Mr. Speaker, thank you for affording me the opportunity to make a statement regarding the prevailing drought in certain parts of South Africa and thereby to draw the attention of the consumer of water in particular to the seriousness of the water position.

It is evident at this stage that the severity of the drought is equivalent to a drought which could be expected once in 200 years. Serious water shortages are foreseen towards the end of winter in various parts, shortages which could lead to extremely serious problems if no emergency measures are adopted.

At this stage I do not want to elaborate on irrigation schemes, many of which are experiencing a serious water crisis. Water quotas in this regard are being drastically restricted and everything possible is being done at the local level to utilize the available water to best advantage.

I therefore want to concentrate mainly on schemes supplying water for industrial and domestic use where the consequences could be disastrous if drastic measures are not taken timeously and where emergency schemes are under consideration. The Department of Environment Affairs has identified four areas where the situation is most serious.

†Ngagane River, Chelmsford Dam, Newcastle—

Umgeni River, Albert Falls and Midmar Dams—

*Eastern Transvaal—

Vaal River, Vaal Dam and Sterkfontein Dam—

There are also various smaller towns and communities in the above-mentioned areas, as well as in the Eastern Cape, which are experiencing serious problems, and the department is continuously assisting local authorities.

From the above it is clear that we could face a national disaster should power stations and urban complexes run out of sufficient water supplies. I therefore want to address an earnest appeal to all consumers in these areas to exercise the utmost discipline and to co-operate with a view to stretching our scarce water supplies as far as possible in the national interest.

I firmly believe and trust, however, that relief before the winter or in the early summer will alleviate this extremely serious situation.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, large parts of South Africa are suffering the ravages of an oppressive drought. However, it is not only the drought that farmers have to contend with. High interest rates and escalating production costs have also contributed to many farmers, vertually throughout the country, finding themselves in a financial crisis. The stage has been reached where quite a number of farmers, irrespective of other debts, are unable to meet their obligations to their co-operatives. This has led to the co-operatives in their turn not being able to pay their debts to the Land Bank, or being unable to assist their members with further credit.

Under these circumstances extensive financial assistance by the Land Bank to the agricultural sector has become a matter of the utmost urgency. However, the Land Bank Act contains certain provisions which impose limitations on the size of loans in proportion to the security offered for this advance. In terms of these provisions the bank may advance a maximum of 80% of the fair agricultural or pastoral value of land which is offered as security, as determined by the Land Bank Board, under mortgage to a farmer.

This limitation is at present a contributing factor which under certain circumstances may prevent the Land Bank from granting a farmer a mortgage advance which is sufficient to consolidate his debts effectively. It is therefore the objective of this Bill to do away with the 80% limitation on loans contained in the Land Bank Act, so that the Land Bank Board will be empowered to advance the full agricultural or pastoral value of land to a farmer against a mortgage. To the extent that the agricultural and pastoral value of land is lower than its market value—and this is usually the case—there is therefore still a limitation on the size of loans which may be granted. However, the fact remains that the deletion of the four-fifths limitation from the Act will enable the Land Bank Board to grant larger mortgage loans in justified cases. If it is possible to assist farmers in this way to consolidate their debts, it will definitely make a contribution to their own rehabilitation. It will also be to the benefit of the agricultural co-operatives whose funds are at present tied up in financing the outstanding debts of farmers.

Sir, I should like to make it quite clear that, although this amendment to the Act has been necessitated by the Government’s present drought assistance programme, it will not necessarily apply only for the purposes of this assistance programme. In future it will enable the Land Bank Board to be of greater assistance, particularly to the younger farmer, who does not yet have sufficient capital to purchase land, in order to establish him on an economic unit. However, the Land Bank Board will have to apply this measure circumspectly and according to its usual norms which are aimed at avoiding risky financing.

Sir, the contemplated amendment to the Land Bank Act is ushering in a new era in agricultural financing. However, it will also play an important part in the financial emergency measures to combat the present terrible drought conditions. During the past financial year the Land Bank granted 2 427 long-term loans of the abovementioned kind to an amount of R183,8 million. The total financing programme to the agricultural industry as such amounted to R5 315,2 million.

Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning these figures to this House to give hon. members an idea of the specific extent of mortgage loans which will be affected by the proposed measure, but also to acquaint hon. members with the total financing capacity of the bank. From this hon. members may deduce that the additional financing obligations which the proposed legislation will entail for the Land Bank, can be accommodated within the existing financing capacity of the Land Bank. I therefore have no qualms in calling for the co-operation of hon. members in placing the proposed measure on the Statute Book with the least possible delay. In this way hon. members will clearly demonstrate their sympathy in a crisis situation in which the farmers of South Africa at present find themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries made his statement before the Second Reading debate on this Bill. This means that it will not be necessary for anybody to make such a statement once this debate is over. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance has had a very easy passage so far in regard to the legislation that he has piloted through this House. He has not yet encountered any opposition and he will not encounter any opposition this afternoon with this Bill either. We shall support the Bill before us and, in view of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s remarks that he would like to have this Bill passed as soon as possible, we will ensure that he is able to take all stages of this legislation this afternoon.

I want to come back to what was said immediately before this debate because it is relevant to this and to the motivation as to why we take this attitude here today. I think it is important that the message should come from this House not merely that the hon. the Minister made a statement in which he appealed to the country to see to it that there was a saving of water because of a crisis but that it in fact should come unanimously from this House because the reality is that water which is our life-blood is in fact to some extent in danger in South Africa by reason of the drought situation. We as a whole, whether we represent rural constituencies or urban constituencies or whoever we are on a party basis, should indicate to the people of South Africa that because of the situation in which we find ourselves, we must do everything in our power to safeguard the water that we have, that we cannot afford to take a chance in respect of water.

Secondly, in regard to the state of our agriculture, I do not believe that it is enough for people to say that the problem of the drought is the problem of the farmer. The problem of the drought is certainly the problem of the farmer, but it is in fact the problem of South Africa—it is the problem of every single South African. I for one believe—I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will endorse it—that from the point of view of our GDP, from the point of view of our balance of payments, we would be better off having no drought than having an increase in the gold price of $100 an ounce. It is far more important to us that our agriculture should flourish. People have the wrong idea. They think the whole of South Africa depends on the gold price; it does not. Fundamentally one of the most important aspects of this country’s economy is the ability of the country to produce the food for its own people and to produce the food to export. That is one of the most important things that we have to realize in South Africa. With great respect, the drought is as important in the constituency which I represent, Yeoville, as it is in the constituency which the hon. the Deputy Minister represents and which is a farming constituency. It is the same interest, it is the same issue which affects all of us. That is why we have no difficulty, if a measure of this nature is introduced, to give it our support.

It is not easy, from a purely financial point of view, to accept a situation where one grants somebody a loan on 100% of the value of his asset. It is not a sound financial principle and we should face that as a reality. Nobody lends money on 100% of the value of the asset as a sound financial principle. Therefore one does it because of particular circumstances.

