Mr. Speaker, I move—

A prominent chapter in the early history of the Cape Province was the coming of missionaries from Europe in particular and the founding of mission stations in the Cape, from which the Gospel was preached to the indigenous peoples.

Genadendal, Haarlem, Mamre, Pniël, Zoar and Steinkopf were the best known of these mission stations. Schools, too, were established at these mission stations in due course and gradually an increasing number of people went to live at the mission stations.

It became increasingly difficult for the mission societies to provide from their own income for the growing needs of the people who established themselves at the mission stations, and in 1909 the then colonial Government at the Cape placed their “Mission Stations and Communal Reserves Act” on the Statute Book which provided inter alia, that financial relief could be granted to the mission societies by the Government.

Mr. Speaker, the rural Coloured areas developed out of these mission stations and further effect was given to these by the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963. This Act made provision, inter alia, for the transfer of the management of the areas to boards of management that were to be elected by the registered voters in the areas for terms of three years.

The historic link with the mission societies was also recognized by a provision in that Act stipulating that the denominations in question could appoint a representative to the boards of management. The 1963 Act was repealed in 1979 by the Rural Coloured Areas Law of the Coloured Persons Representative Council in order to place the administration of areas on an even sounder basis. At present there are 24 rural areas with a surface area of approximately 2 million ha and a population of about 70 000. With the exception of two areas situated in the Orange Free State, all of the areas are in the Cape. While some of the areas consist of little more than the land of the former mission stations, others possess land which can be used for agricultural purposes for the benefit of the community. In the latter areas various schemes have been tackled with the co-operation of the boards of management to utilize the available agricultural land to the optimum extent by, inter alia, replacing the concept of common utilization of land by individual utilization by responsible farmers in the community who are able to farm on their own account.

Farmers leasing land in the outer commonage of rural areas have shown that they are able to conduct their affairs with an increasing degree of autonomy and that they are desirous of improving their herds and conducting their farming operations on the basis of scientific methods. However, these endeavours are restricted, because the leasing of grazing in the outer commonage does not give the lessee a feeling of permanence. The ideal of further developing a feeling of autonomy and pride among farmers can only be achieved if that outer commonage of rural areas which is appropriate for this purpose is divided into farms so that the farm can be sold to farmers and deeds of transfer may be issued for the individual farms.

Accordingly, in order to achieve this object, an amendment of Law no. 1, 1979, of the CRC is being proposed in clause 1 of the Bill at present before the House.

†The people of some of the larger rural areas have asked for the division of those areas, as mutually agreed upon by them, so that boards of management may be established for each portion. These requests stem from the fact that, in some of the larger rural areas, there are communities living far away from each other.

These communities may have different, and even opposing interests, making it very difficult, if not impossible, for a single board of management to cater for their needs and aspirations.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, in clause 2 of the Bill it is proposed that provision be made for the establishment of more than one board of management in a single rural area. Although the Minister of Internal Affairs is authorized to make funds available to a board of management for the development and improvement of an area under its jurisdiction, there is no authority for subsidizing the extension and maintenance of essential services in towns.

Up till now boards have been dependent on the income derived from taxes payable by occupants and on loans to foot this bill. Several of the poorer rural areas just cannot find enough money for the maintenance of essential services and the repayment of loans.

Clause 3 of the Bill is aimed at making it possible for the Government to subsidize these services.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we shall support this statutory amendment. As the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, in the first place it deals with the position of Coloured farmers who already have a certain amount of experience in farming activities in those areas which grew up around the old mission stations. Consequently they will now obtain normal title to land in the areas in which they are farming. In the normal course of events subdivision of land will now take place and farms will be allocated to these people, in terms of the measure now before this House.

Naturally the procedure adopted here differs from that adopted under ordinary circumstances. In any case that is how I understand it. If State-owned land is made available to farmers in the private sector under other circumstances, this usually takes place by way of public tender. In the present case this is of course not State-owned land we are dealing with; not in the ordinary sense of the word. However, there are in fact two possible problems, two areas in which, I believe, problems can arise, and I should therefore like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an indication of how he is going to approach this matter. In the first place it has to be ascertained to whom a specific farm is going to be allocated after it has been subdivided. In the vast majority of cases I feel that this will not cause problems because the land will probably be allocated to that specific bona fide Coloured farmer who is in fact farming on that specific piece of land on whatever basis at that stage. If this is in fact the case, it should certainly not give rise to any major problems.

However, one can imagine that there will be certain cases in which such a determination, such a decision as to the person to whom the relevant piece of land should be allocated, could give rise to a dispute. I should therefore like the hon. the Deputy Minister, at this early stage, to consider this and perhaps comment on it, although I concede at once that this problem will probably manifest itself in due course and that it will be possible to deal with it on merit from time to time.

The second possible problem area I foresee concerns the matter of the determining of a price at which that piece of ground or farm will be sold. Once again this is a matter that will not be subject to the ordinary market mechanisms. For that reason it is a problem which could involve the Government to a certain extent. In this case I am also willing to concede at once that this is not a problem one can regulate to any extent by means of legislation, and therefore it will have to be reacted to in due course if and when the problem arises.

With this form of land allocation Coloured farmers are of course afforded a measure of protection in the sense that the land is only available to Coloured farmers and not to members of the general agricultural public. Of course this is justified in a certain sense owing to the restrictions imposed on Coloureds in obtaining agricultural land in other ways. Hon. members will also realize that in a certain sense accepting this situation places one in a dilemma although one can see that a good case can be made out for it at this stage.

If this legislation now before us could lead to Coloureds being progressively incorporated into our agricultural sector on an equal footing in the normal course of events, in other words to Coloureds becoming full-fledged members of the agricultural sector, I feel that something good will have come from this statutory amendment. As such it also gives us pleasure to support it. As far as the subdivision of such a control board area is concerned, this is in our opinion a functional matter regarding which we have no quarrel with the hon. the Minister.

We support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Green Point for their support. I consider this to be quite an important piece of legislation. What we actually have here is a piece of Africana. Most of the Coloured mission towns date from the previous century. They were virtually all established on a religious basis. It was the mission churches that gave the children a school education. They did this on their own for years until the State decided in 1909 to assist them by means of subsidies. In later years the Cape Province accepted responsibility for Coloured education in the Cape. However, the churches continued their educational task and at the time received a grant from the Province. This position continued until 1963 when the State accepted responsibility for Coloured education in its entirety relieved the provinces of this burden.

The Coloureds are good farmers, or can be good farmers if one starts them off in the right way. I am thinking for example of Eksteenskuil, which is an irrigation scheme. This is an area between Upington and Keimoes. It was not a mission station but the Coloureds were able to purchase properties there. That Coloured community is doing very well.

The Coloured is like the Afrikaner. He was a rural person. Most Coloureds were involved in the agricultural industry. That is why the Coloureds were a rural people. With so many Whites leaving the rural areas, the Coloureds found themselves in a helpless position. They had to move to the cities unskilled and unprepared. This is proved by the fact that at present there are only 70 000 Coloureds living in the rural areas.

I think we can achieve a great deal with this land because a large portion of it, the Richtersveld, is situated along the Orange River. It is fertile land. Of course it is not restricted to the area along the Orange River because it is a large piece of land. However, it is fertile land. Thousands of farmers—not only Coloureds, but also Whites can … can be successfully settled as a result of the water available from the Orange River.

I should like to tell you a story about the Orange River. I am one of the people who believe that we are not yet utilizing even half of the potential of the Orange River. I was one of the people who said years ago that the Orange River could accommodate five or six large dams. I grew up near the Orange River. I want to tell you a piece of history now. In those days there was a dispute in the agricultural group. The dispute was between the Eastern Province and the North-Western Cape. The Eastern Province wanted water from the Orange River and the Orange River farmers would not give in to them. One day I stood up in the agriculture group and said that the Orange River had sufficient water for five large dams. The supporters of that idea immediately elected me a member of a commission to go and speak to Dr. Verwoerd. In addition to myself the deputation consisted of Mr. Gerhard Bekker and Mr. Andries Vosloo. I informed Dr. Verwoerd that we had a problem because the MPs of the Lower Orange River area were of the opinion that we wanted to steal their water and that the then hon. Minister of Water Affairs had been a representative of Prieska and did not want to take a decision because it would affect his friends, his voters. When I had explained the position to Dr. Verwoerd, he wanted to know from me what I knew about the Orange River. I then told him that I had grown up there. He asked me how I had ended up in Malmesbury, whereupon I asked him how it came about that he had ended up in Heidelberg. All he could do was laugh and say: “Yes, that is true”.

However, the dam was built and did wonders in the North West. But I believe that four additional dams can be built. Today I want to tell the hon. Minister concerned that a dam can be built below the waterfall in the Richtersveld. Below the waterfall there is a natural dam between two mountains. If the river is closed off above Onseepkans there will not be another catchment area in South Africa to rival it. I want to suggest that we build a dam there for the dry North-West, for the Richtersveld. We shall be able to utilize an enormous area of land and settle several thousand farmers, both Whites and Coloureds, there. It gives me pleasure to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Van Staden sketched for us the very interesting history of the rural Coloured areas, particularly the areas in the Northern Cape, a place where he grew up and of which he has a very intimate knowledge. I also listened very appreciatively to the proposals he put forward in regard to these areas. We in the CP should like to support the hon. member Mr. Van Staden as regards the development of these areas and the use of the waters of the Orange River, too, in the rural areas of the Coloureds in Namaqualand in order to establish people there. I want to say to the hon. member Mr. Van Staden that I appreciate the fact that he talks about these areas, because some of his hon. colleagues referred to that area as a desert.

I do not think of that area as a heartland. The hon. member must not think that I agree with him in that regard.

No, we need not argue about that. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, this legislation that is now being amended was passed by the Coloured Persons Representative Council. It was legislation affecting 23 rural Coloured areas comprising almost 2 million hectares but with a population of approximately 70 000. The hon. the Deputy Minister outlined to us that the object of this legislation is to improve the farming and farming circumstances in these regions. We wholeheartedly agree with him and we wish to support him in this regard.

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden said that this was an important piece of legislation. He said, inter alia, that the Coloureds were good farmers and in this regard mentioned the case of Eksteenskuil where the Coloured irrigation farmers are established. I also wish to refer here to another rural Coloured area in the Northern Cape, viz. Mier. It comprises 398 789 hectares and a large number of Coloured stock farmers are settled there. These people are very well established there and every year they hold an outstanding agricultural show. They have already developed a pride of their own in this area of theirs.

I have already said that I agree with the hon. member Mr. Van Staden that the Orange River should also be used to develop the Richtersveld, particularly with a view to the establishment of Coloured farmers. To that we want to add that this Richtersveld is very rich in minerals, and the CP states that when these minerals are eventually exploited, the wealth of these Brown areas must be used for the development of these areas where the Brown people find themselves.

Traditionally the Brown people in rural areas such as Mier, the Richtersveld and Steinkopf have adopted a system of common grazing. This has meant that there has been no real control of of the utilization of the grazing. Over-grazing, with resultant destruction of the vegetation, has taken place. Due to the injudicious use of the grazing the quality of the grazing has deteriorated considerably and the agricultural value of the land has suffered in the process. With the approval of the boards of management of those rural areas where this has been possible, it has been decided to divide those rural areas into farms to enable the Brown people to possess their own farms in their own rural areas. In this way the Brown people are acquiring the right of ownership.

Why are you reading your speech?

Mr. Speaker, most of the hon. the Minister’s speeches are written for him by other people. At least I write my own speeches.

As a bona fide farmer with the right of ownership in his own rural area, that man will be able to participate in the privileges and benefits and obligations of the bona fide farmer. Therefore this legislation also makes provision for keeping the Brown people in the rural areas. A father can now leave his own land to his heir who will then look after it in the interests of his own inherited land. Many of the young Brown people have moved away because their parents have had to eke out a precarious existence due to incorrect farming systems which only benefited some and in most instances resulted in the quality of the grazing deteriorating. Now a young heir to his own farm within his own rural area will develop a pride in what belongs to him and he will continue to live and work in that rural area in order to develop what is his.

Another advantage is that prospective Coloured farmers outside the rural areas will now also be given the opportunity to purchase farms of their own within such a rural area.

Of course, not all of those with common grazing rights in the present rural areas can be provided with land, but we are also grateful that it is being provided in the Bill that where one finds small communities in these rural areas that are basically small towns and in cases where some of these Brown people may possess, say, just one cow, a donkey and a few goats, such people will be benefited by the creation of a commonage around such a community. The board of management is now providing that a part of the town commonage be extended for common grazing for the benefit of those who are unable to afford their own farms.

The CP supports the Bill because it fits in with its policy of separate development. There are many people who say that the Brown people do not have their own land, but the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out that there are rural areas which are the property of the Coloured people in South Africa, almost 2 million morgen of land. The CP says that the steps that have now been taken and the proposals put forward by the hon. member Mr. Van Staden must be used to develop these rural Coloured areas in such a way that the Coloureds can be settled on their own land in their own areas to a far greater extent. We therefore take great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I find it a tremendous pity that the hon. member for Kuruman tried to drag this legislation, the aims of which are purely beneficial, into the political arena this afternoon. The hon. member will pardon me if I do not react further to what he had to say. [Interjections.]

This afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs lifted the veil on part of the history of the Coloured population at the Cape. The coming of missionaries from Europe to do missionary work at the Cape resulted in the establishment of mission stations. As a result of development around those mission stations one encounters communities there that have also grown over the years. The hon. Mr. Van Staden also pointed out that over the years the churches or mission societies did not create the necessary infrastructures from a financial point of view, for the development of the communities there. It was with that in mind that the colonial Government placed the necessary legislation on the Statute Book in 1909 to provide that financial aid could be granted to those communities that were in the process of developing.

When one considers the aims of the Bill, one notes that in the first place, provision is being made for the subdivision of land. In this regard I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to ensure that if the legislation is accepted, every portion of land that is subdivided, is subdivided in such a way as to be an economic unit. A further request is that we shall at all times—I appreciate that the hon. member Mr. Van Staden said that there are some of these Coloureds who have the necessary knowledge—continue to provide those people with the necessary guidance. It is important for us in this country to ensure, particularly against the background of the report of the President’s Council with regard to the population explosion in this country, that every portion of agricultural land be utilized to the optimum extent for the provision of food, for which there will be a growing demand in our country in the future.

There is another point I should like to make. There are 23 of these areas, most of them in the Western Cape, and at this stage the numbers involved are already 70 000. The area of the land involved is 2 million hectares. I therefore wish to make a further appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to ensure that before any subdivision of land takes place, a proper guide-plan be drawn up, because when one looks at the development in the cities and towns in particular, we also have a task with regard to the upliftment of our community. Since we are placing this legislation on the Statute Book I wish to prevent some of that land from perhaps being expropriated again for the purpose of township development and industrial development in those regions. I therefore wish to make the friendly request that a proper guide plan be drawn up to ensure that the development in those areas will take place in the interests of all the people living there, with a view to not only the short term but also the long term.

Another point that I regard as of importance is that as far as the development in those areas is concerned, one must see to it that those communities will at all times, and under their own steam, be able to take upon themselves the responsibility in respect of growth and development. I regard this as very important. The legislation also aims at promoting land ownership. This idea I also welcome, because when a person owns his own land then in the nature of the matter he will go out of his way to ensure that he utilizes that land to the optimum extent.

One final remark as far as this legislation is concerned, is that people in those communities have over the years been accustomed to utilize portions of this land, either for agricultural purposes or for stock.

I wish to ask that an eqal opportunity be afforded the Coloureds in those areas to obtain that land. I take pleasure in supporting the legislation before the House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting little Bill. The amendments before us stem from the now defunct Coloured Persons Representative Council law which was passed in 1979. One will recollect that only last year an amending Bill was introduced enabling the Minister in fact to make amendments to the relevant laws. The interesting part is, however, that this is a relic of the old Cape Parliament. In fact, it is of some interest to know that the original Bill was introduced by no less a person than one John X. Merriman, who had a very interesting statement to make at the time. I would suggest that the hon. gentlemen of those days would make the present CP look like a bunch of raving liberals judging by the way they spoke about things. Let me give an indication of the sort of thing that was said at the time when that old Bill went through, and I quote from Hansard—

There are a number of statements of a similar character in this particular Hansard which seem to indicate that in the old days, when the Parliament of the Cape was under the control of the Crown, they were a little less delicate with their language than is the case today. However, much water has flowed under the bridge since those first primitive steps were taken in the creation of a form of local government for the Coloured people in the rural areas. The 23 rural areas in the Cape vary in size—and this, again, is quite interesting because we are talking about large numbers and substantial areas of land—from a small area of 865 hectare at Haarlem, near Uniondale, with a population of 703 to the Richtersveld, near Port Nolloth, with 519 919 hectare with a population of 2 650. Some of the populations in some of these areas run into 6 000 or 7 000. Most of the population of these rural areas live in small villages on small plots on which they build their houses. The major portion of the land is commonage on which they graze their animals and is available to all bona fide farmers in their community. In aggregate the total amount of land that we are talking about is very, very large. In fact it is to the order of 1 650 000 hectare and this is being inadequately controlled at the moment. In clause 1, the principle of this Bill, provision is made to cut up the outer commonages into viable farming units so that genuine Coloured farmers can purchase them and attain title to the land at prices and on terms which they can afford. In this regard I have the same questions to put as the hon. member for Green Point in that we should like to know that they are likely to be available to the people who are currently living within that area, and not to other people in preference to these people, whom we believe should have an intitlement.

Clause 2 incorporates the principle of making provision for the bigger rural areas to be divided into smaller areas under additional boards of management and devolving upon the newly created board the powers and functions, and where applicable, the liabilities. This I do believe is an essential amendment in view of the new proposals that are coming forward. In any case, when one is referring to the very large areas, there is no doubt in my mind that one board of management to incorporate the whole area is far too much for one board.

The principle contained in clause 3 seems to circumscribe the purposes for which subsidies may be granted and used. This I believe is reasonable because one does have to have controls.

We in the NRP are very happy to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who participated for their contributions. I also wish to thank the various parties most sincerely for their support of these essential amendments that have to be effected. Very fine things have been said about the rural areas. Recently, in the column “Van Alle Kante” in an edition of Die Burger I read a fine article written about the Richtersveld by Wilhelm Kühne. This is an exceptional part of our country where very few of us have probably been, or will ever go to. There is a pleasant little place there that goes by the name of Lekkersing. Those people, those children, really can sing. It is wonderful to get there early in the morning and hear the school children singing out in the open in front of the little school building; they put heart and soul into their singing. What is even more pleasant is that to those children a helicopter is still an attraction. It still means something to them. The child in the city does not even see it any more, but to those children it was something wonderful to see a helicopter.

There are people who say that the Richtersveld should be converted into a nature reserve, whereas others say that it should become a homeland. It is very difficult to say what it should become. I think that we should allow those people who live there and were born there, to continue to live there in peace and quiet. They are people who love their part of the world, people who love nature, people who love peace.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Green Point for his support on behalf of his party. He raised two important aspects. In the first place, he asked that it should be ascertained to whom the farms of the outer commonage should be granted and, secondly, the question of determining the price. I can tell the hon. member that the various boards of management will call for applications, after which those boards will consider the applications on merit and bearing in mind the farming experience of the applicants. I can reassure the hon. member for Umbilo by saying that in the nature of the matter they will be the people who are farming there at present. I can virtually say already that the land will be allocated to them. The price of the land will in the first place be determined by agriculturists and will be valued on the basis of agricultural guidelines and standards. The purchase price will be determined on that basis, and in this case this will also be done by the boards of management. It is our wish to provide those people with a better living by utilizing the land more effectively. For that reason the land will go to bona fide farmers. There are enough of these people with ample knowledge of agriculture who will apply for this land. The hon. member Mr. Van Staden said that we were dealing here with a piece of Africana. He is quite right. That is true. Each of these rural areas has a fine history behind it. The hon. member for Kuruman referred to Mier and said that that rural area even held its own agricultural show. That is true, and I wish hon. members could attend such an agricultural show. Mier has about 4 300 inhabitants and comprises 398 000 hectares, of which approximately 40 000 hectares has been camped off as a game farm. The balance has already been carved into 106 farms and allocated to individual farmers. The hon. member Mr. Van Staden also referred to the fertility of the land, particularly in the Lower Orange, and said that the water of the Lower Orange had not been fully utilized. I agree with the hon. member. I believe that in future the water of the Orange River will play an important role in the development of the Lower Orange. I noted that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs listened very attentively to the hon. member, particularly when he spoke about a dam that could be built there. That is true, a dam could indeed be built there, and I trust that when economic conditions in South Africa are somewhat better and money is available for this purpose, it will be possible to build such a dam.

The hon. member for Kuruman spoke about the beautiful countryside in which these areas are situated. That is true. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has just entered the House. He and I visited those areas together. I shall not repeat now what one of the citizens there told him when he had explained his case there. When one is there, one is really very close to one’s Creator. Therefore what the hon. member for Kuruman said is correct.

Not what he said, but how he said it.

Yes, how he said it is important. The hon. member went on to say that the agricultural circumstances there had to be improved. This afternoon I wish to pay tribute to the former Department of Coloured Relations, at present the Department of Internal Affairs, and to the officials of that department for what they have done over the years to make these rural areas viable and to provide the people there with a decent living.

Unfortunately there, too, we were dealing with common ownership and with over-grazing of land. This has been rectified by the department and the emphasis is now being placed on individual possession and, of course, on the utilization of the soil. The hon. member added that the Coloureds were being put in a position to purchase their own farms. That is true, Mr. Speaker. Once again we have done away with communal possession and today there are farmers who have deeds of transfer on their own farms.

The hon. member for Kuruman went on to argue in favour of separate development. I want to point out to the hon. member that we are dealing with the self-determination of people. We are dealing here with boards of management that manage their own areas. We are also concerned with people who control their own areas. After all, this has always been the policy of the NP over the years and what is more, it has developed very well.

The hon. member for Witbank asked to be excused. Unfortunately he had to leave shortly after making his speech. He asked that we see to it that the subdivided land be kept in economic units. I want to give the hon. member that assurance. We are not going to create small farms there on which people are only able to eke out a miserable existence. They will be economic units.

Then, too, the hon. member stressed agricultural extension. This is something we should like to provide for our people. Indeed, we are doing so already. In addition the hon. member asked that before subdivision of land took place, a proper guideplan be drawn up. I do not believe that this will be possible in all areas, but the planning by the Department is such that full account will be taken of everything in those areas.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his support and the support of his party for the Bill. The hon. member mentioned some very interesting facts, and I think he gave a correct description of the areas.

*With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude and, finally, I just wish to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members for their support of an essential amendment in the interests of all involved.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, provides that subject to the directions of the Minister of Agriculture, the Agricultural Credit Board itself, may render assistance to farmers. In contrast to that, however, the Coloured Persons Agricultural Assistance Board is, at present, only empowered to make recommendations on applications for assistance to the Minister of Internal Affairs. Because of the increase in the number of individual Coloured farmers, there is a consequent increase in the number of applications which the Agricultural Assistance Board has to deal with. In view of this it therefore seems to be appropriate to consider a re-arrangement of the functions of this Board at this stage.

Consequently in clause 1 of the Bill now before the House, an amendment to Act No. 1 of 1973 of the Coloured Person’s Representative Council is being proposed with a view to bringing the powers of the Agricultural Assistance Board into line with those of the Agricultural Credit Board. However, the rendering of assistance by the Agricultural Assistance Board will also, as in the case of the Agricultural Credit Board, be subject to the directions of the responsible Minister.

†During the 1982 session of Parliament the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, was amended in order to vest in the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the authority—with the agreement of the hon. the Minister of Finance—to increase or lower the interest rate on loans, a rate which was pegged at 5% in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, No. 1 of 1966. When this amendment was introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries he explained that an adjustment of the interest rate was necessary as the excessively low rate of 5% had given farmers who qualified for assistance a rather unfair advantage over agriculturalists who had to rely on private institutions to finance their activities.

Furthermore, the amendment also made provision for a more flexible method of adjusting interest rates in order to keep pace with future economic trends. For the same reasons a similar amendment of Law 1 of 1973 of the Coloured Persons Representative Council is now proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill. This amendment will not affect the interest rate of 5% on current loans.

Mr. Speaker, one can almost say that this legislation is of a consequential nature, not consequential in the sense that it follows on, or can be meaningfully read together with, other amendments in the legislation, but merely that in a broader sense it is consequential because the amendments enable us to bring the Act in question into line with other legislation dealing with similar matters, namely legislation in connection with the Agricultural Credit Board. As such it makes sense and we take pleasure in giving it our support, both the aspect that the Coloured Persons’ Agricultural Assistance Board will now be able to take its own decisions in regard to the granting of assistance, rather than the responsible Minister, and that relating to the determining of interest rates from time to time. In the nature of the matter it makes sense that interest rates should not merely be stipulated by legislation, because over the past year or so we have seen what can happen with interest rates and we have also seen that it is not meaningful to come back to this House time and again in order to effect adjustments in this regard.

As I have said, the first aspect relates to the fact that the decision as to whether or not assistance will be granted, should be taken by the Assistance Board rather than by the responsible Minister. In my opinion this also implies a sounder principle. It is a better principle that such a board which, it is to be hoped, will consist of experts, will take the decision as to whether assistance is to be granted to a specific farmer, rather than to have a person with a specific political responsibility, such as a Cabinet Minister, take that decision. Moreover, this is in contrast with the principle we discussed in connection with the previous Bill when we foresaw problems of principle in the fact that a politically elected body such as the board of control would be able to decide to whom a specific farm had to be allocated. As we have already said, this is not a principle to which there is much of an alternative. As such, therefore, we have not put forward any objection.

