Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was referring to the acceptance of the principle that an honorarium be paid to board members. I now come to the other aspects of the Bill.

Appointment of chairmen:

I accept recommendation of the commission that the existing arrangement, in terms of which control boards appoint their own chairmen, be retained. The commission’s opinion that the control boards, in consultation with the Minister, should lay down rules of conduct for chairmen and board members, thus obviating awkward problems that sometimes crop up, is supported.

†Utilization of boards’ funds:

I accept the following recommendations by the commission in this regard:

1. (i) that the existing methods of imposing levies be adhered to and that measures be taken by all boards henceforth to impose a levy to cover administrative expenses;
2. (ii) that control boards switch to a budget system for obtaining ministerial approval for the expenditure of money from their funds;
3. (iii) that boards should make provision for funds for stabilization purposes and that these funds be built up to a limit to be determined from time to time by the boards in consultation with the Marketing Council and the Minister.

The commission was also of the opinion that surpluses derived from exports, together with levies, should be used for the building up of stabilization funds. Where it is considered justified to supplement the producer’s prices from profits on exports, the commission felt that a conservative approach should be taken.

It was also recommended as a general principle that moneys in a stabilization fund should be used to stabilize prices only where economic factors necessitate this. I support this recommendation.

Investment of boards’ funds:

The commission was of the opinion that provision should be made, by way of legislation, for control boards to invest stabilization fund moneys with the Land Bank only for a term of investment not exceeding two years. While I agree with the principle that boards’ funds should be invested with the Land Bank, I do not feel that it is necessary to enforce this by way of legislation. This should rather be applied as a matter of policy.

Maintenance and improvement of immovable property:

The recommendation by the commission that control boards should be granted standing approval to incur expenditure on the improvement and maintenance—excluding extensions—of immovable property, provided that they submit a report to the Minister at the end of the financial year, is accepted only in part. I feel that the principle that boards must obtain the Minister’s approval beforehand should be retained. I am, however, prepared to give favourable consideration to the granting of standing approval for the annual expenditure of a maximum amount of money by each board.

Salaries and conditions of service of board officials:

I agree with the commission’s view that, as far as conditions of service are concerned, board officials should not be any worse off than public servants. I am also still of the opinion that boards should, with a view to improve benefits, bring a joint pension fund into being for their officials.

Donation and gifts:

I accept the commission’s recommendation that gifts and/or donations from board funds should only be allowed where it is in the direct interest of the industry concerned.

The commission also recommended that the financing of product-orientated research should be the responsibility of the State, but that boards should, nevertheless, be allowed to support research in specific circumstances. This recommendation has also been accepted, subject to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services being consulted beforehand on all projects.

Expenditure of Social Functions:

The commission’s recommendation in this regard falls within existing policy and has therefore been accepted.

Subsidization of prices:

I have noted that the majority of the members of the commission is of the opinion that it should be policy systematically to reduce the subsidies on food products. In the dairy industry, where adjustments have become necessary not only on the production and processing level, but also in respect of control measures, the commission recommended that instead of subsidies, the Government specially provide funds for loans to the industry in order to expedite modernization within the industry. I wish to point out, however, that the Land Bank and co-operatives can also provide loans for this purpose.

*Another important recommendation of the commission is that the principle of a freer marketing system for cattle and small stock be accepted, and that the Marketing Council and the Meat Board be charged with investigating the most suitable way of implementing this decision which has been taken in principle. I have accepted this recommendation and the Marketing Council is already conducting the necessary investigation, in consultation with the Meat Board.

The commission also recommended that powers of restrictive registration should not be granted to the Canning Food Board. However, I believe that such powers could be a valuable aid to the board in promoting rationalization in the industry.

Although I have accepted the commission’s recommendation that the Consumers’ Advisory Committee be abolished, I cannot accept the commission’s recommendation that consumer representation on board level be abolished. The existing provision for consumer representation on board level will therefore be retained in the Act.

I also agree with the commission’s recommendation that control boards give attention to the possibility of joint investment of funds. Because of the diverse activities of control boards it may be difficult, however, to bring about joint investment in practice.

The commission’s recommendation that the requirement that ministerial approval must be obtained be dispensed with in the cases specifically mentioned by the commission, I have accepted in principle, and it will be implemented in practice as far as possible by means of granting permanent approvals.

The commission’s recommendation that control boards switch over to a budget system in respect of expenditure subject to ministerial approval I consider to be very important, and I have accordingly accepted it. The necessary directions in this connection will be incorporated into the control schemes in due course.

General:

Apart from specific recommendations, the commission has also laid down guidelines concerning various aspects of the marketing arrangements in general. I do not consider it necessary to repeat these guidelines here, but I want to say that they will certainly be kept in mind in the practical application of control measures.

I shall now deal with those statutory amendments which have become necessary as a result of the acceptance of certain recommendations by the commission, as well as some other essential amendments which have to be made to the Marketing Act.

As already mentioned, the commission also made certain recommendations in connection with the structure and function of the National Marketing Council. It is now being proposed that the National Marketing Council consist of a chairman and seven full-time members, all to be appointed by the Minister, and that their salaries and/or remuneration and conditions of service should also be determined by the Minister. In practice, the Minister of Finance will of course be consulted in determining the salaries and conditions of service of the members.

Those members who are officials of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing will be paid such allowances as are recommended by the Public Service Commission and determined with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. The Minister will have a free hand in appointing members, as is the case at present. It is further provided in the Bill that a quorum for the Marketing Council shall consist of four members. The power to delegate is retained, with the proviso that only a decision taken by three or fewer members will in such a case have to be confirmed by the board. If the Marketing Council delegates certain powers to four or more members, therefore, such a decision need not be confirmed. The practical implication of this provision, therefore, will be that the Marketing Council will be able to function simultaneously as two autonomous bodies, which will mean that much more work can be dealt with at the same time.

In addition, the compulsory liaison between the Marketing Council and the Board of Trade and Industries is being abolished, because the latter believes that for effective liaison to be possible, it would have to make special arrangements. This is why little has come of the proposed liaison in the past. The requirements that the Marketing Council should submit a report to the Minister every two years is also being abolished. In the future, therefore, the Marketing Council will only submit reports on specific schemes to the Minister when he asks for them. In any event, the functioning of the various schemes is reported on in the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and in the control boards’ own annual reports.

The Bill further provides for the abolition of the Consumers’ Advisory Committee. As far as this committee is concerned, the commission points out in its report that the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council, as an umbrella body, receives financial support from the Government, and that there is no justification, therefore, for the retention of the Consumers’ Advisory Committee. Consequently all references in the Act to the Consumers’ Advisory Committee are being deleted.

†Hon. members will note that the Bill also makes provision for certain matters relating to joint schemes. These provisions are self-explanatory, but I wish to point out that in the case where schemes are to be amalgamated, the relevant boards will most probably own immovable property which will have to be transferred into the name of the new board. I am of the opinion that in such cases transfer duties and other dues to the Registrar of Deeds need not be paid again. It may be added that the Department of Inland Revenue has agreed with this view. As I have already indicated, the amalgamation of the milk and dairy schemes is at present being investigated.

*The commission recommended that the number of members of a control board who are entitled to vote be restricted to a maximum of eleven. I believe that the maximum of 13 members who are entitled to vote is a more realistic number, and this is being proposed in the Bill. Furthermore, the provision is deleted in terms of which an official of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing or of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services could be appointed a member of a control board with the right to vote. Provision is also being made in the Bill for an additional member, without the right to vote, to be appointed to a board for a specific purpose on the grounds of his special knowledge of a matter.

†The existing provision in terms of which a member is nominated or elected for appointment to a control board is being done away with. The Bill now provides that with regard to these appointments the Minister may consult with persons or organizations which in his opinion are representative of the producers of the product concerned and of the classes of persons or consumers which are required to be represented on a control board. A control board will further have the power to co-opt one person as an advisory member.

*The Act presently provides that in cases where control boards co-operate with one another or with anyone else, the money required for the project concerned should be paid into a special fund from which it may only be spent with ministerial approval. The ministerial approval must therefore be obtained for every expenditure, and to relieve the burden on the Minister, the Marketing Council, the control board or boards concerned and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the commission has proposed that the co-operating parties submit an estimate of expenditure to the Minister. The effect of this proposal is that the Minister will approve a budget every year which cannot be exceeded without authorization. The granting of approval on an ad hoc basis should therefore fall away. Section 46 of the Marketing Act presently provides that a control board is entitled to utilize, with the approval of the Minister, money in its general fund for any object which will be to the advantage of the persons interested in the product concerned. An example of this is the loans granted by the Dairy Board to dairy manufacturers for the financing of the acquisition of cream and industrial milk from producers. In such cases, it is essential that the loans be insured. The most effective way of doing this is to obtain a lien over the manufactured butter and cheese. Provision is being made for this in the Bill.

The commission recommended that the principle be accepted of collecting funds by way of statutory levies for the partial financing of the organizational expenses of the S.A. Agricultural Union. Provision is now being made in the Bill, therefore, for the imposition of a general levy for this purpose and for its proceeds to be paid into a special account. It is made clear in the Bill that apart from expenses in connection with the administration of the special account, only those expenses of the S.A. Agricultural Union which have been approved by the Minister will be financed from the account concerned.

†The Bill also contains a special provision dealing with the compulsory delivery of a controlled product to a control board by a member of a co-operative society. A member of a co-operative society is normally obliged to deliver his product to the co-operative, unless the co-operative gives him written permission to deliver it to somebody else. In terms of the provision in the Bill, compulsory delivery to a control board by a member of a co-operative society will now be deemed to have been permitted by the co-operative concerned. The Bill places the onus on the producer, whether he is a member of a co-operative society or of a co-operative company, to notify the control board concerned indicating the name of such society or company. Payments to the producer will only take place after deduction of any amounts owing to the co-operative or to the control board.

*As a result of a recommendation by the commission, the Bill also provides that when a control board refuses to exercise a power or when the Minister is not prepared to grant his approval to any decision taken by a control board, the Minister may, after certain prerequisites have been complied with, take decisions on the relevant matter himself, which will then deemed to be decisions of the control board concerned. These provisions did not exist in the past. This meant that when the Minister and the control board were unable to reach consensus on a specific matter, there was a position of stalemate which embarrassed both parties. The fixing of the prices of controlled products is an example of this, for the control board fixes the price with the approval of the Minister. The commission points out in its report that negotiations between the Minister and a control board in an attempt to reach consensus on the price is a time-consuming and expensive process, while in practice, a control board has no other alternative than to accept the Minister’s decision in any event. Price fixing has an important effect on the national economy, and steps to ensure co-ordination in this connection are essential.

The State President has the power, in terms of section 87 of the Marketing Act, to prohibit or regulate the importation into and the exportation from the Republic of any product or of any class or grade of product. Provision can be made for various means of exercising control. In practice it often means that the total quantity which is imported or exported is or has to be restricted. The so called quota awards give rise to many objections and the commission points out that it has been shown that interested parties fail to withdraw from the chamber when a control board is discussing the basis for the determination of quotas. This means that interested parties are in a position to promote their own interests. Appeals which have been upheld prove that this allegation is not unfounded. In order to ensure impartiality, the commission consequently recommends that it be provided by law that the basis for quota awards shall be subject to the approval of the Minister. Provision for this is being made in the Bill.

The commission also recommends that the control presently exercised by the Minister by way of a code over the salaries and conditions of service of officials of control boards should rather be exercised in terms of specific statutory authority. Provision is being made for this in the Bill.

There is a company in existence at the moment, the Aros Utility Company, which was established by the Oilseed Control Board and the Potato Board. Since the Marketing Act makes no provision for a control board to be a member of a company, boards can only perform the functions they are authorized to perform under the Act, with the result that the company which has been established by these two control boards will have to be dissolved and the assets, liabilities, rights and obligations will upon dissolution revert to the said control boards, who are the sole shareholders.

I believe that it is not desirable for the Registrar of Deeds to charge transfer duties and other office fees for the purposes of the transfer of immovable property under these specific circumstances. The Secretary for Inland Revenue agrees with me and has already consented to waiving these charges. Provision is being made for this in the Bill. Hon. members will also notice that the proportion of the distribution at the winding-up of the company must be approved by the Minister.

The Bill also contains consequential amendments which require no clarification.

Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I want to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of all the parties concerned in agriculture for the full exposition he gave last night and this afternoon in connection with the Government’s point of view with regard to the suggestions that the commission laid before him in its report that was tabled last year.

†This is an important report, a report which affects the lives of all the people in South Africa, and I am very glad therefore that the hon. the Minister has given us this comprehensive statement of the Government’s attitude towards the recommendations contained in it. Because of the pressure of time I do not intend this afternoon to deal with those parts of the report which the hon. the Minister has accepted. Where there is agreement, I do not intend wasting the time of the House. I shall try to limit myself, as far as possible, to matters where there is no agreement between the hon. the Minister and ourselves or where I believe it is important to the agricultural sector and to consumers that comment should be made by the official Opposition on the attitude of the hon. the Minister mirrored either in his speech or in the Bill which is now before the House. I am sure, Sir, that you will allow me the latitude which the hon. the Minister has enjoyed in dealing with matters which might perhaps fall outside the scope of the amending Bill, but which fall within the scope of the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister.

In regard to the National Marketing Council, which we consider to be the most important cog in this whole machinery, we find that the hon. the Minister has accepted an increase in the number of members, but the official Opposition considers that the hon. the Minister has not gone far enough. We believe that he should have accepted the footnote which is published on pages 12 and 13 of the report—it was subscribed to by myself—and which very much incorporates the views of the hon. member for Humansdorp. I quote from the footnote—

During the Committee Stage of this Bill we shall move amendments in an attempt to persuade the hon. the Minister to reverse his decision and to accept the viewpoint which is expressed in these two footnotes.

Another matter for regret is that it appears from the hon. the Minister’s speech that all the members of the National Marketing Council will be officials, with the exception of the two producer representatives. In this way he has rejected the report and the recommendation of the majority of the members of the commission, who recommended that at least two of these people should be from outside the Civil Service. It is essential that we have to get another point of view represented on the National Marketing Council, a body which, as I have said before, is the cog around which the whole system works. I believe it cannot be as effective if it does not have this outside influence. I believe the hon. the Minister must hasten to implement the recommendation regarding the staff. It is imperative that this council should have staff of the very highest order, even if the hon. the Minister has to rob the three departments under his control of their top men and associate them with the Marketing Council.

I must say we welcome the acceptance of the recommendation that this council should no longer be involved in matters involving red tape, matters such as staff, transport, allowances paid to members and all related matters, matters which have taken up so much time of the National Marketing Council in the past. I believe it can be built up into an effective organization which can only be of benefit to South Africa. The acceptance of this recommendation by the hon. the Minister strengthens our standpoint in regard to the composition and functions of the council and our standpoint as mirrored by the footnotes in the report.

We welcome the acceptance in principle that no new board should be established. We must try to limit the number of boards which are established. The Milk Board and the Dairy Board and the Dry Beans Board and the Maize Boards, respectively, should be combined. With hindsight I agree now with the recommendation made by Dr. J. H. Moolman, an ex-member of this House, that there is even further scope for the amalgamation of boards. This is mirrored in the provision which the hon. the Minister has included in the Bill and which provides for a combination of schemes and for the coming together of various schemes.

I note that the hon. the Minister has instituted an investigation by a committee into the amalgamation of the Milk Board and the Dairy Board. I want to express our regret that the committee comprises only representatives of the Milk Board, the Dairy Board, the National Marketing Council and the department. Will the hon. the Minister tell us, in his reply to the debate, why it is that other interests are not being considered for appointment to the committee to investigate this most important aspect? The situation is that milk is supplied throughout the Republic, but the Milk Board has only control over certain areas. In other areas the milk producers are organized on a co-operative basis. Yet these people have been ignored in the constitution of this particular committee of inquiry. The milk producers of Natal, of the eastern Cape, the Free State gold-fields and Kimberley—in other words, the milk producers outside the control of the Milk Board—have been completely ignored in the constitution of this committee. What is even worse is that the Milk Commodity Committee of the S.A. Agricultural Union has been ignored. Why have they not been given an opportunity to be represented on the committee of inquiry into this most important matter?

In the spirit of the legislation I believe the scheme should not be extended to include any area where the majority of members have expressed an attitude that they are opposed to the imposition of control by the Milk Board in their area. In fact, I brought out a minority footnote in that regard, and the hon. the Minister is aware of this fact. When I proposed that minority footnote to the commission, the other members of the commission did not subscribe to it because they said that they believed it was unnecessary. Their attitude was: “Of course, any action taken will be taken in the spirit of the Act, which is that if a majority of the producers in the area concerned are opposed to the scheme, the scheme shall not be applied to them.” Will the hon. the Minister accept that principle? He must indicate to the House this afternoon whether he does accept it.

I should like to refer in particular to a document which has been circulated amongst members of this House and others who are interested in agriculture. I believe the hon. the Minister has also received a copy. The document is headed “Statutory Control and the Concept of one Milk Board: The views of producer representatives from the areas presently outside the control of a milk scheme.” I believe the document has been compiled by the authorities which control the distribution of fresh milk in the areas of East London, Port Elizabeth, the Orange Free State gold-fields and the whole of Natal. I believe they all subscribe to the contents of the document, the first page of which reads—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to obtain the viewpoint of the producers in those areas before he introduces one single milk scheme in those areas. I must remind the hon. the Minister that in terms of the Bill which is at present before this House he is taking power to act on behalf of boards. In terms of the new section 80 he gets the full power over all controlled products. Therefore a tremendous responsibility rests on his shoulders. I hope that he will use these powers wisely and I hope that he will not force producers into accepting a scheme which is unacceptable to them. In this memorandum the producers in those areas put up a very good case for the continuation of the present system, whereby the Milk Board controls the distribution and the supply of fresh milk in certain areas, while in other areas the supply of fresh milk is organized on a co-operative basis. I must concede straight away, as do these producers in the document which they have presented to the hon. the Minister, that the Dairy Board has control over all industrial milk producers in the country. They have no argument whatsoever regarding the control of industrial producers in those areas of Natal, the eastern Cape, Kimberley and the goldfields for instance. We hope that the hon. the Minister will give us an undertaking this afternoon that he will not extend the milk scheme to the areas presently under the control of co-operative marketing systems until …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of one control board for dairy products and milk which means that the Dairy Board and the Milk Board would be combined into one, or does he want two separate boards?

