Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday evening, I was reacting to the accusation of the hon. member for Yeoville, and of the party he represents of course, concerning the failure of the Government to plan for the economic, political and social needs of the country.

It must be a terrible experience to have such a cynical attitude to one’s own country that one is incapable of saying anything positive about one’s country and its achievements. If the hon. member and other hon. members would only look around them, they would observe in the first place that the South African economy, besides a well-developed modern sector, also has a lesser developed sector in which at least two-thirds of the population of this country finds itself. In the second place they will observe that the economic priority objectives of the country in respect of economic growth and in respect of the creation of employment opportunities, which are important objectives of this Government, differ completely from those of developed or First World countries.

In the sphere of economic growth it is true that we had a negative economic growth last year. It is equally true that it is expected—due primarily to the drought conditions—that we shall experience a negative economic growth this year as well.

What other facts did hon. members omit to mention? I am referring to facts which they omitted to mention so as to get at the Government, only to harm the country in the process. During the past five years the average economic growth rate of the country in real terms was almost 4%, compared to growth rates of 1,5%, minus 1,5%, 1,7%, 1,5% and 4,4% in our country’s most important trading partners, viz. the USA, the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and Japan. It is not much lower than the expected growth rate projected in the Economic Development Programme for the period 1978 to 1987. Is this not an achievement of which all hon. members of this House ought to be proud? Secondly, if we look at the other objective, viz. employment opportunities, we see that the average unemployment rate according to the current population survey for Coloureds and Blacks and the registered unemployed Whites and Asians at the end of last year was 6,4%, compared with 10% and 13% in the USA and Britain respectively. Once again, they deliberately omitted to mention what the progress and success of our country has been, even in comparison with the developed countries of Europe and North America. Surely this did not happen by chance. Let me say that it is a great achievement for a country with such an open economy as South Africa. And this was the result—so I maintain—of a thoroughly planned economic policy strategy, a strategy which was announced during the Carlton Conference on 11 November 1979 and which has been further refined in close co-operation with the private sector, through the agency of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister. Thirdly, economic growth not only was identified as an economic policy objective but also the creation of sufficient employment opportunities, a socially acceptable division of income, a balanced regional development, the safeguarding—I want to emphasize this—of this country’s economy against external economical, political and security threats, price stability and the successful handling of the balance of payments. Within this framework and within the framework of the planned policy strategy we have made great progress. I shall refer to only a few examples.

In the sphere of manpower all discriminatory measures have been eliminated from our labour legislation. This has not only increased the occupational mobility, but also the horizontal mobility of labour. In addition, training facilities have been made available and adjustments in respect of training have been made which have, inter alia, resulted in an increase, between 1980 and 1981, of more than 60% in respect of the number of persons receiving in-service training in this country. Then, too, we can consider the creation of infrastructure in this country. The fact that as far as this is concerned, the demands of the country’s economy have been met in regard to the provision of water and electricity, the generation of electricity, transport facilities as well as various other spheres. As a result of the fact that imports and exports comprise an important part of the economic policy strategy in this country, more than R1 500 million has recently been spent on transportation and harbour facilities. As far as the provision of fuel for South Africa is concerned, the position has improved so considerably during the past few years that after the completion of Sasol 2 and 3, at an estimated cost of R6 000 million, the country will be self-sufficient as far as 40% of its liquid fuel requirements are concerned. Is there nothing in these achievements to motivate hon. members on the opposite side to feel proud of their own country?

Of course.

Let us see what is happening in the sphere of education. As far as education for all population groups is concerned, the spending in real terms during the past eight years has risen by 9% per annum.

That is poor.

An hon. member says that that is poor. But what are the facts? Whereas in 1970 there were 2 360 Black matriculants, there were 23 086 in 1980 and the figure is expected to be 72 000 in 1990 and 187 000 in the year 2000. Is it not a fact that these figures are better than those of any other comparable country in the world? Why should we, when we criticize the Government, disparage the country to the extent to which those hon. members do? [Interjections.]

In the sphere of economic regional development, too, phenomenal progress has been made. Between 1 April last year and the present, more than 700 applications have been received to make investments in decentralized areas and in the national States in terms of the new economic decentralization development programme. This represents an investment of R1 425 million, which will create employment opportunities for more than 55 000 people, while the figures for last year were 355 applications, representing an amount of R904 million, and the creation of employment opportunities for 28 000 people. What I would like to know is: When do we stand up and say that in spite of mistakes, wonderful achievements have been made in this country?

Finally, in this connection, let us consider the financial policy. Thanks to thorough financial planning and a proper process of priority determination in respect of spending by the public sector, the Government has succeeded in spite of the demands made on it, in reducing its own participation in the economy, expressed as a percentage of the total spending in the country, from 36,1% in 1977 to 31,6% in 1981, so as to create more opportunity for the private sector. On what basis can the Government be accused of not having planned in the economic sphere?

Next I should like to come to the accusation that the Government did not plan in the constitutional sphere. The fact of the matter is that every constitutional event in this country occurred under the regime of the NP Government. I want to go further. It is a fact that constitutional reform is not an isolated act of a specific Prime Minister or a specific Government at a specific juncture. The process of constitutional reform and change is an on-going and continuous process under the leadership of successive hon. Prime Ministers of this country. Let us consider the situation. During the past three decades the NP Government has shown spectacular progress in the sphere of constitutional development. Without advance planning and resultant consultation and co-operation with the affected population groups, we would not have accomplished the achievements that we have in fact accomplished.

What was the object of this planning? Firstly that constitutional structures would be created in which each one of South Africa’s citizens in a group context—in other words, with the recognition of multinationalism and of minorities—and also in an individual context could have a meaningful share in the decisions affecting their lives. I am not alleging that this process is complete. I am saying that this process is proceeding in a peaceful way in the limiting circumstences in this country. Secondly, the object was that there should be the greatest measure of self-detemination over group-specific matters. Thirdly, the object was that structures should be created for the exercise of joint responsibility over matters of common interest where circumstances required us to do so. Fourthly, the object was to eliminate the politics of domination and discrimination, and that is no new idea. The NP owes its origin to the desire to get away from domination. Consequently, the constitutional course which we pursued—but with which those hon. members need not agree—is a course which ensures that the domination of one group over another will also be eliminated in future. The fact that we are not doing this in accordance with the pattern of the official Opposition does not detract in any way from the object and success of that course.

However, this Government went further and gave substance to its constitutional planning objectives. Firstly, the Government had regard to the reality and was therefore unable to ignore the plural character of the population. Secondly, it could not ignore the developing character of the country and, thirdly, it could not ignore our aspirations to maintain a democratic character. The Central Government, i.e. the people who are in power, those various authorities, the governmental institutions among the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black—participated in this creative process. But where was the official Opposition? Surely it is a fact that there were people and bodies inside and outside this Parliament that did not participate, or that did not want to participate, in this creative process I am referring to. [Interjections.] I now wish to confine myself specifically to the official Opposition, to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party, and I want to ask him: Where were they and their spiritual forebears in 1960 when a referendum was held in this country? Where were they in 1961 when we introduced a constitution which terminated foreign domination of this country? Where were they when legislation in respect of the symbols of Statehood was passed in this House? Where did they stand in respect of the citizenship legislation? Where did they stand in respect of the legislation on the flag? Where did those hon. members stand when sovereignty was granted to four Black territories? They opposed it. What are they doing now to make the process of negotiation for the formation of confederal guidelines in an overall South African context possible? Where were they when the President’s Council was established? Where do they stand in regard to participation in that body? I shall come back to this in a moment. What was their standpoint, and what is it going to be, in respect of the constitutional proposals which will be introduced in this House?

What proposals?

Just give me a chance. I cannot understand the hon. the leader’s curiosity. He has already gone through four phases in this respect.

Yes, but you are the cause of that.

He underwent four changes, and now his interest, strangely enough, is quite suddenly such that one of his colleagues laid untrue accusations at my door in that connection, which I shall also still deal with.

What happened to the hon. members? There are two reports in regard to the establishment of the President’s Council which were signed by various hon. members. The one contained the recommendations on the establishment of the President’s Council. All parties here shared the standpoint that “one man, one vote” in the same institution in this country would entail conflict and strife, with disastrous consequences for South Africa. Hon. members of the Opposition signed it.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

They signed it. They cannot argue about that.

The facts are there.

At the moment you are occupied with half-truths.

I shall go further. In this connection hon. members of the CP signed something else. What they appended their signatures to was that the task of investigation, consultation, negotiation and the giving of advice in respect of a future constitutional dispensation in the country was to be left in the hands of a multi-racial President’s Council. If one looks at the relevant report, one finds that they said who the members of the proposed President’s Council could be. I am quoting from the interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution, paragraph 10. With reference to the qualifications of members of the President’s Council, it is stated there that in order to qualify to become a member of the President’s Council, a person should be at least 30 years old and should be a member of the White, Coloured, Indian or Chinese population group, but outside this House the Government is being accused, in a mendacious way, of creating institutions which are multi-racial. What is more, that is not all that was signed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also signed another document.

It is high time you told the truth.

That hon. member should simply try to understand it, because the way he is behaving now, he cannot understand the truth. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sign? His signature is appended to this report. He signed the final report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Constitution. What did he sign? Some of the hon. members of the CP also signed it. Their signatures are also there. Recommendation No. 7 reads—

We all signed it. What else did all of us sign? I read further—

The PFP signed a recommendation which read that, in the first place, the President’s Council was better able to furnish advice on the Constitution than they here in the House of Assembly or in the commission. The hon. members of the CP did precisely the same thing, and as a result they made a third recommendation, which was that we refer the evidence we took in the commission to the President’s Council.

Did you also sign it?

Yes, I did. Of course I did. [Interjections.] In the first place they signed away their power to advise properly in regard to this subject. But then, however, they refused to participate in the institution to which they said we should refer these matters. They refused to serve in that institution. This is the kind of equivocation, the kind of duality of standpoint, which we find among those people. [Interjections.]

Chris, it has been a long time since you last read the report.

I have the report here in front of me.

Then you cannot be much of an expert. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Green Point opens his mouth, his common sense forsakes him. [Interjections.] What is the CP’s standpoint at the moment. Hon. members of the CP must not take this amiss of me, but I want to allege that the dignity and stature of this House, as regards persons in and outside this House, is maintained in a variety of ways. One of them, Mr. Speaker, is by your maintenance of order. In another way of doing it is through our own personal actions. I now want to allege that during this debate, people functioned on a political level which was not only to their own discredit, but which jeopardized this highest institution in our country which we all wish to maintain. [Interjections.]

What criticism is the CP now levelling at the Government, Mr. Speaker? I believe that their criticism can be divided into three categories. In the first place it relates to the allegation that our proposals represent a mixed government. Their next fundamental charge against us is that this affects the sovereignty of the White Parliament. In the third place their charge involves the powers of the President’s Council.

It is now submission, Mr. Speaker, that either the CP is employing lies in the by-elections or that they themselves have been living a lie. The choice as to which one of these two is correct they must make themselves. They vote in favour of a President’s Council which would be multiracial, and for a President who could be a White, a Coloured or an Asian. That is what they voted for, Mr. Speaker. In the second place they voted in favour of a right to make decisions which either the one or the other Parliament could have over the White Parliament or over the Coloured Parliament, the Coloured Parliament or over the Asian Parliament, and/or vice versa, as far as matters of common interest were concerned. They voted in favour of a Council of Cabinets in which there would not merely happen to be people of colour, but which would also contain a previously determined number of people of colour—seven Whites, four Coloureds and three Asians. Whether or not they had any merit did not matter. They voted in favour of the powers and functions of the Council of Cabinets, which would entail that it would initiate legislation on matters of common interest, would introduce it in the various Parliaments, and that it would ultimately be implemented by the Council of Cabinets; the Council of Cabinets, which would be a mixed body. All I am asking is this: If those hon. members have changed their standpoint, they should be man enough to say so. However, they should not blazon a lie abroad, because that is not the way in which one should practise politics in this country.

Finally, hon. members of the CP also voted in favour of joint committees on which Whites, Coloureds and Asians would together have representation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I could devote my entire time to replying to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, but I think the matters that he raised were largely raised for election purposes in Waterkloof, Waterberg en Soutpansberg. He was trying to do a tight-rope walk in order to accommodate the voters of all those areas. As for the constitutional proposals, we do not know what they are going to be and I therefore leave it to my hon. colleagues to reply to him when we do in fact finally have the Bill before this House and also during the discussion of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. However, I do want to say to the hon. the Minister that if a Minister had to give a recital of the achievements of South Africa over the last 35 years and if that Minister did not belong to this Government, that recital would have been very different indeed. For the hon. the Minister to come and boast that there are now no discriminatory measures in the labour setup …

I did not say that.

Well, I heard the hon. the Minister say that job reservation was no more …

He is conceding that there still is.

Didn’t the hon. the Minister say there are no more job reservations? He said that right at the beginning of his speech. For a man to come here and boast that this Government has removed job reservation from the Statute Book when it is the very same Government that put those job reservations on the Statute Book originally seems to me to be ironic. Does the hon. the Minister realize what that has done to retard growth rate in South Africa?

Can you tell us what happened in the mines in relation to job reservation?

I am dead against the job reservation law in the mines and so, I may say, are the mine owners. The people who are frightened to remove job reservation in the mines are the Government itself because they do not want to tangle with the White Mineworkers’ Union, and that has been the case for many years. The hon. the Minister knows that. If we had had a Government in power that had been able to use the labour resources of this country to the full and had it educated people properly and trained them, we would have had a very different picture indeed of the economy from the one which the hon. the Minister gave us today. The hon. the Minister’s boast about the pathetic growth rate in this country takes no note of the fact that our population growth is much greater than that, for instance, of the USA and that the per capita growth of this country is now down to a miserable 1%. That is what the hon. the Minister should have been talking about.

Sir, what has happened to the hon. the Minister of Law and Order?

He has run away.

Will somebody kindly get him back, because I want him here? I asked for him yesterday to be present and I need his presence badly. I put some questions on the Order Paper for today to which the hon. the Minister has replied, but, unfortunately, the answers he gave me in no way satisfy me and I intend to say exactly what I intended to say before he replied to the questions about the case of Mr. Saul Mk-hize. The hon. the Minister stated in his reply today that he did not want to give any explanation because investigations were pending. He nevertheless gave us a very lengthy description of what he has been told by the Public Relations Department of the Police as to what happened on that fateful Saturday, 2 April. The ugly incident involving Saul Mkhize was raised the other day very ably by the hon. member for Durban Central. I want to add to what he has said. This incident has hit the headlines. I was recently overseas and Mkhize’s death occupied space in all the major newspapers in Great Britain. I also saw editorials from The Washington Post. It has been the subject of articles in magazines with huge readerships. I believe that it has co-opted to the anti-South African cause thousands upon thousands of decent people who by no stretch of the imagination can be called communists or who could be considered to be part of the “total onslaught” against South Africa. I think that the violent death of Saul Mkhize has, as the hon. member for Durban Central mentioned, highlighted the heartlessness of the whole policy of removals. It has added to the long, sad list of reprehensible actions that have accompanied the removal of at least 2 million people in South Africa, removals from urban townships to the homelands and from rural Black spots, and from White farms when the labour tenant system was abolished. I say that irrespective of the reason for these removals, the result has been the same every where. It has been misery. It has meant loss of livelihood and it has meant the necessity for commuting long distances to those jobs that could still be held. It has meant an increase in the migrant labour system and it has meant further overcrowding and impoverishment in homelands that were already overcrowded and impoverished. This is the case particularly in the Eastern Cape and Natal.

It was the desire to avert such a dismal future for his own community and an earnest attempt to prevent the desecration of the graves of the ancestors of that community that motivated Saul Mkhize. This was a moderate man. I knew him well personally. He came to see me early last year to enlist my aid to try to persuade the hon. the Minister not to go ahead with the removal of the people from Driefontein. I believe that some 5 000 people were involved in the Driefontein scheme, and in the adjoining areas of Daggakraal and Ngema another 5 000 people were involved, all in the area of Wakkerstroom. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development will remember that I visited him last year in an effort to see whether the removal could not be stopped. These people were to be removed to two areas. The community was going to be split up. One section was to be sent to kwaZulu and the other to Kangwane near Swaziland. They were told that the reason for their removal was that a dam was to be constructed, I think on the Assegaai River, and they were told that this would result in their land being inundated. They did not believe the dam story. Nobody bothered to explain it to them properly in any case. They were simply told that they were going to be removed, and correspondence between Mr. Mkhize and the hon. the Minister shows that they were told that the matter could not be reconsidered and that was that. The hon. the Prime Minister claims that he did not receive the letter which Mr. Mkhize’s relatives maintain that he wrote before he died.

These people believe that the real reason why they are being removed is because they are living in what is known as a Black spot. They own land in a White area, which makes it a Black spot. At Driefontein there are only about 300 landowners but the land is sublet to tenants who do a little subsistence farming on their own behalf and also have jobs in Johannesburg and elsewhere. The landowners have land title which dates back to 1912, and these people do not understand why their title deeds do not protect them against removal. Neither can they understand why their thoroughly integrated community—intermarriage has gone on for many years—is now going to be split up on completely false ethnic lines. Therefore, there is a very long and unpleasant history to the whole Driefontein case which was told me by Mr. Mkhize himself. There are official attempts being made to divide the community and to persuade people to sign affidavits to say that they are quite prepared to move. A community board was set up with a compliant chairman. It was disbanded, having been proved to have been invalidly elected, and Mr. Mkhize was thereafter elected as chairman of the new board. Constant harassment was then the lot of Mr. Mkhize. The magistrate of the area refused to recognize his authority despite his election. His son, Paris, 17 years of age, was arrested when he arrived home from school in Swaziland and was badly beaten up by the local police. A charge of assault has been laid but so far all attempts to arrange an identification parade have failed. Local farmers have refused the Driefontein people access to water supplies. If all this does not amount to forced removal I do not know what does. So the ugly saga continued until 2 April, that fatal Saturday, when Mkhize went home from Johannesburg in order to call a meeting to try to get support for a petition and to unite his people against removal.