Accordingly it is a pleasure for us to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for the support of this Bill by the official Opposition. In the light of our view of the rural development of the Coloured and the whole concept of agricultural development as part of the overall problem of development, it would perhaps be as well if hon. members would refer to the annual report of the Department of Internal Affairs for the year ending 30 June last year. On page 87 of that report we find a comprehensive table concerning the rural areas of the Coloureds, from the biggest, that of the Richtersveld, comprising 513 000 hectare, to the smallest, Slangrivier, of 1 123 hectare. When we look at these rural Coloured areas in the light of this measure before us, we realize how necessary it is to grant assistance to Coloured farmers. Moreover, when we consider these rural Coloured areas, the hon. member for Kuruman and the other hon. members of the CP must ask themselves whether they are right when they put forward without hesitation the figure of 1,7 million hectare of rural territory belonging to Brown people in order to build up a constitutional concept. However, I shall leave the matter at that because it does not fall entirely within the ambit of this measure.

Speak by all means; we should like to listen to you.

One important aspect that I should like to stress in this measure—I say this in reply to the interjection by the hon. member for Rissik—is the question of what development actually means. The hon. member for Rissik is an ethnologist (volkekundige) and if I am not mistaken I attended a few classes of his in my time.

Nowadays he is an ignoramus (’n onkundige)!

I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik that I am grateful that so much sense could have derived from those few classes of his that I attended that I can stand here today as a Nationalist and look ahead and say that in life one begins with a basis and develops it.

You are not a Nationalist; you are a liberal.

When one considers the development of man there is one thing one must take into account and that is that none of us can ever foresee the end of man’s development. It is an evolutionary process, a process of which no one can even begin to see the end. It is a matter of the abilities of people, of the Coloured farmers in this instance. Apart from the abilities of people it is also a matter of opportunities available to those people and the resources at their disposal.

At political meetings I have often used the point that my grandfather only made Std. 3. Nevertheless I was as proud as can be of my grandfather, who is no longer alive. On the basis of that academic background of Std. 3 he was able to guide my father to Std. 8. My father became an artisan; I was very proud of that. He in turn foresaw a greater future for me as a child. Today I stand in this hon. House together with my hon. colleagues, and if it pleases the Almighty I hope that my children may perhaps go further than I have. The point I want to make—this is also an issue in this legislation—is that every father foresees for his child a path of development that goes beyond what he was able to achieve. One can speak to any Coloured parent, to any Coloured farmer parent, and one will find that his most basic aspiration is to assist his children to get ahead. Therefore, on behalf of the Coloured farming communities, we express gratitude for this measure in terms of which, by way of aid to the farmers, they will be put in a position to run their agricultural areas successfully.

When we consider the total development of the Coloured, including his development in the rural areas, we see that today there are more than 7 000 graduates and that there are more than 725 000 Coloured children at school. In the rural areas in particular we cannot always reap the fruit of the skills of these people, and therefore one has to turn to farming itself, because in those areas, too, there is not a great deal of potential for township development. I think that the hon. member for Kuruman will concede the point that however optimistically one looks at the future development of the rural Coloured areas, even with good measures such as this, it is simply not true to speak about the rural Coloured areas as areas which in any way have the potential to be labelled a Coloured homeland on the road ahead.

Has it less potential than KwaNdebele?

Perhaps we could take that point further in another debate because it is not relevant here.

The second point of great importance here is the question of the wishes of other people. In this regard I should like to quote from a television interview of which I kept notes at the time. I refer to an interview that Dr. P. G. du Plessis conducted with the Rev. Allan Hendrickse. The Rev. Allan Hendrickse said—

This is also a point that we must take into account here. The question is not what one thinks of someone else; the question is what they think of themselves. The question is not how you see their course of development but how they themselves see it. He also said—

He states—

In regard to the rural Coloured areas, too, we as the NP are proud to say that we have assisted those people to develop and make progress. We are also proud to say that in a modest way, as people with the financial means, we can help those people to help themselves. That is the essence of total development in South Africa—that people do it themselves. Perhaps we in South Africa are too inclined to look at people and groups and peoples in terms of false stereotypes. I should like to say bluntly that I do not like people referring to my people in terms of the “hippy” element that exists in the White population. I do not believe that the Coloured people like it if we refer to them, in a broad framework of reference, on the basis of the “skollie” element that exists. I believe that the Black people are as little pleased when we generalize about them on the basis of certain elements among them. Therefore, when we speak about development here, the rural development of the Coloureds, then we say with the utmost gratitude that we see people as following a path of development. We are grateful to be able to assist those people on that path of development by means of this measure and we look forward to a road in South Africa on which there will be a total development in the rural areas for every population group, including the Coloureds, in terms of which they will be the partners and in regard to which they themselves will provide the inspired thinking for that development.

I thank the official Opposition for their support of this legislation and I wish to say that we, too, support the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Innesdal told us here that he attended classes of the hon. member for Rissik. This at once reminds me of the Afrikaans story about the old gentleman who, after a good boy had left the straight and narrow path, said: “Man, daardie seun het goed grootgeword maar groot sleg geword.” When I say this I do not mean that the hon. member for Innesdal has become bad. I should just like to turn that picture around a little and say that the hon. member for Innesdal, who attended classes of the hon. member for Rissik, grew up as a conservative but became a big liberal.

I only attended a few of his classes.

The hon. member added that every parent would like to help his children to come out on top. I agree with the hon. member. Every parent would like his child to have the best and would like to give him the best. For that reason the CP supports this Bill and the previous one moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister, because in our opinion these two pieces of legislation create the opportunity for the Coloured farmer, the rural Coloured, to develop in his own area to the highest rung of the ladder. This he is able to do in a rural area where he can obtain assistance in order to establish himself as a farmer, where he can improve his farming methods and where he can be provided with extension services to enable him to improve his farming methods. Moreover, these people will be able to found their own farmers’ associations and, it is to be hoped, their own cooperatives as well, if this is possible, in their area. We therefore say that the opportunity must be created for the Brown man to have no ceiling over his head as far as his development is concerned.

The hon. member also said that towns should be developed in these rural areas. In this regard, too, I want to agree with the hon. member. It is imperative that their own towns be developed in those areas for the rural people, towns which can provide the necessary services to the Brown community in that particular rural area and so that Brown businessmen who live in the towns in those rural areas can also participate in the development taking place there. For that reason we said that if those thousands of farmers in the Richtersveld could be established, as envisaged by the hon. member Mr. Van Staden, the mineral wealth of that region should also be utilized to develop that region so that cities and towns could be established there and Brown businessmen and entrepreneurs could also establish themselves there and the opportunity may be created for them to develop in the economic, social and cultural spheres without any limit being set in that regard. Accordingly, we, too, take pleasure in supporting this Bill, because like the previous one, this is also a good piece of legislation.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Innesdal that what is being done here fits in beautifully with the pattern which the CP envisages for the development of the Brown people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

As the legislation reads at present, the Minister must approve or turn down all applications for assistance. The legislation already provides for the existence of an agricultural assistance board. What is now being proposed is that the agricultural assistance board may itself consider the applications and give a decision, but subject to a set of rules and prescriptions specified by the Minister. The Minister gives the assistance board a framework within which they can approve or turn down a loan. In this way much of the red tape will be eliminated because in future, applications can be submitted directly to the Brown people’s own agricultural assistance board, and within the framework provided for the assistance board, the loan is approved or turned down. The agricultural assistance board is also assisted in determining what specific details it wants in the application and therefore it is getting a prescription in this regard in the legislation.

Since we are discussing assistance to Coloured farmers, I should like to touch on another matter which I believe is well known to the hon. the Deputy Minister. When the Black people were moved out of the Gathlose-Maremane area in the vicinity of Kuruman, Postmasburg and Sishen—this area is at present known as the P. W. Botha Army Battle School—to Bophuthatswana, approximately 270 Coloureds remained in the area. Some of the Coloureds that remained there were farmers. Many of them were strong farmers. When the Black people of that area were resettled in an area within the borders of the now independent Bophuthatswana, the Coloureds remained behind and were placed on 14 000 ha within the Army Battle School, where they were able to farm.

Over the years I have asked by way of speeches, interviews and letters that I have written, that when these people have to be transferred out of the area, provision must be made for the Coloured farmers who originally farmed there together with the Black people and who are still there. In 1974 I made a speech in this House from which I now quote (Hansard, Vol. 51, col. 4655)—

But at the time you were not yet talking about a Coloured homeland.

This matter was investigated by the departments at the time. Apparently it was decided that such a rural area could be created in the Northern Cape. Let me quote the following from a letter which the Minister of Coloured Relations addressed to me personally on 28 March 1978—

He is referring to the Coloureds of Ghosis—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister should give us an indication whether his department has already made provision for these people in the vicinity of Kimberley to be able to purchase farms. I ask that if they are able to do so, they should be given financial assistance by the Assistance Board so as to be able to buy farms, because they are farmers. I also wish to ask whether the hon. the Minister and his department have abandoned the rural area for Coloureds, because I am not sure whether the nature reserve in the vicinity of Kimberley is going to develop on the land which was earmarked at the time for a rural area for Coloureds. If this is indeed the case, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that the Coloured farmers farming in the P. W. Botha Army Battle School be accorded the opportunity to purchase farms within the Coloured areas that can now be subdivided, in terms of the Bill we have just been discussing. I also wish to ask that assistance be given to these people to enable them to settle on farms in their own area.

This party would very much like the Coloureds to be established in their own rural areas where they can have their own farmers’ associations and create their own social and economic infrastructure. We say that in these rural areas a Coloured city can be created, for example in the district we have proposed in the region of Kimberley. It could be a Coloured city with its own district in which smaller towns could be established. We propose that the Brown people of Campbell be transferred to this area. The Griquas of Campbell can have their own small town in this little area for Coloureds in the region of Kimberley. They would then be close to employment opportunities in Kimberley. We also proposed that those few among them who farm with a cow, a goat and a donkey, be afforded the opportunity to keep these animals in a town commonage. The rest of the area could then be subdivided into economic units where Brown farmers of the Northern Cape could buy themselves farms. Because we should like to give the Coloured farmer the opportunity to develop and to farm, because we want him to be afforded assistance so as to be able to do so, because we would like the rural areas for Coloureds to develop, the CP takes pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the CP supports this amendment. I shall come back in a moment to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Kuruman.

The aim of this statutory amendment is to streamline the financial aid granted to coloured farmers to a greater extent and to bring it into line with the basis on which financial aid is also granted to White farmers. Due to the guidance given to the Coloured farmers and due to improved farming methods they are increasingly making a bigger positive contribution to agricultural production in South Africa. Accordingly it is necessary for all the necessary benefits that are granted to White farmers, also to be made available to our Coloured farmers.

There are altogether 24 such rural areas in South Africa with a total population of 70 482. Of these people, 8 978 are owner occupants. An example of such a rural area is the area of Mier in my part of the world. The hon. member for Kuruman also referred to it. Mier has a surface area of 398 789 ha and has 4 140 inhabitants, 365 of whom are occupants. The State funds spent in this regard last year, amount to R1 163 486. The important point to be made here—with reference to what the hon. member for Kuruman said—is that, as indicated by the figures I have quoted, the Mier area is already totally over-populated. If one considers the number of occupants and the surface area of agricultural land on which they farm, one finds that the extent of the land per farmer is only 109 ha, and that for every occupant there are 11,3 other people. It is therefore very clear to us that no further people can be squeezed into this area. If one really wants to farm economically on this area of approximately 400 000 hectares, then there ought only to be about 80 farmers there and each will only have a minimum economic unit. If we want to retain the people that are already there, it will be essential for the best farming methods to be applied there and also for the best and soundest agricultural financing to be applied so that those people can make a decent living. At the same time, it will have to be seen to that the soil in that area is conserved and not over-exploited or over-grazed.

The statutory amendment to give the Agricultural Assistance Board the same autonomy as the Agricultural Credit Board is a positive forward step and ought therefore to be supported.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill would seem to be a natural follow-on on the previous Bill and we are quite happy to support it. We are also pleased to see that certain discriminatory practices between the White and the Coloured farming communities will be removed and that the board will now have the power to perform functions previously handled only by the designated member or the Minister.

There are two points I should like to raise on, should we say, an executive level. I see there are still references to the “designated member”. “Designated member” in terms of the original law meant “the member designated in terms of section 17(6)(b) of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act of 1964.” That in itself virtually, to all practical intents and purposes, meant the executive member handling that particular function in the Coloured Representative, Council. There is no Coloured Representative Council any more and I know the hon. the Minister handles the affairs of the Coloured Representative Council today, but surely if we are updating the Act, it would make sense to update entirely, instead of continuing to leave reference to the designated members. I say that because I have grave doubts in my mind as to whether the Coloured Representative Council in its original form will ever come back into being again, particularly in view of the new constitutional legislation which is going to be placed before us.

The other point I should like to mention, also on an executive level, is that I had something of a job to find these laws when I was looking for them to read them up. I was rather surprised to find that they were not in Butterworths. In view of the fact that, I assume, these amendments will be in Butterworths, may I also assume that by some means or another—I do not know quite how one would do it; by journal-entry maybe—the principal Act may also be put in Butterworths. I say this because it does make it very confusing if one has to search all over the place and cannot find it. To me these are agricultural laws and there would seem to be good reason to put them into the section of Butterworths dealing with agricultural matters. Perhaps, as the coloured Representative Council will no longer come back into being, other laws that were passed by the Coloured Representative Council could also be appropriately placed so that it would be a little easier for ignoramuses such as myself to find them.

We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as far as this amending Bill is concerned, I wish to convey my sincere thanks to those hon. members who have taken part for their contributions and to the various parties for their support. I think that as the hon. member for Gordonia rightly said, everyone agrees that this is an important and most essential change that is being effected.

The hon. member for Green Point announced his and his party’s support for this Bill. He emphasized that a better principle was being introduced here and referred to the board, a board which will consist of experts. The Agricultural Assistance Board is comprised of agriculturists and Coloureds who are either farmers in their own right or have broad experience of agriculture. Every agricultural region of the country is represented on this board. I agree with the hon. member that this board must be given the opportunity to take decision.

The hon. member for Innesdal became involved in a skirmish with the hon. member for Rissik. Now, I do not know who was the lecturer and who was the student. All I know, is that they were lecturer and student at a place where the flag is flying at halfmast today and that is the University of Pretoria, because they tried to play rugby at Newlands on Saturday. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat far from the subject, but we all know what the outcome was. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should come back to the Bill although it would be a greater pleasure to discuss rugby. The hon. member for Innesdal stressed development. It has always been the aim and endeavour of the NP to bring about development in every sphere of the life of the Coloured and to allow everyone to share in it, and I think that I can rightly say in this regard that we have succeeded in allowing our Coloured population to share in that development, including the people of the rural areas.

The hon. member for Kuruman digressed somewhat from the Bill. Under the previous Bill, with reference to the rural areas of the Coloureds, I mentioned the pleasant surroundings and the calm that prevails there. Therefore I say it is a pity if we try to drag these areas into politics, as has been attempted here this afternoon. The department is developing these areas. We speak about 23 rural areas accommodating 70 000 people. But the majority of these areas is nothing but little towns that are already occupied by registered inhabitants. I can mention some of these areas. I call to mind Kranshoek, for example, near Plettenberg Bay, which comprises 244 ha and has a thousand inhabitants. Then there is Friemersheim at Great Brak River which consists of 191 ha and has a population of 500. Near Ladismith there is Zoar, comprising 5 800 ha, with a population of 2 700 at present. Then there is Mamre near Malmesbury with 5 000 ha and 4 300 people. Then there are a few larger areas, each with its distinct character. For example, there is Ebenezer near Lutzville, comprising 18 000 ha, with 1 600 people. Except for field husbandry on a limited scale, this region is used for grazing for the cattle of the inhabitants on a communal basis. Then there is Rietpoort, near Vanrhynsdorp; Leliefontein near Springbok; Steinkopf, also near Springbok, and Richtersveld, near Port Nolloth. These areas comprise 1,4 million ha, and already 20 000 people are living there, farmers have become established there. These areas are developing. We must bear in mind that these rural areas are occupied by people with their own standard of living and an attitude of their own. With a few exceptions those areas lack the infrastructure or the potential for dense development. We can speak about 23 areas, we can speak about 2 million ha, but after all, these areas are not situated in the Boland or in the Lowveld with the high quality of land of those areas. We must be careful when we talk about these areas. The hon. member for Kuruman inquired about the area of the P. W. Botha Army Battle School. I do not have the data with me at present, but I think that an investigation brought to light that there were only a few, approximately four, reasonably strong farmers. All the others have only a few goats or a donkey or two. We have negotiated with the surrounding municipalities, Daniëlskuil and Postmasburg, and they will accommodate those people. It is not the fault of the Defence Force that those people have not yet been accommodated. The department can be blamed for that. Those who are farmers can be established on their own and we shall assist them.

Where?

There are areas. For example, we have an area next to the Orange River, viz. Taaibos-Kraaibos, where farms were available. However, there were no applications for those farms. Accordingly we had to return the area to the Department of Agriculture.

There are cattle farmers.

Yes. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall look after these people. The department will determine once again how many people have moved and how many there still are because I concede that they are living there under dangerous circumstances. Apparently the Defence Force is using heavy artillery there. The hon. member also spoke about Campbell. Well, all this is at a developmental stage. Moreover, there is a full report on the Griqua population before the President’s Council at present. These are things that are being duly investigated and which are being considered.

I thank the hon. member for Gordonia for his contribution. He underlined the crux of this legislation, as did the hon. member for Umbilo. That hon. member said that he was unable to find any of these laws in Butterworth. For the moment I did not know what Butterworths was. If he had rather spoken about the constitution of Calvin I would have known what he was talking about. Subsequently, however, I ascertained that Butterworths contained a collection of all our laws! I see Mr. Speaker nodding to me, so in other words I am right. In any event, I give the hon. member for Umbilo the assurance that we shall try to determine whether the Laws of the CRC—I think there are only two—could not be included in Butterworths.

In conclusion I wish to thank all hon. members for their support. This is essential legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Technikons (Education and Training) Act, 1981, was set in operation with effect from 1982. Certain shortcomings were identified in implementing this Act. The amending Bill seeks to eliminate these shortcomings. As far as the Co-ordinating Council for Technical Education is concerned, it is envisaged to insert a provision regulating the election of a chairman and vice-chairman.

The amendment of the composition of the council of a technikon is being envisaged so as to provide that the board of studies may nominate two people from their ranks to the council. This arrangement is general practice at institutions of higher education and also applies at universities, where the senates nominate lecturers from their own ranks as members of councils. Greater efficiency in the functioning of councils can be promoted in this way.

In order to co-ordinate internal managerial and planning programmes, it is being proposed that provision be made for the appointment of joint committees of councils and boards of studies, as in the case of the universities for Blacks. The appointment of joint committees has been shown in practice to be of great value and utility. Apart from the saving in time, such committees also entail the advantage that investigations in depth and problem situations can be fully dealt with at a lower level and matters that have to come before councils and boards of study can be rounded off more effectively.

†Clause 4 provides for the secondment of staff members for a particular service or for a period of time to the service of any other technikon or any office or governmental body, as the Bill indicates. The Mabopane East Technikon the Bill indicates. The Mabopane East Technikon near Pretoria is the only technikon presently administered by the Department of Education and Training in existence. Should further technikons be established this clause would make it possible to second able personnel to render assistance with the running of such technikons in their infant stages. Similar clauses are also contained in the Acts on the universities for Blacks. Clause 5 contains the Short Title.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by expressing the hope that this Bill will enjoy the full support of all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this, his first, introduction of a Bill in this House in his new capacity.

†The official Opposition will be supporting the Bill now before the House. We are well aware of the importance of technical training to our economy, and we are also very well aware that without a strongly growing economy there is indeed a grim future waiting for this country. There has been a great deal of concern expressed in this House during recent weeks over the rate of inflation, which is running at two to three times that of our trading partners. I do not wish to go into that matter at the moment and to express the dangers posed to our society, our security and our economy, by such a situation. However, I do believe that there is one aspect of inflation which could be stressed a little more.

That is the effect of an insufficiency of technical training on manpower. If the classic description of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, one can possibly cure the disease by cutting off the supply of money. It is, however, also quite possible to kill the patient in the process. The patient in this case is the economy itself.

If one’s most important scarce goods is skilled labour one can ensure that there is no pressure on wages by the cutting back of the monetary supply, but one can also make sure that one’s economy then does not grow at the speed at which, we have all agreed for so many reasons, is necessary. It is quite significant that in the 1970s, when our growth rate was round about 3,5%, there was no serious shortage of skilled labour. It was only when, at the end of the seventies and in 1980, our economy began to bump up against that growth-rate which the economic development programme had long ago said it should reach if we were going to create the job opportunities that were necessary, that we really started to feel the crunch as far as skilled labour was concerned. Then it was that different individual businessmen started to bid for labour, and that the bidding became frenetic. Not only did they bid for labour in terms of ever higher wages, but they employed worse labour and expected that labour to do less. The cost of this eventually ended up in expensive goods, and higher costs were passed on to the consumer. Naturally at that time the consumers, punch-drunk from price increases, accepted the prices.

Technikons have a key role to play in the package of technical education available to the workforce. Technical centres, secondary technical schools, technical colleges and technikons form that package. They have already created for themselves an outstanding reputation. In fact, Professor Muller, who is the head of the Graduate School of Business at the University of Stellenbosch, recently said that we had enough universities in South Africa and that we needed more technikons, because we had to restore the balance between academic training and practical training. I think that we all agree that the technikons have established for themselves, in their own field, a reputation that is no less a reputation than that of the universities. They facilitate a unique bridging action between professional academics and the rest of the work force. Students who have been to technikons have a very sound basis in the sciences, but their training is more application-orientated, and this enables them to carry out this bridging operation. They are not research-orientated or design-orientated, like their contemporaries who are university graduates, and it is from their ranks that we shall, in future, increasingly be drawing managers, middle managers and senior managers.

I think, however, that there is one area in which one will find that the diploma graduates from technikons are going to have the edge on their contemporaries who are degree graduates from universities, and this is in the field of entrepreneurs. It will be found that there will be a greater percentage of entrepreneurs drawn from the ranks of diplo-mates from technikons than from the ranks of graduates from universities, and it is logical that this should be so, because they are application-orientated, they are more practical and, furthermore, they have another tremendous advantage. I believe that their communication will be better with the broad spectrum of the workforce than is frequently the case with the professional graduates from a university.

Now that we all agree that technikons are of prime importance and that they are desperately necessary for the future of our economy, we have a duty to ask: What has the Government done in the field of supplying technikons for Blacks in this country, and is this sufficient? At this stage, in the RSA, there is only one Black technikon, and that is at Mabopane East where there are 586 students. There are a further 307 students at technical colleges receiving a technikon-type training. Of course, in kwaZulu, at Mangosuthu, there is another technikon, but that was not supplied by the Government. It was, in fact, supplied by private enterprise. At that institution there are about 250 students. [Interjections.] I think that all hon. members will agree that this is not a significant achievement and that it must be greatly improved in the future. There are plans for expansion. For examples, Mabopane East anticipates 5 000 students by the end of the decade and Mangosuthu nearly 1 000 students, but a lot more will have to be done if the upsurges in our economy are not always to be brought to a staggering halt because we have insufficient trained manpower to man the economy. We cannot tolerate a situation where one single technikon is not fully utilized. No ideological considerations must prevent investments in these institutions producing the maximum number of trained students. In other words, if we are finding it difficult to fill our White technikons to capacity, it is an indication that entrance to these institutions must be on merit and that colour must not be the criterion.

We have made considerable strides in all technical training over the past five years, but we have still a long way to go. The recent report on high-level management says that to maintain a 4,5% growth in the GDP we need annually 9 500 technicians. At the moment we are producing only 2 000. We also need 23 000 artisans while we are producing only 10 000 at the moment. I believe that so far as training is concerned, the incentives available to private enterprise are very generous indeed. If private enterprise does not fully utilize the opportunities that is available to it through the various Government schemes it is being irresponsible both to the economy and to the country.

Specifically as far as technikon training is concerned, however, there are essential facilities that must be provided by the State. One technikon for Blacks cannot fulfil this requirement. In addition, I believe it is essential that Black technikons be geographically spread more evenly through the country. It is extremely difficult, in fact there is a major psychological barrier, for a Black parent to send his children to the ends of the country to attend a technikon.

In the Eastern Cape we have approximately 20% of the total Black population of this country. Everybody realizes that this is an area that must be stimulated. I have asked the previous hon. Minister to consider the establishment of a Black technikon in Port Elizabeth, and I want to ask the present hon. Minister to give this matter his earnest consideration again. In Port Elizabeth a technikon would have the infrastructure of industry it needs, and one could really make a success of it. It is an area that needs stimulation. It has all sorts of natural advantages in that it has a tradition of industrialization and a workforce that is used to work in factories. A modest boost would be a tremendous incentive in that region.

