I present this to the hon. the Minister for his consideration but I believe that it is a matter to which we shall undoubtedly have to pay some attention in due course, as our country develops further and as new projects come into existence.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the present Act was originally introduced in this House in 1970 … It is all very well for hon. members on the other side to sit and laugh, Mr. Speaker. They obviously have had nothing to do with the legislation ever since it was introduced. That is quite clear. If anyone has had anything to do with this legislation, then there is decidedly nothing to laugh about. I have had personal experience of this legislation and I am happy to be able to speak with experience.

Out approach to this legislation in 1970, too, proves that we were right. We have had many problems to face in regard to this legislation, teething problems. We accept, however, that one must have teething problems, and if it were not for the department and the hon. Minister concerned, many of these problems would never have been solved. That is the experience I have had in this regard.

By force of economic circumstances land owners are today geared to enlarge their units rather than to subdivide them. This we forecast way back in 1970. Economic circumstances have changed the approach to economic units. I do not know of anyone today, if there were not this legislation, who would readily subdivide their units. We find it, not only in this country, but also in Australia and in New Zealand, where agriculturalists are enlarging units, and where we find larger combines being formed. This is the case all over the world in agricultural sectors.

Mr. Speaker, the section dealing with the conclusion of leases in respect of a portion of agricultural land, I believe, is a great improvement, but the transfer of land from the seller to the purchaser has probably created more problems than anything else. From when the deed of sale is signed until approval is obtained from the hon. the Minister or from Pretoria, a long period of time goes by. We must bear in mind that with the high rates of interest applicable to agriculturalists who owe money on land, this will be an unnecessary cost caused by delays in Pretoria, to get consent from the department.

There is a clause which will enable the Administrator of a province to determine the conditions for the use of land which, after subdivision, is not to be used as agricultural land. We who live in the Cape Province will probably appreciate the significance of the clause more than anybody else because we still pay divisional council, or road rates. The Cape is the only province in which such rates are levied. As my hon. colleague has stated, it is only right that the Administrator administering his province should not be overlooked. He should be recognized as the local authority dealing with not only the subdivision or town planning, but also with the taxes which we are obliged to pay on land in the Cape Province. Of course it is only right that the Minister should give his consent first before the matter is referred to the Administrator.

There is also a provision covering servitudes. Servitudes have caused us problems for many, many years, one can almost say for generations. The servitudes mentioned in the legislation, as well as those to which the Water Act is applicable, will no longer require the Minister’s consent. I believe that this is a good insertion in the legislation. The servitudes which are excluded will still require the Minister’s consent, but we agree to such an arrangement.

The proposed section 6A(1)(b) provides that a usufruct over the whole of agricultural land will now be subject to the consent of the Minister before it can be registered. In terms of the existing provisions, even a usufruct over a portion of such land is subject to such consent. We support the new provision.

For the reasons I have given, and because of the experience I have had in dealing with the legislation, I am happy to support my hon. colleague and others on this side who have expressed their support for the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member for East London North should think he is the only member who has ever had to deal with this legislation in practice while carrying out his duties as a member of Parliament. Perhaps he thinks he is the only member with voters who experience this type of problem, but I can assure him that we all have such voters. When I have experienced problems of this nature in the past, I have always been treated very well by the Department. I am convinced that the delays experienced, were not unnecessary delays as he tried to make out.

The principal Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1970 with a view to preventing our land from being fragmented. Another important purpose of the legislation was to ensure that every farmer in South Africa would be able to assure himself of a decent living. I think we can say that after seven years we have succeeded in these aims to a very great extent, in spite of the fact that the Opposition opposed the legislation at that time. I still remember clearly the debate which took place in the short session of 1970 and also how the hon. member for Newton Park, who was still a member of the UP at that time, vehemently opposed the legislation. He said that the legislation would make inroads on peoples’ rights. After seven years we have seen that the hon. the Minister has implemented the legislation in a decent and careful way and that the hon. member’s forebodings were actually quite unnecessary. We now have these few amendments to the Act aimed at keeping up with modern development. I think that these amendments have already been discussed in sufficient depth and I therefore do not want to go into the matter any further. The hon. the Minister gave us figures indicating the progress being made in implementing the Act. I think we can feel very happy about this. I want to agree with the hon. member for Piketberg that it is really time now for urban developers not to use good agricultural land for township development. There are enough sandy and mountainous areas which are very well suited to urban development, and I also ask that they work along these lines. I think that we should talk to the Department of Planning so that they will give very close attention to this aspect in future.