With respect to the hon. the Minister, I made my attitude on the commission quite clear. I am in favour of one board, but with the proviso that those areas which are presently organized on a co-operative basis and in which the producer is getting more today than the milk control areas,

That is in Natal!

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that that is in Natal. It is not only in Natal. There are other areas as well. Those producers must first be consulted in the spirit of the Marketing Act before the scheme is forced upon them and they should be given an opportunity of expressing their viewpoint, and the hon. the Minister will only apply that scheme to those areas if a majority of the producers accept the provisions of the milk scheme in a referendum. The last referendum which was held in Natal and East Grigualand showed that 98% of the producers there were against the imposition of the milk scheme in that area, and now I am told that the other producers also agree. Let me say as a matter of interest that the statistics which are available to me show that industrial milk producers in the Republic number 60 000. These 60 000 producers produce 49% of the milk which is produced in the Republic. The fresh milk producers number between 4 500 and 5 000. They produce 51% of the milk, and it is those 5 000 whom we are concerned with, not the 60 000 industrial milk producers. They are under the control of the board and we accept it. It is, however, the smaller number of producers who are producing the bulk of the milk.

We on this side of the House welcome the acceptance by the hon. the Minister of the recommendation that the board shall become more marketing-orientated and, secondly, that they will restrict the scope of control.

*I want to ask the hon. the Minister that the boards should interfere as little as possible. They should only interfere when it is essential. They should only interfere as far as it is necessary to keep the industry going. That is all the interference that is necessary. They should not interfere more than is absolutely necessary.

†In the third place, we accept that the board shall leave the physical handling and the processing of products to private enterprise and, fourthly, that they will not be allowed in general to follow a policy of restrictive registration. In respect of the recommendation regarding restrictive registration, the hon. the Minister has only accepted some of the recommendations. That is a matter of regret to us. The exceptions which he accepts, and this is in terms of the recommendations, are that the dried fruit packers, the wheat millers and with certain reservations, the bakers, the producer distributors of milk and the dairy factories should continue to be registered on a restrictive basis by the respective control boards. We regret that he rejects the recommendation contained in paragraph 94.3 that the restriction of entry of milk distributors into the market be lifted. Why does the hon. the Minister reject this recommendation? He gave no motivation for it in his speech. It appears that he is not prepared to allow free enterprise to operate in this particular industry. He knows that the situation is that at the moment the producer is receiving less than half of what the consumer is paying for fresh milk. He knows that this gap is too great. Yet he does nothing about trying to control the monopolistic conditions which are developing and have in fact developed in the milk industry in the western Cape. Whether it involves a cartel, a ring or one company, it makes no difference. This was accepted in previous years for ideological reasons. The aim was to reduce the number of Black labourers in the western Cape. This was accepted, but the hon. the Minister must look at the misuse that has been made of this system. A monopoly has now resulted. When the hon. the Minister or the National Marketing Council is presented by such organizations with a set of figures representing their costs of pasteurization and distribution, is there any yardstick against which the hon. the Minister can measure them? He has no such yardstick. He is compelled to accept their figures, and it is based upon their figures that there is this tremendous gap where the farmers are receiving approximately 15c per litre and the consumer is paying 3 lc per litre for milk. The consumer is paying more than twice what the farmer is getting. Can that be justified? The hon. the Minister has no yardstick against which to measure it. I want to urge him to reconsider his decision in that regard and to allow free enterprise to play its part so that we can get other bodies involved, bodies which can possibly be more efficient and so produce better figures in order to reduce the gap between the producer’s price and the price the consumer is paying.

It is also a matter of regret that the hon. the Minister did not accept the recommendations of the commission regarding the registration of retail butchers and wholesale butchers. The commission suggested there should only be formal registration. The hon. the Minister has instituted a committee to inquire further into this matter. We look forward to the report of the National Marketing Council resulting from this investigation.

We regret that the hon. the Minister has also not accepted the recommendation for a freer marketing system for livestock. Again, we look forward to the report of the National Marketing Council on this particular matter. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will have the courage of his convictions and that he will have sufficient confidence in the National Marketing Council to table that report in the House so that members of the House will be aware of what the National Marketing Council have found as a result of their investigations and what recommendations they make. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he cannot accept the unanimous recommendations of the commission and why he should now allow producers to slaughter their livestock and then sell their carcasses by negotiation. Similarly, I should like to know why he should now allow distributors, whether wholesale butchers or retail butchers, to purchase their stock as livestock from the producers and then to slaughter them and keep them for their own. I agree that for statistical and other reasons there must be grading and a record must be kept so that we can know exactly what is happening in the meat industry in the country.

I am glad the hon. the Minister has accepted the concept of an annual agricultural conference involving all parties interested in agriculture virtually from the seed producer and the primary producer through to the consumer. The hon. the Minister has not rejected that. He said he would investigate it. I want to commend that idea to him because I believe that in this way he can engender for himself and the three departments he represents a tremendous amount of goodwill from all sectors of the public who will see themselves to be directly involved in that conference, which must take place before prices are fixed so that the views that come out of that conference can be considered by the hon. the Minister at the time when he fixes the prices of agricultural products. It is an important part of the report. I want to repeat what the hon. member for Bethal and I said last year when we discussed the Vote of the hon. the Minister. We asked him please to consider the report as a whole.

*We asked him not to single out just a few of the proposals for acceptance, rejecting the rest. He must please consider the report as a whole.

†We asked him to implement the whole report or otherwise reject it all.

This conference on agricultural matters was part of a quid pro quo that was suggested to compensate for the removal of consumer representation from the board and the abolition of the Consumer’s Advisory Committee. I believe it is absolutely essential that before the hon. the Minister starts to fix prices, even before he fixes the price of maize … [Interjections.] This year, he has again made the mistake that the commission pointed out to him, i.e. that he must not fix the price of one product in vacuo, but must look at all the products together and announce all the prices together. The hon. the Minister did not do so.

I cannot.

The hon. the Minister says he cannot. The commission does not agree with the hon. the Minister. We believe it can be done. We believe that he has got to consider them together and announce them together, because die maize price has an effect on the oilseed price. The hon. member for Lydenburg sits there. It has a bearing on the price of his product. It also has a bearing on the price of the mutton and wool of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and on the price of the beef of the hon. member for East London North. It has a bearing on so many other prices. It even has a bearing on the prices of the dairy producer. How can the hon. the Minister announce one price in vacuo ? That is why we suggest the hon. the Minister should hold this conference. That is why we say he must consider all the prices, each in relation to the other, and announce them all simultaneously.

How do you announce the price if there is no increase?

That is not necessary. All the hon. the Minister has to do, is to announce that the price will remain the same as the previous year. There is no increase or decrease. That is easy.

† believe that it is important that these all have to be considered together because of their relationship. The hon. member for Lydenburg will tell the hon. the Minister that immediately the price of maize is announced and there is an increase, the farmers in his district who are the oilseed producers will immediately say that in relation to maize their price must go up even higher than they thought it would have to go up. This is precisely what happens, and the hon. the Minister knows it.

It is a matter for regret to this side of the House that the hon. the Minister has decided to leave the power to fix prices with the boards. The majority recommendation was that the Minister should have the power to fix all prices after recommendations from the National Marketing Council. I want to submit that that is better than the present system, although I disagreed with the recommendation of the majority of the commission. I believe that the prices should be fixed by a Cabinet committee, which should include representatives of the consumers in the person of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Labour in particular.

Then the United Party farmers will be bankrupt.

No, Sir. I do not believe …

If those people must decide on the prices, I am out of business.

No. They are not going to decide on the prices; there is no need to put anybody out of business, and there is no intention on the part of the official Opposition to put anybody out of business. What we want to get is some form of balance. That is what we are aiming at. Such a balance is impossible on a producer-orientated board, a board with a producer majority and which, in terms of the evidence which we had, has the interests of the producer at heart. Such a board should not be able to decide on prices on its own. At the same time I believe it is most unfair on this hon. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, you and hon. members know I love this hon. Minister very much, and I believe it is most unfair to place on the shoulders of this hon. Minister the sole responsibility of having to fix those prices, where he has to look, not only to the producer who is pushing him from his right-hand side, but also to the consumer who is pushing him from the left. He is being squeezed in the middle, between the two. I believe it is most unfair to force him to make the decisions. That is why I recommend that it should be a Cabinet committee. But let us leave that. Let us accept the recommendation of the majority of the commission. The recommendation of the majority of the commission was that the Minister should fix the prices and no longer the boards. The hon. the Minister has told me—I do not think I am breaking any confidence when I say it—that this Bill is not the end of the road. He has every intention of bringing another Bill next year, possibly a consolidation measure, to consolidate and put the Act into proper shape. I sincerely hope that when the hon. the Minister introduces that Bill next year, it will embody a provision to the effect that the hon. the Minister will, together with some of his colleagues, take the responsibility of fixing prices. We cannot argue that today. We cannot debate it in Committee Stage, because there is no provision to that effect in the Bill. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me the latitude to speak on this particular matter in reply to the speech of the hon. the Minister.

I would like to point out, however, that in terms of clause 18 of the Bill, a new section 80 is inserted into the principal Act. In terms of this proposed new section, the hon. the Minister takes the power to act as a control board. In other words, he takes unto himself the power to fix prices on his own. If that clause is read in its widest context, the hon. the Minister takes it upon himself to become the petty dictator of agriculture in the Republic. I do not believe he is going to do that. I do not believe that for one moment and therefore, I repeat that I hope the hon. the Minister will use these powers with circumspection.

It is a pity that the hon. the Minister has not accepted the recommendation of the commission that there should be established a division for agricultural statistics. This, I believe, is one of the greatest shortcomings in agriculture today. Other members of the commission will agree with me when I say that the evidence that we received was very much to the effect that there was a lack of adequate, up-to-date statistics and information. There is information available. Statistics are available. Only yesterday I had cause to congratulate the Secretaries of the three departments concerned on their very good reports which give a wealth of information and statistics. However, by the time we receive it in the House it is already nine months old, and farmers do not want statistics which are a year or two years old. They want up-to-date statistics, and I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister to have another look at this question and to consider the establishment within the agricultural sector of something along the lines of the Benbo organization which has been established by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I know he had to find finance for it. I believe finance can be found.

I must state further that it is a matter for regret that the hon. the Minister has accepted the recommendation of the majority regarding a reduction in subsidies. Over the last two days we have had a quite comprehensive debate on the question of whether subsidies should be retained, whether they should be increased or whether they should be reduced. I do not intend to bore the House this afternoon with a repetition of that debate. However, I reiterate that I believe subsidies should be paid as a cushioning to help the underprivileged people until such time as they are in a position to pay an economic price for the farmers’ produce. Consumer representation remains a thorny problem. The commission recommended three things: Firstly, that consumer representation at board level should be removed; secondly, that the Consumer Advisory Committee should be abolished, and thirdly, that annual consultation between the National Marketing Commission and the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council, established by the Minister of Economic Affairs, should be undertaken. We find that the hon. the Minister rejects the first and the third recommendations, and that he accepts the second one. The one point on which the commission was wholeheartedly in agreement, though—unanimously in agreement—was the second point. It was quite clear from the evidence that we received that consumer representation at board level served no useful purpose at all.

You agreed as well!

I have just said that. That is the one point on which the commission was entirely unanimous. Every single one of us agreed on that point. We agreed that this was the weight of the evidence we received. That is the only point that the hon. the Minister has rejected. He continues with consumer representation at board level and he rejects all the other recommendations of the commission regarding consumer representation in other sections or other parts of the whole system which is set out in this report. That he accepts. Sir, I am disappointed. In regard to the clause which provides for the constitution of the boards die hon. the Minister says that he does not accept the recommendation that there should be a maximum of 11 members. He wants to have 13 members, and I hope that the other two members are going to be consumers, because the hon. the Minister makes no other provision for them in this whole system. Therefore, in the Committee Stage, we are going to move amendments to the effect that, if he insists on 13 members, the extra two members should be representatives of the consumers.

The position of the consumer is further weakened because the recommendation concerning the annual agricultural conference on prices and trends where the consumer would be represented, has not been implemented. It is also weakened because the power of the boards to fix prices remains with the boards. This was a quid pro quos: take the consumer representation away from the boards, but do not allow the boards to fix the price; let the hon. the Minister and his colleagues fix the price. In the minority paragraph I supported the recommendation, but on conditions. I want to refer to my reservations on page 67 of the report of the commission.

Firstly, I ask for consumer representation on the Marketing Council. We will be moving such an amendment in the Committee Stage. My second reservation was that there should be discussions with the Marketing Council and the S.A. Consumers Co-ordinating Council. This the hon. the Minister has rejected. He will not allow this to happen. My third reservation was that there should be consumer participation in the conference about agricultural prospects. The hon. the Minister is considering this. He may or may not introduce it. My fourth reservation was that control boards will not have the power to fix prices. This was rejected by the hon. the Minister. The fifth reservation was that the Minister of Economic Affairs should serve in the Cabinet committee which will fix prices of agricultural products. Again the hon. the Minister has rejected it. My sixth reservation was that in general a policy of restrictive registration is not applied as set forth in paragraphs 90 up to and including 102. The hon. the Minister has not accepted all the recommendations contained in those paragraphs. The Bill even provides that the Marketing Council shall no longer have annual consultations with the Board of Trade and Industry. Let me say that the Board of Trade and Industry represents consumers of agricultural products in one form or another. Although the hon. the Minister retains the right to appoint consumer representatives to the board, I believe that their position is sadly weakened by the speech of the hon. the Minister and by the Bill. It is a matter of concern to find that the provision for consultation with the Board of Trade and Industry is not being complied with.

In the Act, which we have had for I do not know how many years, there is a provision that there shall be an annual consultation with the Board of Trade and Industry. According to the evidence that we have heard it has never been complied with. The evidence and also the hon. the Minister’s speech imply that this is because the Board of Trade and Industry suggested that it was not in a position to gear itself for such a conference. What is the matter with the hon. the Minister? What is the matter with the National Marketing Council? Why do they not bring pressure on the Minister of Economic Affairs to see that the Board of Trade and Industry does its duty? It is stipulated in an Act that it shall do certain things and, yet, it just sits back and says: “I cannot do it.” What does the hon. the Minister do? He comes with an amendment and succumbs to the Board of Trade and Industry by withdrawing that provision. We will oppose that when we come to the Committee Stage.

Similarly, I am unhappy to find that the provision in the Act which requires the National Marketing Council to report to the Minister every two years, has been totally ignored. The last report of the National Marketing Council on the control boards under the Marketing Act refers to the period from 1950-’51 to 1963-’64—13 years ago. Yet, the Act provides that every two years it shall report to the Minister, not whether it wants to or whether the Minister asks it for a report; the Act provides that it shall report. Let me say this was an excellent report. In fact, very seldom have I read a better and more balanced report on the whole agricultural situation in South Africa. I believe it is absolutely essential that the provisions of the Act be adhered to, firstly, with regard to the Board of Trade and Industry, and secondly, with regard to the National Marketing Council. I believe that if the Government had taken notice of the report that was tabled in 1965, there would not have been any necessity for a commission of enquiry to sit for three years and to produce a report with recommendations, many of which are contained in this report of 1965. I quote from it—

This is precisely what the commission of enquiry has recommended. I quote further—

What the hon. member for Boksburg said yesterday afternoon, is dealt with in the report of 1965. I do not want to bore the House this afternoon, but there are half a dozen or more of these extracts which I can quote from the report, recommendations which are holus-bolus in line with what the Marketing Commission reported. I quote further—

That was in 1965. The hon. the Minister waits until 1976 for a commission of enquiry to recommend the same thing before he takes any action. That is why we shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage to compel the Marketing Council to make a report, but not every two years. We shall compromise with the hon. the Minister by suggesting that the council should be compelled to do so every three years. When one looks at the fact that the Marketing Council has been increased in size and that its duties have been reduced, one believes that they can do it.

I want to refer to the question of the control boards. Presently there are 22 of these boards in operation in the Republic. A principle in regard to the constitution of the control boards has been that there shall be a producer majority and that the boards shall be constituted on a representative basis, where the producer, the processor and the consumer—in fact, all persons concerned with that particular project—are represented. In the past the hon. the Minister has appointed the members generally from nominations by certain interested bodies, co-operatives and producer organizations. Membership of these 22 boards vary from the Meat Board with 24 members to the Dried Bean Board, the Lucern Board and the Mohair Board with seven members each. The commission found it absolutely unacceptable. In evidence we received it was suggested that the boards should be constituted as expert bodies. Because it acts mainly in a regulatory capacity covering a wide field, the commission considered it essential that specialized knowledge of each branch of the industry concerned should be represented on a board. We believe that the exchange of ideas can only be beneficial and that co-ordination can be achieved at board level if all branches of the industry concerned are represented. Therefore the commission recommended that the boards continued to be constituted on a representative basis, with a built-in producer majority. We accepted the principle that producer majority should reign.

Because sectional representation presented very real problems, an expressed proviso to this recommendation was added by the commission and was subscribed to by all members. The proviso is that control boards should no longer be allowed to fix or determine prices and that they should lose certain quasi-judicial powers, particularly those which allow them to interfere with private enterprise, e.g. by practising a system of restrictive registration. Because evidence was given that elections for producer representatives led to all sorts of mal-practices and that the appointment of a nominee of a nominating body was not always desirable because of pressure which was brought to bear on it by the body which has nominated it to the board, it was recommended that the Minister be empowered to appoint members to boards as representatives of the industry as a whole after consultation with all interested sectors of the industry. It was further recommended that consumer representation should not be appointed and that departmental representatives should be appointed in an advisory capacity with no voting power whatsoever. Having regard to all this, the commission recommended that boards be restricted to a maximum of 11 members—not that all boards must, of necessity, consist of 11 members, but there should be a maximum of 11 members. At present there are 11 boards with more than 11 members and 11 boards with 11 or less members. In this Bill the hon. the Minister proposes 13 members for a board. This will include representatives of the producers of the product, those are dealing with the product in the course of trade, the consumer of the product and others having an interest in the product. The hon. the Minister gives no motivation for the increase from 11 members to 13 members. He did not tell us of his thinking, why he wanted 13 members on a board instead of 11. Is it perhaps to provide for consumer representation? In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has not accepted our recommendation for other consumer participation in the system and that he has not reduced the powers of the board, the hon. the Minister must now give an undertaking to this House that the additional two members will be consumer representatives, appointed after consultation with the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council. I do not like to threaten anybody or to hold a pistol to the hon. the Minister’s head, but unless he is going to give us this undertaking this afternoon, we shall have to move amendments during the Committee Stage to embody this principle in the Bill.