The Bill before us provides for the appointment of a chairman and vice-chairman for the Co-ordinating Council. Two persons to a technikon council can be appointed by the board of studies. It also provides that the term of office of a member of a technikon council may be terminated by the body which nominated him. It also provides for a technikon council to elect a chairman and vice-chairman. The council may elect committees if it deems it necessary. The council or the board of studies can then assign certain tasks or duties to these committees. The Bill also provides for the secondment of personnel between various arms of the Government service. These are all things which improve the present Act. We will therefore be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in joining the hon. member for Walmer in conveying congratulations to the hon. the Minister on this first legislation that he is submitting in his new capacity. However, I am a little worried that as far the first part of the hon. member’s speech is concerned, he was either speaking about other legislation or else he brought along the wrong notes.

We decided a long time ago that technical education was very important. The hon. member for Walmer is now asking what the Government has done in respect of technical education for Black people. However, the hon. member must bear in mind—this is so basic—that there was a tremendous prejudice against technical education among Black people because they regarded it as a form of manual labour. It was not a case of merely being able to establish a technikon and expecting it to be full. This is an educational process in terms of which the Department of Education and Training has been engaged for years in giving people a technical orientation, in making them interested. Therefore it is not surprising that there is only one technikon at this stage. I repeat that it is not due to the negligence of the Government that this is the case but because there has not been an adequate demand for this type of education due to the prejudice on the part of these people.

The amendments to the legislation that are being effected are very simple and are aimed at facilitating the implementation of the legislation and rectifying certain deficiencies in the legislation. The co-ordinating council is a statutory body and it is the custom that in the case of a statutory body the method of nomination or appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman be stipulated in the Act. Unfortunately, when the principal Act was passed in 1981, provision was not made for this. Therefore this deficiency is being eliminated in that the method of appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman of the Council of Technikons is now being stipulated. This is a perfectly normal procedure, aimed at rectifying this deficiency and stipulating in legislation what could otherwise have been stipulated by way of regulation.

In regard to clause 2, the board of studies of the technikon is in fact the equivalent of the senate of a university, as the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech. All that is being done now, is to afford the board of studies the opportunity to nominate people to the council of the technikon, just as a senate has the right to nominate people to the university council.

The appointment of committees comprising members of the council and the board of studies is aimed at saving time, at facilitating the work and at streamlining the whole process.

In the final instance there is the secondment of staff, which is also a perfectly normal and natural phenomenon, particularly since at present there is only one technikon in existence. It is true that other technikons may be founded, and when that happens, people with experience who have already been lecturers in a technikon may be used therein. The important point is that these people can only be seconded with their own permission.

I think that this is a piece of legislation for which we are very grateful because it will facilitate and streamline the whole process of the principle Act. We take pleasure in supporting the necessary amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the other hon. members who have conveyed their congratulations to the hon. the Minister in respect of this first amending Bill that he has introduced in this House. We on this side of the House would also like to wish him many successful years in his portfolio.

Right at the outset I want to say that technikons in South Africa are full-fledged tertiary education institutions presenting professional occupationally orientated courses at the post-matriculation level. The knowledge acquired by people in this regard is practically oriented. This is very practical because it complies with the demands of our times as regards the demand for skilled manpower which is so acute at the present stage. Moreover the final examinations are the same at all technikons in South Africa and the examinations take place under the same conditions and under the control of the Department of National Education, the professional boards and also the private institutes. The first full-fledged technikon to fall under the Department of Education and Training is the technikon at Mabopane East which is situated to the north west of Pretoria. From 1 January 1982 it has been an autonomous institution controlled by its own council. Courses are presented at many different levels, e.g. administration, secretarial training, electrical, mechanical and civil engineering, surveying and geology, several health-oriented practices and courses and then the physical sciences and technical educational training. All this is available at this technikon. In fact, it is intended for 3 000 students, but by way of rotation it can accommodate 5 000. This building has also been designed in such a way that physically handicapped persons can very easily attend courses here, because it is easy for them to attend the classes in their wheel chairs and so on.

Mangasuto technikon is actually south of Durban. It is also controlled by its own council as laid down by the kwaZulu legislation on technikons because it falls within kwaZulu territory. It, too, presents a very large variety of subjects. There is close liaison between this technikon and the private sector because the private sector is very occupationally oriented and can also suggest the newest methods to these people. Accordingly the latest techniques are available here and for that reason it is most essential, in view of the shortage of trained people, that we are experiencing. They, too, are directly concerned with practical matters and for that reason they can apply the latest methods and techniques, so that when these people have completed their training there they can walk straight into a job.

As far as the Act itself is concerned, what the amendments now being effected amount to is that the council and the board of studies can nominate a joint committee. Some of the other amendments being effected are also quite acceptable to us on this side of the House. I do not want to mention all the amendments because they have already been referred to by hon. members on this side. We hope that under the guidance of the Department of Education and Training, the technikons will achieve great heights, because provision is being made for these people in their own areas so that they, too, can be people with dignity who have been trained for an occupation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the NRP, to extend our congratulations, too, to the hon. the Minister on his first piece of legislation since his appointment as Minister to this very important portfolio. Even at this stage we are able to discern the influence of the hon. the Minister in this portfolio. Furthermore, we have already attended a very interesting seminar with some of his officials, and it was very, very impressive. I believe that the hand of the hon. the Minister is also to be seen in the dusting of all the old shelves. We believe that what he has done in this regard can also be identified in the legislation.

†I think that the pertinent points made by the hon. member for Walmer will certainly not escape the attention of someone with the hon. the Minister’s background as a private person in this field. The mere fact that this legislation which we as a party have much pleasure in supporting already puts right certain aspects of the 1981 legislation bears evidence of that.

I cannot help just having a passing swipe. One should bear in mind that with all the urgency attached to this matter, we are looking at legislation passed in 1981. Here we are in 1983 and the Co-ordinating Council has in fact not yet been able to muster a meeting. I asked a question earlier this session in connection with that and with reference to the annual report. It is interesting to see that the “leemtes” mentioned by the hon. the Minister concern the chairman, the vice-chairman, an additional two members from the Board of Studies for the Co-ordinating Council and changes to standing committees and the secondment of members—all in preparation to getting this going. I would suggest that this is taking a little time to get off the ground. It would seem that the proper role of the Coordinating Council is to collect all possible information and to muster support to extend this vital form of education to meet the needs outlined by the hon. member for Walmer. One hopes, too, that it will play the role it has to play in meeting the need for technikon-qualified people in the future. Certainly, for two years to have passed without it having functioned would appear to be a somewhat unnecessary delay.

With those few words we have much pleasure in supporting this amendment and we look forward to achievements of the Coordinating Council, in particular in fostering and promoting technikons and in obtaining every possible assistance to the fullest extent in carrying out its very necessary operations.

Mr. Speaker, allow me at the outset to thank hon. members for their friendly words of congratulation. I should just like to say to the hon. member for Germiston District that I intend to remain sitting on this side of the House as a Nationalist for many more years. I thank her for her friendly words of congratulation.

†The hon. member for Walmer has raised quite a few aspects of technical training which, I want to say immediately, have very little to do with the Bill before us. I have nevertheless taken note of what he has said and I want to agree fully with most of what he has said. We support the idea that technical training in South Africa and the economic future of South Africa are of the utmost importance. We have done quite a lot and are still doing quite a lot to, shall I say, create a technological culture in the schools by seeing if we cannot get more student material for technikons, because one can build as many technikons as one likes but, if one does not have the student material for those technikons, that money is also not productive. I think I also agree with him that productivity is very closely related to training and education. I think the technikons can play a very important role in the future in increasing the productivity of the skilled labour force in this country. So I fully endorse just about everything the hon. member has said. I also want to emphasize that the cooperation that exists between the private sector and ourselves in our efforts to establish the only technikon we have at present is excellent. We want to thank the private sector very much for their support and for going with us all the way to establish and build the technikon at Mabopane East. I can also assure the hon. member that this will not remain the only technikon. We have in our planning pipeline more technikons to be built in South Africa. The location the hon. member mentioned, viz. the Eastern Cape, is certainly a location where a technikon can be built with great success.

*I thank the hon. member for Kimberley North for his kind support. I think the hon. member raised a very important point. One of the big problems we are experiencing at the technikon at present in our efforts to promote higher education on a technical level among Blacks, is the prejudice against blue collar workers. The two concepts of higher education and manual labour are two concepts which are still rather ill-matched. However, we are having great success and we believe that our efforts there will yet meet with great success in this regard. I sincerely thank the hon. member for Kimberley North for raising the point. It is an extremely important point.

The hon. member for Germiston District raised two points, for which I want to thank her. The first point she made—and this is very important—was that the standards of training, examination, and certification at that technikon compared well with all other technikons in South Africa. That is a very important point and I am grateful that the hon. member has highlighted it, viz. that there is no difference in standards at this technikon and also no difference as far as the quality of the people we have at the technikon is concerned. I venture to say that it is a prestige institution and that the quality and standard of those skilled certificated students is exactly the same as that of the students produced by all other technikons.

Another very important aspect the hon. member pointed out and which one could perhaps just touch on is the fact that technikon is at present being used to train technical teachers. There is an acute shortage of technical teachers at the Black high schools in South Africa. At the moment it is one of the priorities of these technikons to train technically orientated high school teachers so that we may establish a technical culture at the Black high schools in South Africa. We thank the hon. member for pointing this out.

I thank the hon. member for King William’s Town for his kind support of the amending Bill. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the amendments in respect of representation on the board of studies have nothing to do with the co-ordinating council. They concern the council of the technikon itself. The technikon is in its growing phase. There is a tremendous amount of building going on; a tremendous amount of equipment is being purchased and the council does not always have the ability to monitor these building operations sufficiently. That is why we ask that the council be given the right to appoint committees so that it may be able to co-ordinate these programmes on the road ahead in a very successful and productive manner. We thank the hon. member for his support of this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the session of 1920 a Select Committee of this House investigated problems which were troubling the community of Bethelsdorp and concerning which there was a dispute between the London Missionary Society and its successors, the Congregational Union Church Aid and Missionary Society and the Bethelsdorp Board of Supervisors. This investigation led to the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act of 1921, which regulated various matters of importance to the local community. I should like to refer to two of these matters since the Bill before us has a bearing on them.

Firstly, the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act, 121 provides that no person shall possess more than two building lots or eight and a half hectares (that is ten morgen in the old terms) of garden land. The original purpose of this restriction was to prevent any single person or a small number of people from owning all the land. The danger of anything of that nature happening disappeared years ago because Bethelsdorp has since been incorporated in the municipal area of Port Elizabeth and a great deal of development has taken place there. The restrictions in respect of a portion of the Bethelsdorp land were removed in 1979 in terms of the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act of that year. However, the restrictions still exist in respect of the original building sites and garden lands. The Eastern Cape Administration Board has bought a large number of plots there for redevelopment, but the restriction on land ownership is hampering the development of the area. It is therefore time to remove the restrictions completely, and this Bill proposes to repeal those sections of the Schedule to the Act which contain the restrictions.

†The second aspect which is dealt with by this Bill concerns the saltpan which is situated on part of the Bethelsdorp townlands. The saltpan, together with certain adjoining land, was granted in terms of the Act to a board consisting of the magistrate of Port Elizabeth as chairman, and six other members, three of whom are nominated by the church, and three elected by the owners of fixed property. In terms of the Act the board is compelled to apply the income derived from the saltpan in the following manner, namely, R300 to the Bethelsdorp Congregational Church, and R100 for school purposes. Whenever the income exceeds the amount of R400 per year the Board is entitled, with the approval of the Minister of Community Development, to apply such further amount for church or school purposes or other purposes for the benefit of the community. In order to expedite matters and to facilitate the handling of requests under this provision, provision is now being made for the Minister to delegate his authority to an officer in the public service. The Department has a regional office in Port Elizabeth and matters can therefore easily be disposed of locally.

Hon. members may well ask whether the time is not now opportune to repeal the principal Act in its entirety. This was in fact considered but was decided against, especially in view of the fact that the existing arrangement in regard to the management of the saltpan has been in operation for more than 60 years, and still meets with the requirements of the local community.

*The other amendments included in the Bill are consequential but if there is anything that is not clear I shall explain it during the Committee Stage.

I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we support this Bill. As the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, its main objective is to do away with some of the existing restrictions as far as the proper development of the relevant area is concerned, as well as the provision of proper housing, particularly in the area at present occupied by Black people.

We support the measure under discussion because it does not affect the established rights of other people, the owners of property in the town. Consequently we have no objection to supporting the Bill in its present form. We also feel it stands to reason that the amendment proposed in connection with the saltpan is necessary, and that it will now be the Minister of Community Development, or and official to whom we will delegate his authority, who will deal with this relatively unimportant matter, and no longer the Minister of Lands, as stipulated in the principal Act.

Mr. Speaker, if I may take the liberty of speaking about more general matters than those provided for in the Bill, I should just like to point out that Bethalsdorp has a very interesting history. The place also played a very important role in the history of our country. This was the case because it was also associated with the very strong ideological differences in the White/non-White relationships which arose in the history of South Africa. As hon. members know, Bethelsdorp is very strongly identified with Dr. Van der Kemp, Rev. James Read and Dr. Phillip, who were all important personalities in the history of South Africa, particularly Dr. Van der Kemp. As hon. members will know, Dr. Van der Kemp was born in Rotterdam in 1747 into a very well-known, prominent Dutch family. He then went to Edinburgh, Scotland, where he qualified in medicine. On his return to Holland in 1791 he lost his wife and daughter in a tragic accident on the Maas River, as a result of which he was converted to Christianity. It was in view of this that he felt himself drawn to mission work. After he became acquainted with the objectives of the London Missionary Society in London, he decided to come to the Cape. He and three other men arrived in the Cape in 1797 to do mission work. Initially he and one of his colleagues went to Ngqika’s kraal—Gaika, as he is called in our history books, to do mission work among the Blacks. However, this was not very successful. Because major problems arose, particularly with the tribeless and wandering Hottentots, consideration was given to establishing a mission station where those people could be concentrated. That was how Bethelsdorp originated.

What actually happened was that Governor Jansen, in consequence of representations from Van der Kemp and others, eventually investigated matters and made available a farm of reasonable size next to the Klein Swartkops River as a mission station for Dr. Van der Kemp. It is interesting to note that the governor actually insisted that when Van der Kemp gave the mission station a name, he was to avoid Biblical names. Apparently Governor Jansen did not like the idea of giving such places Biblical names. On the spur of the moment Dr. Van der Kemp, remembering that he had preached from Genesis 28, verse 19, the previous Sunday, which Mr. Speaker, you will probably be acqainted with, said the missionary station would be called Bethelsdorp. The governor, whose knowledge of the Bible was not all that good, agreed to this. He only found out the next day that Bethelsdorp originated from the name Bet-el. This is the name Jacob gave to the place where he saw the ladder ascending up to Heaven and where he had heard the voice of the Almighty. The next morning, when he awoke, he named the place Bet-el, which means “the House of the Almighty”. That is where the name Bethelsdorp comes from. When the governor eventually realized that he had been tricked, he let the matter rest there. That is how the name Bethelsdorp continued to exist.

Hon. members will also remember that Bethelsdorp figured in the journey of Commissioner De Mist and the writer Von Lichtenstein. Six months after the establishment of the missionary station they arrived there and found conditions to be very critical. They reported this. The place was dirty, the people were lazy. They did not have much respect for the work of Van der Kemp either. The report on the mission station was in fact a very negative report. I think it was a little unfair, because as I have mentioned, it was only six months after the mission station had been established. I have mentioned that that entire situation of Van der Kemp played a major role in our history. Of course Van der Kemp had grave problems. In the first place, there was his problem of converting those wandering Hottentots and other Coloureds who had the come to the station to Christianity, to discipline them and to teach them the value of labour. It was a major problem for him. It was not easy. In addition he was in constant conflict with the officials, and he and Landdros Cuyler of Graaff-Reinet did not see eye to eye either. Cuyler had very little time for him. The White farmers in the vicinity of Bethelsdorp also objected very strenuously to the presence of these people at the mission station. These people were accused of being lazy and unwilling to work, of stealing the farmer’s livestock, etc. As a matter of fact the farmers called the place Beggarsdorp instead of Bethelsdorp. Mr. Speaker, you are acquainted with the history of the Eastern Cape and these things are therefore not unknown to you.

The fight between Van der Kemp and the farmers of the area naturally increased in intensity over the years, inter alia because Van der Kemp committed the unforgivable sin in the eyes of those people of taking Coloured woman to wife. He expressed very strong views against slavery and was personally responsible for manumitting seven slaves, including his wife, his wife’s mother—a native of Madagascar—and father and her family. Of course this led to tremendous conflict. We who have read the story in the history book are aware of the role which this entire situation played in the history of the Eastern Cape. On the one side there were the farmers who accused the Hottentots and Van der Kemp of irresponsibility and on the other side there was Van der Kemp who accused the farmers of taking the law into their own hands and simply taking action against the people of the mission station with impunity.

Perhaps it is fortunate that we are not asked to pass judgment on the events of 170 years ago at this stage. However, I do want to say that if one looks back on the situation, to a certain extent both sides seem to have been in the right. On the one hand there was the problem experienced by the farmers with these undisciplined people, and on the other hand there were the prejudices of the farmers in the area and the Government at the Cape towards these people. For example in 1905 the following instruction was issued to Van der Kemp—

That is at the mission station. The farmers saw the mission station mainly as a source of labour for them. Part of their dissatisfaction arose from the fact that this did not materialize.

It may interest hon. members to know that another instruction from the Governor at the Cape to Van der Kemp was that no instruction in writing was to be given and I am quoting—

In other words, the “instruction in writing”—

There was therefore a prohibition that no child was to be taught to read or write at the missipn station.

The conflict became worse and more intense, to such an extent that the Governor at the Cape recalled Van der Kemp to Cape Town for a while and where he virtually detained him. He prevented him from returning. Only after the British took over at the Cape was Van der Kemp allowed to return to Bethelsdorp. However, the battle had become more intense in the meanwhile and this led to the famous, or notorious “Black Circuit”, or the Black Circuit Court of 1912. This circuit court sat in 1812 and actually had to investigate Van der Kemp’s complaints. Most of his complaints were found to be unproved.

The historian Cory has indicated that that Black Circuit was the direct cause of the Slagtersnek episode with all the implications that episode had on the history of this country and its resultant effect on the Great Trek. After Van der Kemp’s death in 1811, and the deaths of Read and Philip, most of the controversial nature of Bethelsdorp disappeared. As a matter of fact Bethelsdorp subsequently made a tremendous contribution to the spiritual, social and economic upliftment and progress of the people at the mission station. As a matter of fact, Bethelsdorp was for many years the centre of spiritual ministration to Whites and non-Whites in the Eastern Cape and in particular in Port Elizabeth before White clergymen and missionaries continued the work there. It is interesting that one of the most treasured possessions in the church in Bethelsdorp is the original Bible of Van der Kemp which was printed in the Netherlands in 1664 and is actually Africana. Rhodes University has already made several requests for this Bible to be given to them for preservation, but the congregation has consistently refused because they feel that the removal of the Bible would have a negative effect on the entire mission station.

Against this background I just want to say that Bethelsdorp itself is an integral part not only of the history of our country but also the history of our non-White community. For that reason I am glad that, as the hon. the Deputy Minister stated, it was not decided to repeal the entire Act, because this would create an element of uncertainty among those people which would be totally unnecessary, and this Bill only lifts the restrictions contained in the Act. In the light of this I just want to say that we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member Prof. Olivier most sincerely for his support. He gave an extensive review of the origin of Bethelsdorp and the activities of Van der Kemp. I want to tell him that that Van der Kemp was a difficult man. The Governor, and the farmers in particular, had many problems with him. On more than one occasion the Governor had to recall him to Cape Town from Behtelsdorp. However, I do not wish to speak about Van der Kemp now.

I wish to come to the Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave us an in-depth review of the origin of the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act of 1921 and the problems they had with the saltworks. Up to and including 1979 the major problem with this Act was that no large developer or building society could purchase the usual large number of plots for development and have a share in the development of Behtelsdorp. Church denominations that were expanding could not form new denominations, since they could not obtain additional land to build more churches. However, the Act was amended in 1979 in such a way that a section of Bethelsdorp was exempted from this restriction. Developers could begin to operate freely in that specific area. To give an indication of the development which has taken place there since 1966, but particularly since 1979, I could mention the following figures. The Department of Community Development, in co-operation with the local municipality, i.e. the City Council of Port Elizabeth, commenced with an area known as Extension No. 8, on which 924 houses which are at present being let have been built. The second was Extension 9, where 420 serviced plots were made available for sale. At Extension 10, 443 serviced plots were sold to individuals, building societies and a utility company. At Extension 11, 442 houses were constructed and have already been sold by the Department of Community Development and the municipality. As far as Extensions 12 and 13 are concerned, 1 746 houses have been constructed, and I wish to say to the hon. the Minister of Community Development that these houses were built by the department in co-operation with the city council and they are at present being let. Extension 14 consists of 450 units, of which 190 have been sold and 260 have been let. At Extension 16 there are 662 units which have already been sold. I want hon. members to listen to the following information concerning these extensions. Extensions 17 to 20 include 2 375 houses built by the Department of Community Development and which are mainly being let. At Extension 21, 557 houses which are to be sold are at present being built. At Extension 23 there are 309 serviced plots which are at present for sale and at Extension 26 there are 176 plots for sale at present. Therefore more than 8 000 plots and houses have been made available in a relatively short space of time for occupation by the Coloured community. This is indeed an achievement for the Department of Community Development and the local city council. I am mentioning these figures to demonstrate what can be done if there are no restrictions on development. In view of the amendments before us at present, the remainder of Bethelsdorp is being exempted from these restrictions and rapid development is to be expected.

The remainder of the amendments are corrections and improvements and I think that with this amending Bill we have written the final chapter as far as the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act is concerned. I do not wish to refer to the other clauses contained in this legislation. I simply wanted to refer to the question of freehold right. We take pleasure in supporting this legislation before this House.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that with the points of difference between the NP and CP becoming more discernible, he should, of course, expect that we will be looking very critically at certain items of legislation introduced by him. However, I wish to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that as far as this legislation is concerned, we shall support it and not make it difficult for him to finalize it.

I also wish to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I think he has an extremely difficult task in South Africa as far as his responsibility in respect of the consolidation of the areas of the various Black people is concerned. During the past few years the hon. the Deputy Minister had to do in South Africa what is accomplished in other parts of the world only through wars. As far as that aspect is concerned, I wish to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that we want to try and facilitate his task.

With reference to the hon. member Prof. Olivier, I wish to say that the name Bethelsdorp immediately reminds one of the London Missionary Society, as well as of Read, Philip and Van der Kemp and the specific ideological differences which had already appeared at that time. Sometimes one thinks it is a pity that the earlier generations in the history of mankind were unable to make clearer projections in respect of the exceptional things they did, and particularly as far as the settlement of new groups of people was concerned. On the other hand, however, it is true that history repeats itself and that many things we think are innovative today, which we perhaps reshape or alter, depending on how one sees it, are based on old ideological standpoints of times gone by which in many respects do not differ to such an extent from the position today. I wish to say to the hon. member Prof. Olivier that in a certain sense, I think he and his party are simply perpetuating the philosophy of Read, Philip and Van der Kemp …

No. [Interjections.]

The hon. member says that he is not perpetuating the philosophy of Read, Philip and Van der Kemp, but according to my interpretation, the hon. member is, in fact, perpetuating the philosophy of Read, Philip and Van der Kemp, whereas the CP is a continuation of those, the indigenous Whites, who were opposed to the philosophies of life and existence of Read, Philip and Van der Kemp.

We have satisfied ourselves that land which belongs to Coloureds, will not be alienated and that the land which is at issue here is already in the possession of the State. We have also determined that the development which is to take place is a natural kind of development. Therefore we support the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the historical background of the Bill as it was sketched by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I have also listened to the points made by other hon. members who participated in the debate. I have nothing to add except to say that we in these benches support the Bill. We trust that the “haakplekke” which prevented the further development of Bethelsdorp will be obviated so that Bethelsdorp will develop smoothly. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for the support they have pledged to this Bill. Interesting matters pertaining to the Bill have been raised, and it certainly is part of our history. We are pleased that we were able to streamline this legislation, which facilitates matters for the inhabitants of that area. I thank the official Opposition, the CP and the NRP for their support and I also thank the hon. member on our side most sincerely for his contribution.

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, it has already been intimated that the PFP supports this Bill, and I am simply rising to react to the Second Reading speech of the hon. member for Rissik. I am aware that the hon. member did not mean this too seriously, yet I think it is a pity that we should always bring party politics into situations that really have very little to do with party politics. That part of history which was mentioned is just as much the history of the hon. member for Rissik as it is mine, as well as that of the citizens of this country.

He would surely agree with what I said in my Second Reading speech, i.e. that it was just as well that we are not called upon today to sit in judgment on the pros or cons of the events of 170 years ago. It is true that we are all products of our age and that we are also all products of the things we have learned. It is true that in the history books we had at school a particular atmosphere was created and particular facts were stated in a particular context concerning the role of people such as Van der Kemp, Read and Dr. Philip. I do not wish to intimate that those facts were incorrect. Yet I think I can say in all honesty that when one looks back, there are certain facts which should also have been mentioned in our history books. In the light of this, I find it a pity that the hon. member for Rissik tried to dismiss this matter by saying that the PFP was simply perpetuating the philosophy of Van der Kemp, Read and Philip. If one begins making that kind of allegation, I could also accuse the hon. member for Rissik of perpetuating the ideas of all kinds of people. However, I do not intend to do so.