There are a few matters I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. I think that this Act has largely succeeded in combating the fragmenting of our agricultural land. However the position is that especially round the cities there are many smallholdings. Our people love the land, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has already said. They want to own a small piece of land. Now we have the problem that we should like to give the land to them, but we also want to assure them of a decent living. Then one has to consider units very much smaller than the smallholdings one finds around our cities. In Europe I noticed that pieces of land of approximately a quarter of a morgen satisfy anyone’s need to potter around on the land. On that little piece of land which they acquire near the cities, they build a shed just big enough to store their tools. They cannot live there, but they can plant their vegetables and relax there. Perhaps we should think along these lines. Something else I noticed is that efforts should be made to get rid of our uneconomic farms in other ways. In the countries of the European Common Market—in Belgium in particular—there are schemes to remove the farmers from the farms if they possess uneconomic farms. Such farms are bought out and the farmers are then paid a pension, which is calculated according to the value of the farm which is bought out. In this way he is assured of a proper living. The land bought by the state, can then be used to consolidate other farms. I think that this, too, is something which we in this country should consider. In the same connection, I am reminded of the fact that the hon. the Minister said during the Second Reading debate in 1970 that he should like to assure every farmer of a decent living. He mentioned a figure of R1 500 to R2 000 net per farming unit at the time, and used this figure as the norm. I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this figure really still reflects the true state of affairs. Is it still the norm? Did he apply it on the units where he granted subdivisions, and how did it work?

In conclusion I should like to say that we have already succeeded to a large extent in achieving the objectives of the Act, and that we should continue in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say that we on these benches support this Bill, as we supported the original Bill in 1970. I have listened to the arguments of the hon. gentleman on my right. I am still trying to understand how it can be said that they were right to vote against it in 1970 by now voting for an amendment which merely tightens it up. Anyway, there must be some logic which escapes me.

It is obviously in the interest of agriculture in South Africa that land should not be cut up. Productivity is obviously vital to South Africa, a country where—as the hon. member for Carletonville pointed out—only 17% of the land can really be productive. I have sympathy with those people who want a piece of land outside the towns, but the result of that sort of cutting up of land makes the land useless and leads to absentee landlords and unproductive smallholdings. In so far as the introduction of the new definition in clause 3 is concerned, it hits at subversion of prohibitions against long leases by devices such as the continuation of short leases, new leases etc. We very much support that, because it tightens up the existing legislation. It is true that a new principle is incorporated in clause 4 by the Administrator now having the power to determine or to withdraw the conditions where land is not to be used for agricultural purposes. The point I want to make is that it places the power in the hands of the person who, in fact, carries the responsibility in those cases. That is as it should be. I know that we are not busy with the Committee Stage, but I should like to say, in regard to the argument of those hon. members to my right, that the provisions of clause 4 now state that it will be the Minister who will vary or withdraw the conditions. The clause as it stands is not capable of that interpretation. It says the following—

The word “or” creates an alternative. The words “in consultation with the Minister” does not place the power in the hands of the Minister but merely means that the Administrator must consult with the Minister. There are hundreds of pieces of legislation like that in South Africa in all sorts of spheres. It means that one does it in consultation, but that you carry the power. All in all it is a good Bill and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, I just want to say that we support the Bill. I am not going to compete with other hon. members in saying something about nothing. [Interjections.] This afternoon I heard strange things in the House. The hon. member for Piketberg—I hope I misunderstood him— asked for a levy on land purchases, a sort of capital tax. I hope that the hon. member for Piketberg was just looking for something to say and that he did not mean it seriously. At that time, when we were still on the UP side of the House, we opposed the legislation. This was before the killer instinct for kicking people out, took root among them. We still have our doubts about the legislation, i.e. the principal Act. However, we have nothing to do with the principal Act today; we are dealing with an amendment Bill here. We support the Bill. The only fault I cart find with it, is that the hon. the Minister is now taking greater responsibilities upon himself, for example when agricultural land is involved in a town planning scheme, this scheme will be subject to ministerial approval. This can only mean that town planning will be delayed. We know how many departments have to approve town planning and what delays this involves already. I trust that the hon. the Minister will create the necessary machinery and will see that no delays occur as a result of this provision. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply to the previous speaker. I shall leave it to our competent hon. Minister to reply to the hon. member on those few points. The hon. member did, after all, mention the fact that, when he was still on the other side of the House, they opposed the legislation in 1970. However, today we must admit that that legislation which was passed in 1970, has proved a very good law. The amendment before the House today, is merely aimed at filling the gaps which exist in the legislation.