We know from eyewitness reports what happened at that meeting at which Saul Mkhizi lost his life. The police report which the hon. the Minister related to us today stated that the constable responsible for the death of Saul Mkhize shot him in self-defence. I want to say that I find this report totally unacceptable, and hon. members should be reminded that there were at least 300 eyewitnesses to what happened on that morning. Mkhize was shot with a shotgun which was loaded with No. 1 shot. He was shot by a constable who was standing next to his van which was outside the 1,8 metre fence which surrounds the school grounds where the meeting was taking place. Mkhize was shot when he was 15 metres away, standing inside the school yard which was surrounded by the high fence. The crowd had already dispersed and there could not possibly have been any danger to the police.

It is my firm belief that the constable either lost his head or that he had decided that Mkhize was just a Black troublemaker with whom he could deal in any way that he saw fit. The hon. the Minister denies that it was this young man who the next day went to the house of the Mkhizes and rode their horse. That story is still to be disproved.

I have no doubt that neither the constable nor the superior officer of the local police station at Piet Retief nor the authorities in Pretoria nor the hon. the Minister of Law and Order who is not here today, had an inkling of what a storm of protest the killing of Saul Mkhize would provoke at home or abroad. It was never envisaged that the shooting of someone considered to be an insignificant Black man in a remote rural area, would have such a profound effect.

When, however, it finally dawned on the Government, when the protests came into our embassies abroad, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information was constrained to express regrets about the Mkhize incident—somewhat late in the day, but better late than never.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Law and Order that any attempt to cover up or to condone the actions of the constable would make things infinitely worse. I have told the hon. the Minister before and I want to tell him again that his misplaced loyalty to his men which prevents him from publicly condemning the outrageous actions of some of the men, his implicit condonation which result in his transferring instead of dismissing the culprits, is a denigration of all those men in the Police Force who do their best to uphold the best traditions of the Force. Worse still, he and his predecessors lead young policemen like Constable Nienaber to believe that anything they do, especially to Black people, will be condoned. [Interjections.] This attitude manifests itself over and over again in South Africa. We saw it in the huge number of people shot dead by the police last year. We saw it in the tragic mistake a few weeks ago. We saw it two days ago when there was a report in the paper that the police shot, in peak-hour traffic, where there were innocent passers-by, in an attempt to arrest a car thief. We saw it on Easter Saturday when Saul Mkhize was killed.

I now want to turn to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Does he really believe that providing piped water, a school, tents for a few months, materials to construct a house, and rations for three days—I have never discovered what happens on the fourth day—does not amount to the forced removal of settled communities? What becomes of rural subtenants who are now moved into closer settlement areas? What happens to those who lose their jobs in the original district when they are moved to areas where there are no jobs? What happens to the structures which are torn down? I want to ask the hon the Minister how much personal attention does he pay to letters written to him concerning the lives of the thousands upon thousands of people for whom he is responsible. I want to know why these people have to be moved; why the matter “cannot be reconsidered” as he wrote to Mr. Mkhize. Will he tell us something about the dam and does he know that Mr. Mkhize saw the area to which they are to be removed and pronounced it to me to be “horrible”. That was the exact word that he used.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

Mr. Speaker, once again we have come to the end of a wide-ranging and comprehensive debate in this House. It was a debate in which about 60 hon. Ministers and members took part and which covered a very wide area. We had the privilege of listening to quite a number of excellent and good speeches, from hon. members of the Opposition as well—and I shall deal with this in greater detail at a later stage of my reply. However, we also had to listen to a few very peculiar and, I want to say, astonishing speeches in the course of this debate. Mr. Speaker, as you know it has been customary over the years for a Minister of Finance to try to refrain from saying too much about political issues in a financial debate, and I, too, shall also try to observe that tradition. However, I must say that as far as that is concerned, my task has been facilitated a little because the Opposition, particularly the CP, has been devastated to such an extent in this debate that I do not want to add to their discomfort. To me they still appear to be rather bemused this morning.

†As far as the official Opposition is concerned, we have listened to some very remarkable speeches. I must say I was stunned into disbelief when listening for instance, to the hon. member for Parktown yesterday. The hon. member is after all a man who has had the benefit of a good education and he is a man who has travelled. He came to this House yesterday and could say nothing good about his country. Not only could he say nothing good about his country; he found fault with everything. In fact, he said in so many words—and I have his Hansard—that the Government of this country was doing nothing for the great majority of people of this country. That is what he said. I shall come back to that a little later because that is not a statement that can be left unanswered. It flies completely in the face of the facts.

The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. member for Yeoville, informed me of his problem that he could not be here today and I quite accept that. I shall therefore not say very much now about his contribution. I do want to refer, for a minute or two, to the amendment that he moved. In it he says there is virtually no planning, that “… the Government has failed to plan effectively for the economic, social and political future of the Republic …” My colleague the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning replied to that extremely effectively. The point I want to raise with the hon. member for Yeoville, when he is here, is the question of what is meant by planning. What does he mean by planning and what do we, on this side of the House, mean by planning? I think this is one of the most fundamental issues affecting our future because the hon. member for Yeoville is on record as having said that he is a social democrat. He was the chairman of a commission of the PFP into their social and economic policy. One wonders what has happened to that report. We have not heard about it for about two sessions now. [Interjections.] It seems to me, either it has died an ignominious death or it has got lost. I am not sure which of the two. [Interjections.] This is fundamental. We are now coming to fundamentals. If hon. members say that by planning they mean socialist or Marxist planning, then obviously it is correct to say that we are not planning in that way. What we mean by planning is a co-ordination of activities. Our record is absolutely clear for all to see. We stand for private enterprise. Just look at our record on private enterprise. We are not saying that the public sector has no part to play. As a matter of fact, we say it is essential, but we say this country has predominantly a private enterprise economy and we want to keep it so. However, if hon. members do not accept that, then, of course, they will come with the sort of amendment which they have moved. I will come back to this point because I want certain clarifications from the hon. member for Yeoville. I say this goes to the absolute heart of our future. I will therefore come back to that.

I want to mention just one further point while I am speaking. It is not that I pay a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Bryanston, with great respect, but yesterday he acted more like a clown than an hon. member for this House. In the course of his diatribe, he suddenly, without, as I could see, any relevance at all, threw in the compliment that I knew nothing about the constitutional proposals. I am not particularly interested whether he thinks that I know nothing or not, but just as a matter of historical interest the hon. the Prime Minister and I, if I have it right, are the only two members left of the original Cabinet committee of inquiry which started this whole process of constitutional reform.

So you are to be blamed for the whole thing.

I am very honoured to have been part of that original team and I am extremely honoured that I can still be in the Cabinet to see this on-going process being carried through. From the very start we have said all along that this is an on-going process. At no time did we ever create the impression that what we did at any point was perfect, but in the course of time we have constantly been improving this enormous exercise. This is an enormous exercise and we have had no help whatsoever from the official Opposition. [Interjections.] I believe the official Opposition are destroying themselves on the score of their philosophy of government, that there must be Black majority rule in this country. I want to go further by saying that their whole action in turning a complete somersault on the President’s Council and their further behaviour in the whole matter of basic constitutional reform, will be the final nail in their coffin.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this issue was adjourned a little more than two weeks ago, I was in the process of dealing with aspects of the Bill, as well as making mention of the process that is involved in dealing with loans available for the construction of houses for farm employees. I pointed out at the time that agriculture is aware of its responsibilities in this regard and is indeed anxious to implement them. However, I must point out that the agricultural sector, as conscious as it is of improving the living conditions of its employees, does find that the loans that are available through agricultural credit make this an extremely difficult exercise. Farmers are fully aware of the fact that they have a social and moral obligation to their employees. They are anxious to improve their living conditions—as industry is—in order to promote a happy and contented labour force, but the inadequate provisions that are made available to bring this into effect, make it an almost impossible task. To give substance to my contention, I should just like to point out that for the two-year period, 1980 and 1981, the total loans that were made available for Black housing in the agricultural sector amounted to a mere R10 million. The situation slightly improved in 1982 when loans to the tune of R7 million were made available. These are, of course, infinitesimal amounts in relation to the number of workers who are employed overall in agriculture, and bearing in mind the fact that family accommodation is provided on the farm as well.

Let me now turn to certain aspects of the Bill. I note with approval that in the proposed new section 35(a) ministerial authority will no longer be required for the registration of second bond in favour of the State, in cases where the State is the holder of the first bond. This will expedite or facilitate procedures relating to much of the laborious work previously involved. Regulations appertaining to the alienation of land accruing to the State, and conditions applicable to the consolidation of additional land, will facilitate the finalization of these transactions by way of deed endorsements.

I see clause 3 as a measure to regularize the validity of endorsements in connection with the subdivision of land adjoining national roads.

It is obvious that as a result of the drought increased pressure will be placed on all people involved in the processing of applications, the magistrates, agricultural committees right through to the Agricultural Credit Board itself. Therefore it is all the more important for all procedures to be simplified as much as possible so that these applications can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. We in these benches see this legislation as an attempt to achieve this.

We have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude to all hon. members for the good wishes they extended to me on the introduction of this legislation. At the same time I should like to thank all hon. members who offered their support for this measure. Some of the hon. members digressed very widely, covered a wide area, but for all that their support for this measure was always apparent. [Interjections.]

†The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for one, made certain statements which have absolutely no direct bearing on this Bill. He mentioned certain issues which could very well be discussed in the budget debate later on. Nevertheless, I should like to refer very briefly to some of the points raised by the hon. member. He spoke of drought relief measures which are not sufficient. I wonder whether the hon. member is aware of what the drought relief measures entail. Is he? Does he, for instance, know what the introduction of phase 5 under the stock feeding scheme means to the farmer? If he did, I do not think he would make the statement that the drought relief measures are not sufficient. We must take into consideration the cost of these schemes to the State. The extensive drought aid schemes introduced by the Government aim at keeping farmers on their farms. That is the chief aim.

*This is in order that they may survive, and so that they may carry on with production when normal circumstances set in once again, without production being affected. However, the Government and this department were not asleep. We are aware of the fact—and the hon. the Minister and I myself have also acknowledged it in public, as the hon. member in fact quoted in his speech—that there are long term problems in agriculture. Inputs have been made by organized agriculture, by the Jacobs Committee and by our own department, and we are continually giving serious attention to the matter. It is easy to identify the problem, but it is not easy to find solutions.

†The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also touched on a subject on which I think I must enlighten him. He said—

That is what he said, Sir. An amalgamation of the two Acts will deprive the farmer of one of his three sources of possible financial assistance. We have the private sector for, let us say, the rich; we have the Land Bank for the less rich; and we have the Agricultural Credit Board for the least rich. If the Land Bank should, after amalgamation, have to assist the category-3 farmer—I hope the hon. member knows what a category-3 farmer is—on the same basis as is at present being done by the Agricultural Credit Board, it will either have to be heavily subsidized by the Government or it will have to undertake risky financing to the detriment of its reputation on the capital market, which in turn could seriously hamper the Land Bank. Amalgamation cannot in any way benefit the farmer. He only stands to lose. The Land Bank does not at present have the machinery to handle the numerous schemes being administered by the Agricultural Credit Board. The board, or a similar organization, would have to continue to handle these schemes and as a result there cannot be administrative benefit.

*The hon. member for Heilbron, the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Queenstown supported the Bill strongly. We thank them for their support. The hon. member for Heilbron raised a number of matters which do not have a direct bearing on this either, but which are important all the same. The depopulation of the rural areas is a very serious problem, especially in these times of drought. He also mentioned our rotating fund and the problems we experience with the flow-back of funds from borrowers. He also paid tribute to the work that is being done by the Jacobs Committee, the expert advice emanating from that committee. We thank him for it.

The hon. member for Barberton said he would confine himself to the contents of the legislation—which he did—because the legislation was of a purely technical nature.

The hon. member for Queenstown spoke about the elimination of red tape in dealing with drought relief measures as well as agricultural credit aid. This links up with what the hon. member for Mooi River said, and if the hon. member for Queenstown does not mind I shall deal with it while replying to the questions put by the hon. member for Mooi River.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for his support of the Bill. I want to deal mainly with two complaints that he had. He complained about delays and about the funds that were available for farm labourer houses. I think those were the two most important points raised by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Roodeplaat permitted to read a newspaper in the House?

Is the hon. member reading a newspaper for general information or for specific information?

For specific information, Sir.

The hon. member should rather put his newspaper away.

The hon. member for Mooi River said that one regularly receives complaints with regard to delays in the processing of applications for assistance and that it would be appreciated if attention could be given to this particular matter. Past experience has proved that unnecessary delays in the processing of applications are very seldom caused through the lack of effort of the department or the board. In fact the available personnel can only be commended for their efficiency and I can tell hon. members that every member of the department is at this particular moment working overtime in order to handle all the numerous applications for aid that are streaming in. Both the local agricultural credit committees and the Agricultural Credit Board require specific information and documents in order to enable them to consider the applications. Although the requirements in this regard are clearly specified on the application forms, the major cause for delay is the fact that applicants often fail to comply therewith. This failure necessitates the return of the applications in order to get the necessary information and correspondence to request the submission of required documents.

*While I am dealing with this aspect, Mr. Speaker, you must allow me to explain briefly, for the information of this House and perhaps also for the information of the Press, what procedure has to be followed when application is made to the Agricultural Credit Board for assistance. I believe that there is some ignorance in this regard.

In the first place the applicant receives an application form from his local magistrate’s office, which he has to complete in full. In cases such as the repayment of debts, the reminders sent to him by creditors and any summonses he might have received, must be attached to the application. After the applicant has completed the application—this is the second step he has to take—he has to hand it in again at his local magistrate’s office. The magistrate also acts as chairman of the Agricultural Credit Committee, and has to call a meeting of the members of his local Agricultural Credit Committee after receipt of the member’s application. Now who are these people? They are farmers, people who often have to drive great distances to attend such an Agricultural Credit Committee Meeting. Nor is it always easy to get these people together. The magistrate then submits the application to the Agricultural Credit Committee for its consideration. It is often necessary for the members of the Committee to visit the property of the applicant, investigate his farming activities and complete the necessary reports—a personal report as well as an evaluation report. All these things take up a great deal of time. Unfortunately it is not a procedure which can be eliminated however.

Then, after the matter has been dealt with on a local level, the documents are forwarded to the financial assistance section of the Department of Agriculture, where the application is processed. There it is evaluated and then submitted to the Agricultural Credit Board for its decision.

This procedure may seem cumbersome but we must never forget that we are working with public money. Therefore the system must as far as possible eliminate every possible malpractice. We must make sure that only those people who really need it receive assistance.

Further I believe that it must also be noted whether there is any security for these loans granted by the State. I think I have said enough about the procedure which has to be followed. I think that to a great extent it also answers the question which the hon. member for Queenstown put to me.

†The hon. member for Mooi River raised the question of the funds available for the housing of farm labourers. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Agricultural Credit Board keeps itself informed of cost escalations. I have indeed been informed that the board has only recently, very recently, completed a comprehensive investigation of the whole question of housing for farm labourers. It is understood that various adjustments of the present maximum limits of financial assistance are proposed. Any increases will of necessity have to be considered by the Government in view of the funds situation. An announcement in this regard will be made as soon as circumstances permit.

Furthermore, I should like to inform the hon. member for Mooi River that during the financial year 1981-’82 an amount of R3 million was appropriated for housing for farm labourers, while assistance to the value of nearly R3,6 million was actually rendered. The corresponding figures for the financial year 1982-’83 are R3,5 million budgeted, and R5,6 million actually rendered. Most important, of course, is the fact that no application has ever been refused owing to insufficient funds.

*I think this is a great achievement, Mr. Speaker. When applications for housing are received, we keep trying to find the money somewhere in order to be able to grant such housing loans. In this regard I should just like to mention that I paid a visit to the CSIR recently, particularly its section which does research on housing. I think it would be worthwhile for any farmer in this country to arrange an appointment with the CSIR whenever he visits Pretoria. They will receive him with pleasure. He must then have a look at the type of housing that can be built for farm labourers at a much lower cost than is normally the case. I think it would be worthwhile for a farmer to pay such a visit.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is obviously necessary and we support it. We appreciate the fact that agriculture in South Africa is at the moment in a very difficult situation. I believe that this legislation as well as the Land Bank Amendment Bill and one or two other Bills that we have passed in this House recently should bear one thing in mind in regard to the effects of this particular type of legislation. We experienced this during the debate on the Land Bank Amendment Bill as well as during this debate. There is the increasing tendency to draw a distinction between two values of land in agriculture. There is what we call the economic value or the agricultural value, and then there is what is called the market value. I believe that this could be one of the most serious problems that we will have to face in agriculture. What happens at the moment is that a man applies for agricultural assistance and is generally given a valuation based on agricultural value. If his farm is expropriated or if he wants to sell the farm to his neighbour, he does not want agricultural value but market value, and those two values are often quite different. I believe that agriculture in South Africa—and nothing has highlighted this more than the present drought—needs to consider very carefully—the hon. the Minister must also consider this—whether what we should not work towards in this country is a unification of the agricultural and market values. It is only to a large extent in the sugar industry that a man buys a farm not on the basis of its market value. His approach is: What is the sucrose content of the cane and how many tons of cane can I cut? It is on that basis that he obtains a value for the farm and, usually, that value is reflected in the market and is the agricultural value. I believe that this tendency towards separate values is an unfortunate one. In supporting this Bill all I want to say is that I believe that this is a problem of which the hon. the Minister and his department should be aware in dealing with the whole question of the economics of agriculture in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The hon. member referred to a very real problem in agriculture, namely the drastic difference between the economic value and the agricultural or pastoral value of farms. The problem which arises here is not only the result of farmers paying so much money for land, but a large part of the problem also arises because people in the cities, even part-time farmers to whom the economic value of the farm does not matter much, purchase that land. In many cases really high prices are paid in agriculture for farms by people living in the cities. One thinks of the recent television programme, in which there was a discussion about part-time farmers during the course of which it was pointed out that the part-time farmer was able to make far more improvements to the farms than ordinary farmers. That is why the two prices differ so drastically.

There is another problem as well. I can also give the hon. member the assurance that there is no country in the world in which this phenomenon is not common, because it also has to do with the tax structure of the country. After all, there is no land tax because that was part of the feudal system.