I simply say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we give the Third Reading of this Bill our full support.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to react any further to what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say. We support the Third Reading of this Bill. However, I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister would mind if I reacted briefly to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. In his Second Reading speech he used certain terms which were not quite correct, viz. that the standpoint at the time of Bethelsdorp’s inception concerned White and non-White. One of the problems we have in South Africa today is that we so easily used certain terms to simply classify people as White or non-White. I wish to say to the hon. member that I think that there is a wide range of meaning within the concept of “White”, a range of meaning which cannot be defined by the terms White and non-White.

Secondly, I wish to say to the hon. member that in arguing this matter, one cannot get away from the fact that we are part of history. I think it would be foolish if, in our present-day debates on certain matters we did not see the events of today against the background of historical events.

Sir, we support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The preamble to this Bill contains a brief account of the historic background to this matter. The Paarl municipality tried for a long time to acquire ownership of Paarl Mountain in order to develop it as a nature and botanical reserve. This was done by means of legislation which was piloted through this House in 1969 after it had been agreed that certain parts of this nature reserve would be demarcated, transferred to the Paarl municipality and placed under its jurisdiction. At the same time, an agreement was entered into in terms of which certain grazing rights which White farmers had possessed were taken away from them, in exchange for which they were given certain rights to the eventual use of those portions of the land which were not being used for the nature reserve and for nature conservation.

A deadlock was reached. The House of Assembly received a petition from approximately 50 inhabitants who objected to the removal of their rights. Thereupon a Select Committee was appointed, which investigated the matter. The Select Committee then made certain recommendations. In spite of this, it was not possible to make the desired progress with the whole matter. Eventually a settlement was reached between the 50 petitioners and the Paarl municipality, to the effect that an agreement was entered into in terms of which the land that was not being used could be rented by these people for 50 years at 25 cents a year. I do not wish to go into all the details now. In this agreement, there was a definite quid pro quo in terms of which these people gave up their grazing rights but were given other rights, rights which were laid down in the agreement. Initially the intention was that this agreement would form part of the Act. However, it never formed part of the Act. As a result of the fact that this agreement did not form part of the Act, we had the situation that all kinds of court cases arose and the whole situation became unpleasant. All we want to do now is to incorporate the agreement into the Act, so that the settlement which was reached may be fully embodied in the measure.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a hybrid Bill. It is a Bill that does not in our parliamentary terminology have a principle as such. It is clearly a Bill that deals with very special and specific interests of certain parties. The hon. the Deputy Minister has sketched the historical background to this Bill and I think it is well for us to remember that at the time of the Great Trek this land was given to the people of the village of Paarl and the field cornetcy of Behind Paarl, as it was termed in that Crown grant. What that meant, of course, was that there was a commonage on the mountain of Paarl serving all people who were landowners within the magisterial district of Paarl. Clearly today that would go as far as Kraaifontein. That land was obviously a commonage on the mountain which could not assist every landholder simply because of their distance from it. Then, of course, in 1970 that mountain symbolically became erf No. 1 of Paarl. More important, a section of that erf was then handed over to the State for the Afrikaanse Taalmonument. In that sense the mountain that had a value as a grazing commonage, is now a precious national asset for all South Africans and the Afrikaans language monument is of particular interest to Afrikaans-speaking South Africans.

I do not wish to get involved in the merits of the case, but I think this House should be aware of the fact that there has already been a Supreme Court case judgment in this matter where Mr. Justice Shock at the end of 1981 expressed certain views. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of those views, not so much of the law, but under the terms of this agreement which is being given the force of law. I believe we have the right to ask ourselves the question whether this right to use the agricultural value of that excess land, excess that is to the nature reserve, should be allowed to only two landowners and whether this should perhaps not rather be put out to tender for people to use if this land has got to be given. I believe we should also ask ourselves the question whether the 3 320 morgen, which apparently comprises the balance of erf No. 1, should not simply be given to the whole community and that whatever rights there may be in terms of commonage should be valued and expropriated and be put into a trust fund of some kind or the other. Today Paarl Mountain is symbolic for us not only because of what it is, but also because the value of its fynbos makes it an important potential botanical reserve.

We are pleased that the rules relating to hybrid Bills are such that if anybody petitions Parliament within five days of the Second Reading the Bill will have to go to a Select Committee. We believe that that is a democratic appreciation by Parliament of the rights of people. My information is that there could well be such a petition lodged with this House.

While expressing our reservations, we will therefore wait and see what happens to this Bill when it probably will go to a Select Committee, after which it will become a public Bill, which we will be able to support at that stage.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North very sincerely for his very realistic view of this legislation. I should be very grateful if we could keep politics out of this legislation, because it actually has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I believe that it should be left to Paarl itself to try to solve the problems which have arisen in this connection.

I also want to agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North that Paarl Mountain, with its beautiful granite rock-faces, is something very special. It reminds one of the occasion almost 300 years ago when Abraham Gabbema first arrived there and gazed with the greatest admiration on the beautiful mountain with its wonderful rock-faces. For this reason in particular, I want to say, we should be really grateful if we could keep this whole situation out of politics as far as possible. However, I want to add at once, Mr. Speaker, that while, fortunately, I have not had many problems with other political parties in Paarl in recent years, one has quite enough problems in Paarl with conservationists on the one hand and demolition teams on the other, with nature lovers on the one hand and developers on the other. Choosing the right course among all these various alternatives is very difficult sometimes.

The problem connected with the situation of Paarl Mountain goes back a very long way. As the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North rightly said, this matter has had repercussions in court as well. For the information of hon. members and of this House, and for purposes of the record, I believe, it is essential that this background should be fully explained in this House.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred briefly to a part of it. For purposes of the record, I believe, I should discuss the matter somewhat more fully.

The total area occupied by the mountain is approximately 2 700 ha. There is a slight discrepancy between this figure and the one given by the hon. member. However, this figure is approximately correct. Since 1838—the year of the Battle of Blood River—Paarl Mountain has been registered in the name of the Paarl magistrate—as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said—for the use of all the inhabitants of Paarl—even from as far afield as Kraaifontein—for exercising their grazing rights. Since as long ago as 1880, however, the Paarl municipality has been exercising control over the mountain in order to prevent undesirable activities from taking place there.

In the nineteen-sixties, the idea was mooted of turning Paarl mountain into a nature reserve. It is true, of course, that we are relatively poor in nature reserves in the Western Cape. It was a very logical and a very fine idea that Paarl Mountain with all its indigenous vegetation should be converted into a nature reserve.

At the same time, the suggestion was made—as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North mentioned—that a language monument should be built there. Before any of these things could be done, the mountain had to be transferred to the Paarl town clerk. What happened then—and the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to this—was that in 1968, a hybrid Bill came before this House—and quite a number of the hon. members who were here at the time are still sitting in this House—to effect the transfer of the mountain from the Paarl magistrate to the Paarl municipality. Everyone thought it would be a very simple matter to transfer the mountain from the one to the other and then to create a nature reserve there, until 50 neighbouring farmers applied to Parliament, by way of a petition—as required by the rules relating to hybrid Bills—for the appointment of a Select Committee. Evidence was given before that Select Committee. Now I come to something which is very interesting. When the first Bill was introduced in the House of Assembly in 1968 in order to expropriate the commonage rights and to transfer the mountain to the municipality, the farmers who had grazing rights on the mountain—and whether they were actually exercising them is not relevant; the fact is that they had those rights—raised objections. The Bill was then referred to a Select Committee, and at that stage the Select Committee recommended that the grazing rights be retained, although the area was to become a nature reserve, something which would naturally not be practicable. It would then be impossible to use the mountain as a nature reserve, and a deadlock was then reached.

At that time, Minister Dirk Uys was the Minister who handled the matter, and according to my information, he told the two parties that if they could not come to an agreement, no Act would be passed and that ownership could not pass to the municipality, with the result that it would not be possible to create a nature reserve. As a result of this, the parties involved eventually got together and an agreement was reached. In terms of this, the municipality and the farmers agreed that that portion of the land which was not required for the nature reserve would be let to the farmers for a period of 50 years at a nominal rental. The important point was that in terms of that agreement, that land could be used for “agricultural purposes”, the term which was contained in the agreement. This is very important. It is actually the crux of the matter. On the basis of this, the farmers withdrew their objection to the hybrid Bill and the 1970 Act was passed by Parliament.

However, let us see what happened then. At that time, the law advisers of the department believed that it was not necessary to incorporate into the Act the agreement which had been entered into by two honourable parties, the Paarl municipality on the one hand and the farmers on the other, because, after all, this was an agreement which had been entered into by these parties. In the 1970 Act, therefore, the matter was dealt with in a very brief and simple form. The Act provided that the municipality “may” let some of the remnant of land to the farmers, while the agreement specifically provided that the municipality “shall” let the remnant of land to the farmers.

In terms of that Act, certain procedures were laid down. In the first place, the municipality had to survey the mountain to determine exactly what part of the mountain would be a nature reserve and what part would constitute the remnant of land. In the second place, the farmers had to come to an agreement among themselves about who would hire what particular piece of land. In the third place, the farmers then had to enter into an agreement with the municipality about the letting of the land for a period of 50 years at a nominal amount, and that agreement had to be ratified by the Administrator. As a result of various circumstances, there was a delay in the surveying of the mountain, and some of these neighbouring farmers eventually felt that the period of 50 years, which in terms of the original Act was to have begun in 1966, was going by, and they decided simply to start farming in the meantime. In other words, they jumped the gun. So they started fanning, the municipality did not like it, and the municipality brought an action against them. That case has been before the courts for the past five years and went to the Supreme Court last year. The problem is that reference is now being made to an Act of 1970 which does not contain the original agreement. The only purpose of this legislation which is before us today is to incorporate the original agreement into the Act.

The question is often asked—it has been put to me in Paarl as well—whether it is right that a law should be changed while litigation is still in progress. However, a very clear distinction should be drawn between the original Act and the basis on which it was made, namely the agreement, and the procedure laid down. In any event, it has not yet been complied with by the parties involved, in my opinion. I have gone out of my way in recent years to see whether the situation cannot be settled amicably. In my opinion, a deadlock has now been reached where the municipality finds itself in a situation from which it cannot extricate itself because it is based on an agreement which it signed at the time and on the basis of which the 1970 Act was passed, as a result of which the nature reserve came into being. This is the position on the one hand. On the other hand, however, we have the situation that a few farmers started farming on a mountain without following the correct procedure. It really seems to me that this is a situation which we should try to keep out of the political arena and that it is something about which the parties should try to settle among themselves. It seems only logical to me that if the farmers are prepared to pay a reasonable rental for the farms they are using, the matter can be solved amicably in that way. I have conducted lengthy negotiations with the municipality as well as the farmers, and I get the impression that the farmers are prepared to make a reasonable contribution in the form of rental for the land, provided that their rights are not prejudiced.

An additional advantage of the legislation is that whereas the original agreement placed an obligation on the municipality to let some of the remnant of land to the farmers—no matter whether that agreement was entered into in 1969 or in 1989—the legislation now provides for all agreements to be finalized within six months of the promulgation of the Act.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to the fact that the rules with regard to a hybrid Act provide for a petition to be lodged. It is very possible that the municipality may lodge a petition and that the matter will then be referred to a Select Committee. The fact is—it is important that hon. members take cognizance of this—that this legislation is simply intended to rectify an oversight of 1970 and in actual fact does not give a final answer concerning the farmers’ position with regard to the procedures that have to be complied with. In the light of that, I have no hesitation in giving my full support to the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl has put the case of both sides in this dispute in such a commendable way that I am sure he will not object to the amendment I wish to move. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North is mistaken in saying that this Bill does not contain any principle. We in the CP believe that there is in fact a principle involved in this matter. In terms of the 1970 Act, which gave the Paarl Municipality the discretion to let the land, the most important direction to the municipality was to develop the land as a nature reserve and to allow the farmers to make use of the remnant of land. The Bill which is now before the House obliges the municipality to let the remnant of land to the farmers.

The original agreement…

This is true as far as the agreement is concerned. However, I want to submit, in respect of the agreement, that it was not fair to the Paarl community. Since the hon. member for Paarl does not want to take sides, I think he would be acting much more consistently if he supported the proposal that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the principle is accepted. Therefore I move as an amendment—

But why, Frank?

The reason is that if we accept the principle at Second Reading that the Paarl municipality is obliged to let the remnant of land to the farmers, the Select Committee cannot remove that obligation. We feel that when one looks at the background, one sees that the Paarl municipality is the representative of the community and the voters of Paarl in this matter. It is also the authoritative body in this connection. In the light of the proposals by the President’s Council that local authorities be given greater powers, and in the light of the fact that a process of decentralization of power is taking place, it is inexplicable that the central Government should wish to ever rule the decision of the municipality. This matter has taken its normal course. There was a conflict between the Paarl municipality and these land-owners. The matter went to court and the court ruled in favour of the municipality. I concede that to a large extent, it was due to technical reasons, because the permission of the Administrator had not been obtained in the first place, and so on. However, the fact remains that the Paarl municipality, which represents that community, is opposed to the passing of this legislation and is opposed to the further letting of that land to the public. When one considers the memorandum submitted to the President’s Council by the municipality in respect of Paarl Mountain, this House will agree with me that they have a very good case. In the memorandum, it says on page 2, paragraph 2.2—

Mr. Speaker, if Table Mountain is seen in this light, why should Paarl Mountain now be made available to the adjoining farmers, in the interests of a few farmers? I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister how many farmers are involved. The memorandum goes on to say—

The position is, therefore, that whereas in 1970, a discretion was quite rightly given to the Paarl municipality by this House to let to the farmers if they do not require that land for nature conservation purposes, the central Government is now overruling the decision taken by the Paarl municipality after a court case in which it is involved, while the case is awaiting appeal at the moment. I think it is unfair to this group of people which represents the Paarl community. I think it is an honourable task in which the Paarl municipality is engaged in trying to conserve the environment of that beautiful area. I want to go further by saying that when one is dealing with the combating of harmful vegetation and with the development of that area, one should have only one authority. Then one does not want a lot of individuals deciding when the veld should be burnt, when harmful vegetation should be eradicated, when we should do these things. There are many indigenous shrubs and so on.

I want to quote further from this memorandum in order to indicate the serious light in which the Paarl municipality views this matter. Under the heading “Objects of management” they write as follows—

The people involved in this matter are a few farmers who are to pay 25 cents a year for 630 ha of land, and that over a period of 50 years. The poor hon. Deputy Minister! Every time that hon. Deputy Minister has to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the Government. We feel sorry for him. For 25 cents a year for 50 years, the farmers are getting 630 ha of land, and the Government wants to take up the cudgels for those farmers. I say that we should thrash out the matter properly but we should do so on a Select Committee before the principle of the legislation has been accepted.

Mr. Speaker, the opinion of the NRP is that we will not solve this problem simply by including the agreement in the relevant legislation. It is quite clear that the arrangement that was arrived at was arrived at in order to give the farmers a quid pro quo for having to give up their grazing in return for agricultural rights. This was done in order to get the principal Act on the Statute Book but it has not been successful. As a result of litigation it has now been ruled that the agreement is null and void. The leasing charge in respect of that land is also of course ridiculously low. The fact that this price was written into that lease in this day and age and the fact too that there are so many other factors involved makes it necessary for us to have a completely new look at the situation.

To come back to my first point, to consider including the agreement that was left out by accident and I think that there is something of a question mark against the motive for leaving out the agreement initially; perhaps it suited some people that the agreement was left out of the original legislation—is not going to help matters at this stage. We believe that the CP have hit the nail on the head in this particular case. This is a very rare occurrence but we want to give credit where credit is due in this regard. We also believe that the correct way of going about making good legislation in such a case is to refer that legislation to a Select Committee in the first instance so as to ensure that this matter does not boil up again and to avoid the passing of bad legislation once again.

All the evidence in regard to the original legislation including the Select Committee minutes, the terms of the agreement and the Supreme Court case have an air of a lack of finality about them, as does this legislation before us. I am quite sure that to proceed with this legislation on that basis will not solve the problem at all or result in good legislation. At this juncture, therefore, we have no option but to support the amendment of the CP. We sincerely trust that such a Select Committee will be appointed and that a proper investigation into the matter will result in the sort of legislation that will be credit to this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are dealing with legislation here concerning which our intentions are all honourable in the final analysis, indicating that we want to solve the problem. The only difference is in regard to the way in which we are going to solve the problem. On the one hand, we have the attitude of the PFP. I want to say that in my opinion, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North explained the position very well. I also believe that his view is the correct one as far as the question of a Select Committee is concerned.

We also have the speech of the hon. member for Paarl. As a former member of the town council, he has been very closely involved in this matter, and therefore I think that if we accept the evidence he presented to us today in a very lucid manner, we cannot go very far wrong.

We are dealing here with a matter which has been a very great problem in Paarl for a number of years, and which has worsened with the passage of time, until we find ourselves in the position today where legal proceedings have been instituted, first before the Supreme Court and later before the Appeal Court. The hon. member for Paarl mentioned the fact that in 1968, two very honourable parties, namely the farers on the one hand and the board of the Paarl municipality on the other, entered into an agreement. The problem is—and my experience bears this out—that any agreement between honourable parties usually ends up by being the subject of court cases, especially when money is available to involve honourable attorneys and advocates.

Where does one find such parties?

That is the reason why this matter has become so honourable that it has ended up in the Appeal Court, where it will be honourably settled.

Unfortunately, the historic background to the matter is that the legislation passed by Parliament in 1968 did not clarify the position in all respects. Before that, the matter had already occupied many hours of the time of the Cape Provincial Council, which also tried to help find a solution. That is why we find ourselves in the situation today that where everyone is trying to find a solution and to bring about agreement, the facts are simply that after an agreement had been reached, 50 farmers came into the picture.

The hon. member for Brakpan wanted to know how many farmers were involved. I think he has an answer available in this connection, because in the previous petition that was lodged, the number of 50 was mentioned. I think we may accept that those 50 farmers will again be involved. We are faced here with an unbridgeable gulf between the interests of the 50 Paarl farmers on the one hand and the rest of the Paarl community on the other.

Vasco is situated this side of Kraaifontein, so it was not involved in the 1838 agreement, but in spite of that I am participating in the debate. I feel that the Western Cape has a material interest in this matter in any event, because, as has rightly been remarked in this House, Paarl Mountain is a national institution and asset. This is so by virtue of the recreational facilities which it provides to the community. These are indeed used on a large scale by the inhabitants of the Cape Peninsula when the weather allows. In this connection, the Paarl municipality deserves a compliment for the work it has done there.

The procedure to be followed in this matter is very clear. As the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said, there are very clear guidelines to be followed when it comes to hybrid Bills. Therefore I think the hon. members for Brakpan and King William’s Town are wrong in their assumption that the legislation must be referred to a Select Committee in this case before the Second Reading is taken. In this case it is very clear that one can accept the principle at Second Reading and that the Second Reading can be taken, after which a petition can be lodged for the matter to be referred to a Select Committee. This is the first point on which the hon. member for Brakpan and I disagree. I think that his submission to the House in this connection is wrong.

Secondly, I think the question of the principle he has raised is not absolutely sound. In fact, it is not a question of a principle which is involved here. It is merely a question of the implementation of the Act, which is involved here. Therefore it will not be a principle which cannot be changed here. The hon. member disagrees with me, but I submit that in my opinion he is wrong in this respect. I do not question his good intentions, but I think that his submission to the House is wrong in the sense that if the Minister were to have this Bill passed, it would not be in any way prejudicial to the good intentions we all have. I believe that all it amounts to, therefore, is that we can save time and act in the interests of everyone by taking the Second Reading in this House, and if anyone feels at all aggrieved in this connection, the matter can possibly be referred to a Select Committee. Then it will only be referred to a Select Committee if it is essential. As the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Paarl conceded, it is possible that the question of an agreement, as in the 1968 legislation, would never have been raised in this House again if it had formed part of that legislation at the time. Merely because it was omitted, the position became unclear, and that is why we have this matter before us again today. Since this legislation is merely giving effect to the original agreement between the various parties, surely it is good legislation and it should be accepted as such. It gives effect to a voluntary agreement between all the parties. If there is anyone who feels, after the Second Reading has been taken, that he will be prejudiced by this legislation, surely he is fully entitled to petition for this matter to be referred to a Select Committee. Therefore I believe that it would be in the interests of all that the Second Reading of this Bill be taken as soon as possible. Then it will only be referred to a Select Committee if it is necessary. Therefore I support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we have had the privilege of listening to the hon. member for Vasco, who is a lawyer, and I believe the hon. member will listen to me as an erudite person. [Interjections.]

I want to begin by endorsing the remarks made by the hon. member, my honoured friend, and by expressing my thanks and appreciation to the Paarl municipality—not only the municipality of today, but the earlier councillors as well, including the present hon. member for Paarl—for the way in which they have worked over the years to develop Paarl Mountain as a nature reserve and, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, as a wild-life park. I think that even for those of us who come from the distant North, who left this region in 1836 and who have now come back, there are certain things here which have remained unspoiled. It is true that Paarl Mountain is beginning to assume an historic significance in its own right, as Table Mountain has already done. I think Paarl Mountain has already established a historic significance for itself. I think that especially since we are living in a time when we are sometimes frightened a little at being told about the increase in the number of people in the world, it is the particular responsibility of our generation to take care of the environment in which not only we as people have to live, but also the plants, the animals, etc. I think that in this connection, the Paarl municipality has set us a fine example. The municipality has rendered an unselfish service to us. The standpoint adopted by the municipality is that they do not wish to enrich themselves or to improve of their personal circumstances, but that they actually want to act in the interests of society. Now it is true that we very much regret the fact that in respect of this matter, there has been a conflict of interests between the farmers on the one hand and the municipality with its responsibilities on the other. That is why we are very reluctant to vote for a principle here today, in the light of the background to this matter, since it seems to us that in doing so, we should be giving a ruling in a lawsuit between two parties. In this sense, the hon. member for Brakpan is quite correct in requesting that these matters be calmly considered by a Select Committee.

I must say that the two hon. members of the governing party have not convinced us that our standpoint is not correct. In 1968, there were 50 landowners who signed a petition while negotiations were taking place. Now I want to ask, and the hon. the Deputy. Minister can reply to this: How many of the 50 signatories to the petition are left today and how many feel just as strongly about this particular matter today? This is the one question. The other question is: How many of those 50 petitioners still have an interest in the matter today and how many of them have exercised the right which they are alleged to have had? Therefore it is appropriate to point out, as the hon. member for Paarl did, that the landowners had certain agricultural privileges. When one examines the background, one sees that all it amounted to was that the run-off water could be used, that animals could graze there as long as they did not destroy the indigenous vegetation and that wood could be gathered there. I do not think there is any question of intensive agricultural utilization of that land.

Furthermore, I want to ask: How many of the 50 original petitionaries have really obtained so many vested rights there that the landowners are going to be seriously prejudiced? Then I think it is a good question to ask whether the interests of the farmers there are now being taken into consideration. A further question I want to ask is whether the natural surroundings have been spoilt. I ask this because the hon. member for Paarl said that there were farmers who had actually done much more than they were entitled to.

My Bible says I may not hate the farmers. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have the same Bible as the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. I also have a great affection for the farmers, and for the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs as well; only he does not always realize it. [Interjections.]

I just want to ask whether the natural surroundings there have been spoilt. Have the rights which those farmers have enjoyed led to any destruction of the indigenous vegetation? These are questions which are very important to us all, and which we should like to deal with on a Select Committee.

Then we must say, too, that the handling of this matter has been such—and here Parliament has probably been at fault as well—that it has in fact given rise to a conflict of interests between two groups. I think the activities of the previous Select Committee, as well as the resulting legislation, were of such a nature that it did in fact cause a conflict of interests. I think it is regrettable that there should have been such a conflict, one which has even had repercussions in the Appeal Court. Therefore I believe that a Select Committee is not an unreasonable proposal. The hon. the Deputy Minister is now requesting our approval for this measure, but we feel that before the principle of the measure is accepted, we should appoint a Select Committee which could conduct a fresh and thorough investigation into the whole matter, in the light of the knowledge available to us—knowledge we have gained over the past decades.

There was a Select Committee on this matter 15 years ago. I believe that at that time, hon. members investigated the matter to the best of their ability. In the light of the knowledge we now have, however, I believe that a Select Committee is from every point of view desirable, and therefore, I believe, the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we discuss a Hybrid Bill in this House. This is one of the few occasions on which such an opportunity is afforded us. In terms of the rules of this House—Standing Order No. 84—a Hybrid Bill is a public Bill which adversely affects or may adversely affect the private interests of particular persons or bodies. The important point to note is that it adversely affects the private interests of people. That being so, I believe we should treat this somewhat differently from the way in which we normally treat a Bill in this House, when it is introduced by a Cabinet Minister on behalf of the Government. We are dealing with private interests here, and I submit that we should be very, very careful in the way in which we deal with private interests.

The important thing to note about Standing Order No. 84 is that it means that if a petition is lodged opposing a Hybrid Bill, we have to submit such Bill to a Select Committee. In such a case, of course, it is to be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading.

Because of the sensitivity of this matter, however, and also because this is a matter that goes back a long time, we have to take extra care in this instance.

Alf, do you not want a Lexington? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, looking at the preamble of the Bill we see that the original legislation was introduced in 1968 as a result of a petition. In March 1969 an agreement was reached, and Paarl Mountain was transferred to the municipality of that town on 13 October 1970. Now it has come back to us again.