When I have to speak about land, I can become quite lyrical. Mr. Speaker, you know that land is our country’s greatest asset. Land was made by our Creator and no one knows the recipe for making it. In other words, our land can never increase. Our agricultural land in particular, which is already heavily burdened with the production of food, will not increase in the future and therefore it is our duty to guard against our agricultural land dwindling. It is interesting to note that every day this country gains another 3 000 mouths which must be fed. It is also interesting to know that, according to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, 8 000 hectares of agricultural land have to be used for township development every year. It is interesting to note that, according to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, 10 000 hectares of agricultural land are withdrawn from agriculture every year and used for other purposes. This does not even include land used for roads, railways and airports. When we consider this we realize that, in spite of what they say on that side of the House, our hon. the Minister of Agriculture will have to guard our agricultural land jealously. He will have to make sure that no more of it is lost annually, especially if we take into consideration the generally accepted fact that one needs 0,07 hectare of land to feed one person in the country. If we lose agricultural land at the rate at which it has been lost over the past five years, we will soon be faced with serious problems in the agricultural sphere. With these few words I do not only want to support our hon. the Minister in regard to this legislation, but I also want to congratulate him on introducing legislation of this kind at this juncture. We trust that this legislation will soon come into operation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has the knack of supporting a measure in such a way that it leaves a bitter taste in one’s mouth. Some people are just made that way and there are certain characters who are put together in such a way that they just cannot be positive. The hon. member simply makes one statement after the other, all of which are wrong. He says that it was the first legislation which I piloted through Parliament in 1970. However, it was in 1968 that I piloted the Soil Conservation Act, and then every clause was fought by the Opposition. The hon. member said: “We fought this Act tooth and nail.” He also said: “Individuals must have the power to decide what they want to do with their land and nobody should interfere.” He repeated this today and I want to point out to him how much progress and benefit we have derived from this Act. However, their argument was that one should be able to cut up one’s land to one’s heart’s content—asked us to make an absolute mess of our country. This is what they advocated.

However, one must remain calm through all the shouting and when one has to hear what must be done to this country, while every one of us, both of the Opposition and of the Government, are apprehensive and wonder how we are going to feed this nation within the next 20 years. A decent Opposition acts as the smaller Opposition group did today—that is my idea of an Opposition. If one differs on policy, one must fight it tooth and nail. However, when it comes to a matter such as this, I am disappointed because I cannot believe that one can waste Parliament’s time in this way.

†Mr. Speaker, are we going through all the stages of the legislation, because I want to reply in regard to certain clauses during the Committee Stage? Can we deal with all the stages now? I want to reply to this hon. member and he …

That is not necessary. You can do that in the Committee Stage.

Order!

He said that I did not thank Natal.

*It is “plain politics” to play politics with a noble cause such as this.

†He said that I said: “Die Engelse Afrikaners of die Afrikaanse Engelse.”

It was you who brought that in.

When I started my speech I said: “Die meeste Suid-Afrikaners. ”

*I said that during my Second Reading speech and I never …

We can go and listen to the tape recording.

We can go and listen to the tape recording—but I read it out here in my Second Reading speech. However, the hon. member wants to turn a matter such as this into a political issue and I have repeatedly said that, when I speak about agriculture, politics play no part as far as I am concerned. However, I cannot lift the hon. member out of his plodding ways to make him understand that I do not play politics with agriculture. We do not have a separate bread price for a White man and a Black man. Everyone pays the same price. Today the Blacks simply do not want to eat brown bread. They eat only white bread. This does not worry me at all, because I am not playing politics with this type of thing. I thank every province. Hon. members should know that Natal is the province which gave us the best co-operation as far as this legislation is concerned. I thanked every province, but should I single out Natal every time? After all, I am not unfair as far as this sort of thing is concerned. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is one of the best type of people to have as an Opposition member. It would be a sad day for me should he ever be sitting on this side of the House. [Interjections.] I differ from that group of hon. members politically, but just look at the positive contributions which they make. They gave me to understand that they want to ask a few questions, but that they will nevertheless support me. But why must everything be questioned by some hon. members? And then it is said that they were opposed to the Act in 1970.