The hon. the Minister also asks for the power to impose a general levy. The commission found that the S.A. Agricultural Union rendered valuable service not only to the boards, but also to agriculture in general a service fell within the scope of the boards. I believe this is an expansion of the principle contained in section 46 of the principle Act. The matter was recommended by the commission, and I quote from page 79, paragraph 178.5—

The intention was that certain specific expenditures of the S.A. Agricultural Union should be financed from this general levy and not that a fund be formed from which the expenses of the S.A. Agricultural Union can be paid. We in these benches accept the recommendation of the commission in the spirit in which it was made, i.e. that where the S.A. Agricultural Union has expenses connected with the functions of control boards, those expenses can be met from a general levy. The hon. the Minister’s proposals as contained in the Bill are, however, not in line with that. The Minister’s proposals are that a fund shall be established and that the S.A. Agricultural Union, with the approval of the hon. the Minister, will be able to draw on that fund. We cannot allow this. A fund like that can grow and grow; the producers can be levied without any particular target in mind, and the S.A. Agricultural Union will make higher and higher calls on the fund because they know the funds are available. This is not going to be in the best interest of any sector of the agricultural economy. This is not in line with the recommendations of the commission, and therefore we shall move amendments during the Committee Stage.

Regarding the exercise of the powers of a control board by the hon. the Minister, the commission is fully aware of the problems which arise when the hon. the Minister and a board cannot agree and a deadlock is reached. The commission recommended that the hon. the Minister be empowered to direct a board to exercise a specific power conferred upon it. In other words, the hon. the Minister must be able to say to the board: “You have got to do this in terms of the Act and in terms of the schemes, and now you carry it out.” Furthermore the commission recommended that the Act should provide that such a directive be complied with. When I considered the matter after I saw the Bill, I asked myself: How does one compel a board to do this and how does one enforce the second provision? The hon. the Minister now asks for the power to act in the place of the board—not to compel it to carry out its functions, but to act in its place, and we believe that such action by him is quite reasonable. The new proposed section 80, as inserted by clause 18 of the Bill, provides that the hon. the Minister may act in such a way and that when he has acted in such a way, it shall be deemed to be an action of the board.

Subject to one proviso, which I shall mention later, we have no objection to this clause because of the safeguards which are built in. If one looks at the provisions of the particular clause, one finds that only after there has been disagreement between the Minister and a board—this indicates a degree of negotiation—will the Minister be obliged to take action. Before he can take such action, he is obliged to consult again with the board concerned and with the National Marketing Council.

We in the official Opposition have always hesitated to give such powers to any Minister, but the evidence before the commission was such that we realize someone must have the power to enforce a decision. When we think of what was happening when the commission was sitting when there was the announcement of the new maize price when Sampi was so active and when the board refused to announce the price to which the hon. the Minister had agreed, we agree that this power should be given to the Minister.

*We have only one reservation, because we believe that Parliament should be consulted in matters like these. During the Committee Stage we shall move an amendment to the effect that when the Minister does this, he should submit the full facts to Parliament as soon as possible.

†In conclusion: After much study and hearing of evidence I have come to the conclusion that the basic concept of the system contained in the Marketing Act is sound. I want to repeat and stress it because there are interests outside this House in the economy generally who are doing their best to break down the system created by the Act. I want to repeat that I am convinced, and my party is convinced, that the principle, the concept of the marketing system as outlined in the Act is basically sound. We have considered all the recommendations of the commission and some of the footnotes. We consider that if they were accepted, they could only improve the application of the system.

The biggest problem which is to be found in the administration of the system, is in the persons involved. Some of them have a tendency towards empire-building. Some of them have developed into petty dictators. Some of them, quite frankly, have outlived their usefulness. They have fallen into a groove and they must be replaced. We have to get new blood in, new thoughts, new ideas, marketing thoughts. We have to become more marketing orientated.

I am very glad to say that the majority of the persons who appeared on behalf of the system before the commission impressed me tremendously. They are doing a jolly good, fine job of work. Fortunately, as I say, they are in the majority. I am impressed with their ability, with their acumen, with their integrity and with their knowledge of their particular subject. In the implementation of the Act and of the schemes which have developed under the Act, the hon. the Minister must get more of this calibre of persons involved. He has to apply these amendments in the spirit in which they have been recommended, and I believe if that is done, the Act can only work to the benefit of all the sectors of the economy, both producers and consumers. It is my pleasure to support the legislation.

I way to say at once that in one respect I cannot compete with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, and that is in making a marathon Second Reading speech here this afternoon. My Whips not will not allow me to do so, because we do not have that much time at our disposal. Therefore I am unable to reply to all his problems, although I shall try to refer to some of them.

Unlike the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South I want to emphasize the recommendations of the commission which were accepted by the Minister rather than those which were not accepted. I say that because percentage-wise much more than 90% of the recommendations of the commission were accepted. For us as members of the commission this is a red-letter day, because our recommendations are being carried into effect here, not only by means of legislation, but also by means of an undertaking by the Government and the Ministry to implement them, even if administratively only. It is of particularly great value to all of us and to me personally it has great significance.

The greater part of the recommendations of the commission were accepted, especially the essential recommendations which will shape our marketing system in South Africa. Allow me to refer to some of these main recommendations.

The terms of reference of the commission were mainly to consider the structure of our system of control, with special reference to the co-ordinating powers of the National Marketing Council. If we look at the history of the marketing system in South Africa, we see that during the past three decades our system of control has been expanded to a vast extent. Approximately 30 years ago, when the last investigation into the Marketing Act took place, there were only nine control boards. Today we have 22 control boards. They all have important functions and are specialized organizations in the marketing field and they all have a measure of autonomy accorded to them by the present Act. In this set-up it is the task of the National Marketing Council to fulfil a co-ordinating function amongst these 22 control boards and to advise the Minister on the marketing system in South Africa in general. We can understand that with the vast expansion of the marketing system, the control boards and their functions, the task of the National Marketing Council has been becoming increasingly more difficult because of its limited powers as against those of the control boards. Consequently a situation has arisen of the National Marketing Council no longer being able to fulfil its function properly. The problem resulting from that, is that we started finding sectional views in the agriculture and that sectional approaches developed to the various marketing commodities in South Africa. This was a major problem, and consequently the commission considered it its task to try and solve this problem. I contend that here one has in effect a structural problem. It was therefore the task of the commission to consider the National Marketing Council in the first place. Firstly, there was its constitution. That is important. This legislation provides for the membership of the National Marketing Council to be increased to eight members, six of whom have to be economists. This increase, the six economists and the two producer members appointed by the Minister, is specifically based on the expertise of these people. In other words, the body is to be authoritative, and not necessarily representative. This gives rise to the difference between us and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, because that gentleman feels that there should also be part-time members on the National Marketing Council. The evidence we heard in this respect from the various sectors, from people who have many years of experience, is that there is no room for part-time people on the National Marketing Council, and that it is a full-time job. Moreover, an arrangement of this kind would create problems in that people would not always be available for the job. Specialized knowledge of the various industries is built into the control boards anyway. They are the more representative bodies in the system of control. The National Marketing Council has only a co-ordinating and advisory function, and for that one is mainly dependent on the knowledge and authority of the people serving on the Council. So much, as regards the constitution of the National Marketing Council.

The other aspect the commission had to consider, was the status of the National Marketing Council. Therefore we are especially grateful that the hon. the Minister accepted the recommendations by the commission that the status of the National Marketing Council be made equal to that of other existing statutory bodies, inter alia, the Board of Trade and Industries. The commission also recommended that the chairman of the National Marketing Council be a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. It seems to me the hon. the Minister is giving favourable consideration to this recommendation at the moment. We are particularly grateful for that.

In our opinion this is very important with regard to the co-ordinating function and also specifically with regard to the general economic knowledge which should vest in the National Marketing Council. However, the commission also realized that if one wants to give a council status and wants to appoint economists to a council, one has to supply it with material related to agricultural economics to work on and to process. For this reason the commission requested that the services rendered by the department to the National Marketing Council be improved. It would be to no avail to appoint a lot of additional economists if they did not have sufficient statistical and other information to work with. In the event of this coming to naught, the commission requested that a service bureau be established to render these services to the Council. Although the Minister does not accept this recommendation, we do believe that he will see his way clear to have these essential services rendered to the National Marketing Council.

With regard to the status of the National Marketing Council, the council should ultimately be able to hold an annual conference on agricultural prospects. If such a conference could be introduced successfully, it would, in my opinion, be one of the most important co-ordinating measures in the entire system of control. This type of conference is nothing new. Delegates of the commission visited Canada amongst other places. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is one of the members who visited Canada. Other members visited Australia. In Canada, for instance, this type of conference is held. As a matter of interest I want to quote a short passage from a report of a conference held in Canada.

I am referring to the Canadian Agricultural Outlook Conference Report of 1975. It was compiled by the Federal Canadian Government. Let me mention a few items on their agenda. Firstly there are the introductory remarks by the Canadian Minister of Agriculture. Then there are the subjects “Farm input situation and outlook” and “Outlook for agricultural research and development”. Thereafter the various commodities are discussed. Other items are “Dairy: Implications and Alternatives”, “Horticulture”, “Special crops”, “Farm income situation and outlook”, etc. I want to quote briefly from the introductory remarks by the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, the hon. Eugene Whelan. He said amongst other things—

I want to quote a final paragraph. The Minister went on to say—

So much as regards the conference on agricultural prospects held in Canada. I do not believe we want to implement this type of conference just like that in South Africa, but we do believe that we can do something similar, something which will be suited to our particular circumstances in South Africa. I believe that we can bring together all the important agricultural bodies at such a conference. After all the information has been received from the control boards and from the departments—and the most knowledgeable authorities on agriculture discuss this type of thing every year— such a conference can be a very valuable bureau of information, not only for our farmers, but for every body and person involved in agriculture in South Africa. I am sincere and confident in saying that conferences of this nature will meet with great success in South Africa too.

The commission also considered the powers of the National Marketing Council. We are glad to see that the Minister is amending the Act in such a way that he himself is to do the fixing of prices and no longer the control boards. It is time that the Minister had the power to approve or disapprove, but in effect he had no more than a right to veto price recommendations. What this entailed in practice was that the control boards constantly had consultations with the Minister on price recommendations. It also meant that the National Marketing Council was out in the cold, which had a destructive effect on the prominent position it should have been playing in the marketing system. I think that this amendment will make a major contribution to its position as far as its status is concerned. The Minister also accepted the recommendation by the commission to the effect that a control board may discuss price matters with the Minister only after the National Marketing Council has submitted its price recommendation and its report to the Minister. In practice that means that before a price recommendation reaches the Minister, it will first be thrashed out between the National Marketing Council and the control board concerned, so that consensus may be reached. In other words, when a price finally reaches the Minister, it is a well-considered price. In those circumstances it may possibly not be so essential for the Cabinet Committee to consider that price, because with the position of status the National Marketing Council has achieved, all bodies and persons on all sides will in any event already have had a say and the Minister will be able, where such consensus has been reached, to announce a more popular and a more acceptable price much more readily. I believe, therefore, that these recommendations will be of great value. When one deals with this matter, one gains the impression that marketing is no more than a final stage of production, that it is in fact no more than a process by which the producer converts his product into money. In the second place it is also the process by which agricultural products are made available to the consumers in South Africa in a consumable form. We believe that the implementation of these recommendations will greatly benefit agriculture and our economy in general.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak after the hon. member for Bethal, who was the chairman of this commission. One could hear from the very onset that he had made a proper study of all the implications of this legislation and that he is well informed about the work done by the commission. Enquiring into and reporting on this matter was a very interesting job of work to me. The proceedings of the commission covered a period of three years, and visits were paid to various countries. The chairman did a tremendous job of work but there are other people too who did a great deal of work on the commission and who should not be forgotten. I have in mind our Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who went so far as to go along on the journeys we undertook to investigate what was happening in other countries. I also have in mind the good work done by Dr. Claude van der Merwe, the previous Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, in giving us guidance. He was really an expert on this matter. Our trips to different parts of the world made all of us realize that the legislation we have here in South Africa with regard to agriculture, is fine legislation indeed and that there is little we can do to improve it. It was therefore an easy matter to carry out our task to try to improve it. One can deduce that from the legislation, because there are no major changes. The underlying principles of the Act are not being affected, but it was nevertheless necessary to revise the legislation.

This afternoon I want to confine myself specifically to the matter of exporting our agricultural products. We realize full well how important it is for us to concentrate on export. Agricultural products can always be produced again. Gold and minerals are dwindling assets. However, agriculture will always be with us and we shall always be able to fall back on that. That is why it is important that we take cognizance of the existing situation and of what we can do to promote our exports.

The commission came to the alarming conclusion that the export of our agricultural products was not being co-oridinated properly. Much can still be done to eliminate the existing shortcomings. In other countries there are organizations specializing in the export of agricultural products. Such organizations specialize in various directions, but there is only one umbrella organization promoting the export of the country’s agricultural products. It is not altogether a foregone conclusion that this will in fact work here in our country. We have special circumstances.

I am thinking for instance of how well an organization like Agrexco works in Israel. The organization concerns itself with seeking overseas markets for the farmers of Israel. It also does overseas market research and sees to it that Israeli producers gain contracts for exporting their products. It is an organization which is functioning admirably. Now, I do not want to suggest that we opt for exactly the same thing without further ado. Our control boards have a variety of organizations doing excellent work at the present time. There are, for example, the deciduous Fruit Board, the Citrus Board, the Wool Board, the Karakul Board, etc.

A recent investigation by the National Marketing Council revealed that the work done by those control boards is indeed excellent. There still are, however, a fairly large number of products which are not under control. I am very grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he accepted the recommendations of the commission to the effect that new control boards for other products were not to be established at the present time, but that endeavours were to be made to accommodate such products in the existing boards.

What did the members of the commission find on their overseas visits? They found that the knowledge our producers had of what products could be marketed abroad was indeed insufficient. They also found that there was a lack of knowledge concerning the standards agricultural products were required to meet. The members of the commission also found that there was a lack of knowledge amongst importers abroad as to what could be produced in South Africa. Therefore I feel that a real need for co-ordination exists. The question is, of course, how this is to be effected. That is why I am pleased that the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he intended re-organizing the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in such a way that it would have an export division which would be able to do that type of work. I am not fully convinced, however, that that will be adequate.

We found overseas that good marketing people were very scarce indeed. The experience of the control boards undertaking marketing is that such people are not only scarce, but also very expensive because they are so scarce. Therefore I do not know whether something of this kind will fit into the pattern of the salary scales of officials. That is why I have been wondering whether we should not consider a somewhat different system.

The French have a system in terms of which they established a separate company. It is a company with statutory powers. The State holds half the shares in the company and consequently has a major say in the operations of that company. The remaining shares are held by the producer organizations and by the processors of agricultural products and other exporters. The effect of this is that the company is a very strong organization which is able to derive funds from various sources and which can stimulate and promote export on a large scale. The company can use all the available technical knowledge and is not bound to paying the people they have to appoint overseas, the salary of a civil servant. I am convinced of the fact that if we want staff who can really sell our products, we shall have to pay them a great deal of money. It is worthwhile to have a man there who is really able to promote the marketing of the products.

I also feel that the National Marketing Council will have to be involved in an organization of this kind. I see the National Marketing Council as the co-ordinating body for all our control boards. In my opinion the council has been doing very little up to now as regards the matter of guiding the control boards and of serving as a link amongst them. The previous speaker mentioned that the control boards had been used for building up individual little empires. That is true. The control boards are inclined to build their own little empires. If, however, the National Marketing Council has adequate technical knowledge and is able to impart such knowledge to the boards and is able to exercise more influence through their meetings, the council will be able to form a very useful link in the future in effecting co-ordination amongst the control boards. That will eliminate many of the problems which have arisen up to now.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the four speeches made so far in the debate and I shall comment on each of them in the course of my speech. I am particularly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Humansdorp, because what I want to say arises partly out of a view he held in the commission of inquiry. This Bill amends the Marketing Act. Marketing is what the farmer is in business for. Agriculture exists for the purpose of marketing its products, and therefore it is a matter of great importance to the agricultural sphere. The Bill arises out of the findings of the commission of inquiry. The commission did a lot of hard work, and I want to say right away that the Bill does make considerable improvements, as the hon. member for Humansdorp said. Therefore we will not oppose the Bill. However, we believe that there is one great deficiency in the Bill and I want to raise this pertinently. The deficiency arises out of clauses 3 and 6. These clauses are important, because they relate to the proposed marketing structure. I would like to point out that there must be something wrong with our marketing in South Africa. I just want to refer to something which was published in the Financial Mail of last month—

South Africa is a very small country at the tip of Africa and yet we are the fifth largest food producer in the world. It is a remarkable achievement, and yet the position is that there is a huge difference between the prices of agricultural products being paid to farmers and the prices which the public has to pay for those products. In the discussion of the Vote it emerged that despite the increased population and despite increased wages over the last few years, there has developed in respect of a number of foodstuffs a consumer resistance of some sort. In a number of foodstuffs consumption has dropped. The difference between the prices paid to the farmer and the prices paid by the public and the decreased consumption is simply a question of marketing. These two clauses, 3 and 6, are amendments with regard to the National Marketing Council. The Marketing Council is—and here I want to agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South—obviously the cog around which the whole thing revolves. It seems to me that it is more than merely a co-ordinating council, as the hon. member for Bethal says. The Marketing Council is the essence of the whole thing.