However, we are faced by a problem. If, in the present situation in any country, but specifically in South Africa, the value of a farm were to drop to its agricultural value, then three-quarters of the 70 000 farmers who are still farming would become insolvent. Along with them, the farmers’ financial institutions, all the co-operatives in the country, would also become insolvent. I am using “insolvent” in the real sense of the word; they would have to be liquidated.

These are the problems one would be facing if one had to comply with the hon. member’s request that the values be placed on a par. That is why I maintain that although it is a pity that those two values are not on a par it would mean, if they were to be placed on a par, that my product on the one hand would become far more expensive, and on the other, farms would be in far greater demand among people outside agriculture who would want to purchase farms. I hope the hon. member will understand this argument and will not insist on the hon. the Minister taking steps to place these values on a par.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North asked whether we were aware of the problems. I can assure him that nobody can be more aware of the problems than I am. There is a problem. In many cases we find this anomaly that there are two values, an agricultural value and a market value.

*The question we have to ask ourselves is concerned with another matter. When the Department of Agriculture assists a farmer with credit, it helps him to continue farming on that farm. The farmer has to continue farming on that farm. As a result of various factors to which the hon. member for Heilbron also referred, the market value has been inflated to such an extent that if one were to take the production value of that farm as a basis, one would never be able to determine a realistic market value. One could go to any district in the country and one would find that the farmers there say: Anyone who buys here at the present market value, does not have a hope of paying off his purchase loan from what he is able to produce on the farm. This is a fact, and my farming friends will all confirm this. I think the hon. member also knows this.

The reason why we have to place an agricultural value on land when we apply assistance measures, is because we have to make sure that with the production, the revenue the farmer can obtain from that farm, he will in due course be able to pay off the loan which is finked to this reasonable value so that the farm can eventually become his property. I maintain that the agricultural value and the market value influence each other. I want the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North to listen to this. These two values influence each other and in the normal processes of market prices they frequently tend to move closer together. If that hon. member were to take a look at valuations of the Land Bank and of Agricultural Credit during the past 10 years, he would see that agricultural values have shown the same upward tendency as market values. In other words, the agricultural values follow the market values, but on a smaller scale. However, we shall never be able to do away with these two values and Agricultural Credit in particular will never be able to use a value other than the agricultural value when it wants to assist the farmer, because it should be borne in mind that he would be a category 3 farmer who cannot be assisted elsewhere.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although the Republic is one of only seven countries in the world which are net exporters of agricultural products and agricultural raw materials, our country is a poor agricultural country in terms of potential and compared with many other agricultural countries. In spite of this, our agricultural exports increased from R447 million in 1950 to R5 652 million in 1980. 1980 is regarded as a normal year. However, our agricultural resources are deteriorating at a perceptible rate and the high cost of production inputs and the high production levels we have to maintain take their toll, therefore.

May I remind you, Sir, of the fact that only 1,3% of the area of the Republic has a rainfall of more than 1 000 mm a year; that only 15% has a sufficient rainfall for the cultivation of essential crops; that 30% of our country has to be satisfied with less than 250 mm of rain a year and that 16 of our 27 rainfall regions can expect a disastrous drought in at least one out of every three years.

†There is an ever-increasing demand for agricultural land for mining, industries, urbanization, transport facilities, nature areas and the like. Since 1971 more then 221 000 hectares of agricultural land have been claimed for non-agricultural purposes. In 1973 the Republic had only 0,57 hectares of arable land per capita, and this is expected to decrease to 0,4 hectares by the year 2000.

All indications are that the South African farmer has only one option for the future: He will have to be increasingly judicious and thrifty with the agricultural resources. Optimal utilization will be the key to survival, not only of himself, but of the country as a whole. He will have to bear in mind that agricultural production must be based on sound economic principles, but not at the expense of the resources, and that his fanning practices will have to be in harmony with the environment.

The promulgation of the first Soil Conservation Act in 1946 was a milestone in our agricultural history. It fulfilled the then urgent need for suitable legislation to protect our agricultural resources. Since then the State has made vast inputs to further the judicious utilization and conservation of the country’s agricultural potential. More than R130 million has been paid to farmers in the form of subsidies for soil conservation works and other conservation measures. Key soil conservation works erected by the State cost a further R16 million. The contribution by conservation conscious farmers over these years would be hard to calculate, but the monetary value thereof could possibly exceed the input of the State.

Nothwithstanding the good progress towards the optimal utilization of resources, the large inputs by the State and the general awareness with regard to conservation farming, the ideal situation has not yet been reached. A large percentage of our arable land is still unprotected against erosion, and this is one of the main reasons for the excessive silt deposits in our dams and river estuaries.

The quality of our grazing still deteriorates at a perceivable rate. Especially alarming is the increasing desertification of our traditional grazing areas and the increase in weeds and undesirable woody invader plants, especially in the bushveld areas.

*The State’s programme for the rationalization of laws has created the opportunity for a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing measures for combating soil erosion and harmful plants. Although the Bill under consideration is basically only a consolidation of existing measures, it gives a totally new dimension to them in many respects. For the first time, we have a measure which deals with the total spectrum of the utilization and conservation of our natural agricultural resources. I should like to refer specifically to a few of the most important adaptations and supplementary provisions.

Firstly, provision is being made for the designation of an official to act as functionary with regard to the implementation of the Act. In this way, the authority for day-to-day decisions and administrative processes is delegated to the functional level, without depriving the Minister of his overall responsibility and authority.

Secondly, it is envisaged that control measures may be prescribed which will have to be complied with in the utilization and conservation of the natural agricultural resources. These could serve as an instrument for explaining the objectives of the Act in greater detail, so that land users may know what is expected of them. In this way, the Act could be implemented preventively, and not only remedially, as is the case at the moment.

Thirdly, it is envisaged that the provision of State aid for acts aimed at conserving the natural agricultural resources will henceforth take place in terms of specific schemes, and that the provisions of such schemes will have to be promulgated in the Gazette.

The existing provision for the establishment of local committees to promote the objectives of the Act is being retained. Because their sphere of activity is being extended to include the total spectrum of the natural agricultural resources, it is being proposed that they should henceforth be known as conservation committees. Furthermore, the say of organized agriculture in the composition of such committees is being confirmed by the provision that certain members are to be directly nominated. In addition, statutory provision is now being made for the establishment of a national and of regional advisory bodies with regard to the conservation of agricultural resources.

It is an accepted fact that the farmer finds it difficult to reconcile the long-term objectives of optimum utilization of resources with his short-term obligations, and must therefore rely on State aid for the implementation of his conservation programme. However, there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that in the long run, conservation farming is going to be the most important measure of all in order to meet the food requirements of future generations. The S.A. Agricultural Union shares this view, and for that reason it supports the Bill as an instrument for promoting the conservation of our country’s precious natural agricultural resources.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that this is a good Bill and that we in these benches will be supporting it. There is, however, one clause that does cause us a great deal of concern. I am referring to clause 2(b) which excludes the land held by the S.A. Development Trust from the purview of this Bill. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will be dealing with this at greater length later on.

This Bill seeks to consolidate nine previous laws, and sections of two others. It is therefore doing a great deal towards tidying up what was previously a messy conservation situation. It is therefore to be welcomed for this reason, if for no other. The objects of the legislation are set out in clause 3 of the Bill and are—

These are indeed admirable objectives, and we must ask ourselves if the Bill provides for sufficient coercive powers to ensure that these objectives are meaningfully implemented.

Firstly the powers of investigation are extensive and enable any authorized person to enter upon any land, at any time, in order to investigate all matters pertaining to agricultural conservation. Provision is also made for the examination of all evidence pertaining to the matter under investigation. There are those who will doubtless regard these powers with some apprehension and might even condemn them as being too extensive, but we in these benches tend to see title to land in terms of custodianship, with all its accompanying responsibilities, rather than in terms of total ownership with an assumed right to treat land as one pleases. For this reason the State must assume the role of landlord, as it were, and be empowered by adequate legislation to ensure the care and preservation of the nation’s enduring asset.

This brings me to the penalties for contraventions of the Act. Provision is made for fines of up to a maximum of R5 000 or two years imprisonment for a first offence and R10 000 or four years’ inprisonment for secand offence. These are indeed heavy penalties, but when weighed up against our priceless, irreplaceable national resources, it can be argued that the Act must act as a suitable deterrent.

What are the needs of the individual and of society? It is so that the individual’s planning horizon is far shorter than that of society. The average young farmer will have a planning horizon of perhaps 30 to 40 years, having no particular concern in a period beyond this, but society’s planning horizon is very much longer. Society looks to the long-term future of the country, and any abuse of its asset for short-term gain by any individual cannot be tolerated.

The current drought has come as a forceful reminder to society of the importance of conservation practices and long-term planning. We in these benches are perturbed by the State’s apparent current inability to control abuse of agricultural resources, and we hope that this Bill will usher in a new era. We believe, for example, that despite the efforts of the hon. Minister’s department in the past, the overstocking of farmland, particularly during the good times, is the rule rather than the exception. All too often a farmer who has landed up in financial difficulties, either because of drought or through bad management, will attempt to extricate himself by running more stock than his farm can reasonably carry. The tragedy is that he will invariably go under in any case, but not before he has succeeded in ruining his farm for future generations. A chain reaction is set up, because the farmer who then buys the farm needs to make money out of it in order to meet his investment costs. So, instead of that farm being given the rest it deserves and needs, it is expected to pay for itself. That is a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.

We believe that, in general, farmers tend to over-estimate the carrying capacity of their veld. An above average rainfall is regarded as average and the farm is stocked accordingly. When the rainfall then reverts to normal, the farmer is in trouble and when a drought sets in, he is faced with disaster. A realistic stocking rate during normal years would give him the opportunity to accumulate grass and roughage during the good years for use during the bad years. This would not only save the natural resources of the country from being plundered, but it would save the taxpayer millions in the form of drought relief. This relief has to be found to support not only the deserving farmers but very many others as well who should not be in the position in which they are.

This bring me to the last matter I should like to deal with under this Bill. This concerns the practice of giving aid and subsidy payments. We in these benches are concerned at the number of bad and exploitive farmers who are always first in the dole queue, waiting for a hand-out, while a good conservationist who does not exploit his farm for the sake of a fat bank balance is never rewarded, not materially anyway. When the drought comes, he is prepared for it. We know that the department is also aware of this problem and tries to lay down certain parameters for conservation, outside of which the farmers who apply for assistance will not be granted aid, but we are not happy that this has been effective in the past.

It is our earnest wish that this new Bill will help rectify the problems I have mentioned. There are many, many others, but as a start we believe that this Bill is as good a measure as any we have yet had before us in this field. For that reason we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to discuss agricultural resources under this Bill. It is not without reason, I suppose, that it has taken so long to get this legislation into the final shape in which it is now, because for many years there has been talk in agriculture, especially in organized agriculture, of certain legislation which is necessary to support the protection of resources in this country. Before taking this matter any further, I want to say that in particular, I find it a pleasure to discuss it since it is being handled by men of the calibre of the hon. the Deputy Minister and of the Minister of Agriculture. These are men who know agriculture. It is not without reason, too, that they are the ones who are piloting this legislation through Parliament. We are aware of their interest in the subject and we are grateful for it. We wish them every success in Agriculture.

We are grateful for the support given to this Bill by the hon. member for Albany. I think he also understands that this legislation is intended to prevent certain things in future and not to rectify what may go wrong. Therefore it is directed at the future. For this reason, the legislation contains a few important aspects which I should like to dwell on briefly. Paging through the legislation, I rejoice to see that one clause after another contains provisions which soil conservation committees used to call for in days gone by and which were advocated at the meetings of farmers’ associations year after year.

Let us see whether the legislation provides for sufficient powers to implement its objectives. This is one aspect with which the hon. member for Albany had a problem. In the end, he agreed that it did have enough teeth, and it also has enough teeth in the sense that the powers of the local people on the conservation committees have been considerably widened. In the past, they acted only in an advisory capacity, while they may now exercise powers conferred upon them by the Minister. This is a very important facet. Whereas in the past, when there had been exploitation of the resources, the matter had to be investigated by a separate set of officials, these people now have a direct say in the directions drawn up in this connection. This was a shortcoming under the old system. These increased fines which are being provided for are another deterrent, because they are fairly heavy. Most important of all is the fact that the people serving on it are farmers, people who move at the level of that community and who are knowledgeable about their environment and who can then make the final inputs in respect of what is wrong and what is not, in co-operation with the department. I think the methods they will be able to employ in the machinery that has been created for them to do their work are quite adequate in terms of this Bill. I think, therefore, that sufficient provision has been made in this Bill to enable these conservation committees to function properly.

As regards the problem of subsidies to exploitational farmers, as against conservation farmers, this is a dilemma. In the past, the farmer who had allowed his livestock to denude his veld was always the first to suffer from a lack of grazing if it did not rain. The way things are, he is also the first to apply for aid, for economic reasons, while the conservation farmer has had less money over a long period and then does not get into trouble so quickly as a result of droughts. This is an old dilemma, and in a certain sense it has been aggravated by the drought relief measures made available in the past. In terms of the drought relief measures of the past, the exploitational farmer was helped first. That was the way it was applied in principle. The new drought relief measures which have been introduced have precisely the opposite effect. Certain important principles have been written into them, for example that only conservation farmers are going to be aided, that only the person who has observed the correct carrying capacity over a long period will receive aid in practice. He will receive no aid until he has fully complied with the soil conservation directions. Let me give an example from the drought relief plan. The carrying capacity of the land is determined. Every region gets it specific carrying capacity on the basis of its rainfall. Then the number of animals that can be kept in terms of that rainfall and the soil in that region is ascertained. If there is a drought and a farmer has overburdened his land, he will not qualify for any aid. The first requirement is that the farmer should voluntarily reduce his number of animals by one-third, for which he will receive compensation up to a level where he falls within the conservation requirements. Only then does the question of subsidies arise, at the recommendation of the local committees. So a farmer who has damaged and over-exploited the resources will have to wait longer to qualify for a resource subsidy than a farmer who has been practising conservation farming from the start. This is an important principle, and I am grateful for it.

This Bill enables the Minister to introduce certain schemes with this very end in view. The principle in this Bill is to protect resources, and every region has its own resources. Every region has its resource which enables the farmer in that region to survive. Take, for example, the resources in the arid North-Western Cape, where the farmers are now suffering a severe drought. The farmers there have survived partly because the plants in that reiion have adjusted to the severe climatic conditions; the shrubs send their roots deep into the earth to draw nourishment and moisture from reserves deposited there long ago, and then produce small green buds which keep the sheep alive, with supplementary feeding, of course. If a farmer keeps too many animals and those buds are eaten too quickly, before the reserve for the roots has been replenished, the shrub will also die. When it rains, an interesting thing happens. Eight days after it has rained, there are small grasses that are in seed. Then the sheep leave the buds alone, eating only the grass. In this way, the roots of the plant have a chance to recover fully in order to be ready for the next drought. This is a simple principle which has been laid down in nature and which has survived in nature.

Unfortunately, there are people, including farmers who do not understand that in nature, one has to work and live with nature. After all, a farmer should not really need legislation to protect his resources. However, because there are those who deliberately or unwittingly utilize the resource, allowing those tender buds to be eaten before the reserves have been replenished, people who drain the vleis and who destroy the water resources, who allow soil in marginal rainfall areas to be ploughed and planted with crops which actually do not belong there, because there are people who pollute water resources, who do nothing to protect the natural vegetation against invader plants, legislation is necessary. All these facets are covered in this legislation. The legislation provides, among other things, for those who do not heed the request to protect the resources to be required to do so by means of a direction order and upon advice. If they still refuse to comply, they will be severely dealt with and forced to to so.

This legislation also enables the Minister to perform certain acts. One of these acts is the implementation of the drought aid plan. This is an important aspect which in a certain respect has perhaps lagged behind, and which has consequently developed into a problem area today. We are suffering a severe drought at the moment. Under these drought conditions we reach a stage where there is no fodder left, even in the areas where it has in fact rained. So it is no longer possible to supply fodder to the emergency areas. Therefore it is becoming increasingly urgent that we proceed, in terms of this legislation, which empowers the Minister to initiate certain schemes, to the long-term storage of fodder from good years, fodder which can then be used in the lean years. This is exactly what was done by Joseph of old. This is a shortcoming at the moment, a shortcoming which is going to create problems for us in future if we do not introduce this system.

A further aspect which is connected with this, is the fact that this fodder reserve is in a certain respect perhaps being financed as is being done at the moment in terms of the drought relief scheme. Another aspect which is covered in this legislation is, of course, the protection of our resources against invader plants. The question of invader plants is often mentioned only in passing, but few people truly realize the implications. As a good example, I want to refer to the pros tipis, or “mesquite”, the plant mentioned in Cowboy books as well, which is also called the “muskietboom”, “Suidwesdoring” or “Soetpeul”. In 1930, my father-in-law planted four of these trees on our farm. He did so at the recommendation of the Department of Agriculture. It was supposed to be a good fodder-tree. The progeny of those four trees now occupy 300 hectares on one of the adjoining farms, and 400 on the other one. It grows along the Rugseer River over a distance of more than 30 km. The banks of the river are literally covered by these trees. The trees also grow along the Hartbees River, extending to within 75 km from Augrabies. These are the progeny of those four trees planted in 1930.

In America today, millions of hectares are covered by invader plants, which even the Americans cannot handle. We ourselves are faced with hundreds of thousands of hectares of invader plants, at various stages of contamination. This is only one example of an invader plant. This legislation provides for schemes to be initiated to combat this. In this respect, I believe, it is very important that this should be done. Having said all this, however, two things remain in terms of which resources can be utilized and protected. The first is research and the second is the people who are going to implement the results of this reasearch. I know that a good deal of research is being done into our resources. In respect of extension and the dissemination of this knowledge to prevent the malpractices, however, I think there is a very great shortcoming. As hon. members themselves know, the manpower available for extension services is extremely limited. I have four former extension officers in my constituency who are making matters difficult for me because the information is not coming through and because the farm planning is not being done—because all the facets of the extension are not reaching the people. Can we not utilize these people on a part-time basis? Can we not involve them in the way that technical officials are being involved within the department at the moment? Can we not use these experts in the farming community to perform this important function? They have the expertise, they have the experience and they have the training to support them in this work, and in fact they used to be extension officers. I think that in this way we could solve a very great problem.

