Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act, the Railways, as hon. members know, may obtain loan funds for financing its capital works only from the Treasury. In view of the problems being experienced in meeting the loan fund requirements of the Railways in full, it is the intention to obtain, by means of this Bill, approval for the Railway Administration henceforth to have direct admission to the capital market. This will ensure more flexibility in financing the capital development programme of the Railways. I may just mention that the Treasury concurs with the Railways henceforth being able to raise loans to supplement the grant by the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which should possibly have been brought before this House a long time ago, and it is an essential one. This side of the House will help the Minister to pilot it through this House as rapidly as possible.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members have probably noticed, this Bill embraces amendments to a number of existing Acts chiefly aimed at eliminating snags experienced in the administration of the said Act, and improving the administration in general. Owing to the fact that this general amendment Bill affects such a variety of subjects, it is somewhat difficult, and demands wide study, to comprehend all the implications, but since the main principles of the Acts, which this Bill contemplates amending, have already been passed by Parliament, hon. members are acquainted with them. An explanatory memorandum has already been tabled in connection with this Bill, and I therefore contemplate merely an additional brief elucidation of the principles.

Clause 1:

With the consolidation of the homelands, population shifts will inevitably have to take place. According to existing legislation the State President may order a tribe to move from its dwelling place, but if the tribe refuses, such an order cannot be executed before both Houses of Parliament have approved the move, and this leads to considerable delay. It is now envisaged that the approval of Parliament, where suitable, be obtained prior to and contemporaneously with the approval of consolidation plans. Since in practice it is frequently impossible to serve an order to move on every inhabitant of land, and because it is desirable, where applicable, to include the local authority, arrangements are also being made for a practical way of serving an order.

Clause 2:

The consolidation of the Bantu homelands has as its consequence that exchanges of land will have to take place between said homelands and the White areas, and that released areas will also have to be declared in which the Trust may sell land as substitute land for land which will be taken from the homelands in order to bring about consolidation. As the Act reads at present, Parliament declares released areas and the State President adds the land by proclamation to the First Schedule of the Act.

It is considered desirable that the contemplated boundaries of the Bantu homelands be made known as quickly as possible, but if this is to be done by declaring as released areas all the land that must now be purchased according to the “1936 quota”, plus the substitute land that is needed for exchange purposes, it will result in the released areas and the land in the possession of the Trust exceeding in extent the extent of the land which the Trust may possess.

The clause therefore contemplates arranging for Parliament to approve areas in which released areas can be declared, and for the State President to declare released areas by proclamation within approved areas in accordance with the progress in the consolidation of the homelands.

Clause 3(l)(a):

You will remember that from time to time there have been requests for Parliament to approve the excision of certain land from the scheduled or released areas, and the granting of other land as compensation. In section 10(1) the Trust Act also provides that if land in the possession of Bantu, but outside the scheduled and released areas is expropriated, the total extent of the land which may be obtained by the Trust in the province is increased by the surface area thus expropriated from Bantu, and in this way the compensation idea is also introduced here. However, not all such land in the possession of Bantu, i.e. in “Black spots”, is expropriated, but sometimes, perhaps in the majority of cases, it is purchased directly after negotiation by the State or by non-Bantu, and this clause envisages arranging that the extent of land, which the Trust may purchase, be increased to the extent in which land in the possession of Bantu is also diminished by sale.

Clause 3(l)(b):

In the computation of the extent of land in possession of the Trust, the following land is not taken into account in terms of section 10(3)(a):

1. (a) land in a scheduled Bantu area existing at the commencement of the Trust Act;
2. (b) land vesting in the Trust in terms of section 17 of the Trust Act; and
3. (c) land which having been held by the Trust reverts to the State or is alienated to any person other than a Bantu.

If land, as designated in (c), should now vest in the Minister or any other person in trust for a Bantu, a Bantu tribe or a Bantu community, in terms of the present Act it cannot be considered as land in the possession of the Trust, although for all practical reasons it remains “Bantu land”, and the intention is to have it considered as Bantu land because the present Act does, indeed, result in the total land for Bantu being increased.

Land outside a scheduled area, for example, land in a released area which was in the possession of Bantu at the commencement of the Act, and even if it were subsequently sold to another Bantu, is not included as land in the possession of the Trust, but if the land were to be acquired by the Trust, or the Minister or another person in trust for Bantu from the Bantu owner or from a later non-Bantu owner, it is, in fact, included as land in the possession of the Trust. This land, which was in the possession of Bantu at the commencement of the Act, and has changed ownership as indicated above, is to all intents and purposes still in the possession of Bantu, and it is wrong that in such an exchange it should take on the character of additional land bought by the Trust, and the position is being rectified here, and the position of land obtained, after the commencement of the Act, by Bantu or in trust for Bantu, which is therefore additional Bantu land and consequently “Trust quota”, is similarly being rectified. It is, however, clarified that land in the possession of the Trust, which is transferred to a homeland government, or land that is obtained by such government, by whatever means, is considered as land in the possession of the Trust in the calculation for the “quota”.

Clause 3(2):

The amendments are being made retrospective to correct the position of the calculation of the “quota” from 1st July, 1939, when the amendment of paragraph (b) had the said consequences.

Clause 4:

In accordance with section 18(3) of the Trust Act, the Trustee may lease Trust land to non-Bantu with the approval of Parliament. The procedure is time-consuming and cumbrous, and since the transactions are of a routine nature, what is envisaged is to simplify the procedure and to do this, in effect, from the date of commencement of the Act.

† Clause 5:

In terms of section 8(3) of Act 67 of 1952, contracts (with certain exceptions) entered into for a period of not less than one month, are subject to registration. This amendment envisages the fixing of the period in prescribed areas at three days which is the practical position at present.

Clause 6:

The amendment envisages the transfer of the Western Caprivi to the South African Bantu Trust.

Clause 7:

Several homeland leaders have expressed the desire to raise loans to finance certain projects and in order to make that possible it is necessary that the prohibition to do so be removed.

Clause 8:

Certain practical problems are foreseen with the application of section 50 of the Transkeian Constitution—problems which have been set out in the explanatory memorandum and which this amendment proposes to remove.

Clause 9:

The meaning of the expression “Bantu Education” is clarified and the legislative powers of the legislative assembly of the Transkei are extended.

Clause 10:

There are recruiting organizations which recruit workers through licensed labour agents for other employers. They operate on a profit basis and can be regarded as professional recruiting organizations. To ensure proper control by the organization over its labour agents it is necessary that the recruiting organizations be held responsible for the conduct of such an agent in their employ.

Clause 11:

Members of a legislative assembly are indemnified against legal proceedings on account of their action in a legislative assembly or a select committee thereof.

Clause 12:

As is the case in the Transkei the prohibition on the raising of loans by homeland governments in the Republic is removed.

Clause 13:

The position regarding the High Court which has already been discussed in clause 8 is also applicable here.

Clause 14:

As is the case in the Transkei it is provided for that White townships in similar circumstances, in the rest of the Republic, be made available for Bantu ownership by a system of zoning.

Clause 15:

The meaning of the expression Bantu Education is hereby clarified and the legislative powers of the legislative assemblies are extended.

Clause 16:

In terms of section 3 each and every body referred to in section 11(1)(e) of the Act (local authorities) shall be represented on a Bantu Affairs Administration Board by at least one member and that leads to the constitution of unwieldy boards. The amendment proposes to enable the Minister to appoint to the boards only members of bodies with real interest in the matter.

Clause 17:

According to the provisions of section 7(1) local authorities have mandatory representation on executive committees but agriculture and commerce and industry do not enjoy similar treatment. The amendment ensures that all the sectors of employers are represented on the executive committees.

Clause 18 contains the short title.

*Mr. Speaker, as explained in the explanatory memorandum, and with what I have just said, I hope that the Bill has been satisfactorily elucidated and that hon. members will confidently lend their support to it.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a mixed bag. It contains more than one principle. Some of these principles are acceptable to us and others are not. I have to deal with this Bill, as the Minister did, clause by clause.

As far as the first clause is concerned, we approve of the first amendment in subsection (b), which makes it obligatory upon the Minister to consult with the Bantu Authority before a tribe or community is ordered to withdraw from a particular area. The second amendment, however, is not quite clear to us from a reading of the Bill itself, but according to the White Paper and the Minister, this amendment will make it possible for Parliament to give prior approval to an order for a tribe to withdraw before the tribe has in fact refused to withdraw. I understand that that is what the Minister said and that is what the White Paper says.

That is correct.

But what I do not understand, Sir, is how the amendment on page 4, in lines 8, 9, 10 and 11—which refers to two Acts of Parliament—affects the Bantu. I shall be glad if the Deputy Minister in replying to the debate will explain exactly what is meant by this reference to section 25(1) of the Act and to section 21(1) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act. In his reply he can explain why those particular Bantu affected by those clauses are mentioned in this case. What Africans will not be affected by this amendment, or are all Africans in effect going to be affected by this amendment? The position is not clear to us. I am not certain why the words “unless …” have been inserted, but if the Minister is correct that this is to facilitate removal and in fact to allow Parliament to approve of a withdrawal or removal of a tribe before hearing the tribe’s objections, then we are opposed to it. We think that it is fundamental that these tribes should be given an opportunity of stating their case to members of Parliament, and that this Parliament, before approving the order, should know what the objections of the tribe are to their removal. Sir, we often hear about the promise which was made in terms of the 1936 Bantu Land and Trust Act. We consider that a promise was also made to the African tribes that if they were to be removed from their place of residence and they in fact objected to their removal, they would not be so removed until both Houses of Parliament had approved of the order of removal. Sir, that is the first objection that we have to this clause, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain the position more fully in his reply.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the motivation for this amendment is that if this is accepted the Government will be able to define the boundaries of the Reserves. Sir, it is strange that this Government should think in this way, because its attitude in the past has been that it is unnecessary for it to define the boundaries because the boundaries were in fact defined in the 1936 legislation. Of course, we have always contended that there is no basis for that argument because no boundaries were set out in 1936. Sir, if you page through Hansard, you will see that we have monotonously raised this question of the boundaries of the homelands; resolutions have been passed by congresses of the United Party, and I myself, in a private member’s motion in 1971 in this House, called upon the Government to define the boundaries. I have no doubt that the Minister will reply that it has not been through our pressure that they have come forward with this amendment. I have no doubt that his own people, the supporters of the Nationalist Party, have been saying to him: “In hemelsnaam, sê vir ons waar die grense van die reservate is.” This has been a common appeal to the Government throughout the country. Ever since the Government announced its plans through Dr. Verwoerd that he intended establishing independent Bantu states, the question of where these states would be was a matter of concern to the people living either in the reserves or near the reserves, because they realized that their properties would be affected if more land had to be added to the reserves in terms of the 1936 legislation. Now, at first sight, I would be prepared to oppose this measure, this particular clause, because of my inherent distrust of Government intentions and I am naturally on guard. Last year Parliament considered the report of the Bantu Affairs Select Committee with regard to the declaration of released areas in the Ciskei. We opposed that proposal and I then stated our policy with regard to the purchase of land for Bantu occupation, particularly with reference to the 1936 Act. It is not relevant to restate our policy here except to say that there is a fundamental difference between the attitude of the Government and of the United Party as to where the land should be acquired, and the purpose of the acquisition. It is not relevant to go into that again now, but the principles I outlined then will be the guiding factor when we come to discuss in this House any proposals to set aside certain areas of land in terms of this amending clause. I say the principles set out then will be the guiding factor.

The first reaction, I say, was to oppose this measure because of the uncertainties which will be created by setting aside a large area which will piecemeal be declared released areas by proclamation by the State President. I know from previous experience the hardships and the insecurities which are occasioned by the declaration of large tracts of land as released areas. Sir, fundamental to the declaration of a released area and the approval of a released area by this Parliament, should be the offer by the Trust to buy the land so released immediately the owners of the land wish to sell, because once an area is declared a released area there is in effect only one buyer, only the Trust, although naturally individual Bantu are allowed to buy as well, but the numbers who can buy are very few and therefore, in fact, the Trust becomes the only buyer. I say if the Government declares a released area it should—and this is the line we have taken with regard to the Ciskei and the Transkei—see that there is an undertaking to buy at once.

Order! The hon. member is not addressing me on this Bill now.

Sir, this amendment proposes to allow the Government, with the approval of Parliament, to set aside a large area of land. It will not declare it then to be a released area but once we have approved of the demarcation of a large area of land, the State President then piecemeal will declare bits of the land as released areas. You will recollect, Sir, that we opposed the resolution to set aside a huge area in the Ciskei last year, on the grounds that the Government was not in a position to buy all that land at once. My point now is that by agreeing to this we are allowing the Government to set aside even a larger area which it does not intend buying at once, but the effect of which will be the same as if it was declared a released area. That is my point. The effect will be the same as if it was in fact declared a released area. We might be asked what the alternative is. I ask myself this question. If we oppose this measure and get the Government to drop it, would the present position be improved? We know that there is discontent and mistrust in all areas bordering on the Reserves, especially at the moment in Natal, because the Government is at present endeavouring to satisfy population groups there as to the advisability of having certain areas declared released areas. I fear, however, that if we leave the position as it is at present, by not passing this amending legislation, we are only going to perpetuate the feeling of insecurity because at the moment nobody knows who will be affected. But if we approve of this amendment, and the officials are correct, in saying that once an area is demarcated by Parliament and set aside in terms of this amendment, all that land will eventually be a released area, then I ask the Minister once more to confirm that this is so; that it will be used to compensate for land excised from scheduled areas or in exchange for Black spots. This is the understanding of the intention. I just want him to make it quite clear that once Parliament approves of an area to be demarcated in terms of the clause, all the people living in that area will know that their properties will eventually—not necessarily at once—be declared released areas for occupation by the Africans. If that is not the case, then I cannot see the object of passing this amendment. I cannot see the object then of setting a huge area aside, of defining the boundary, if it in fact is not intended to be the final boundary. The hon. the Minister will remember that when we opposed the Ciskei resolution, one of our reasons then stated was that we opposed it because there would be no finality. The chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission had made it clear that that was not to be the final plan in the Ciskei, that they were to come back for more land. That was one of the main reasons why we opposed the Ciskei plans. In terms of the White Paper which has been given to us now, and according to the hon. the Minister, the object of this is to reach finality. It says in the White Paper: “In order to reach finality about the boundaries of the Bantu homelands” I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to reiterate that.

You will have to agree to this, because this is what you asked for in a motion a couple of years ago.

Yes, that is right. I said earlier that I asked for definition of the boundaries.

Then what is your trouble now?

My trouble is that we are going to have difficulties. Even if the Minister accedes to my request and in terms of this proposed amendment defines the boundaries of the reserves, the people living in that area are going to live in a state of uncertainty because if he does not offer to buy their land at once, they do not know when he is going to take over their land. They will never know when he is going to take over their land. I am not going to address him now on all the hardships that will be caused—I hope some others will do that; I want to get on to some other matters. He will know however what points I raised in connection with the Ciskei.

However, I want to say that if we do not agree to this amendment, we shall be in a worse position, because the only people who will be affected, once Parliament approves of an area being set aside, in terms of this amendment, will be the people living in the area set aside. At present though, if we look at the present system, everybody in the province of Natal could be affected. We want to narrow the class of persons who are going to be affected by the Government’s policy.

I say too that it is imperative that some finality be reached, not only to allay the fears of the White people, but also for better relations with and understanding of the African people. We have heard the African leaders of late being more bold in their demands for land. They do not know where the boundaries of their homelands are going to be. As Chief Buthelezi once said, he did not want to be a citizen of a nowhere land. We know the trouble that the Government is having with Chief Kaiser Matanzima. He claims more land; the Government spokesmen say he is going to get more land, but they don’t tell him where it is. He claims certain areas and they merely tell him he is not going to get those areas but that he will get additional land.

Another reason why we would like finality is because of the way it affects the people whom the Government says are not going to be included, for instance the people of East Griqualand and certain parts of Komga. The land of those farmers is depreciating because of the uncertainty as to where the final boundaries are going to be and so, if it is possible, we want the Government to tell us where the final boundaries will be.

There is another matter I would like to make quite clear. The mere fact that we approve of this amendment now does not mean in any way that we will approve of the proposals to be made by this Government. When this Government brings its proposals for the setting aside of certain areas to this House we will judge each case on its merits as we did in the case of the Ciskei. We will judge each case on its merits and the Government will have to satisfy us that the demarcation of the area and it’s setting aside will fit into our plans, i.e. into our federal policy. If it does not fit into our federal scheme, we will not support it, and I want to make that quite clear.

Order! Is that under discussion now?

Surely, Mr. Speaker, if I indicate that we are going to accept the amendment allowing the Government to set aside a large area for eventual declaration as a released area, I can point out at the same time that we retain our right to object to any particular demarcation. Anyhow, I have made that point and I leave it there.

I hope that the hon. the Minister, when the Government does make proposals, will tell us how he intends buying up the land involved. Is he going to take the land by blocks so that the people in the area will have some certainty and the knowledge that they will not be left in the air as the people in the Ciskei have been left and will know what their position is to be?

We have no objection to clause 3, but we have an objection to clause 4.

The Minister has said that the reason for this proposed amendment is that the leases have been entered into by the Trust illegally over the years and that it is proposed, by this clause, to legalize the illegal leases entered into, from 31st August, 1936. We will support that because we appreciate that so many leases are affected that it would be unwise to have them all declared illegal now.

However, we cannot see why the Government should now ask us to allow the Trust to enter into leases in future without getting the approval of Parliament. Why can the law as it stands now not be observed in future? After all, there was a reason for that original provision in the law, and because we do not have to make administration unnecessarily difficult and are prepared to make a concession, I intend moving an amendment in the Committee Stage calling upon the Minister to table any leases made in future. Then he can lease the properties without the approval of Parliament, but the leases must be tabled so that the members of Parliament will know what is happening and be able to see the leases which are affected.