Here I think it is a matter of two circumstances which the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned and which we can support. The first is the state of agriculture because of the climatic conditions which have unfortunately befallen us. The second is the need to encourage certain people to go into farming in order to ensure that we do not have a continued drift away from farming towards activities in the urban areas.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the reason why there should be 100% loans is not only, as he said, to encourage young people to go to farm, but actually it should be to encourage people to go back to farming, to encourage those people who have the skills to farm but who for some reason, mostly economic, have left farming. Particularly in some areas of South Africa where there has been a depopulation of the “platteland”, where there has been a drift away from farming, we should try to encourage people to go back into farming in those categories. It is far more important that there should be a man who is on the land farming the land himself, than that there should be vast tracts of land that are owned by absentee landlords purely for the purpose of speculation and without really ensuring that there are people there and without really producing in those areas. If we can encourage the people who are actually going to farm, who are going to be there, to return to the land, then in those circumstances we welcome the Bill. At one stage we had some doubt about whether, owing to the economic situation, one should agree to a 100% loan for a period of time, attaching the condition that once normal climatic conditions were reverted to, this should fall away. We believe, however, that if one is going to use this to bring people back to the land—particularly the kind of people we have spoken about—one should certainly not ask for any conditions to be attached. One does, however, need a caveat. There needs to be a warning, because this is an area in which there can indeed be some abuse. It is quite clear that if, in granting a 100% loan, one is depending upon valuations by local people in the area, there is the possibility of abuse. If one sees the way in which the valuations are carried out, one realizes that to a considerable extent the Land Bank has to depend upon local people to supply it with valuation figures, and not only do we hope that that will always be objectively done, but also that those figures will be checked to make sure that there is no possibility of abuse in that regard. That is where we look to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us the undertaking that he and the rest of the department will ensure that the necessary safeguards are implemented by the Land Bank to see to it that there is no possibility of abuse in this regard.

One of my colleagues will deal with the basis of valuation in a moment, but I myself would just like to lodge an appeal for this safeguard. I know that one of the hon. gentlemen sitting near the hon. the Deputy Minister on that side of the House is just waiting for me to talk about another matter involving the Land Bank. I also imagine that he is quite ready to take a point of order to ensure that I do hot deal with that matter in this debate, so I shall not do so. [Interjections.] What I will say, however, is that what the farmers of South Africa expect from the Land Bank, from the Department of Finance and from the hon. the Deputy Minister, is that every penny that is available will be made available for loans to farmers for the purpose of encouraging agriculture. In fact, if there is any possibility that that will not be done, the hon. the Deputy Minister must expect the necessary criticism at the right time and in the right place, not only criticism of the Land Bank, but also of the people responsible for it. I therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us the assurance that he will see to it—and I look to him personally, because he is a farmer as well as the Deputy Minister of Finance and therefore knows what I am talking about—that every single penny that is available to the Land Bank is utilized for the purposes for which we want it to be used, and that is for the farmers of South Africa. That is the last point I want to make here.

Let me therefore end up by just saying one thing further. Unfortunately we in South Africa—like people in other parts of the world—have to go through periodic droughts, periods in which there are water shortages. I therefore think that we must not only look at this matter on an ad hoc basis, but also on a long-term basis so as to ensure that when these periodic events take place in South Africa, when we do incur these losses, we are prepared to deal with the matter, having the necessary long-term plans to cover the eventuality. When one has a drought of this nature, when one is helping the people who do need help, one also has to say to oneself: Am I making sufficient plans for the future so that I do not have to deal with these situations on an ad hoc basis, but can deal with them on the basis of the necessary long-term planning that I have done.

That is the last thought with which I should like to leave not only the hon. the Deputy Minister, but also the hon. the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible for this aspect. We support this measure, and we do so graciously and willingly, because obviously there is a need for a change in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member and his party for their support, and particularly for the hon. member’s view of the agricultural industry. I think it was the most responsible speech that hon. members has ever made in this House. [Interjections.] I also want to say that it seems to me as if he learned a lesson during the Part Appropriation this year. He did not bring up the other matter here because he remembered what I told him during the Part Appropriation.

The task of the Land Bank is to advance money to farmers, agricultural co-operatives and control boards. The bank grants three types of loans to farmers, namely mortgage loans, liability loans and advances in terms of the provisions of section 34 of the Land Bank Act. Mortgage loans are granted in terms of the Land Bank Act against first mortgage on farmland or against a second or further mortgage when the bank itself is the holder of the existing mortgage or mortgages. The Land Bank Act provides that an advance against security of a mortgage on farmland may not exceed four-fifths, or 80%, of the fair agricultural or pastoral value of the land. The hon. member for Yeoville should listen now. As I said, what we are dealing with here is fair agricultural or pastoral value and not market value as such. For that reason I think that the possible danger he referred to cannot be a real danger in this case. Except for the existing legal restrictions, there are no further restrictions on the size of the mortgage loans. Every application is dealt with on merit.

A mortgage loan may be granted to farmers for the following purposes: The purchase of land, the repayment of mortgages or debts, and the making of improvements. When considering applications for mortgage loans for the purchase of land, preference is given to those cases where the applicant does not already possess land or where the purchase of additional land is essential for him to acquire an economic farming unit. Applicants are expected to contribute at least 30% of the purchase price in cash from their own funds, except of course where the applicant already has land which is available and can be offered as an additional security for the loan. In addition to the requirement of 30% from his own funds, the applicant must also have adequate farming contributions such as livestock and implements at his disposal to ensure the success of his undertaking. Applications for loans for the redemption of mortgages are only considered if the relevant mortgage has been called in in writing, in accordance with the terms and conditions attaching to it.

Loans for the repayment of liability debts are granted when the applicant is responsible for their payment and he is unable to meet his obligations owing to circumstances beyond his control. As far as the payment of overdrawn bank accounts is concerned, the bank cannot take over large-scale debts. However, the board is prepared, on the merits of each case, to consider the payment of a maximum of one-third of the overdrawn account incurred for farming purposes.

In addition to the financing of individual farmers, the bank also finances agricultural co-operatives and control boards. As a matter of fact, in the course of time the bank has become the most important source of finance for agricultural co-operatives in respect of both short-term and long-term advances. The financing of co-operatives for the purchase of farming requisites and means of production which they supply to members on credit has already become an established practice for most farmers and is consequently essential.

When it was established in 1912 the bank had a capital fund of R5,47 million, which was at that stage taken over from the separate colonial banks. By the end of last year, 1982, individual farmers had long-term loans of R838,5 million and short-and medium term loans of R120,6 million, while long-term advances to co-operatives and control boards totalled R345,4 million and short-term advances to co-operatives R3 236 million. According to the 1982 annual report, loan debt in 1982, compared with the figures for 1979, increased as follows: Long-term loans to farmers by 56,9% and to co-operatives by 79,7%, and short and medium-term loans to farmers by 126,4% and to co-operatives by 122,4%. On 31 December 1982 overdue payments totalling R18 million on long term and R7 million on short-term loans were owed by individual farmers. Since then the unfavourable agricultural conditions have caused the financial exposure to risk of farmers and their co-operatives to increase sharply so that many farmers, even with the help of the existing aid schemes, can no longer be financed within the limits of normal credit facilities. It is estimated that the total left-over debts (oorlaatskulde) of farmers with their co-operatives are R770 million. The debts of farmers incurred mainly for production credit with commercial banks and other financial institutions total approximately R100 million.

The joint Press statement by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the consolidation of the debts by the Land Bank and the Financial Assistance Division of the Department of Agriculture, has been generally welcomed. For that reason we on this side of the House support the amendment to the Land Bank so that mortgage loans up to 100% of the agricultural value may be granted, instead of the present 80%. This amendment should facilitate the consolidation of agricultural debts and assist in bringing about the rehabilitation of farmers. More important, however, is the fact that it will also be to the benefit of the agricultural cooperatives, whose funds are at present tied up in the financing of farmers’ outstanding debts.