A further aspect with regard to our resources is something which is not quite relevant under this legislation, but which has a bearing on a previous piece of legislation, although the scheme is going to fall under this legislation. I am referring to the question of locusts. Hon. members know that from 1890 up to now there have been only 10 years in which we have not had to contend with a locust plague to a greater or lesser extent in this country. These locusts are going to consume our resources if we do not take action in time to prevent them from speading. I request that the matter be investigated to see whether the anti-locust campaign is really effective, for if it rained now, and the plant I have referred to began to bud, and the locusts consumed it down to its roots, the problem of the drought would be ten times worse, for then our plants would also be killed.

Having said all this, I take pleasure in supporting this legislation on behalf of the NP. This legislation is directed at the future and is going to be of inestimable value to our resources in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the CP welcomes this legislation. It is consolidation of previous legislation and at the same time the provisions are being more clearly defined. The Bill concerns inter alia the conservation of agricultural resources and the production capacity of land.

Because it is universally recognized that Africa is a hungry continent and is virtually dependent on the Republic of South Africa for food, it is essential for the production potential of our agriculture land to be increased further. The Bill provides that the over-exploitation of water resources should be prevented and also provides that soil erosion should be prevented. In future tremendous demands will be made on agricultural land, not only in South Africa but also in the rest of the world. I have here an article which appeared in Die Vaderland of 3 January 1980 which refers to a report of the UN. In this article it is stated that 15 of the 100 children born every minute in the developing world, will die before they reach their first birthday. The article goes on to say—

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended for lunch I was quoting from an article in Die Vaderland of 3 January 1980 under the caption “Miljoene kinders gaan vanjaar nog sterf”. This article went on to say—

Here is an article from the Newsletter of the Human Sciences Research Council from which I shall quote the following passage—

The article goes on to say—

I shall now quote from an article which appeared in Die Vaderland of Thursday, 14 May, 1981. The journalist concerned interviewed two doctors who made the following prediction—

It went on to say—

[Interjections.] Sir, after this happy procession by the PFP …

Triumphant procession.

… I should like on behalf of the CP to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton on her 30 years in the House of Assembly. When I saw her photograph for the first time 30 years ago she looked the same as she does today.

Thank you.

This is a wonderful achievement, and we on this side should like to congratulate her most sincerely.

Order! Are we to accept this as the view of the hon. member’s party or as his personal view? [Interjections.]

My party and I have splendid views, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

I was referring to the important task of the farmer in South Africa. It is his important task to feed hungry mouths in Africa. The farmer in South Africa has to be conservation conscious, he has to apply scientific methods so that he will be able to meet the requirements of the future. The farmer in South Africa, as the conserver of our own soil, is facing a tremendous challenge because, as I have already pointed out, millions of mouths in Africa are asking for food.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon. member for De Aar. Before dealing with this legislation in the course of my speech, I, too, like the hon. member for De Aar, wish to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Houghton has today served in this House for 30 years. I do not wish to make the same “mistake” as the hon. member for De Aar by congratulating her and then possibly being called to order by the Chair concerning whether one is expressing the opinion of a party or a personal opinion or not. However, I do wish to say to the hon. member for Houghton that we take cognizance of the fact that she has been in this House for 30 years and we wish her every success for the next 30 years. However, we only hope they will be more moderate.

You will not be in this House that long.

The hon. member for Kuruman must be quiet; he is a “wurgpatat” (choke-potato).

The Bill before us at present has a very long history. I shall commence by referring to Genesis 2, verse 15, where we find the following commandment in the Scriptures—

We have been charged with that commandment from that time. The South African farmer decided and realized at a very early stage that he had a duty to fulfil in this regard. In my speech this afternoon I wish to refer briefly to the history of this legislation on soil conservation in South Africa.

Only four years after the founding of the South African Agricultural Union, the president of that body at that time, Mr. G. J. Lee, made an urgent plea in his presidential address for the conservation of our country’s soil. During 1912 the congress of the S.A. Agricultural Union adopted a resolution to the effect that it was necessary to make an active effort to prevent soil erosion. This decision led to a Government commission in 1913, but as a result of the First World War that commission came to nought. Only in 1930 was a special conference on soil erosion convened once again. This led to the establishment of a special soil erosion board on which the S.A. Agricultural Union and the provincial agricultural unions were represented. The National Veld Trust, which immediately started working on the introduction of legislation on soil conservation, came into being in 1943. Meanwhile, by that time the Department of Agriculture had already prepared draft legislation and this led to the Soil Conservation Act of 1946. The Act was amended a few times until we had the present Act of 1969, which we are amending once again here this afternoon. That is the history of this amending legislation that is before us today. In the past there has often been criticism of the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 in the sense that the Act does not contain adequate preventive measures. Consequently it was decided to effect certain amendments so that the Act may be implemented with a greater emphasis on prevention. The Weeds Act of 1937 had also begun to fall short of requirements, and we decided to amend the Act and incorporate it in the legislation before us at present because both of these pieces of legislation deal with the conservation of certain facets of the natural agricultural resources. Therefore, after it has been piloted through, this legislation will make provision for control of the utilization of the natural agricultural resources of the Republic in order to control the conservation of the soil, the water resources and the vegetation, as well as the combating of weeds and invader plants.

South Africa is one of the seven countries in the world that export agricultural products. The gross value of agricultural products has increased a great deal over the years. However, the question arises as to whether we shall be able to maintain this high level of production in the future with the relatively limited agricultural resources at our disposal. As far as potential is concerned, South Africa is a poor country compared with many of its agricultural counterparts. Apart from that, our resources are in the process of declining at a perceptible rate. A definite price is being paid for the high levels of production that are being maintained. Then, too, there is a growing demand for agricultural land for unavoidable development, such as infrastructure. Perhaps I could just mention here that the other day I heard that when the provincial administrations build fly-overs or traffic interchanges on a national road they need approximately 8 ha of land for this purpose. When it is land with poor potential that is not really much land, but when the land on which those traffic interchanges have to be built has a high potential, 8 ha of fine agricultural land is indeed a great deal of land.

It is estimated that although the RSA had 0,57 ha of arable land per person in 1973, by the year 2000 the arable soil surface will be a meagre 0,4 ha per person. That is why it is important that the Government and the agriculturist should jealously guard their most precious possession, their land. The contribution which the State makes by way of the judicious utilization of our agricultural resources covers a wide spectrum. As regard the three pillars of agricultural development, viz. production, marketing and financing, the Department of Agriculture will be making increasingly greater inputs through its existing disciplines—and, I believe, in consultation with organized agriculture. [Interjections.] This will have to be carried out and supported by suitable legislation such as this, on the one hand in order to facilitate the orderly operation of the programmes I have already mentioned and exercise statutory control over them, but also to enforce measures if it should become apparent that agricultural resources were being abused. In practice we find that the agricultural development process is controlled by a variety of agricultural statutes—42 in all. The optimum conservation of agricultural resources, which includes the production processes, is supported by 78 statutes. One of the most important of these is the Soil Conservation Act, because it is aimed directly at the conservation and judicious utilization of resources. Over the years a great deal of success has been achieved with the existing measures, and I just wish to mention a few matters here.

Since 1946, when the first Soil Conservation Act was piloted through this Parliament, 80% of the 91 million hectares of agricultural land which was still in the possession of White farmers, was physically planned in full, and R63 million was paid out to farmers in subsidies alone for the construction of soil conservation works, while R16 million was spent on key soil conservation works established by the State itself. Since the establishment of the Soil Conservation Division in 1969, which has been entrusted with the administration of these statutes and all the related regulatory duties, 1 672 land users who have contravened the provisions of the old Act in one way or another have been identified. These transgressors had to be served with directions in terms of section 3 of the Act, and 36 of them were eventually prosecuted. Despite this good progress achieved by the optimum utilization of resources, and the enormous input contributed by the department over the years in this regard, we find that an ideal situation has by no means been reached. For example, one finds that a large percentage of the almost 14 million hectares of agricultural land has not yet been protected against soil erosion. In the light of this, it has become necessary to make adjustments to the existing legislation in order to combat and control the deterioration in the quality of grazing and the loss of topsoil in our agricultural areas as a result of invader plants, weeds and erosion. The implementation of this Act will be largely the responsibility of the official of the Department of Agriculture and I should also just like to mention a few figures in this regard. At present there are 172 extension officers and 256 soil conservation officers in South Africa. This is by no means a large number of people. Here I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Prieska who pleaded earlier this afternoon that we should get more people to do this important work, since no matter how sound the law is, if in practice the Act is not implemented by these people we are not going to achieve the success we should like to achieve. The land user, together with the officials mentioned, will fulfil an important role in the conservation committees. In the past land users played an important role in the old conservation committees. 196 of these committees have already been appointed. This legislation proposes the retention of these committees, but their name is to be changed to conservation committees, because the sphere of operation of the committees will in future embrace the conservation of the total spectrum of natural resources. The members of these conservation committees will be appointed by the Minister by virtue of their knowledge of and interest in the conservation of natural agricultural resources.

There is a final matter I wish to raise. I notice from the legislation that Trust areas, i.e. land acquired for incorporation in the homelands and national States, is not included in the existing measures. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it would not be possible to make this Bill applicable to Trust land as well. Soil conservation laws already exist in the four independent national States and a reasonable effort is being made to launch soil conservation practices. It would be only fitting and right if we could make this legislation applicable to the Trust areas as well, so that when the land is handed over to the homeland, soil conservation activities will have already occurred there.

I wish to conclude by saying that this legislation is important legislation. Regardless of whether one lives on a farm, in the country or in the city, this legislation affects us all. The hon. member for De Aar quoted a number of figures from newspaper reports concerning the number of people there will be in South Africa by a certain year. Once again I wish to address myself to the hon. the Deputy Minister and ask him, in the light of those figures concerning the tremendous increase in the population of our country, whether it is not time once again for us to set aside one year as conservation year. In this way it can be brought to the attention of every citizen in the country once again that everyone can play a role in preserving our soil and our resources so that we may bequeath something to our descendants. I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate this party with the sentiments expressed by the two previous speakers and to convey our congratulations to the hon. member for Houghton on her very distinctive record of being in this House for 30 years. While we may differ from her politically, we respect her and admire her for the contributions she has made in the House. I, as a junior member of the House, regard it as an extreme privilege to have been accorded the honour of saying these few words.

Why do you not join us?

One day that hon. member is calling us over and the next day he is sending us in the other direction, so we do not know quite where we are.

At the outset I should just like to refer briefly to a comment made by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. We feel that it is of the utmost importance that the elements of this Bill should be applicable as well to the S.A. Development Trust areas. We strongly support that idea, which was raised by the hon. member for Albany as well.

Returning to the Bill, I should like to just give an indication of how we in these benches approach this whole concept. We regard the Bill before us as a very comprehensive measure. It is undoubtedly the most important Bill on agricultural matters that has come before Parliament this session. Its many aspects deal with the lifeline of agriculture’s survival. I would like to compliment the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Deputy Minister who is dealing with this legislation for bringing this Bill forward in its present form. The big difference between this Bill and other Bills about the same problem is that this Bill has at last been given teeth, which was a weakness of the existing Act. This is an aspect that will require courage to implement. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to detract from the powers vested in this Bill.

The conservation of natural resources affects all sections of the community, not only those connected with agriculture. We are fully aware of the fact that the demand for food is increasing. There is an increasing population with higher living standards. These in itself will tax our natural resources in the future to the limit. It must be remembered that agricultural areas, particularly in South Africa, are becoming smaller as a result of increased urbanization. If one looks at the figure for the five-year period between 1976 and 1981 one sees that some 133 000 ha were lost to agriculture. Steps taken by the Government to encourage regional development and the decentralization of industry are well known. This will inevitably lead to the stimulation of rural development in many areas. This in itself will bring about a chain reaction and a greater demand on natural resources. Rural development and the conservation of natural resources go hand in hand. In other words, conservation can be regarded as part of development. The two cannot be disassociated from each other. World food production has more than doubled since 1950. This is indeed an impressive achievement, but the land abuse has been so severe that the long-term productivity of our natural resources has been seriously undermined.

I would commend to the attention of this House the definition of a natural resource. A natural resource is any raw material, either renewable or non-renewable, obtained from nature. Therefore our first responsibility in this regard is to preserve the non-renewable material. What is the most important non-renewable asset that we have? It is the soil. We are well aware of the predictions of population growth by the year 2000, which has a frightening effect when one realizes that this is only some 17 years ahead. Agriculture must be prepared to meet the challenge by increased food production. This will only be possible if adequate measures are taken now to conserve our natural resources. The prevention and control of soil erosion is an absolute prerequisite. Vast quantities of good Mother Earth are being lost to the sea each year, not only through severe climatic conditions, but also as the result of injudicious agricultural practices.

The essence of this Bill is aimed at encouraging good farming practices, and the first step in this direction must be to ensure that farming practices conform to the ecological suitability for a particular type of production. I venture to say that agricultural practices are being followed in areas which are not suitable for that particular type of system, and this is having the effect of overtaxing the natural resource. I ask whether the time has not come for the hon. the Minister and his department to review assistance schemes on a more regionalized basis, bearing in mind the physical composition of an area.

In turning to the Bill itself one immediately gets the impression of a more positive approach to the conservation of our natural resources. This we gladly welcome. Considerable enthusiasm was aroused when the first conservation legislation was passed in 1946 but this enthusiasm was regrettably not sustained at the same level during recent years. Therefore it is all the more important that a Bill of this nature be introduced at this time as it is a Bill with teeth, a Bill which will lend new impetus to the whole concept of conservation in South Africa. One of the major cogs in the mechanics of the present conservation legislation is the role of soil conservation committees and it is indeed pleasing to note that there are already over 200 such committees in existence. Every encouragement must be given to these committees, to the members of these committees who give up a considerable amount of their private time to further the concept of conservation.

A very important aspect of the Bill is that it prescribes control measures to effect preventive rather than curative measures in the conservation of our natural resources. Clause 6, for instance, prescribes very clearly the requirements that are necessary to achieve the object of this legislation. A new aspect is the fact the responsibility of an employee is now being made stronger by this Bill and his failure to carry out the specific regulations may implicate his own employer.

Mr. Speaker, we see this Bill as a positive measure to consolidate and bring into being conservation measure to confirm with current requirements and to protect as far as humanly possible the natural resources of this country. One immediately gains the impression of a more positive approach to the concept of conservation, and from these benches we therefore have much pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, you will realize that it is a special honour for a former extension officer to be able to speak during the Second Reading debate on the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Bill. I hope that you will allow me too, Mr. Speaker, to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister, as well as to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, that I myself have the highest regard for them and that I am also fully aware that the farmers of South Africa must regard it as a privilege to have such a partnership in the political leadership of agriculture in South Africa. I also thank the various spokesmen of the different parties in this House for their support of this Bill. It is an extremely important Bill, and in my opinion, it can indeed become an even more important statutory cornerstone in the agricultural industry than the Marketing Act or the Cooperative Societies Act or the Agricultural Credit Act.

It is fundamental to agriculture because it is aimed at the long term, because it takes into account that we wish to continue living in this fatherland of ours and that we shall utilize the natural agricultural resources we have at our disposal both now and in the future.

I am acquainted with the Moorcrofts of the Bedford and Adelaide districts. I also know other Moorcrofts in the Eastern Cape. They are conservation farmers. I am not personally so well acquainted with the hon. member for Albany. However, I do know that he is also concerned about conservation farming. In the light of statements the hon. member for De Aar has made in the past, I also know that he is extremely concerned about the conservation of our agricultural resources. I therefore thank him for his support of the present legislation.

I know that the hon. member for Mooi River has a lifetime of service to soil conservation behind him. I thank him, too, for his share in this. On the NP side, I know the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon. member for Prieska personally. They are both farmers. They are both young farmers. They have a long future ahead of them, and conservation farming is also a fundamental part of their whole farming set-up. I thank them most sincerely for their contributions, to contributions, too.

It is true that every land user in this country will one day, in the life hereafter, have to account for his stewardship of the natural resources he had at his disposal. It does not matter whether a man rents a farm, or whether he utilizes his land in a share scheme, or whether he has a title deed to that land. It is true that everyone only has his land at his disposal temporarily. He will only have that land and those natural resources at his disposal for the duration of his lifetime. Therefore it is not only his duty to his Heavenly Father, but also his duty to his descendants to leave those resources at his disposal, and which were given to him, in a better condition than he received them in. This, too, is fundamental to the present legislation.

The second important aspect I wish to point out, is that the level of civilization and development of every people, of every population group, is probably best measured by the degree of concern for conservation which that population group displays. We shall have to make this applicable to ourselves as well.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to put it to you briefly that the present legislation shows certain improved characteristics in comparison with previous soil conservation laws South Africa has had. The first aspect, and in my opinion the most important, is the fact that this legislation has an educational dimension. Everything contained in the present legislation has to be brought home to land users in South Africa by way of persuasion. This is the whole approach in this legislation. Coercion is only a last resort; persuasion is the first. Persuasion to practise conservation farming is the primary solution.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services makes certain subsidies available with the specific aim of promoting conservation farming. I just wish to mention a few things briefly. At present the scales according to which subsidies are payable with regard to the utilization of grazing works—i.e. camp fences and water supply systems for stock—are 25%. As far as the conservation works are concerned—i.e. erosion fences, contour systems, retaining walls, etc— they are 75%, and even higher, since they operate on a sliding scale. From R1 500 even up to an amount of R133 000 this can entail a subsidy of 98%. In respect of drainage works the present subsidization scale is 55%. The amounts spent on this during the past financial year—I refer to the 1981-’82 financial year—are R329 000 in respect of camp fences; R456 000 in respect of water supply systems for stock; R34 000 in respect of conservation works and erosion fences; R1 306 000 in respect of contour systems; and R1 280 000 in respect of retaining walls, etc. Therefore it is very clear from these figures that the Government’s approach is that farmers should be encouraged to practise conservation farming. This is simply an aid to get farmers to accept that they must practise conservation farming in this country. I wish to say at the outset that it is my considered conviction that the present drought in South Africa is going to do such harm to our natural resources that in future we shall have to reconsider the scales, and particularly the scales according to which the present subsidies are determined, to ensure that this important aspect of encouragement to practise conservation farming in South Africa achieves its goal. We shall have to increase those subsidies, even if only temporarily.