Clause 5 deals with registration of Bantu contract labour. We are going to oppose this. There are already quite enough regulations affecting the Bantu worker and employer today. At the moment there is a regulation which obliges the employer to register his contract within three days, but, as the law now stands, he does not have to register it unless it is a monthly contract. We contend that the law should be left as it is. Therefore we shall oppose this amendment. We have no objection to clause 6; neither do we have any objection to clause 7, which will allow the Transkeian Government to raise loans.

Clause 8 provides for the establishment of a High Court in the Transkei. We approve of that and of all the amendments which are proposed in clause 8.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, we have serious objections. Clause 9 amends the Constitution of the Transkei by taking away Bantu education from the matters which can be controlled by the Legislative Assembly there. I have looked at the White Paper and it says—

I do not know how the department can say that this term “Bantu Education” as it appears in the Act did include university training. It may not have been intended by the Government in drafting the legislation, but we discussed it in Parliament and when we approved of the legislation we meant the term to mean higher and lower education. If it was contended and thought at the time that it only applied to lower education, it should have been made quite clear. In terms of our federal policy, it is stated that the legislative assemblies, or communal councils as they were known before, would be entitled to control education, high or lower education, for the group. This is fundamental to our policy and we will therefore oppose this amendment which will have the effect of taking university education away from the control of the Transkeian Government.

We approve of the other subsections of clause 9.

We do not object to clause 10; nor do we object to clause 11. The Transkeian members do have the indemnity already, and I do not know how it came about that this privilege was not granted to the members of the legislative assemblies in the homelands constitutions.

We have no objection to clause 12, which merely means that the other Bantu homeland government will be given the same powers as the Transkei.

We do not object to clause 13 either. This clause deals with the establishment of High Courts for the other homeland governments.

With regard to clause 14, which deals with the zoning, I would like to make a few comments. The provision which it is now intended to put into the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act and which already operates in the Transkei, provides that land can be reserved in the villages for Bantu occupation. What happened in the Transkei was that a zoning committee was appointed. This committee went around and took evidence in the different villages. They then demarcated certain areas for reservation for Bantu occupation. I have addressed the House frequently on the injustices that have occurred there; nevertheless we realize that a provision of this nature is necessary; there must be some provision for the Africans to take over the villages and the towns in the areas set aside as released areas. I am thinking now of Peddie. This is no doubt intended to meet the case of Peddie and maybe of Hamburg. I myself would prefer a whole village being zoned for Black occupation as in fact is happening to most of the villages in the Transkei now. We have found that where an area is reserved for Black occupation, and the rest has to remain for White occupation, except where a trader wishes to stay on and keep his business in that village, others who want to get out and live in the White areas have been unable to dispose of their properties. That was one reason why they eventually approached the department to zone whole villages, because of the position the White residents found themselves in. But I say too, and I have said it often before during debates on the Transkei, that once an area is so reserved, the Government must offer to buy out any of the residents who wish to sell. We have difficulties in the Transkei where portions of villages are zoned for Black occupation and where Africans buy property and move into the area. As I have said before, certain people can live alongside different race groups, others cannot. There has been unpleasantness and hardship in certain villages where Whites wanted to get out and were not able to do so. The Government does buy properties in the Transkei when these are offered, but only where it considers the case to be “urgent”. This causes hardship, because who is to decide whether a case is urgent or not? I submit it should be the person living in the area, the person affected. He must decide whether the case is urgent or not. The Government now has the qualification that you must either be elderly or ill—over the age of 65 or in bad health. But what about the young man living there who does not want to live alongside a different race group and wants to get out and establish himself elsewhere? He should be put in a position to leave that area and to buy a business elsewhere. He should be permitted to better himself and go. What about the man who wants to improve himself? Normally he would be able to sell his property and go to some other area to improve his position, to get a bigger business. But unless the Government now buys him out he cannot move; he is stuck with his property. What about the position of pensioners and other elderly people who own properties in that area and, therefore, because of the means test, are not able to get an old-age pension? They cannot sell their property. What about the young man who wants to have his children educated? There are no schools in most of the villages. He has to get out and have his children educated. It should be for him to decide whether his case is urgent, and this Government should take over and buy the property out, because it is as a result of the policy of the Government that these things are happening.

I know that there has been some criticism; we raised it ourselves, against another clause of the Bill, namely clause 3(l)(a), which provides that any land which has been so reserved shall cease to form part of the area of jurisdiction of the institution or body concerned. There was fear that this might mean that if an area was taken out of the control of a local authority, it would affect the loan conditions of that municipality, because certain of its ratepayers’ would be removed from its jurisdiction. It was feared that there would not be sufficient security for the authority to get loans. When applied to the Transkei, the zoning took place but no area has been excised, except perhaps for a commonage. The Minister may be able to correct me, but as far as I know residential or business areas have been effected. This provision was originally inserted to avoid a clash, because if you had Africans occupying one portion of a town and Whites the other, in one municipality the question could arise as to who would control that municipality. The Government, of course, is opposed to joint control, to different colour groups sitting on the same board. I hope the Minister will have learnt his lesson and that the Transkei problems will not occur again elsewhere.

Now, Sir, what happened in the Transkei? They had found in certain villages, that the Bantu represented the majority of ratepayers and could take over the control of the village management boards. When this became known, there was great consternation. The Commissioner-General had to go around to villages asking management boards to resign; because once they did that it meant that the Administrator took over the control of the area and he appointed a commissioner to run the village for him; so they avoided elections where the Africans could take over. That was not very satisfactory as far as the Africans were concerned. Naturally, they resented it. They kept on asking, “When are we going to have our elections?”, because they knew what was happening. The Government blamed the Administrator for not having foreseen this and taking some action. The Administrator said “Well, it is not my baby; I did not start this movement”. Eventually, a townships’ board was appointed, which now manages the villages where the African ratepayers are in the majority.

In certain towns it is necessary to have defined areas for Whites and for Africans. I accept that. In the large towns it has been functioning, for example, Umtata, Butterworth and Idutywa. Where you want development and White entrepreneurs to come in, it is necessary to keep certain areas apart. We will therefore accept this zoning provision, because I can see it would be necessary in certain instances. I would like to make an appeal to the Deputy Minister, to treat, the zoned areas, differently from what they did in Transkei and see that the Government takes over the property of those who want to leave.

Clause 12 takes away from the Bantu Governments their power to control higher education in terms of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, and we will be consistent and oppose that clause in line with our opposition to the Transkei Constitution Amendment Act.

Clause 16 proposes to change the representation on the board in an administration area. We can quite understand the trouble with which the Government has been faced. We do not object to boards covering large areas; because the whole justification for the formation of these areas is that it will allow for the movement of the African worker from place to place. So, naturally, as far as we are concerned, the larger the area, the more opportunities there will be for the labourer. But I can see the difficulty, too, in establishing these large areas, where there may be too many local authorities—because of the small municipal areas—the boards may become unwieldy. Therefore the Minister has to do something about reducing the number of members. He proposes to do it by substituting magisterial districts for the local authority areas. That is all right. There is no objection to that. But, Sir, as this clause and clause 17 are worded now, we feel that the larger municipalities may be deprived of representation on the Executive, because the executives are elected by the board. The Minister through the amendment in clause 17 takes power to add members to the Executive. We approve of that because we hope that he will then see to it that the larger municipalities, the people most concerned, will in fact be represented on the executive. I take it that that is the reason for the amendment he proposes. I hope that he will give us an assurance that he will see to it that this does happen, because the responsibility for the proper working of the board will be his.

Sir, we will be asked what our attitude is to the Bill as a whole. As I have said, the Bill as a whole contains several different principles. I have mentioned those to which we object. We consider those to be of fundamental importance. If we approve of the Second Reading of this Bill, it may be contended that we have accepted the principles of the different clauses and because we do not accept the principles of these different clauses which I have outlined, and because we would especially like more information from the Minister with regard to the amendment in clause 1, we shall oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei definitely has a problem as far as this Bill is concerned. I agree with him that there are several principles contained in the amendment Bill. However, the objection the hon. member has in the case of clause 1 of the Bill is not clear to me. I cannot see why the hon. member cannot understand it. Sections 25 and 21 of the two Acts, which are mentioned there, deal specifically with Bantu who are on land which is a released area, or scheduled area, or with people who have freehold land within Bantu homeland areas or other Black spots. However, this does not refer specifically to Black spots as such. It has nothing to do with the question of Black spots. What is involved here are released or scheduled areas or freehold land. If the hon. member sees it in that light, i.e. that it is a matter of those three specific kinds of area, from which the Bantu must be moved, I cannot see that the hon. member could have objections, it is true, but if one looks at sections 25 and 21 of those Acts one sees that this matter is really only related to those three types of land.

Then the hon. member goes further, with respect to clause 2, and I find this astonishing. Apart from the fact that he probably prepared his speech for the Committee Stage of this Bill, the hon. member now states that at this stage they are going to have no objections to the proclamation or declaration of the boundaries and to the State President’s being able to establish the proposed areas by way of proclamation. But then the hon. member states that they will only do this in cases of merit, in as far as this will strengthen their federal plan. Respectfully I want to allege that as far as this relevant clause is concerned it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. It is specifically that side of the House which, only last year, and during the previous session, kicked up a tremendous fuss and said that this side of the House and the hon. the Minister are not able to designate the boundaries. That is precisely what we now want to do with this clause. The boundaries are being designated. It is surely very clear, if one reads the explanatory memorandum, that the boundaries are being designated. The hon. the Minister is faced with the problem that if released land is purchased, excisions must be made and land must be purchased. The Minister then sits with the technical problem of exceeding the quota of the 1936 Act. That is all the hon. the Minister wants to try to iron out here. He wants to obtain a prior decision from this House so that he may continue. But, in contrast to the past, the State President will only proclaim the released areas when requested to do so, and when things balance up. In other words, the Minister can then never find himself in a position where he will have more land than the 1936 Act allows him to have. Sir, I think we must thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the fact that we have today reached a stage where we can get such a Bill. As we have seen in the past year, the hon. the Minister is now prepared to work fast with regard to the question of consolidation. It is of the utmost importance to us on this side of the House—hon. members may take note of this—that this consolidation of the Bantu homelands should take place, and it will take place in accordance with the policy of this side of the House. That side of the House can talk as much and as quickly as they want to, but we are firmly resolved to bring about this consolidation. Measures will be coming before this Parliament, within this year vet, which will indicate how rapidly this side of the House is already engaged in consolidating the homelands, and I think it would be a fitting opportunity for hon. members on the other side of the House, during the recess, to again think about a new policy for South Africa’s race relations, because with the acceptance of those measures, in the words of the hon. member for South Coast: “We will definitely be past the point of no return”.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that we are grateful that the hon. the Minister is now being empowered to designate the boundaries. I want to tell the hon. member for Transkei that I agree with him. I am also one of the persons who agitated for the fact that we should fix the boundaries, because it is an untenable situation, for both Whites and non-Whites, if one does not know where the boundaries are. It is, in addition, impossible for the hon. the Minister of Planning to draw up any planning framework in South Africa, if the boundary has not been determined. We are delighted that this machinery is being set in motion so that there can be no delay in that connection. This relevant clause, clause 2, now makes it possible for the hon. the Minister to take lawfully correct action in respect of quota land, and it expedites the entire procedure. Nothing is being subtracted from the authority of this House by this relevant clause. It is also being ensured that justice is done to the provisions of the Act of 1936.

In connection with clause 3 the hon. member also spoke of the question of leasing. He objects to the Trust possibly being able to continue with the leasing in the future. I can see no reason why the Trust cannot continue with this in the future. Apart from the question of the legalization of possibly illegal leases that already exist, that land belongs to the South African Bantu Trust, and there can be no lawful reason why the Trust cannot deal with that leasing in the future if it meets with the Department’s approval. They decide for themselves whether they are going to lease, and I cannot see at all what objection the hon. member could have to that.

With respect to clause 5, the Act provides at the moment, as the hon. member has said, that those people have one month in the case of a contract of longer than three days. As I read this clause, it pertains merely to prescribed areas, but I would, in any case, be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister could very expressly give us the assurance that it would in no way pertain to our farming community in South Africa.

I did not say so.

Sir, the hon. member for Newton Park is, of course, not present at the moment, because he is not interested in the farmers of South Africa, but this matter is of very great importance to the farming community and I would be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us clarification in connection with this. If my interpretation is correct, things are actually being made easier for people outside a prescribed area by the alteration of that period. Sir, it is very clear why hon. members on that side object to this clause. The hon. member for Transkei may correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that he said he was going to move an amendment to this clause.

No.

Is the Opposition then only going to object to the clause as it stands at the moment?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, there is no sense in that. It is plainly and simply just a facilitation of the existing procedures. There is no new principle contained in that relevant clause.

Sir, then we come to clause 9. There is one very important matter the hon. member for Transkei and his colleagues on the other side must remember. A definition is being given here of what is meant by Bantu education. It is being clarified. But the hon. member has said that when the Act was passed as such, they understood that Bantu education would also include higher education and university training. But now the hon. member must prove to us in this House that the amendment being introduced by clause 9 was contrary to the spirit of the relevant legislation. The hon. member will have to adduce that proof. He cannot simply use it as a kind of “after thought”, as something that occurred to him, and think he can make a bit of politics out of it. The hon. member must bring us the proof. In that relative legislation there was no mention anywhere of universities. The hon. member is free to go through all those Acts. There is no mention of that anywhere. The universities, after all, have their own Act, and this in no way pertains to this aspect. If the hon. member can bring us proof that we are dealing contrary to the concept of Bantu education in this relative Act, he must do so. But I just want to remind the hon. member that there is nothing in this relevant legislation that encroaches upon the authority of the Bantu Universities Act. There is no question of encroachment of that Act on the universities.

With respect to the hon. member’s objection to the buying out of land in zoned areas, small towns that now fall within such a Bantu homeland, I can tell the hon. member that I have the utmost sympathy with his standpoint that one should there try, as soon as possible, to help those who would like to sell their property. But we must also be practical. It is not always possible to buy up a whole town and populate it with Black people. There must be a practical approach. I agree that if there are people who would like to sell, we must try to purchase their properties. But we all know that since the State has been placed in the position of actually being the only purchaser of land in South Africa, with this kind of buying up of land for whatever purpose, the State is usually also the body that must pay the most for that land. Those people’s demands quite simply cannot be met if they are making unreasonable demands of the State. There we must be practical. I do not doubt for a moment that the hon. the Minister himself will, where possible, buy out that land as quickly as possible. That is surely why all the practical arrangements have been made so that the people can function alongside each other on a proper basis. There is no question of discord being able to develop now with respect to the village management board of such a place. The hon. member himself knows that the townships board handles the matters, as far as the Bantu are concerned, while the White portions are retained in the municipality; and neither does this affect the said municipality’s financial structure in the sense that if, say, there were a municipal loan and a lot of people, who are Bantu and fall out of this area, come to buy there plots, there is a practical arrangement that is made, or can be made, for them to pay tax to the townships board, the Bantu Townships Board—call it this for all practical purposes—but that that townships board can use this local administrative machinery, which already exists there, on an agency basis to continue with the administration of the town; and a portion of the funds, which they obtain as taxes from the Bantu, can be transferred to such a local authority to keep the services going, or whatever is necessary there. But I cannot associate myself with the idea that where one zones one should simply cheerfully buy out such a whole town. I think that here it is a definite case of our being led by the practical aspects to establish for ourselves co-ordination and a properly functioning situation. With respect to the last two clauses, the hon. member is not actually at odds with us; he merely expects the hon. the Minister to confirm a few matters. But I should very much like to express our thanks, particularly on behalf of our agricultural community in South Africa, for the fact that we are now actually hereby obtaining the protection of the agriculturalist’s rights to labour. In matters of this kind, the agriculturalist is frequently in the minority. I feel very strongly about this matter, because the Executive Committee of the Administration Board is not only involved with municipal matters. The Opposition, after all, regards no district as being of any value, except the large towns and cities. That is all that means anything to them. For our people in the “deep” platteland, who are still agriculturalists and must also be able to appreciate the labour situation, this amendment, which is now being introduced in the Bantu Administration Act, is of very great importance. I find it particularly gratifying that the proposals for looking after the interests of the agriculturalist, and not only those of the agriculturalist—those hon. members are only concerned about the village management boards and the municipalities or city councils—but also those of commerce and industry, their greatest friends, are coming from this side of the House and not from that side. They did not even take care of commerce and industry, but are only concerned about the United Party City Councils. That is all they are worried about; they are not worried about anything more. With this amendment we now ensure that commerce and industry obtain their shares, that our people in the “deep” platteland, the farmers, also get their share and that we are represented in the executive committee.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member who has just sat down, I do not think he has done a great deal to bring enlightenment to this House in respect of this Bill.

He made the wrong speech.

I also want to say that in regard to the last portion of his speech where he was dealing, I think, with agriculture and commerce and industry and that sort of thing, I have no doubt that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with that at a later stage. I was not quite clear in my mind under which clause in this Bill that particular sentiment fell when he was enunciating it so strongly. However, we shall deal with it later.

In the light of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, I want to say at once that what I am about to refer to in my speech is Natal and the proposals in regard to Natal. I do not want to deal with clause 2; I want to deal with clause 1. Clause 2 will be dealt with at a later stage and I think hon. members on this side of the House will deal with it, but I will be given an opportunity later on, through the terms of the provisions of clause 2, to deal with what I would call the charades, the mummery of the visit of the Bantu Affairs Commission to Natal. That opportunity will be presented to me later and I shall then hope to take the fullest advantage of it. I am glad that it gives the hon. the Deputy Minister some little enjoyment. I notice a smile on his face. He will find little to laugh at in this Bill, either now or later. It will probably be the biggest headache he will have in his career and I have already told him that. I leave clause 2, as I say, to the mummers and the charades.