[Inaudible.]

I should prefer to reply to the points which were made concerning fines, the guide plans, etc., during the Committee Stage, because he does not understand all these things too well. I would rather deal with the hon. member for Piketberg now, who referred so positively to the 2 300 subdivisions which we caused to disappear. He referred to how we deal with these heart-break stories, for example when a father wants his children to have a share in his land and then creates the expectation in his will that they will be able to subdivide the land. The hon. member saw matters correctly. The hon. member for King William’s Town is making a mistake. The hon. member for Piketberg did not ask for land tax. He referred to growth points which arise as a result of an action on the part of the State and to individuals who then receive an immense price for their land as a result of that action. Then he asked whether we should not evaluate those prices in order to equate the prices of all those in the district—even a person whose land we buy out at market value for the purpose of a dam basin to make this development possible—because there are prices which some of them do not feel happy about. This is a good suggestion. The hon. member for East London North said: “I do not know of anyone who would ask to have this land subdivided.” Imagine that, Mr. Speaker!

†If he could only see all the letters we get from people who want to get rich quick. They say it would profit them to cut up their piece of land because municipal taxes, water, rates and various other costs in the townships are so high. We have 8 000 unoccupied plots in this country at the moment, subdivided pieces of five morgen, six morgen, eight morgen or ten morgen, yet people are still asking for permission to cut up land because they could get a much better price for the small pieces than they could for a big piece of land.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp asked about the net income of farmers. This is a strange situation. When we debated the present Act in 1970,1 said that an economic unit was a unit on which a man, a woman and four children could earn an income of R1 500 per year. Do hon. members know what figure we are working on now? In exceptional cases we are working on a figure of R4 000 per year, but in most cases of R6 000 per year. This shows us how the standard of living and cost of living have increased within seven years in comparison with the value of the rand. We make no secret of it, there is inflation and all the other problems. Then the hon. member talks about something which we should look at. However, this is not going to result in subdivision, but it is something which the municipalities could look at. Just look at the land in the surrounding areas of a city like Amsterdam. There are small patches of land which a person wants simply to be able to work on the land. The land is not subdivided. As that hon. member meant it, one cannot for instance sleep there, but one can build a shed where one can store one’s pick, spade and fork so that one can remain attached to the soil. This is something which we can look at but it does not fall under this legislation. It will have to be administered by the municipalities and the provinces.

†The hon. member for Durban North supported the Bill. As I have said, that is my idea of co-operation. We can differ about principles, but when we come to things like these, he is not prepared to sell out my country. That is my idea of what an Opposition’s attitude should be.

Look at you now, wooing a Prog.

I am not wooing a Prog. After all, I said that this matter is no political issue. I shall reply further to the hon. member during the Committee Stage because I understand that we are going to have the Committee Stage just after this discussion. The hon. member for King William’s Town also supports this measure. He speaks the same language as the other farmers speak. I want to conclude by referring to the hon. member for Winburg. The important thing which he said, is something which I am perhaps overemphasizing. However, I cannot but agree with him that there will be heartbreak and suffering in the implementation of this legislation. For instance people will come to your office and tell you that the land was left to them in a will and why do we not want to allow, a Karoo farm, for example, where an economic unit is considered to be 2 000 ha, to be divided in 800 ha sections for a son and his three sisters? They will say that this was their father’s wish. Do hon. members know how one feels when one has to tell those people that you cannot allow it because one cannot create still more uneconomic units because this country must produce food? That hon. member supports me when he says that we must protect our soil, even if it sometimes causes a little heartbreak. This is the purpose of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said that he thinks that the hon. member for Piketberg made a very good suggestion when he said that if a growth point is created and one receives a great deal of money for the land which one sells …

Wait until the Committee Stage.