Clause 6 deals with the Consumers’ Advisory Committee which was set up under section 5 of the Act. This Bill enlarges the Marketing Council. That is the first thing it does. As far as the Consumers’ Advisory Committee is concerned, it does away with it. The real trouble is that in both the case of the Marketing Council and the Consumers’ Advisory Committee consumer representation is eliminated effectively.

The Marketing Council is enlarged to 8 full-time members. That is what the commission recommended. However, I want to suggest that that was a mistake. There was a minority of two members—of which the hon. member for Humansdorp was one—in the commission who wanted part-time additional members. They wanted those part-time additional members to include consumers, whether they were ultimate consumers, processors, industrialists or distributors.

Then it is a representative body.

Yes, then it is a representative body.

That was not the idea.

I accept that the commission as a whole did not suggest that. A minority of two members did suggest it. I suggest they were right, because the agricultural industry and the Marketing Council in particular are the top marketing bodies. They, and that body in particular, cannot be without the advice and the knowledge of consumers. If consumers were represented in that body, it would be of great benefit to producers.

Let me for a moment refer to a field other than that of agriculture. If one is a businessman and one is looking for a larger market, a new market for one’s product, what does one do? What one does, is to talk to people and find out where to market and how to increase sales. One applies oneself to potential consumers. One conducts surveys among consumers to ascertain the relevant information to increase one’s sales. If one is a businessman, one goes out among the consumers, or you get somebody to do it for you. One must listen and talk to the consumers. As the hon. member for Bethal has said, the whole concept in this Bill is to have six people in the State’s employ and two producers on that council. The commission suggested that there should be six economists. The hon. member himself read that Canadian report which says that economists are great wafflers. I want to suggest that economists are not really the people one ought to be applying oneself to. They can obviously be represented on the Marketing Council, but, one really wants the advice of consumers on the Marketing Council. Naturally there will have to be consumers who will serve as part-time members as they cannot do so in a full-time capacity. There seems to be a feeling that consumers are in some way the enemy of the producers. It is felt that they will just cut the prices down. In that sense they are considered to be the enemies of the producers. However, they are clearly not the enemies of the producer. They are essential to the producer’s interests. It is in fact the consumer who puts and keeps the farmer in business.

Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if the hon. member could just inform us as to what type of consumer he wants on the National Marketing Council. If the hon. member does not mind, he can even give an example.

I shall deal with that a little later on. The point I am trying to make, is that one should have representatives representing wide strata of consumers … [Interjections.] I shall deal with the whole issue of the S.A. Consumers’ Co-ordinating Council a little later. I am suggesting, however, that there ought to be consumers of different varieties as advisers on the Marketing Council. The consumers of the products can give valuable information about the siting of market places, about the price structures, about the volume of production that can be consumed and about prices and volume together. As it is now provided for in the Bill, there will be no consumers on the Marketing Council. In addition, the hon. the Minister pointed out in his Second Reading speech that he has not provided in the Bill that the Marketing Council is obliged to consult the S.A. Consumers’ Co-ordinating Council. I think that is the council which the hon. the Deputy Minister was referring to. The commission recommended in paragraph 148.4 that consultation between the Marketing Council and the S.A. Consumers’ Co-ordinating Council ought to be obligatory at least once a year. The hon. the Minister has not provided for that. Clause 6 of the Bill eliminates the Consumers’ Advisory Committee. I accept that the commission found that that advisory committee was not very effective and therefore I am not arguing that that advisory committee ought to be resuscitated. If there are, however, no consumers on the Marketing Council and if they are not represented in the Advisory Committee, they are not represented anywhere and it seems to be illogical to say in effect that as we want to do better for the consumers—that is what marketing and what this Act is about—we should therefore get rid of them from all these councils and advisory committees. The argument of the commission, in paragraph 148, was: “Consumer representation on the control boards was not very effective.” The attitude of the commission was that that did not really matter, because the Marketing Council looked after consumers’ interests. The position now is that the Marketing Council will have no consumer representation in terms of the Bill and that the Consumers’ Advisory Committee will go. In addition, consumer representation on the control boards, according to the commission, was ineffective and therefore the consumer will figure nowhere at all. He will still remain on the control boards, but the commission has found that he is ineffective there. Therefore, he really remains nowhere where he can be effective in giving advice. I therefore want to make a very strong plea for co-operation with the consumers, for consultation with the consumers, for a strong representation of consumers on the Marketing Council and for part-time members on the Marketing Council. Our attitude is that in principle the Bill is deficient in this respect. The hon. the Minister could go some of the way by instructing the Marketing Council to meet the S.A. Consumers’ Co-ordinating Council regularly, as a matter of policy. The real answer, however, is for the Marketing Council to consist also of part-time members.

At this stage the Bill seems to us a pretty hotch-potch Bill in the sense that the Bill contains a lot of amendments to an existing inadequate Act.

Finally, if I can draw the attention of the hon. the Minister just for one moment, I want to repeat, in a sense, what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has asked. Will the hon. the Minister give us some indication of whether he does in fact intend introducing, in the not too distant future, an entirely new Marketing Bill? With those remarks I conclude by saying that we will not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Durban North started his speech, he referred to the wide difference which exists in South Africa between the price the producer receives for his product and the price which the consumer pays for it. The hon. member later came to the conclusion that one should assume that all is not well with our system of control boards in South Africa. I think we should state clearly that the proposed amendments to the Marketing Act should not be seen as a motion of no confidence in our systems of control boards or in our existing marketing system. The amendments are directed at making it more streamlined and at eliminating certain bottlenecks which were experienced in the past.

The hon. member places a very high premium on the part-time members of the Marketing Council. Theoretically this is a possibility which could entail very major advantages, but when one looks at the practical side and considers the desirability of members of the Marketing Council always being available, one realizes that this could result in the part-time members of the Marketing Council putting a spoke in the wheel of its activities or delaying the settlement of certain matters which should be settled immediately. It is true that in many cases, part-time members have to be notified of meetings and provided with agendas by post. They then have to prepare themselves to be able to decide on the matters to be considered during the following meeting.

In his speech the hon. member objects to the scrapping of the consumer members of the Marketing Council and also of the control board system according to the recommendation of the commission. However, the hon. the Minister feels that the consumer members should still have a seat on the control boards. I think the hon. member is losing sight of one very important aspect. He should take note of the fact that everyone in South Africa is a consumer. The Bill provides very clearly in clause 3 that of the members, the chairman or the deputy chairman shall be members of the staff of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Such members are in effect not producer members and they are pre-eminently suited to handling the interests of the consumer.

We must also assume—this very point comes up time and again during the discussion of the Vote on Agriculture—that our producer in South Africa is just as much and as good a consumer as anyone who is not in the agricultural industry. In my opinion this is the answer, for when the producer members of the Marketing Council see to the interests of the producers, they cannot act foolishly and lose sight of the interests of the consumer. In future the consumer and the producer will have to have increasing understanding for each other, because we are trying, in the first place, to satisfy the consumer before we can look to markets overseas and before we consider exporting a specific product. I know the hon. member for Durban North did not mean it that way, but I want to state clearly that in future we in South Africa will have to guard increasingly against creating the impression that the consumer and the producer are at loggerheads. We shall have to try and instil a spirit in which the consumer will realize that the interests of the producer are in fact his interests too, and on the other hand, that the producer will realize that the consumer’s interests are of equal importance to him.

Previous speakers, especially speakers on this side of the House, have already made mention of the way in which the hon. the Minister and the department have succeeded in eliminating some of the most important bottlenecks pointed out by the commission, by means of this amendment to the Act.

I should like to express a few ideas related to one of the factors which came to light yesterday and the day before during the discussion of the Agriculture Votes, namely that South Africa is traditionally saddled with surpluses and is therefore obviously an export country. I think it is of the greatest importance that export be well-organized in future. I think we in South Africa have already reached the point of realizing that it is going to be difficult for us to market our products overseas in future, because certain forces are trying to keep the South African product off the foreign markets. Therefore it will be of the greatest importance that we in South Africa succeed in supplying a really good quality product to our overseas clients and that we should prepare ourselves to try and supply that product at a time when other countries cannot supply that specific product, to Europe in particular. In his Second Reading speech the Minister referred to the fact that the department had decided that no positive steps would be taken at this stage to create a central foreign marketing organization, but that the representation of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing abroad should be strengthened.

The hon. member for Humansdorp also referred to that, but I think that this is an essential step and a step in the right direction. In clause 21 of the Bill, which amends section 87 of the principal Act, as amended by section 5 of Act No. 78 of 1971 and section 17 of Act No. 31 of 1973, we find that the Minister takes upon himself the necessary powers to decide on the quantity or class of products which may be imported or exported. Clause 21 adds the following proviso to section 87(1) of the principal Act—

The proposed proviso also has a paragraph (bb). In considering the possibility of a central sales organization for controlled products abroad, the commission also paid attention to the marketing abroad of uncontrolled fruit and vegetables. They came to the conclusion that it was not sufficient to justify a separate sales organization. What is also of importance, is that another sales organization should not be created abroad. The measure of co-operation among the control boards shows that there are still possibilities for further co-operation in future, although two or more boards can only co-operate effectively with regard to certain facets. If the board were intentionally to pay special attention to undertaking joint marketing services, rather than acting independently, progress in this regard is indeed regarded as a possibility. That applies not only to domestic marketing, but also to marketing abroad. With regard to marketing abroad, one is particularly struck by the individual producers’ lack of knowledge of marketing possibilities abroad, the standards set there and the requirements which have to be complied with in this regard. They have only limited success in finding markets and using them judiciously. Because of the specialized nature of this matter and the fact that various departments, and other bodies and persons as well, are concerned with it, we have to accept that this matter will require further study. I think it is perhaps also necessary to point out on this occasion that, although under clause 21 the Minister is being given the power to exercise control over imported products, we in South Africa will perhaps have to go a little further and will also have to look at various products which are imported without the Department of Agriculture knowing about them or approving of them. For instance, someone once showed me a bottle of red wine from Bulgaria. I think the time has come for an end to be put to this system because we are losing foreign exchange as a result of the unnecessary commodities being imported. The two-way marketing information service which we will need increasingly in South Africa in future, will be so specialized that the various departments of agriculture will have to train our people and will have to bring them into the picture to an increasing extent, not only in the interests of the producer in South Africa, but also in the interest of the overseas consumer and his needs at different times.

In conclusion, I want to express one more thought. The commission had the privilege, in the course of this investigation and also during its travels overseas, of making contact with the officials of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in overseas countries. The esteem in which these South African officials are held overseas proves to us that there is a place for these people. Even more, it showed us that these people perform their task in such a way that they compel the respect of the consumers in European countries. Furthermore, we also gained the impression that these officials working overseas, are doing pioneering work, not only on behalf of the producer in South Africa, but also on behalf of the overall image of South Africa, by means of which they are winning friends for South Africa overseas. May we express the hope and the confidence that the officials who will in future be entrusted with this two-way service, will succeed in serving the producer, in getting to know the consumer and his needs in Europe, but also in making friends for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by reminding the Opposition—I am so scared that they will forget—that they must congratulate the Government tomorrow on its 29th birthday. I think this is the most efficient Government which has ever ruled any country.

Listening to how some people feel about the consumer of agricultural products, I as a producer of agricultural products begin to wonder whether, as a consumer of a car, a tractor and so many things that I have to buy, should have a say in those matters. Really, Mr. Speaker, when an agricultural product is at issue, it seems that all of us who consume the agricultural product want to have a say in the matter. I think the time has come for us farmers to request a say in those things that we need in the farming industry. I think it is essential.

As the hon. member for Durban North said, the findings of the commission state very clearly that in fact the consumer serves no purpose in the board, and makes no contribution either. That was indeed the view of a very senior member of the department on the commission. But the Minister saw fit, the Government saw fit to retain the consumers in the board. Therefore I only want to ask the hon. the Minister one thing, namely that the boards that have managed without consumers over the years, should not be forced to appoint consumers. I make that request in all friendliness. There are for instance the Wool Board and the Mohair Board which function very well and on which the consumer as such has never been represented over the years. Let me rather put it this way; that the consumer was represented there in the sense that the people who sit on it are not only producers. All I ask the hon. the Minister is not to force the boards to give consumers representation.

In the short time at my disposal—we on this side of the House are disciplined—one can in effect only give a few general impressions of the legislation. I think if one considers the report of the commission as a whole, the commission succeeded in bringing the point home that we in this country should not exercise control merely for the sake of control and that we should try to reduce control. I think the commission succeeded in bringing that point home very clearly—and in fact it is so that the Government accepted most of the recommendations on control. We are very grateful for that.

The second impression which I should like to stress, is the fact that the commission felt that the control boards should not do the physical marketing of products, but that this should be left in the hands of the private sector. I think that is another overall impression that one gets. We know that there is a vast amount of criticism of control boards because of this aspect.

I think it is very unfair, because how many control boards physically handle the products? There are a few, but very special circumstances are responsible for that. It developed that way historically. I only want to mention one example to illustrate my statement. Let me take the wool and mohair industry as an example. In the early ’forties there were something like 47 brokers. The number of those brokers gradually dwindled. But what is illuminating, is that the private sector gradually moved out of the wool industry, to such an extent that today there is only one co-operative left serving the wool and the mohair industry.

Now I ask myself the question: Why is it that where the private sector had free access—anyone could establish a broker’s organization—they moved out? I have the answer and I am going to supply it. It is because there was no money to be made. The private sector is interested in those sectors of the agricultural industry where there is money to be made, but in the sectors where there is no money to be made, they are not interested and they see to it that they get out as soon as possible. I think that is a very good illustration. I want to concede, however, that the commission felt very strongly that the physical handling of agricultural products should remain chiefly in the hands of the private sector. We agree with that.

A third overall impression is that the commission tried to promote the elimination of red tape. They tried to eliminate the red tape as far as possible, the red tape between the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the control boards. If we had to work out the time taken up by the writing of letters to and fro by highly-paid officials, I wonder if our country can afford it. I do not think so. I think the commission succeeded in eliminating much of this red tape. I do not say this to cast aspersions on any of the control boards or the departments, but it is true that we suffer from a letter-writing mania. I think we should try to get away from that and to provide for as much control as possible over these things in a code, as we indeed did, and that we should move away from letter-writing and time-wasting.

In clause 12 of the Bill all boards are now compelled to draw up a budget. I think that in this way alone much red tape is going to be eliminated. I cannot understand how any board or any organization can function effectively without working out a budget in advance. It has to be a budget which the hon. Minister and his department can duly peruse so that they can know beforehand exactly which activities the board concerned is planning for the year. At the same time, by means of a budget it can be seen to that the boards spends its money—mone which it obtains by statutory levies—in the best interests of the industry concerned.

I want to refer to another aspect, something to which the hon. the Minister, too, paid attention in his speech on the Second Reading. It is about buildings. I refer for instance to the Wool Board, a board which has a vast number of buildings. Obviously the Wool Board should have buildings in which it may perform its activities, especially with regard to purchases during the year. Now it is true that from time to time maintenance work has to be done to those buildings. In this respect, of course, the hon. the Minister does not create any problems for us. Now he has made certain concessions, however, with regard to the maintenance work to be done to buildings. I should like to see the matter pursued even further. In the budget which it submits for the year, the board should give a breakdown of all the repair work to be carried out on its buildings so that the hon. the Minister can give his approval. Then it will not be necessary to conduct a lengthy correspondence about this during the year.

With regard to information, just the following. Long hours were devoted to this subject in the commission. I gained the impression that the commission was of the opinion that boards should not be allowed to furnish information. The commission did, however, feel that in some industries exceptions should be made, especially in the case of industries where the historical development was such that they supplied information to their members. Therefore I am delighted that the hon. the Minister and the Government accepted the recommendation that the boards cannot supply information, but that certain exceptions could in fact be made. For example, I have in mind in this respect the Wool and Mohair Boards which provide an information service through their co-operative. The co-operative is remunerated for this service by means of a levy.

To proceed, I just want to discuss briefly the representation of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on the board. That is something which worries me. The Wool Board has an official of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on its board. It worries me that that representation will now perhaps have to be relinquished. Because of the fact that the Wool Board provides an information service through their co-operative, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services should most definitely be represented on it.

Actually we can co-opt there.

Actually we can co-opt. It only worries me that someone else could now be co-opted. I am of the opinion that we should have a representative of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services there.

Finally, I believe that more amendments will be made to the Marketing Act. I am, however, pleased that so many of the recommendations of the commission—a commission whose activities extended over three years— were accepted by the Government and by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and the hon. member for Bethlehem will not resent my not reacting to their speeches. They put forward the standpoint of the commission on which we served together. We were in agreement on the commission and we shall probably not have any differences here either. I just want to add that we worked together for three years. Those were three years in which strong bonds of friendship were formed. This is something which inevitably occurs whenever people work together for three years.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet put forward the standpoint of the producer here. There is one aspect to which I should like to refer, however, and it concerns something raised by the hon. member for Durban North, i.e. the tremendous gap existing between the price of the producer and that of the consumer. By way of explanation I might just say that it is the private entrepreneur who is responsible for this. The control boards do not control the price of a product up to its final destination. As far as I know, the only products of which the prices are controlled right up to their final destination, are milk and bread. These are the only ones; there are no others. Therefore, if there is a gap between the consumer and the producer, this is as a result of private enterprise and nothing else. The hon. members must say whether or not we should interfere in private enterprise.

Of course, we in this party welcome this amending Bill. It is a very accurate reflection of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act, on which I had the privilege to serve. The Bill contains virtually all of the recommendations made by the commission. The few departures from those recommendations, do not detract from the commission’s findings and are in any event so negligible that they do not detract in any way from the pattern laid down by the commission.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South requested the privilege of the hour. While one was listening to that hon. member, one would have sworn that the hon. the Minister had rejected all of the commission’s recommendations. I glanced through the Bill and I could find only five administrative recommendations which the hon. the Minister had rejected. I was able to find three …

There are quite a few more than five.