In the past the Government has never left the farming community and agriculture in the lurch. Through this amendment and the aid programme which has already been introduced, as well as other aid programmes which are still to be introduced, the Government has committed itself to assisting the farmers during this difficult bridging phase. For that reason I support this legislation with acclamation.

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this House accepts that this legislation will be supported unanimously. Although we on this side of the House welcome this measure, and I do not want to run the risk of repetition, it is necessary to say that although we welcome this measure because to a certain extent it affords relief in a crisis situation in agriculture, it is nevertheless a clear indication that there is something seriously wrong with the general financial position in agriculture, if a measure like this has become necessary. It is true that this measure, and the necessity for it, were precipitated by the serious drought conditions being experienced in this country at present. However, the signs were already clear in agricultural circles that agriculture was heading for a financial crisis, and the present drought only precipitated matters.

This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries painted a sombre picture of the water position in dams supplying water for industrial purposes. My constituency, too, is greatly affected by this. The hon. the Minister referred to the dams in the Komati River that have to supply some of our most important power stations with water. Those same rivers supplying power stations with water are also virtually the life-blood of a large number of the farmers in my constituency who, subsequently not only may but probably will find themselves in a parlous position. If one considers the latest agricultural statistics that have recently been published in Die Boer one sees that in only one year, namely from 1981 to 1982, while the gross income of the farmers of South Africa rose by 6,4%, their net income dropped by 34,4%. One also sees that while producer prices rose by only 8,5% between 1981 and 1982—far below the inflation rate—prices of farming requisites rose on average by 17,3%, and consumer prices rose by 13,8%. It is quite clear from this that in general for some or other reason—and I am not going to try to blame anyone for this—the farmer is not receiving the return he is entitled to for the inputs he has to make. However, there will be other opportunities to debate this matter.

I have in my possession an investigation recently made by an expert in a certain district in the Western Transvaal into the position of maize farmers in particular. A proper scientific investigation was made. Questionnaires were sent to respondents and satisfactory replies, duly certified by bank managers, co-operative managers and accountants, from 62 farmers in that district were investigated. From these replies it appeared that those 62 farmers, who on average planted between 250 and more than 1 000 hectares of maize per annum, had a ratio of net assets to liabilities of 4,7 in 1979-’80, which had deteriorated to 1,55 by 1982-’83. While the debts of these farmers with their co-operatives and other institutions totalled almost R100 000 in 1979-’80, and this figure did not include mortage debts, by 1982-’83 their debts had increased to over R200 000. Whereas the average debt per hectare of those farmers in June 1976 was only R29 per hectare, including mortgage debts, it has by now already risen to R212 per hectare.

Conditions in agriculture are therefore indeed alarming. That is all the more reason why this measure is so very welcome. It is an essential measure, although it is a crisis measure. It is not the entire solution. The solution can only be found in the fact that the necessary adjustments will have to be made in the long term, to allow agriculture in this country to come into its own.

The hon. member for Yeoville was concerned about valuations and said that care had to be taken to ensure that no irregularities crept in. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Smithfield. It has been our experience as practical farmers that the Land Bank and the local valuers have in the past always been extremely conservative in determining the agricultural and pastural value of farms. The bank has made extensive provision for proper control to ensure that the valuations are done properly. There may be exceptions, but I do not think there is any reason to believe that any irregularities will occur. The 100% loan which the bank is now authorized to grant, is based on the agricultural and pastural value and not on the economic value of the farm. In the short term, however, the problem may arise that although the Land Bank wants to assist farmers in a crisis situation, the drought cycle in which we at present find ourselves may affect the assessment of the agricultural and pastural value of a farm. It is after all a requirement for a farmer to indicate in his application what his income for the past few seasons was and it is quite obvious that any valuer will take this into consideration in determining the agricultural and pastural value of the farm. The situation at present is that owing to the drought, the production on the majority of farms in the summer grain regions has been far below the potential production of those farms. Now I am worried—and I hope unnecessarily—that valuers from the Land Bank will be inclined to determine the agricultural and pastural value of a farm according to the production of that farm during the prevailing drought conditions. I hope and trust that this will not happen.

With these few thoughts we support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP also supports this Bill. Like all the other parties we too believe that this is an urgent measure which should be passed by this House as soon as possible.

Before dealing with the Bill itself I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Fisheries that I am very pleased that he chose this afternoon to make the statement which he did make and I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville when he said that this House needs to urge South Africans to take cognizance of the serious state the nation is in as a result of the drought. I thank the hon. the Minister for giving us this opportunity to do so. I do not believe the average person living in the cities realizes how serious things really are. They need only open their taps and the water is there, or has been there. I say “has been” because I believe there are certain rural areas today where very severe restrictions have been imposed because the water is no longer there. But for the urban areas this may be a new experience. In the rural areas of Natal the people have been suffering for the last three years. Last winter in the Valley of a Thousand Hills Africans were getting up at 3 o’clock in the morning to walk down to the springs in the hope that by the time they got there there would still be some water left. This is how serious the position has been. A few weeks ago I visited a trading store on the old main road near the Valley of a Thousand Hills and saw queues of women with their plastic containers obtaining their water from the regional supply there. And this is at the end of summer when normally the dams should be full. So I say heaven help many people during this coming winter because the position is extremely serious. On my own farm I have been hauling water for 10 months, through the summer period to one of my compounds because the water source there has dried up. It has been said that this is a once in 200 years drought. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries that I believe that this drought as serious and regrettable as it is has some plus points. It can teach us where our weaknesses lie. We shall have to study the statistics of this drought as we have never studied statistics of a drought before. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister’s department is giving attention to this matter because with the figures and the records that we will obtain during this drought we shall be better equipped to plan for the future.

The provisions of this Bill are basically to allow the Land Bank to offer greater facilities to the farming community in that farmers will now be able to bond their properties to the full 100% valuation placed on their properties by the Land Bank as opposed to 80% of the value as has been the case in the past. Its purpose is actually to make increased credit facilities available to farmers. It is particularly necessary during this time of drought because we all know what many farmers have lost over the past few years. As has been said, it is also a measure that will encourage young farmers to go back to farming.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that it was not a sound financial principle to mortgage a property to 100% of its value. As the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Barberton and other hon. members have said, the Land Bank value of a property is not necessarily the market value of that property.

Far from it.

Far from it, as my hon. colleague says. That is correct. Unfortunately, Sir, the very low value that the Land Bank has placed on many properties has restricted many farmers from utilizing their assets to the full. Any progressive businessman, whether he is a farmer or a businessman or in whatever field he finds himself …

I wish you would not call him a progressive businessman!

That is not a very good description. [Interjections.]

Any progressive businessman will utilize all his assets to the full, and that includes his financial assets. If his assets give him certain credit rating, he should be able to utilize those assets as far as possible.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that he wanted to sound a word of warning in regard to the valuation of farms. However, I want to assure the hon. member that the valuers who value farms for the Land Bank are extremely conservative people indeed. Therefore, I do not really think we have to concern ourselves too much in that regard. [Interjections.]