No, I am just asking the hon. the Minister a question. It was said that the person who receives a great deal of money for his land should share it with other people in the area who receive less. However, if one discovers minerals upon one’s farm and the farm is sold for a great deal of money, should one then also share that money with the other people in the district who received less?

Minerals are something entirely different. Let us assume that a power station is built on a farm, that, as a result of the power station, a city complex develops, and that land prices soar. Suppose a dam also has to be built about 15 km or 20 km from that site, but the dam is not part of the urban development. The point made by the hon. member for Piketberg was whether we should not use the very high profits resulting from the increased land values in the urban complex to help those people who are being bought out so that their land may be used for pipelines, dams, etc. All he wants is that everyone should share in this prosperity and not one section only.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Expropriation Act, which was passed by Parliament in 1975, seeks for the most part to establish a uniform procedure for expropriation proceedings. The amendments which are now being proposed comprise two aspects, viz. the appointment of a president of a compensation court, and the acquisition of land by provincial or local authorities for road construction purposes.

As regards the appointment of a president of a compensation court, the principle has been accepted that such a court, as well as the appointment of a president for it, shall fall under the Department of Justice. As a result of the definition of “Minister” in section 1 of the principal Act, the wording of section 16(4) leaves a measure of doubt as to what Minister has the power to appoint such a president. The amendment as proposed in clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to place the provision in question beyond any doubt, in other words, that that power shall vest in the Minister of Justice.

† Although the principal Act provides that a uniform expropriation procedure will be applicable to all expropriating bodies, an exception is made in respect of certain distinctive procedures which are followed by provincial and local authorities in taking or using land for the construction or maintenance of public roads. This exception is necessary because the position in this connection is not the same as that pertaining to normal expropriations. Property can, however, also be expropriated for road purposes and the object of clause 3 is to make the exception which applies in respect of the taking or use of land for road purposes, also applicable when land is expropriated for such purposes. The proposed amendment will be in agreement with the recommendations of the interprovincial committee of inquiry into the institution of a basis for uniform legislation and procedures for application in all four provinces with regard to determining compensation in the acquisition of land and material for road purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, in introducing this amending Bill, has said that certain recommendations have come from an inter-provincial committee which inquired into the question of expropriation in the provinces. We on this side of the House are in the unfortunate position that we have never seen the report of this inter-provincial committee. I believe that the report of that committee has been in the Minister’s hands for some time, but we do not know what is in it. The Minister knows that I, particularly, have always been very interested to know what this inter-provincial committee recommended. The Minister has referred to the report of the inter-provincial committee, and said that this legislation in fact flowed from that report. He has, however, not elaborated on what the report says. I believe that the Minister should make that report available to this side of the House so that we can have a look at it and see just what proposals and recommendations were made.

There is a very unfortunate situation on which I have to report this afternoon, and that is that although I believe, as I think the hon. the Minister may have believed, that Sir John Cradock was buried last year, he has in fact popped up again. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that he will continue to pop up until such time as this inter-provincial committee’s report has been properly studied by us in the Opposition, because the Minister cannot go on passing amending legislation such as this Bill today. If he does so, he is going to perpetuate the scandalous treatment of land-owners, to which he referred by way of interjection last year and the year before. Now, the hon. the Minister has not said a word about this scandalous treatment. I believe the hon. the Minister should go back to his Hansard and have a look at what he said. In addition, if he looks at the Hansard, he will see that I told the House what happens when materials are taken for road-making purposes. These materials are taken as a result of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation and no compensation is paid for them. Now the Minister says that it is quite unnecessary to do anything more than just amend this legislation in the way in which he has suggested. I believe, however, that the Minister has not explained to us properly the insertion which is now made by clause 1, in terms of which section 5 of the Act is amended. I believe that it widens the scope very considerably of what can be done under Sir John Cradock’s proclamation.