I believe the hon. member for Paarl said that approximately 100 morgen of land, which is to be used for the establishment of a nature reserve, will be transferred in terms of this measure to two private individuals for agricultural purposes. I believe there is a bad principle involved in this, and I also believe the Government should be very slow in committing public land, which in this case is a commonage used as a nature reserve, to private individuals for their own use. The moment this is done the land is lost. In this case, if I understand it correctly, the intention is to give that land away for a period of 50 years. That means that it will be lost for ever to all of us sitting in this House. A few of us who will still survive after 50 years may derive some benefit of that land. That being the case, I submit that that land is virtually given away now. As I have already said, I believe we should be very slow in committing ourselves to a principle of this nature.

That is the reason why hon. members of the CP has moved an amendment asking for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. If our information is correct, Mr. Speaker, there is already a petition pending, a petition that will be submitted to this House, in which Parliament will be requested to refer this matter to a Select Committee after Second Reading. So why should we then commit ourselves to the principle? The Select Committee can hear evidence. Let us therefore hear evidence from the Paarl municipality and from those who use the commonage. Let us hear, from those two individuals … [Interjections.] … who particularly want the grazing ground for themselves, why they should get it. Why should they get it at the expense of everybody else? That being the case, let us not make a political football out of this. It is a matter affecting private individual usage. It is not a matter which is of a political nature. We in these benches therefore find ourselves in support of the amendment moved by the hon. members of the CP. In fact, we shall be supporting them in moving that this legislation be referred to a Select Committee prior to Second Reading. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the standpoints put by hon. members. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment of the CP. This legislation is a hybrid measure, and the procedure for dealing with it is well-known. It has been properly advertised, as is required by Parliamentary provisions relating to hybrid Bills. All the rules have been complied with. Anyone can lodge a petition with Parliament after the Second Reading, asking for this matter to be dealt with.

There are just a few things I should like to refer to. In the first place, it is a fact that when this agreement was entered into in 1969, agriculture—the farmers involved—gave up certain rights. They did not have privileges; they had rights. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs was the Deputy Minister who handled this matter at the time. [Interjections.] Hon. members have only to go and read the speeches made at that time, as recorded in Hansard, as well as the report of the Select Committee. [Interjections.] The Select Committee recommended that the grazing rights of those people should be retained. If it had not been possible to reach an agreement with the farmers, the Paarl municipality would have had no rights today. They would have had no rights whatsoever. Therefore we do not want to listen to any sentimental stories now about soil conservation, nature conservation, and that kind of thing. We are all conservationists. There is no doubt about that. Those farmers were content to allow the greater part of the land to be set aside for nature conservation. Only the remnant of land, about 600 morgen or more, would be made available to the farmers. There are more farmers today who have an interest in this matter than the two farmers mentioned by those hon. members.

How many?

As far as we are concerned, there are still more than 50 who have an interest in this matter. [Interjections.] There are reasons why they are being allowed to proceed with litigation in this way. That is another matter which is not relevant to this matter today. The fact remains, however, that this Parliament has to decide whether it wants to allow that agreement, which was entered into in order to make the legislation possible, to be incorporated into the Act. After all, we cannot simply deprive those farmers of their rights. Today we may have the wisdom of hindsight with regard to this whole matter, but at that time, a very definite quid pro quo was required of the farmers, and that was to relinquish their rights in respect of the grazing on the mountain. I am not saying today that the farmers did not perhaps transgress in the sense that they jumped the gun, perhaps, or that the municipality did not perhaps drag its feet with regard to surveying the mountain, etc. I consulted many parties on this matter. I consulted Mr. Frans Conradie, among others, who was MEC at the time and who acted as chairman at most of these discussions which were held to reach an agreement. I consulted several people in connection with this matter, and it was a foregone conclusion that after the Select Committee itself had refused to allow the farmers to be deprived of their grazing rights on that land, there would have been no legislation.

They were grazing rights only.

There would have been no legislation at all. All we are asking now is that that agreement which was entered into between two honourable parties should be incorporated into the Act, and once it forms part of the Act, as far as I am concerned, they can go to court any time, for then all the particulars, the background to the matter, will be contained in one piece of legislation, and then the matter can be properly judged. We cannot argue away the fact that there are people who have lost rights. We cannot argue away the fact that there is an agreement and that that agreement was entered into for the sole purpose of allowing the legislation to be passed in order to enable the Paarl municipality to exercise its rights.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Chapters III and IV of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, deal with the granting of mining leases to prospectors who have satisfied the Minister that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the precious metal or base mineral in question occurs in workable quantities in or on the land over which the lease is to be granted. In terms of the Act the least must, inter alia, provide for the payment by the holder of the lease to the State, in addition to taxation, of a share of the profits derived from the working of the lease area, which shall be on a scale fixed in each case by the Minister on the recommendation of the Mining Leases Board, or, in lieu of a share of the profits, of such royalty or other consideration as the Mining Leases Board may recommend.

There are numerous existing mining leases which have been granted under the Mining Rights Act or prior laws over several decades and which provide for the payment to the State of a share of the profits derived from the working of the respective lease areas.

Provision enacted in the Finance Act, 1951, which have the effect that the profits derived from the production of uranium in conjunction with the mining of, for instance, gold, are also subject to the payment to the State of a share thereof, became effective as from 1 July 1950.

Holders of mining leases often enter into agreements with unconnected third parties for the treatment of slimes, etc., or for the use of other mine residues situated on land held under their respective leases. These transactions are concluded between persons dealing at arm’s length and as a result they do not have the effect of avoiding liability for the payment of the State’s share of the profits or of reducing the amount thereof in any significant way. In this connection, it may be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the consideration received by a mining company in terms of agreements of this nature, is shown as income for the purpose of calculating the profits of which a share is payable to the State as well as income tax. Also, in the case of a so-called tributing agreement whereby one holder of a mining lease acquires from another holder the right to mine a portion of the latter’s adjoining lease area, and which agreements is subject to the Minister’s approval, the State can see to it that it receives its share of the profits, as well as tax due to it.

*But, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer by way of example to an actual case where two goldmines of the same mining group sold their uranium slime to a subsidiary company in terms of a mutual agreement at prices which do not have to be stated. The subsidiary company processes the slime and extracts ammonium diuranate from it for its own benefit and account. Ammonium diuranate is an intermediary process in the recovery of uranium oxide and is the form in which uranium-producing gold-mines supply their recovered uranium to Nufcor. The subsidiary company contends that it is not responsible for the payment of the profit share to the State. It maintains that the relevant mining leases were contracted between its sister companies and the Government and that because it—the subsidiary—recovers the ammonium diuranate as an outsider, the provisions of the mining leases do not apply to it, despite the fact that the uranium slime from which the diuranate is extracted is derived from the ore mined by its sister companies. Naturally there is doubt as to whether the subsidiary company can be compelled by law to pay to the State the profit share for which provision is made in the mining leases concerned, because the subsidiary is not the holder of the mining lease on whom the contractual obligation rests. The position is also that a gold-mine cannot be compelled by law to extract uranium from its slime itself, but in cases where the mine does extract the uranium itself, in terms of the provisions of the mining lease the share of the profits gained from this has to be paid to the State.

At present there are also cases, for example, of mining companies, in the period of validity of their mining titles, allowing subsidiary companies to reprocess their old tailings-dumps which sometimes still contain a lot of gold, or allowing an outsider to treat their waste rock for the gold content of the rock. Such activities, for which there may be good reason, do not, of course, necessarily have to be aimed at the avoidance of the payment of a profit share to the State, but it will be clear to hon. members that a mining company might just as well turn some of its high-grade ore or even ground ore, etc. over to a subsidiary company which, as an outsider, would not be bound by the relevant mining leases provisions. If this sort of thing were to become general practice, it could result in serious financial losses for the State.

Statutory provision, as proposed in clause 1 of the Bill before us, appears to be necessary to remove the existing loophole and to ensure that any profits derived by the holder of a mining lease or any other person in the course of mining operations or from the processing of any ore or mining residues produced on the mining lease area concerned, will be subject to the payment to the State of such share of the profits as is prescribed in the mining lease, but that in determining the profits, such other person should also be allowed a relevant capital allowance before the State shares in any profits as prescribed in the Act in respect of the holder of the mining lease. Exceptions should be made in the case of tributing agreements or other agreements which do not have the effect that the State incurs a significant loss or is prejudiced in any way.

Over the years the mining industry has never begrudged the State its right to a share of the profit and until recently, no problems have been experienced in this regard. I can also inform the House that the Chamber of Mines which, as the mouthpiece of the mining industry, has been consulted in connection with this Bill, agrees with the standpoint that it should not be possible for mining companies, by means of contractual manipulation or otherwise, to evade payment of the share of the profits share to which the State is entitled in terms of existing mining lease agreements.

As far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, the position is that chapter XVI of the Act, which concerns dealing in unwrought precious metal, is for the most part administrated by the S.A. Police, more particularly the Diamond and Gold Squad. Reorganization has taken place in the Diamond and Gold Squad of late and the amendments proposed in clauses 2 to 7 of the Bill will bring the Act into line with the changed circumstances.

At present the Commissioner of Police is empowered to delegate only some of the powers vested in him in chapter XVI of the Act. The Commissioner now desires to be empowered to delegate the other powers as well, in order to alleviate his burden. On account of the increase in the extent of his duties in other sections of the Police Force as well, this appears to be justified.

As hon. member will notice, clause 1 of the Bill is merely aimed at the protection of the financial interests of the State, while the rest of the Bill only effects a few essential adjustments.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides that payment from profits can also be recovered, over and above taxes, from sub-lessors, for example, who extract further minerals from the residues of original mine lessees. In a capitalist system, the State is very fortunate, of course, because it shares only in the profits of individuals or companies, by way of the tax on profits, but a socialist Government is not so fortunate, of course, because in the case of a nationalized mine, the Government has to share in the losses as well. The principle that over and above the tax, a further part of the profits derived from the recovery of minerals is payable to the State, has the same effect, of course, as would have resulted if the rate of taxation applicable to the mining industry had been higher than in the case of other undertakings. By separating this payment from the normal liability for tax, one is indeed recognizing the fact that the resources of this country—in this case the minerals—actually belong to society as a whole and not just to a single company. At the same time, the mining entrepreneur is not discouraged by a higher rate of taxation, which would be applicable to his non-mining activities as well.

The other provisions of the Bill are merely adjustments. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill on behalf of the PFP.

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying that the hon. member for Greytown has given his support to the Bill. Those of us who come from constituencies on the Witwatersrand in particular know what an important role the mining industry has played over the years. Especially in the light of the fact that the centenary of the discovery of gold will be celebrated in 1986, the Bill is particularly important to us, because the mining industry is one of the biggest and most important industries in the country. In our national economy it is a key industry. In fact, the mining industry is concerned with one of our natural resources which is divided between State monopoly and control by private enterprise. Since the earliest times, with the discovery of these valuable metals, minerals and gemstones, it has always been the policy of the State to regulate the search for precious metals very carefully and to control their exploitation, because they are very valuable to us.

Therefore one finds that in this legislation, too, the State is acting as the guardian of this wonderful source of wealth. There must be the necessary control. The mining and exploitation of precious metals require considerable capital resources, supported by effective legislation, and this is the legislation which the hon. the Minister has very strongly emphasized today. How different the present position is from the days when claims were pegged off in a gold rush and there were numerous irregularities!

Today the gold price is $442,80 per ounce. The gold price has become a decisive factor in the mining production of our whole country. Another very important factor, in respect of this legislation as well, is that the reserve position must be strong. It must be possible to maintain the price in the world market and there must be technological developments and changes, because it is very clear that a country’s reserves and especially its mineral wealth are not inexhaustible. It is also necessary that the mining operations should not be discontinued altogether. Therefore the increase in the official gold price will make the mining of low-grade ores profitable as well. The hon. the Minister also referred to this.

Reference has also been made to platinum. This is becoming more important every year in the chemical industry. Platinum is already a catalyst for breaking down exhaust gases in the motor vehicle industry. The hon. the Minister also referred to the old mine dumps which may still contain a lot of gold and which may be reprocessed by a subsidiary. An outsider could also be allowed to treat some of the waste rock for its gold content. A mining company could make over some of its higher-grade ores, or even crushed ores, to a subsidiary, and this could be seriously detrimental to the financial position of the State.

Now it is interesting to examine section 123 of the South Africa Act of 1909 in the light of this legislation. The keystone of this great industry is very clearly vested in the interests of the State. That section expressly provides—

This was laid down in that Act as far back as 1909. That is why the State has certain vested statutory rights in respect of the prospecting for and mining of precious metals, as the hon. the Minister said in his Second reading speech. What is interesting is that the State has accepted the principle of not exercising these rights itself, leaving it instead to the private sector, to free enterprise, to exercise certain rights to participate in mining contracts on a basis of profit-sharing. The sharing of these profits has an historic background. When a mining lease is negotiated, that agreement must be strictly adhered to. Then the State can receive its share of the profits.

As the hon. the Minister also said, mining companies generally discharge their obligations. However, there are subsidiary companies which do not discharge their contractual obligations. It is in order to protect the State, but it is also in order to protect the Chamber of Mines which says that that money belongs to the State. That is why the State is including the right to prospect under this legislation. This gives people the right to make excavations and to sink holes, but it does not affect the right to exploit minerals. The word “mineral” means anything—this is what the legislation says—which can be taken from the earth, but it is quite clear that it cannot include water and soil. There have been several court cases about this.

Then we come to the precious metals which are valuable. These include gold, silver, platinum, as well as other metals which may be promulgated by the State President after Parliament has adopted a resolution in that connection. Since 1885, the principle has been laid down that the right to mine and to sell precious metals is vested in the State. The owner of the land, the person who discovers it and the general public then have certain rights.

The first activities in respect of the mining industry go back to the former South African republics. As far back as 21 September 1858, the Transvaal Legislative Assembly adopted a resolution in connection with mining development, and the first real Act regulating gold mining was Act No. 1 of 1871. Court rulings had an effect on the legislation. There were several court rulings.

Then, in 1960, a committee was appointed to prepare a Bill which would be based mainly on Transvaal laws. Every law was a continuation of previous laws. Every law was amended and new annexures were added. Old ones were amended in order to deal with new situations, as is again apparent from this legislation today. Some amendments were in response to court rulings. The Government is in control in order to protect the industry and the welfare of the population. That is what this Bill provides for.

In 1936, this Act was made applicable to the Orange Free State when gold was discovered there. In 1967, several Bills relating to mining rights were incorporated. These were the Mining Rights Act, No. 20 of 1967; the Mining Titles Registration Act, No. 16 of 1967; and the Atomic Energy Act, No. 90 of 1967. Uniformity has now been achieved in all these Acts, as in this Bill today. The mining industry is one of the cornerstones of our economic and socio-economic structure and has played an important role in our history since the earliest years.

What I find interesting is that the mining industry did not develop fully in Holland between the 16th and the 18th centuries. In Roman-Dutch law, which is the source of our law as well, references to mining legislation are rare, therefore. Modern mining law is actually based on our legislation and has emanated from this Government. That is what makes it so important to us.

A great American president once said: “The meek shall inherit the earth, but not the mining rights”. With this legislation, which is a wonderful piece of legislation and an amendment of the 1967 legislation, we want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having further developed our mining legislation. We support this legislation with very great enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosettenville has studied this Bill and the circumstances surrounding it in his customary and profound manner and he made a very interesting speech on the mining industry in South Africa, the oldest Government Department. It was therefore very interesting to listen to him. We in the CP are also prepared to support the Second Reading of this Bill. We think it is sound legislation. I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister in this regard, as well as the gratitude of my party to the officials who assisted us and made this matter clearer, a matter which, in an extremely important respect, is highly technical.

I think it is fitting that the mining companies should firstly be encouraged to undertake mining work and secondly, to exploit the tailings dumps further and to extract the maximum from mining, from mine-dumps and all the other by-products of mining. If, for example, you were to visit Brakpan, Mr. Speaker, and see what fine work is being done there with regard to the slime dumps and the extraction of important by-products from those slime dumps, you would realize that it is something we should be very grateful to the mining companies for. If we also take into account the provision of employment associated with this, as well as the additional revenue the companies and the State derive from it, we must concede that it is really praiseworthy.

On the other hand, the mining companies cannot evade their obligations to the State by transferring their rights to subsidiary companies or other organizations. Since there has been a misunderstanding in this regard, and since there has been a dispute concerning the right the State has to receive its share from mining leases, in addition to tax, and that problem is now being solved by way of the provisions of the present legislation, we welcome this. However, we also wish to know one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is whether the present measure could not come into operation with retrospective effect. We want to know whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the State has already lost revenue in the past through arguments of this nature. As far as the remainder of this legislation is concerned—the delegation of powers to the police, etc.—it is obviously acceptable to us.

With these few thoughts, the CP consequently supports the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the spokesmen of the various parties in this House have all, in their respective ways, been in favour of this amending Bill. I should also like to thank the hon. member for Brakpan for his support for this measure.

As has rightly been said here, Mr. Speaker, the present legislation is aimed mainly at eliminating loopholes in the existing Act so that in future there will be no evasion of tax. The hon. member for Rosettenville has already dealt with the tax paid by mines, and he has also pointed out that these are natural resources which belong to the community in general, and that it is therefore only fitting that those who exploit these resources should make their contribution to the Treasury.

The hon. member for Brakpan referred to the tailings dumps. I just wish to point out that it seems as if a considerable number of useful materials may be obtained from those slime dumps, for example, iron pyrites, uranium, gold and even other useful materials. In certain respects it is profitable to recover those materials. Recently, this industry has, in fact, increased considerably in extent, particularly due to the rise in the gold price, as well as the increase in the price of uranium. When the gold price was still a meagre $40 per fine ounce, it was probably not so profitable to exploit those tailings dumps.

Furthermore, I just wish to add that this development is also contributing to fewer unsightly tailings dumps caused by the mining industry and that the aesthetic appearance of the area surrounding mining works is being improved considerably. I think it is a good thing that this development is of such a nature that the particular areas in which that unsightly tailings material is to be found are becoming fewer. I also think that due to the new techniques which have evolved, there will also be far smaller quantities of recoverable materials to be found in those tailings dumps in future, since the new techniques make provision for the products which those tailings materials contain to be exploited. The hon. member for Rosettenville said that those who come from Johannesburg are particularly interested in the mining industry and in what is being achieved there. I just wish to add that the Free State goldfields have developed to such an extent, with 12 mines in production, that an hon. member who comes from the Transvaal should—with all due respect—also take cognizance of that development. I think this is also a good opportunity to mention the fact that the mining management of the Free State goldfields has made the aesthetic appearance of those mines a top priority; in fact, to the extent that one really finds it pleasant to visit those mines. In the old days we were always accustomed to finding unsightly structures or buildings at mines, old machines lying around and unsightly, shaft head-gear. However, at the Free State goldfields hon. members will find fine buildings. There are also beautiful lawns, and even the accommodation for Black workers in the compounds consists of beautiful buildings that are an asset to that area. Consequently, this exploitation also contributes to the aesthetic appearance of the environment. Therefore we are also pleased that the hon. the Minister is now rectifying this matter.

I think everyone in this house agrees that that small group responsible for this evasion, should not be allowed to create the impression that the mining industry in general is intent on evading that, i.e. that portion which has to be paid to the State. In fact, I think there is evidence that a large section of the mining industry does pay its rightful share to the State, and that this is done without complaining. If, then, there is someone who has transgressed in this regard, that practice must be curtailed.

Therefore we take pleasure in supporting the legislation which is now being dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP has had the opportunity to examine the Bill very carefully and also to discuss the merits of the case with the hon. the Minister’s department. We have also come to the conclusion that where there is tax evasion—or royalty evasion—the State has the right to protect itself, and for that one requires the sort of amendment which has been tabled here today. What might quite innocently have started as tax avoidance, for whatever reason there may be—ignorance, faulty interpretation or perhaps just bad practice—obviously could easily become tax evation or share-profit evasion unless appropriate steps are taken to curtail this and bring the mining companies back into the mainstream.

The fact that the Chamber of Mines itself has seen fit to support the principle of the legislation before us, gives one the confidence that the mining industry itself, by and large, is in favour of this legislation being introduced. We do not have any difficulty with either that concept, or with the concept of the delegation of powers of the police down the ranks. They have enough to do without having to get bogged down in administrative procedures.

So we in this party will certainly be supporting the amending legislation. I would, however, just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any knowledge of coalmining leases that the State might have. This amending legislation only refers to the disposal of precious metals and base minerals. I have attempted to find out whether there were any leases owned by coal-mining companies, and if there were—or still are—whether there would not also be a case to be made out for a share of profit on the reworking of slagheaps. If one travels round Natal, one sees a large number of slagheaps alongside the mines. In terms of today’s prices, the coal content still to be found in those deposits could make the slagheaps worth quite a considerable amount of money. Should there consequently be any leases still owned by the State—as in the case of the precious and base metals—should we not extend the provisions to cover that as well?

We support the Bill.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate for their support of this legislation before us. I also wish to thank hon. members for the spirit in which this matter has been discussed.

The hon. member for Greytown made the point that the mineral resources of this country are, in fact, the property of the people. He is correct. The whole question of the money paid for mining leases, results from this.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made a fine contribution and in particular he emphasized the importance of gold for South Africa. I do not think one can overemphasize the contribution of gold to our economy. I am also pleased that the hon. member mentioned the fact that soon we will be celebrating the discovery of gold in South Africa 100 years ago. Apart from that, the hon. member also gave an extremely interesting account of the history of mining legislation, not only in South Africa, but also in other countries of the world. In view of what the hon. member said, I just wish to make the point that it is my honest opinion that mining legislation in South Africa is the best legislation on mining one could find anywhere in the world.

I thank the hon. member for Brakpan as well for his support for this legislation, he made the point that the exploitation of tailings, waste material, should be encouraged. I agree with the hon. member as far as that is concerned. The hon. member wanted to know whether this legislation could not be made with retrospective effect since, according to him, the State might have lost money in the past. I wish to say to the hon. member that the origin of, and the reason for this legislation is due to the very fact that the system of inspection applicable in respect of our mines and administered by the Government Mining Engineer’s office, led to this problem being identified. This gave rise to the legislation before this house. It is true that at all mines, and particularly where mining leases are concerned, regular inspections are held by the economics department of the staff of the Government Mining Engineer and that these people give careful attention to the mining methods, etc., and they also see to it that there is no evasion of mining lease fees. It was due to this very effective inspection system that this matter was brought up and that this legislation is before this House today.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Welkom for his contribution. He summarized the matter very well when he said that this legislation was aimed at eliminating loopholes in existing legislation. He also made the point that the utilization of tailings dumps could contribute to improving the aesthetic appearance of the mining areas. I agree with him with regard to his remark that particularly in the Free State, mining management has made the appearance of their mines a matter of high priority. The mining industry is making an exceptional contribution and it is always willing to make a contribution when it comes to the aesthetic appearance of our country.

†The hon. member for Durban North raised the question of the coal mines and referred especially to Natal. The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that the right of prospecting and mining for coal on any land in South Africa is vested in the holder of the right to base minerals. In most cases coal rights are held privately and the Government has no right therefore to interfere with the acquisition thereof. In those cases where the State holds the base mineral rights itself the mining lease is bought and the Minister will, in terms of the measures contained in this Bill, be in a position to ascertain that the State’s share of the profits out of coal mining is, in fact, paid to the State.

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, I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for his reply regarding the coal mines as far as new mining underground is concerned. However, I would like to probe a little further and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether slag dumps are also to be exempted from the existing amending legislation. One has discovered during the consideration of this legislation that the reworking of slime dams by the gold mines for the recovery of either gold or uranium has been the focal point of tax avoidance. I do not refer to tax evasion, but to tax avoidance. We suspect that the slag heaps of the coal mines may also be in a similar position to the slime dams of the gold mines prior to the enactment of this legislation. I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for clarifying the position regarding original or new coal mining. However, the question really concerns slag dumps where the coal of relatively inferior quality which has been mined is dumped on the surface and left there for many years. Later, due to the rise in the price of coal and energy sources, these slag dumps are then beneficiated, removed, exported or used locally and, in that sense, the revenue due to the State will also be affected because those individuals may well be third parties or parties not part of the original agreement. I would like to raise this question with the hon. the Minister, and, although I know this is going to require some investigation, possibly the hon. the Minister will see his way clear at a later stage to advise us whether slag dumps will also be prescribed in terms of the existing amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I undertake to go into that matter, particularly in view of what the hon. member said, viz. that this tailings-coal is now beginning to have economic value and significance due to the increase in the cost of energy. However, I just wish to point out that when the State is not the holder of the rights, there is no question of a mining lease, but when the State is, in fact, the holder of the rights, there is, of course, a mining lease and the Mining Leases Board will determine the mining lease in such a case. If this is to be the case, and the old tailings dumps are now going to be exploited economically, the revenue from the dumps will automatically be taken into account in determining the mining lease. However, if there are any other matters which are not clear, I undertake to take a close look at those matters.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Alienation of Land Amendment Bill was passed during the 1981 Parliamentary session and, with the exception of section 26, it came into operation on 19 October 1982. Hon. members will recall that a Commission of Inquiry into Development Schemes, on which a number of hon. members served, investigated the matter concerning development schemes in depth, and apart from the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980 (Act 59 of 1980), also recommended the Alienation of Land Act, 1981.