In approving this measure, I want to agree with the hon. member for Barberton that there is another aspect to which we have to give attention. The hon. member for Barberton said that this was a crisis measure, and I agree with him. I agree with the hon. member that the whole of the agricultural scene in South Africa must be investigated. Producer prices of farming products are just not keeping pace with the rising costs of farming inputs. I believe that this is a matter which requires urgent attention. Agriculture in South Africa is not in a sound position today. I want to make use of this opportunity to issue the warning that a great deal of the publicity that is given to the so-called wealthy farming community—we read about this in the newspapers all the time—is only part of the story. It is not the full story at all. We often look at a wealthy person driving a big luxury motor car and then assume that everybody in the same profession is equally wealthy. That is not so. One may say that just because Mr. Harry Oppenheimer of Anglo American owns 52% of all the stock listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, anybody who has shares is as wealthy as he is. That is not true. There are many, many farmers who are not wealthy at all, people who over generations may not have inherited very valuable farms. Farmers today are not in the same position as these wealthy people are. I believe it would be an interesting exercise if someone were to make a breakdown of the farming community just to find out how many farmers fall into the category of the very wealthy. It will probably be found that about 5% of the farmers will fall into the category of what one could call the wealthy community. However, as I say, there are many who are not that well off.

With these few words I want to say that I am very pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to pass this measure through this House with the co-operation of all the parties as soon as possible so that this necessary aid can be made available to our struggling farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to convey my thanks to other hon. members and their parties for their support of this measure. This is a financial measure which falls under the Department of Finance, and I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is perhaps not a true farmer, although he does represent a farming community and constituency, is to be congratulated having introduced this measure in this House. [Interjections.] Very well, he is a true farmer now, but he used to be an attorney. [Interjections.] For that very reason we are grateful for the fact that he has done this today.

In spite of the fact that this measure was initiated by the Department of Finance, quite a number of inputs were made by several sectors within the national economy, which made the introduction of this legislation possible. Quite a number of sectors have helped the hon. the Deputy Minister in this respect. In addition, I want to thank the agricultural co-operatives which made direct inputs, as well as the Department of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, for the inputs they made and the investigations they conducted in order to make this decision possible. I believe that it was very important to obtain this background information before a decision of this nature could be taken.

There is another group of people who have been serving agriculture with great loyalty and dedication over the years. These are the officials of the Land Bank itself.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, they have proved over the years that they know agriculture, and although they fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance, they have really shown great sympathy and understanding towards the farming community. For that we must thank them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smith-field is a sheep farmer, of course. When one has driven a flock of sheep into a grazing camp, one cannot then drive cattle into the same camp, because the veld will have been stripped of all vegetation. The hon. member for Smithfield dealt so thoroughly with the financial aspect of the Land Bank in his speech that little remains for the rest of us to say. However, there are a few other matters of principle to which I want to refer briefly.

In 1979, 1980 and 1982, R350 million in production credit was carried over by co-operatives. During the past season, a further R450 million was made available to farmers in the form of production loans. The total amount, therefore, is R770 million, which can possibly be regarded as arrear debts at this stage. Ons has to take these arrear debts into consideration in asking what the potential cost aspect is for agriculture to produce another harvest in future. In the second place, of course, the question is what the financial liquidity of the co-operatives is with regard to the handling of the enormous amount of money which has to be spent on production. Various approaches have been adopted in the light of this background. One of the methods that have been used to divert this debt from the co-operatives to some extent and to channel it to the Land Bank is in fact represented by the amendment contained in this Bill, in which this aspect is now being accommodated.

With a provision of 80% security it would not have been possible to help all these people, because, as hon. members have rightly said, these people already find themselves in a financial predicament. Therefore it would hardly have been possible to provide additional aid for those people at Land Bank value. The second aspect in this connection is, of course, the fact that one will not necessarily be able to accommodate all these people at the Land Bank in practice, because of the security measures, as well as other problems which exist. Therefore we can accept that only a part of the total debt can be diverted in this way and dealt with on a mortgage basis by the Land Bank.

When we say this, the first question is what the financial implications are for the Land Bank as such. A large part of that debt which is now going to be borne by the Land Bank was debt which the Land Bank had granted the co-operatives in the form of production debt. Therefore it is not new capital which has to be generated in order to pay off debt, but only a transfer of debt from one institution to another. That is the risk value for the Land Bank as such.

This raises the question which was discussed by the hon. member for Yeoville. This is whether it is a sound financial principle to mortgage 100% of one’s security. However, it has already been pointed out that we are concerned here with agricultural value. The question which could justifiably be asked in this connection is whether it is correct that there should be such a big difference between the agricultural value and the market value of the security. This is a serious question which agriculture will have to ask itself. To what extent can land prices be higher than the agricultural value of land? They could become disproportionately high. We know that land prices are not determined only by the agricultural value and by farmers; there are many other inputs which have to be made in order to arrive at market value. However, this makes it impossible for a farmer in farming circumstances to obtain agricultural land in order to produce an agricultural product, if the market value of the land is very high. This is a question we shall have to answer.

There is a further point I have to refer to. Since there is such a big difference—I submit that the market value exceeds the agricultural value by 100% or even more—the Land Bank is actually, in terms of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville, using only 50% of the security which is available. Merely from a financial point of view, this is a sound approach.

The agricultural value determines the farmer’s ability to repay.

That is correct. The agricultural value determines the ability to repay, and when I come to the next point I shall deal with that.

This is the advantage attached to a transfer of debt to the Land Bank at this stage. In the first place, the period of repayment is much longer, and the longer the period of repayment, the easier it is for the producer to meet his obligations on the basis of agricultural value. In the second place, the interest rate applicable to it is lower than the rate on a production loan made available to the producer by means of the co-operative. So there is a lower interest rate which is also of great benefit to the producer. In the third place—this is perhaps one of the most important aspects—the producer is automatically included under a mortgage insurance scheme in the form of a life insurance policy in this connection.

In the general course of events, the public is very often unaware of the fact that the Land Bank played a decisive role in the provision of a group insurance scheme with a view to mortgage debts. This came into being at a time when private initiative wanted to undertake this insurance at a high premium rate, but then agriculture launched the scheme on its own initiative. The scheme grew from year to year, until it was possible two years ago to reduce the premium rate by a small percentage without compromising the revenue of the fund as against the risk it has to bear. This is a feather in the cap of the Land Bank.

Finally, I just want to say this: We have listened to a lot of arguments today about the agricultural situation. This is not an agricultural debate; we can deal with those arguments properly in the course of an agricultural debate. Nevertheless, I submit on this occasion that agriculture finds itself in a problematical situation. There is no getting away from that fact. Furthermore, I submit that one of the most important causes, if not the most important, is the prevailing drought. Had it not been for the drought, agriculture would not have been in such a predicament today. So it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good—in this country as well—and if the people in the cities could only realize in this drought situation what the circumstances in agriculture are and how dependent agriculture is on rain and other factors beyond its control, this drought crisis could mean something to South Africa in the sense that people have been made aware of the circumstances and risks associated with agriculture. When we have taken all this into consideration, with the aid which is being provided by the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole by way of this legislation, with the assistance of the officials and the other inputs that have been made, we in agriculture believe that with the help of Providence, and through hard work, we shall be able to pay our debts and to place agriculture on a sound footing again in the years to come.

With that certainty and faith in the people who govern us, the people who serve us, and in the Almighty, we believe that we shall win through, in spite of the drought.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Ventersdorp hides his light, and that of his family, under a bushel, because in itself his family has contributed a tremendous amount to the development of agriculture in South Africa. His father, his uncles and his own brothers are playing a very significant role. So whilst he is paying tribute to the Department of Agriculture, let me just say that families such as the one he belongs to, must also receive tribute for having played their part in organized agriculture in South Africa. For that all of us must be grateful, even those who come from the south. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Ventersdorp has drawn our attention to the tremendous debt carried by the farming population, a matter of some R770 million which has now been moved from the co-operatives to the Land Bank. This debt has to be repaid in the course of time, but what worries me at this particular stage is the rate of interest that is going to be charged, because this is also going to be a great burden. I trust, however, that present conditions will change and that the agricultural situation will improve. I think that one of the lessons that we will have learned from this particular drought will be that we should go back to the Bible and realize the value of certain of the biblical stories, particularly the interpretation of Potiphar’s dream by Joseph, i.e. that there would be seven good years and after that seven lean years. In future we should see to it that we make provision, in the good years, for the possibility of the bad years.