I come to clause 1 because I believe that clause 1 in this Bill is fatal to the Bill. This is not like the curate’s egg. In the case of the curate’s egg the curate had to take what the hen gave him: The good bits in the egg and the bad bits. The curate had nothing to do with the formulation of the egg. This has been formulated by the Deputy Minister. He has put in the bad bits and the good bits and if, in our opinion on this side of the House the bad bits outweigh the good bits, then we must reject the whole Bill and vote against it as my hon. friend, the member for Transkei has said. I want to condemn it for clause 1 apart from any other clauses in the Bill. Let us just have a look at the present position in so far as Bantu tribes are concerned. Bantu tribes today can, in terms of the relative legislation, be told to move, to vacate the place in which they have their being, their habitation. Under certain circumstances if they fail to move or refuse to move, their case comes back to the Select Committee of this House, it is thrashed out in great detail, because that is one of the advantages of our Select Committee system, and then the report of the Select Committee comes to the House and the decision for the tribe to move is either confirmed or amended or rejected as the case may be, but it is within the discretion of this House. I want to say here at once that there is no duty which devolves upon Parliament which I believe is of greater significance and importance to the 14 or 15 million Bantu people that we have in this country than the fact that before they have to leave their homes under the circumstances described, Parliament itself must determine the issue. Not the Minister, not his officials, not merely a Select Committee, but Parliament itself. Parliament must determine the issue. In this Bill we are departing from that point. We are departing from it deliberately because the hon. the Minister has devised a method of escaping the need to bring such an order for the removal of a tribe back to Parliament. He can get Parliament to pass a resolution in advance which will provide, in substance, for such a removal as per line 13. Let us then have a look at clause 1 for a moment. The Bill provides in lines 11, 12 and 13 on page 2 that the Minister—because it is really the Minister who finally takes the decision—“after consultation … with the Bantu Government concerned” may make an order. What is “consultation”? Surely we have learned in this House by very long and bitter experience what consultation means?

A telephone call!

Yes, as my hon. friend reminds me, it can be merely a telephone call from the office of the Minister to the person concerned. Subsequently we are told that that was consultation. What is consultation? This appears to give the appearance, it seems as though provision is being made here for the Minister to consult with the Bantu Government concerned in advance of the order being made. I am referring again in this case to Natal and the KwaZula Government. In advance of the order being made, consultation takes place between the Minister and the KwaZulu Government. This gives to the ordinary man who reads such a statement a belief that the tribe concerned will have the opportunity to express a point of view which will manage to make the hon. the Minister desist or change his ground in so far as he had intended to make an order for its removal. In fact, of course, this provision does nothing of the kind. The time to consult is before this Bill is passed. The Government must come with proposals and tell not only the KwaZulu, but the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians of Natal as well, what their proposals are. They can then consult with the KwaZulu Government and say: “These are our proposals.” Once this clause, the Second Reading of the Bill is passed,—and the Government can get it passed, because they have the majority—it will involve 400 000 Bantu, Coloureds and Whites in a removal from where they are at present domiciled. I have seen official figures from professors and others which went up to 350 000 and 380 000 and so on.

You have not got the final map; so you do not know what the numbers are.

You see, Mr. Speaker, how the hon. the Deputy Minister now gives me the very evidence that I need. He says we do not know the position because we have not seen the final maps. Then why is he coming with the powers before we have even seen the maps? Before we have even seen the maps, he is taking powers now to deal with the removal of tribes from a point A to a point B. He is now letting the cat out of the bag. He says: Before you even know what our proposals are, before you have even seen the maps, I am going to take the power to move tribes.

I said that in regard to the numbers you mentioned.

What difference does it make if it was 300 000, 400 000, or whether it was 200 000 or whether it was one tribe? I do not care what the numbers are. In terms of the provision questioned by my hon. friend, the member for Transkei, any tribe which believes it is residing on land which is its own has as pointed out by the hon. member who spoke just before me, the right to believe it is living in an area which is a Bantu area where it will be left in peace, where they can live out their lives. That is what they are entitled to believe today because that is a law which we passed through Parliament in 1936 and also when the Homelands Act was passed. Now the hon. the Minister comes and lets the cat out of the bag. Never mind what the Bantu think in terms of the Act of 1936; we are going to take these powers now before even the people who are concerned have seen the Bill or have seen the map or have been consulted, for how does clause 1 start? It starts—

Without prior notice to any person concerned an order can be made against a tribe. All we have said here …

That is in the old Act; it is nothing new.

If this is nothing new, what are we doing with this Bill? The hon. the Deputy Minister need not start to frown or to get cross and short-tempered about this. I said he was going to get a headache before he was through with the consolidation of the Bantu homelands. He told me it would take him 20 years. Apart from the fact that he won’t be in his present position for 20 years, what kind of an old man does he think he will be when he has carried this burden for another 20 years? He will be broken, bent and decrepit. He is showing signs of it already, because he is starting to lose his temper early on. He must not do that; we must discuss this matter in the light of the duty we owe the Bantu. What was it the hon. the Prime Minister said the other day about the Bantu having souls and having to be treated as individuals? He warned his own side, the Government and all the departments that they must realize that the Bantu are people; that one must talk to them and not at them. That was his warning, a good warning with regard to the labour troubles in Durban, but it is also a good warning when it comes to moving tribes from their present homelands where they believe they have the right to exist. So, the point is that the time to consult with the KwaZulu, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians in Natal is when the Government has enough and specific proposals to go with it. Those can be discussed and then become the subject of legislation. This Bill, as it is before us, makes it abundantly clear that the whole intention is to avoid coming to Parliament after the event. The Government does not want to come after they have moved the tribes, but they want to come before they have moved the tribe and get carte blanche. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, we do not have a map. How are we then to judge the conditions and circumstances of any tribe who will hereafter be called upon to leave its home and to move to another place, also unspecified? We do not even know the numbers and names of the tribes concerned. We do not know where they are living and to what part of the country they will be removed. None of those things are known to us, on the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own admission. He seems to think that this is just a matter of administrative convenience. I want to repeat that, with the present situation and with the non-official map repudiated by the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission and which they touted all over Natal and Zululand, with the mummery and the charades, if that map is to be given effect to, it will affect somewhere around 400 000 people who would have to leave their homes. Is this a matter in respect of which we can say to the Government: “We will give you authority to move all these people before we even know who they are; where they have to be moved to and from where”? I do not think so. We are not prepared to give it.

I want to deal with another matter. My hon. friend who spoke before me, emphasized the question of boundaries. The hon. the Deputy Minister, too, emphasized the question of boundaries. There is nothing in this Bill to show that there is a fixed boundary when the time comes. Clause 2 does not make it a fixed boundary. Clause 2 is the one which deals with the question of the area which Parliament must determine and not the land which will be proclaimed as released areas from time to time by the State President. We will have no say over those either. Do you realize, Sir, that when this Bill is passed at the Second Reading, under clause 2 the State President, acting on the advice of the Minister, will be able to proclaim any land he desires, whether small or large portions, as a released area for the full purposes of the Act. We in Parliament will, however, know nothing about it. It will not come back to us for review; all we will see, will be the overall plan, when in the fullness of time the Government comes along with that plan, whatever form it may take. But at the present time there is no such plan before us. I therefore want to say in regard to those boundaries that the admission of the Minister just now shows that there are not yet any boundaries for KwaZulu. That is what his admission means.

There won’t be boundaries until this Parliament has decided, and you know that. I do not decide on my own and say that is the plan; because the matter has to come to Parliament.

You must have a plan, at least.

You will have a plan.

But what the hon. the Deputy Minister is saying is that he does not have a plan. He is in fact still negotiating. We all know that he is still negotiating. He is asking us to pass legislation which foresees a plan, in clause 2, but he does not have a plan. All he can tell us is that we will get the plan hereafter, in due course. I have never seen legislation of this far-reaching importance, affecting nearly half a million people in one province being handled in this way. The Deputy Minister glibly says that “We do not have a plan yet; there is no plan yet; the plan will come by and by”. It is on that basis that we are supposed—let me repeat—to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the power to move tribes, tribes who believe that they are living in an area which is legally theirs and where they are not going to be disturbed, because that is our law; they are being told by word of mouth that they can rely on the future boundaries which the Minister will give them in the sweet hereafter, a pie in the sky by and by. There is nothing to show that that new plan the Minister will put before us in due course, will be any more sanctified than the plans dealt with in the 1936 legislation, which dealt with the scheduled areas, the released areas—the lot of them. But those boundaries are now simply being thrown aside; new boundaries are being provided in the Deputy Minister’s plan when the time comes and these will also be of no force and validity if the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to change them hereafter. So in these circumstances, and because as far as I am concerned the Minister has not been to KwaZulu to ask the KwaZulu Government “do you approve of an unknown plan which we are going to give you hereafter that will allow us to move tribes from one place to another?” …

They have seen the plan.

Mr. Speaker, is this not incredible? The Deputy Minister now says that the KwaZulus have seen the plan, but he told us a few minutes ago there was no plan; that there would be one only by and by.

But it will not be final until this Parliament decides to adopt it.

This is really quite incredible. The Deputy Minister now says in all seriousness that KwaZulu has seen the plan. He told us only five minutes ago that there was no plan, but that there would be a plan that would come to Parliament hereafter and that we would be asked to approve it. I want to ask the Deputy Minister …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No; I am asking the questions at the moment. The hon. member can sit down if he does not mind. If the KwaZulu Government have seen the plan, did they approve of it?

No.

Now we are getting somewhere. The Deputy Minister is coming with a plan which he says he has shown to the KwaZulu Government and that they do not approve of it. Is that the consultation that is referred to in clause 1? They do not approve of it, but the consultation has taken place, no doubt when they were shown the plan. They said “No, we don’t like that”, and the Government then said: “We are going ahead with it; we are going to take this plan or a modification of it.” I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the plan which will come to Parliament for ratification will be the plan shown to the KwaZulu without modification?

In any case, the whole question of amending this Act was sent to the KwaZulu Government. They had no objection; they knew about the drawing up of this Bill.

You say that they had no objection to this amendment?

They had no objection.

I want this clear for the sake of the record, in view of what is happening to this plan. Does the Deputy Minister tell the House that this draft Bill in this form as regards clause 1, was shown to the KwaZulu Government?

Yes.

And they approved of it in its present form?

They had no comment.

No, no—I am sorry. Did they approve of it? You see, Sir, the question of consultation comes into it and just to show it to them and say that they did not have any comment, is not the point. Did they approve of it? No, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, they did not approve of it. The Deputy Minister said just now that they did not approve of the plan either. So they do not approve of either the Bill or the plan. There is no plan. Does the Government really intend, in the face of all that, to go forward with this measure where the biggest tribe in the Republic is concerned? We have here a tribe of four million people. Their own Government was created by this party. This Nationalist Government created the KwaZulu Government. It is theirs.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with it, but they cannot get their KwaZulu Government to agree with them. That is the point. Here is their creature which they have fabricated to suit their own ideas and concepts, and the moment they want it to work, it opposes them. Now, Sir, what are we then supposed to do as members of Parliament here? Clause 1 has been shown up by the Deputy Minister as being a hollow pretence. There is no honest intention to try and get the consent of the tribes who are to be moved in terms of that particular clause, and we oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for South Coast, as I usually do, and I noted with appreciation the manner in which he stated his case. It was particularly interesting to note the difference between the two Mitchells, between the way in which the hon. member for Durban North spoke last week and the way in which the hon. member for South Coast spoke today. Last week we had an hon. member from Natal who had nothing to say, and who said it badly. Today we again had someone from that part of our country who also had nothing to say, but who said it in such a way that we all wanted to listen. That is the difference between the young Turks on that side of the House and the old, established, traditional Smuts-type United Party supporters. It is not surprising that the United Party, after the knock-out blow which they received last week and the written treatment which the Sunday Times dealt out to them yesterday, could not really get off the ground.

The hon. member for South Coast spent many minutes on giving the reasons for his objections to the legislation concerned, particularly clause 1, and also clause 2. It is very clear that the hon. member has not made a careful study of the laws which went before. I want to recommend that he and subsequent speakers take another look at section 25(1) of the Bantu Administration Act or at section 21(1) of Act No. 18 of 1936. I think when they have come to see the matter in its proper perspective, the hon. member for South Coast will also have more clarity on the matter.

But I prefer to return to the hon. member for Transkei. That hon. member had serious problems regarding clause 2 of the Bill. I wish to say to him too that I attempted to listen attentively to him and to the arguments he wished to advance. It was particularly interesting to note that he referred to the federal plan of the United Party and said they would support any purchases, provided they fitted in with the plan they had for South Africa. Now the hon. member should not take it amiss of me for not understanding his federal plan as yet at this stage and for having no idea whatsoever of how they want to effect the purchases. The problem which I have with the hon. member is that nowhere has he given us, or does he want to give us, an exposition, nor has he told me where I may look for anything to read up on it, of the manner in which they want to effect the purchase or consolidation of the areas we wish to give to the Bantu. Mr. Speaker, I wish to put it very clearly that the hon. member is totally incorrect when he says that the National Party has said that it never wants to determine or draw the boundaries in South Africa. I cannot recall any person on Government side ever having made any such statement.

Who said that?

You did. The hon. member said that we never wanted to discuss boundaries and that we wanted to run away from that matter. Surely the hon. member said so; he should consult Hansard. What we have in fact said, and have said consistently, is that the boundaries are very vague in many respects, sometimes so vague that one cannot see them. But it is built into our policy to draw those boundaries more and more clearly. That is the planning we are engaged in, and that is why we have come to Parliament with this legislation. I want to say that the determination and drawing of boundaries is no easy task. Nowhere in the history of mankind, nowhere in ancient or latter-day history, has the drawing of boundaries between peoples and population groups been an easy task, and in South Africa we are engaged, under difficult circumstances, and in a difficult world, in redrawing the boundaries. If there has ever been a Government that had the will to draw boundaries in a manner that does not involve war and the spilling of blood—as they have been involved in the history of mankind—then that Government is this one. We should like to do this in South Africa, and therefore we are doing it with the utmost discretion and with the largest degree of consultation, not only in respect of our own people, but also in respect of those people who are to become our neighbours. I do not think that it is fitting for senior members on the opposite side of the House to create tension over these matters, and to discuss these matters in a way which will cause us bigger and bigger problems in time to come. The drawing and the determination of boundaries are not easy, and if it cannot be handled well, it can create tremendous problems. For this reason I want to address an appeal to hon. members: When they discuss these matters, they must not create a milieu and an atmosphere which will suit agitators or the enemies of South Africa, be they White or non-White. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am addressing a very serious appeal to those hon. members: When they talk about the determination and the drawing of boundaries, then let them not question the bona fides of this Government. I shall return to that. The hon. the Deputy Minister has worked hard and has done a thorough job of work, and what we do need, is that he should be given a hand in that regard, not only in this House, but also outside. There are too many people, even outside this House as well, who, when it comes to the drawing of these boundaries put selfish and personal considerations before the interests of the country, and that goes for Whites as well as non-Whites.

Another matter mentioned by the hon. member for Transkei was the following: He used more or less the following words, “We are taking away Bantu education”. He referred, inter alia, to clause 9. I want to ask the hon. member whether he really and sincerely believes what he said, i.e. that by means of this clause we were taking away from the Bantu rights relating to Bantu education which we had given them in legislation. As the hon. member said, this applied even to tertiary education. I do not wish to bring in any accusation against the hon. member, but I do wish to make the remark that he has not made a very careful study in Hansard of the debates we had on Bantu education. I cannot imagine where the National Party, from its side, either in its legislation or in its policy, has implied that at this stage it has already transferred university education to the Bantu Government. In respect of this aspect, i.e., “we are taking away Bantu education”, as he, the hon. member, put it, I shall be obliged if the next speaker on the United Party side will point out where this was done.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying, but the hon. member made an accusation here today which is not correct.

Why not?

It is not correct because it is not true and because the hon. member cannot substantiate it with any facts. I ask the hon. member to tell us, either now or later when the Minister’s Vote comes up for discussion, where we are taking away rights which have been given to the Bantu. Primary and secondary education have been involved up to now, but definitely not university education. But at this stage hon. members of the Opposition wish to implant their view of education here; we are likely to get the same thing later in respect of other legislation as well, since they do not believe in the policy of separate university facilities as the National Party does. Here again they are unnecessarily trying to create tension in the hearts and minds of the Bantu, as well as in those of the Whites. In any event, Sir, that is the accusation which was made by the hon. member and he can reply to this later.

I want to leave it at that so as to put a few general matters. Certain principles of the National Party’s Bantu policy have once again emerged very strongly from this Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, and they are principles which time and again refute in a most deadly manner the false criticisms levelled by the outside world at our policy. This legislation, not that one wishes to boast about it, again has a built-in means of consultation which, if I may use pastoral terms, in a priestly and prophetic manner points also to other parts of the world where others acted in a different way to the way in which we in South Africa acted, and I mean specifically towards native population groups they encountered there. A criticism which is often levelled at the National Party is that we do not consult with the leaders of the Bantu and the Bantu people in their national units when we pass legislation affecting them. Here again it is stated very clearly—in spite of what was said by the hon. member for South Coast—in clause 1, “after consultation by the Minister with the Bantu Government concerned, any tribe, portion of a tribe, Bantu community, and in subsection (b) we acknowledge once again very strongly the traditional system and the traditional chiefs of the Bantu communities. Mr. Speaker, we wish once again to put it clearly to each rising generation, not only of the Whites, but also of the non-Whites, that the National Party in its handling of the problems of the Bantu, or problems which may arise out of our situation of encounter, is prepared to consult with them in connection with these particular matters. Let me also say here today that there is no one who is more acutely aware than this very hon. Deputy Minister of the necessity of having talks with the Bantu leaders about their traditional and future residential areas.

Another point which emerges very strongly, is that it is often said that we do not mean well by the Bantu. I wish to ask the Opposition to go and read the debates of the ’forties, the ’fifties and also the ’sixties, when we began to put the Bantu on the road of self-administration and self-government, and to see how often they told us that we were not being sincere in that regard. We also had publicity in this connection in the outside world. People asked whether we would really go to the end of the road with these people. Critics often said: You give them a little, but you do not trust them enough to give them other things as well. I refer here to clause 9(b)-(d) and also to clause 7, in which we have built in the granting of more and more responsibilities to the Governments of the various Bantu homelands. This implies not only that we are being true to the promises which we made them, but also that we have confidence in them that they will gradually be able to accept more and more responsibility and that we are sure that they will be able to see to the interests of their people.