The second important characteristic of this Bill is that it has more teeth, to use a modern expression, than the Soil Conservation Act. It has more teeth, but it is still important that as far as possible, those teeth may only be bared after the maximum persuasion has been used. In this legislation provision has been made that a direction must first be served on a particular land user, whether he be the lessee or the owner of the land, before legal proceedings are instituted. Therefore it is very clear that the characteristic of persuasion, the educational characteristic of this legislation, remains basic and fundamental to this Bill, but unlike the situation in the past, when it was often left to the soil conservation committees and local members of the public to institute proceedings, in future this will be delegated to an official who will act as a functionary after consultation with the local community and after consultation with other officials in the Department of Agriculture. Nevertheless, under this new legislation it is being made much easier to institute proceedings against those people who do not care about the natural resources of South Africa.

The third important characteristic is that this legislation is preventive by nature. Unlike previous legislation on soil conservation, which was merely remedial by nature, this Bill is also preventive. The Bill provides that certain guidelines on the use of soil may be promulgated based on the potential for production of a particular agricultural region, guidelines in terms of which farmers are encouraged to determine the potential of their farms and to organize their farming system accordingly so as to adapt to the potential of the particular area and to adapt to the potential of the farm concerned, since it is true that each particular type of veld, each particular type of soil, has its own potential for production. A guideline for the use of soil determined for an entire region, is not necessarily applicable to each farm in that area per se, but it does at least provide a guideline to farmers in that particular region on how to conduct their farming activities.

The fourth very important characteristic of this Bill is that it involves the local community in conservation farming to a greater extent. The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to this in his introductory speech. Organized agriculture can no directly nominate a certain number of members in the local soil conservation committee, or rather, resources committee, which may then furnish advice. This differs from the situation in the past when they could merely propose a panel or could merely be consulted on which people should serve on the committee. They are directly responsible for the appointment of certain members to such a committee.

It is truly an honour for me to support this Bill with acclamation.

Mr. Speaker, as a person who has spent most of his working life involved in agriculture, including agricultural extension services for a very short period, it also gives me pleasure to discuss this legislation here today. The one thing that I find pleasing is the increase in awareness as far as environmental issues are concerned as well as an increasing readiness to take action in respect of these issues.

I should like to comment today on one particular aspect relating to the environmental issue, and perhaps what I have to say today will not fall entirely on deaf ears. The aspect I want to raise is the situation of South African Development Trust land as well as that of the self-governing Black States and the independent Black States. It is on this land that some of the worst abuses are taking place in South Africa today. Most of these areas are heavily overgrazed and the full consequences of this are only being felt now as a result of the drought. Throughout the year these areas are grazed to the limit of their carrying capacity. This has resulted in the gradual deterioration of these natural resources over the years as far as the natural ground cover is concerned Another factor is the extremely heavy population pressures and the absence of any alternative sources of energy in these rural areas. This has resulted in all woody plants, trees, shrubs and even manure being used as a source of fuel. The unfortunate thing about this is that the rate of utilization is far greater than the rate of regeneration. This is a matter which this party has raised frequently before but we have not received any satisfactory reply from the Government so far. Hopefully we shall receive a reply in this regard today.

There are a few points I should like to make in this connection and one of the sources I should like to quote is the report of the Science Committee of the President’s Council. We are all familiar with the report they brought out in which they made projections of demographic trends that will be taking place over the next number of years. I wish to quote from page 223 of that report at section 8.5.7.4, which states—

They refer here to one of the national States but I think that we are all aware of the fact that this statement applies to a greater or lesser degree in respect of South African Trust land in many cases and also to the self-governing States.

With further reference to the Science Committee’s report, hon. members will no doubt be aware of the population projections that have been made. Some of these populations projections present a gloomy picture for South Africa. I do not wish to deal with the population projections in detail because I am sure that they will be handled in later debates. However, I should like to look very briefly at a few of the implications these projections have from the point of view of conservation in South Africa and their implications for the environment as a whole. These population projections range from a low of 80 million to a high of about 450 million by the year 2050. Looking at them, it would appear that the most likely figure in or around the year 2050 will be something like 100 million Blacks, 5 million Coloureds, 1,5 million Indians and slightly more Whites than we have at the moment. A number of points emerged out of the projections. The first point is that we are going to see a massive migration to urban areas. If we do not want our natural environment to deteriorate further, we are going to have to assist and encourage this migration. On page 33 of the report it is stated—

The point I should like to make is that it does not matter what laws we try to pass in this House; we are going to have this influx into urban areas. It is in the interest of all of us to encourage it in as orderly and rapid a fashion as possible.

The second aspect arising from the report has also been raised by the hon. member for Mooi River, namely the fact that at present some 28% of agricultural land in South Africa is utilized for urban and semi-urban purposes. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his speech today emphasized that this country is agriculturally speaking poor. Of our agricultural land only some 12% is arable. From this it is fairly obvious that we are very poorly endowed. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister, as well as other hon. Ministers here today, that when we are looking at further expansion of urban areas we should make sure that this does not take place on arable agricultural land. We should rather select land with a lower usage capacity and make sure that township development takes place on this land.

Another aspect which arises out of these population projections is the fact that we are going to have to embark on some massive co-ordinated system of population control. That is the recommendation of the Presidents Council report referred to earlier. I quote: “One of the most important conditions for the success of population programmes is therefore that all communities and their leaders co-operate in achieving the objectives of the programme”. Arising out of this, we in this party do not believe that it is possible to get the co-operation and support of all sections of the population until such time as all sections of the population are regarded as full and equal citizens of this country. Otherwise why should they co-operate? They will regard any attempt at limiting population growth as yet another ploy on the part of the White man to try to limit their numbers. It is only when a person of another racial group has the same full citizenship rights as anybody else that one might start getting co-operation. There is more to it than this of course; there is also education, urbanization, etc. All these factors also play a role. As these population pressures increase and if the current situation remains unchecked, the environment is going to become more and more degraded and, ironically, less and less able to support the people who are on the land. What we should ensure in this House is that our natural resources, whether they be in White farming areas, Trust land or anywhere, are maintained at the current level of their production potential. Here again I should like to quote from page 153 of the report—

So we are looking at the whole country, when it comes to conservation and environmental affairs. We therefore need a co-ordinated programme for the whole country.

Further aspects that are interesting and come out in the report relate to the water resources of South Africa. It is estimated, in the report, that when our population reaches a figure of some 90 million, our water resources are going to be fully utilized. What is interesting about this, is that the population projection of 90 million is at the lower range of the actual demographic projection, and the conclusion we can draw is that our water resources, which largely depend on the ability of our natural vegetation to soak up, store and release water gradually, are going to be placed under extreme pressure in the years ahead. Again this emphasizes how vital it is for us to institute control measures over the whole of South Africa.

We in this party believe that in future there will be some merit in considering a situation in terms of which all matters relating to environmental issues fall under one particular department. This would facilitate co-ordination and would also eliminate conflicts of interest in many cases.

We have pleasure in supporting the Bill. We think it is an improvement on existing legislation. We are only sorry that the scope of the Bill could not have been widened to include Trust land and to embrace some measures whereby land use could be influenced in the self-governing States as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to eight very responsible speeches. The degree of seriousness with which the speakers have approached this legislation is an indication of how important they consider it to be. The calm atmosphere in which these speeches were heard is another indication of the importance of the legislation. It is certainly true—as many of the speakers indicated—that this is legislation which has to take care of the future. I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House very sincerely for their positive contributions and for their support of this legislation.

I do not wish to repeat too many of the arguments that have been advanced here, but perhaps I should just reply very briefly to a few of the hon. members who have participated.

†The hon. member for Albany stated at the very outset that this matter is so important that the State would have to assume the role of landlord, if I heard him correctly.

No, I did not say “assume”. I was referring to attitude.

I accept that that was the light in which he saw the matter. I want to agree with him wholeheartedly that unfortunately, we have no alternative but to take very stringent measures when it comes to the protection of our natural agricultural resources, and any Government, whether it be this one or any other Government, would have that responsibility. One does not want unnecessary State interference if there are other ways of dealing with the matter. However, there are those among our farmers who are hard of hearing, those who will not “hear”, and they will simply have to “feel” in terms of this legislation. I agree with the hon. member that this legislation will have to be strictly enforced. Some of the other hon. members said that for the first time, this legislation was now giving teeth to the legislation regulating the protection of agricultural resources, that we could really compel people to act in accordance with our objectives. I trust that it will not often be necessary for the State to take coercive action, but that we shall persuade land users to conserve their soil by way of co-operation.

†The hon. member for Albany raised one other matter to which I think I must briefly refer. He mentioned the application of the Bill to Trust land, as did other hon. members. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has also just enlarged on that and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke referred to it. All Trust land is situated in the so-called Black regions referred to in the Black Administration Act of 1927. In terms of section 25 of that Act the State President is the sole legislative authority for these Black regions. He is empowered to repeal, amend or supplement other Acts by proclamation in so far as they relate to such areas and to make other laws by proclamation. That is how the law advisers explained the matter to me. Clause 2(l)(b) must therefore be seen as a measure recognizing the State President’s authority. Where the relevant land is excluded, it must be seen as recognition of the State President’s authority. It may be mentioned that proclamations having the same object as the Bill have already been made in terms of this authority. I think that with that I have to a large extent dealt with that matter.

The hon. member for Albany also raised the question of the carrying capacity of the veld. The Bill provides for the promulgation of control measures which will specify the grazing capacity of each piece of farmland in the Republic. As this cannot be done at present, farmers have no clear official guidelines of what their stocking rates should be. Transgression of the prescribed grazing capacity would under this Bill constitute a punishable offence and I am sure that after the promulgation of this regulation farmers will be more attentive regarding the number of livestock kept on their farms.

*I am very concerned about the fact that many of our farms are over-stocked and that the veld is being denuded. The first people to get into trouble when a drought condition develops are the very ones whose veld has been denuded. The conservation-conscious farmer is able to carry on for a long time after the man who has not been applying conservation measures has applied for aid. When we help the man who has applied for aid, his neighbour, who is a conservation-conscious farmer, complains: I have conserved my veld and I am not getting any aid, but this other chap, who was irresponsible, is in fact getting aid. It is understandable that there should be some antagonism among our farmers towards those people who do not conserve their veld. I think our farmers should make a point of identifying those farmers in the community who do not conserve their soil and of telling them that they will be the first to suffer when drought strikes.

There is the question of the schemes provided for in the legislation. These schemes should not be confused with the present drought relief measures applicable at the moment. However, I can say that the so-called national drought relief scheme or the long-term drought relief scheme which is in operation in the northern parts of the Transvaal at the moment is based, by way of experiment, on the requirements of this legislation, namely that a man has to conserve before he can be assisted.

The hon. member for Prieska naturally made a very good contribution, since he is a scientist. I thank him for his compliments. He distinguished between so-called exploitational farmers and conservation farmers and he made the point that the exploitational farmers were always the first to receive aid. Then people were critical of this. My reply to that is that the exploitational farmer who receives the aid may be fortunate in the short term, but in the long term he is going to struggle, while the farmer who has helped himself may have difficulties in the short term, but will prosper in the long term. I agree with the hon. member on the principle that every region should have its own resources and that to a very large extent, the protection of resources has to be adjusted from one region to another. There is certain marginal land in certain areas which should not be cultivated. While I am on the subject, there is one small point I want to make. We often congratulate ourselves on having so dramatically increased our total agricultural production. But a lot of this additional production comes from marginal land, and therefore I just want to ask: At what cost are those products being produced on that marginal land? Is this not one of the problems lying at the root of our economic problems in the farming industry? I could mention case studies made by the department which show how, by withdrawing marginal land from cultivation and using it for other purposes, farmers in a certain farming region have considerably improved their profit position simply by reorganising the use of their land.

The question of invader plants was also dealt with by the hon. member for Prieska. It is true that whereas an invader plant may be a menace in one area, it may be a very useful source of food in another area. The hon. member also spoke about the assistance to be rendered by conservation committees with regard to directions. We shall certainly expect our conservation committees to assist us in drawing up directions. The hon. member also spoke about the question of fines. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

The hon. member spoke about the “carrying capacity” of the veld. I think we should rather speak about the “grazing capacity”.

Some people do not understand that.

It is a better term. We should teach our farmers to speak of grazing capacity rather than carrying capacity.

Our farmers do not understand that. We speak of carrying capacity.

The hon. member for Smithfield says that our farmers do not understand this, but then they must be taught to understand it. What the veld can carry is not the same as its grazing capacity. A farmer can have an enormous number of animals on his land, although there is not enough grazing for them. Then he has to provide them with additional fodder. I should prefer to use the term “grazing capacity” in this connection. [Interjections.] Sir, it is sometimes difficult to persuade the farmers to accept a new idea!

The hon. member for Prieska asked an important question in connection with locusts. I have ascertained that the department is fully prepared for locust outbreaks. They say that enormous supplies of poison have been built up, enough for at least two to three severe outbreaks. All equipment is ready for use, and the organization is ready too.

The next hon. member who participated was the hon. member for De Aar. I thank him for his support. He referred in particular to population increase and its consequences, such as the relationship between population increase and production. We agree with him that if we do not conserve our country’s resources and if we do not maintain a high production potential, we are going to have problems in feeding our growing population.

The hon. member for Schweizer Reneke made a few interesting statements, for example that the idea of conservation is as old as creation itself. I thank him for his positive contribution. I think I have already replied with regard to the Trust areas in connection with which he had certain objections.

†The hon. member for Mooi River again made a very positive contribution. He said the legislation was being given teeth by this Bill. He moreover expressed concern about rural developments which would necessitate greater control over our natural resources.

*The hon. member Dr. Odendaal is an agricultural scientist and he knows what he is talking about. I thank him for his contribution and for the role he plays in our agricultural group. He makes a very positive contribution there. He says that every land owner has a responsibility towards his Creator and his descendants. That is very important. One’s responsibility is not only to oneself. One does not want to survive only until the days of one’s death. One must also enable one’s descendants to five on that land.

†I have already dealt with the question raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He expressed concern about the deterioration of land in the Black States. This is indeed a problem, a real problem. It is a matter in connection with which we shall have to obtain the co-operation of the Black States, and during the deliberations on the creation of a constellation of states this will be one of the issues on which we would have to agree, i.e. the protection of natural resources also in those areas. I agree with him that if there is a deterioration of the agricultural potential in the Black States we will have a massive migration to the urban areas, something we do not want.

*Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that this legislation should be strictly enforced, and if there is a person here and there who complains, so be it. It is in the interests of our country that we should conserve our soil, and everyone must contribute to this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

1. 1. On page 4, in line 6, after “land;” to insert “and”.
2. 2. On page 4, in lines 7 to 9, to omit subparagraph (c).
3. (3) On page 4, in line 11, to omit “(xiii)”.
4. 4. On page 4, after line 11, to insert:
   but not a person who carries on prospecting or mining activities; (xiii)
5. 5. On page 4, in lines 41 to 48, to omit paragraph (xxii) and to substitute:
   (xxii) “Prospecting or mining activities” means activities which are controlled in terms of the Mines and Works Act, 1956 (Act No. 27 of 1956), and includes the use of land for the purposes of a quarry as defined in section 1 of the Physical Planning Act, 1967 (Act No. 88 of 1967); (xxiii)
6. 6. On page 6, in line 4, to omit “(xii)”.
7. 7. On page 6, after line 4, to insert:
   but not a work which is constructed on land in the course of prospecting or mining activities; (xii)

All the amendments I have moved on this clause have the same objective, namely to differentiate clearly between the spheres of control of the Department of Agriculture on the one hand and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs on the other. The Mines and Works Act, 1956, empowers the State President to make regulations inter alia on the protection and preservation of the surface of mines, adjoining land, water resources, and the conservation of the environment at or near any mine or work, including the restoration of land on which activities in connection with mines are performed. These regulations are enforced by the staff of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and were drafted in close collaboration with the Department of Agriculture.

When this Bill was drafted, the standpoint was adopted that control over surface damage for mining purposes should not be included, because this was a function of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. This exclusion was made in paragraph (c) of the definition of “land user” in lines 7 and 8, on page 4. However, the Chamber of Mines has now indicated that there are several defects in this exclusion. The Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs consulted the law advisers on this matter, and they have agreed that certain amendments should be made to the Bill.

In the first place provision is being made for the definition of “soil conservation works” to be amplified in such a way that it will not include works erected on the specific land in the process of prospecting or mining activities. In the second place, provision is being made for the definition of “land user” to be circumscribed so that anyone undertaking prospecting or mining activities on land is not deemed to be a land user in terms of the legislation. Such a person will therefore be subject to control in terms of the Mines and Works Act.

In the third place provision is being made for an adjustment to the definition of “prospecting or mining activities”. The definition initially proposed, turned out after closer investigation to make provision only for prospecting and mining activities in connection with precious stones, precious metals and quarries. As the amendment now reads, all mining activities, irrespective of what is involved, are included.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, during Second Reading both the hon. member for Albany and I expressed certain reservations about this clause because land owned by the S.A. Development Trust is specifically excluded.

As I spoke about this matter only a few minutes ago, I do not believe it is necessary for me now to repeat the arguments. Accordingly I move the following amendment—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is very broad in respect of control measures and itemizes so many points that I feel it is a good clause in terms of which to refer to certain problem areas in relation to the application of this legislation. Clause 3 relates to the objects of the Bill and although it is a very short clause it does in fact encompass a huge task on the part of the department in order to remain quite certain that farmers as the custodians of the South Africa estate continue to produce the food supplies of the future. The Bill also refers to executive officers, regional committees and an advisory board, and those, backed up by the department, form the machinery by means of which this plan is going to be put into action.