On a lighter note, let me say that I remember, as a young boy, a story that was always being told. Eight people were wrecked on a desert island. There were two Englishmen, two Irishmen, two Jews and two Afrikaners. The two Englishmen said to each other: Let us form a Sons of England Society. The two Irishmen asked: Where can we find a bar? The two Jews said: Do you think we could start a business? One Afrikaner then turned round to the other and said: “Waar is die Landbank?”. [Interjections.] This just goes to show what an important role the Land Bank has played in South Africa and what an institution it really has been.

I should also just like to say that if this debate has done nothing else, it has brought the platteland right into the towns of South Africa. The platteland has now come to town and everybody is aware of the problems there. This is going to be even more important in the light of the tremendous urbanization that is going to take place in this country over the next 20 years, because the number of farmers who have to feed South Africa and provide it with the raw materials it requires, will form a smaller percentage than they do today, but will play an exceedingly more important role in the general contribution that is made to the country.

Two important factors stand out. Without credit and without technology there is no futre for our farmers. Therefore provision must be made, by way of credit, for them to build their farms, and by way of technology for them to build up their farming enterprise, technology provided by our agricultural colleges and the Department of Agriculture.

The hon. member for Yeoville dealt with the question of valuations. When one reads the actual Bill, one sees that it speaks of the “fair” value. That is important. How do we arrive at a fair value? The only way in which it can be done is on the basis of valuation. If one looks at the annual reports of the last few years, one sees that the basis on which the value of farmland is calculated is production. This presents me with a problem and I should like to hear the hon. the Minister on it. What are the rules on which valuation is based? How does this take place? What system of valuation is there going to be for the future? As the hon. member for Ventersdorp has said, the crux of the matter is how one is going to value one’s property. The market value is very simple to arrive at, because that is simply what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller. There is no problem with that.

It is not that easy.

It may not be so easy, but it is much easier. All valuations are difficult, but it is much easier to assess the market value than to assess production value. It is also very difficult to understand what is a “fair” agricultural value, a “fair” pastoral value and a “fair” production value. The hon. member for Ventersdorp has raised the very important question of what the balance should be between the market value on the one hand and the production value on the other in order to make provision for those farmers who really need the credit. How are the good farmers whom we wish to keep on the land going to be looked after?

The point raised by the hon. member for Barberton is also very important. How does one assess the production value of a farm which has just had three bad years, three years of drought? This is the problem. It may be a good farm but for the bad weather conditions of the last three years. How is one then going to assess the production value of the farm after it has suffered three years of drought?

It is said that the people who undertake the valuations are experienced men, experienced farmers from the area. I sometimes wonder whether some of them have had the correct financial training as valuators and whether this does not perhaps explain the weakness of the system and why they have tended to undervalue and to be conservative in the past.

That is not the only valuation.

I know it is not the only valuation, but this does play a very important role because such a person knows the district. How subjective is the assessing of the agricultural, pastoral or production value? I ask that particularly in view of the serious plight of the farmers. We must now get South Africa ready for the next two decades and it is essential that the whole basis on which this valuation is undertaken should be fair and reasonable and also that the bank should be provided with the necessary security.

With those few words I would like to say that we on this side offer this Bill our full support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for his kind words to my colleague sitting here beside me and also to his family. It is true that they have played, are still playing and probably will continue to play a very important role in agriculture. Those were friendly words by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I thank him for them.

The hon. member’s major problem concerns the valuation of land on the basis of which the Land Bank will advance a loan to a farmer. As the hon. member rightly said, valuation remains a subjective matter. There are no two valuers that will look at a specific property from exactly the same angle and as a result the valuation will differ to a lesser or greater extent. I think we should set the hon. member’s mind at rest. In the first place the relevant Land Bank valuer appointed by the board of the bank for a specific area, is appointed after there has been thorough consultation with his fellow farmers. In actual fact he is put forward by his fellow farmers. Such a person is usually—I am speaking in general—a man who has himself been involved in farming for many years, who knows farming well, who has to a greater or lesser extent been successful at it and, most important of all, has the respect of his fellow farmers. I am not suggesting that no criticism can be levelled at valuations. Generally speaking, however, practical experience has shown that a local man who is better acquainted with the conditions in the specific area—climate, soil fertility and the cultivation possibilities for various crops—can usually be trusted to make a valuation that will be close to the agricultural production value of the relevant piece of land being offered as security.

The hon. member wanted to know what the criterion was. It is important to ask what criterion such a valuer is going to apply. That valuer must determine certain things for himself before he can advise the board of the Land Bank on a valuation. He must determine whether the product that can be grown or bred on the relevant farm being offered as security will enable the farmer to do three things: In the first place, to redeem the capital of the loan.

That is future potential.

No, it has nothing to do with future potential. The valuer must take a look at the farm and satisfy himself on three points. He must determine firstly whether the farmer will be able, with the products he intends to grow or breed on the farm, to redeem the capital of the loan, secondly whether he will be able to keep up the interest payments and thirdly whether he will have enough left over for his family and himself. I do not think that we experienced any problems with this in the past. What is more, the Land Bank board has over the years had a great deal of experience with regard to the determining of a fair agricultural production value of a piece of land. Over the years they have developed a sophisticated system in the bank and they also have a very able and expert valuation division which, if the valuation of a specific valuer were to be questioned, would first check it according to their system at head office and, send one of their own valuers to the farm to undertake a re-valuation or to check the valuation of the valuer. I therefore want to tell the hon. member that he can rest assured that there will be no problems in this connection.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Barberton said in connection with the specific circumstances over the past few years. I should like to agree with the hon. member for Barberton that the Land Bank will probably ask its valuers to take into consideration the fact that in some parts of the country drought conditions have prevailed for three years—in the constituency of the hon. the Deputy Minister they have prevailed for far longer—and that those conditions should not affect their valuation. I think this is a very important point which the hon. member for Barberton raised. As far as I am concerned, the Land Bank is an institution which in the past promoted and achieved three very important things in our national economy. In the first place it kept the farmer on his farm and in the second place, as a result of this, it prevented the depopulation of our rural communities and areas, and ensured that the economy in the rural areas also remained viable. In the third place, the Land Bank enabled many of our young farmers to acquire their own piece of land to produce food for our country and its people. I believe that the measure we are now discussing will contribute to making the Land Bank an even better instrument to achieve these very objectives. It gives me great pleasure to support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Ermelo let me say that I personally do not have very much concern or worry about the valuations. I am not very much worried that 100% valuations will in any sense be dangerous for the Land Bank because I farm myself and all farmers who farm know that the Land Bank valuation has always been approximately 50% or 60% of the market value of the property. Therefore I do not believe that a 100% loan places the Land Bank in any difficulty at all.