Another very important aspect which the hon. members of the Opposition just passed over quickly, is contained in clause 10. We have also often been accused of not seeing these people as human beings and of being prepared only to exploit them as a labour force and of seeing them only as a source of labour. If you look, Sir, you will see in clause 10, that we really want to see to it that these people will not be exploited by bodies or people who will recruit their labour and then leave them. This is a very important point which bears repeating here today.

Then there is clause 14. Accusations are very often made, particularly by the hon. member for Transkei, that we are selling out the Whites living in the homelands; we do not care about them. Very often too, the tension in the hearts of the Whites, who as a result of historical circumstances are still living there, is exploited by people saying, “What is to become of you; there is no future for you.” But built into clause 14 is also the assurance that the National Party will look after those people.

Where does it appear?

Then it is very interesting to look particularly at clauses 8 and 12, the growth and development which will occur in respect of Bantu law. I think that any student of Bantu law, if he looks at the development which is taking place in the Transkei and in other areas, will realize that it was the National Party that gave recognition to the legal system of those people and that certain aspects of Western law may be injected into that system and that it has growth potential. By way of summary I should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side of the House have the greatest confidence in the manner in which he is handling these matters for our country, for the Whites and the non-Whites. He may rest assured that he has our wholehearted support. Together with him and with the leaders of the other non-White peoples, with whom he must consult, we shall take care that South Africa will remain a country in which each population group will have its right and its part, not only for the sake of internal peace, prosperity and security, but also as an example to the outside world.

About the only thing I agree with which was said by the hon. member who has just sat down, was the statement he made that the hon. the Deputy Minister has been working very hard. I agree with that. I have recently been on a visit to the homelands and everywhere I have gone I could see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is indeed very hard-working. Maps are to be found in the offices of the Commissioners-General in all the homelands. They are provisional maps; nothing has been approved yet, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, but clearly an enormous amount of work has been done. I must say that my heart sank when I realized what an energetic little soul we have in this Deputy Minister, mainly because he seems to think of himself as a sort of modern Merlin, who by waving his magic wand will make communities disappear from one part of South Africa and re-emerge in a sort of consolidated Bantu homeland somewhere else. The actual physical side of the removal of human beings and what this means to them, somehow is lost in all the administrative perfection of this scheme. I am very worried about what is to happen when indeed his actual carrying out of the plans proposed, as envisaged on those maps, takes place. How the Minister will cope with this is something which he has not yet told us. I do not know whether people in this House realize what it means to these people to be uprooted, and sometimes they are uprooted not once, but twice. I have had a case very recently …

What about the Whites?

Well, I think if one compares the number of White people who have been uprooted in terms of group area proclamations, in terms of consolidation of the homelands and so on, one finds that very few Whites indeed comparatively speaking have been moved. I do not want to go into the figures of group areas—they are not relevant to this Act—but I can assure the hon. member there that I can give him these figures and the comparison is odious in the extreme. I know of a case even recently where a woman was told to move from one area to the other inside homelands.

We are busy with that case.

If you are busy with that case, I shall not go any further. However, I am sure it is not the only one; there are people who have been moved more than once, but those are exceptions and let us stick to the rule. The rule is that where the consolidation plan demands the wholesale removal of communities of people, they shall be moved “in order to tidy up”. This Government has a sort of almost—I have said this before—Germanic obsession for nice, tidy maps. They do not like to see communities outside of the areas which they have designated as their homeland even though some of those tribes have been settled there since time immemorial, certainly as far back as 1936, or even 1913, when the original Land Act was passed.

I and other hon. members on this side have had difficulty with this Bill because there is certainly a number of clauses in the Bill of which I approve. I want to say at once that I intend voting for those clauses in the Committee Stage which facilitate the acquisition of land still owing the Africans under the 1936 Land Act. I have no intention of opposing any one of those clauses, such as 2, 3 which I think also comes into it, and 14. There may be others as well, but I just want to make the specific statement that I have no intention, whatever the official Opposition decides to do, of voting against any clause in the Bill which makes the acquisition of land still owing to Africans under the 1936 Act less difficult. I shall vote for clauses intended to make it easier for the Minister to acquire that land.

I agree with the hon. member for South Coast when he says that he finds clause 1 a very objectionable clause, and perhaps this is the main reason why I too am going to vote against the Second Reading. Because, as I say, when one envisages the numbers of people who are going to have to be moved under the consolidation plan and one realizes how little protection they have had in the past and one looks at clause 1, it is obvious that what little protection they have, is being further whittled down, then I am unable to support the principle of this Bill. As I understood it—I may be wrong and perhaps the hon. members will tell me if I am wrong—under the present law all Africans had some protection against being moved. That protection was that they could not be moved before this House had approved a Resolution to that end.

If they do not object, they can be moved.

Yes, obviously if they do not object, the question does not arise. It arises only when they object to being moved. As I look at it now, although the Minister has inserted a provision that there has to be consultation first, I want to say, as has been pointed out before, that consultation does not mean consent. Had that word been “consent” instead of “consultation” I would have had no objection, but then this whole clause would have been unnecessary. Consultation does not mean that one has to have the approval of the people concerned. You have simply to say that it is your intention to do this, and maybe you do not even wait for the answer as to whether or not the approval is there. But now, as I see it, having put in that little rather useless proviso about prior consultation being necessary, the Minister then introduces a further proviso which now excludes all Africans, except those living on land already acquired by the Trust. In other words, the only people who have any protection now are the people who are resident on the land referred to in section 25(1) of this Act or section 21 of the Bantu Land and Trust Act.

I reckon, and I may be wrong because I am not a lawyer, that this limits the force of the proviso to tribes resident in Bantu areas and does not give any protection to people living outside those areas. There still are numbers of people who are living outside those areas. I think that is correct. I am against that, because now in the first place fewer people have protection, and those who do have protection, i.e. those people resident in the Bantu areas, have the protection only in so far as a resolution has been passed by this House. It used to be “until” a resolution had been passed by this House; now it is “unless” a resolution has been passed by this House or “until”. This means that the resolution can be passed prior to the actual move taking place. As far as I can see, this removes what protection there did exist against the wholesale removal of these people without their consent. To that I strongly object.

I want to say a word or two about clause 2, which I am not going to oppose, because I believe it makes it easier for that hon. Minister to acquire land that is still outstanding. I gather from the hon. member for Transkei that the official Opposition will also not oppose clause 2, but this does not bind them regarding any future objections in relation to specific areas of land. I am certainly not going to oppose that and I do not have any conditions to lay down for agreeing to that clause. As the hon. the Minister knows from last year, I am at one with the Government in regard to the speeding up of the acquisition of land under the 1936 Act.

I agree with the hon. member for Transkei about clause 5. I, too, do not want to add the burden of registration that has to take place, even now for casual workers, which to my mind is absurd. If a man works for somebody for four days, he has to go and register. It is ridiculous—one month was inadequate enough, and it certainly should not be reduced.

Not only is the Bill itself a mixture of good and bad, but even some actual clauses are a mixture of good and bad, such as clause 9 of the Bill. I see that the raising of loans has now been given legislative sanction by subsection (d), although I do note that it is only with the prior approval of the hon. the Minister. As things presently stand, the loans, as is mentioned in the White Paper, will have to be paid back to revenue voted by the central Government. I think it is fair enough that they know what sort of loans are to be raised. I do hope that the Government will be as lenient as it can in approving these loans, because I can think of nothing which would give a greater fillip to the confidence of the leaders in the homelands if they were able to raise and administer loans for the more rapid economic development of the poverty-stricken homelands.

In this clause there is a specific exclusion of university education from the ambit of the homelands governments. It is quite true, as hon. members have pointed out, that in the original Bill giving Bantu education to the Africans, no real discussion took place on the question of higher education. I do not think it was envisaged as such, but there was no specific exclusion of higher education. Now we are specifically excluding it. I would have thought one leaves the matter as it is and if the Government decides to hand over the administration of university education as well to the homelands governments, it can do so. If it does not want to, it need not, but why specifically exclude it? I think it would be a good thing indeed if the homelands governments were responsible for higher education as well. I say this, because as the situation stands, I do not think the administration of those universities is exactly satisfactory; on the contrary, there have been lots of troubles at all the universities, or practically all of them. There is considerable dissatisfaction at the way they are being administered, and most of the dissatisfaction comes from the fact that the councils and the senates are not being run by the Africans themselves, whilst there are very many very capable people who could be doing this. I cannot see why we should specifically exclude the administration of higher education from the homelands government. We talk about independence as being the ultimate aim; the Prime Minister has stated that they only have to ask for independence, yet we are specifically excluding the administration of higher education from governments which are on the verge, if one can believe what one hears, of asking for and acquiring their independence. There are many things that need fixing up as far as the universities are concerned, like the manner in which they are being administered and the manner in which students are in fact controlled. There is one extraordinary thing which I saw when I visited Turfloop. There are nice little cottages on the campus of Turfloop. When I asked who lived in them. I was told that White members of the staff lived in them. The Black members of the staff are not allowed to live on the campus. They have to live in the township some miles away. This is in a homeland, which is quite extraordinary.

So they are the homes of Whites?

Yes, the White members of staff live in the houses on the campus at Turfloop and the Black members are not allowed to live there.

No, that is not correct.

Well, I saw it with my very own eyes. Surely …

No, it is not true.

Well, then I was given incorrect information which I would be very surprised to hear.

With due respect, it is not correct.

When I was there, I was told that the houses were the residences of members of the White staff.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member should proceed and not conduct a discussion with the other side.

Well, we can soon check up. I can only accept what I was told on the spot. If that is wrong, I will obviously withdraw it. If my information is correct, I will say so.

Order! The hon. member should confine herself to the Bill.

I was just trying to give examples, Sir, as to why I do not think higher education ought to be taken away from the Administration by the homeland governments themselves.

I do not think there are any other clauses which I want to mention specifically at the moment. As I have said, largely because of clause 1, and because this is a mixed bag, I will oppose the Second Reading, making it very clear, however, that those clauses in the Bill which facilitate the acquisition of land under the Act of 1936. I shall certainly support in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, from the arguments used by the hon. member for Transkei, it is quite clear that they are in point of fact opposing this legislation because they knew that the hon. member for Houghton would do so. That is the only reason, because the arguments raised here by the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for South Coast were not really effective arguments. They just had the hon. member for Houghton in mind.

Is this a maiden speech?

It may be a maiden speech. It does not matter. Later the hon. member will also be given an opportunity to deliver his speech. The hon. member for Transkei said that clause 2 of this Bill should fit into the federal plan of the United Party. If the federal plan had become clear to us during the debate on the motion of no confidence, we could possibly have argued that point today. If we had clarity about the hon. member’s federal plan, we would have known how and whether this clause would fit into their federal plan. But here we have only had the statement that it will not fit into the federal plan.

I did not say that. How did the hon. member listen?

Yes, the hon. member did say that. How are we to know whether it will fit into the federal plan of the United Party or not? They, too, do not know. They, too, want certain boundaries to be drawn, but have these hon. members ever told us where and how these boundaries are to be drawn?

It is your policy.

No, the Opposition also has a duty to put forward proposals in this House. Up to now they have never put forward any practical proposal as to how or where these boundaries are to be drawn.

And not at any meeting either.

At no meeting have they ever put forward a practical proposal in connection with those boundaries. They simply say: You must draw the boundaries. Where are the boundaries? When are you going to draw the boundaries? But they have never put forward a practical suggestion in that regard. I want to warn them that when they speak of these boundaries in this manner, they are playing into the hands of people who are not kindly disposed towards their side and who are not kindly disposed towards this Government’s plan. Therefore, when they keep hammering on the question of boundaries, it is not only here in South Africa that people become dissatisfied because the exact situation of those boundaries have probably not been indicated as yet. Abroad, too, this is being hammered on, and dissatisfaction is created because those hon. members constantly hammer on this aspect of boundaries. They do this while they themselves have no practical approach in this regard.

Now I want to come to the aspect of Bantu education. As the hon. member for Rissik as well as the hon. member for Houghton quite rightly remarked, the concept of Bantu education was never intended to include university education. The reason for the insertion of this clause is simply that this must be stated clearly. The Minister’s legal advisers probably pointed out that Bantu education was a concept which might include both lower and higher education. So far the sole purpose of rectifying that legal term, or whatever it may be called, viz. that education does not include higher education or university training, but in fact excludes them, this is being done here. If this is not done, the concept of education would include the whole constellation of education. This is simply a rectification, so as to prevent any misunderstanding and so as to prevent the entire system of education being included in this on account of the word “education”. This is merely intended as a rectification.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke here, as she always does, about the poor Bantu who had to be moved to other areas. As somebody remarked, the Whites, too, are affected by this. Her immediate comment was, “Yes, but this affects much fewer Whites than Bantu.”

I forgot to say that Whites are also compensated very well.

I wonder whether the hon. member would not deliver a new speech in this regard later. The hon. member said that fewer Whites than Bantu were being affected by these removals. It is very easy to say that. In the first place we must remember that there are many more Bantu here in South Africa than there are Whites. Consequently one would naturally expect more Bantu than Whites to be affected. The Bantu population is much bigger than the White population. Under these circumstances one must expect that, in practice, more Bantu than Whites would be affected by this procedure.

Even pro rata!

Now the hon. member says “even pro rata”. It is very easy for the hon. member to talk of “pro rata” in this House without giving any figures. No figures are given in this regard. Only a blatant statement is made that more Bantu than Whites will be affected. It is simply a blatant statement without any figures. Then “pro rata” is simply added. What pro rata portion?

Do you not know the population figures?

No, I am asking the hon. member what she regards as a pro rata portion of Whites and Bantu who will be affected.

Oh!

When the hon. member speaks here of a pro rata portion, she must at least tell me what it is.

Many, many more; thousands …

What is the pro rata portion? Will the hon. member for Houghton tell me what the pro rata portion is?

I have not worked it out, but I will.

If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Houghton said she would work it out, but that she did not have the answer now.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member should not blandly talk of a pro rata portion and make such a blatant statement, and then be unable to tell us what the pro rata portion is. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must proceed and not carry on a dialogue with the hon. member for Houghton.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was just coming to the aspect of dialogue. In fact, you helped me there.

In clause 1 the word “konsultasie” (consultation) is used. Objections are now being raised to that word. Would the hon members like that word to be deleted?

It should be “raadpleging”; “konsultasie” is an ugly word.

What is the difference between “konsultasie” and “raadpleging”? The hon. member for Transkei objects to the word “consultation”; the hon. member for East London city wants the word “raadpleging” to be used. Perhaps he thinks that “konsultasie” is an Anglicism. There is constant talk of “dialogue”. Is it not a form of dialogue when one has consultation, when one goes to a person and says to him: “I want to consult you on the question whether you are willing to move to another region or area”? One does not simply go to him and tell him to go; one consults him. After all, that is how a democratic system works. There is constant consultation. What word do hon. members opposite want in the place of “konsultasie”?

“Toestemming” (consent).

And if they do not consent? In that case, are they to stay where they are, in which case also the whole federal plan of the United Party is simply to collapse?

We did not object to that word.

Oh yes, the hon. member objected to the word “consultation”, for the hon. member said that it did not really mean anything at all.

Who? I did not say that.

It is quite clear that hon. members opposite are not actually opposing this Bill on the basis of principle; but for another reason. As I said at the beginning, I think the Opposition is opposing it because the hon. member for Houghton is opposing it, and for no other reason.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the somewhat involved argument of the hon. member for Krugersdorp; I shall shortly address myself to clauses 1, 2, 4 and possibly 9 of the Bill. This Bill does not see the light of day in this House in isolation or in vacuo. It comes into existence for discussion in a known set of circumstances, one of which is the existence of the 1936 legislation, which this Bill seeks to amend, legislation which did not create, but merely confirmed in most instances, the existing pattern of Native Reserves, the boundaries of which had been established, and have been established, for generations. So this Bill comes up for discussion firstly in a known situation of land occupation so far as White and Bantu are concerned, that has been settled for generations. That is the first point. I say that because there has been quite a lot of discussion on the importance of settling boundaries, of making boundaries known, and matters of this kind. The boundaries of the Native Reserves have been known for generations, and I have the authority of the hon. the Prime Minister, who on past occasions has made that point with emphasis. So we have a known situation, Sir, so far as the boundaries of the Native Reserves are concerned.

The second factor which is in the background of this legislation, one of the known factors in the light of which this legislation comes before us, and indeed one of the reasons for this legislation, is the fact that a plan for the suggested consolidation of certain of the projected Bantu states, KwaZulu in Natal being one of them, has been placed before the public for discussion and for consideration. One knows that there has been a disclaimer by the Bantu Affairs Commission that the Government had anything to do with it, but it is nevertheless the Government’s proposal. That proposal has been discussed. It has been almost, as far as Natal is concerned, unanimously rejected by every race group that is affected, and it is now back in the hands of the hon. the Minister once again. That is a second known factor, in the light of which this legislation is before us. I hope that the hon. the Minister will find it possible in his reply to give the House some indication of the progress that is being made by him and his Bantu Affairs Commission and his department in the finalizing of that plan.