By way of introduction I may just say that whilst this Bill has received the support of the House generally and has passed its Second Reading stage accordingly, no doubt with a full realization on the part of hon. members of its import, the enormity of the task of applying these control measures is something to which I feel attention should be drawn specifically as far as its practical implementation is concerned. It has been said over and over again that this Bill has teeth. This is the real practicality of the matter—whether we are in fact in a position to apply the provisions of this Bill and whether we have, as has already been mentioned by the hon. member Dr. Odendaal and the hon. member for Prieska, the staff to apply these provisions according to the intention and in the spirit of the Bill.

In this regard I should like to discuss a particular control measure which I wish to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I am referring here to the erosion and proper use of agricultural land. This matter has already been referred to by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He referred to the report of the Science Committee of the President’s Council in regard to the demographic position in the country and the fact that only 12% of the country is arable land. There is also the fact that already urban areas, railways, roads, airports and parks cover three times as much land as that available for agriculture in this country.

When it comes to planning roads and railway lines the situation exists in this country that in the case of roads an ordinance takes priority over an Act of Parliament. Once these people get going on a road it will be an enormous task to implement the provisions of this Bill in the way this should be done. I would go so far as to say that in that respect, unless the Department of Agriculture really flexes its muscles and really takes it rightful place as far as priorities in this country are concerned by means of the proper application of this Bill, the effectiveness of its provisions will to a very large extent be lost. The Division of Soil Protection which I believe now falls under the portfolio of the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has, on the occasions when it has been approached, really had an uphill battle and to all intents and purposes would appear to be somewhat ineffectual. I should like to suggest that when it comes to roads and railway lines these measures are referred, if possible, right back to the local committee but certainly to the regional committee. What is most important is the early planning stage. It is no good doing this when the draftsmen have completed their work and the estimates are being worked out. Once that big wheel has started to turn it is very difficult to stop. All sorts of people adopt postures and stances in this regard. These matters must be approached in the early planning stage and should be referred right down to the regional committee if these control measures are to be equally applicable to the farmer and local and planning authorities when it comes to dealing with roads and railway lines. In the past they have been among the worst perpetrators of erosion and the spreading of weeds. Unless these control measures are applicable equally to State departments and local authorities and unless the regional and local committees can devote their local knowledge to these matters and are given the opportunity of doing so and making that information available in the planning stage, we are in fact going to reduce those committees to a situation where their status will be inadequate and where they will be undermined from the very start. This is a particular point I wanted to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is an area which has been fought for many years, but the answer comes back that there is liaison and it does take place. It takes place, however, too late and it does not come down to grassroot areas. I believe it is terribly important in this Bill that that sort of planning should start with where the road is to be built, and that it should go right through the regional committees. The Department of Agriculture should, in terms of this Bill, have a very definite say in the positioning of roads and railway lines and the prevention of some of the items which are mentioned in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, as far as this clause is concerned, there is an aspect which is important. Certain of the problems were experienced in the past arose from the fact that the farmer has certain obligations as far as his land is concerned, but the moment the State or a State-owned organization is in charge of, or has a proprietary right over that land, it is exempted from the obligations the farmer was subject to. I think we are all agreed on this aspect that the general provisions which apply to an owner should also apply to the State. However, in some respects this will create problems which cannot easily be sorted out in practice. That is why provisions could not be incorporated into the Bill as such.

This principle that there should be consultation with the residents in the area regarding the fate of land which is appropriated for roads or whatever other purpose, was not applied as well as it should have been in the past. Liaison was also not as thorough as it should have been. With the aid of organized agriculture, there has, however, been a vast improvement in this connection. Nowadays there is such liaison—I have experience of this—and when problems are experienced, it is taken into consideration. In this way plans have often been changed in my constituency on the basis of inputs made solely by organized agriculture and the old soil conservation committees in respect of problems.

Although I agree with the hon. member that this is a deficiency in the Bill, I have to point out that it is not such a simple matter to put this provision into words so that it can be included in the Bill. That is why I feel that the consultation which is taking place is sufficient and I am again calling for the recognition of the right of organized agriculture and the conservation committees which are now being established—and on which people from the area who are experts in this field are to serve—to make inputs in this connection. This right has to be recognized and use has to be made of it. I support the idea that provision in this connection is necessary, but it is not possible to include it in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I think we all share the concern of the hon. member for King William’s Town that this way may well be the case. If I understood the hon. member correctly he mentioned all the different bodies with the view to the potency of the Bill. He feels that the Bill as it reads at present is impotent because it cannot be used against the provincial administrations, the SATS and local authorities. He wants provision to be made for the Central Government to be able to get at those bodies in some or other way. Is that what the hon. member had in mind?

I shall explain this when I speak again.

Oh, the hon. member is going to speak again, is he? I am not quite sure whether he feels that the Central Government should have the authority to be able to get at such bodies. Is he of the opinion that the Bill should be given some potency so that those bodies can also be prosecuted or so that other steps can be taken against them?

Mr. Chairman, the points made by the two previous speakers are in support of the point I have made. The reason why we did not move an amendment is that it is too involved to provide for it in legislation like this in a manner which would make it stick. The hon. member for Prieska has indicated that through organized agriculture the situation has improved in certain areas. However, it is very much a situation of which area and, in some cases, the attitude of the district roads engineer. It depends on this relationship with the farmers. There are circumstances in which it is made extremely difficult to even get near the point of making local knowledge concerning a road heard. My suggestion is that to implement the true spirit of clause 3, the object of this Bill, it is going to be necessary for the department and the hon. the Minister to co-ordinate—in some cases it is overlapping with environmental affairs as well—at top level with provincial authorities and say that this is what we are going to put into action in this country. It is absolutely essential in terms of the demographic situation, in terms of the drought and in terms of the retrogression that is taking place in some areas. The department must be asked in the early planning stages to refer road and rail construction right down to grass roots level to the district committee for comment. That is the sort of action I would like to see. I quite agree that to write it into the Bill would be an impossible task. It is the spirit of the implementation that is vital.

Mr. Chairman, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. He made an important point. It can happen that bodies like the SATS or the provincial administrations, when they build roads, or local authorities, when they lease commonages, may experience problems. What the hon. member said illustrated how difficult it would be to include such a provision in the Bill. The reason why it is so difficult in fact illustrates the importance of this legislation being of an educational nature and of this being done by means of persuasion. From practical experience I can attest to the fact that there is co-operation if the department through its representatives in the towns and also, and this is extremely important, through the resources advisory commitees in towns—the old soil conservation committees—liaises with organized agriculture, which can play an extremely important part in the new legislation. Organized agriculture accepts absolute joint responsibility. Joint responsibility is not a word hon. members of the CP like using, but this term is not an issue in this legislation. Organized agriculture accepts joint responsibility for the conservation of natural resources. I can assure the hon. member that all the bodies he referred to have display the right attitude towards resources. All that is needed to start the ball rolling is for local people to be prepared to assume responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for King William’s Town I just want to say that if one looks at clause 16, one sees that it makes provision for the establishment of a regional conservation committee. In clause 17, on the other hand, we make provision for the establishment of a conservation advisory board. Let us just look at the composition of this conservation advisory board, which “shall advise the Minister on matters” such as the following—

1. (a) the desirability of prescribing specific control measures with regard to a particular area;
2. (b) the desirability of establishing a specified scheme, and the provisions of any such scheme …

etc. Let us look more specifically at the board’s composition. I quote from clause 17(3)(a)—

1. (i) the executive officer and another officer of the department;
2. (ii) one officer of the Department of Environment Affairs who has been nominated by the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries …

So one has the co-ordination between the two departments, and—

1. (iii) one person from among the members of each regional conservation committee; and
2. (iv) one person nominated by the South African Agricultural Union.

I think that these particular advisory boards can play a very important role in early planning, as the hon. member said. In the early planning stages they should be aware of what is going to happen in a certain region and they should make the necessary input, together with the relevant departments, whether it be the Department of Transport or whatever. I do think this conservation advisory board can play a very important role indeed in this respect.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, may I also just very briefly refer to clause 17?

No. We are now dealing with clause 16.

Then I just want to follow up on a certain comment that was made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I agree with him that it is most important for the regional conservation committees to be brought into being as soon as possible and for them to be given specific guidelines concerning what they must implement and about what they stand for. We have seen what has happened to the conservation boards in the past, and I therefore think it is absolutely essential that there should not, for any reason whatsoever, be any deviation from the established functions of the committees. There should be no interference whatsoever. There is one thing I would like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In clause 16(3)(c) it will be noted that the composition of the regional conservation committees is clarified. I would like to suggest that in the case of the four members of the soil conservation committee, provision should be made for alternatives, because it is not always possible for the members of those conservation committees, as nominated, to be present at a particular meeting. It is, however, absolutely essential that the conservation committees should have adequate representation at regional level. I should therefore like to leave that with the hon. the Deputy Minister, because it is absolutely essential for a regional conservation committee to be seen to be a co-ordinating body, that it be seen to be the means of co-ordinating a cross-section of opinion. This is extremely important in the application of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to add something in respect of regional committees. I do feel that these committees are vital. Clause 16(2)(b) provides that such a committee shall advise the department and the advisory board on any matter arising from the application of this legislation. I in fact see that this not only in respect of the application of strict discipline, but also as a means of bringing regional or local feeling in respect of certain conservation matters to the attention of the board—because there are also local committee members on the board.

I should just like to go back a few years and refer to the old four-camp system. In those days, in the ’fifties, we started with a lot of fencing, which was subsidized and water reticulation in an effort to rest or spare the veld. In those days the four-camp system was the in thing. One spared one camp for the entire year and grazed the other three. There were enormous problems. The veld at the end of the growing season was very long and no stock would eat it. The palatable veld in fact was overgrazed, because it had carried a lot of stock. That veld was therefore grazed down and was then allowed to be grazed again. So there were umpteen problems. However, it was at the time one of the conditions that one had to spare one quarter of one’s farm. That was a regulation in respect of some of the subsidies, etc. Later that was changed and people started summer-sparing from October through to the end of autumn. Then there was the matter of non-selective grazing and so forth.

The point I should like to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister here is that currently there is a new look in relation to veld conservation systems, for example the Savoury system and the wagon-wheel system, about which the department is a little sceptical. There is the prospect of people having to take down earlier fencing which was subsidized and reorganizing their farms and reprogramming them according to the new systems. That is a little slow in coming through and I think this is where the regional committees, with the assistance of the local committees, can perhaps introduce a somewhat more flexible outlook in regard to the method considered best in each area. It is not true to say that we must only look at overstocking. It is a question of overgrazing. In some cases the adoption of a certain system has already led many people to reap the benefit of a lot of effort put into their property. Now it is said that with a different system one can get greater results. I think the regional committee’s prime function will be to look at some of those aspects in order to accelerate the educational process referred to by the hon. member Dr. Odendaal.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are pleased that this piece of legislation has reached the Third Reading stage and we are also pleased to note that the House seems to be united as to the importance of the Bill. We are sad, however, that the objection that we had in connection with clause 16(2)(b) could not be met, yet, we do understand the hon. the Deputy Minister’s problem in this regard. It is quite obvious also that this problem is receiving the attention of the Government. We trust that this matter will be attended to in some other way. Otherwise we feel that this is a good Bill and we trust that it will have the desired effect.

Mr. Speaker, along with other hon. members, I should also like to express my appreciation for this legislation. I think it has been introduced at the right time. I can talk from experience because I was a member of a soil conservation committee for 27 years and I frequently came up against a brick wall because the old Soil Conservation Act, as the hon. member for Mooi River also mentioned, was not patent enough. I come from an area where we also have such a conservation area—the Vlekpoort Conservation Area. I think of all the hon. members in this House the hon. member for Vryburg and I probably know most about the problems in that area. We welcome this legislation because it will inspire our farmers to take their guardianship of the soil of our country more seriously and to assume full responsibility for it.

I should just like to add something to what an hon. member said here. As land was taken out of the hands of Whites for purposes of consolidation it became necessary for greater demands to be made of the remaining land and for this land to be better utilized in order to serve the purpose of agricultural land. That is why this legislation is so extremely important for our farming community.

There is another point I should like to emphasize namely that in the application and realization of this legislation our White farmers will have to set our Black neighbours an example, who need this legislation just as much as we do in order to conserve their land so that it can also meet the requirements of their own people.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to take this opportunity to make one or two points in respect of the attitude of this party towards this particular Bill. We believe that this legislation is heralding in a new era in agriculture. One realizes that it is a consolidation of a lot of the existing legislation, that there has been a change in format and that it creates mechanics to deal with things. However, it comes at a time when everybody’s attention is focused on a great many problems in the country in relation to the demography, environmental conservation and matters of that nature. Therefore it is very timeous in its appearance. We feel, too, that in order to implement this we are going to have to have a very good look at the structure and the function of the departmental people in the field and their interrelationship with the farmer and with the committees that are going to be established.

We have very great pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill and we give notice of the fact that we shall be bringing into future agricultural debates points in relation to the ability of the department to relate correctly with the farmer in order to implement this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for their support of the Third Reading. I agree with the hon. member for King William’s Town that the success of this whole exercise will depend on the measure of co-operation we receive from the farmers, the officials of the department and the various other bodies concerned with this legislation.

*If we do not co-operate, if we do not receive the co-operation of our farmers, this legislation is not going to work, and in that case we, unfortunately, shall have to invoke the more unpleasant provisions of the legislation and bring pressure to bear on people. We should not like to do this. Consequently we hope and trust that we shall be able to obtain the necessary co-operation. I thank hon. members once again for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before this House today seeks mainly to effect a number of minor rectifications to the Act. In addition, I think this may be exactly the right time to discuss this matter.

At present the Act empowers the KWV to supply its products to members only if they are the owners of quota farms. However, a small group of members who work quota farms for their own account cannot, owing to circumstances, be classified as the owners or occupants of those farms. These members are consequently being deprived of the privilege of obtaining products of the KWV in exchange for the grapes which they supply, something which causes great dissatisfaction. This unfairness can only be rectified by means of a statutory amendment. Consequently it is being envisaged that the authority of the KWV shall be extended in such a way that its products may be supplied in exchange to all members to whom production permits have been issued.

The Act authorizes the limitation of the quantity of grapes which the liquor trade may purchase annually for wine-making purposes. In a great or good wine-growing year, however, it may happen that a specific dealer purchases more than his allocated quantity of grapes. With a view to accommodating such dealers, an amendment to the setting off procedure for excess purchases is being proposed. In terms of this amendment it will be possible to set off any purchase in excess of the allocation for a specific year against any unused portion of a dealer’s allocation for the previous year or the ensuing year.

†There is a little restriction on the supply of unfortified wines to members of the KWV. Fortified wines, on the other hand, can at present only be obtained by members as part of their 40-litre absolute alcohol allocations. As members use this allocation mainly to obtain spirits, the off-take of fortified wines is severely hampered by this restriction. The KWV produces some excellent fortified wines and it should be more readily available to members. An amendment to the Act is therefore proposed to put the conditions for the supply of fortified wines to members of the KWV on a par with those for unfortified wines.

In terms of the Act the KWV is required to pay a portion of its levies to the State, ostensibly as reimbursement for certain control functions performed by customs and excise officers on behalf of the KWV. During 1981 the staff situation obliged the Government to return these functions to the KWV. As these functions are now performed by the staff of the KWV, the need for reimbursing the Government has fallen away. It is therefore proposed that this requirement be deleted from the Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill also provides for the correction of certain references and the adjustment of certain purely administrative matters. It enjoys the support of all the interested parties in the liquor industry.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start off by referring to a few of the broader aspects of the liquor industry.

The first matter to which I wish to refer today is the report of the Competition Board that was completed in June of last year covering their investigation of all the aspects of the liquor industry in South Africa. What concerns us on this side of the House is the way in which the liquor industry has been structured in this country and which gives a monopoly to Cape Wine and Distillers. We are concerned about this. One of the recommendations of the Competition Board was that CWD should be scrapped or abandoned. Hon. members are probably aware that 85% of the wine and spirits market is controlled by CWD, and the findings of the Competition Board were that this is an undesirable situation. As most hon. members will know, this situation came into being in 1979 when the interests of Rembrandt, KWV and S.A. Breweries were amalgamated into CWD. The main recommendations of the Competition Board were the abolition of CWD and that there be a reversion on the part of Rembrandt and KWV to their old interests. The other recommendation was that S.A. Breweries divest itself of its interest in CWD. Another aspect of these recommendations is that the Government has turned down their recommendation that beer sales should be allowed through super-market outlets. Perhaps the reason that that recommendation was turned down is that there are 12 MPs on the Government side representing wine interests while there are none representing beer interests. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member discussing this Bill?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member may proceed. I shall listen to him very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, we can understand the problems of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism at the moment because, unfortunately, he is a Minister who sits between two stools. On the one side he has 7 000 wine farms and these winegrowers hold a 50% interest in Rembrandt-KWV-beleggings which in turn have a 60% interest in CWD. There are also the 12 MPs representing the wine farmers. On the other hand, the problem experienced by the hon. the Minister is the credibility of the Competition Board. We have a clear commitment in this country in respect of free enterprise and competition. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member discussing the legislation before the House?

Mr. Speaker, I shall do so in a moment. I should just like to complete this argument.

The hon. member may proceed.

What concerns us is the decision of the hon. the Minister not to adopt the recommendations of the Competition Board. He has obviously made that decision on political grounds because, when a recommendation is made that is in fact contrary to the interests of the NP, it gets turned down. The whole question of credibility in regard to the commitment to free enterprise and the Competition Board has in fact been placed in jeopardy by this decision. We shall elaborate further on this matter during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism who unfortunately could not be here today.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, we have studied the Bill closely and we have no problems in regard to it. In the circumstances we shall be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time when we discuss the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, I shall convey very clearly to the hon. member who has just sat down the wine farmers’ views on the Government’s arrangements and decisions with regard to the liquor trade.

As one wine farmer to another I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the first piece of wine legislation which he has introduced in the House.

What about those of us who do not have wine quotas …

I shall reply to that hon. Minister in my own time. [Interjections.]

The Bill does not really contain any contentious provisions. However, there are certain amendments that affect basic standpoints in the wine industry. I want to request the attention of the House so that I can once again explain one of these standpoints of the wine industry against the overall historical background for the sake of general clarity and justification.