I want to speak very briefly because a number of the points that I would have made have already been covered today. This measure does give some assistance to the farmers and for that reason it is welcomed. It arises from the present drought conditions, but let me say that it is not nearly sufficient to save the farmers in this country in the current drought. I also want to join the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in saying that I think the general public in South Africa is not anywhere near aware of the serious dimensions of the present drought in South Africa. It is far more serious than the drought of the 1930s. For example, the Natal Midlands, where I come from, is a high rainfall area, but it is interesting to note that of the areas that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries named, two are in the Natal Midlands. In that area the drought is certainly the worst drought that has been known since the White man came to Natal in the 1820s. KwaZulu too is in the grip of a terrible drought and stock are dying in very great numbers. The trouble in the Natal Midlands is that this is the fifth year of drought and even if there is a good season next year it will not rectify the position. A good season will not cause the water table to rise and it will not even start most of the streams and springs in the Natal Midlands flowing again.

The consumer in South Africa has always been a very voluble person and he has often complained about the farmers. It must be remembered, however, that the consumers in South Africa are still speaking with their mouths full. The farmer in South Africa today is caught in a vicious spiral of rising costs, as has been said in this House this afternoon. There are high interest rates, very high diesel costs, very high fertilizer costs, very high tractor costs and all steel products such as baling wire and fencing are very much higher in price. Nearly all those input costs have increased by hundreds of per cent in the last few years while meat prices, for example beef and mutton, are today below what they were two years ago. What other product in South Africa is below the price it was two years ago? The trouble is that most of the farming area in South Africa is a summer rainfall area. Already, all around the country, we are having clear autumn days, those days where there is going to be frost at any moment, and that is the end of any possibility of rain until next summer. The real problem is: What is the farmer going to do this winter? How is he going to get his stock through this winter? Where will the fodder come from? One cannot market stock today in South Africa. One cannot get sufficient permits to market stock. One cannot get a sufficient quota in Natal. There is no lucern available anywhere in South Africa and it does not look as if maize is going to be available either. It appears that we shall have to import 1 million tons of maize this year. Following upon yesterday’s budget I saw in The Citizen of this morning the following headline: “More aid to the farmers”. I read through the article to see what this aid was that the farmers was getting, and what did I find? The aid is no more than that the farmer does not have to pay income tax on stock sales if he deposits the money with the Land Bank. In intensive farming areas the farmers are making a loss anyway; so they cannot be taxed in any event.

Mr. Speaker, what is about to happen to the agricultural sector in South Africa, to farmers, is a disaster of such colossal proportions that the consumer has no idea of what is going to happen in the very near future with his main source of food. Then he may have to make his complaints without his mouth being full. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that while we welcome the assistance given to farmers in terms of this Bill, the entire question of agricultural financing should be carefully investigated by the Government. I agree with the hon. member for Barberton that the entire question of aid to the farmer must be investigated. At present farmers owe more than R6 000 million and their debt is increasing every year. Massive State aid is required for the 70 000 farmers in the country, and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to institute an investigation into the entire question of agricultural financing. At the moment it is being done higgledy-piggledy. We get this kind of urgent crisis aid, but the Land Bank does not cater for all types of farmers. It only caters for those farmers who at a particular moment is going under. What we need is a very careful investigation into the whole question of financing farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this Bill has been thoroughly and intensively discussed. As far as I am concerned, there are only a few points I should like to comment on.

The hon. member for Yeoville urged us to be very accurate in our valuations. Other hon. members also raised the matter of valuations. I should just like to point out that valuations are not based on any specific year or number of years because, as hon. members said, drought conditions can prevail for three consecutive years or even longer. In contrast, valuations are based on a normal year under normal farming conditions. Hon. members need therefore have no fears in this connection.

The hon. member for Yeoville was also worried about capital which could be lost owing to poor administration. But in this regard I also want to point out to him that the Land Bank Board has a proud record as far as control over advances made to farmers are concerned. The annual report of the Land Bank has just been tabled, and if the hon. member were to study it he would find little to complain about.

I thank the hon. member for Smithfield for his contribution and for the sound knowledge he displayed. Unfortunately he had to leave. The hon. member for Barberton pointed out that there must be something wrong with the financial position of our farming population. It is true that nowadays farmers are experiencing a cash-flow problem. As a matter of fact, this is one of the reasons why we have this Bill before us today. As the hon. member for Pinetown said, the farmers have tremendous debts at the moment, totalling approximately R6 000 million. But, Sir, allow me to add, and I come from a part of the country where one has to be positive, that those debts represent only 18% of the farmers’ assets. All of us must admit that this is a proud record.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has also left. He made an interesting contribution. He asked what percentage of the wealth in our country belonged to the farming population. It is interesting to note that the University of Natal recently undertook such a survey and found that, if I remember correctly, 31% of the rich people in this country are farmers.

I want to tell the hon. member for Ventersdorp that I am also a farmer. Today the hon. member said a great deal about droughts, water shortages, etc. But allow me to say that I am definitely the farmer in this House who has had the greatest experience of droughts. The hon. member touched on a very cardinal problem, namely the big difference between the agricultural and pastoral value of land on the one hand and the market value of that land on the other. This is indeed a major problem in agriculture. To tell the truth, this is the basis of the financial problem in agriculture, because it means that farmers have to pay far in excess of a production value for land. A long-term view is needed for this. We farmers are inclined to be a little over-optimistic when things are going well. But an industry saves itself, and the long-term approach to which all hon. members referred, is important if we are to have a balanced view of this matter.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout told a story here about an Englishman, an Irishman, a Jew and a farmer on an island. It seems to me as if the farmer he referred to either drank too much with the Irishmen or received too much credit from the Jews. That is why he had to turn to the Land Bank. The hon. member also had something to say about the importance of agricultural extension and the importance of credit. Without these agriculture, and indeed any other industry, could not manage.

Many thanks to the hon. member for Ermelo for his thorough elucidation on the matter of valuations. He also emphasized the contribution of the Land Bank in establishing farmers in the rural areas. I also thank him for this.

The hon. member for Pinetown emphasized that this measure is inadequate, and I admit that in the prevailing circumstances it is inadequate. But we should realize that this is only one of the measures which are being adopted.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I should just like to point out that all the speeches we heard here attested to the fact that hon. members have a positive attitude to the Land Bank and its functions. I thank them for the sound understanding and attitude they displayed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is the duty of the State to make it as easy as possible for a citizen who is entitled to vote to exercise this right. The Bill which is before the House contains proposed amendments which are intended to extend the variety of documents which voters may produce to prove their identity, so as to make it even easier for voters to cast their votes.

It is common knowledge that institutions in the public as well as the private sector are making increasing use of identity cards on which the name and usually at least the initials and surname of the holder of the card appear.

These entry cards or identity cards are a useful form of proof of a person’s identity, which is often accepted these days even outside the environment for which it is meant. The cards used for the Parliament building and the Hendrik Verwoerd building are good examples of this.

The acceptability which such cards have gained is probably due to the knowledge that those organizations which make use of the card systems will also guard against any possible abuses which may harm their own intersts.

†Mr. Speaker, an increasing number of voters are in possession of forms of documentary proof of identity that are generally acceptable but cannot be used for election purposes, solely because they are not covered by the existing provisions. It is in the interest of these voters that the amendment which will extend the number of documents acceptable as proof of a voter’s identity, is proposed.

The Select Committee on the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, the Coloured Persons Representative Council Amendment Bill and the South African Indian Council Amendment Bill agreed to this proposed amendment contained in clause 75 of the Bill they considered.

When the clause was considered, the Select Committee also recommended the insertion in the Act of a requirement which is now proposed in clause 1(b) of the Bill before the House.