It is in the light of those factors that one considers clause 1. I may say that I am not surprised to hear that, having submitted this Bill to the KwaZulu authorities, there has been no reaction in regard to clause 1, because I myself have had the greatest difficulty in understanding what results the proposed amendments there bring about. I know that the White Paper says the effect of the amendment is to alter the existing situation, which is that where it is sought to move a Bantu tribe or portion of a tribe, and after the order has been served upon them, they object, the Minister must come to both Houses or Parliament for authority to move them. The White Paper says that that state of affairs is to be changed and that the order for removal can be obtained from both Houses of Parliament before there is any reaction from the tribe concerned. That is what the White Paper says, and for the purposes of this discussion I, like everybody else, must accept that that is what the Bill says, but I must say to the hon. gentleman that I have the greatest difficulty in reading into the words which are before us that meaning. It is obscure, and the hon. gentleman might look at that again. It is quite clear indeed not only from what we know in the light of the background which I have sketched, but also from what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in introducing the Bill, that one of the reasons why this change in clause 1 is required, this amendment to section 5 of the Bantu Administration Act, is because there will have to be considerable movement of Bantu people when once the plan which is presently being modified, presumably in the Minister’s department, emerges as a declaration of land for the purposes of section 2 of the Bantu Trust Act, in terms of clause 2 of this Bill. You see, these two are linked, Sir; there is quite clearly a link between the two. Depending on what is declared in terms of clause 2, there will be to a greater or lesser extent movement of Bantu pursuant to the amendment in clause 1. As has been painted so clearly by the hon. member for South Coast, on what we know at the present time according to the map, the only one that we have ever seen, which has been rejected all round and which the Minister is presently reconsidering, there is a likelihood of hundreds of thousands of Bantu having to be moved. Entire Reserves may be affected. One of the difficulties one had when that plan was before the public at the time was that the information which was available to us suggested that in some instances the Bantu who were proposed to be removed from a Reserve would be moved to unsuitable areas. If, for example, a Reserve near the coast were to be excised, a Reserve consisting of flat, well-watered, good agricultural land where they grow cane, the Bantu would be moved to hilly land in the interior, quite unsuited to Bantu agriculture of the type that these people have been doing for generations. Consequently, in a case such as that, it is of the utmost importance that there be no change in the existing law where, when the order is served on this entire Reserve to be removed, the proposal has to come before this House for discussion before that order becomes final, because in the atmosphere of today I can think of instances where it would be in the highest degree unwise, in my view, to carry out some of the proposals which appeared in the map which we saw a few months ago. As I understand the White Paper, that safeguard of discussion here would be removed, that safeguard where those of us who are intimately involved in this matter—because some of us live right next door—can place before the House and before the hon. the Minister the real objections there would be to the implementation of a plan of this kind, prior to its coming into effect. I believe that to change that, as is being suggested here, would be very unwise indeed. You see, Sir, there are humanitarian factors involved and the question of law and order is involved. There are economic factors involved not only for the Bantu, who happen to be the agriculturalists involved, but for the White people also, from whom settled, long-standing sources of labour will be taken away.

Is that the only interest you have in this matter, the labour resources?

I am very sorry that the hon. gentleman should have said that, Sir. I am very sorry indeed, because it so happens that in respect of my farm my principal source of labour is untouched by the hon. the Minister’s proposal. But, Sir, I do know many other areas where the labour supply of settled communities is threatened. And let the hon. the Deputy Minister remember that when you draw a supply of labour from a settled Bantu community, it is not only the man who gets the labour who benefits; the employment he gives to those people is also of benefit. And I can tell the hon. the Deputy Minister something else in respect of one community I have in mind, which is both a settled agricultural community and a supply of labour, because the women are employed. In the area to which it is proposed to move them there will be no place where those people, the women, can get employment, and so there will be hardship and there will be hunger in the households concerned. Let us not have accusations of this kind, Sir, when there is no foundation for them. That, then, in brief is my objection to clause 1, and like other members, I believe it is fatal to the Bill.

I then come to clause 2. Clause 2 makes provision for the hon. the Minister to declare by resolution of both Houses of Parliament an area as being an area declared for the purposes of this clause, which is another way of saying that by resolution of both Houses the Minister can have declared as a known quasi legal entity the ultimate boundary of a proposed Bantu state. I may say, Sir, that I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Houghton, so far as I understood her, fall for the bait, which the Government has been trying to dangle before the public for some time now, that consolidation for the purpose of creating a Black state is in fact the carrying out of the 1936 legislation.

I did not fall for it.

Well, that is how I understood the hon. member. I might have been wrong. The 1936 legislation has nothing whatever to do with consolidation for the purpose of creating a Black state—nothing whatever. At the time that legislation was introduced nothing was further from the minds of Gen. Hertzog and others than the creation of independent Black states. The Bantu Affairs Commission, the hon. the Deputy Minister piloting this Bill through the House and others have gone out of their way on every conceivable occasion to tell the people that this wholesale consolidation, which involves the shifting of hundreds of thousands of people against their will—this is the point—is the old “beleid” of the 1936 legislation, and, of course, Sir, it has nothing to do with it.

In respect of clause 2, the hon. the Minister will make his announcement of the proposed final boundaries of the consolidated KwaZulu state, and he will make that announcement whether we have clause 2 or not. The hon. gentleman is bound, in terms of his policy, to make that announcement at some stage. He has made a preliminary one already. We have discussed it, and it is now back in his hands again for modification, I take it. Sir, let us get it clear: Whether we have clause 2 or not, we have to face all the problems which stem from the Government’s consolidation plan when it finally emerges. The only advantage that I can see flowing from clause 2 is that it will at least give a measure of certainty to the situation in this sense, that having embodied those boundaries in a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, it will at least be a little more difficult to change them in the future than it would be if it were merely an announcement from the Minister’s office, and to that extent one can say that it gives the people who are involved greater certainty. But, of course, Sir, as the Deputy Minister has said, when that plan is announced it is going to take 15 or 20 years or more—who knows?—before the whole of that land is declared a released area and is purchased, and the inhibiting effect that it will have in many cases—it has had it already—is that it will place the people, both young and old, but one is more concerned with the young, in the position where they cannot deal with their own freehold property either by way of sale or by borrowing money to meet death duties, because in effect that property is frozen until the hon. the Minister buys it, which may be for a period of 20 years. Either way, Sir, there is untold hardship stemming from the proposals which will follow on the implementation of this clause. But, as hon. gentlemen have said, the final discussion on that aspect, of course, will be when the resolutions are introduced at the appropriate time dealing with, as far as I am concerned, the province of Natal.

Then there is clause 4, which deals with the question of leases. The hon. member for Transkei, when he spoke initially, said that we shall seek to bring about a state of affairs where the department can lease but where the details of the leases, that is to say, the properties leased and to whom they are leased, will be placed before this House, either by tabling them or in some similar way. The point here is this. It ought to be known to this House and to the public what trust land is leased to persons other than Bantu and the purpose for which it is leased. One says this because there have been cases here and there where prima facie—and it is extremely difficult to get the facts—leases have been made in a manner in which or to individuals to whom they ought not to have been made. It is for that reason that I believe that the public should be placed in possession of the knowledge of the persons to whom and the reasons for which and the manner in which land in the possession of the Bantu Trust is leased to persons other than Bantu.

Then there is the point made by the hon. member for Christiana in regard to clause 2, that the need for this clause is because the hon. the Minister in declaring the released areas, to enable him to bring about the consolidation of these Bantu areas into Black states, will have the difficulty of exceeding the quota unless he has clause 2 behind him to facilitate the position. Well, I do not read it that way. As far as I can see, if the Minister were to make his intentions in regard to the whole grand scheme known and were then to proceed to declare pieces here and pieces there as released areas, pari passu with excising those areas from the Native Reserves he proposes to excise, he could overcome his problem without exceeding the quota. Nevertheless the departmental officials apparently take a different point of view; they seem to think that this clause is required for that.

The hon. member for Rissik asked us not to doubt the bona fides of the Government in redrawing the boundaries, and not to play into the hands of agitators by making a fuss about the redrawing of boundaries when in fact they will be drawn. Now, Sir, I do not doubt the bona fides of the Government in redrawing the boundaries but I must say that when hundreds of thousands of people are shifted in the process of redrawing boundaries, people who are old and long standing settled communities, and one can see no purpose whatever in the redrawing of these boundaries, then it is with difficulty that one accepts the bona fides of the Government. I say again I do not doubt their bona fides but what one can say is that they are hopelessly misguided in the course they are pursuing.

That is all I wish to say on this Bill, save for clause 9 where the question of education was dealt with by some of the hon. gentlemen who spoke on the other side. The point made by the hon. member for Transkei, as I understood him, was that when this legislation, which is being amended, that is to say the Transkei Constitution Act, was passed, the term used was “Bantu education”, which is clear in meaning and which is a simple expression, and which means Bantu education in the full sense of the word, and was so understood at the time. That was the point made by the hon. member for Transkei, and clearly now there is an attempt to backpedal as far as that is concerned. Those are the only clauses I wish to discuss, the others having been adequately dealt with by other speakers.

This Bill deals with a variety of divergent problems, inter alia, with Acts that must be changed and put right in order to facilitate the administration, as I have said, and it was therefore necessary to refer to the various clauses. In the discussion, what it subsequently amounted to was that we actually had an exchange of ideas about each clause separately, but from the nature of the case and, to a large extent, it could not be otherwise. But if I were to sum it all up, I would say that an important exchange of ideas came to the fore, particularly about the question of dialogue with the Bantu governments on problems that affect them. Now we have the extraordinary position of there constantly being accusations to the effect that we do not consult the people. We are now changing an Act by means of clause 1 and we state: “After consultation by the Minister with the Bantu governments concerned” instead of its having to come before Parliament. This Parliament is, in fact, requested beforehand to approve it, because if we do planning, the contemplated planning is discussed and we say that we are suggesting that this or that Bantu area should be there, or there. Therefore, you will in effect have to attach your approval. The hon. members now want the relevant Bantu government not to have the final say, but that this Parliament should have it. However, that is not our approach; there is, therefore, clearly a difference in approach. Our approach is that those governments be consulted, and those things are done in consultation with them.

I was asked a moment ago whether the KwaZulu Government had agreed with this. I can tell hon. members that all these governments are informed about legislation and asked for their comment. In some cases they see that they are not affected, and then they just say they have no objection, or there is no reaction on their part. I have gone and ascertained the position, and I now want to give hon. members full information. As far as the KwaZulu Government is concerned, Chief Buthelezi wrote personally and said that he wanted it changed so that it did not read “after consultation by the Minister with the Bantu government concerned”, but “with the approval of the Bantu government”. That is the demand he made. It is very clear that, as far as these matters are concerned, he wants his Government to give its approval. However, this Parliament wants these matters, affecting the Bantu and their moving, to have its final approval. However, this is, in fact, done beforehand, but I do not believe it is the hon. member’s intention to desire that recourse must be had to this Parliament in matters of this particular nature.

I want to go further and say that I have been informed by my Department that the KwaZulu Executive Council wrote a letter in which they stated that they are satisfied with the Bill as it reads at present. There, consequently, the Leader adopted one standpoint, and a while later the executive council formulated their decision. That is the position we have at present. I want to emphasize again that in legislation affecting the Bantu peoples, in legislation that comes before this Parliament, they are properly consulted. The Bills are sent to them in good time, and they discuss them, after which they make their relevant comment. They are, in other words, properly consulted, and I therefore feel that we cannot take much notice of the objection raised against clause I. In future these matters will be carried out in consultation with these people, and there is no reason why the Act should retain the fact that this Parliament must serve as the last refuge of a relevant group that perhaps does not like to move.

But if they are opposed to it?

Well, in the long run a decision must be taken, and whether this Parliament does so, or the Minister in consultation with the homeland Governments, does not really matter. I can tell you that I agree that shifting people is not something one likes to do. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned one such case, and I know that she wanted to tell me that she wrote me a letter in which I was informed that a person was moved from Pilgrim’s Rest. In reply to that I told her the matter was being investigated, because we did not move people from Pilgrim’s Rest. Mining companies have Black spots there on their farms which are have been told by them to withdraw; thus people are being moved in various ways by private undertakings. It is necessary for us to plan in such a way that there will be proper and long-term planning so that this type of person can be moved where there are spots. There are such spots; I could mention numerous such spots in the Transvaal, where there is an illegal flocking together, the people living under the most unhygienic and uncontrolled conditions. It is in their own interests that they be moved. Even there in Natal this is the case. The hon. member for Zululand gesticulated wildly here and mentioned large figures, and the hon. member for South Coast whom, I am sorry to see, is not here, also got very excited because I interrupted him a little. I know he is serious, but I feel that all the members of this House must realize that in Natal, for example, there are 205 areas, i.e. 157 Black spots and 48 poorly situated Bantu areas which it is impossible for one to give proper administration and control to, and this includes housing and everything that goes with it. It is very obvious that it cannot happen, and within the framework of the policy of this Government it is very clear that order must be created. The hon. member for Zululand says that everyone already has it. That is the information he has at his disposal, and I can tell him, as Leader of the United Party in Natal, that if he draws conclusions in this way on the basis of the limited information apparently at his disposal, he is going to have trouble. Because the plans in connection with consolidation are now at issue here, I want to tell him that the Bantu Affairs Commission went back repeatedly, when there were proposals—last week there were again discussions with the Natal Agricultural Union, and I am still awaiting the report. There are certain points on which unanimity had not been reached. Those particulars will be contained in our proposals, but I cannot say precisely when. I hope that within a month we shall have finality, and be able to say that the aspects have now been weighed up properly and that proposals can now be submitted to Parliament. To go and say now that this is senseless, that we just want to move people, is far-fetched. It is being done in consultation with these Bantu governments that would like to see their peoples together and would like them properly settled. It is necessary, in the interests of good order in this country, that this be done. Whereas responsibilities have been evaded in the past, the National Party and this Government are not afraid to tackle this task now and to make a success of it. I have not the slightest doubt about that. The hon. member for Transkei lodged a plea for land to be bought up quickly. A few years ago he had a proposal in which he asked for them to have the final boundaries, but now that we have here legislation by which we want to make the boundaries known to him, he says he does not want it, unless the land is purchased immediately. But that does not matter. It does not matter how the hon. member jumps around now …

What did the hon. the Deputy Minister say, does that not matter?

What I now mean is that it does not matter what the hon. member says, because he jumps around in any case; it is not clear what he wants. The position is that more than a million hectares of land must be purchased throughout the country; it probably belongs to quite a few thousand different owners. To properly plan and occupy that land now is no easy task. It is inevitably going to take time. An amount of about R240 million is necessary to obtain the quota land alone. If one had it today, and could negotiate with those people, one could not let it lie after one has negotiated and purchased the land. A proper organization must be created, and that is a tremendous task. In practice the position is also such that one farmer accepts and another one does not, and sometimes negotiations must be entered into with one man that could last years, literally years. We must bear that in mind. The State would not like to expropriate land and let the people feel they were being forced from their farms. I am mentioning these practical problems we are faced with. The hon. member for Houghton referred to that, but she must accept that it is in the country’s interests for these matters to receive attention now, and that they are being approached rationally so that order can be created and problems can be solved. I do not want to dwell on that any longer; I think that the problems raised here have been dealt with. I want to refer briefly to the question of leasing, in connection with which the hon. member for Transkei says that we must return to Parliament with a list. I can tell the hon. member that what we are saddled with in that connection are practical and administrative problems. Unfortunately it is so that, since 1936 land has been leased for shorter and longer periods. It has come to my attention that the law actually prohibits this. That has been the case from the beginning. That is why we are now making it retrospective. I can tell hon. members what one of the practical problems is in connection with the purchase of land. If one purchases a farm today one cannot immediately occupy it. The owner wants to leave, and one therefore has to get someone to keep an eye on things. One does not simply want to give the use of the place to people for nothing during the transfer period, until one can occupy the place. In some cases we shall have to negotiate with the owner himself.

There are a large number of cases that are of a temporary nature, all of whom we cannot give approval to as far as leasing is concerned. I am sorry the hon. member for Zululand referred to the fact that there is suspicion in connection with certain of them. If there is any land in his area, which may have been leased by the Trust, and about which he wants particulars, he is free to come forward. It is a difficult task. Last year I had big problems in the Western Transvaal because we decided to excise a piece of land as a Bantu area; it was not deproclaimed immediately. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure may not take it over before it is deproclaimed. What was the subsequent position? I had to make arrangements for people to look after it in the meantime. I eventually told my department and the local Bantu commissioner that they should negotiate so that we could get, as soon as possible, a lessee or supervisor that must pay for it. In any case, I do not want to elaborate on that, but there are practical problems. Sometimes it is only a small piece of land that is not occupied. At the moment there is drought. When we have purchased a piece of land for a Bantu township, we receive applications from people who want to lease the land. If we lease, I prefer having to advertise it. My department is not geared for handling such a matter. Neither is it a long-term task of the department. I prefer, I can tell you, to refer it to agricultural unions or farming associations in the various areas and to ask them, under certain basic conditions, to help us.

Our amendment does not prohibit this.

What it amounts to in practice is that we sometimes have to lease. We have already done so, and we shall do so again in the future. To come and place all those transactions, which sometimes only apply for a few months, before Parliament for approval, is not worth the trouble, because it causes a great deal of administrative work. We heard here how bureaucracy is rampant, and that we should have less Government interference. The long-windedness makes it impossible for the Government to administer efficiently, therefore I do not think we can make out a case for submission to Parliament. In any case, I want to tell hon. members that we shall look at that and consider referring any leasing to the agricultural unions. We shall look at everything that can possibly be done.

The other matter, which there is a great deal of objection to, is the question of service contracts. I can just mention that this is in prescribed areas, as the hon. member for Christiana mentioned. I can tell hon. members that this is the case today. There are regulations that these contracts must be longer than three days. However, this is contrary to the law, and that is why we are changing the law. It has already been like this for years. Therefore it is indeed the case today. It is nothing new, and it is desirable. This applies only in the prescribed areas. As far as the platteland and agricultural labour are concerned, there it is and will remain 30 days.

Objections have also been lodged against the fact that Bantu universities are now being excluded under the description “Bantu education”. There has been quite a bit of argument about that. As far as I am concerned I want to point out that the Government handles higher education, under which the universities fall; the provinces deal with other education. There is the clear difference in this country, a difference which has existed throughout the years. It is true that in the existing Act reference was made only to education, while primary and intermediary education are now gradually going to be given to the Bantu authorities. There is no sense in saying that because primary education is being given to them, everything must be given to them. That is why we are now making a correction to facilitate a separation, on the Statute Book as well, so that this does not include university education. I can see no reason why a fuss has to be made about this. If the time comes when those people can have control of that, they will get that control. One year there are arguments here about our giving the people too much, and about their not being able to handle it. Now, on the other hand, there are arguments and requests about why we do not simply give them everything. The handling of a university and a university set-up is a very important and difficult thing. Neither do we have a university for each area, for each national unit—various national groups attend the universities. I do want to tell the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Let me first just finish, please. There is a strong feeling amongst these people that each person must have his own university. If one authority, for example at Turfloop, obtains control over the university, friction and problems will be created very easily. We have a great deal to say here about friction between Whites and non-Whites, but the friction between Black people is very bad in some cases. It is therefore necessary for us to keep this out of their control until such time as each of these peoples can obtain separate facilities for university training. The hon. member may now ask his question.