In clause 4 we find that greater flexibility is being built into the principle of restrictions on grape purchases by the liquor wholesalers from the grape producers. Through the amendment provision is now being made for grapes purchased in excess of the allocated amount by a particular wholesaler in a particular year to be set off against purchases during the preceding year or the ensuing two years. In this way wholesalers will in future be able to level off their grape purchases over a period of three years, and thereby utilize good years, with grapes of a higher quality, more efficiently. Therefore the amendment aims at a more practical and more flexible application of the restriction principle with regard to grape purchases, and it was accepted and welcomed as such by all sectors of the wine industry.

With the introduction of the statutory provisions in 1976—I am now referring to section 1 of Act 69 of 1976—that regulate grape purchases for the making of wine, this measure was, however, strongly questioned by the wholesale liquor trade and unaffiliated grape producers. As a result of this, the annual fixing of the amount of grapes that may be purchased for this purpose remains a contentious issue.

I thereby believe that it is once again necessary to sketch the historical background and reasons for the control over grape purchases to this House and to provide information about the current negotiations to solve the problem in respect of the annual fixing of the amount of grapes. With a view to solving the problem of the wine industry at the beginning of this century, it was decided to establish the KWV according to two basic principles. They were, firstly, that the future of the wine industry would be built round the co-operative principle, and, secondly, that the future of the wine industry would be based on the principle of wine production and not on the production of grapes.

These two principles found practical application in the process of organizing the wine industry in that the KWV was established as a compulsory co-operative, the licensed wholesalers were prohibited from purchasing grapes from wine farmers and the KWV, since its establishment, was directed to determine a minimum price for wine and not for grapes. The stabilizing mechanism in the wine industry, the surplus declaration in respect of distilling wine, is based solely on wine production and was never applied to the production of grapes. These two principles form the basis of the success story of the KWV. The practical application of these two principles gave rise to unprecedented stability and security in the wine industry as well as in the overall economy of the Western Cape. Furthermore: These two principles gave rise to a strong expansion of the co-operative movement in the wine industry. The result is that today about 85% of the total wine harvest is supplied by about 70 cooperative wine cellars. These co-operative wine cellars are equipped with the most modern cellar equipment and employ the most advanced wine-making techniques under the expert guidance of scientifically trained cellar masters or wine makers. The outcome of these steps was that the co-operative cellars made an enormous contribution to increasing the quality of our wines, to such a degree that our ordinary estate wines today compare more than favourably with the standard of the average estate wines in the whole world. However, I want to clear up one point on this connection, namely the statement that a producer as a shareholder of a co-operative cellar should be described as an ordinary grape farmer. This is devoid of all logic and truth. The shareholder of each co-operative cellar plans his cellar and wine-making techniques like any other estate wine owner, and subsequently sells his wine like any other estate to the wholesale trade and to the consumer. I therefore call on all parties to cut out all these confusing statements and illogical nonsense.

While these developments took place, a development in the opposite direction took place, which had a negative effect on the beneficial influence of these two fundamental principle’s in the wine industry. As I have already indicated, the wholesale trade was forbidden to buy grapes from a grape producer, but a concession was made in the Act allowing for the purchasing of grapes among producers. The result was that the wholesale trade eventually made use of subsidiary companies owning wine farms to start buying up grapes from wine farmers as producers. The end result of this was that a wine farmer with a production quota of 140 tons in the hands of such a wholesale subsidiary company bought more than 14 000 tons of grapes. The inevitable result of this was the disturbance of an orderly development pattern in the wine industry in that such a development pattern based on the co-operative movement will be undermined by increasing grape purchases and that existing facilities in the cooperative cellars will remain utilized. A development pattern based on wine production, which has a built-in stabilizing mechanism of declaring surpluses, will be undermined by increasing purchases of grapes. The inevitable result of this will be that the South African wine farmer will fall victim to a situation such as the one they had in Australia, where in 1978 more than 50 000 tons of grapes remained unpicked because the Australian wine industry is based on grape purchases.

This development will therefore in the long run drastically undermine the mechanism of wine farmers to apply self-discipline and to act in a self-sufficient manner. The negation of these two principles by increasing grape purchases by the wholesale trade will therefore destroy the foundation on which the wine industry and the KWV is built. That is why it was decided in 1976 to restrict to a certain quantity by way of legislation the quantity of grapes that can be bought by the wholesale trade. This amending Bill therefore aims at making this restriction more practical and flexible.

Meanwhile the hon. the Deputy Minister, with his special feeling for the problems in the wine industry, requested the parties concerned—the KWV, the KWK, the CWSI, as well as independent grape producers—to work out a more flexible formula for the determination of the quantity of grapes which may be sold annually.

It gives me pleasure to report to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the indications are that the negotiations between these parties will lead to a suppler formula and a more sober approach to the matter. As a wine farmer I support the legislation with pleasure, as I am convinced that it will give rise to better attitudes in the wine industry.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot talk about the wine industry with the same amount of expertise as the hon. member for Ceres. He said that there are two parties here who had agreed to work together. On this Bill our party is also going to try to-co-operate with the party on the other side. [Interjections.]

Just keep your speech sober.

At this stage the CP does not as yet have a representative in the House who can represent the wine farmers. After the next election we will have one, but until then … [Interjections.]. I as a meat farmer from the Northern Cape will perform the task. The hon. member for Ceres knows a lot about the use of the Boland culture. [Interjections.] That culture, perhaps together with a delicious Dorper sparerib or a steak from the Northern Cape, are two elements which can really do justice to the appetite of every gourmet.

This Bill is in the main aimed at removing a number of practical problems experienced by the KWV with the application of the Wine and Spirit Control Act, 1970. Because we also basically have an entrenchment in legislation of an agreement between the KWV as the representative of the producers and the producing wholesaler in this legislation, we regard this legislation as a consequence of the wishes of those people. We also regard it as good legislation, which will effect minor technical adjustments.

The CP would therefore like to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the CP and the official Opposition for their support. I want to tell the hon. member for Kuruman that they will have a hard time getting a member for the wine farmers to this House.

We have our eye on Wellington. [Interjections.]

You should rather try Stellenbosch, Jan!

For my part, I should also like to express special appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the knowledge which he has shown, for his special understanding and insight and, if I may add, as a typical wine farmer should have, his special feeling for the subject.

There are a few less important amendments. Perhaps it may interest hon. members that something like Vodka is prepared from grape spirit these days, something which of course makes the Vodka taste much better. Then there is what the French call I’eau de vie. In Italian they call it grappa. It is a grape spirit. To me it is much better than the other white spirits.

Then there is something else which has to be rectified. If a farmer farms on his farm as an owner, even if he does not five on the farm, he can obtain a liquor card. In the case of a tenant, the tenant has to remain on the farm, even if he himself is the bona fide farmer. In areas such as the Olifantsrivier the valley area is fully utilized for cultivation purposes. The farmers then build their houses and other outbuildings to one side, higher up on the ridge. What we are doing now, is to rectify the legislation, because if we are thirsty here, just think how thirsty those fellows must be in that warmer climate. We should like to eliminate this unfairness. Talking about thirst, I just want to mention a certain booklet with the tittle “Eksamenflaters”. In that booklet a Std. 6 pupil wrote about the subject of “alcohol”. He says—

He also says—

He says—and now hon. members must listen carefully—

[Interjections.] As I have said, provision is being made for a few minor amendments. It is a fact that the present provisions of the Act provide that interest may only be levied on the basic minimum price of the wine, but we should like to introduce this sound business principle that interest should also be levied on belated payments and should have a bearing on the full sale price, in other words, all additional premiums negotiated by the wine farmer, so that we will also be in line with normal trade practices.

At the moment the legislation provides further that an amount be determined which shall be added to the minimum price of wine in accordance with the container or the packaging material of such wine. One man buys it in a bottle, another in a can and a third in a carry-pack. Naturally this provision is necessary to prevent the minimum price of wine being undermined. This serves as background. The legislation does not provide for the fact that farmers may obtain such wine. At the moment the farmer must, when his own container is full, pay this surcharge in any case. This is of course illogical.

The Liquor Act of 1977 was amended in 1981 to provide, for the same reason which I have just mentioned, that bona fide farmers may also buy wine for use on the farm in containers with a capacity in excess of 5 litres. This amending Bill therefore also provides that such a bona fide farmer is able to obtain wine in this way.

Then the present provisions of the legislation confine sales by the KWV to anyone south of the equator—this is a very great pity of course—except to wholesalers and to its own members, and this only in certain circumstances. In respect of its sales to members, there is the further restriction that such a member may not buy more than 40 litres “absolute alcohol”. This is a term which we can explain another day, but this is not terribly much for a thirsty person. In addition he is allowed to buy a quantity of natural wine, a quantity determined by the Minister. Natural wine is wine to which no spirit is added for fortification or strength and we have at the KWV many, well-matured wines, ports, sherries, muscadel and others which we should also like to have included under the quota provisions. At the moment members of the KWV take any fortified wine as part of the 40 of absolute alcohol. This situation has of course also led to complaints by the farmers, and we would like to rectify it.

We are now dealing with wine and this is a nice time of the day. So to conclude, I just want to say that that same young man wrote that to make water drinkable, one should add a little wine. Hon. members will also know that the Book says that one should use a little wine for “my stomach’s sake and infirmities”.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I notice that with the tolerance you allowed the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to discuss certain matters. In view of that we will not take the chance of following in his footsteps. May I simply say that we support the views expressed by him. We thank you for allowing him to proceed as far as he did. We are glad to have it in Hansard that in fact this party supports that attitude in respect of the wine industry and the unfortunate situation that has arisen in respect of the Competition Board and matters relating thereto.

As far as the Bill is concerned, it appears to be a streamlining relating to some functional problems which have been experienced and which have been mentioned by the hon. members preceding me. We have nothing further to add to that. We were just a little worried that there might be another motive behind getting rid of more wine to the members and staff. Also, with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs’ new interest in the witblits industry in the Northern Transvaal, or in mampoer, perhaps the vodka application down here is aimed to counterbalance the inroads made by the witblits people. There are always some hidden things in the wine industry and we will not go into that. [Interjections.] An hon. member here suggests that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs may want to use it in his Harley Davidson. Be that as it may, there are always wheels within wheels in the wine industry. In any event, the Bill before us is a functional one and the changes in it appear to be necessary and fair. Accordingly, we support them.

Mr. Speaker, with such sup porters as the hon. member for Ceres and the hon. member for Wellington, who are experts in the wine industry on my side, it is not necessary for me to say much about this matter, except to thank all the hon. members who participated in the debate for their support. I just want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that wine legislation is quite complicated. I administer, by way of delegation, three Acts, and the hon. member should just take cognizance of this. One of these is the Wine and Spirits Control Act, of 1970. Then there is also the Wine and Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, of 1957. This is a separate Act, but it also concerns the production side of the industry. Then there is the Restriction on the Importation of Wine and Spirits Act, of 1921. This is a very old Act, but it still applies and is well-matured by this time.

But this legislation is concerned with consumption and not production.

The hon. the Minister will have to discuss the matter he would like to discuss under the legislation of another department entirely. This is concerned with the Liquor Act which is dealt with by the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. This is for the information of the hon. the Minister. It takes a little time to reconcile these things. [Interjections.]

I received a considerable amount of advice while this debate was under way inter alia from the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

I represent a wine constituency; that is why I was giving advice!

He suggested that when the hon. member for Wellington and the hon. member for Ceres, came up with these new products, they should at least put them on display. If they cannot display them here in this House, the least they can do is have them available for inspection, and what follows on that. I also received a lot of representations from hon. members sitting around me who are not wine farmers, but who do have an interest in wine in the sense that they like to consume it, people who are on very friendly terms with the KWV but who do not have quotas, that we should also look after their interests. I promise to convey these various representations and messages to the hon. gentlemen of the KWV.

There is only one further matter I should like to raise, regarding which I should like to thank the hon. member for Ceres in particular; namely the good news that they are making progress in connection with the old dispute as to the quantity of grapes which should be offered for sale to the trade. I issued a directive that the respective bodies, such as the KWV, the KWSI, the independent producers and everyone with an interest in this matter should get together and submit a formula to me in terms of which we shall be able to determine the quantity of grapes every year. I am very glad to hear that progress has been made in this connection. This will mean that this adjustment we have made in the Act this year, will be easier to apply in future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 11:

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

This amendment has been solely necessitated by an oversight and I do not think that we need to hold a long discussion on it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition supported this Bill through all its stages. In this Third Reading stage, I want to express the hope that the additional members will enable the Minister to bring about a better balance on the council.

We also hope that the Minister will see fit, in looking at the composition of the council, to improve representation of other racial groups in this country too. We do not think they should be excluded purely on the grounds of their race. We cannot believe however, that in the composition of such a council it will not be possible or that there will not be people of other racial groups available to make a fruitful contribution to the proceedings of the council. Members of other race groups living in this country also have an interest in environmental affairs. We hope therefore that they will also be enabled to become part of this council.

Finally I should like to mention one other point. We hope the new council will sit soon and begin to carry out the task entrusted to it. We also wish the hew council all the best in their future activities, and we will be looking forward with interest to the fruits of their deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for his support of this measure. The effect of this Bill will be that it will allow the Minister the opportunity of adding skills and extra weight to the council. It will allow the Minister to add those skills necessary to give effect to the spirit of the White Paper of 1980, and also to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Environmental Legislation. It will also allow the Minister to add to those skills on a non-racial basis. It is essential not only to involve the necessary additional disciplines but also to involve all the people of our country. This council has a co-ordinating and advisory role. How there can be objections—as we heard during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage—to the fact that other races will serve on this council, I cannot understand. I say this because on the Theron Commission, which was an advisory body, other races also served. On the President’s Council, which is an advisory body, other races serve as well. Therefore, I cannot understand why these objections have suddenly been raised. What is important is that it is stated in the White Paper, it was a finding of the commission and it is said all the time that in regard to matters of the environment we have to strike a balance between development on the one hand and conservation on the other. I think there are few people who would not agree that an imbalance exists at the moment as far as conservation is concerned and that too little emphasis is placed on the question of conservation. The additional members and their added skills van therefore only be a good thing. I refer to added skills in regard to those disciplines that are under-represented or not represented at all.

In the final analysis we shall only succeed with conservation and improving the quality of life in our country if we change the behavioural patterns of all of our people in this country by means of education and whatever other means we have available. I say this because the degradation of the environment that does take place, takes place because of people. Therefore, we need a change of heart, not only on the part of developers, but also on the part of the public and litterers as a whole.

Hon. members of the CP may be reluctant to share political power but, whether they like it or not, the fact remains—some American politicians talked about the “Spaceship Earth”—that we all live in this country and occupy a defined portion of the “Spaceship Earth”. We live together in South Africa, we breathe the same air and we drink the same water. [Interjections.] I am speaking from an environmental point of view. If a person drops a piece of paper in the street, it has an adverse impact upon the quality of life of everybody; it involves a cost to the community as a whole. We can only change the behavioural patterns of all the people in this country if by means of education we try to alter the whole conservation ethic in this country. We cannot compartmentalize the environment. We cannot segregate our national, regional or international responsibilities as far as the environment is concerned. This is simply not possible, and that conclusion was arrived at by the commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Kuruman.

Arguments that have been advanced that additional members of the council will result in additional costs, that it will prove too expensive, are fallacious arguments. Seven years ago it cost the Thames River Authority £100 million sterling to clean up the river because of bad planning in the past. To correct the environmental mistakes of previous generations is an extremely costly thing and, therefore, to improve the whole basis on which the public and the State is advised on environmental issues in South Africa is in fact not a cost but a saving to our society. Not only that, What makes the arguments advanced by the hon. members of the CP even more fallacious is that, while they say that we cannot spend this money to appoint a few more members to this council, in the same breath they say that we must have three councils, that each race group must have its own council. If cost were the issue, then what would be the additional cost be of having three Councils for the Environment, each advising a different group in the community? [Interjections.]

It is vital, for the reasons I have given earlier, that the council for the Environment should also get involved in the planning process in our country in so far as land usage and allocation is concerned. The council should get involved in this as far as possible ahead of conflict or development so that it can peacefully at an early stage identify areas, artefacts and parts of our country which need to be conserved before concentrations capital develop and before the cost of saving that which is threatened becomes prohibitive. At the moment we see an example of that in the Southern Cape where there is a conflict developing between conservationists on the one hand and people who wish to develop on the other hand. If there is planning ahead of time, that kind of problem is more easily obviated.

It will be the quality of life in the cities that will be the major challenge to conservationists in South Africa as populations grow and there is further urbanization in our country. I therefore hope and trust that the council will give its early attention to the whole matter of noise pollution and the whole question of solid-waste littering. This should be done as a matter of extreme urgency. We dump hundreds of thousands of tons of waste into our dustbins and in the form of litter on to our streets each year, and the recycling of that waste has become an urgent priority in our country.

The council is giving attention to the whole question of the intertidal areas and the double jurisdiction that exists in those areas, and one welcomes that. More work will have to be done in other areas, and further rationalization of existing Acts, ordinances and regulations which affect the environment will have to take place.

Finally I should like to say that we on this side of the House wish the Council for the Environment well. A heavy responsibility rests upon them. We also wish the hon. the Deputy Minister well and thank him for the dynamism which he has already displayed in the short time that he has had responsibility in this field of Government.

Mr. Speaker, in the years that he has served in this House the hon. member for Maitland has made a name for himself as a very enthusiastic champion of the conservation of the environment. One is very appreciative of the attitude of the hon. member towards the conservation of the environment in South Africa.

I also wish to congratulate the hon. member. When the commission had to decide how many members the council was to have, he was in favour of the council consisting of 30 members. We discussed the matter on two occasions, and eventually the commission decided unanimously that the council should comprise 20 members. At that time it so happened that the hon. member for Brakpan and I ceased to be members of the NP, and now it seems to me as if in the meantime the hon. member for Maitland has convinced not only his then fellow commissioners, but also the hon. the Deputy Minister, to expand the membership of the council to 25. I want to congratulate him on having won. One can say that this was a case of persistence winning through. I shall in the course of my speech deal with the hon. member’s reference to the involvement of other population groups in the council. I agree with the hon. member that it must be the task of the council to strike a balance between development and conservation in South Africa.