When the hon. member was sitting here earlier on, I said to him I would lay a wager with him … [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister also rejected three recommendations in parts, whilst another two are still under consideration. The recommendation relating to the Meat Board about which the hon. member had so much to say, is under consideration, whilst the recommendation relating to agricultural prospects has not been rejected either. The hon. the Minister said he foresaw practical problems and that he was still considering the recommendation. The Bill differs minimally from the recommendations of the commission. What are the actual departures from the recommendations? In truth, there are only two. One is that whereas the commission recommended that there be 11 members with a vote on the control board, as well as two co-opted members, clause 10 provides that there may be a maximum of 13 members with a vote and one co-opted member. This is a negligible difference which really does not matter. The hon. the Minister did this in order to make provision for the consumer. It does not make a tremendous difference to me and I am not going to argue about it. In any event, the members of the control board are not paid and consequently this does not entail any additional expenditure. If the hon. the Minister wants to make an extra concession to the consumers, I am not going to reproach him for that and waste the time of this House while I am doing so. Why did the commission recommend that the board should have 11 members? We found that having two consumer members on the control board was in fact rather meaningless. A control board is a body which calls for penetrating study on the part of the people serving thereon and because those two members do not have the necessary knowledge of its affairs, they are not acquainted with the situation. Consequently, we did not think it necessary to recommend that they serve on the board. This was not because we wanted to harm the consumer, however. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that I probably use more agricultural products than he does. After all, I use more maize, flour …

Wine!

That is not a controlled product. [Interjections.] The commission was very sympathetic towards the consumers. The commission wanted to allow representatives of the consumers to serve on the Marketing Council as advocated by the hon. member. We wanted to do this and gave it as much consideration as possible. We could not allow such a representative to serve on the board on a full-time basis, however, because then he would lose touch with the consumer. One cannot appoint such a member on a part-time basis either, because the Marketing Council is continually in session and one has to keep oneself fully acquainted with its activities. One cannot simply have a member serving on the council on a part-time basis to come and go as he pleases. He would not know what was going on. We tried our best to allow a representative of consumers to serve on the council, but we could not do it. The commission then recommended that the Marketing Council should meet the Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council at least once, and, if possible, twice a year. They could iron out their problems at such a meeting. As the hon. member rightly said, the Marketing Council is the proof. It is the body which has the teeth. If it were to meet the Co-ordinating Consumers Council twice a year …

Where is the consumers’ representation on the Marketing Council?

The consumer cannot have any there. I have just explained that to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. If the Marketing Council were to meet twice a year with the Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council, they could iron out all their problems.

The hon. the Minister says it is not necessary for them to meet.

He did not say that at all. Nor did he reject the idea of a conference on agricultural prospects.

He did not accept it either.

It is still being considered.

He is speaking like a Deputy Deputy Minister. Watch out Oubaas!

That side of the House has proved today that they know absolutely nothing about the matter. People who really know nothing about the matter, should rather leave this Chamber when we are dealing with one of the most important pieces of legislation. I do not think it is at all funny when hon. members play the fool with regard to farming matters. It is not at all funny that there is not a single farmer in that party who can speak on agriculture. Their case is presented by a supermarket hawker. [Interjections.] We went so far as to ask that a conference, chaired by the Marketing Council, be held to discuss agricultural prospects, a conference at which consumers, businessmen, the Land Bank and all interested parties would be represented. This would afford the consumer and the dealer a say in this matter. That is what we recommended. We did not simply disregard the consumer.

Now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is even going to introduce an amendment to the effect that there should be compulsory liaison between the Marketing Council and the Board of Trade and Industries. The Board of Trade and Industries said—the hon. member knows this—it did not have the machinery for this, because they would have to obtain people who would have to study the matter. They said they would have to equip themselves especially for that purpose. Those are the actual words they used. So that body does not want this. The only thing the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wanted to do was to plead the case of commerce. He wanted to incite commerce against the farmers. [Interjections.] He simply wanted to make a little propaganda here and that is all. How is one to liaise with the Board of Trade and Industries when they tell one that they are not equipped for this? They do not want liaison. For three years the two bodies have not met.

There was another departure from the recommendations. In terms of the Bill the Agricultural Reference Board is being retained but the commission recommended its abolition. We found that well-founded complaints had been made by commerce that control boards possibly favoured co-operative societies in the matter of registrations and quotas. We also found that the producers were very dissatisfied with the Agricultural Reference Board because the producers who had direct or indirect interests in it, had to withdraw. Only the chairman and the hon. the Minister’s officials remained to take the decisions.

We then tried to think up a better plan. We felt that the registrations should be made provisionally and that there could then be appeals to an impartial board. We even went so far as to say that the chairman had to be a man with a legal background. That was to satisfy these people who are obsessed with the rule of law. The hon. the Minister rejected this. I am not going to raise objections to that because the hon. the Minister said that he was going to change the constitution of the Agricultural Reference Board. He went further, however, and said he was prepared to deal with any appeal by means of the advice of the Marketing Council. I am perfectly satisfied with that, because then commerce will no longer be able to complain about this since the decision will no longer be in the hands of the control boards. Commerce would therefore not be able to allege that it was being prejudiced. If the hon. the Minister takes that responsibility upon himself—we do not want to impose extra burdens upon him—this will be cheaper than appointing an ex-magistrate or an ex-judge to do the work, because they are scarce and it would be an expensive process. So I fully accept this, and will not raise any objections to it. Moreover, it was also decided that the hon. the Minister would not only take decisions about aggregate imports and exports, but he would also award quotas, as there had been talk of unfair treatment in relation to the awarding of these. For that reason, I am perfectly satisfied with this. These are the only places where the Bill differs from the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act but an hour was used in an attempt to point out the differences.

The hon. the Minister did not accept certain administrative recommendations, but I am not going to elaborate on those. However, there is one recommendation which I do want to dwell on, viz. the recommendation concerning meat. The hon. the Minister said he had appointed a committee to investigate the matter. I do not expect him to take any decisions in this regard precipitately, but I do hope that the committee will report soon and that a solution to this important matter will be found.

I want to charge the hon. the Minister with having taken a rather soft line, in my opinion, with regard to registration. We recommended that the restrictive registration relating to butcheries, be abolished. They do have to register, but this should not be restrictive and free enterprise must prevail. We proposed this in so far as the milk distributors were concerned as well and the hon. the Minister has already rejected the proposals. In my opinion, however, the hon. the Minister took a rather soft line with regard to this matter but we accept it, because these are administrative matters.

Wherever the hon. the Minister was at fault, we on this side of the House showed him no mercy. Perhaps the blows we dealt him were too hard, but as far as the Bill is concerned— whenever a Bill is being discussed, we do not have the time to look for trouble with the hon. the Minister—I want to congratulate him. The recommendations were tabled only last year and I regard it as an achievement on the part of the hon. the Minister to have considered them and to have taken administrative action to produce the Bill in that short space of time. He did not play the fool or dawdle with the matter and I am grateful to him for that. I think the Bill is going to be very beneficial to South Africa’s farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have reached a stage this afternoon where we can improve the Marketing Act with these amendments. Agriculture in South Africa is actually founded on three Acts. Firstly, there is the Soil Conservation Act, one of our very fine Acts which was improved recently and which is producing some very good results in practice. Secondly, there is the very good Co-operative Societies Act which we shall also be improving and amending in the course of this session. The third is the Marketing Act. It is on these three supports that agriculture in South Africa rests. As a result of the implementation of these three fine Acts, we have had great success in increasing the self-sufficiency of the South African farmer. We have also obtained stability in South African agriculture and this has been beneficial not only to the producer, but also to the consumer. In my opinion, when we amend the Act, it is only right that we should look back to the agricultural situation a few years ago. At that time, agriculture in South Africa consisted of subsistence farming. We produced very little at that time and consequently marketing did not play an important role. Today, however, the marketing of agricultural products do play a major role. It is obvious, therefore, that when we amend an Act like this one, our producers will be the first to look at the legislation from the marketing angle. Our producers must do everything they can to change things in such a way that the consumer and his preferences are taken into account. Our market and marketing possibilities elsewhere in the world must be taken into account as well. All this is necessary because as far as agriculture is concerned, we have developed into an exporting country.

Both the official Opposition and the PRP raised certain objections, alleging that we had not taken the consumer adequately into account. In that regard, I want to state in strong terms, as I did the day before yesterday in the course of another debate, that we must not cause a rift between consumer and producer in this country. After all, we as producers are also businessmen who want to develop our markets as best we can. We want to do these things, but we still want to recognize the consumer. By means of the enlargement of the National Marketing Council, we are doing just that despite the fact that a consumer will not specifically be nominated as a member of the council, because it must be remembered that the majority of the members are economists.

The matter of marketing will become even more important in future, and consequently, we do not really need consumers in the true sense of the word to protect the consumer’s interests on the NMC. In our present intricate marketing situation, what we really need is economists of the highest quality. Such economists will be able to protect the consumer’s interests in the best way possible.

There is another apsect I want to emphasize. I do not believe it would be fair towards either our producers or our consumers if we were to cause either the important amendments which we are effecting or the Act itself to suffer harm by allowing the impression to take root that the consumer had not received adequate consideration and that he had not been given his fair share.

We should very much like to have a producer majority in the council and in that regard, I want to point out that whenever one has a large council of which only two members are consumers in the narrow sense of the word, one finds that those two consumer members really do not have any say. Although we are removing even that degree of say as well, we did in fact plan it in such a way that we would protect the consumer in the National Marketing Council by means of the eminent economists who will serve as members of the council.

If we pass judgment on the legislation— there may be people who want to express adverse criticism on the legislation—we must have proper regard to the principles which the commission put forward in its report. We said we believed that control was essential in South Africa, not only in the interests of the producer, but also in the interests of the consumer. Moreover, we said that the exercise of control had to take place according to sound economic principles. Surely that view is perfectly correct. After all, we could not do it any other way. When all is said and done, we could not exercise control for its own sake and in that regard I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. Nor do we want to apply control measures the scope of which is so wide that they are not good or feasible. We want to implement only those control measures which are necessary and in that regard I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He said we should not implement any more control measures than were necessary. We must not interfere any more than is necessary. In controlling agricultural products, we should like to stay as close as possible to the supply and demand situation existing in a free economy. That is our ideal and for that reason, we do not want to expand control to an unjustifiable extent. There is another matter which I find very important and which is near to my heart and it concerns section 46(b) of the principal Act, which is being amended by clause 15 of this Bill. In this Bill, provision is made for the imposition of a general levy by the Minister and for the proceeds from this to be paid into a special account. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said he was opposed to this because it was a special account into which the money must be paid. He wanted it to be used directly for a special purpose. I do not see any difference. What is involved here is public funds which have to be controlled, and if they are paid into a special account, there is control. The Minister must control these funds. Since some of these funds will also be used for partially financing the S.A. Agricultural Union. I want to make it very clear that we accept this principle and we propose that interested parties thrash out this matter amongst themselves in the future. We are not trying to do anybody a disservice in this way, but only to regulate a situation which already exists. In the past our co-operative societies contributed funds on an ad hoc basis to the S.A. Agricultural Union to enable it to do work concerning the control of our various products. The money was contributed solely on an ad hoc basis. I think that in accepting the principle that funds be made available via our statutory boards, we are simply regulating a situation which already exists. We are not prepared to make more funds available to organizations which are autonomous and which can control their own funds as they please.

After all, it is a well-known fact in South Africa that producer organizations also perform a part of the marketing function in which our boards are involved. Without them our marketing councils would have to make other arrangements in order to provide the service. I want to say for that reason, I am pleased that we as farmers have now reached that stage. We are faced by a major task as regards marketing in a highly competitive world—not only at home, but abroad as well—and we have now reached the stage where we are able to obtain funds which can be distributed equally amongst all our industries and which we can use to perform this major task of marketing to the best of our abilities. Therefore, I should like to give this matter my support because I know that these funds will be used and that they will be used in promoting the industry.

I just want to say a few words about the Maize Board, one of our large, fine boards. It is one of those boards that have very competent officials and it covers a wide field because it is such an important board. Maize is a staple food product in South Africa and that is why this is a very important board. The importance of this board cannot be underestimated. In the past the Government has even been prepared to finance the administrative expenses of this board from Government funds in the interests of the consumer and the producer. Since we have now laid down the principle that every board has to impose a levy in order to finance his own administrative expenses, I am pleased that the Minister has implemented this principle without delay and that the Maize Board has already been able to deduct the administrative expenses this year. We deducted 30 cents per ton for this, which works out—it is a good thing for us to know this—to approximately 2½c per 90 kg bag. This is proof of the fact that this board is being administered very successfully and efficiently. This is only a small amount for the maize farmer to contribute and we are proud of the fact that we have been able to make our contribution towards the administrative expenses, just like all the other boards. That is why we accept this principle.

Mr. Speaker, as the last Government spokesman and a member of the commission, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey the gratitude and appreciation of the commission to its chairman our colleague, the hon. member for Bethal. He performed his task as chairman of this commission in an exceptionally competent manner. At times it was a demanding task, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was a member of the commission. Nevertheless, the chairman performed his task very well. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to say that the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the members of the commission on this side of the House, co-operated wholeheartedly on that commission. It was really a privilege for all of us to have been able to serve as members on that commission.

There is in fact only one point I want to raise today. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that he has given effect to the unanimous recommendation of the commission that producer majorities be retained on agricultural control boards. As I have already said, this recommendation was a unanimous one, made by all the members of the commission. I am raising the point here because in general a fair deal of criticism has been expressed about the fact that there is a producer majority on agricultural control boards. The argument which is generally used against these producer majorities, is the following: How can one constitute a control board in which the majority of the members are producers, because that being the position they are able to fix their own prices. It has been alleged that it is unfair that the farmers themselves are in the position to fix the prices of their products since the necessary degree of objectivity will be lacking in that type of decision-making. I should like to say a few things today about the question of producer majorities. I want to defend that principle.

It is interesting to note that the first commission of inquiry into the Marketing Act—that is the commission which sat in 1947—also recommended more than 30 years ago that the producer majorities be maintained. The fact of the matter is that when the Marketing Act was introduced in 1936, provision was made for producer majorities. So for a period of more than 40 years, agriculture has maintained the principle of producer majorities on agricultural control boards. I want to contend today that the farmers of this country have confidence in the control board system because there is a majority of producers on the various control boards and that this is one of the reasons why the control board system in South Africa is so successful.

It is said that the boards ought to be constituted in such a way that no one has a majority on them. In other words, commerce, industry, the consumer and everyone must be represented on those boards in such a way that there is no longer a producer majority. I feel that this is an unfair request as the farmer is in fact the primary producer of agricultural products. He is the man who has to decide whether he is going to produce a certain product and the quantity he is going to produce. By way of a counter-argument, I want to ask: Is there an industrialist or anyone in the private sector in this country who would be prepared to accept that a board of non-producers be appointed to fix the price of his product for him? It is unheard of. No one in the private sector would allow outsiders who do not have direct interests in the production of a particular article, to fix the price of that article. I think this is a very strong argument.

The next point I want to make is that it is not true to say that the majority of producers on a board may fix the price of their product at will. It is true that these boards comprise a majority of producers, but the consumers are also represented on them, as is trade and industry, and representatives of the National Marketing Council attend the meetings of the control boards. It is interesting to note that most of the price decisions made by control boards are normally unanimous decisions. Normally, they are decisions on which the consumer, commerce and the producer have reached consensus. Whenever it is not possible"’to reach consensus on a price determination submitted to the Minister, then the procedure is that the decisions of both the majority and the minority are forwarded to the National Marketing Council. The National Marketing Council then advises the Minister on the price proposals. Time and time again it happens that the minority standpoint, put forward by either the consumers or trade and industry at a meeting of the control board, is brought directly and pertinently to the attention of the Minister via the National Marketing Council. In taking a final decision about a price, the Minister does not consider the minority or majority decision aspect. He considers only the arguments advanced by the various parties, and then he takes the decision which he considers to be in the interest of the industry. It is very clear, therefore, that when decisions are taken about the prices of agricultural products, they are not taken unilaterally by the majority of farmers, but that this matter is in fact considered more than once and that all arguments, are heard. In the final analysis, it is the Minister who takes the decision and bears the responsibility. That is why I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has decided in his wisdom, to accept the recommendations of the commission, because I believe that this will best serve the interest of the industry in future.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that there is a very large measure of consensus over this amendment Bill and if there were any minor differences—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South pointed out a few— then as far as I am concerned, and I hope the same goes for him, they were eliminated after the hon. member for King William’s Town had corrected him. Unfortunately, I do not have much time. The Marketing Act has often, strikingly and with every justification, been called the farmer’s Magna Carta. I want to go a little further today.

I want to describe the Marketing Act as the Magna Carta, the great charter, the guarantee, to the consumer as well. It is a guarantee to the farmer because it ensures that his product is sold in an orderly fashion and at a reasonable price. It is also a guarantee to the consumer that there will always be food and what is more at a very reasonable price. After all, this is really the objective of the legislation as well because it envisages orderly marketing and stability in the industry and, as a consequence, a full supply and definitely at the most reasonable prices. The Marketing Act in all its workings is not easily understandable, not even for the initiated. Hon. members have heard this today from various members who served on the commission. It is not so easy for the uninitiated to understand the workings of this legislation, not to mention those who have no knowledge of this legislation. Therefore, it is no wonder that so much ignorance is displayed by economists, politicians and newspaper reporters about a matter which is still fresh in our minds today, namely the cheese and the butter débâcle we had. I want to make this matter very clear. Where is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South? Unfortunately, he is not here now. I want to make it very clear, even in the hon. member’s absence, that if there was a débâcle, it was not on the part of the control board. I see the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has returned to the House.

Who can blame the Progs today, that hon. little party sitting opposite, if they go astray? I want to agree with the hon. member for King William’s Town. No one can blame the Progs if they find that they are out of their depth. We really ought to leave them there. We are naturally aware of the fact that they have their backroom boys who feed them with the speeches they make here. However, where are they going to get an economist to do this work for them? To pass real criticism on this type of thing, one needs an agricultural economist. An agricultural economist is an agriculturist, someone who loves South Africa so much that I do not know whether he would write speeches for the Progs.