However, shortly after the publication of the latter Act, it became clear that it would be desirable to effect certain amendments to the Act, which, with the exception of a few of those amendments, were nothing but technical adjustments in order to round off the Act as a whole and, at the same time, to eliminate various doubts which exist at present concerning certain aspects of the Act. My department also received many valid representations in this regard and I am of the opinion that the technical amendments in question also serve an important purpose, viz. to facilitate the implementation in practice of the provisions of the Act.

I now wish to elucidate only the most important amendments to hon. members. I have already mentioned the fact that section 26 of the Act was not put into operation. This particular section provides that no person shall by virtue of a deed of alienation relating to an erf or a sectional title unit receive any consideration of whatever nature until that erf or unit is registrable and until the contract, if the relevant deed of alienation is, in fact, a contract, has been recorded at the deeds office. As you will note, this consideration includes all payments of whatever nature with regard to the relevant erf or sectional title unit. It has now been revealed that these provisions are extremely restrictive and that, for example, they prevent a developer from collecting occupational interest, tax, etc., from any person before the above-mentioned conditions have been met. In practice, however, it may happen that a purchaser does, in fact, occupy that sectional title unit after entering into a deed of alienation with regard to a sectional title unit, for example, pending the opening of a sectional title register. Under these circumstances it is unfair to expect the developer to be prevented from collecting temporary occupational interest.

By inserting a definition of “consideration” in the Act, an attempt has been made to rectify this matter. However, after the publication of the amending Bill, further representations were addressed to me in which I was requested to make specific provision for occupational interest as well in this definition. On the basis of these representations I intend moving two amendments in this regard during the Committee Stage.

Firstly, I shall move that the present definition as it was published in the amending Bill, should merely be amplified by adding the following words at the end, viz. “… excluding rent or occupational interest constituting a reasonable compensation for the use and enjoyment of the land by the purchaser”. Secondly, because the intention of the concept “consideration” is that it should simply apply to the purchase price and interest with regard to the sale of land in terms of a deed of alienation, I shall move during the Committee Stage that the existing words “of whatever nature” in section 26(1) be deleted.

Another important matter relates to the question of whether a deed of alienation may consist of more than one document. As the Act reads at present, there is uncertainty about this question among some lawyers, it was never the intention to amend in any way the common law in this regard, which at present provides that a deed of alienation may consist of more than one document. This problem, too, is being eliminated by adapting the definition of “deed of alienation.”

†Another matter that had to be attended to, concerns the fact that the definition of “land” where it refers to chapter II of the Act, provides that it relates to land used or intended to be used for residential purposes.

Section 3(2) now makes provision for the fact that in the event ot a sale of land by public auction, and if the purchase price is payable in more than two instalments over a period exceeding one year, then the provisions of the Act apply as if it were a sale under a contract. The difficulty is that a “contract” as defined in the Act, can only be regarded as such if it has been entered into in writing. For this reason all the important characteristics of a contract had to be repeated in section 3(2).

Because of the fact that the said definition of land refers to chapter II, the word “land” mentioned in section 3(2) which deals with the sale of land by public auction and which section also falls outside the scope of chapter II, could also include agricultural land and not only land mainly used or intended for residential purposes. In order to remove any doubt that it was the intention all along that the Act should only apply to the sale of land by public auction in respect of land used or intended to be used mainly for residential purposes, small technical amendments are being made in regard to the definition of “land” as well as to section 3(2).

The most important elements of the Act are the various certificates for which provision is made inter alia in section 7(1). In terms of this section a seller is obliged to furnish a purchaser with a certificate obtained from a mortgagee, in which certificate that mortgagee stipulates the amount he requires for the discharge of his mortgage bond, or for the release of the land from his mortgage bond, as the case may be.

In the present wording of section 7, no time limit is laid down within which the mortgagee has to furnish such certificate to the seller. This matter is now being rectified by the insertion of a subsection (4) whereby it becomes imperative for the mortgagee to discharge his duty within a period of 14 days.

After publication of the Bill, however. I have been requested to extend this period of 21 days in order to allow mortgagees adequate time to assess the situation properly and to take all possible future contingencies into account. As I regard this as a reasonable request, I intend proposing the necessary amendment during the Committee Stage.

Section 1 l(l)(a)(iii) provides that any purchaser or remote purchaser may, in certain circumstances, make any payment that should have been made to the predecessor of such purchaser or remote purchaser, directly to a creditor of such predecessor. These provisions come into operation in those cases where such direct payments would have the effect of reducing the amount owed by the predecessor to the debtor to an amount smaller than the amount owing to such predecessor by the purchaser or remote purchaser. These provisions are also effective in those cases where the owner of the land owes money to a mortgagee or mortgagees. Unfortunately, the Act as it stand now, does not provide for those cases where the land concerned is mortgaged together with other fixed property under the same mortgage bond.

This situtation creates the problem that almost without exception the amount owed to the mortgagee or mortgagees by the owner of the land would be higher than the amount owed to that owner by the purchaser.

Section 11 is now being amended to have the effect that a purchaser would only be allowed to pay directly to a mortgagee or to mortgagees if the amount which he would have to pay for the discharge of the mortgage bond or for the release of the land from the mortgage bond or bonds, as the case may be, is in excess of the purchase price owed by him, at that stage.

A further amendment of interest is to be effected to section 19(2)(b) of the Act. In terms of the proposed amendment a purchaser now acquires the right. In the event of breach of contract on his part, to be given 30 days’ notice of such breach, in those cases where the breach concerned is the result of a failure on his part to fulfil a negative obligation in a contract. As the Act now reads this right of the purchaser only relates to the failure to fulfil a positive obligation.

I now come to the proposed amendments to section 20 of the Act. This section concerns the recording of contracts in a deeds office. As it happened, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Development Schemes Bill in regard to the recording of a contract were made at a stage before it was decided that all registrations and recordings in the deeds office should be computerized. The result of this development was that, when the Act came into operation, it could not accommodate the new method of recording, and the Act is therefore being amended mainly in order to bring this situation into line. I do not deem it necessary to go into the details in this regard.

*As far as section 20 of the Act is concerned, it has recently come to my attention that on 21 January 1983, in the case of Sasol (Transvaal) Dorpsgebiede Beperk vs. the Registrar of Deeds (Case No. 154/83), it was held that section 43(5)(a) of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937 (Act of 1937), prohibits any action of the Registrar of Deeds with regard to the sale of a particular erf, unless a certificate of registered title in respect of an erf has been obtained by the owner.

This decision has the effect that a township owner shall first take out a certificate of registered title for an erf which is not yet separately described in his title deed before registration in respect of this erf may take place.

This decision has far-reaching consequences for the purchaser in the sense that all costs related to taking out the certificate, as well as incidental costs, are ultimately recovered from the purchaser.

As far as these costs are concerned, I wish to refer in the first instance to the fact that the Cape Provincial Administration for example requires that, in order to register a certificate of registered title, the required amount with regard to endowment has to be paid in advance to a local authority or to the provincial authority concerned, which endowment may fluctuate from 5% to 22½% of the reasonable market value of the property concerned.

To this amount in respect of endowment must still be added the moneys with regard to the taking out of a certificate.

However, a matter of even greater concern is the considerable increase in municipal rates and taxes as soon as an erf is held under a separate title. Such an increase varies under the present circumstances, for example from R101,90 per annum in one urban area to R588 per annum in another urban area.

In conclusion I could also point out that the mere taking out of a separate title makes availability fees payable which could amount to as much as R350 per erf per annum.

In view of these circumstances, I decided that any doubts with regard to the implementation of section 43(5) (a) of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, should be eliminated. Consequently, in this case, too, I intend moving an amendment to clause 9 during the Committee Stage to the effect that the above-mentioned provisions of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, will not be applicable in respect of the recording of a contract.

There is another matter relating to an amendment of section 22 which has the effect that in future the Act will provide that no direct registration of transfers may take place from the owner of the land to the remote purchaser of such land. At present there is uncertainty about this matter and the purpose of this amendment is to create legal certainty.

At present section 26 of the Act provides that subsection (1) is subject to the provisions of section 8A of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, which section provides inter alia that no developer may sell a sectional title unit before a sectional title register has been opened. It has now become apparent that that reference to the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, is unnecessary and gives rise to confusion. It goes without saying that legislation, as well as certain provincial ordinances prohibiting the sale or alienation of land under certain circumstances, are not affected by the provisions of section 26, since section 26 only prohibits the receiving of a consideration by the alienator of land under certain circumstances.

In conclusion, an insertion is being made in the Act, by inserting a subsection (2) in section 31, in terms of which the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is empowered to exempt any person or category of persons from any provision of this act. The object of this amendment is to make this Act more flexible for the purposes of its implementation in practice.

Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset convey the congratulations of this side of the House to the hon. the Deputy Minister on having introduced what I think is his first Bill in this House. I do not think that there is anyone that I know of who is more fitting on that side of the House to introduce this specific Bill than the hon. the Deputy Minister. I say this because the hon. the Deputy Minister was the chairman of the Commission of Inquiry on Land Development which in fact framed the basic law of 1981 to which he is now moving amendments. I should also like to thank him on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House for making available to us the explanatory memorandum which sets out the legislation in more detail. I think that to an hon. member who is not a conveyancer or a lawyer this legislation is very much a conveyancer’s or a lawyer’s cup of tea. Even to a person who is trained in that regard the explanatory memorandum has indeed been very useful in order to help one understand the ramifications of what the hon. the Deputy Minister is achieving by moving these amendments.

In that sense perhaps I could comfort the hon. the Deputy Minister by saying that although there are very complicated matters in the Bill we shall support him in the amendments that he has framed. In fact, I was a member of the commission of inquiry together with several other hon. members of this House and we realized initially in framing the legislation that there would be difficulties. We tried to frame the various sections in relation to the various difficulties that had been presented to us, also taking into consideration the many court cases that had placed so many different interpretations on so many words relating to commercial contacts. I think the Act has worked fairly well in practice and has filled a need for the public of South Africa and particularly those who had lost their money in the past, having invested in land and having then found that the developer had gone off with their money, that the bond had not been paid or that the rates and taxes had not been paid. They had been left flat and were placed in the position of having lost their money and their land transaction. This happened in spite of the fact that the Sale of Land by Instalments Act has been amended. That Act had been amended some four times before the Alienation of Land Act came into effect and replaced it in its entirety. That Act, particularly Chapter II, relates to land that is to be used for residential purposes. This type of land in today’s market is a very important aspect because although one cannot save a man from his own folly if he will not read his agreement or will not have it explained to him because he cannot understand it, I think the commission tried by means of this Act to close the gaps to try to give him as much protection as possible. These provisions relate to residential land in today’s market in particular where there is a shortage of land and where prices of land have escalated beyond all imagination. We are told that in some areas the price of various stands is increasing by RI0 000 per annum. The cost of building has escalated enormously. New homes that are being provided for people are also few and far between. The Government is worried and we too are worried about the amount of housing that should be provided by the private sector. Therefore those who are willing to purchase land for themselves with a view to building their own accommodation should be encouraged by us and by the Government in particular by ensuring that they are not going to lose their money, that they are not going to lose their land and that they will be able to purchase the land and transfer it into their name. We must try to prevent the position where a remote purchaser disappears or they encounter difficulties with insolvencies and writs of execution. Therefore I believe that those who make such an investment should be protected on making such an investment and, under the circumstances, I think that it is only right and proper that we should give them the protection that they deserve.

The Bill that is before us contains a number of technicalities many of which can best be discussed at the Committee Stage. I do not think that we need waste too much time on them now. However, I shall mention a few points as I go along and I want to commence with clause 1.

When we talk of the interest, we now accept that the interest will be the purchase price including the interest thereon. That means that there will be complete parity in that the purchase price will include the interest thereon. There was some disparity before because it was not clear whether it should have been included or not.

We also ought to bring about a simple amendment in order to include documents as well. Prima facie one would think that in terms of the Interpretation Act the plural would include the singular and the singular would include the plural. Therefore one would wonder why an amendment should be introduced to distinguish between document and documents.

Well, in terms of that act male includes female, and vice versa.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, male includes female; I have already told the hon. member for Houghton that before. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know that the law can be very tricky at times. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister is only crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s in order to bring about this particular amendment.

The other important matter that concerns the substitution of section 3(2)(a) of the principal Act is the fact that when somebody purchases a stand at a public auction one does not have a written agreement. If this falls within the definition contained in the principal Act the purchase price or any other charges payable by the purchaser, in terms of the proposed new paragraph (a), will include the payment of more than two instalments in any one year. Then it does indeed become subject to the provisions of this measure. Therefore it is made clear that even in a sale by public auction it is necessary to apply the provisions of this legislation. For that purpose the proposed new paragraph (a) to be inserted in section 3 of the principal Act, will now make it absolutely clear that if such a sale takes place by public auction, although there is already provision made for this in the Act itself, this provision will apply as well.

When we come to the question of “registerable”, I see the hon. the Deputy Minister has brought about some quite substantial changes. I can understand that the different ordinances of the various provinces have varying provisions in connection with when transfer can take place—whether the township’s register has been opened or whether registered title has been taken. There may of course be variations but I think, with great respect, that this specific point is not covered by the legislation as it stands at the moment. I do think the time has come for the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Cabinet to give thought to introducing a uniform provision applicable to all four provinces with regard to the question of transfer of land, so that we will no longer have this sort of disparity, which makes it necessary for us to bring about amendments such as these contained in the measure now before the House.

That brings me to another point. If ever we were to follow the recommendations of the President’s Council in respect of the future of provincial councils, I believe the Government is going to have to look very hard and very carefully at the myriad of ordinances which exist in every province and their incorporation into the statutes of the Republic. This appears to me to be a mammoth task. It is nevertheless something which, I believe, the Government will have to bear in mind should they ever contemplate such a step in connection with the future of provincial councils. There are also amendments on the Order Paper, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has already referred, in connection with this very matter. We will support the amendment of which the hon. the Deputy Minister has already given notice.

Clause 2 is merely consequential. It also relates to public auctions, and I foresee no difficulty in this connection on the part of hon. members on this side of the House. As far as clause 3 is concerned, it touches again on the question of the differences existing in the various provincial ordinances. The Afrikaans word “verbetering” has apparently caused difficulty in interpretation. In English “betterment levy” has a very clear meaning. The Afrikaans meaning, on the other hand, is not quite as clear. It is not quite clear what “verbeterings” really refers to. The way in which this is now being amended, makes the Afrikaans text also much clearer in meaning. It is a necessary change because this is an important provision regarding the sale of land.

Clause 4 deals with the certificate to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred earlier. It is a very important provision in that it stipulates that the purchaser of land who pays by way of instalment must acquaint himself with the amount owing by the seller in order that he will know when the seller takes up more loans on his mortgage bond than he is really entitled to. This is what actually happened before and it was also the reason why the Glen Anil crash really occurred. It was the result of constant loans for the purchasing of more and more township development schemes. The seller must now obtain a certificate from his building society, and the time limit in this instance is also now being extended from 14 to 21 days. If I recall it correctly, the original recommendation by our commission was indeed a period of 21 days. However, I do not think that will cause any particular problem. The important change that is brought about here, however, means that this certificate will now also be issued to the seller, as well as to the purchaser. I believe therefore that clause 5 is also consequential, and merely of a technical nature.

This brings me to clause 6. Here there is a problem which, in a way, arises out of what I have just said. Where the seller owes more money on the mortgage bond than the purchaser owes him in terms of the relevant deed of sale, there is going to be a problem, because it will not be possible to get transfer as it will not be possible to get a release on the bond. I therefore believe that this provision is an important one, because if that is the case, we are providing here for the purchaser to pay a proportion of the amount that is owing on the bond. I think that should be able to clear the matter up, because sellers are not in the habit of only obtaining bonds on specific stands, but also of obtaining bonds on other properties and having collateral bonds on the stand that forms the subject of the sale. So if a proportionate amount can be paid, I think the person concerned would stand a better chance of obtaining transfer.

This brings me to the definition of “improvement” to which reference is made in clause 7. This provision sets out to place the concept of “improvements” beyond any doubt.

Is this the Committee Stage?

Is that hon. Minister perhaps handling the Bill?

[Inaudible.]

I see. [Interjections.] Clause 8 actually confirms a negative responsibility. There can be legal interpretations involving what is actually a negative provision and what is a positive provision. In section 19(2)(a) “obligation the purchaser has failed to fulfil” is negative, whilst the “purchaser’s alleged breach of contract” is now positive. In the proposed section 19(2)(b) “fulfil the obligation in question is negative, whilst to “rectify the alleged breach” is positive. So we are actually including the positive with the negative and placing the onus with regard to the contract on the seller.

This brings me to the recording of the contract, and here I refer to clause 9. This is probably one of the most important provisions in the entire Alienation of Land Act, bringing in an innovation as far as contracts of sale are concerned. In terms of the Alienation of Land Act, deeds of sale were made registerable in a deeds registry. Regulations were framed in Government Gazette No. 2205 which was promulgated on 15 October, with the provisions effective from 19 October 1982. This meant that all deeds of sale registered after that date had to be registered in the deeds registry. At the time the Act was conceived, we understand that the Registrar of Deeds of South Africa was consulted. The commission asked that the relevant procedure be made a simple, quick and inexpensive procedure. From what I have been able to ascertain from deeds registries, this has in fact happened, but there has been a change in the sense that deeds registries have become computerized. The whole procedure of the endorsement is now done by a computer. So obviously we now have to make provision for the modernization, the computerization, of deeds registries. We have a provision in the Act with regard to contracts of sale being registered, and as I have said, after 19 October 1982, they must be registered. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider deeds of sale registered before that date. I am not saying that we must go back in time indefinitely. This particular Act only provides for deeds of sale not extending beyond five years. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider going back in time as far as this is concerned. Let us say it is 1984 before this can be done. Let him then go back three years. Originally, I imagine, the objection to this on the part of the deeds registries would have been that they would have been inundated with so many deeds of sale that they would not be able to handle all the work. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister has given the answer himself and the need to provide for this amendment suggests the answer, namely that since there is computerization it must be much quicker and easier for the deeds registries to now register these deeds. In the interests of the protection of those people who have entered into deeds of sale prior to this date…

Who is going to handle all this documentation?

It is quite simple. The documentation follows the regulations. One can make an affidavit in terms of annexure A and annexure B.

You want to make money for the lawyers again.

No. One requires an affidavit signed by a commissioner of oaths, and these things are registered. In the interests of protection I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister should give consideration to this.

Another part of the amendment on this particular clause relates to a difficulty which always arises in law, namely that when one talks about a “month” it means a calendar month. One of the Acts in which this provision causes the most difficulty is the Police Act where one has six months to sue the Minister in respect of matters arising out of the Act. There is a host of laws that provide how the six months is to be calculated, whether it includes the first day, whether it includes the last day, whether it excludes the last day or whether it excludes the first day. In order to avoid this particular argument the hon. the Deputy Minister is now providing for 90 days, so as not to be misconstrued. I think if the three months is now to be read as 90 days, it will be an improvement.

The Bill also makes it clear that not only original contracts but also later contracts can be registered. I do not know why there should have been any doubt about this. It has always been the intention of the Act that all contracts should be registered, not just the initial contract but the later ones as well.

If a seller fails to register a contract then the purchaser can do so. It is clear that he can then claim wasted costs. I do not know what wasted costs mean in this particular respect because normally when a seller registers he sends the account to the purchaser. The regulations framed in terms of the Bill in fact stipulate what the fees are. Whether those are the wasted costs to which the hon. the Deputy Minister is now referring, I do not know. I think this matter needs clarifying. However, I should imagine that those wasted costs are the ones laid down as the fees for registering a contract which have to be paid in any event. If the seller does not register within 90 days the purchaser can then claim and do the registration himself. In that case he might need the machinery of law to obtain the affidavit from the seller to make him effect the actual registration. I do not know how he is going to get past the seller if he cannot get hold of the seller who has failed to register in the first place.

The next important provision to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred today is section 43(5) of the Deeds Registries Act. I think this is an important point, and we will gladly support it. A purchaser is now going to be put to the expense of something like R350 because the Deeds Registries Act determines that where there is not a separate title deed for a specific contract, a certificate of registered title has to be taken out. That is normal procedure in conveyancing. However, we are not dealing with the transfer of land at this stage but merely with the registration of the agreement, the contract of sale under this suspensive condition which is to be registered against the title deed. Therefore I believe it is quite correct to amend the provisions of this section so that this can be done. However, if it is subject to a certificate of registered title being taken out in the first place, then it is certainly going to be subject to a certificate of registered title when it comes to the transfer. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to confirm, which I should like him to do, that this requirement with which I am dealing will not be applicable when it comes to transfer, because that will affect the transfer itself.

I now come to the insertion of “any person”. Any person that is in the possession of an original contract, must register. I wonder exactly what we are getting at here. Perhaps we can get an explanation. If the purchaser has gone to a money-lender, for example, and obtained a loan in order to purchase property, that money-lender may want cession or he may want security by keeping that original contract. Does that then mean that the money-lender, in advance in this case, is obliged to apply for registration? Perhaps we should have clarity on this. In addition, in terms of this new subsection, any person “in possession of the owner’s copy of the title deed concerned shall render all necessary assistance… This is a very wide term, but I think that what we are really trying to get at here, is simply to hand over the title deed. Usually, if it is the subject of a bond, the person concerned is the mortgagee, in other words, the bondholder himself.

Then we come to clause 10, which deals with sellers who become insolvent or with property that has been attached “by virtue of a writ of execution”. I would like clarity here from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Transfers must normally follow consecutively in a chain. Although the Act was only framed very recently, there are already two legal discourses on the alienation of land. One is by Theo de Jager and the other is by prof. A. D. J. van Rensburg and S. H. Treisman. All of them gave evidence before the commission. It is suggested by them that one would have to follow the sequence of transfer from A to B to C to D. However, in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s address to us today, he said—if I understood him correctly—that it will not be necessary. Therefore, I would like clarity on this, because normally, in terms of deeds registry regulations, one has to follow the sequence of transfer from A to B to C to D in order to effect it. I should hope, however, that we are able to skip transfers if the intermediary transferees have dropped out. In any event, one can still do a traditional tripartite agreement where these intermediaries are not involved in the legal complications. Therefore, this should fall away and should no longer be necessary. What the deeds office contemplated, was really a fiscal measure so that transfer duty is paid to the Government on every single transfer and the Government does not miss out on its transfer duty. However, since in any event you do not have to pay transfer duty under, I think, R30 000, we should not have to worry about this.

In so far as the Magistrates’ Courts Act is concerned, I think this is really again a question of crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s. However, it is important to state that the cost of litigation and of approaching the Supreme Court is beyond the ordinary man in the street today. In fact, in the words of a judge, you have to be able to afford a Rolls Royce to be able to afford litigation. I therefore think that it is necessary that we maintain the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court regards the rectification of contracts and the relief that is provided for in the Act itself.

One of the most important clauses in this whole Bill is clause 12, which amends section 26 of the principal Act. This section 26 was not promulgated and it has in fact not been promulgated until now. If we pass this Bill and it becomes law, section 26 will then become law for the first time. This relates to section 8A of the Sectional Titles Act, which in turn provides that a seller may not take a deposit or may not receive any money on the sale of land until a sectional title register has been opened, in other words, in this case, until a township register has been opened. That has been held back. Section 8A of the Sectional Titles Act had a flaw in it. I do not know whether I agree with those who feel that there has been a loophole in the law. That section provided that no developer would be able to take money and because the developer then got a third party to make the sale, that third party went in for the sale. Quite frankly, that third party is normally acting as an agent for the seller. I do not know whether it is a loophole, but nevertheless, I think it is not a secret, because the Select Committee on Rent Control has tabled a recommendation that this gap be closed and that it now be amended to provide that no person should be entitled to receive this amount. This wording follows that amendment and I think it is necessary. The money taken as a deposit was used for the development and purchase of other properties and these people were then extended to such an extent that the money was irrecoverable. We have now made provision for sales with effect from 19 October which means that until this Bill becomes law deposits will be accepted. Provision is also made for exemption in terms of clause 14 which deals with the regulations. However, I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to let these people off the hook as far as this matter is concerned and to apply exemption with the greatest degree of caution in order to maintain the protection that is so vitally necessary.

In regard to the change of “purchaser” to “alienee” and “seller” to “alienator”, it means that we are now dealing with Chapter III of the Act and not with Chapter II. In terms of Chapter III under which section 26 to which I am referring falls, these provisions will now apply to all alienation of land and to all deeds of sale whether or not they fall under the definition of land on instalments or the Alienation of Land Act. This is, of course, an important provision in regard to the sale of all land in order to afford people adequate protection in this regard.

As I have said before, clause 14 deals with the regulations while clause 15 deals with the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act. In terms of the regulations deeds under R20 000 carry 14,75%. These regulations were promulgated in October 1982 and I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us whether there are going to be any changes effected to the rates of interest that have been laid down in order to keep pace with changing market rates of interest.

In conclusion I want to say that with this legislation we are once again trying to assist people in the very vital matter of trying to obtain land to build their own homes, and we trust that the amendments contained in this Bill will encourage such people to acquire land for their own homes and will protect them in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the introduction of his first piece of legislation in this House. He did so in a very competent manner. It is also appropriate for the hon. the Deputy Minister to introduce this legislation now, because he was the chairman of the commission which, under his capable leadership, came forward the legislation of 1981.