The three liberal parties in this House—that is to say, the new NP, the PFP and the NRP—presented a totally distorted picture of this legislation during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage. They also presented a totally distorted picture of the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into Conservation Legislation concerning the appointment of people of colour to the Council for the Environment, a totally distorted image of the part I played as chairman of the commission, and of the standpoint of the CP. The CP regards environmental conservation as of cardinal importance. Prof. Roelf Botha and his council have a very important task with regard to the conservation of the environment in South Africa. The hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government have a very important task with regard to environmental conservation in South Africa.

The three liberal parties in this House used this debate to discuss colour rather than the conservation of the environment.

That is untrue. [Interjections.]

The debate during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage concerned colour as far as those three parties were concerned, rather than the expansion of the council. [Interjections.] The CP contends that all peoples in Southern Africa have a task with regard to the conservation of the environment. The CP says that the combating of littering and the pollution of South Africa by means of empty bottles and tins, plastic and other unsightly articles ought to be seen and dealt with by the Council for the Environment as their top priority. Moreover this was one of the recommendations of our commission. Only the hon. member for Maitland made passing reference to this very important recommendation. The CP states that all peoples living in this beautiful country ought to have an obligation and a share in the task of keeping this country clean and unpolluted. The CP states that it is the task of the Council for the Environment and the Government to instill in everyone in South Africa the realization that he or she should not transform this beautiful country of ours into a rubbish-heap of empty bottles, tins and plastic containers. This must be instilled in every child and adult. White, Brown, Indian and Black.

You are making a rubbish-heap of Parliament.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development wants to scratch around in the rubbish-heaps again. [Interjections.]

What about the empty political tins?

Listening to the hon. member for Innesdal I can only say that empty tins make the most noise. [Interjections.] The CP says that all voluntary organizations and bodies that concern themselves with keeping South Africa clean, should be co-ordinated and encouraged by the Council for the Environment to continue with this fine work they are doing in South Africa.

The hon. member for Maitland referred to the question of solid waste; this is something that we, too, recommend for consideration. Many things that could profitably be used in South Africa are thrown on the rubbish-heaps about which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is so knowledgeable. South Africa’s iron ore is delivered in Canada at a cheaper price than the bonemeal manufacturer has to pay for a ton of bones in South Africa. This is one aspect which I should very much like investigated because in our cities thousands of tons of bones are thrown into rubbish-bins. Those bones then end up on those rubbish-heaps. They are bones that could perhaps be exploited, and a great more cheaply than the iron ore at Sishen’s iron or mines. The three liberal parties that are so obsessed with colour … [Interjections.] and which are insisting that people of colour be appointed to the Council for the Environment, compel me to discuss this as well. [Interjections.]

Their interpretation of the Bill and the recommendation of the commission compel me to say something about this. [Interjections.] What I find very interesting is that when the principal Act was introduced here last year—after we were already sitting in these benches—not one of those hon. members said anything about people of colour. Hon. members can go and read the debates if they wish. Not a word about people of colour was uttered throughout that debate.

Why are you quoting that?

But those hon. members dragged the Coloureds into this debate. [Interjections.] They dragged that aspect into this debate. [Interjections.] Neither the principal Act nor the Bill have anything to do with the appointment of Coloureds to the Council for the Environment. [Interjections.] As far back as the Second Reading debate I said this. The CP opposes this Bill because this council is being made bigger and more unwieldy.

That is not true.

The CP opposes this Bill because the expenditure will be greater. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. member Dr. Odendaal that the smaller a council, the more efficiently it is able to function, because this council is there to co-ordinate and furnish advice. [Interjections.] This council has the right to appoint various committees—expert committees concerning virtually every facet of conservation in South Africa—to investigate and report back so that the Minister may be advised in that regard.

This will also entail greater expense. To bring five extra members to the meeting place by air from across the country will entail heavier expenses as well as accommodation expenses. [Interjections.] I take it, too, that these additional members … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a reasonable question to the hon. member, because I do not think I quite understand the hon. member. Is it the hon. member’s idea that we should keep this council smaller—limited to 20—and that each of the other population groups should appoint its own council? Is that his idea?

I anticipated the hon. member’s question due to the speech which hon. members on that side made, and therefore I shall reply to his question in the course of my speech. [Interjections.] Thus far not a single argument has convinced me that the number of members of the council should be increased. This afternoon we passed a Bill in this House. I refer to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Bill. In clause 17 of that Bill provision is made for the appointment of an advisory board with the task of seeing to the conservation of agricultural areas in South Africa. This is the biggest area in the Republic of South Africa in regard to which an additional conservation board or advisory board is being established. The Council for the Environment has a representative on that board. I do not know whether the hon. member Dr. Odendaal knows it, but the Council for the Environment has a member on that board. It seems as if the Government party wants to govern by way of boards and councils, because the Council for the Environment, which is to see to the conservation of the environment, was not enough. A new council is now being established.

Are the aims of these bodies the same?

Yes, they are more or less the same. We need only look at the composition of the Council for the Environment. One of its members is Mr. E. Adler, former Chief Director of Soil Conservation in the former Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Another is Mr. G. S. Bosch, Secretary of the Western Cape Agricultural Union. I want to say to the hon. member for Ventersdorp that the commission said that it was essential that agriculture be represented on the Council for the Environment because the greater part of South Africa’s surface area was occupied by agriculture. There are two members representing agriculture in the Council for the Environment, which has 20 members. Today, however, a new board is being established under other legislation, another board which is to see to the conservation of the environment in the agricultural milieu. [Interjections.]

Then, too, there is another matter I should like to rectify. The hon. member for Fauresmith said in this House that I had insisted that it be recommended that persons of colour be appointed to the Council for the Environment. The hon. member for Ladybrand told me by way of a question that I had asked him to move such a motion in the commission. The hon. member for Algoa said here with reference to me—

If that hon. member had been here he would have known that I have already said these things. What is the truth? The hon. member for Bryanston and Mr. Wood argued that it should be specified in the Act that people of colour be appointed to the council. As chairman I insisted that we should not incorporate colour in the legislation. However, I agreed that it be recommended in the report of the commission that members of all population groups be considered for appointment to the council. However, I insisted that the aspect of colour should not be incorporated in the legislation with regard to this council. The commission agreed that we should not incorporate the aspect of colour in the legislation. We agreed to recommend that people of colour should be considered for appointment to the council, and that recommendation was made. I did not run away from that. The legislation was then drafted, and it is legislation which enables the Minister or Deputy Minister to appoint a council of 20 members. Sixteen of the members are appointed and four are nominated by the provinces. I said a moment ago that I had asked the hon. member for Ladybrand to propose a motion to the commission. Perhaps I should just mention why I did so. I asked the hon. member for Ladybrand to propose that colour should not be incorporated in the Act but that it be recommended in the commission that people of colour could be considered. I asked the conservative member for Ladybrand to put it in this way because I was afraid that the liberal members for Roodeplaat, Standerton, Bryanston, Ermelo and Umfolozi could get the commission to recommend that people of colour could be incorporated in the Act. [Interjections.] Because nothing was said about people of colour in the Act, the Act provides that 20 members may be appointed, and accordingly the hon. the Minister or his Deputy appointed 20 members. Here are their names, and I think that they have appointed a very good council. It is very well-balanced with regard to the various interest groups involved. However, I have a suspicion that pressure was exerted on the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister once they had already appointed a 100% White council. I have a suspicion that pressure was exerted on them and they were told: “Fellows, you have forgotten the Brown people, the Indians and the Black people in the cities.” The hon. the Minister had then to expand the membership of the council by five to make provision for what he had to do, according to some of his people, and had failed to do. The Act as drafted, without any connotation of colour, makes it possible for the Government party, in terms of its policy—and I should like those hon. members to listen carefully—to appoint people of colour to the council.

However, there is another rectification I should also like to make. The hon. member for Fauresmith said the following (Hansard, 24 March 1983, col. 3855)—

We never decided that they should be appointed. We decided that this could be considered by the Minister for appointment to the council. Because this was so, the hon. the Minister appointed 20 Whites. When the hon. member for Fauresmith spoke to the hon. members of the PFP he asked (Hansard, 24 March 1983, col. 3856)—

I now want to ask the hon. member for Fauresmith what the consequences of his party’s policy are. That party has now accepted that people may be appointed to the electoral college, the President’s Council and the Cabinet on a basis of 4:2:1. The consequence of that party’s policy is that in future they will have to use the 4:2:1 formula to appoint people to all bodies in councils. If that is not so then those people are deceiving someone in this country. [Interjections.] If the policy of the Government is implemented they will necessarily have to appoint people to all boards and councils on a basis of 4:2:1.

The CP is satisfied with the Act as it stands. When we come to power—and it will not be long … [Interjections.] I want to say to those hon. members who come from the Western Transvaal that they should consider what Siener van Rensburg said. Siener van Rensburg said that he saw a great cloud, and in that cloud was a big number 48. He said that there would be a change of Government in 1948, and that is what happened. He also said that he saw that figure being changed around into 84. If hon. members believe what Siener van Rensburg said then they have cause for grave concern as regards the year 1984 which lies ahead. [Interjections.] When the CP comes to power … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I am not replying to questions now, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, when the CP comes to power … [Interjections.]

Order!

Siener van Rensburg is just coming in at the door now! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, before hon. members manage to keep laughing until my time is up merely because the hon. member for Bryanston has just entered this House, I just want to get in a few more words. Hon. members of the NP are laughing, but I know that they are quaking in their boots. [Interjections.] When the CP comes to power we shall appoint a Council for the Environment which will consist of 20 or 25 members. All those members will be Whites. In terms of the policy of a CP Government the Council for the Environment of White South Africa, in consultation with persons and bodies from other peoples who launch environment conservation efforts, will organize, plan and promote the conservation of the environment in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] We already have an example of this, Mr. Speaker.

Bophuthatswana is an independent State comprising six districts extending from Pretoria westwards to Kuruman and southwards to Thaba Nchu, in the OFS. It is essential that our Government and our Council for the Environment tackle certain conservation campaigns and projects in co-operation with Bophuthatswana. As far as we are concerned, Bophuthatswana can have its own conservation bodies which will be able to tackle conservation efforts in co-operation with the South African Government.

We want to put it clearly to the Government that in terms of their policy of multiracial Government, they must continue to make all their councils multiracial. That is their policy; they must go on with it.

According to ratio of 4:2:1. [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the NP must accept, however, that hon. members sitting in these benches are members of a party whose policy has been approved by a congress, a policy which takes into account the diversity of peoples in Southern Africa, also with regard to the appointment of councils and the conservation efforts. Multi-racial councils as part of a multiracial governmental system are unacceptable to the CP. [Interjections.] I also want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs that multiracial councils as part of a multiracial Government are unacceptable to this party. For that reason this party has adopted a standpoint opposed to the appointment of persons of colour to these councils. [Interjections.]

We want to put it to the governing party that a policy of the self-determination of peoples, which rejects the Government’s alternative, will be introduced by us. Separate development of peoples will be the policy, the logical consequences of which will be put into effect in every sphere of life. The CP states that the Council for the Environment has a very important task with regard to environmental conservation in South Africa. We wish them everything of the best in the implementation of this very important task of theirs. The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries may, in terms of this legislation, which does not prevent him from doing so, appoint people of colour to this council. The day the CP comes into power we shall appoint a council which will consist of 20 White members. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in discussing the Third Reading of this Bill we are dealing with a fine cause in our fatherland, the cause of environmental conservation. One cannot but take strong exception to the way in which the hon. member for Kuruman came here and detracted from this very fine cause by playing politics in regard to this matter. I want to say to the hon. member that he polluted a fine cause for our father-land and for all the people living within its borders by his vindictiveness and his spiteful remarks directed in particular at the members of the commission who served on the commission with him. Nowadays we are being made out to be liberals, members of a liberal party. The hon. member for Kuruman referred to me as one of the liberals on the commission. He referred to some of my other hon. colleagues in the same terms. I want to say to the hon. member that it is the height of arrogance for him to say at this point that he did not trust us, whose names he mentioned, with this specific recommendation of the commission and that for that reason he asked the hon. member for Ladybrand. The hon. member for Kuruman is sitting there laughing. He knows that he spoke the greatest nonsense. [Interjections.] After the hon. member for Kuruman had uttered several bitter statements, in the final sentence of his speech he wished the Council for the Environment everything of the best. He said that they had an important task and in this way gave his speech a sugar coating. I regret to have to tell the hon. member this afternoon that we who served under his chairmanship are ashamed of him today, because in this way he came here to pollute this fine cause in our country and for our people with his political stories. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Kuruman cannot get away from the plain English which appears in clause 6.4.6 of the commission’s report. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member has had his turn to speak. I did not keep on interrupting him; he must give me a chance now.

Order! I hear the hon. member for Kuruman speaking but because his back is turned to the Chair I do not see him nor am I able to hear what he is saying. The hon. member for Ermelo may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this paragraph of the commission’s report the following is stated—

What other meaning can one attach to this but that the commission, under that hon. member’s chairmanship, in a report that we all signed, recommended to Parliament that when the Council for the Environment was to be appointed, it was desirable that members of other population groups should also be considered for membership thereof. The hon. member for Kuruman is now running away from those words. I should not like to pursue the unsavoury note sounded by the hon. member for Kuruman and therefore I shall leave him at that.

When we deliberate about the implications and effect of this amending Bill and its practical application and implementation, we shall of course have to take into account the intention of the legislation. One could say that the Bill is calculated to enable the Council for the Environment to perform its task more effectively and put it in a better position to achieve the aim for which we introduced the legislation.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the multiple facets of environmental conservation and provided the motivation for the Bill that we are discussing at present. Since the enlarged council must and can now begin to give more positive and wide-ranging attention to the broad spectrum of aspects of the environment, this is probably an appropriate occasion to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister certain needs that have already been identified with regard to this whole matter. There is just one that I wish to single out.

Since we shall now be giving the Council for the Environment a greater degree of expertise and skill when the additional five members are appointed to enable the council to deliberate, consider and take the initiative even more effectively with regard to the large variety of tasks entrusted to it, in my opinion there is one other skill that is necessary to enable the council to perform its work properly, and that is administrative skill. In its report the commission also gave attention to this matter and recommended that the Environment Conservation Branch in the Deputy Minister’s department be expanded into a full directorate. I believe that the council will not be able to perform its work with optimum effectiveness unless it has considerable administrative skills at its disposal. Therefore we were pleased to hear—and I should like to hear whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could perhaps give further details in this regard—that the matter has already been discussed with the Commission for Administration with a view to attending to the first objective, viz. a bigger staff for the council. I believe that the immediate need is the expansion of the present post structure of that branch, even before one is able to consider the development of the branch into a directorate. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give his earnest attention to this matter.

I want to come back to one very interesting statement that was also made by the hon. member for Kuruman. He referred to Siener van Rensburg—that is not the hon. member for Bryanston—and since the hon. member wants to talk politics while discussing the Bill it is interesting to note how far back that hon. member and his party have shifted by now: From 1982 to 1977, to 1969—and certain politicians in this country would like to have them back at 1966, but they say that is too close; they are going back to 1899, and then they will see what Siener van Rensburg had to say about the politics of this country.

I wish to conclude. The public at large, particularly in conservation circles, cherishes high expectations of the Council for the Environment. I trust that this Bill will enable the Council for the Environment to meet those expectations. I trust, too, that in this year in particular, and since the council has to begin with its new task, all our people can be made conservation conscious, specifically due to the statutory amendment that we are now discussing.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to refer briefly to a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Ermelo in regard to the diversity of tasks which are going to be performed by the Council for the Environment. I agree with him. There is a wide variety of tasks for which that council is already responsible, and I foresee that in future even greater tasks will be entrusted to it. In regard to administrative skill I can say that I am also aware of the need for this. Unfortunately I can add nothing further to what the hon. member already knows. This matter has been referred to the Commission for Administration for urgent attention, and the commission is already looking into it. We are aware of the problem and we are giving it our full attention. I also want to thank the hon. member for the kind thoughts which he expressed in connection with the work of the Council for the Environment and I hope that the council will in fact come up to this expectations.

†I want very briefly to reply to the speeches that have been made. In the first place I should like to thank the Whips of the different parties for accommodating me. I arrived back from Walvis Bay only this afternoon and they allowed this item to come on to the Order Paper lower down than was otherwise planned. I thank also the official Opposition for their support. We have already discussed the question of racial representation on the council and I do not think we can take it any further save to say what I have said both in the Committee Stage and in the Second Reading, namely that we will appoint extra people to the council on the basis of the contributions which they can make. We shall appoint them on the basis of their expertise. We will not be looking at colour.

The hon. member for Maitland has made his usual constructive speech. He referred to there being an imbalance in the composition of the present council. I shall discuss this matter with him. I am not so sure that he is right about it, but I will certainly welcome his views. He has been making contributions in this field for a long time and, of course, we listen to them.

*For the edification of the hon. member for Kuruman I want to say that it was not the hon. member for Maitland who persuaded us to bring this amending Bill to this House. We did of course listen to his representations from time to time, as were also contained in the report of the commission. The hon. member for Kuruman said nothing new today. At the end of his speech he elaborated a little and revealed his real thoughts, but he did not really say anything exceptional. What he did say was that the hon. member for Maitland had forced his will upon us. That is not true. I have already offered an explanation for that.

The hon. member for Kuruman spoke in very general terms on pollution in general and was in fact only looking for a chance to brand the governing party as one of the three liberal parties in South Africa. He repeated that statement three times, and it was merely a way of publicity seeking. It is not necessary to react to it. His actual criticism now during this Third Reading Stage remains exactly the same as it was during the Committee Stage and the Second Reading, namely that the council is going to be too cumbersome. I have already reacted to that. I have pointed out that in view of the experience we have so far acquired in regard to the appointment of members of the council, we saw fit to increase the size of the council on the basis of our assessment.

The hon. member also said that it would lead to greater expenditure. I have already asked him during the Second Reading: “Should we sacrifice effectiveness for a slight or small increase in cost?” We do not think that is a justified argument.

In conclusion I want to say that during the course of the Second Reading debate and also during the Committee Stage I made an appeal to hon. members please to keep politics out of environmental matters. At least two of the Opposition parties heeded that appeal. The third did not. We cannot drag politics into environmental matters. It is not the policy of the party on this side of the House.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.