I cannot blame a journalist, either, for being unable to understand the workings of the Marketing Act. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single qualified agricultural correspondent on any newspaper in South Africa. So, can I blame correspondents who are not equipped for the task when reports appear in their newspapers which present a decidedly distorted version of the actual situation, reports in which the workings of the Marketing Act are expounded to the public in a misleading manner? I certainly think it would be much better if the newspaper owners gave a little attention to this matter and somehow appointed a person with expertise who could report on agricultural affairs, particularly matters that run deeper than the normal sensational journalism. I would suggest that an agricultural economist would be the right man to appoint to such a post. Such a man could then keep the public informed about matters such as this. Agriculture, agricultural production and agricultural marketing are of such importance today that the newspaper owners really ought to accept this simple suggestion. Today it is vital, and in future it will become even more vital, to take the consumer along with us. This is simply a neccessity. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this appeal will not fall on deaf ears.

I now turn to the Marketing Act itself. First and foremost—and frequent reference has been made to it—there is a National Marketing Council, a body which I prefer to describe as a top-notch board of experts. After all, those who serve on that council are senior economists. There is no question of us being able to appoint housewives to that council—as some hon. members suggested this afternoon. Great Scott! I am very fond of the housewife and I could not stand by and watch a good lady, despite all the admirable qualities she possesses, be included in a council to which she could make absolutely no contribution and in which she would feel an absolute fool. We most certainly cannot do that to her. That is why I feel that we are definitely on the right path here and that we should hold our present course. There are decisions in terms of which the so-called consumer may be protected. I want to repeat, however, that everyone who sits on such a council, is a consumer in his own right. It cannot be otherwise. Most of the managements of these councils …

Where do its greatest interests lie?

With its stomach, I should think. When it comes to food, the greatest interests of the consumer most certainly lie with his stomach. The hon. member ought to know that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.

Where do his greatest interests lie?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to differ with the hon. member on that score. He is completely correct. In the first place, however, that man is a consumer. The hon. member cannot argue that away. I concede to him that he has a valid argument. The National Marketing Council at present controls 22 councils. We foresee that we will be able to reduce this number.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, someone who has advocated this before, said today that we had to go slowly when it came to combining the Milk Board and the Dairy Board. I know why the hon. member is saying this. It is not easy to combine these boards; there are many problems attached to this. I expected that the hon. member would at least stand by his recommendation. The members who serve on these 22 councils, are experts. The producer members are mainly members of co-operative societies, people who have been encouraged by their own people to serve as leaders of the community on a commercial basis. From these, the experts were chosen to serve on the councils. We are fortunate, therefore, to be able to make use of the experts at this level. We could even take it a step further. The boards are not all constituted in the same way and non-farmer members, representatives of trade and industry, also serve on the boards. I can assure the hon. members that the business concerns will ensure that the members they are representing, are experts in the industry concerned. That holds true for the Wheat Board, Maize Board, Meat Board and all the other boards. These control boards, therefore, consist of experts and we may feel confident that these people will serve the various industries well.

These boards also have the right to co-opt an expert. This has already been mentioned and the Minister also has the right to include an expert in a board. We therefore have carefully selected people from the various industries in the country on the control boards. Where on earth could we get a better management to operate a business than the one we have here? They are specialists. I really feel that due to the constitution of the boards, the producer and the consumer may have every confidence that the boards will make a success of the work that has been entrusted to them.

I find it interesting that people often allege that the control boards are altogether too expensive and that there are too many of them. I am convinced that if people were well informed, no arguments of this nature would be raised. But people are not informed. All this expertise is brought together in the 22 boards and all it costs the country—this holds true for both the consumer and the producer—is the daily wage these people receive. The Bill is now bringing about a small amendment so that we can at least pay a small amount to chairmen and possibly also to vice-chairmen on their retirement. This is a small issue. Where could we find a business concern in the private sector today which has a management with so much expertise and which costs so little …

And with so much responsibility.

… and bears so much responsibility? I agree with the hon. member for Malmesbury. In fact I now want to turn to the boards’ responsibility. Hon. members must remember that we are not talking about a small undertaking here. The total contribution of agriculture to the gross domestic product is R1,9 milliard. This is a large amount. Almost 80% of this passes through the hands of these boards. If my calculation does not fail me, that is approximately R1,5 milliard worth of business which is dealt with by these boards … The PRP must not hold private conversations now. They are not even aware of the fact that a speech is being made in the House. They are not even aware of the fact that they are sitting in this House. They have been sitting there all the time conversing with one another, I have been talking to them for five minutes now. After all, they are the experts who represent the big money in South Africa. I now ask them: If the total administration costs of the control board system—which they are by no means satisfied with—already amount to R0,73 per R100, i.e. 0,73%, how does this compare with the large business undertakings which they represent? I want to challenge them to reply to that. If they could do better, I should be pleased if they would tell me how. It is very clear that no reply is forthcoming from that side on this score. I believe this is something we should be proud of.

We have excellent control on the part of our control boards. Continuous control is being implemented. After the audit department of the Department of Finance has gone through the reports and books of the control boards, a report is compiled and tabled in Parliament. This means that Parliament has the ultimate authority. Since we have such tremendously precise control, the consumer and the producer ought to be satisfied that this Bill and that which it envisages, is definitely in the interests of South Africa.

It has come to our attention that other countries are interested in this legislation and this system. I am convinced that no country I have visited has a better system of control over the marketing of agricultural products than the one we have in South Africa. I believe I am justified in saying that this Bill is the Magna Carta of not only the farmer, but of the consumer as well.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time we had criticism of our marketing system. Therefore I felt it was a good thing to ask both parties in the House—at the time there were only two; the NP and the UP—to have a look at our marketing system. I asked them to travel to other parts of the world and then return and comment on our marketing system. This cost a great deal of money. In this report we see the results. I want to thank them today. For the record I want to mention them specifically by name: The chairman, Mr. Wentzel, the hon. member for Bethal, Mr. Org du Plessis of Heilbron, Mr. Sarel Hayward of Graaff-Reinet, Dr. Jan Moolman, a former MP, Mr. Warwick Webber of Pietermaritzburg South, Mr. Louis Botha of Bethlehem, Mr. Piet du Plessis of Lydenburg, Mr. George Malan of Humansdorp, Mr. Boet van den Heever of King William’s Town and two officials, Mr. Van der Westhuizen and Mr. Schalk du Toit of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, as well as Dr. Gregory. These people performed a herculean task for us. They made sacrifices. They did not indulge in any politicking. I can tell the consumers and the farmers of the country that it is stated somewhere in that report that we may be proud of our control board system. Their terms of reference were to criticize the system and, if necessary, to effect drastic changes, and having made a thorough study of the matter, they submitted their recommendations. I want to reply briefly to the arguments, for we still have to dispose of the Committee Stage and Third Reading of the Bill before supper.

I should like to point out to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South … the hon. member next to him could do me a favour by leaving; he merely eats and produces nothing. To make matters worse, he is distracting the hon. member’s attention.

†One of the recommendations of the commission was that the Milk Board and the Dairy Board should be combined. Now the hon. member says I must not compel the producers to enter into one scheme.

Those who are outside the scheme.

At the moment all dairy farmers are members of the Dairy Board. They have to send their products to the Dairy Board. That is not the case with the Fresh Milk Board. The hon. member knows perfectly well that we cannot have one scheme if all the farmers are not going to enter that scheme.

*That is what I want to prove. The hon. member said that he regretted my having accepted only certain recommendations. I do not differ with the hon. member in this regard, but why did I do it? I did so simply because one has to take a certain number of people along with one. In a short while we compiled this document of everyone whom we had to consult in regard to the legislation. I happen to be looking at one, i.e. the recommendations on the type of scheme we should have. I quote—

Comment was received from all these bodies on just one aspect. A few hundred bodies were consulted with reference to the recommendations of the Wentzel Commission. The hon. member wanted to know why I was not accepting every recommendation. If I immediately accept that the registration of retail butchers should be done away with, as the commission recommended, chaos will prevail among the retail butchers in the country. Some of the large supermarkets in the country will kill the retail butcher as well. Surely one cannot cause grief in an industry overnight; anything of that nature should be implemented gradually.

I decided to set everything in motion in order to combine the Milk Board and the Dairy Board. Today the hon. member asked me not to make it compulsory. I am not saying this to provoke a quarrel, but merely to point out that these things are not all that simple. The hon. member concluded his speech with these words: “I love this Minister very much.”

†Well, if that is the way in which he loves someone, I am sure that Mrs. Webber will go to heaven one day. In the past the hon. member has really got stuck into me, and now he comes here today and says a thing like that.

I can explain why 13 members and not 11 are necessary. That is so for certain specific reasons. Hon. members should remember that certain boards have 24 members. For instance, there is provincial representation on the Meat Board, and to cut the number down to 11 would definitely not be practicable.

We worked out the problem on the commission and decided on a certain number.

I want to accommodate the consumers for certain reasons.

*However, I shall come to that later on.

Are the other two members consumers?

On some boards they are; on others not. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet pointed out that there was no consumer serving on the Wool Board in the same sense.

The hon. member for Bethal sacrificed an enormous amount of his precious time, and therefore I want to single him out specifically. He is the chairman of one of our largest grain co-operatives; he is also the chairman of the largest seed co-operative, Sensako; he is engaged in an enormous number of agricultural activities and he is also chairman of the agricultural group of the NP in Parliament, yet he did this work with a smile, and I want to thank him for doing so.

The hon. member for Humansdorp spoke about overseas marketing and it is very important that we give attention to the aspects which he mentioned and that we involve the Marketing Council in overseas marketing.

†The hon. member for Durban North has said the price gap is one of the problems and that is why there is resistance on the part of the consumer. I agree with the hon. member, but he must remember that in terms of this legislation we are not controlling the retailer. I see that the hon. member is with me in this connection. The hon. member must also realize that there is at present resistance on the part of the consumer even in so far as the cheapest commodity in South Africa is concerned. I have already pointed out that there is a drop of 4% in the consumption of bread. Since we are experiencing a scarcity of money, people have to spend their money very carefully. They can no longer spend money as in the past.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem spoke a very true word when he pointed out that we were all consumers. Whoever is serving on the Marketing Council—he has to eat tonight. I do not know why we should be so concerned about the consumer. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said something very important in this regard, and I confirm that we should, consequently, say that the consumer should be present when the price of fertilizer is determined. The consumer should also be present when the price of diesel fuel is determined. Those two factors play a dominant role in any increase in food prices. It is not only the farmer who should be present when the price of tractors or ploughs is determined; the consumer should also be present. The consumer should then be able to say that if the price of a tractor or a plough is raised, the price of flour should similarly be raised. The consumer therefore also has the right to be present on such occasions, and surely it goes without saying that that cannot happen. We should really be fair when it comes to matters of this kind. There are two words I do not want to utter, because when I do so, I feel construction in my throat. When the episode in regard to those two commodities occurred, we gave way before the pressure from the consumers, but ultimately it was to the detriment of the consumers. Therefore I am in complete agreement with the hon. member.

The hon. member for King William’s Town also pointed out that the retail trade is in the hands of the private sector. His standpoint is quite clear to me. However he felt disappointed because we did not do away with the registration of milk distributors. It is not necessary to provide for anything of that nature in legislation. Let me refer in this connection to milk distribution in a city like Pretoria. At one stage there was chaos because we found that three different milk distributors were delivering milk to one block of flats 15 storeys high. We then said that the cost was becoming too high, and divided up the city. PUD was given one section, ICS the next and Melba the last. I agree that we could perhaps make use of the services of more distributors, but we really cannot leave the door wide open. If there are too many distributors, the costs will rise as a result of a low turnover. I am not taking the hon. member to task now. Today is probably the second time Boet van den Heever has spoken nicely to me, and I thank him for doing so.

The hon. member for Heilbron is acquainted with the system of control boards. He served on the Maize Board himself for a long time. The farmer pays 2½c out of his own pocket to defray administration costs. This means that it costs the distributor and the Government nothing, because the farmer pays for it himself. On the other hand, one should not forget that the farmer, owing to the orderly marketing of his product, need only pay 2½c per bag of the amount of almost R7 per bag which he receives for it. That is all that orderly management and administration costs him.

The hon. member for Lydenburg also referred to the question of producer majorities. There are producer majorities in all our boards and some of the boards decided unanimously this year that there should be an increase of only 5% in the producer price of the products over which they exercised control. They recommended 5%, despite the fact that production costs had gone up by 14%. The producers on those boards foresaw that problems could arise, since overseas prices were displaying a downward tendency. The increase of 5% was recommended in an attempt to prevent too many farmers from beginning to cultivate the products in question so that there would eventually be a surplus. Our producers are people who have their feet firmly on the ground and who come forward with positive proposals.

The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out the complexity of the Marketing Act. One really has to make a study of it. I almost want to say that one has to have grown up with this legislation to be able to understand it properly and one has to have been in contact with it every day.

Finally I want to thank those who prepared the reports and the Bill very sincerely. The officials really did good work by having all the necessary documents ready in such a short space of time. One of the PRP members also mentioned this and I am in complete agreement with him. The hon. member for King William’s Town also referred to this. Even the Financial Mail said:“We want to congratulate the Minister.” Well, if that newspaper praises me, the legislation must be very good.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Clause 3 deals with the composition of the National Marketing Council. In this, as we debated earlier, the hon. the Minister recommends that he should increase the size of the National Marketing Council from five to eight members, and I must say that this is in line with the recommendation of the majority of the members of the Marketing Commission. The hon. the Minister knows that my attitude, as set out in the footnote to that recommendation in the report, was that there should be more than just those eight members present and that it was essential that we should include in the National Marketing Council representation of all sectors of the agricultural industry. I want to quote from the section headed “Comments and Recommendations—General Approach” I refer to paragraph 22.1 of the report on page 10—

In this respect I must disagree with what the hon. member for Bethal said here this afternoon. I hope I misunderstood him, because I believe that he said here this afternoon that all it had was a co-ordinating and administrative function. I wonder if the hon. member will indicate to me whether I understood him correctly? Is that how he sees the National Marketing Council? Does he see it as simply being co-ordinating in function and having administrative powers?

It has advisory powers as well.

That is the point which the hon. member for Bethal missed this afternoon. He missed that point, or else I misheard him.

It is in the commission’s report.

That is right. In the commission’s report it says that it must be advisory, and that it must be advisory from the point of view of there being expert advice. There must be expert advice not only on production of the product, not only on the processing of the product, not only on the manufacture of the product, not only on the distribution or the marketing of the product, but on the whole spectrum. For that reason it is essential that the composition of the National Marketing Council should be as broadly based as possible. It is essential that there must not only be producers on it. It is also essential that there must not only be agricultural economists on it. I believe that it is important also that there have got to be representatives of commerce, industry and of the consumers in all guises on it. This means not only the housewife who eats the bread, the peas or the meat, but all the consumers of those products. That is precisely what I intended when I added the footnote that I did to the report. I want to continue to quote from that paragraph—

The Minister has taken care of the professional auxiliary services, and I am very glad to hear it. The evidence that we heard was, however, that we will not get the experts that we need in the industrial sphere, in the economic sphere, in trade and in commerce. You are not going to get them to serve full-time on such a council. That is why my recommendation was to the effect that there should be provision made for part-time members who do not have to be concerned with the day-to-day running of the affairs of the marketing boards or of the National Marketing Council. I welcome this move by the hon. the Minister. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. With eight people, as the hon. the Minister points out, the council can, in terms of a later amendment, divide itself into two committees of four who can act for the council. I welcome that, as this is going to help a great deal. I believe, however, that the hon. the Minister should be empowered, if he so wishes, to get persons to serve as part-time members on that council so that the benefit of their knowledge can be made available to the council when they need it. When one of the committees of four or the council of eight members decides that it wants expert information on the marketing of a particular product, it must be in a position to call in an expert from commerce or industry who will be able to advise it. It is for that reason that I move as an amendment—

I ask the hon. the Minister to look very carefully at my amendment.

Order! I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that this amendment to increase the number of members from seven to ten involves an increase in expenditure and accordingly requires the State President’s recommendation. I shall, however, allow the hon. member to make one speech in support of his amendment and to attempt to persuade the hon. the Minister to take over the amendment. I cannot, however, allow the hon. member to move it himself.

Thank you, Sir. Let me put it this way to the hon. the Minister: I ask him to consider introducing an amendment in the Other Place to make provision that he will not be limited simply to appointing eight full-time members to the council. I suggest he should put forward an amendement which will give him the power to appoint at least three other persons in a part-time capacity who can work with the council and advise the council when the council needs their advice. Sir, I do not believe it is fair to mention the names of professional and business people in this House, but the hon. member for Bethal and the other members of the commission know the sort of evidence the commission got from people who were not directly involved in agriculture and how valuable their advice would be to the council. I believe that the best way to get their advice is to make such people part-time members of the council. I commend this idea to the hon. the Minister. I should like to have an assurance from him that he will at least consider it before he takes this Bill to the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wants to obtain additional specialized knowledge for the National Marketing Council by way of the appointment, for example, of part-time members. That is not necessary, for the simple reason that it is the function of the National Marketing Council to take part in the proceedings of all the other boards. There is enough specialized knowledge in the various control boards. Every control board has members who have specialized knowledge of their profession. Commerce and the consumers are represented there. In other words, the specialized knowledge which the National Marketing Council needs, can be obtained from those interests represented on the various boards. The National Marketing Council does, in any case, have representation on all those boards. It is consequently unnecessary to draw part-time members from commerce and industry or from the consumer sector to make that specialized knowledge available to the Marketing Council. The council must specifically function in such a way that there is good liaison. We said that there should also be co-ordination of National Marketing Council liaison at board level. In other words, the Marketing Council does not sit in isolation, there being due liaison, in effect, with the respective control boards which have the necessary specialized knowledge. There is continual liaison between the Marketing Council and the control boards on which experts serve. I cannot see the necessity for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethal is quite right as regards the specialization of a particular board. On the individual boards one does find representatives of the marketers, the processors and the consumers of the relevant products. However, the National Marketing Council is bigger and broader than an individual board. It has to look to the interests of agriculture as a whole and concern itself with the interplay of commodities and the effect of one commodity on another. That is why I believe the Marketing Council should have that other advice available. Anyhow, I have made my pleas to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will take it up.