Did I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly when he made the comparison with the provinces, i.e. that since university education at present falls under the Central Government, and ordinary higher education under the provinces, this is what will now pertain for the Bantu areas?

But the same principles that apply for us, can also apply for the Bantu areas. There is a division of education, for example as in our case, where the Government controls higher education, and the provincial councils control primary education. The same principle applies, and if we also make a division there, it is nothing new.

Are you then dismissing the policy of sovereign independence …

It has nothing to do with sovereign independence. The fact is that they are now at the stage where they can control primary and intermediate education. This we can now give them where it becomes necessary. We do not simply want to give university education as well, because there are certain problems in that connection.

The last aspect is in connection with Bantu Administration Boards, in respect of which we propose certain charges in existing legislation. There were a few doubts about this, in connection with the composition, etc., of the Administration Boards. I cannot see that these doubts carry much weight, for the simple reason that there we now have a proper division between commerce, industry, agriculture and the local authorities. The hon. member for Transkei felt that certain large village councils could perhaps be adversely affected. I can give him the assurance that there is provision in the Bill to look after all these problems.

Where?

In clause 17 there is a contemplated division of the categories referred to in section 17(3)(l)(a),(b) and (c). This relates to the local authorities, commerce, industry and agriculture—all three sectors. [Interjection.] The argument is now that certain of them could be put in the wrong. Theoretically there is perhaps the danger, but any practical administration will, in fact, ensure proper representation if there is a large local authority that has large numbers of Bantu. I think it is nothing but a good, sound approach, and it is obvious that it will have to happen. I cannot see any reason why it has to be defined in the Bill in more detail.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have very briefly given attention to most of the problems that hon. members foresee. I can say, of course, that since these are various clauses that must be dealt with, with various principles, the matter can be discussed in greater detail in the Committee Stage. In conclusion I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House, who took part in the debate, for their constructive contributions. I think they have given me exceptional support and clarification. I do not think there are important matters that have been overlooked, or which I did not give attention to.

Question put and the House divided:

AYES—91: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J., Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—40: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is comparatively simple and, actually, self-explanatory, and therefore I shall not keep hon. members long in dealing with it. However, before making any further comments on the proposed measures, I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that the provisions of the three Bantu University Acts are almost identical; consequently hon. members will notice that the additions and amendments that are now being introduced in the three Acts contain exactly the same principles and correspond word for word. Furthermore, I also want to tell you at the very beginning that the Bill enjoys the full support of the three university councils. In fact, the majority of the amendments are being introduced at their instance.

Mr. Speaker, the proposals contained in the Bill briefly amount to the approval of this House being asked for—

1. (a) the Bantu universities to be able to conduct their university activities also at places other than their present seats, in other words, for the universities to be able to establish departments or branches of the universities at places removed from the present university campuses,
2. (b) for the universities to be able to invest, lend and borrow money and for the Minister to be able to guarantee the repayment of loans negotiated, and
3. (c) for the council and the senate of every university to assign some of its powers or functions to its various committees with full powers of action.

Seats of Universities:

Mr. Speaker, it has been found that a large potential of young Bantu is lost to further study because the existing Bantu universities are at too great a distance from them. This also applies to large numbers of teachers in densely populated residential areas (in homelands) who would like to improve their academic qualifications through extra-mural studies.

Requests have also been received from some homelands which do not have their own university institutions, for the establishment of universities in those areas so that their students may receive their training within their own national context. Instead of establishing new universities at a very great cost, it has been decided in consultation with the university authorities concerned, rather to allow the existing Bantu universities to expand their services, away from the university campuses, to other centres where there is an urgent need for university education, full-time and after hours. The Universities of Natal, Stellenbosch, Potchefstroom and others are already offering training on such a decentralized basis, and consequently it is not a completely new principle that we are dealing with here.

Making university education available on a more decentralized basis has the advantage, firstly, that more students will be enabled to receive university training; secondly, that training can be made available in densely populated areas where the provision of hotel accommodation is not necessary and where courses may also be taken after hours if need be; thirdly, that more students will have the opportunity of receiving their university education in their own homelands and consequently within their own national context; fourthly, that it may bring relief later on, and right from the start at existing campuses; fifthly, that some existing teachers’ training institutions and theological schools could possibly be linked up with such a scheme as well; and, finally, that some of the proposed branches may be gradually developed in later years even if it takes a long time, into full-fledged universities. However, the seats of the Bantu universities are laid down in their various Acts, and statutorily it is not in their power to conduct their university activities at other places as well. This matter is now being remedied in clauses 1, 5 and 9 of the Bill.

Consideration has been given to defining the operating areas of the various Bantu universities more specifically, as was done in the case of White universities. It has been decided, however, that it is neither desirable nor really necessary at this stage to define the proposed new seats more specifically, and for the following reasons: Firstly, if specific places are mentioned in certain homelands and not in others, it may lead to dissatisfaction. Secondly, a homeland government will have to be consulted beforehand in regard to determining a site in its own area, which could be a very protracted process. And, thirdly, the present position of the Bantu universities is not comparable with that of the White universities in the present set-up. Ten residential universities are already in existence in the White area, and it is essential that the places where they conduct their activities be defined specifically. As against this, there are only three Bantu universities for the various ethnic units, and every homeland does not even have its own university yet. Only when one or more full universities are established in a single homeland will it be necessary to define the seats of those universities more clearly and more specifically. In such a homeland the position in respect of the universities will then be comparable with the present position of the White universities.

On the other hand I must make it very clear that it is by no means the object of this measure to allow departments or branches of the universities now to be founded and established left, right and centre. I want to give the House the assurance that every case will first be examined thoroughly in conjunction with the university authorities and the homeland governments concerned, and that the student potential and the needs of every area in question will be of decisive importance. To that I must add that the financial implications must always be duly taken into account. That is another reason why major and ambitious schemes are not being considered at this stage. All that is being envisaged at this stage, is a small beginning with annual expansion as the demand grows. Furthermore, for the time being it will only be possible to offer training in a limited number of popular fields of study which do not require laboratories and expensive apparatus.

Now I come to the second part of the Bill, which deals with investments and loans. Although the universities are corporate bodies, they do not have the power in law to invest, lend or borrow money. According to the Government law advisers the universities as corporate bodies only have such powers as they may exercise under the legislation relating to them.

The Bantu universities already have their own funds, and from the nature of the case they must, as is the position in the case of White universities, have the power to be able to invest or lend out their money, for instance in the form of study loans to students, to mention one example. The three universities also foresee that in the near future they will have to negotiate private loans for services for which the State does not normally make available the necessary funds. The shortcomings in the University Acts with regard to the investment, lending and borrowing of money are now being remedied in this Bill, and the position of the Bantu universities in this respect is being brought into line with that of White universities.

In the last instance, I want to say something about the committees of the council and of the senate. The council and the senate of any university may appoint committees of the council and the senate, respectively, and may assign any of their powers and functions to such committees. However, as the relevant statutory provisions read at present, the council and the senate are required to review and finally approve the decisions of their respective committees at their respective next following meetings before such decisions can be implemented. This procedure has promoted delays and makes the administration difficult and cumbersome. The universities have consequently asked for the provisions in question to be amended so as to enable the council and the senate to assign any of their powers and functions to their respective committees with full powers of action, subject to the qualification that in the case of a council committee, such a committee shall only consist of members of the council, for instance the executive committee of the council. In the case of senate committees, however, this qualification is not desirable since one usually finds that on faculty councils, which are important committees of the senate, there are also faculty lecturers who are not members of the senate.

The requirement that is being laid down, namely that the councils and senates must review the decisions of their respective committees, is consequently being omitted now. However, the council and the senate still retain the right to alter or set aside, if necessary, any decisions taken by committees.

Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will agree that I did not come here today with principles foreign to universities, but that I have only proposed that certain well-established and well-known university practices should also apply in future to the three Bantu universities. It is therefore without any hesitation whatever that I want to express the hope that this House will lend its full support to the proposed measure.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection in principle to this Bill as I am quite sure the hon. the Deputy Minister would have guessed in any case. I shall only deal with clauses 1 to 4 as they apply to Fort Hare because the other ones are, in fact, duplicates of those four. We welcome very much the principle of the three universities being able to establish further branches of the university in other areas and for obvious reasons, some of which the hon. the Deputy Minister has already stated. It is quite clear that the extension of higher education, making it available to a greater number of people, can only be of value everywhere. I say that we entirely approve of that. There is of course another point and that is that this extension of the university’s activities should be to the benefit of poorer students who cannot afford boarding fees at and transportation fees to some educational institution that may be relatively far away as far as they are concerned. It saves them a lot of money if they can attend an institution much closer to their homes and it gives them an opportunity to improve their education and their status in general.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, which deals with the right of the university to acquire property and invest and borrow money and so on, we have no objection. It is obviously a similar provision to that contained in the Statutes of all the other universities in the country as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. It is only right and proper, under these circumstances, that any loans for which the university may consider it necessary to apply, should be guaranteed by the Treasury in the same way as such loans are guaranteed by the Treasury for all the other universities in the country.

We do not have any objection to clauses 3 and 4. They both merely help to streamline the working procedure of the universities where both the senates and the councils are concerned. They are relevant only to the work done by special committees which the councils and the senates of the universities are entitled to appoint for specific purposes in connection with their work.

Clauses 5 to 9 refer to the University of Zululand at Ngoya. They cover the same principles and the same practical proposals as those which are applicable to Fort Hare. Clauses 10 to 12 apply, equally, to Turf-loop. I must say that as far as Turfloop is concerned, I would think that they would probably welcome this extension clause more than anybody else because that area encompasses so many different communities of people over a large area of the country. I can only think that the University of the North will find this of immense value in the future.

In conclusion: I only have one reservation, which concerns a matter of principle, and that is that we regret that the State President saw fit in his speech at the opening of Parliament to mention that where the University of Durban-Westville for Indians and the University of the Western Cape were going to eliminate advisory councils and advisory senates, this is not applicable to the three Black universities in terms of this Bill. I visited all three of these universities last year and there is a large number of the African staff who are highly qualified people. It really is a matter of regret to us that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not seen fit to incorporate a similar clause which would make it applicable to these three universities. I hope very much that he will think in these terms and that he will do something about it before very long. We on this side of the House feel very strongly that the concept of any senate or any council at any university being separated on a racial basis is quite inconsistent with academic standards and traditions anywhere in the world.

Apart from that qualification we have no objection to the Bill and we shall not oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first occasion on which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education is in charge of a Second Reading debate, I would like to congratulate him from this side of the House on the distinction that befell him when he was appointed Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. On this occasion he gave such a crystal-clear exposition of this amending Bill that the Opposition were unable to raise any objections to it.

I would like to discuss clauses 1, 5 and 9. They concern the University of Fort Hare, the University of Zululand and the University of the North, and dealt with the extension of the facilities for the making available of higher education. It is a very important principle that university training should be made available to the largest possible number of people—in this instance the Bantu. Hon. members who are interested in Bantu education will recall that last year, during the discussion of the Bantu Education Vote, I raised this matter and asked for the extension of facilities and for the establishment of branches of existing Bantu universities in densely populated areas where many Bantu are concentrated. The hon. member for Wynberg, who preceded me, referred to the University of the North. In the case of that university five population groups are being served, namely the Tswanas, the North Sothos, the South Sothos, the Vendas and the Shangaans. It is a fact that the South Sotho and the Tswana, for example, are already striving for a university in their particular areas. In the case of the Tswanas, I am told that they have already started a fund for that purpose. That is decidedly a very praiseworthy undertaking. It is also a fact that, as a result of the enormous costs connected with the establishment of a university, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred, it is not possible to comply with such requests from the Bantu peoples. Therefore the solution is the establishment of branches of the mother university in the various densely populated regions. We also know that it is, of course, virtually impossible for the Bantu who are matriculated to attend a university which is situated far from their region. It is on the one hand a question of funds. Bursaries are not freely available. If the funds were available, drastic changes could in any case not be made, even through the Government, for example, were to grant large subsidies. Therefore I think it is realistic and wise that these facilities are now going to be provided.

One is aware that there are Bantu teachers in service who wish to improve their qualifications, on the one hand, to render a better service to their community and, on the other hand, for reasons of promotion. These people, in particular, will welcome this very much. I think that there are of course other matriculated Bantu who will welcome these facilities, in whatever way these are provided—by means of extramural classes, part-time or evening classes. I would very much like to support an important point raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that, following these announcements, requests will certainly come from various densely populated Bantu areas for such facilities to be created in their particular areas. This cannot, of course, be done freely. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that these would be allocated with great circumspection. It is a fact that the White universities have already had great success with the establishment of branches of universities and the extension of universities to other areas. It works very well.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this amending legislation is once again convincing proof of the sincere intentions of the Government regarding the education of the Bantu at all levels, but in this instance, of course, it concerns the university level. I would like to say that for me, as one who is particularly interested in education in general, and also, in this instance, in Bantu education in particular, this is a fine and positive development with regard to education on the tertiary level.

Mr. Speaker, I will not hold the House up for very long. I simply want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I join with the hon. member for Koedoespoort in wishing him well in his post. I am very glad that the first Bill he has introduced into this House has met with the unanimous support from everybody in this House. I believe that the Bill is important in that it does offer further opportunities for higher education to African students. I think it a pity, after all, that there has never been the thought of siting a university near the big urban centres such as Soweto. Turfloop University is indeed very isolated where it presently is. It is possible that through this Bill education may be made more readily available to all the thousands of urban high-school students, some of whom anyway one hopes will eventually aspire to university education, whereas now many are prevented from so doing because of the expense involved in having to board out in order to attend the university.

In principle I have no objection to this Bill. I wish to support it and, as I say, I only hope that the other Bills which this hon. Deputy Minister is going to introduce will equally be greeted with such unanimous support, although I doubt it.

Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member for Houghton has done now is probably one of the most realistic and sensible things she has done for a long time. We even have the support of the official Opposition! If they carry on like that, all augurs well for the future.

*I should like to say however that I am astonished at the attitude they are adopting today, particularly when I consider what the Opposition has always been saying about this entire policy of ours regarding the creation of the Bantu universities. I just want to point out their predictions in the past how this entire situation would fail and how those universities would be of such a poor standard that it would not be possible to compare them with other universities. Then I want to say that this legislation before the House today is of great importance. It is an amending Bill, but it is further confirmation of the consequences of our policy. [Interjections.] Naturally. Apart from the fact that these amendments are proof of progress and constitute an extension of the 1969 legislation, this legislation is of particular importance for the University of the North, probably more so than for the other two universities.

These universities have been in existence for 13 years. The standard of these universities has not dropped; they are growing all the time. The predictions we had, therefore did not come true. I want to say that the standard of this university has always remained high and unimpaired. At the University of the North Black people constitute 30% of the staff. I think we must all appreciate that the White man is making an enormous contribution towards developing and assisting the Black man here in South Africa. They provide 70% of the teaching staff, they finance it; still more teaching staff is being provided at the other universities. Today there are no obstacles in the way of any Black man to better and qualify himself if he only wants to. The doors are open to him; he can reach the highest rung if he only wants to. But something we must remember and these people will also have to remember, is that he will not get a post simply because he is a Black man. Merit is also required. The standards of the universities must be kept at a high level. These amendments allow those universities to obtain loans from outside, and here is a golden opportunity for those bodies who wish to help. Here is a golden opportunity for those people who have always criticized us and said that we do not do enough to make the Black man productive and self-supporting. Here is an opportunity for them to contribute to the progress of these universities. The universities are now completely independent and are able to obtain loans now. These universities have now well and truly been set on their course. They should not be distracted from this course, but should be supported further by the Black awareness which is taking root in Africa and throughout South Africa today. This awareness is to be found at all levels at which we are moving. For example, one gets the Black view of theology. There is Black history. There is Black art. One can in fact call it a Black confrontation. It is a complete Black orientation, based on Black experience, which involved the Black community. This Black awareness would be far more mature and fruitful if it were associated with the nationalism of a particular people, because it would then be positively orientated..

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I am coming to the point that branches can be established by these universities, and I am dealing with this very point now. Through this legislation the White man is once again doing the Black man a great service. As you will notice from the legislation, Sir this is again a step forward. This institution, the University of the North, is no longer situated in the district of Pietersburg, but in the district of Thabamoopo, in the Lebowa homeland. In other words, it is once again a step forward in the entire set-up of our policy of separate development.

As I have said, the University of the North serves several peoples. This legislation now enables the university to decentralize to the homelands of those peoples it serves. What could now happen, is that a branch of the university could be established in each of the homelands which would then give the students there the opportunity to study within their own national set-up. There would be no need for them to travel long distances to reach an institution of higher education. It is this legislation in particular which makes it possible for the university to decentralize and establish branches. This is important, because, as you know, Sir, the Tswanas have already asked for a new university of their own, In terms of this Bill the nucleus of a university can be established under the wing of the University of the North, without that nucleus having to lose any of the accepted university standards since this takes place under the control of the University of the North. The University of the North could play a major role in those few homelands because it could play a role similar to that played by the University of South Africa for the whole Republic. It could be an umbrella university for those national groups.

I would like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on this extraordinary, positive piece of legislation he submitted to this House. I think this further development can only improve relations between ourselves and the Black peoples around us who will always be our neighbours. I hope that this service the White man is doing the Black man in such an honest and sincere way, will help our children to co-exist with them in good and happy circumstances in future.