The proposed amendment will have the effect that voters without any documentary proof of identity, will only be allowed to vote after they have been identified on affidavit by another voter who has a prescribed document, and after they have stated on oath or solemn declaration that they are the persons whose names appear on the voters’ list and that they have not yet voted at that election in the electoral division concerned, or in any other division.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, this Bill deals with the identification of voters during an election, and does so in two respects. Firstly, it means that in future a wider range of identity documents will be accepted, and secondly, the procedure which will be adopted when a voter arrives at the polls without the necessary identification is being extended.

Over the years considerable progress has been made in this respect. Until recently, there was no such requirement written into the Electoral Act. No provision was made that a person could not arrive at the polls without any documentary identification whatsoever, whereas the only procedure in terms of which malpractices could be combated, merely consisted of an official of the Opposition party being able to challenge the voter concerned to furnish proof of his identity. Therefore, we have made real progress in this respect. I believe one should give credit for this as well. Of course, in situations of this nature one must always see to it—and this also has a bearing on what the hon. the Minister said—that there is a healthy balance between the requirements for identification in order to prevent malpractices at elections and making things unnecessarily difficult for voters who do, in fact, turn up at the polls. Because of increasing urbanization, there are more and more people who do not know one another. In a constituency such as my own, one finds that easily one-third of the population disappears between elections. The turnover of population is so great that it is very difficult for individuals living in that constituency to get to know one another so well, that really effective control can be exercised at such a poll without any form of documentary proof being required. On the other hand, there is always the problem that people are awaiting an identity document because they applied for it late, because there is a delay at the department, because an alteration has to be effected, etc., etc. In such a situation a voter often finds himself in the position that he does not have that documentation to use at such an election. There is no doubt that this Bill alleviates the position in this respect and that it is, in fact, a step in the right direction. As the hon. the Minister has said, it is a measure which resulted from the Select Committee on electoral legislation, a Select Committee on which I was privileged to serve, and in that sense, of course, we support it wholeheartedly.

I just wish to make the point that it is actually a pity that more aspects of this legislation are not being put into operation now. Of course, we can understand that there are sound reasons for this and that certain aspects of it should not be put into operation at this stage, since there are people who have to be consulted, and so on. However, if one proceeds from the standpoint that certain of the recommendations which have to be put into operation in time for the forthcoming by-elections should, in fact, be put into operation, then one may as well have put some of the other recommendations into operation at this stage as well. I have one specific aspect in mind, and that is the whole question of the onerous demands on political parties who do not yet have representatives in this House who have been elected as such. That is of course the question of the 300 signatures. In that regard, the Select Committee has very definitely made progress. There is a general feeling that the requirements at present on the Statute Book are too onerous. There is also the feeling that it is unnecessary and that it does not necessarily reflect the true situation as it exists among the South African electorate. Therefore the Select Committee recommended that these requirements be alleviated drastically in comparison with the position as it is at present. I just wish to express the standpoint that since the Select Committee has now unanimously decided that the requirements should, in fact, be relaxed in that respect. I think that it is perhaps a pity that this decision is not being implemented at this stage before the by-election takes place. Already it has become the new fashion in elections to come to the electoral officer with a large number of signatures. They are there and in some of the constituencies where the parties come forward with an impressive number of signatures … [Interjections.] I thought the hon. members of the CP would react to that. If I could just have a word with the CP, I wish to tell them that I find it surprising that they do not have more signatures in a constituency in which they have the least chance.

Where is that?

In Waterkloof. In any case, they may ponder that a while longer. However, I think it is a matter to which the hon. the Minister should give his attention, and I think that if there is any possibility of the recommendations of this Select Committee as a whole not being transformed into legislation in the near future, he should seriously consider alleviating the situation in this respect before any further by-elections take place.

We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset it seemed as though the hon. member for Green Point would make an extremely fine speech, but he could not resist dragging in a few political issues towards the end when he discussed matters which really had very little to do with this legislation. He need not be ashamed to refer to hon. members on his left. We are aware that they are to the right of him, but it so happens that they are sitting on his left. But he need not be upset about that.

When are you going to resign?

I shall resign when the hon. member for Rissik tells us when he is going to offer himself for re-election in Rissik.

On the occasion of the next election. [Interjections.]

The Electoral Act determines the rules of the game. This is not a contentious measure, and the official Opposition have pledged their support for it in any case. We thank them sincerely for this, and we do not wish to begin with an argument about the matter.

The crux of this measure is that everything possible should be done to ensure that a registered voter is not disenfranchised. The amendments which are to be effected to the Electoral Act are twofold. Firstly, it simply concerns the extension of the way in which a voter may identify himself when he goes to cast his vote. At present, a voter may use his identity document, his driver’s licence or his passport, and all we are doing now is to afford him the opportunity of using a document which has been issued to him by the State or by any other institution, but with the proviso that his photograph and his name shall appear on it. We have all received cards which we use here in Parliament and this is an extremely good example of such a document. All organizations are security conscious, and all one wants at an election is that the voter whose name appears on the voters’ list is able to identify himself as the person concerned. If he is able to do this, a ballot paper shall be issued to him. Of course, in this respect, it should be left to the discretion of the electoral officer to decide which document he will accept.

This is definitely a vast improvement. All of us, with the exception of a few hon. members who are always fortunate to be elected to this House unopposed, find it a source of irritation when a voter arrives at the polls without having an identity document with him. Therefore the new provisions facilitate matters.

Secondly, this measure makes it possible for a voter who arrives at the polls without an identity document to avail himself of the rule that another voter whose name appears on the voters’ list of the same constituency, may identify him by way of an affidavit. We must admit that one is virtually placing the onus on another voter in the constituency instead of on that specific voter who wishes to vote. The onus rests with the voter to have his name placed on the voters’ list, as well as to prove that he is the voter whose name appears on the voters’ list. All this measure is providing for is that when a person arrives at the polls without identification, he may sign an affidavit himself that he is the person who will cast a vote.

The Select Committee on which I also had the privilege of serving, discussed this matter in depth. It was also a recommendation of that Select Committee. Hon. members who saw the draft legislation will know that it had already been incorporated in it. Hon. members may also go and look at the recommendations of the Select Committee.

I conclude by saying that in my opinion it is a sound measure. Apart from assisting a voter to record his vote, it is also a measure which is aimed at eliminating irregularities. If a voter wishes to take a chance and vote a second time, it places him in the position that he himself has to sign an affidavit in which it is stated that he is the voter whose name appears on the voters’ list. This is an extremely sound measure and I think we should give the hon. the Minister all the support possible.

Mr. Speaker, a measure such as this is concerned with the rules of the game, and in this House it is customary that when the issue is the rules of the game, we see whether we can reach a high degree of unanimity on it. There has been a Select Committee, and we adopted a specific standpoint there. Our party supports this measure. The Chief Whip of the governing party came to speak to me about this matter before the time and explained the situation to me clearly. I wish to thank him for doing so.

Hon. members to my left and to my right have spoken in accordence with the spirit of the period of elections we are facing. [Interjections.] My party is extremely keen to fight an election. [Interjections.] Since the hon. the Minister and I are seated directly opposite one another and therefore look directly into one another’s eyes, I wish to tell him that it is a pity that old friends have to oppose one another in this way. As far as this legislation is concerned, however, the hon. the Minister has our support, not only for this legislation itself, but also for the spirit of the approach to election day itself. Our standpoint is that in a democracy it should be made as easy as possible for the voter to be able to vote. One should see to it that the day itself progresses in an orderly way and that one does one’s best to ensure that a man or a woman is able to cast his or her vote in an orderly way. [Interjections.] In this regard we should like our legislation to be implemented in an orderly, purposeful and satisfactory way. I now wish to inform the hon. the Minister of the fact—in the old days I would have said that I challenge him—that we agree on the rules of the game, but in future debates on these matters, both inside and outside this House, we shall have to stand man against man and weigh up principle against principle. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in view of his statement, is the hon. member for Rissik prepared, man against man, standpoint against standpoint, to go with me and hold meetings from hostel to hostel with the students of the University of Pretoria?