There is a further point I wish to raise. In terms of the old subsection (3), the conditions of employment and salary or other remunerations of members of the Marketing Council were determined by the State President. When a matter is determined by the State President it implies a determination by the Cabinet as a whole. It means a Cabinet decision where all members of the Cabinet are involved in a decision. The hon. the Minister now asks us to amend this so as to allow him alone to determine in each case the salary and remuneration which will be paid. As I have said before, I do not believe that one man should have this sort of responsibility. In other legislation which we have dealt with recently, where the power has been given to the Minister to determine these things, in every case it has been with the concurrence or after consultation with the Minister of Finance. It is in the hon. the Minister’s own interest that we should have such a provision in this clause. He said in his speech that he would of course consult with the Minister of Finance. I have recently had an experience with the hon. the Minister of Finance where there has been a difference of opinion. Such a situation can arise again. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to accept the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, that is a matter I shall consider, and if it can be done in practice, I shall amend the clause in the Other Place.

Does that apply to both amendments?

No. Only this one.

The second one?

Yes, the second one. I shall also consider the other one. If I say that I shall consider something, it has a good chance of success, but I do not think the first amendment will easily succeed. We can sleep on it, but in the case of the first amendment my sleep will not be an untroubled sleep. As far as the second one is concerned, I already have a feeling that it can be done.

Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the Committee, and accepting the hon. the Minister’s undertaking, may I withdraw that amendment?

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in clause 5(b) for the deletion of section 4(4) of the Act. Section 4 deals with the functions, powers and duties of the Marketing Council, and subsection (4) provides that—

If there is one sector in agriculture which causes the hackles of the people of South Africa to rise, if there is one thing which annoys people in South Africa, it is the fixing of prices of agricultural commodities. When the fixing of those prices is done by an organization, whether it is a board, a department of whatever it is, and the impression is created in the eyes of the public that it is being done unilaterally by people who have an interest, in other words, where the producers fix the price for their own products, the consumer immediately gets, to put it bluntly, the hell in. Then he or she does not want to know anything about the agricultural sector. The Board of Trade and Industries is an organization, set up by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, which has the ear of commerce and industry and on which there is representation of all sectors of commerce and of industry. It is important that they should be consulted before the hon. the Minister or his department or the boards fix any prices of agricultural commodities. It is important that they should be seen to be consulting, so that at least in the eyes of the people outside the agricultural sector it can be seen that the Minister did at least consider their point of view.

We have evidence to the effect that the Board of Trade and Industry said they would have to particularly concern themselves with this and should brief themselves on what the situation was. With respect, I do not accept that as an excuse at all. I believe that the Board of Trade and Industry has fallen down in its responsibility to commerce and to industry in this country because it has not kept itself abreast of the situation in the agricultural sector. It has not performed its function of looking after the interests of the commercial and industrial consumers of agricultural products. I believe that this provision should stay in the principal Act and that the hon. the Minister should talk to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and tell him to bring pressure to bear on that board in order to see to it that they carry out their duty. It is their duty to look after the consumers, and as such I cannot accept that this particular provision should be deleted from this clause.

I therefore move the following amendment—

The effect of this omission will be that section 4 of the principal Act will remain in force, and that the Marketing Council will be compelled to consult with the Board of Trade and Industry once a year on the question of agriculture before fixing its price. Paragraph (c) of this clause provides for an amendment to subsection (5) of section 4 of the principal Act. Subsection (5) of section 4 of the Act provides that the Marketing Council shall, at least once every two years, submit to the Minister a report on the operation of schemes which are in operation under the Act. Here we have, as I put it earlier, the cog around which the whole marketing system revolves—the most important single body in the whole sector of the marketing of agricultural products. In the Act it has had a provision that it should, at least every two years, report to the hon. the Minister. What is the good of establishing a council if it does not report to the hon. the Minister?

For that reason, I said during Second Reading debate that I deplored the fact that this provision had been observed more in the breach than in the application. I believe that the Marketing Council has been culpable in the fact that it has not brought out a report since 1964. That report was in fact tabled in 1965.1 quoted from it earlier and said that this was a tremendous report, a report of tremendous importance which contained most important recommendations. It was a report which, if the hon. the Minister has taken cognizance of it, would have resulted in the changes being made which are being made now as a result of the findings of a commission which has sat for three years. Many of the things which were contained in the commission’s report, were also contained in that report which, as I say, is now 13 years old. It is quite out of date. How much did the Marketing Council and the members of the Marketing Council guide the commission in its deliberations and in its findings?

The advice which the commission gave the hon. the Minister was available to him from his Marketing Council. I believe he should keep this provision in the Act in order to compel the Marketing Council to report to him.

The Marketing Council said that they had found that, with only five members and with all the administrative work they had to do, they did not have time to produce a report. We accept that. Now we have doubled the size of the Marketing Council. They can act as two councils. We have taken a lot of the work away. All the red tape, all the “rompslomp”, has been taken away. They are not going to be concerned with that any more. I now believe that the hon. the Minister has to use the experts he is going to have on the Marketing Council, and use them to the best advantage by requiring them to give him reports.

What does the hon. the Minister ask? He suggests that we should do away with the present provision whereby they must report at least once every two years. The hon. the Minister now suggests that in future they should only report when asked to do so by him. They are not required to report on the whole state of the agricultural economy, but on the operation of a particular scheme. I do not believe that is going to be satisfactory at all, because once one puts that in one reaches the situation where the National Marketing Council may not report to the Minister unless he asks for it. That will be the effect of this. By placing in the legislation a provision that the Minister may ask the council to report to him on a specific scheme at a particular time, one is taking away from the council the right to report to the hon. the Minister on schemes. I believe that two years might be wrong, so let us try to reach a compromise somewhere. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has come when we should allow the National Marketing Council to report at least once every three years. They have twice the number of people and there is not as much work to do and I think it is sufficient to give them three years instead of two years. Therefore, I move an amendment as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry but I cannot even consider the hon. member’s first proposal. In practice it has simply not been found possible to have the Board of Trade and Industries interfering in our affairs. If we wish to do that, we must change the relevant Act so that the National Marketing Council is also represented on the Board of Trade and Industries, because this board takes decisions that create tremendous problems for us from an agricultural point of view. We will therefore have to be consistent. I am not prepared to give the Board of Trade and Industries permission to have representation on the Marketing Council and to decide about our activities. That is stated in the Act and we have done it, but it has never worked in practice. Why must we have it in the Act? Must we now ask other people to come and help us deal with our own affairs? I am sorry, but I cannot even consider it.

The hon. member’s other proposal is that the Marketing Council should report once every three years, whereas they now report once a year. The hon. member himself wants to get away from red tape. If there is a Chicory Board that is working at top efficiency, why must the board report every three years on all its functions?

[Inaudible.]

Why can we not tell the board each year on what functions it should report? Is that not more practical? There would perhaps be a report about three or four control boards. The hon. member is, after all, a practical businessman. He now wants to lay down in the Act that there has to be a report every three years on all the boards, but I am saying that we are still going to receive reports. We are going to say specifically on what boards we want reports. I think the hon. member will understand that this is a much more practical arrangement.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, clause 10 deals with the composition of the control boards. We discussed this matter at rather considerable length in the Second Reading debate, so I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the House on this matter, except to say that because of the reply that was given to us by the hon. the Minister, we are not happy about what is happening to the consumer in the whole set-up of agricultural marketing today. The commission did make a recommendation that consumer representation should be removed from the marketing boards, but the commission suggested to the hon. the Minister a whole system which would deal with the question of where the consumer must be recognized in the system. In reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister has indicated that he is not prepared to consider this system. The only concession he makes is that he is still thinking about whether to hold the agricultural conference or not before he fixes agricultural prices. In addition it is clear that the hon. the Minister is going to stick by the present provisions whereby the boards, which are producer-orientated and which have a built-in producer majority, are going to continue to fix prices. If the recommendation I made in the commission’s report had been accepted, namely that the prices of agricultural products should be fixed by the hon. the Minister together with colleagues of his Cabinet, we could perhaps have considered that the consumers position was at least being protected by the participation of the Ministers of Labour and Economic Affairs. What do we find in the system as it is now evolving and as it appears from the report, the Bill and the hon. the Minister’s speech? We find that the position of the consumer has been considerably weakened. No longer does any consumer representative organization have the right to nominate a representative on a control board. The hon. the Minister has refused to give the consumer representation on the National Marketing Council. He has done away with the Consumers’ Advisory Committee. He has also done away with—and he will not provide for it—consultation with the South African Co-ordinating Consumer Council. It is a recommendation he refuses to accept. We do not know whether an agricultural conference will take place where the consumer will have an opportunity to present his point of view. So we are left with only one place where the consumer can have any say whatsoever in the whole agricultural marketing system and that is in the boards, because in the proposed section 28 the hon. the Minister has retained this provision—

He has retained that one provision in the Act which allows that consumers may be represented on the boards. There is no compulsion on the hon. the Minister whatsoever to appoint a consumer representative.

That is correct.

That is correct. That is the only place—and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet will agree with me—in the whole system where provision is made for any consultation or any contact with consumer bodies.

Why do you want one on the Wool Board?

I agree with the hon. member; we do not need one on the Wool Board.

But you are making it compulsory.

No, I am not making it compulsory at all. I think the hon. member for King William’s Town must go back to his sheep. He must attend to his own interest, which are the only matters he pushes when he talks about agriculture. Big people are talking about things he does not understand. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet will agree with me that through the system as it is now and as it evolves from the Bill, the consumer gets no representation, has no consultation and is not considered in any way at all, except that he may be appointed to a board. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet will recollect, as will the hon. member for Bethal and other members of the commission, that the evidence which we had before the commission was absolutely 100% certain, positive and definite that consumer representation on a board had no effect whatsoever; it served no purpose at all. The hon. member for Bethal agrees with me. I agree with the findings of the commission that to give the consumer representation on a board means absolutely nothing. I am compelled, however, tonight to move an amendment to provide that the hon. the Minister shall appoint two consumers on every board, because that is the only place where he allows any representation for the consumer in the whole system. He has rejected all the other recommendations of the commission where provision was made for a quid pro quo for the consumer, where the consumer could participate in the system. I do not think anybody in the House can disagree with me, and I do not hear any voice of dissent. This is the way in which the system has developed. The only place where provision is made that there might be representation, is at board level. I have rejected this as being of no use whatsoever to the consumer, but because it is the only place where he has a possibility of representation under the system, I must now move the following amendment—

Why not three?

I shall tell the hon. the Deputy Minister why not. The commission considered the composition of the marketing boards, from the largest one, the Meat Board, to the smallest one, the Chicory Board, and we came to the conclusion that the minimum number that was required to give representation to all the bodies that should be represented, was 11. Included in that 11 was no consumer representative and no representative of the department.

I understand that very well.

Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister ask such a stupid question if he understands it? The hon. the Minister has increased the number from 11 to 13 and by doing that he leaves a gap for me to insist that he should appoint two people to represent the consumers. I ask that this should be done in consultation with the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council, because the Consumers’ Advisory Committee has been dispensed with. It has been abolished. We shall not have it any more and therefore the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council—a body which is subsidized by the Government—is the only body representative of the consumer I could think of to ask the hon. the Minister to consult.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just acknowledged that he agreed with us in the commission that consumer representation on a control board serves no purpose. The hon. member now alleges that because the hon. the Minister did not accept our other proposal and did not make statutory provision for discussions between the consumer council and the Co-ordinating Consumer Council, the additional members—he is referring to the increase from 11 to 13 which the hon. the Minister proposed—should be consumers. The hon. member is therefore proposing that we take a step which he himself acknowledges is of no value to the consumer. Since we cannot yet exactly determine to what extent the consumer needs to have a say in our marketing system, and since the commission has made provision for the National Consumer Council to have discussions, from time to time, with the Co-ordinating Consumer Council, the measure need not be written into the legislation yet.

If such a need does, in fact, exist—we believed that it did exist—although this has not yet been determined, the hon. the Minister can, by way of policy and with the powers at his disposal, determine, in terms of the provisions of the Act, that the two councils should hold discussions annually. Nowhere have I yet seen the Co-ordinating Consumer Council express an opinion about the matter. If some essential point develops from the discussions, this can be introduced by way of legislation. I think, however, that we can solve the hon. member’s problem, because if it can be proved that a need exists, the hon. the Minister can—I do not believe he would be unwilling to do so—state such a policy and request the National Consumer Council, which acts in an advisory capacity to him, to negotiate with the Co-ordinating Consumer Council as well. With regard to the hon. member’s other problem, i.e. that the Co-ordinating Consumer Council or the consumer will never have any say, the hon. the Minister has already granted permission for the consumer to have a say in the conference which is being investigated at present. I think the hon. member must concede that at this stage his amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to hear the attitude of the hon. member for Bethal. I guess it reflects the attitude of the hon. the Minister too. The hon. member does not seem to realize that I agree with him that this representation on the board is going to mean very little. However, a little bit of something for the consumer is better than nothing. The consumer will have nothing if he cannot get this measure of representation. That is why I am taking it as the third prize. I am accepting this as the third prize because I cannot get the first prize. The first prize is what the commission has recommended. It will be a sad day for the consumers of South Africa if this Committee is going to accept that consumers need not have any representation and need not be consulted anywhere in the whole of the marketing system in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the effect of the hon. member’s amendment is that the Minister will be compelled to appoint consumers on the Mohair Board, the Wool Board, etc. where there have never been such members. What will such members do on those boards? Does any member of the official Opposition believe there should be two consumer members on the Wool Board? The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is a wool farmer. Does he believe there should be such members? What must such members do on the Mohair Board? The hon. the Minister has already made provision for the appointment of two additional members to represent the consumers on the boards where it is necessary that they be represented. The hon. member now wants to have the same provision in regard to the National Marketing Council and he furthermore wants to compel the hon. the Minister to appoint consumer members on a board such as the Mohair Board where the question of consumer protection does not arise at all. This is the effect of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—35: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Noes—108: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Hom, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, clause 15 gives the hon. the Minister the authority to impose a general levy, on a basis upon which he will decide, “on any product, or on any such product of a particular class, grade or standard of quality, or on any such product, class, grade or standard of quality thereof produced or sold in a particular area or at a particular place.” The intention with the imposition of the levy is to collect funds to pay the costs, or certain of the costs, of the South African Agricultural Union. The thought behind this particular clause is quite in line with the recommendations of the commission in paragraph 178.5 where it says that—

It was my impression that the commission had recommended that the boards should be empowered to raise such a levy, not that the Minister should be empowered to raise a general levy on all products or on certain products. I should like to hear the view of the hon. member for Bethal on that. Be that as it may, the reason for the levy was to provide finances for certain expenditure of the South African Agricultural Union. What was considered and discussed in the commission was that the South African Agricultural Union should defray certain expenses or incur certain costs on work which can be connected to a control board. That is why section 46 of the Act is being amended in this way. Section 46 of the Act is the section that empowers the boards to raise levies for certain purposes.

We now have the situation where the hon. the Minister is asking for the power to impose a general levy to collect certain funds and to place them in an account. That account is to be audited, and so on, and any funds which are not immediately required shall be invested with the Public Debt Commissioner. Once such a fund is established and moneys can be collected, it then provides that there shall only be paid out of that account moneys to meet expenditure incurred by the South African Agricultural Union or for the payment of commission in terms of section 84A(4). That, I believe, is not what was intended by the commission. What can happen is that the hon. the Minister can raise a levy and in that way accumulate moneys in the fund and that the South African Agricultural Union can ask for a certain amount. He will then pay the Agricultural Union out of that fund.

That fund can grow; it can become too small or too large. It can have unnecessary funds in it which the Agricultural Union will not require. What will happen in practice is that, as the fund grows, the demands of the Agricultural Union are going to become greater and greater. That was not the intention of the commission and is not in accordance with the evidence we received before the commission.

It must be done with the Minister’s approval.

Agreed. Sir, I believe this clause is back to front. I believe we should have in this clause a provision that the Agricultural Union must present a budget in which it says to the hon. the Minister how much money is required for a particular purpose in a specified period of time. Based on that requisition—shall we call it—from the Agricultural Union, the Minister will then raise a general levy in whichever sector it is required or wherever it is required. Then, having raised that amount of money, he will allow that money to be passed over to the Agricultural Union for the purpose for which it was raised. A levy implies a raising of certain funds for a particular purpose. As I say, this clause is back to front, and it is for that reason that I move the following amendment—

1. (a) to meet expenditure incurred by the South African Agricultural Union for such purposes connected with the performance of its functions as the Minister may approve after submission to him by the said South African Agricultural Union of an estimate of its requirements for such purposes;
2. (b) for the payment of commission in terms of section 84A(4) as applied by section 46A(2), and the payment of any other costs in connection with the administration of such account.

In looking at this amendment it will be found that what I have done, is that I have transposed subparagraph (2) of the proposed new section 46D and made it subparagraph (2) of the proposed new section 46A, the effect being that when the Minister raises his levy, he can only raise it for a specific purpose, based on a submission made to him by the S.A. Agricultural Union and for the payment of this commission.

Consequential upon this amendment, I move the following amendments—

Mr. Chairman, what the amendment, which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South moved, amounts to is exactly what we are aiming to achieve. It is merely a rearrangement of the sub-sections and their wording. I merely request an opportunity to discuss this with the legal advisors and, if necessary, I shall introduce the amendment in the Other Place.

As far as clause 18 is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member in advance that he must not speak about that clause. I accept the amendment he is going to move.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this undertaking by the hon. the Minister. I believe that what I have put is fair and reasonable. I believe it mirrors the intention of the commission. Therefore, with the approval of the Committee, I withdraw the amendments.