Mr. Speaker, after all the good wishes that have been expressed here, I want to say that I hope this will remain so now and for always as I used to say when I was still a minister of religion.

You are an optimist.

When I hear that interjection, however, it seems as if there are members opposite who are not as wise as the hon. member for Wynberg is. I can only express my gratitude for the support this Bill has received. There are many things in South Africa, on which we, despite all our differences, are in agreement. I do not wish to sound as if I am sermonizing about it, but I think that we do agree on this one aspect, viz. that each of us—this I believe of the Opposition, and I trust they believe this of us too, even though they do not always say so—is trying in his own way to make South Africa a happier society for all races. This Bill is an attempt in that direction, viz. to offer other people the opportunities we have made possible for ourselves through the years. But I want to warn against one thing before numerous requests for the establishment of branches are received. In view of the request made here for these branches or faculties to be extended to other places, we should be careful not to cause the education of the Bantu to become inferior through too rapid expansion. The quality must always be maintained and therefore I warned that we must take the financial implications into account, but to that I would add a second aspect we have to take into account and in this connection I wish to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Pietersburg in connection with the lecturers at Turfloop and other places. While this Bill is under discussion, I wish to express a word of thanks to those Whites and others who, at Turfloop, have rendered these services to the universities. I think the sacrifices these people have to make in order to perform this work as an idealistic task are often not appreciated. I can also include those people in the homelands—their directors of education and the teachers—and the work that is being done there by Whites under difficult circumstances, far away from the luxuries of the cities and all other advantages in the cities, because these people are striving to realize an ideal. These people deserve the gratitude and appreciation not only of the non-Whites whom they are serving, but also the gratitude of the Whites. I think that in this connection we must take note that when it comes to the establishment of a university one wants lecturers of quality and that the standard of education could be prejudiced by proceeding too rapidly, because your teaching personnel would not have the required standard of training. We shall have to take that into consideration too. This Bill does not immediately create a paradise, in which everyone will all of a sudden receive education. I wish to remove that illusion. As was said by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, we shall attain the best results if we make haste slowly and do our work well. I thank hon. members for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction and discussion of the University Education (Agricultural and Veterinary Science Affairs) Bill, 1973, we come to the end of a period of university education in agricultural and veterinary science, which has already become traditional, traditional in this respect that the training of agricultural students has since 1925 taken place in conjunction with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The establishment of the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Stellenbosch in 1925, and subsequently at the Universities of Pretoria (including the Faculty of Veterinary Science), Natal and the Orange Free State were great landmarks in the history of agricultural training.

These faculties consequently made an outstanding contribution to the development of agriculture in our country in the form of research, the training of research workers and extension officers that are so important to the Department of Agriculture and the private sector serving the agricultural industry. Consequently I think it is appropriate that we pay tribute here to the men who devoted their lives to the task of agricultural training at the various Faculties of Agriculture and Faculty of Veterinary Science. These faculties produced for us world experts in the field of agriculture and many excellent officers with whom we were able to fill the senior posts in the Department of Agriculture.

Before I come to reasons for the transfer of the faculties I want to give those who may perhaps regard the transfer idea with scepticism the assurance that no deterioration in the standard of training of our agricultural students will be tolerated. To guard against this the various universities, the Department of National Education and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are holding discussions. An assurance is also given to those in the agricultural industry who may be concerned about there not being in the same unity in the field of research that the co-operation will be as cordial as it has been in the past. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services already has a system in operation by means of which research projects at universities are being financed. After transfer the Faculties of Agriculture will be able to make use of this arrangement in ample measure. The joint utilization of experimental farms and other research facilities of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will at all times be encouraged.

Hitherto the Faculties of Agriculture and the Faculty of Veterinary Science, although full-fledged academic faculties of the universities concerned, were dependent on the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for financing and staff who were appointed in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act, 1957.

This state of affairs entailed that the lecturing staff were academically responsible to the university authorities concerned and, on the other hand, to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for compliance with conditions of service. In many respects the Department of Agricultural Technical Services consequently performed the functions which were really the responsibility of the Department of National Education.

As a result of the ambiguous control, and the concern which arose among the interested departments and staff, a committee of inquiry into a proper home for said faculties was appointed in 1968 under the chairmanship of Dr. C. v. d. M. Brink, which reported during 1970. The most important recommendations of the Committee in so far as this legislation is concerned, are the following:

1. 1. The detaching of the four Faculties of Agriculture and the Faculty of Veterinary Science from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and the appointment of the lecturing staff as university lecturers.
2. 2. The repeal of the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College of Agriculture Act, 1926, in place of which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the University of Stellenbosch should make arrangements for entering into a suitable agreement.
3. 3. The financing of the educational costs of the Faculties of Agriculture and the Faculty of Veterinary Science should be done by means of a subsidy formula via the Department of National Education, just as for other applied sciences.
4. 4. That financing of special research requirements of the faculties be provided by means of a research auxiliary fund to be made available by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

The Bill before this hon. House today is merely intended to make provision for the general principles of transfer, which include the transfer of movable and immovable State property, the transfer of staff to the faculties and other related matters.

It is self-evident that since the faculties have for so many years been interlinked with the functions of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the process of detaching the faculties cannot take place overnight.

In this respect it was necessary to establish various local committees on which senior staff members of the universities in question and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services served, in order to work out the details of the eventual transfer and submit recommendations to the Department in question.

It is being reported to me that the negotiations with the Universities were held in a very good spirit of co-operation and goodwill and I have no doubt that solutions to the initial problems will in fact be found. In this way, for example, it has already been agreed that the lecturing staff of the faculties of agriculture will, for the 1973 academic year, proceed more or less according to the old dispensation. So, too, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has undertaken to manage the experimental farms of the Universities until such time as the Universities are able to do this themselves. In this way there are numerous examples of existing joint research projects which will continue undisturbed.

Mr. Speaker, this disposes of the principles on which the Bill is based. I should like to add that all the parties concerned, including the South African Agricultural Union, support the principles of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity the hon. gentleman has had to introduce legislation in this House as a full-blooded Minister. We on this side of the House want to congratulate him on this occasion on having received this promotion, and of course want to express the hope that in his period of office he will succeed in achieving much for our agricultural industry. During the past year or two we have come to know the hon. the Minister as a Deputy with whom it was very easy to get along. I want to tell him, of course, that he could be and become an even greater success as Minister of Agriculture if he would only be prepared, from time to time, to accept more of the advice of this side of the House. As I have come to know the hon. the Minister I am certain that he will take to heart the good and sound common sense advice in regard to our industry which he will receive from time to time from this side of the House, and will consequently apply it in his approach to agriculture. Once again I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on behalf of this side of the House.

Now it is also strange that the hon. the Minister should in fact, on this very occasion, introduce legislation which, as he put it himself, is a departure from the traditional way in which agricultural training previously took place at our universities. I also want to agree with the hon. the Minister and express our appreciation from this side of the House to those officials who served as lecturers and professors at our agricultural faculties, and say that there are quite a number of movements to what these people achieved. I do not have the time now, but one could mention many names in this respect, especially of people at the University of Stellenbosch who did much to train young men in this industry. We, too, wish to express our appreciation to those for what they have done, for a person who as an official of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services acts as a lecturer or as a professor normally does not have the same vacations which other lecturers at a university have. His work as official continues in the normal way and often, while all the other lecturers were resting, those who were in the employ of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and attached to the university had to continue, as befits a good public servant, to do their work. Consequently we are grateful for what they did.

It is probably a good thing we are making this change today and, as the hon. the Minister put it, it was on the basis of the Brink Report that this became necessary. However, it is also necessary to utter a word or two or warning on this occasion. We on this side of the House, and I personally, are concerned because our agricultural faculties are today no longer attracting the same number of students as in the past. There are, as far as I am concerned, ineradicable signs that there may perhaps be a hidden intention or that there may be the idea in the background to cut down to a certain extent on staff in some of our agricultural faculties. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to what is happening at the University of the Orange Free State. Here some of the departments of the agricultural faculty are being taken over by other departments. What is the future of those lecturers and research workers who have been attached to that agricultural faculty for such a long time? Up to now the Free State agricultural faculty has played a good role. We all know that they are struggling to attract the necessary students. There has not been the increase one would like to expect. Immediately one asks oneself this question: If certain departments are taken away from such an agricultural faculty, is this not in fact going to be one of the reasons why even fewer students will be attracted in future? One automatically arrives at the conclusion that the status of that agricultural faculty will in future diminish further, will deteriorate, and that they will find it even more difficult to attract the necessary students.

Recently the rector of the University of Stellenbosch warned that agricultural training was expensive. Everyone is aware of this. We are pleased that the hon. the Minister has given the assurance today that there will be no deterioration in the efficiency of the research and in the co-operation which previously existed between the university authority and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It is not necessary to enumerate the arguments. Agricultural training at a university is a type of training which one cannot undergo unless it is accompanied by practical training. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services cannot complete or expand its research projects unless it has the cooperation of such a university. That is why we want to say to the hon. the Minister that we support this legislation, for up to now there has always been ambiguous control and there are many arguments in favour of the necessity of making this takeover at this stage. However, we want to warn him that he should keep his hand on the reins through the Minister of National Education and that we on this side of the House would not like to see any drop in the standard of our agricultural training in this country. Nor would we like to see the future of any officials who have up to now been in the employ of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and who are now being transferred to the Department of National Education, being jeopardized in any way. For example I once had occasion to go and see what some of these people were doing. I paid a visit to the University of the Free State. There are some of these research workers who are most concerned about their future. I think that we in South Africa cannot afford to lose any of these highly trained research workers in future, and this applies to the agricultural industry more than to any of the other sectors. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that these people will not be eliminated, but that they are encouraged to remain in our agricultural industry. They must not be lost to us, for this could only prejudice the future of our agricultural industry. It is particularly interesting to note that the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College of Agriculture has had such close ties with the University of Stellenbosch, and if it is possible, one should not like to see those ties being severed in any respect. The principal of Stellenbosch-Elsenburg served on the council of the University of Stellenbosch; now of course the necessity for him to serve on that body falls away completely because the dean of the faculty will automatically be there. Since these historical and traditional ties between Stellenbosch and Elsenburg have always existed, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would not see fit to ensure in some way or other that those ties are retained. I do not know what the reply to that is, but under these circumstances I think it would be a pity if those ties which have existed over the years and for which the old legislation made provision should in future cease to exist as a result of this change. With these words I want to support the Second Reading of this Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the United Party has, in such an unusual manner, began to take an interest in the Free State. I just want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that there is no need for his concern because the University of the Free State has as yet taken no decision in regard to the incorporation of agricultural lecturers in the university. No decision has yet been taken in regard to departments which are or are not going to disappear. The entire matter is still being investigated.

This entire matter, as it was investigated by the Brink Commission, concerns rationalization by a Government department; it concerns the rationalization of university education as it falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. No one can object to rationalization, provided it is done on a proper basis. I, least of all, would object to this. In fact, I would think that the Department of Agriculture could rationalize in many other spheres as well. I have never been able to convince myself that it is necessary, after one has drawn milk from a cow’s udder, for a milk board to sell some of it while a dairy board sells the rest after it has been processed. It seems to me that it could definitely be possible to rationalize in this case as well.

Since we are dealing with rationalization, the Brink Commission had a number of special recommendations to make. In the first place they recommended that the faculties of agriculture should be detached from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. In the second place they recommended commended that the financing of the costs of education should be done according to a subsidy formula of the Department of National Education; and in the third place that financing of particular research requirements of the faculties should be provided from a research auxiliary fund which should be made available by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. These three recommendations by the Brink Commission bring three other aspects into prominence: Firstly there are the problems and requirements which originate with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, secondly, the requirements and problems—financial problems in particular—of the universities, and thirdly those of the lecturers of the Agricultural faculties concerned in the whole matter. In the nature of the case, because the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is by far the largest employer of these trained students after they have qualified, it goes without saying that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will have to be very, very closely involved in the rationalization of these various faculties of agriculture. That is why it is to my mind a foregone conclusion that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services should say what their future requirements will be. This was necessary in the first place, and I think that they have in fact done so. I could just mention a few interesting figures. On the establishment of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services there are 1 171 agriculturists, 197 veterinarians, and 77 engineers. This gives a total of 1 405. Then there are, in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing 146, in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development 125, in the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council 12; total of 1 733. As against that agricultural co-operative societies have 55, the balanced fodder trade 80, the companies involved in the manufacture of fertilizer 97, and others. Of course there are still quite a number of others in the sugar industry, the agricultural engineering industry, control boards, etc. By far the greatest number of these people are however in the employ, and must after training enter the service of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. That is why it is so important that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services should be closely consulted. That is why we appreciate the negotiations which they have up to now conducted with the various universities. Apart from people who, after they have been trained, have to enter the service of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services it will still be necessary, just as in the past, for these lecturers, as I see it, to continue to undertake an intensive research program for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I cannot see the Department of Agricultural Technical Services having to manage without it. I would not like to see that happening, nor do I think the universities would like to do this. With the agricultural faculty at the University of the Free State and with the entire vast developing Orange River Project and the development around it, it seems to me that this university has an even more intensive role to play in the research which has to be done in this project. In addition an extension program was previously carried out by the faculties on behalf of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I think it is also necessary that this will have to be done. Therefore I am pleased that it had already been recommended that a research auxiliary fund be established and that this research fund can afford certain instructions given to the universities by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I think that this, too, is necessary, and therefore, as the Minister has also announced, it has been agreed after negotiations that the experimental farms which are being used by universities, will provisionally be managed by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

A second aspect which emerges is the requirements and the problems of the universities. These requirements of the universities are for the most part financial ones. Owing to these financial problems which universities may experience, the danger exists that exaggerated value will be attached to the number of students in their decision on whether the departments should be retained or not. Numbers, especially undergraduate numbers, is an old, hackneyed mathematical criterion which, in a modern world of scientific training and technological development is not comparable to the training and research of outstanding scientists. The cost aspect cannot therefore play a decisive role. Therefore it is a pity that since the universities have to investigate this matter and since they have to be able to pay for these agricultural faculties themselves in future, and since it is now being decided that they will be subsidized on a subsidy formula under the Department of National Education, the universities up to this stage still do not know what that formula will be. For quite a number of years the Van Wyk-De Vries Commission has been investigating what the subsidy formula for universities should be. A natural science faculty is subsidized on a per capita basis at R700 per student. The Brink Commission proposed that an agricultural student, according to its calculations, should be subsidized by an amount in the region of R1 200. Up to this stage, however, the universities still do not know on what basis these agricultural faculties will have to be subsidized. This makes it very difficult for them to decide which lecturers they should keep and which not, for they are subsidized according to numbers. This is how it has always been in the past. As I have already indicated it is a dangerous procedure to subsidize according to numbers, for it may happen that scientific training suffers as a result, something which we cannot at this stage in the least afford.

A third aspect which I want to mention is that of the lecturer. In the Bill an arrangement is being made in clause 3 in regard to these lecturers. If a lecturer chooses to remain with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services he may do so. If a university would like to keep a lecturer in its employ, he may remain with the university, according to clause 3, without having to suffer any financial loss of any nature whatsoever. On the other hand there is this one insufficiency. It is in respect of the lecturer who would like to remain at the university but whom the university can no longer accommodate. I hope the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will find a suitable solution in regard to those lecturers as well, as they have up to now found solutions to most of these problems. These lecturers have special problems. You will realize that a lecturer who joined an agricultural faculty was probably and usually a person who was in the employ of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. He enters a certain field and may perhaps progress to the status of professor. He goes up through a certain pipeline. Then his services are no longer required by the university, and he finds that his period of service there is terminated. It is in fact true that this Bill provides that he shall suffer no financial losses as far as his salary, etc. is concerned, but this man’s chances of promotion are now perhaps considerably curtailed. In the meantime other officials who remained in the administrative service of the Department have made further progress than he did, on the administrative level. Apart from that, this lecturer enjoys certain benefits from the university, in this sense that he has approved and free educational facilities for his children at the various universities. The moment he is no longer a lecturer at that university, he loses those facilities. I believe, and I hope that most universities will in fact decide to continue to provide those people with those facilities. I want to make another appeal to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, if this is not being done or has not been done, to use their influence and really make it their task to ensure that these people are not prejudiced in any way whatsoever.

The Opposition congratulated the Minister to such an extent on his appointment that I almost did not have an opportunity to do so, but I want to warn him: He must remember, General Hertzog said at that time already: “If these people praise me too much, there is something wrong somewhere.” I do not like the hon. member for Newton Park praising the hon. the Minister to such an extent. But, Sir, I have every confidence that this matter as well will, in the competent hands of the Minister and those of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services be dealt with in the best interests of all those lecturers. I believe that in the end we will all be satisfied.