†The official Opposition is supporting the Bill and we should like to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for his most enthusiastic support in this regard. In actual fact, he dealt with the matter so extensively that it would hardly seem necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply. He could perhaps even owe the hon. member for Hillbrow a debt of gratitude for dealing with the matter in such detail. We appreciate the enthusiastic manner in which the hon. member for Hillbrow supported this Bill and also for the manner in which he served on the commission.

The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the difficulties that faced us on the commission. We realized, of course, that the legislation of 1981 would not solve all the problems. However, we went out of our way to protect purchasers in respect of all matters beyond their control. We managed to achieve maximum protection for the purchasers while being fair to all the other parties to the transaction.

The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the fact that many of these amendments have been effected as a result of representations received by his department and so we can assume that those representations were forthcoming from experts in the property field.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also mentioned the question of townships. Here again we are very fortunate that the hon. the Deputy Minister is chairman of the commission which is investigating the question of townships, and we hope that he will in due course be able to lay a report of the commission on the Table of this House.

The hon. member for Hillbrow seemed to agree with all the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister so there is no need for me to comment any further in regard to those particular amendments. As I understood him, the hon. member then suggested that he would like to see deeds of sale dated retrospectively and possibly for up to three years. I must say that in principle I am against matters being dealt with in retrospective manner. [Interjections.] I hear an hon. member supporting me, but I think he is supporting me for different reasons.

I should like to draw attention to the fact that in clause 14(l)(a) the Minister has by regulation the power to exempt people from the provisions of the Bill under discussion and from the provisions of the Act. I think the Minister will use these powers very wisely and that he will impose regulations as he deems them necessary in the circumstances.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also dealt with the question of a succession of buyers which necessitates intermediate transfers, but then he came with the solution that is normally used in such cases viz., the tripartite agreement which is used so that one does not have physical transfer to a succession of buyers, but one can only draw up a tripartite agreement.

The 1981 Act which we are now amending came as a result of the urgent necessity to regulate the sale of land as certain large-scale liquidations and insolvencies had taken place just before that. As hon. members are aware, a commission was appointed which dealt in depth with various matters relating to the sale of land. The commission heard evidence and saw the impossible situation and the losses suffered by many buyers of land. The 1981 Act laid down the blue-print in depth for the disposal of land. It was obvious to all of us at the time that even though we could lay down a blue-print, we could not foresee every practical problem that would arise from the 1981 Act. It was further obvious to us that as practical problems might arise, the Act would have to be amended to deal with such problems. Today in this Bill we are dealing with a series of matters ranging from sale by public auction to endowments, levies, certificates by mortgagees, registrations in the Deeds Registry, powers of the magistrate courts and many other related matters. All the provisions embody improvements and will be further improved by the amendments which the Bill seeks to bring about.

This is a complex matter in that as the years go on and further practical problems manifest themselves, the Act will have to be further amended. We are indeed fortunate that as the Bill affects virtually every one, when problems arise, the law societies, the estate agents’ boards, the building societies, hosts of other bodies and members of the public will bring such problems to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department.

I think it is only fair that where a sectional title register is not opened and thus a transaction is not registerable, nevertheless the proposed purchaser who takes occupation should pay rent or occupational interest for the beneficial use of that property. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that the seller is obliged to furnish the purchaser with a certificate obtained from the mortgagee which stipulates the amount required for the discharge of the mortgage bond. This will make it obligatory for the mortgagee to furnish that certificate within a period of 21 days. It is good that the period is short as neither the seller nor the buyer will have certainty until they know the exact amount owing under the bond. We have gone as far as possible to protect the interests of all concerned. It is with much pleasure that I support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why it is the custom that such difficult legislation is usually submitted to us after dinner. I have wondered in the past whether we farmers should not be excused from such debates. The hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member Mr. Aronson have already gone into the legislation in detail. We on this side also want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his handling of his first piece of legislation in this House. I think he did so very ably. We also want to convey our gratitude for the comprehensive memorandum on and explanations of the provisions of the legislation which we received. I must say it is sometimes difficult to follow a sentence when it is half a page long, but one does one’s best. That is simply the way legal experts do things. The ingenuity of legal experts in coming up with new things is astounding. I can remember that in my student days—and that was not many years ago—that the point was still being debated in legal circles whether a hire purchase contract was a contract of sale or a contract of lease. I can also remember that my thesis for my legal degree dealt with the question of the nature and essence of a hire purchase contract, namely whether it was a contract of sale or a contract of lease. I made the astounding discovery that a hire purchase contract was, in fact, a contract of sale.

Since then, as I have already mentioned, amendments have been effected by ingenious legal experts and there have been variations on this theme. This legislation is a good attempt to protect the rights of the purchaser in particular. As we have found in the past, in some cases people have suffered tremendous losses. I do not think this will be the last word said on this subject, because for every amendment to the Act there will always be an ingenious fellow who will try to get around it. With these few words we take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Barberton for the support he expressed on behalf of his party. I am also in full agreement with the hon. member for Hillbrow that no one is better qualified to introduce this legislation than this hon. Deputy Minister. He is intimately acquainted with this complex matter and also took the lead in preparing the principal Act. It is just a pity that the behaviour of the hon. member for Hillbrow contradicted what he said, because he went on to speak for far longer than the hon. the Deputy Minister did.

The Alienation of Land Act—the principal Act—probably controls more contracts and larger sums of money than any other Act. Although this Act has only had a very short life because it only came into effect in October last year, it can play a major role in protecting the public in particular and in assisting credulous purchasers of land. However, because this Act controls such a complex matter and because it is used and will be used so frequently, it is to be expected that it will experience growing pains and it will have to develop in order to adjust to changed circumstances. I think that the computerization of the Deeds Office is a good example in this connection. It can also be expected that constant efforts will be made to get around the Act or to interpret it differently to what may be in the interests of the public. Accordingly this Bill also closes certain loopholes or possible loopholes. It also makes provision for certain rectifications, adjustments and technical improvements. I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, as other hon. members have already done, I too should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on introducing his first measure in this House. I do not expect it to be his last, but I sincerely hope that all the future ones will be passed with the unanimous support of the entire House, because we in these benches are also going to support this measure.

As has been said by a number of hon. members, the present Act was the result of a commission which looked into this matter and did so in great detail. Those of us who were here in 1981 and who debated this matter then, appreciate the amount of work that was done. One thing that does surprise us is that so soon after the Act was promulgated we have before us here amendments to it. I suppose this was to be expected because of the complexity of this particular subject. It is very involved. It also involves the general public, and the public has to be protected. It is for these reasons that we are now asked to approve these amendments.

How can a capitalist like you vote for a thing like this when … [Interjections.]

I should like to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that he may represent certain capitalists who have to be controlled in some way or the other. As against that I believe in the pretty side of capitalism and not in the ugly side. As far as these amendments are concerned, we are going to support them. But the one thing that does concern us is the cost of land that now becomes available to the public. The hon. member for Hillbrow suggested that the provisions of clause 9 should be made retrospective so that the various deeds of sale by instalments, as is from now on going to be required, should be registered at the deeds office and that this should be made retrospective for something like three years. And as the hon. member for South Coast says this is going to mean that there is going to have to be a tremendous amount of documentation and that despite the use of a computer it will mean that those people who have entered into this type of agreement will now be put to a great amount of extra expense, especially in getting their attorneys, etc., to sort out this problem for them. We do not really go along with that at all.

Having spoken briefly about the cost of purchasing land and registering sales agreements, etc., is another aspect that we are concerned about and that is the matter of endowments. It is referred to in the Act in a number of places. I should like to take this opportunity of just recording that as far as Natal is concerned the cost of endowments is pushing up the price of land to the developer and to the person who wants to build his own home. For instance, about 2,5% of the purchase price goes to the local authority, 2,5% goes to the provincial council for various reasons and another 2,5% goes to the water corporation. This is a problem that we are experiencing today. Then there is the cost of having land subdivided and being made available for the construction of new homes. I do know that there has been a commission looking into this matter, for example the provision of housing, etc., but this is one aspect of the provision of housing that we need to have a good look at. I think it is very important that we should try to put both land and homes on the market for as little cost as possible.

Having said this, and much has already been said, we shall be supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the Opposition parties support this important Bill. We are discussing an extremely difficult subject, namely land. Everyone would like to own a piece of land. As hon. members have rightly pointed out, the Alienation of Land Act, 1981, despite its good intentions, led to conflicting decisions regarding the interpretation of the Act in court, as well as in articles that were published discussing how this Act had to be handled. I do not want to go into this in more detail, but I just want to refer to De Rebus of 1983, page 34, in which section 26 of the Alienation of Land Act was dealt with and the question was asked: Does the consumer really need this? When this legislation was implemented in practice, section 26 was not put into effect. This caused a great deal of confusion. I am therefore glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister has taken the initiative and sees this legislation in a different light.

I am also grateful that the definitions have now been drafted better. This applies in particular to the definition of “consideration”, which now appears in clause 1 of this Bill. Everyone who will have anything to do with this legislation in practice will agree with me on this.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I want to refer specifically to the proposed amendment to section 3(2) of the principal Act. The objective of the proposed amendment to section 3(2) is to make provisions in the Act applicable to hire purchase contracts in respect of land as well as hire purchase contracts entered into by means of public auction. In practice this has caused problems in the past and sometimes the question was even asked whether or not this legislation applied in such cases.

The proposed amendment of the definition of “land”, as well as the provisions of section 3(2) of the principal Act to which I have already referred, are aimed at putting it beyond all doubt that the same restrictions applying in connection with land purchased by means of contract, namely that the land must be intended for residential purposes, also apply to land sold on hire purchase at a public auction.

Clause 4 of the Bill is also very important. The hon. the Deputy Minister has also already referred to this. It concerns the period of 14 days which has now been lengthened to 21 days in order to give mortgagees sufficient time to determine to their satisfaction the amounts in connection with the relevant certificates, which can have far-reaching implications for the mortgagee. The same also applies to clauses 5, 6 and 7.

With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting the Bill under discussion, and I look forward to the implementation of this wonderful piece of legislation in practice.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their kind words as well as for their participation and their support of the Bill before us.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that this is a particularly technical measure. An attempt has also been made, up to the last possible moment, to accommodate all positive proposals in this Bill. This is legislation which is aimed at taking care of the interests of the consumer and the public. It is complicated legislation, and for that reason I want to advise the public—in other words a buyer buying in terms of this legislation—to consult an attorney or a registered estate agent in order to obtain the necessary advice before entering into such a contract of purchase.

Furthermore, the commission of inquiry envisaged—and during this debate this was in fact pointed out—that as far as the principle Act is concerned, this legislation will be shaped by what happens in practice and that amendments to it will be necessary from time to time.

†Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their kind words expressed to me. I do appreciate it. I should like to thank hon. members for their support of the Bill.

The hon. member for Hillbrow evidently made a thorough study of the Bill, and I should like to thank him in particular for his words to me this evening. The hon. member made a very good contribution to the work of the commission of inquiry at the time, and he is well acquainted with the contents of this legislation. The purpose of this measure is without doubt to bring about good legislation, and that would obviously require amendments as experience may prescribe from time to time. I also say this in reply to the point made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

The hon. member for Hillbrow made reference to the possibility of the recording of deeds of sale to be made retrospective for three years. I think the hon. member has already received a response to that from other hon. members of this House. I have nevertheless made a note of his request in this respect. As the hon. member for Hillbrow indicated, this is very much a Committee Stage Bill, and I should like therefore to invite the hon. member to raise further points during the Committee Stage, if he so wishes.

The hon. member also raised a point in connection with clause 10. The position is that section 22(1) is now to be subjected, by the Bill, to the provisions of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, and section 22(1) provides that the registration of the transfer of deeds of title in respect of land cannot take place directly, for example, from an owner to a remote purchaser. The registration of deeds of title must follow chronologically the underlying contracts without skipping registration in the name of anyone who exists in the chain of transactions. Furthermore the expression “betterment” is being brought into section 22(l)(b)(ii). So I hope the hon. member’s fears in this connection have been allayed. I can give the hon. member the assurance that exemptions will be dealt with the greatest possible circumspection.

*I should like to thank the hon. member Mr. Aronson very much for his kind words, for his support of the measure and also for his contribution tonight.

The hon. member for Barberton also referred to the complexity of this legislation. In a lighter vein, I just want to say that it seems to me this legislation is the kind of legislation which one only has to understand the first time one reads it. If one reads it more than once, one may get confused! [Interjections.] I should like to thank that hon. member, too, for his kind words.

I also thank the hon. member Mr. Schutte for the fine contribution which he made in support of this legislation tonight.

†I have already replied to certain aspects raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, but I would also like to express my sincere thanks to him for his words to me and for his support. I have made a note of his remarks about the costs of endowments.

*Finally I should like to thank the hon. member for Overvaal for his contribution. The hon. member quite rightly said that in reality it is the wish of every person to obtain his own piece of land or a plot. Then surely it is only right that the buyer of such a property in terms of this legislation should have the legal certainty that he will eventually get the land which he selected for his money.

I thank hon. members once again for their contributions and support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

In my opinion I dealt fully with the motivation for this amendment in my Second Reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, we gladly support the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister to clause 1 of the Bill. There was, however, a question which I raised earlier and which the hon. the Deputy Minister invited me to raise again. It was the question of the singular use of “document” and the plural use of “documents”. Normally, in terms of the Interpretation Act, the one term would include the other. I therefore just wondered why the hon. the Minister now has to move an amendment to make provision for the plural term. Has there, in fact, been any decided case in this connection? Could the hon. the Minister please tell us what the reason for this is?

Mr. Speaker, I have it that to ensure absolute legal certainty a specific agreement may consist of more than one document. As the hon. member will know, the position is that a contract can also come into existence by means of an offer in a telegram and the acceptance of what appears in the telegram. It need not therefore necessarily consist of a single document. In my opinion this is to ensure legal certainty. The hon. member can rest assured that cognizance will be taken of the point he brought up. If this causes any problems in the future we shall take another look at it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

In order to elucidate this further I should like to say that the Association of Building Societies of South Africa has now accepted this principle, namely that such an onus in connection with the furnishing of certificates in terms of section 7(1) should be placed on mortgagees, but has requested that the period be extended from 14 to 21 days to allow mortgagees sufficient time to determine to their satisfaction the amounts in connection with the relevant certificates, which may have far-reaching implications for mortgagees. With this amendment it gives me pleasure to comply with this request.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

As hon. members will recall, in my Second Reading speech, I mentioned that it was decided on 21 January of this year in the case Sasol (Transvaal) Dorpsgebiede Beperk teen die Registrateur van Aktes, (Case 154 of 1983), that section 43(5)(a) of the Registration of Deeds Act, 1937, prohibits any action by the Registrar of Deeds in connection with the sale of a specific plot unless a certificate of registered title in connection with such plot is obtained by the owner. This decision will have the effect that a township owner will first have to take out a certificate of registered title for a plot which is not yet described separately in his title deed before that plot can be recorded. In addition, all costs in connection with the taking out of the certificate, as well as costs arising from this, will eventually devolve on the buyer and as I have indicated, this could place a considerable burden on such buyer, and could in fact be extremely detrimental to him. It is because this decision could have far-reaching financial implications for a buyer that I am moving this amendment.

In conclusion, I want to say that it was never the intention of the Commission of Inquiry into Development Schemes, from whose report this legislation resulted, that this should be the position.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the Sasol decision we must obviously support the hon. the Deputy Minister; otherwise we are going to get into very serious difficulties with regard to registration and cause extra cost to the purchaser.

There are two points I wish to raise on this clause. The first point is the question of the contents of the contract with regard to its registration, and the claim of wasted costs in the event of the seller planning to register it. We use the term “wasted costs”. Do we mean the fees which are related to the costs laid down in the regulations as to the costs of registering it? Wasted cost, I can only accept, is the cost which would normally apply in order to register a deed against the title deed itself, and as is laid down in the regulations. That is the one point I want clarity on.

The second point I should like to turn to, is the question of registration with retrospective effect by request. Please note that I did not move an amendment in order to make this retrospective. I merely made a request to the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider whether we should allow registration with retrospective effect of three years. I did not move an amendment, because this obviously involves the interests of other people. Firstly, it involves the Deeds Registry. They will have to be consulted about whether they will be able to handle this with their computer. Secondly, the Law Societies will probably also have to be consulted as to the desirability or otherwise of this. I advanced this solely in the interest and for the protection of the purchaser whose protection is the motivation for this entire exercise, for this Bill and the Act. I take the strongest exception to the interjection by the hon. member for South Coast and the suggestion by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. They seem to think that I have come to Parliament to feather my nest and in order to have fees for this kind of work raised.

If the cap fits, wear it.

I think it is disgusting for hon. members of this House to think that another member of this House will abuse his position in this House and will endeavour to have fees for the legal profession raised.

Order! On what clause is the hon. member addressing the Chair?

Clause 9.

Is the hon. member dealing with the particulars of the clause or the principle of the Bill?

I am referring to the suggestion which I made—I did not move an amendment—namely that the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider this. I think I am entitled to an apology from those two hon. members with regard to their suggestions.

If the cap fits, wear it.

If those hon. members want to examine my public record since 1959 as chairman of the Town Planning Committee of Johannesburg, they are welcome to do so.

If the cap fits, wear it.

If they want to make any allegation against me, they are perfectly at liberty to do so, but if they cannot, they had better watch out. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, in terms of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act it is improper for a Member of Parliament to speak to and to advocate a matter in which he has a financial interest. Hon. members of the NRP have made the allegation which in fact amounts to a suggestion that that Act has been contravened. The hon. member for South Coast again interjected while the hon. member for Hillbrow was speaking by saying: “If the cap fits, wear it”. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that you should ask those two hon. members to withdraw those allegations, because the inference of what they have said, is that a contravention of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act has been committed.

Order! Did the hon. member for South Coast make that suggestion?

Mr. Chairman, I made that remark and I withdraw it.

Did the hon. member for Amanzimtoti also make such a suggestion?

Mr. Chairman, I did not make such a remark.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made the allegation in his speech at Second Reading that my motivation was to obtain fees.

Order! I think the hon. member for Hillbrow should accept the word of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

And if his Hansard proves otherwise?

I suggest the hon. member looks at the Hansard of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and if the hon. member is then not satisfied, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti can put the matter right tomorrow or when the Bill is discussed at Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the hon. member for Hillbrow read my Hansard. If I made such a statement I will only be too pleased to withdraw it. However, I do not think I did make such a statement.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the second point raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow is concerned, namely his request that I should go into the possibility of registering contracts with retrospective effect of say up to three years, as I have indicated in my reply to the Second Reading debate, I have made a note of this and we will go into this possibility.

*It is true that one should like to have the maximum legal certainty also in respect of contracts, but one has to go into the feasibility of the matter, as well as the possibility of dealing with that registration retrospectively without adverse effects.

As regards the first point raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow, namely the question of wasted costs, as I see it, it relates amongst other things to wasted legal costs which a purchaser will now have to incur in order to have the contract registered against the title. I think I have now dealt sufficiently with this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise only one point with the hon. the Deputy Minister and that is in regard to the period of 90 days that is referred to in this clause. Subsection (b) states, inter alia—

I shall omit all the other alternative propositions—

either cancel the contract or have recourse to certain other remedies that are set out in the clause. The issue that I wish to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister is the fact that he is using words here which are not part of normal conveyancing language in the sense that he has used the words “having caused the contract to be recorded”. Normally the lodging of documents is sufficient compliance if registration follows thereafter but in this case the question of the lodging of the documents does not arise. There has to be a registration, a recording because there is provision here for causing the contract to be recorded. If within the period allowed the documents are in fact presented so that they can be recorded but for some reason or another are rejected by the deeds office, it means that there could still be a cancellation even though the purchaser has done what was required of him within the prescribed period in seeking to have the documents recorded. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is not the intention that the seller should do all that is required of him in order to ensure that the documents can be recorded. If then, owing to some or other reason of a technical nature, the documents are not registered and have to be resubmitted at a later stage, it would appear to me to be wrong that there should be a right to cancel. I raise this point with the hon. the Deputy Minister because at the present moment—and I am not a conveyancer in case my hon. friend over there wishes to make some interjection or other—I happen to know that there are quite substantial delays, particularly in the Transvaal. The thing that worries me is that with the increasing number of transactions that have to be registered in a deeds office, one is actually creating quite a big burden. For example, the deeds office is now faced with a tremendous number of sectional title registrations which did not exist before. We have the situation of deeds of sale that did not exist before either and therefore there are these delays over which nobody has any control.

If they are dealt with by me there is no delay. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to enter into an argument with the hon. the Minister of Community Development but if he would like to accompany me to the Transvaal he will find out that we do have a large number of problems in this regard. Whether the problems are in the deeds office or in Waterberg, we do have problems. [Interjections.] I must say that there are delays in registration. I am not blaming anybody in this regard but those delays and problems do exist, and I am merely raising this point because of that fact. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to see his way clear to reconsider this matter so that at some future stage we can agree that the necessary provisions will have been complied with once the documents are lodged for registration.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his contribution in connection with this point. In lighter vein I want to say that the hon. the Minister of Community Development has of course eliminated much of his problem. As I understand the position, a purchaser should not be penalized for a delay in the deeds office. I shall have the remarks made by the hon. member checked carefully, and if any new problems arise from this and a seller or purchaser could possibly be prejudiced, we should like to put this matter right because, as the hon. member rightly said, it is not the intention that anyone be prejudiced in such circumstances and I shall therefore guard against this in future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I have just one question. The clause seeks to amend section 22 by the inclusion of the words “subject to the provisions of the Deeds Registries Act”. In this connection the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted the Deeds Office regulations with regard to consecutive transfers having to take place. It is now being confirmed that in fact transfer from A to B to C to D, etc., will have to take place.

I do not have an amendment to move in this connection because such an amendment will necessitate some investigation. I therefore should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider the present position. We know that from the point of view of the Deeds Office it is desirable to have the transfers recorded which occur in between, but such recording is not really necessary because in practice tripartite agreements are drawn up as the hon. the Deputy Minister no doubt knows. These intermediaries are completely removed or eradicated from the whole line of transfers. When there is a tripartite agreement, it is accepted by the Receiver of Revenue and the Deeds Registry. One therefore does not have to follow the required procedure.

If we are to insist that transfer should be passed to all intermediary purchasers until one comes to the remote purchaser, then we shall be asking for delays and added expense. I think we can eliminate both the delay and the added expense to all those people who are not really concerned since at that stage they are no longer in the picture. They could possibly be made to pay transfer duty on any profit they make as intermediaries, but I do not think we should force them to go to the expense of having transfer registered. I would therefore urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to go into this question to see whether there can be a short cut to obviate a lot of red tape. The transfer can then be done straight from the seller to the person who is finally entitled to the transfer.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for again explaining his attitude towards this clause as he did in his Second Reading speech. I can recall that in the commission we deliberated at length as to this whole situation. I am now advised that the way in which we seek to amend the section is the only correct way to deal with the problem. I have taken note of the hon. member’s suggestions and I shall ask the legal adviser to go into the situation once again. As the hon. member knows, the legal adviser in the commission was Prof. Van Rensburg, the author of the book from which the hon. member quoted in his Second Reading speech. I should like to refer this matter once more to him too. At present it would appear that we have to follow the chronological order of transfers according to the sequence of contracts. I am unfortunately not in the position to consider an amendment at this stage.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

This is a consequential amendment which has already been discussed fully under clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, we have no problem about the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister moved.

I should like to deal with a slightly different matter in this clause, and that is the question of placing money in a trust account. Everybody accepts that if one places money in a trust account, there is a complete safeguard in respect of the money, and obviously one has no problem with that. One should, however, bear in mind a couple of developments which have taken place. In the first instance banks, or at least some of them, now pay interest on accounts which are in credit even though they are current banking accounts. This, of course, includes the trust account of an attorney or an estate agent. As I understand the position in respect of the attorneys—and I am not sure of the position as regards estate agents, but perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister knows—the attitude of the Law Society is that they believe that that money, the interest earned on those accounts, should in fact go to the Fidelity Fund. I believe that they will ask the Minister to introduce the necessary legislation in order to give effect to this. That is good and well from an attorney’s point of view and from the profession’s point of view, but I should like to raise the question whether it is not in fact possible to introduce another subsection in terms of which the money can be paid into an interest-bearing account with a financial institution, an account which is in the joint names of the seller and the purchaser so that in fact the interest accrues for the benefit of the parties concerned. I believe that the contracting parties should have the option to do that, because in the first instance it will safeguard the people concerned because one can provide that in these circumstances, if there is such an account and there should be an insolvency, the money can go back to the purchaser. It does seem to me to be fair to the contracting parties that they should be able to contract to ensure that the interest goes to whomever is entitled to it in terms of the agreement between them. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will not give consideration to this matter, because I would imagine that free market champions should support this because this means that one is really ensuring that they can see to it that the money belongs to the contraction parties.