Another aspect on which the Minister has been silent is the fact that this amending Bill is going to have retrospective effect. You will have noticed, Sir, that in terms of clause 4 “this Act … shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1977”. I believe that we are entitled to an explanation as to why this legislation should have retrospective effect. I have a very good idea why it has to be retrospective, but I think the hon. the Minister owed it to the House to have told us why in his Second Reading speech. You see, Sir, what is going to happen now is that whenever a local authority expropriates, it will have the power to expropriate subject to the provisions of section 26(2), and section 26(2) is also being amended in terms of clause 3 of this Bill. In terms of this amendment any material or land which is used for roads, or anything else which is done in connection with the acquisition of roads, or the taking or use of property for the purposes of the construction or maintenance of any water, electricity, drainage or sewerage works, is excluded from the compensation provisions of the Expropriation Act. On that point the hon. the Minister was also silent. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that all that was being done here, was that there would be a different procedure in respect of expropriation. With due respect to the hon. the Minister, that is not the point at all. It is the question of compensation. It is the question of the actual amount of compensation paid. There is a very big difference between the compensation payable in terms of the Act and compensation which is at present being paid by local authorities in terms of ordinances.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that last year the Cape Provincial Administration passed what is known as a Roads Ordinance. In that Roads Ordinance, which, incidentally, comes into operation on 1 January 1977—and I think that is the reason for this legislation being retrospective to 1 January 1977—there is a specific provision which refers to—

Only in those cases will the owner be compensated. He will receive no compensation at all if he has not exploited the materials which are required for road purposes. He will receive no compensation at all if the water is not conserved by means of a waterworks. The hon. the Minister must therefore realize that when we pass this legislation in this. House we are going to open the door for the perpetuation of the most evil aspects of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation of 1813. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister does not mention this at all, because you will remember that when this matter was referred to on a previous occasion in this House, the hon. the Minister kept on shouting out while I was speaking, saying that it was “skandalig”; everything that I was saying was “skandalig”. He agreed with me that that sort of thing had to be stopped. This amending Bill is not in favour of the farmer.

*Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand how the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who is, after all, the protector of the farmer, or ought to be, could introduce this type of legislation, which does not protect the farmer. The farmer is now being placed in the same position as the one in which he found himself when Sir John Cradock made his proclamation in 1813. I think that the time has now come for the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter very carefully. Consequently, I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister did not investigate those matters before the introduction of this legislation. I had thought that the hon. the Minister would take the trouble to investigate this matter thoroughly. I also felt that the hon. the Minister would protect the farmer. It is the divisional councils of the Cape which still employ these measures. During the past year there were cases of farmers in the divisional council area of Stellenbosch finding that their land had been expropriated for road-building purposes. There were cases in which Mr. A received R8 000 per ha whilst Mr. B, who had precisely the same type of land, received only R4 000 per ha. There was a case in which the poor farmer had been given such bad advice that he resorted to arbitration. What happened? The poor farmer who had been offered R4 000 per ha, whilst his neighbour had received R8 000 per ha, found that after arbitration he was offered a meagre R2 000 per ha by the arbitrator. There is no appeal against the arbitrator’s ruling. I have here in my file a letter from the hon. the Minister in which he tells the poor farmer: “I am terribly sorry, old chap but there is nothing I can do. I cannot help you at all; you will just have to be satisfied with your lot.” Against that background, I simply cannot understand how the hon. the Minister could have introduced this legislation this afternoon without thoroughly investigating those matters. It seems somewhat strange to me that I, a reasonably small farmer from Paarl, have to stand up here and deliver a plea on behalf of the big farmers of the Cape. I find this very strange. I did not expect to have to do this. I think that the hon. the Minister should reflect on this matter first. Perhaps he could withdraw the legislation and at some later stage this session introduce a new piece of legislation which is more reasoned and which goes a little deeper into the matters I have just mentioned. This position is impossible, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely impossible to think that a provincial administration can now do whatever it likes with materials on a farmer’s land.

I know of yet another case of a farmer who had a stream on his farm and of the provincial administration deciding to build a major road across his farm. They completely cut off the man’s water, and not only that, but as a result of this, they had to build a large bridge over his property. He sustained tremendous damage as a result of this. Now an embankment has to be built into the river in order to prevent him from sustaining further damage. He has been making requests for the embankment to be built for the past three years. The provincial administration maintains that it would cost too much and that the farmer will just have to wait a little. This is the type of thing which is still being done under Sir John Cradock’s Proclamation. I now want the hon. the Minister to understand that Sir John Cradock must be buried for once and for all in this session.