Before I conclude I want to make an appeal to the Minister and to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Especially since finances have now become a cardinal problem, I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister please to ensure that an inferior agricultural faculty is never allowed to develop. If we cannot afford and retain a full-fledged agricultural faculty, then we should rather not have one at all. I am not referring only to the one in the Free State now; I am referring to all of them. I wanted to express the hope that we will in fact be able to retain them all, because I believe that there will be a task for them all, after we have rationalized properly. Then I wanted to make this appeal to the Minister: Please ensure that we do not keep anything that is half-baked. A half-baked, half-trained scientist is far worse than one who has not been trained at all. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that we should expand our agricultural training in the best interests of the country. Sometimes it will be expensive; sometimes it may sound exorbitantly expensive, but, Sir, we are not dealing here with something which we can import; we simply have to train these people.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Newton Park who congratulated the hon. the Minister, but we on this side have come under fire simply because one of us dared to congratulate him. I am not going to praise him, Mr. Speaker; I only want to congratulate him on his promotion in the Cabinet and add to that that I am sorry that he had to take over from his predecessor at a stage when a drought of this magnitude is ravaging the country. I do not feel sorry for him because he can take care of himself, but I do feel sorry for the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. the Minister did not say more in his Second Reading speech about the motivation and the merits of this Bill. I can partially understand the motivation, namely better remuneration for the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, who are being transferred to the universities, as well the higher status they will in future enjoy. I can also understand the universities wanting to bring the agricultural faculties under their wing. It is perfectly natural that a university will want to bring more and more faculties under its wing. I have no doubt that the universities will be able to provide training of the same standard as that of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in the past, but when it comes to research projects, then I do in fact have certain misgivings, and I should like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the research projects which have to be tackled will be tackled and finalized with the same intensity as in the past. I am saying this, despite the fact that we have sometimes criticized the department in the past because it was not doing enough in regard to research. When I refer to research projects I think in particular of veterinary research at Onderstepoort, an institution whose services were not only available to all farmers and agriculturists—individuals as well as groups—in the Republic, but were also at the disposal of other countries on the continent of Africa, and elsewhere. Not only was Onderstepoort a veterinary research centre, it was to a large extent a manufacturing centre as well. In emergencies Onderstepoort frequently manufactured large quantities of additional substances to save agriculture, and if the substance was not successful, they were prepared, under the supervision of the State, to destroy the substance they were manufacturing and commence with the manufacture of another. I remember how many times it has happened over the years that an individual farmer made an urgent appeal to Onderstepoort to send an official to his farm immediately to come and investigate his problems. Will this still happen if Onderstepoort now falls under the university? Is the hon. the Minister convinced that it will be possible to continue services of that kind to the individual agriculturist under the new dispensation? I doubt this because I know how, over the years, Onderstepoort went out of its way in emergencies to commence a major manufacturing programme in order to hasten to the aid of the farmers. I just wonder whether Onderstepoort, as a faculty under the control of the university, will still be able to do this as far as veterinary research is concerned. We know what the recommendations of the Brink Committee were, and we know what the motivation was, but I wonder sometimes whether such a drastic step such as this can be justified. We are not so much concerned about the question of training, for I have no doubt that the university will be able to provide training of the same standard as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services provided in the past. But, Sir, Agricultural Technical Services is a large department which has tackled extensive training and research projects throughout the entire country. To be able to produce the best results, as the hon. member for Newton Park said, one’s research stations should be distributed throughout the entire country, and we know how many research stations the department has. These research stations are frequently situated far from universities. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us in his reply whether he is convinced that there is so much merit in the matter that such a comprehensive step should be taken at this stage, and that he will ensure that it is still possible to undertake these research projects, and the veterinary research and the implementation of the research and the manufacture of the substances under the universities in the same way this is now being done under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

We want to extend our heartiest congratulations to the hon. the Minister on this Second Reading speech of his. We should just like to emphasize three points from his speech. The first is where he referred to the establishment in 1925 of the agricultural faculty at Stellenbosch, and subsequently at the two other universities, Pretoria and Natal, and at the University of the Orange Free State. The hon. the Minister made it clear that these were landmarks in respect of agriculture in South Africa. Right at the end the Minister said that it had been reported to him that the negotiations with the universities had been held in a very good spirit of cooperation and goodwill and that he had no fear that there would in fact be solutions to any problems which might crop up. What I want is that we should link up these to statements of the Minister very closely, particularly when seen against the background of a third statement which the Minister made, namely that before he came to the reasons for the separation of the faculties, he wanted to give those who might perhaps be sceptical of the transfer idea the assurance that no deterioration in the standard of the training of our agricultural students would be tolerated. Sir, the fact of the matter is that there are those who are in fact sceptical of this transfer process, and there are various reasons for that. But I think that we in this House who have the privilege to be present while this change is taking place now should in fact accept these changes as a challenge. Each of these agricultural faculties should not see and regard these changes which must inevitably come as being the end of any faculty or as being something which might perhaps result in the watering down of a faculty. I want to repeat that, with reference to these three statements the Minister made, I myself, and those who will work with me, will accept this challenge; for these agricultural faculties serve a special purpose. In the first place these faculties are there to train agricultural scientists. I have already, on a previous occasion, made such a plea here, and I do not want to cover the ground again, but simply wish to make an appeal, especially since reference was made to a decrease in the number of our students, whether we should not, in conjunction with our agricultural colleges under this new dispensation which is coming, perhaps train farmers as well, who will not necessarily be agricultural scientists, or provide them with partial training at these universities, for reasons which I shall stipulate in a moment. In other words, we are training agricultural scientists. I see in this the prospect of our also being able to afford farmers the opportunity of returning to their farms as properly trained agriculturists. These universities will be doing them a service. At these universities we are badly in need of the research they are doing. But the most important of all is that that research should be made available to those who are able to utilize that research. For that reason we accept this challenge that each of these universities should, in the years to come, continue to exist in order to provide these essential services.

We want to make this important statement that we should not view agricultural training at an agricultural faculty merely as the training of an agricultural scientist; that we should not merely view it as the training of an ordinary farmer who obtains more than the normal training which is offered to him at an agricultural college. To my mind what constitutes the most important element is that at these faculties—in other words at these universities to which these faculties are attached—we will also train community leaders for our rural areas. For that reason we wanted to say to the world today, with reference to this Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister, that we accept this challenge.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the University of the Orange Free State. I am speaking as a Free State now, and I say that the agricultural faculty of the University of the Orange Free State accept this challenge. We shall allow that agricultural faculty to continue for we want to train agricultural scientists; we want to train farmers; we want extension officers, and above all we want to train community leaders there who can give guidance to the Free State and the areas served by that university. We accept this challenge. We hope that we will have the support of our Minister in this case. We have no doubt, either, that we will receive the support of the Minister of National Education and that we will achieve much for agriculture in South Africa with this new dispensation which we are now entering.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any person who has made a study of the matter which is under discussion now will dispute the idea of the transfer of our agricultural faculties. The hon. the Minister said that what the legislation before us really amounts to is the general framework within which this task now has to be carried out. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister today, since we have the support of both sides of the House for this legislation, that we look to him and those who assist him to shape that framework as expert specialists so that the important agricultural industry in South Africa will not suffer in the process.

Agricultural training is not concerned only with the training of scientists and with research. It is also concerned with the very important agricultural industry, a problematical industry in many respects which has to cope with all the natural disasters which we are prone to in this country, but which also has the problem that its success is determined by the degree to which the people in the industry make use of the knowledge made available by the research workers and educationists. In my first speech in this House I referred to this problem of communication, the passing on of agricultural know-how. Since we are dealing with this legislation I want to draw attention to this matter again and make a plea in this regard to the hon. the Minister. I think it is a case here of a great need for sound common sense in the handling of this matter, something which he and the people who assist him have in generous measure, to guard against the channels of communication between the researcher, the educationist and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services being harmed and destroyed in this process. There are a few minor aspects associated with this matter to which I should like to draw attention. In the first place there is the quite unique position covered by the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg Act. This is a position to which the hon. the Deputy Minister who is present here today in person could perhaps testify better than any of the rest of us. He has personal knowledge of how well that dispensation has functioned. I want to advocate that we should not in this process allow any harm to come to it. There is the aspect of financing which to my mind is the cornerstone of this whole situation. As regards the transfer to the Department of National Education, the hon. the Minister has to play the role of father and guardian in this sphere. He must bring home the special needs of agricultural training in the method of subsidization. I want to refer to the position of an expert, a professor, who has to maintain contact with farming practice and for whom, up to now, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has made it possible to go to the individual farmers, to attend the farmers’ day meetings and the agricultural shows in order to judge for himself, not only in order to play cock of the walk there, but in order to have the opportunity of becoming acquainted with problems which crop up in that area and to avail himself of that opportunity of conveying to the individual farmers information in respect of that industry. A problem which may arise is the availability of the necessary means to enable him to continue to do so. I want to refer to the position of the technicians, for the researcher as well, whether he is now, as he will be in future, exclusively under the control of the university, or as he has been up to now, under the control of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, cannot do his work without the help of the technician. I want to advocate that the hon. the Minister should also give particular attention to ensuring that the financing is there for an adequate supply of technicians so that the researcher will be able to perform his task properly. I believe that much that is good for the agricultural industry in this country will come out of the dispensation for which this legislation makes provision, and particularly during this period of change-over it will require the watchful eye and the skilful hand of the Minister himself and those who assist him to ensure that this change-over takes place smoothly.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their congratulations and say to the hon. member for Newton Park, who said that I should accept the good advice of the Opposition, that he can testify to the fact that I have with previous legislation, on each occasion when the Opposition came forward with a practical suggestion or amendment, accepted such an amendment, and that I am therefore not unwilling to learn from the Opposition. Agriculture is an industry in which one may always accept a practical suggestion from any source, and I think this will also be the spirit in which we will discuss agricultural legislation in this House in future. The hon. member uttered certain warnings here, amongst others that the standard of agricultural training should not drop as a result of the change. The hon. member for Fauresmith is also, quite rightly, concerned about this, and so, too, the hon. members for Smithfield and Stellenbosch. As far as the financing in concerned, we do not want to launch a savings campaign. This is an expensive undertaking for, unlike other training, one has in this case research and experimental farms, animals which have to be fed and so on. All projects which have a bearing on agricultural training are an expensive process, sometimes not only twice as much as the training of a B.A. student for example, but sometimes all of three times as much. We are aware that if we want to commit a blunder in regard to our agricultural training then we should try to save, but we should not be wasteful either. It is one of the findings of the Brink Commission that one can have wastefulness by having a faculty which duplicates that of another university and which has a few students and quite a number of lecturers. There can therefore simply be a combination of the two. I want to emphasize that hon. members need not be concerned about the financing aspect. We shall from time to time supply the Department of National Education with information on the cost aspect. This service was included in the estimates of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, but it can be transferred to the Department of National Education without causing any disruption, but also in order to be practical and in order not to waste any money.

The hon. member for East London City feels uneasy, inter alia, in regard to the contact farmers will have with Onderstepoort. He asked whether this was going to disappear. I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that the research which in the past was done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will definitely continue as in the past. A farmer will still be at liberty to go to Onderstepoort at any time for vaccines or advice, because only the training portion of Onderstepoort is going to the universities. However there are ten research institutes in this department which are going to function just as they did in the past. It is going to cost us millions of rand, which expense we do not contemplate avoiding. In fact we will in fact have to place increasing emphasis on research if we want to feed 50 million people in this country. It would be stupid of us to begin saving on research projects now. Here I think of Onderstepoort which remains under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as far as veterinary science is concerned. For the livestock and dairy industry an institute has been established at Irene at tremendous cost. Plant protection in Pretoria remains as it is. In the same way land and irrigation remain in Pretoria. Horticulture is at Roodeplaat; citrus and subtropical fruits at Nelspruit; fruit and fruit-farming, i.e. fruit technology, is at Stellenbosch; wine and viticulture at Nietvoorbij. These are all institutes of which we are proud. Botany is at Brummeria and tobacco at Kroondal. These research projects are not being affected in any way. We are referring here only to the training of veterinarians and agricultural students. As far as this is concerned, I do not think that the hon. member need feel any concern.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the fact that if certain departments in a university are going to be closed, that faculty is going to suffer in the long run—that is correct. I can inform the hon. member that the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services, Dr. Verbeek, held talks yesterday with the rector of the Stellenbosch University. He told me that we will have to effect a minor amendment in the Committee Stage because we want to satisfy everyone in respect of the practical implementation of this matter. Initially we thought of handing over the experimental farm to the university. The university has stated that the management of an experimental farm is something which is really the responsibility of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and asked whether we could not manage the experimental farms for them. We said: No, but not to worry, for the sake of agricultural training the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will do this work. Then there is the question of the transfer of certain facilities—I have in mind Welgevalle at Stellenbosch which is being transferred to the university. As far as Elsenburg is concerned—the hon. member for Newton Park asked what the link between the University of Stellenbosch and Elsenburg will be, for he, as past student, attaches sentiment to the link which used to exist—we have proposed that they transfer a portion of Elsenburg to the university, while we retain a portion. We shall see how this can be done in practice, but we are still managing the experimental farm for them. On the other hand hon. members must bear in mind that college students will continue to fall under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The hon. member asked why there was a decrease in the number of agricultural students—there are various reasons for this. This is not the case when the agricultural industry is thriving. I think of how many enrolments we had two years ago at Grootfontein for students in the wool and sheep industry, and how this is now going to increase, as we have seen happen at other colleges where we had to turn students away. There has therefore been a decrease in the number of students because the agricultural industry has reached a low ebb and that interest which we should have in the industry was not there. That is why I feel that it is essential that agriculture should be a prosperous enterprise, for then the industry will attract students. However, no one enters an industry which experiences set-backs year after year.

The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to the subsidy formula. He would like us to reach a final point in regard to the subsidy formula as quickly as possible. We shall definitely give attention to that. But hon. members on this side were very concerned about the lecturing staff, whether we are not going to cause them hardship. We have stated repeatedly that we are going to accommodate them in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services if the universities do not want them. Most of those people have good brains, and we cannot allow them to be lost to the agricultural industry. We have a shortage of trained men. In respect of their pensions and so on, we are going to try to keep these people happy with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, where practicable. One may perhaps find one or two loafers, and they will then have to be dealt with individually. But they comprise only 1%, if it is not ½%. The hon. member for East London City asked what the motivation behind this entire matter is. The motivation is that we will in some respects be able to have better rationalization. It was the whole idea of the Brink Commission that this was uncoordinated and should be rectified. Everyone simply ran to a faculty so that sometimes—and this did happen—there were four lecturers for one subject, and only two students. This actually happened, but it has now been rectified. It was an unhealthy state of affairs, and was one of the motivations which we considered. I want to thank hon. members for their contributions, for this is a positive step in the right direction.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is before the hon. House for consideration today, is in effect a summary or consolidation of the Agricultural Pests Act of 1957 and the Orchards and Cultivated Plants Cleansing Act of 1947.

A departmental committee of inquiry found the said two Acts to contain numerous overlapping provisions, which makes their application extremely difficult. Furthermore, the committee also recommended that the Acts concerned be consolidated in one Act and that a more modern Act be placed on the Statute Book. In the main there have been no departures in the consolidating legislation from the existing principles, but for the sake of clarity I should like to deal more fully with the following aspects.

Firstly: The registration fee for a nursery, which is at present R20, is being increased to R100. This proposal was made in consultation with the South African Nurserymen’s Association, which felt that this would enable the nursery industry to raise its level and that it would eliminate any possible undesirable elements in the industry to a large extent. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services, on the other hand, feels that the increase in registration fees is quite justified because, as a result of increasing salaries, allowances and motor transport, it is simply no longer possible to carry out inspections of nurseries at the present fees. This proposal was also discussed with the South African Agricultural Union, which supported it fully.

Secondly: After discussions with the South African Nurserymen’s Association, it was decided that the State would in future pay no compensation for plants which are found in nurseries and are infected with any of the insects or plant diseases the department wants to control. This loss will be borne by the owner of a nursery as a normal business risk, and I think it is proper to express at this stage our appreciation for the support given by the Nurserymen’s Association in this connection.

Thirdly: Because of certain conflicting and overlapping provisions, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the law advisers had considerable doubts in the past whether the State was at all obliged to pay compensation for any loss of income for any plants destroyed in terms of the Agricultural Pests Act, 1957, or the Orchards and Cultivated Plants Cleansing Act, 1947. The matter was discussed in detail with the South African Agricultural Union, whereupon it was decided that the determination of compensation for plants destroyed would rest with the Minister, but that compensation for loss of income or loss of patrimony could not be recommended because it would create a precedent, the implications of which could not be foreseen. The position is now being stated unambiguously in clause 14.

Fourthly: The chapter in the existing Act dealing with locusts has been rewritten because the circumstances have since changed altogether, and because the eradication of locusts has been undertaken by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services itself for years. The only onus placed on the owner or occupant of land, is to see that outbreaks of locusts are reported as soon as possible. The Bill has been rewritten in order to adapt it to the changed circumstances and is in accordance with international standards.

Finally I want to say that the Bill was discussed in detail with the South African Nurserymen’s Association and the South African Agricultural Union, and that all matters were accepted unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, from this side of the House, too, there will be no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. We just find it strange that there has been such a tremendous increase in the nurserymen’s registration fees, i.e. from R20 to R100, and that the latter is now the minimum amount, as provided in clause 2. If, for example, the clause had made provision for it to be not more than R100, I do not think it would have been unacceptable to this side of the House. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that one should not always think in terms of the big nurseries. We also have a tremendous number of small nurseries, which in their way serve exactly the same purpose as do some of the largest nurseries in the country and which are, what is more, often in a position to supply a specific product at a much lower price than the big nurseries do. For instance, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to those people who often have an income from other sources as well, over and above the income from their nurseries. I think it would be extremely unfair to expect all these people to pay in future a minimum of R100 in order to register. If this clause is agreed to as it stands, it may even be more than R100. In other words, the Minister himself may decide whether he is going to make it more, but he cannot make it less. That is why I am wondering whether the hon. gentleman would not consider making R100 the maximum fee in the future.

The hon. the Minister mentioned that this legislation was really a consolidation of sections already existing in previous legislation. For that reason we do not want to discuss all the clauses, but I merely want to refer to two others, which are new provisions, i.e. clauses 16 and 17, and which relate to the eradication of the locust plague. In the past the position was that, over and above the State, the individual farmer also helped to eradicate locusts. In other words, the onus was already on the State in the first place. But, Sir, when there are major outbreaks, such as we had in the past, I wonder whether the State alone can bear the responsibility in this respect or whether the hon. the Minister will not need the help of the individual farmer as well.

Yes.

The hon. gentleman admits that he will. Well, Sir, how shall we be able to do this unless he makes poison available to that individual farmer once again, as he did in the past, so that the farmer himself will be able to prevent that plague to a large extent? I think the hon. the Minister should consider carefully whether he is not going to tie his own hands by agreeing to clauses 16 and 17. If he takes sole responsibility in this respect I can foresee that he will be up against problems in the future, because the State is simply not in a position to undertake the eradication of locusts by itself. I should like to see the hon. the Minister bringing about some kind of balance between the State’s responsibility and that which rests on the shoulders of the individual farmers; because I think the cooperation between those two will be ideal for solving the problem. For that reason we support the Second Reading of this Bill.