The other point I should like to make, and one of the things that has worried me in trying to give the protection which I think is much needed, is that we should not create a situation where costs are unnecessarily increased. Already the position is that, if one says the money must go to a trust account or if one says one wants a guarantee from a building society, all of that costs money and all of it in fact helps the powerful, rich township developer to be in this business and stops the small man from ever going into it. It may be said that it is better that big, rich people should be in the township business than that small, poor people should be in it, but I do not agree with that. I think that, if one really believes in true free enterprise, which some of the capitalistic gentlemen in this House do not believe in, one will in fact encourage the small man also to enter the township business as long as he does not by his actions cause any prejudice to potential purchasers. That is why I think we need to look at this and I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider whether at some future date, when the next set of amendments to this Act is introduced, such a clause should not be included.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if, when the hon. the Deputy Minister considers this matter, he will not take into account a particular set of circumstances. As I understand the situation, if a seller and a buyer have a contract in which it is stipulated that the buyer, say Mr. Jones, is to get the interest on the deposit he makes, the attorney, say Smith & Co., is allowed to open his trust account with a building society, the Smith & Co. Trust Account for Mr. Jones. In that case I believe Mr. Jones gets credited with the interest. So I think the hon. member for Yeoville’s point is better related to the case where the contracting parties agree that the buyer gets credited with the interest. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to investigate that matter together with the propostion put by the hon. member for Yeoville because my understanding of the situation is that in practice Jones can get credited with the interest if the trust account is opened in the name of the attorney. If it is, say, the Smith & Co. Trust Account for Mr. Jones, I believe Mr. Jones gets credited with the interest. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister can go into the situation when he considers the proposition put by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for the suggestions he made, as also the hon. member Mr. Aronson. Speaking subject to correction, I think that as regards the point made by the hon. member Mr. Aronson, the attorney will have to have Mr. Jones’s consent in the first instance to make a trust investment with, say, a building society, an investment “in trust for Mr. Jones pending the fulfilment of the obligations.” I take it that the hon. member for Yeoville actually wants a third category inserted in this legislation. Section 26 is not yet in operation, as the hon. member knows. I shall also give consideration to his suggestions. If there is anything that can be done to the benefit of the purchaser and the seller without any risk to the security of both seller and purchaser, I shall give positive consideration thereto.

Mr. Chairman, in further support to the hon. member for Yeoville I think it is necessary to take the point made by the hon. member with regard to the distinction between an attorney and an estate agent, both of whom take the money in trust. There is already a circular in existence from the Law Society which warns those in practice that the banks will be paying at a daily rate which will be for the credit of the attorney’s trust account. They have been asked to set aside that interest for the benefit of the clients in a separate account, and the intimation has already been given that legislation will be introduced to amend the Attorneys Admission Act in order to enforce that particular part of the law. So there is no problem in so far as the trust moneys are concerned, but there is a problem with regard to estate agents. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give attention to this aspect to cover that particular point.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Hillbrow. As I understand the situation, the position is that there is a difference as to the question of the interest that is being earned by an attorney on his trust account on trust investments compared with the position of the estate agents. I think the estate agents are entitled to a certain percentage of the interest they earn on their trust investments of trust accounts, which is not the position in the case of the attorneys. However, I shall take cognizance of the suggestions that have been made, including those made by the hon. member Mr. Aronson, with a view to looking into the construction of section 26 when it comes into operation.

Mr. Chairman, I too speak subject to correction, but I believe that if an estate agent has money in a trust account and it is interest-bearing and if that interest is not paid to a client, it accrues to the Estate Agents’ Board. I also believe that if a client deposits money with an estate agent and it is put into his trust account, he can ask for the interest on that money to be credited to his account.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one correction to what I have said. The circular to which I referred in my previous speech does not provide that the interest on the money held by an attorney should be credited to his client. The interest earned by an attorney should go to the Fidelity Fund. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please note that?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to clarify one point. With regard to clause 13 the explanatory memorandum states—

In the amendment contained in clause 13 of the Bill it states “the State and any servant of the State”. Is a conveyancer in fact a servant of the State and is the explanatory memorandum correct in stating that it is the intention to conveyancers as well?

Mr. Chairman, as far as the question of the hon. member for Hillbrow is concerned, I am of the opinion that conveyancers are also included in this indemnification and it is the intention that it should be so. If the position is not quite clear, I am quite willing to have another look at the matter, but my information is that that is the position. If the hon. member looks at the wording of the existing section of the principal Act he will see that the indemnity was actually couched in such wide terms that the suggestion was made that it might even indemnify a seller in respect of his obligations in terms of the Act. As far as I understand the matter, however, the situation is that it includes officials of the State and a conveyancer. A conveyancer may even be an officer of the court because he is admitted in the Supreme Court as a duly qualified conveyancer. In terms of the Deeds Office Act certain specific obligations are placed on a conveyancer, and, I believe, for the purposes of this legislation, a conveyancer also falls within the ambit of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think that everybody agrees on what the situation should be. In other words, we agree that one should include the term “conveyancer” in the indemnity stipulation. With great respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister, however, a conveyancer cannot be a servant of the State because the definition of a servant quite clearly cannot include a conveyancer.

I should therefore suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider this matter. In fact, I believe it is something we can do right now. He should seriously consider accepting an amendment which should be moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow because if we do not do that it is going to cause great problems. I must put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of the definition a servant is somebody who is under the direction of his master; somebody who has to act in accordance with instructions; somebody who can be dismissed. By no stretch of imagination, Sir, can a conveyancer be a servant of the State.

The hon. member for Hillbrow is a conveyancer. Unfortunately I am not one. If he is a conveyancer, however, he is, as a servant, entitled to be paid by the State. That would mean that he is actually holding an office of profit under the State. It would also mean that no conveyancer could be a member of this House. If I look around me now I see various hon. members in this House, who are conveyancers. It would mean that they would all be disqualified from sitting in this House. Therefore, with great respect, I submit that it is impossible for a conveyancer to be a servant of the State. That is why I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister should actually reconsider the matter.

Meanwhile I leave it to the hon. member for Hillbrow to move the amendment because he actually raised the point first.

Mr. Chairman, I formally move the amendment, as follows—

I believe it does clarify the matter. It is true, of course, that an attorney is an officer of the court. However, as an officer of the court, I believe, an attorney is still not a servant of the State. As it is the intention to obviate any possible misunderstanding, I suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there appears to be somewhat of a difficulty, but the intention is nevertheless that a conveyancer should also fall within the ambit of this clause. In the circumstances I shall therefore accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated during Second Reading, the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, 1968, does not apply here. However, in terms of Annexure B, which is contained in the regulations published in the Government Gazette of 15 October 1982, the rates of interest are laid down. On an amount not exceeding R20 000, for example, the rate of interest is 14,75%. On an amount exceeding R40 000 the rate of interest goes up to 16,25%. All I want to know is whether this will be reviewed from time to time in the light of the current economic conditions, and also in the light of the prevailing rates of interest.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the matter, the situation in respect of current building society interest rates is scrutinized prior to establishing and fixing interest rates payable in terms of contracts of this nature. It is normally looked into on a yearly basis in order to establish what the new fixed rate of interest should be.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief. I should merely like to indicate to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I believe that the manner in which this type of legislation is being handled in this House is an exemplary one as far as co-operation between the parties and co-operation between hon. members in this House are concerned, co-operation on non-contentious legislation designed to benefit consumers. I must say that if we could handle other matters in the same spirit, I think the public would profit very greatly. As this is the first time that the hon. the Deputy Minister is piloting a Bill through the House, may I say that I think that it augurs well for the future when it comes to the protection of people who buy property in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to thank hon. members for their support, and specifically the hon. member for Yeoville for his kind remarks. I can assure him that I do appreciate it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the past few years property timesharing schemes, in terms of which persons obtain through the payment of specified amounts of money the sole right to the use or occupation of a residential unit, normally in a building complex, for a certain fixed period during every year, have gained recognition in the Republic of South Africa as well and several of these schemes are already in operation.

To give hon. members an idea of the extent of some of these schemes, I can mention that one such scheme, which is at present in operation, consists of 11 000 separate transactions.

From this it may therefore be deduced that the money involved in such schemes could run into enormous amounts. I am told that during 1981, in the United States of America, approximately $800 million was collected in respect of these schemes.

Owing to the enormous amounts of money which may be involved in these schemes, there is of course the substantial risk that unless purchasers of time-sharing interests are adequately protected, they may suffer financial losses as a result of the actions of less responsible developers.

During 1981 the Government was approached by a number of the most important developers and other interested parties with a view to possible legislation. After my department had investigated the matter and made recommendations to me in this connection, the Cabinet approved in principle of legislation being introduced with the object of regulating the development of property time-sharing schemes in a suitable way.

By way of information, I wish to explain at this stage that property time-sharing schemes are in practice operated, inter alia, in three ways, firstly by registration in the Deeds Office of sectional title units in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, in the name of each participant in a property timesharing scheme. In the second place, participation in such a scheme may take place through the purchase of shares in terms of the provisions of the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980, which purchase is accompanied by the entering into of a utilization agreement. The third way in which property timesharing is marketed is by means of club membership, where dwelling units are held by trustees on behalf of the club concerned and membership to such a club then entails the right to occupation of a residential unit. Because the first method which I mentioned means “physical registration” in a deeds office, practical problems with such registration will be experienced by various Registrars of Deeds, problems in connection with the legal principles surrounding co-proprietorship.

One of the basic legal principles in connection with co-proprietorship is that upon alienation of the concern to which that co-proprietorship relates, it is essential that all co-proprietors of that concern shall agree to such alienation. This entails that in the case of the registration of a sectional title unit in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, all interested parties, who in the case of property time-sharing could be even more than 50 persons per unit, have to sign formal consent and other registration documents every time the occupation rights of any co-proprietor are purchased or sold, which of course in practice would place an almost impossible burden on the staff of the deeds office in question.

In order to overcome this specific problem, the hon. the Minister of Community Development indicated that he intends effecting an amendment to the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, during the present session, which, inter alia, will briefly have the effect of empowering a Registrar of Deeds to issue certificates of title in respect of a particular share title unit, which means that it will then not be necessary to obtain the consent of all participants in a property time-sharing scheme in regard to a specific unit. Since the hon. the Minister of Community Development will at an appropriate stage explain the proposed amendments to the Sectional Titles Act in full to this House, I do not wish to say anything further now about legislation which falls under him. As far as the Property Timesharing Control Bill is concerned, I do not intend discussing all its clauses; I merely wish to elucidate the most important clauses to hon. members.

†First of all, I should like to make mention of the fact that most of the principles embodied in this Bill are borrowed from the Alienation of Land Act, 1981 (Act 68 of 1981), to which I shall refer in more detail later on. This is a logical development because the Bill as well as the latter Act deal with the same basic commodity, namely accommodation in some or other form.

I should now like to draw the attention to clause 4 of the Bill prescribing the contents of a contract as defined in the Bill, and more in particular to paragraph (k) of subsection (1), in which it is stated that such a contract should contain a date on which the relevant accommodation should be ready and available for the exclusive use or occupancy by the purchaser. This paragraph relates to subsection (2) which in turn provides that the date to be mentioned in terms of the said paragraph (k) of subsection (1) should not be later than five years from the date of the contract.

The reasons for these provisions are found in subsection (3) which gives the purchaser the right to cancel the contract should the use or occupancy not be available on that date, five years after the conclusion of the contract.

These provisions ensure that the purchase is not kept in limbo indefinitely, but on the day he enters into a property time-sharing contract he is at least assured that at the utmost five years hence he would either be in possession of the accommodation concerned or he would be refunded in regard to all money paid by him.

A very important matter concerns the disclosure of information by a seller to a potential buyer of all relevant facts pertaining to a specific time-sharing scheme. The provisions of clause 4(l)(b), therefore, make it imperative for a seller to disclose the legal basis on which such seller intends alienating a timesharing interest to a potential purchaser. This in effect means that the purchaser must be informed whether he acquires the timesharing interest to a potential purchaser, any sectional title scheme, share-block scheme or any other scheme, or by virtue of any contractual right, club membership or otherwise. As the type of information that should be disclosed by a developer in any advertisement prior to the conclusion of a contract may vary from one scheme to another, I also thought it appropriate to compel a seller to disclose the legal basis of a relevant time-sharing interest in such advertisement. Such disclosure is, however, subject to the promulgation of regulations from time to time by the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, prescribing the manner in which such information shall be disclosed. Due to the fact that the Government views misleading advertisements in a very serious light, I also thought it appropriate to couple this duty to disclose information, to a penalty. Clause 6(2), therefore, states that if a seller contravenes the provisions I have just mentioned, he shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R500 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months or to both such fine or such imprisonment.

From the point of view of any purchaser the most important aspect is of course protection of his interests after he has paid the purchase price or part thereof.

In this respect I have again borrowed from the Alienation of Land Act, 1981, and clause 7 of the Bill, therefore, places the same restrictions on the use of those moneys paid by purchasers as is the case with the said Act. The restrictions are briefly that those moneys should be deposited in the trust account of an attorney or an estate agent in which event such money is of course covered by either the attorney’s or the estate agent’s fidelity fund. Alternatively, the moneys could be utilized by a seller or developer provided that he furnishes the purchaser with a guarantee issued by a banking institution, a building society or an insurance company. These restrictions only apply until an architect has certified that the accommodation relating to the time-sharing scheme concerned, is ready and available for use or occupancy by the purchaser.

As far as the relevant moneys are concerned, subsection (4) of clause 7 provides that in the event of the seller becoming insolvent before the accommodation is available for the exclusive use or occupancy by the purchaser, any amount kept in a trust account as I mentioned earlier, or the repayment of which was guaranteed by way of a written guarantee, shall immediately become payable to the purchaser concerned by the party holding such money.

Clause 8(1) of the Bill presently provides for the relief that a court of law may grant to a purchaser in respect of a contract. However, after publication of the Bill, I have been requested to consider inserting a provision which would have the effect that, apart from the present circumstances under which a purchaser is entitled to relief in terms of clause 8(1), he would also be so entitled should he be able to prove that he had been prejudiced by the fact that a seller failed to comply with the regulations, which I will deal with later, to be promulgated in terms of clause 12 of the Bill. In the light of the fact that the regulations I intend promulgating in terms of the said clause 12 could be of the utmost importance for the regulation of the sound conducting of a property timesharing scheme, I have decided, in adherence to the representations, to accept an amendment during the Committee Stage.

I further want to draw hon. members’ attention to the provisions of clause 12 of the Bill, which contains the provisions regarding the authority of the relevant Minister to promulgate the necessary regulations pertaining to the disclosure of that information intended in clause 6 of the Bill which I mentioned earlier, as well as regulations in respect of that information to be disclosed in writing to a purchaser prior to the conclusion of a contract.

For the information of hon. members I may mention that in order to afford all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the contents and principles embodied in the Bill, a draft Bill was published in the Government Gazette on 9 July 1982 for general information. All comments received as a result thereof have been duly considered and taken into account in the formulation of the Bill which is now before the House.

In conclusion I wish to refer hon. members to the fact that the Bill, in its present form, does not contain a provision to the effect that different provisions may be put into operation on different dates as is the case, for instance, with the Alienation of Land Act, 1981. As it has now become clear that circumstances may arise which dictate that a measure of flexibility in the implementation of the Act should be allowed, I deem it advisable that such a provision be included in the Act. I therefore, intend moving an amendment in the Committee Stage which will give effect to this principle.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this legislation and more particularly because we have asked for it over a number of years. I think the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism may remember our having chided him from time to time for not introducing legislation of this nature. Now that we have it before us, we welcome it, even though, as I shall indicate, we have some reservations in regard to the measure, reservations which I shall try to explain in a moment.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has correctly pointed out that in the first instance the concept of time-sharing is one that has now become internationally accepted. I want to say, however, that the fact that it has been accepted internationally does not necessarily make one very happy about it because I also think that it is a matter which is internationally abused and perhaps more than virtually any other form of participation in immovable property. There are many examples from the United States, for instance, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, in regard to which there is gross abuse of the whole concept, and there are examples of this from other parts of the world as well.

It depends whom you are sharing time with, Harry.

Well, Sir, the word “sharing” is a very emotive one in this House. There are many things that we can share in life. Time is only one of them, as I am sure the hon. member for Durban Point appreciates. I want to say that because of its international acceptance, one cannot really exclude this question of time-sharing from the South African scene but I do want to say that there is no doubt that many people in South Africa and elsewhere in the world are going to regret having participated in timesharing schemes when they find out the effect of inflation on service charges and maintenance costs in respect of their unit. Very many of them are drawn by the glamorous picture that is painted to the effect that one can exchange one’s time in South Africa in respect of a particular building or a particular flat in a building or a particular room in a hotel for a similar place on some exotic island somewhere in the world without going into the implications of it all, without realizing that there are exchange control regulations in South Africa and without realizing that one may be letting oneself in for something that is more than one can handle. There may be all sorts of implications in respect of such a scheme. Therefore, I say with great respect for the whole concept of timesharing that it is one against which the public of South Africa should be very seriously warned. They must know that before they go into any venture in respect of time-sharing they should fully investigate its economic aspects, the financial integrity of the people who are promoting the time-sharing scheme and their ability themselves to service and finance the cost of such a scheme in the future. They must make sure of obtaining all the advice that they need before entering such a transaction. This does not mean that I am implying that every time-sharing scheme is necessarily one in which the public is being exploited and neither does it mean that every time-sharing scheme should be avoided. However, as I have said, this is one of the trickiest matters in regard to immovable property to become involved in.

There are in effect three issues that concern us in regard to this matter and the first thing is what is done in order to induce people to buy a share in this type of concept. The Bill deals with this matter although it does not do so in detail. It provides for regulations on the content of an advertisement. What is interesting is that this is more of an insertive provision in the sense that it states, inter alia in clause 6—

It does not actually provide what one should not say in an advertisement but only what must be included in the content of an advertisement. That is something which, if one compares it with the provisions of the trade practices legislation, indicates that we are quite generous to the people who advertise in respect of time-sharing because they can virtually say anything they like, but they have to say certain essentials whereas in respect of other advertisements people can be stopped from saying things. At the moment, of course, we do not know what is going to be prescribed; we have to leave it to the Minister and to his good judgment as to what should be inserted in such a measure. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given some indication, but I think we are still a little uncertain as to how far the regulations will go because there are a number of very essential features which ought to be included.

As far as the principle that there should be control in respect of advertisements is concerned and in respect of information that is given, I think it is fundamental that it should be supported. Therefore we can, without difficulty, accept that principle in the Bill.

I am concerned that in respect of the normal ethics of advertisements in the sense that there should not be misleading statements, that there should not be these extravagant claims, all of that should be covered. It is to some extent covered by the common law, but I think it may be necessary in time to deal with it by regulation as well.

The second matter—this arises once we deal with what is to be done to induce a person to enter into a contract—is the contract itself. Here again the Bill deals with this and actually we have a whole series of formalities as to what should be in the contract. We can debate the detail of it, but the principle of that is one which we support and for that reason we also support the Bill on that principle.

Then there is the third point, but on this one the Bill is silent. The hon. the Deputy Minister went into some detail as to what the various alternatives were in order to convey some form of title to people. He referred to the possibility of using sectional title, to the question of using clubs, to the question of using share blocks, but what is interesting is that if one looks at the Bill itself one finds nothing in it which says that one must use a particular means of conveying title. What can happen in terms of the Bill is that a person who himself has only a lease of the premises, a person who has no real right in respect of the property, can sell an interest, can sell a time-sharing contract and all that is necessary in this connection will be seen in the bill itself. Let us look at clause l(xvii) which provides—

If one alienates, it has to be in terms of the definition of “alienate” which is defined as follows in clause 1 (ii)

The effect of this is that all that one needs to do is to disclose the fact that one is not the owner, that one’s title is in the nature of a lease—which lease needs to be somewhat longer than three years because that is the minimum that one can alienate oneself—and then one can give somebody else a sub-lease, so to speak—no real right of any kind—in order for him to have that time-sharing contract. Here there is no security, no title, nothing that is registerable and there is no compulsion at all in respect of this.

The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that there will have to be an amendment to the sectional title legislation, but that amendment will only make it permissible to use this type of title. On top of it, it means that one can still be the joint owner together with some 50 other people and one will have certain responsibilities by reason of one’s association with those people in the joint title. In a club one has exactly the same problem. If one becomes a member of a club in terms of which one’s entitled to occupation of a hotel room somewhere for one week and that club goes insolvent, there is no title one has of one’s own right. The one thing which according to us is, in principle, wrong with the Bill is that one can get property which is mortgaged and where the mortgage is disclosed in terms of the Bill and a person with a relatively short lease can sell a time-sharing contract but there is no title or no security of any kind. Whereas the other two principles we looked for are contained in the Bill, this principle is missing from this piece of legislation.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether in fact this principle should not be contained in this Bill. To me the logical way of dealing with the situation is actually to use the share-block scheme, because if one uses the share-block scheme and a person has shares, one can have a use agreement in respect of those shares for whatever period of time one likes. In other words, that will give a person his own title, his own shares, his own right in respect of the particular period and it will give him the protection of the Share Blocks Control Act. That, to me, seems to be the way in which this should be dealt with.

If that is how it is dealt with, then we cannot introduce that into this Bill in its present form because, if I try to move an amendment to that effect in the Committee Stage, it will be ruled out of order because the Bill contains no principle which will enable me to move that. There is no provision which will enable me to move such an amendment. What is more, it may well be that someone else will come along with an idea which will be more effective than that of a share-block scheme. If that is so, if any refinement is possible, perhaps that should be considered as well, even though at the moment I think the idea of a share-block scheme is obviously the one that should be applied. In those circumstances I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will not consider agreeing to refer the matter to a Select Committee before Second Reading. If he thinks security of title, security in that form in regard to something one owns oneself, is essential for the purpose of giving one the protection one needs, the only way in which I believe we can sort this out is by the hon. the Deputy Minister agreeing to refer this to a Select Committee before Second Reading. If he agrees to that, as far as we are concerned we will endeavour to see that the matter is expedited as far as possible and that the legislation gets put on the Statute Book during this session of Parliament, because we too want this law. We want it on the Statute Book. We think it is necessary and we will do our best to see to it that this matter is dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

If we look at the whole concept of timesharing, one of the things we have to look at is how this actually to some extent acts in an inflationary manner. I ask hon. members to look at a simple situation. Take the cost of a block of flats, any particular block of flats sold as an entity. Let us assume that the market price of that block of flats is R1 million. If one sells that block of flats and then converts it to a sectional-title scheme, one will find that the amount realized will be very substantially in excess of the market price of the block of flats. I can give examples where a block which, as an entity, has a market price of R1 million ends up realizing under a sectional title scheme an amount of, say, R3 million. That is by no means unheard of. That kind of profit has been made in the past. Perhaps that cannot be done at the moment because of the great demand for flats, but that sort of profit has been made under sectional titles. However, under a time-sharing scheme when accommodation is sold on a monthly basis one will find that, instead of realizing R3 million as under a sectional title scheme, one will realize R9 million to RI0 million on it. One’s block of flats of R1 million will then suddenly realize R10 million. These may seem extravagant figures and someone may say it should not be R10 million but R6 million or R7 million, but I am using this as an illustration to indicate how in fact the whole cost of that building suddenly gets inflated. Suddenly one enters a completely new era because of the concept of time-sharing that has been introduced. We have seen examples of how people have marketed the concept. They have marketed it over television, they have marketed it through the media and they have marketed it with highly intensive activity. The results have been that consumers have paid a tremendous amount of money for a building which in itself would have been worth very much less. I am not against the concept of people making profits, but I think we have to look at the matter in the age in which we are living, in the inflationary situation in which we are living, and we have to look at it from the point of view of the protection of the people who buy these items and are then still landed with the situation where they are liable for the servicing of the building. If it happens to be an hotel, the costs of running an hotel are tremendous. I can give hon. members examples. There are some classic examples of ventures such as this in the Canary Islands where they sold rooms in hotels. What has happened there is that even if the purchaser does not use the room himself and he cannot let it, he still has to contribute to the cost of running that hotel—one still has to bear in mind the inflation rate in respect of repair, replacement and everything else that goes with it—and he lands himself in an unholy mess in the long term. In these circumstances one of the things that is vital is that at the very least what the man should get who buys a timesharing contract is security of title so that he has got something to hold onto. If he has nothing to hold onto in the end, then he is landed with this tremendous problem which he has not foreseen in respect of a building that is grossly inflated in so far as the purchase price is concerned and in the end he does not even have title and the whole thing can go up in smoke. As I say, not every scheme has ended that way and not every scheme will end that way. There are reputable schemes, there are reputable people and our job here in this House is to see to it that people are protected so that the exception who exploits them does not place them in that position.

Having dealt with the principle of the Bill, I should now like to deal with a few of the details. Firstly, I should like to deal with the question of formalities. Here I am concerned about the fact that in terms of this Bill one can still enter into a contract that is binding, where the architect’s certificate will not be furnished for four years and 11 months. This means that the purchaser is bound during that period. The money is either kept in trust—and, again, the same point in respect of interest applies as I referred to earlier in respect of the Alienation of Land Act—or it can be paid if there is a banker’s guarantee or a building society guarantee, but in the meantime the man is actually bound for four years and 11 months. No building need take four years and 11 months to build. I want to give hon. members an example. There are examples on the Spanish coast where one can drive along the Costa del Sol and see the skeletons of buildings standing there in town after town. The developers have put up these buildings, they have sold some of the time-sharing schemes and, eventually, they do not have the money to finish the schemes. However, in the meantime the man who has bought a week’s holiday—he thinks in the sun—is tied up for four years and 11 months if this thing becomes law. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that no block of flats or hotel which is being erected in the ordinary way should take five years to finish. I do not think it is logical. I therefore say to the hon. the Minister that that period should be reduced and it should be reduced substantially. I do not think that we should leave it on the basis that the purchaser is tied into the scheme in the manner that is being proposed here.