I think that is a very reasonable question, and if I may be permitted, I should like to reply to it.

Yes, you may reply.

The hon. member of that party whom I first want in Rissik, with whom I wish to have a few words there … [Interjections.] is the hon. the Minister of National Education.

Then you will see a thing or two! [Interjections.]

Then, when I have dealt with him, I should very much like to see the hon. member for Innesdal in Rissik, and I should also like to meet him in his own constituency. [Interjections.] I would like to do that very much.

I have just addressed those few short words to the hon. the Minister because we should very much like to have a word or two with the hon. the Minister in the Transvaal.

I should just like to conclude by saying that we have no problem with this legislation. However, while we are speaking about electoral legislation, I simply wish to say that to me it was surprising that in compiling the voters’ list for the by-elections in the Transvaal, there was such a tremendous increase in the number of voters. Of course, this does not matter to us, since our majority will only be greater. [Interjections.] However, it is interesting that with the new system of identity documents, so many more voters have been added to the voters’ list. At this late stage in the proceedings, with the Easter recess at hand, I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that we support this legislation. We shall also support all the stages.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Whip said I should try not to speak for longer than 30 minutes. [Interjections.] I shall gladly abide by that. Of course, the principle of this legislation, as has already been said, is to make it as easy as possible for the voter to be able to vote. I think this is probably one of the very best principles we could include now. What we ought to do, is to try and eliminate all the obstacles which could be placed in someone’s way on election day. One of the things which is going to happen now which will be extremely practical, is the fact that we are going to recognize these little identity cards. Many voters feel that there is so much red tape on election day that it is really a drudgery to go and vote if one does not have one’s identity document with one. The identity cards which companies issue, are cards which one carries with one throughout the day in order to gain access to one’s place of employment. Therefore if one goes to vote directly after work—and this happens in most cases—then one has this document with one and one does not first have to go home to fetch one’s identity documents, driver’s licence or another document. In other words, one can go and vote immediately.

The second section of the amending Bill before us makes provision for something else. The CP is inclined to conjure up spectres. After all, it is they who see spectres behind everything. Now we should very much like to help them. What we want to do, is to eliminate spectres. The spectres we want to eliminate, are these spectres who rise up from the grave and come and make a cross with a ghostly hand. I am sure that is another reason why those hon. members are supporting this legislation. With this affidavit the voter has to sign, a declaration which states that it is in fact he, we hope to lay all these spectres to rest so that they will not appear again.

I should like to support this Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that we have another hour and 57 minutes to go to partake in this interesting debate. Three of my colleagues are waiting also to come in on the Second Reading and, of course, we have amendments which we will be putting in the Committee Stage, so it should not take too long! [Interjections.] We, too, will be supporting this measure. Let me hasten to add that I am not going to take too long over it, because there is a certain festive spirit in the House this afternoon.

The second half of this amending Bill is the one which I believe does the most good in that the person claiming a certain identity now has to swear an affidavit in his or her own writing to say that he or she is that person. In this regard there has always been a problem. One is still going to find that there will be people who come without any form of identity. What we are doing here as far as a form of identity is concerned is, I think, a tremendous improvement. In respect of the odd people who do come without any form of identity, there is however still a problem and I believe we are doing the right thing here. A similar amendment was moved by the chairman of the Select Committee at the time, namely the hon. Chief Whip on the Government side, the hon. member for Ty-gervallei. It is a good amendment because the individual concerned will now have to sign his own name on a declaration.

I am reminded of a little old lady about the same age as the hon. member for Groote Schuur, about that vintage …

Really?

That little old lady came up to me in the last election and spoke to me for about five minutes. By then she had just about convinced me that I had known her for 20 years. Then she said: “You know, Mr. Page, I always vote Nationalist.” All of a sudden I could not remember her anymore. [Interjections.] Believe you me, Sir, the recognition that flared up from the NP table then was quite remarkable, and the old lady certainly got to cast her vote. Somebody recognized her!

On that note let me say it gives us pleasure to support this measure. We look forward to the day when we can see the work of the Select Committee in its entirety come to fruition and when we can amend the entire Electoral Act. Hopefully we will still be able to do so during this session of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for the support of the party he represents. Similarly, I should like to thank all the other hon. members who participated, on our side the hon. members for Turffontein and Stilfontein, for supporting and further elucidating this Bill so competently. I also want to thank hon. members of the PFP and of the CP for their support. In the full realization of my responsibility, standing here more or less like a starter with a gun in my hand ready to let the Easter weekend begin, I am not going to be lured by the contributions of the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Rissik and their provocation to go beyond the rules of the game. The hon. member for Green Point complained because one-third of his constituents disappeared. I do not blame them. I am sure they move to National Party constituencies where they are better represented.

The hon. member referred to the draft Bill drawn up by the Select Committee. I want to tell him that we really intend to try to dispose of that Bill in the course of this parliamentary session. It was not possible to effect the alleviation in respect of the signatures properly and in time before nomination day, otherwise we would have done that as well. This Bill is intended to allow the benefit of the work of the Select Committee to be felt during the coming by-elections. I believe that we shall be able to discuss the other matters which the hon. member raised more fruitfully when that Bill is tabled.

The hon. member for Rissik is in the mood for elections. He said it was a pity that old friends were opposing one another and that he was challenging me. I want to tell him that I am not fighting anyone. I am fighting unjust standpoints and unwise policies. So he can quarrel with me as much as he likes. I am fignting the CP because of its dead-end policies and not the hon. member as an individual.

I gladly share a platform with other politicians here in the House. This House is the place where we have to debate against one another. As for the challenges of hon. members who are no longer in the House, let them win their election first, and then they can come and debate here with me. In the meantime I am talking to the voters because it is the voters who have to decide for whom they are going to vote and which party they are going to support. Since the hon. member for Rissik has such an appetite for elections. I want to tell him that we do not talk about our appetite. We are already fighting the elections. Things are going very well. In fact, we are finding it plain sailing in all of the four constituencies. [Interjections.]

The hon. member referred to the increase in the number of voters. That is indeed true. We were surprised, too. It shows how careless our people are when it comes to changes of address or reregistration. Surely many of these voters are people who moved quite some time ago and did not report their changes of address for the purposes of the population register, and did not apply for registration in the areas in which they are now settled either. I hope the Department of Internal Affairs will be able to more or less solve this problem in due course. I am sure that the announcement of the referendum will at least ensure that the population register and voters’ rolls will be brought up to date once again.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can tell us whether this additional number of people who have now appeared on the voters’ roll were registered at their previous addresses. Did the RV1 date apply, or which date applied?

It has been determined that none of these people completed an RV1 card elsewhere. In other words, preference was given to RV1 cards. If a person completed an RV1 card at his new address, he was placed on that voters’ roll and the address in the population register was changed accordingly. In other words, those people who have been added from the population register, have not completed RV1 cards elsewhere since they moved and did not submit their changes of address for the purposes of the population register either. Quite a number still live in their old constituencies, of course, and did not complete RV1 cards although they did change their addresses. That is why they are now on the voters’ roll. That was the intention of the amending legislation last year.

With these few words, and in order not to encroach any further upon the freedom of hon. members in view of the weekend, I recommend the legislation to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.