Amendments, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to raise a small point with regard to clause 17, namely the question of a control board that handles a perishable product for the purpose of processing. I do not wish to move an amendment, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he can insert something into the scheme applying to certain proposals in this connection. The occasion arose last year and the year before with the installation of new driers at the Chicory Control Board where producers undertook, in writing, to deliver a certain amount to the control board. The control board, through technical failings in the new drying system, were unable to take up the delivery that they had contracted to take from the growers. The result was, and this happened over a period of three months, that the chicory, being a perishable product, rotted in the ground, resulting in the growers suffering a total loss. When an application was made by the control board and by the chicory growers’ commodity committee that the control board should be permitted in the case of such technical faults—which led to a state where they could not honour their contracts with the growers—to take out insurance against such eventualities, they were told by the Marketing Council that this was not possible under the Marketing Act and that the grower himself should insure his crops against loss. However, I believe this is something entirely different. Where one has entered into a contract to take delivery of a perishable product, and through no fault of the grower or of the weather— which, after all, is an act of God against which the grower can insure himself—the control board should be allowed to insure himself against paying the grower. I believe this is an important factor. It is something the hon. the Minister should consider in introducing certain schemes where this type of contract between the control board and the grower will enter into the picture. I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply to that.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Albany has a specific problem with regard to chicory. Unfortunately he only gave us his amendment this morning, and consequently there was no time for me to discuss it with the legal advisers. What the hon. member suggests, involves drastic changes. If, for instance, that was implemented, it would also have to apply to the Banana Board, and other boards as well. That is something which will create definite problems. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, however, that I will discuss it with him before taking the matter to the Other Place. We may be able to find some way of introducing a certain change when the Bill is discussed in the Other Place, some change in order to accommodate the problems of the hon. member for Albany.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, clause 18 involves the insertion of a new section 80 into the principal Act, a new section which will allow the hon. the Minister to exercise the powers of a control board in certain circumstances. During Second Reading I indicated that we were prepared to accept this and to give the hon. the Minister this power, with one proviso, viz. that he should report to Parliament when he does exercise that power. For that reason I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. [Interjections.]

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South promises to say nothing during the Third Reading, I shall give him a sheep to slaughter. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the hon. the Minister’s offer was very tempting. However, by the time my colleagues have all had their share, I will have nothing left of it anyway. [Interjections.]

I simply want to put the record straight on the contretemps we had a little earlier with the hon. member for King William’s Town. He alleged that this party sits with no farmers. When making that statement, the hon. member should have known that it was an arbitrary statement, because there was a time when he was with us. He knows that, sitting in these benches, we have three stud breeders, two general pastural farmers, one general agricultural farmer and two sugar farmers. That is a total of eight. It is more than he has.

In addition, the hon. member must not forget that we also have two retired farmers, people who are most active in the agricultural sector, possibly more active than that hon. member. We in this party have always adopted a policy—and the hon. member abided by that policy when he was still part of this team— never to put forward our own sectional interests, but always to look at the broad interests of agriculture or whatever the subject of debate was. Ever since the hon. member left these benches, he has done nothing but promote his own sectional interest One only has to listen to his speeches during the debates, also during this debate, to hear that his sole intention, sitting in this House, is to promote his own sectional interests. He challenged me to a bet and said that I had not looked at the Bill at all …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to allege that another hon. member of the House is sitting here only to promote his own sectional interests?

Order! The hon. member spoke about promoting sectional party interests.

Thank you, Sir. The hon. member said that I made a big song and dance in the Second Reading debate and that only five of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry had been rejected by the hon. the Minister. I think that I should put the record straight. After all, we are now at the end of the debate on this Bill. We are now in the position where the report of the commission of inquiry has been dealt with, the hon. the Minister having accepted what he has accepted, and having rejected what he has rejected, and the legislation is now before the House. I find the following, and I hope the hon. member will be able to carry out his boast. I shall be glad to indulge a little later in whatever he will supply. The first recommendation that the hon. the Minister has rejected is the one concerning the composition of the control boards, viz. that they should consist of 11 members. The hon. the Minister has made it 13. Secondly, the commission recommended that consumer representation should be done away with but the hon. the Minister has retained that. Thirdly, the commission recommended that the price fixing should be in the hands of the hon. the Minister, but yet the hon. the Minister has left it with the board. Fourthly, the commission recommended that there should be at least two members from outside the department on the National Marketing Board. The hon. the Minister rejected this recommendation. As far as the Milk Board is concerned, the commission recommended that there should be no restrictive registration of distributors. The hon. the Minister has rejected that. The hon. the Minister also rejected the commission’s recommendation in regard to the question of the establishment of a division of agricultural statistics. Seventhly, the commission recommended that there should be consultation between the National Marketing Council and the South African Co-ordinating Consumer Council. This also was rejected by the hon. the Minister. Here we already have seven instances, before we even start talking about the Meat Board and the other recommendations which were also rejected.

Notwithstanding the fact that those recommendations have been rejected, we are ending up with a better Act, an Act which I believe will work in the best interests of agriculture and of the consumers in South Africa. There are still “leemtes” and there are still differences of opinion between the hon. the Minister and ourselves, but we have taken a large step forward, a step that can only be to the benefit of the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for his positive standpoint. Again I also want to thank the members of the commission, all the control boards, everyone who gave evidence before the commission and everyone who had a share in this improved legislation, very sincerely for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Once again, like last year, we have today come to a day on which the Government of the Republic of South Africa is declaring another of its nations independent, a day on which, once again, a nation has reached the stage at which it may be released from guardianship; a day on which, once again, we confirm that the Government is sincere and honest in the logical fulfilment of its nations policy in our multinational situation; a day that, once again, can be the motory moment for a particular nation in its own dynamic self-realization; a day on which it is, in clear language, and decisive action, being made obvious to everyone that this nation, like scores of larger, but also scores of smaller nations all over the world, is also obtaining its own individual freedom; a day on which the Republic of South Africa, as well as the nation concerned, can boast that this freedom was obtained without any bloodshed and with the acclamation of both the presentor as well as the recipient of this freedom; a day on which, once again, a nation is able to reap the fruits of our Government’s system of self-government for every Black nation with its rich constitutional dynamism. That nation is the people of Bophuthatswana!

†With this measure and the developments that will follow, the Government once more fully complies with and gives effect to the undertaking the NP gave in its election manifesto of 1948, viz. “The Native reserves must become the true fatherlands of the Natives”.

Last year, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Status of Transkei Bill, I dealt broadly and in general with the history of land occupation and self-government of the Black nations in this country, as well as the development of our long-term policy and fundamental views on that matter, views which will not be repeated now, although they are also valid here.

It is, however, appropriate to have a close look at the position of the Tswana nation. This nation is one of the eight main population groups that lived in South Africa at the beginning of the 19th century in an area in the shape of a large horseshoe. This area comprised 264 units with a total area of about 9 million hectare. According to the. Tomlinson Commission, an area of 9 190 101 hectare was set aside in 1913, in terms of the Bantu Land Act, 1913, for the exclusive use of the Bantu. In 1936, the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, provided for a further 5 815 460 hectare land for Black occupation—thus a total of 15 005 561 hectare.

Of this 15 million hectare the South Africa Tswanas occupy about 4 million hectare, which is more than 25%. Before the establishment of Union, the whole of South Africa, and also the three British High Commission Territories—Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana—were under British control. The whole territory under British rule comprised 184 million hectare which was divided as follows to the nearest million: Union of South Africa, 122 million hectare; Botswana, 57 million hectare; Lesotho, 3 million hectare; and Swaziland 2 million hectare.

The Tswana nation was adversely affected by an unfortunate combination of circumstances. In 1885 the then Government of the Cape Colony, by order of the British Government, decided to excise a portion of Bechuanaland British Protectorate in order to form a new British controlled territory. In the Annexation Proclamation, I.B.B. of 30 September 1885, the new territory was called British Bechuanaland. The Molope River and Ramatlhabama Brook formed the boundary between the new territory and Bechuanaland. The old South African Republic was on the eastern and the Cape Colony on the southern boundary. British Bechuanaland comprised roughly the present districts of Mafeking, Vryburg, Kuruman, Taung and that portion of Gordonia north of the Orange River. The northern boundary between the new territory and Bechuanaland, unfortunately divided the Barolong tribe, and in a wider sense also the Tswana nation, in two. In 1891, the Government of the Cape Colony extended British Bechuanaland by Proclamation 106 dated 5 May 1891, by including the area now known as the Kalahari Gemsbok Park. On 11 November 1895, British Bechuanaland was annexed to the Cape Colony by Act 41 of 1895 of the Cape Colony.

*If history had taken the course planned before the establishment of Union, the Tswana nation would eventually have been united. It is well-known history that the South Africa Act, 1909, provided that the three protectorates could subsequently be incorporated in the Union. But history took a different course and the Tswana nation could not be re-united.

This nation which is today on the threshold of independence was one of the wards over which South Africa was appointed guardian with the establishment of the Union in 1910. The Union of South Africa accepted its responsibility and with care and dedication helped this nation to develop. This development included all the spheres and interests of nationhood: Agriculture, mining, commerce, industry, education, health, etc., and of course political development as well. In the latter connection a clear direction was given by the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, and the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, 1959. Despite the accusations of dishonesty and the unfair criticism of political opponents and obstructionists, we further cleared the way for the Bantu nations to attain self-determination by the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act of 1971. This Act has paved the way for Bantu nations to obtain a greater say in their own affairs based on their own, essentially democratic system of self-government.

The nation of Bophuthatstwana availed themselves of all the opportunities created for them. On 1 May 1971 they received their first form of self-government, on which they continued to build until they became a self-governing territory on 1 July 1972. As a result of this good experience of self-government, this nation then decided to take the final step to the goal to which every nation is entitled: The attainment of independence.

During a special session on 19 and 20 November 1975 the following motion was adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Bophuthatswana—

As mentioned before, all the nations of South Africa, including the three British High Commission territories, the present-day Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, were under British rule from 1902 to 1910. With the establishment of the Union, the three British High Commission territories remained under direct British rule until they became independent: Lesotho and Botswana in 1966 and Swaziland in 1968. These three countries eventually became independent, and immediately after attaining independence, they were recognized by the international community and were admitted as members of the United Nations and the Organization for African Unity. Whereas this obvious treatment was accorded the Tswana nation of our neighbouring country Botswana, it is surely logical to expect that the Tswana nation of Bophuthatswana will receive the same treatment from the international community.

†I now proceed to a discussion of the Bill. I hasten to mention that this Bill was before the time presented to the Government of Bophuthatswana for perusal. Thereafter it was discussed in the inter-Cabinet Committee, and after certain amendments were made, it was adopted by the representatives of both Governments.

One of the various manners in which a former dependent territory can attain independence, is for the guardian firstly to relinquish its sovereignty over the territory and the people of the territory, at the same time empowering the former dependent territory to enact its own autochthonous constitution. It is an act of relinquishing sovereignty over the territory and its people. Such a step places the emancipated territory and its people in exactly the same position of authority that the guardian had prior to relinquishing its sovereignty over the territory concerned.

It is clear from this Bill that Parliament has been asked to declare its intention in this manner to relinquish its sovereignty over the territory concerned and its people. The Preamble of the Bill expresses the wish of Bophuthatswana to become an independent State and affirms the Republic’s concurrence with the desire.

Clause 1:

In subsection (1) land is excised from the Republic of South Africa by way of partition, and the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa over such excised land as the territory of the future independent Bophuthatswana is transferred to the Government of Bophuthatswana as a sovereign independent State.

It will be noted that the territory is described by referring to the districts mentioned in schedule A. These districts are defined by Government Notice and as a result of certain boundary adjustments agreed upon between this Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana, the description of these districts will be amended according to the agreement.

It is known that certain additional land will be transferred to Bophuthatswana after independence, and after the South African Bantu Trust has acquired and prepared such land for transfer. This additional land will then be added to the districts concerned. These land matters are provided for in special agreements in terms of clause 5 of the Bill.

For the sake of laymen and those who will try to minimize that what has been done in all honesty and sincerity and who will also try to belittle it, subsection (2) has been added in order that the intention may be clear beyond any doubt.

Clause 2:

This clause is necessary in order that a state of lawlessness shall not obtain upon the attainment of independence. Provision is made that all existing laws remain in force until repealed or amended by the competent authority in Bophuthatswana. For the sake of clarity it is clearly stated that no person or authority in the Republic of South Africa shall, in its own right, have any executive authority after the commencement of this Bill.

Clause 3:

In this clause provision is made for the Legislative Assembly of Bophuthatswana, as constituted in terms of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, 1971, to make any law, including a constitution, and that such laws will not be subject to approval by any authority in the Republic of South Africa.

Clause 4:

This clause provides that treaties, conventions and agreements binding on the Republic of South Africa and applicable to Bophuthatswana shall pass as existing binding treaties, conventions and agreements upon Bophuthatswana, but subject to denunciation by Bophuthatswana after independence, if so desired.

Clause 5:

This clause provides that treaties, conventions and agreements which have been entered into between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Bophuthatswana at the coming into operation of this Bill will remain in force as international agreements.

In terms of agreements entered into between the Government of the Republic and the Government of Bophuthatswana, bodies and persons in the Republic will have to function inside Bophuthatswana in the performance of their obligations. Such bodies, for instance the South African Bantu Trust or a corporation, presently have no extraterritorial powers and this clause makes it possible for them to function and spend money in Bophuthatswana.

There will be a considerable number of such agreements. Hon. members will recall that many agreements were entered into with Transkei, which agreements were published in the Government Gazette. Quite a few agreements have already been approved provisionally by the two Governments in terms of this Bill, but they are not yet all completed. Some of the most important matters on which agreements are required are, for example: The movement of people across our borders, labour matters, defence and security, financial arrangements, water, electricity supply, land and a number of others. I have given lists of the provisionally approved and the envisaged agreements, as well as copies of the existing agreements, to the leaders of the Parliamentary groups for perusal.

When?

Today.

Clause 6(1) and (2):

In this clause, read with schedule B, it is laid down over which people Bophuthatswana will gain sovereignty at the attainment of independence. The people who become citizens of Bophuthatswana will in the process cease to be citizens of the Republic of South Africa. In terms of this provision all Tswanas in Bophuthatswana and in the White areas of South Africa, who presently qualify for Tswana citizenship as set out in schedule B, will become citizens of Bophuthatswana at the attainment of independence. As, in terms of long-standing laws, the Republic of South Africa does not permit dual citizenship, such Tswana citizens will cease to be South African citizens.

Provision is made for a joint board to identify citizens of Bophuthatswana in doubtful cases.

I should like to point out that the provisions on citizenship in this Bill are in accordance with an explicit agreement reached at the Joint Cabinet Committee. I have been informed that it is the intention of the Bophuthatswana Cabinet to include a provision like this in their constitution.

Clause 6(3):

By special request of the Bophuthatswana Cabinet we agreed to include this clause which provides for an agreement between the Republic of South Africa and Bophuthatswana to arrange for citizens of Bophuthatswana who may, after independence, for some reason wish to change their citizenship.

To South African citizenship?

I now come to clause 6(4). This clause provides that, except for the loss of citizenship, the existing rights, privileges and benefits of Bophuthatswana citizens who reside in the Republic of South Africa shall not be forfeited.

I wish to repeat what has been said before: The Republic of South Africa will in various respects like inter alia employment, give preference to those Black people who identify themselves with their own nations in terms of citizenship.

That is blackmail.

I now come to the last clause, clause 7. This contains the short title and provides that the Act shall come into operation on a date determined by the State President.

*Mr. Speaker, please afford me a further opportunity in which to make a few general observations. Bophuthatswana is a good example of a fatherland of a Black nation that settled historically in a number of dispersed areas—which ought to be reduced to six as a result of our consolidation plans. There are people, mostly opponents of our policy, who claim that it is impossible for a country consisting of dispersed areas to be independent. It is an assertion that is, however, contradicted by the reality of a number of independent countries that consist of distant portions of a continent and/or islands. I firmly believe that Bophuthatswana will soon silence these critics. It is not generally appreciated that the very fact that Bophuthatswana consists of separated areas in itself is of considerable security value to the peoples of Bophuthatswana as well as the RSA, because these two nations will constantly have to realize that they, the people of both countries, are extremely interdependent upon one another and will have to be tolerant of one another.

From the statistics on the distribution of the Tswanas it is clear that although the greater percentage of the Tswanas are still established outside their homeland there has nevertheless, during the past few years, been a population movement into the homeland. I am convinced that with the obvious increase in development in the homeland, and particularly, too, as a result of their independence, the absolute numbers and also the percentage of Tswana in their fatherland will increase considerably.

There are very few White South Africans who have established business and land tenure rights in Bophuthatswana. In terms of our policy the Government of the Republic is committed to gradually buying out the interests of such persons in order to transfer them to the Government or to the people of Bophuthatswana. This will be done on the same basis as in Transkei.

It is known that there are Black people in certain parts of Bophuthatswana who are not Tswanas and if they do not accept the Tswana citizenship, the South African Bantu Trust will always be prepared to assist such Black people and to compensate them if they are moved elsewhere.

It is trusted that the Government of Bophuthatswana will be patient with such Blacks who do not become citizens of Bophuthatswana, for it requires funds, time and especially patience to rectify such a situation. In this regard I sincerely believe that my department and I, together with the South African Bantu Trust, will receive the necessary understanding and co-operation from the Government of Bophuthatswana. That is why I want to make an earnest appeal to all, particularly to certain political activists, not to intervene in these matters in an attempt to defeat our efforts. [Interjections.]

I gladly give the assurance here and now, that the Republic of South Africa, with all its constituent institutions, shall continually endeavour to carry out the provisions of the Bill and all the agreements—in whatever form— between the two Governments of the two States in the letter and in spirit for as long as they remain in force as well as it is possible to do.

In anticipation I welcome the new State that will be established in terms of this Bill and I am pleased that I can be the first, although it is in anticipation, to congratulate the Tswana nation on their coming independence and to pray that they will receive the richest blessings of our Heavenly Father.

The Government of the Republic of South Africa has only the fervent desire to co-operate amicably and in goodwill with the independent Bophuthatswana in the best interests of all.

In conclusion I wish to ask this House—yes, all the groups here—in view of the grandeur of the occasion, but specially in goodwill to our friendly neighbour, to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister in his introductory remarks told the House that this was an historic occasion, because a second State and people in South Africa was being launched on the road to independence. Had he not told us that this was an historic occasion, I am sure that three factors would have made it clear to us that it was in fact an historic occasion. The three factors that I have in mind are the packed and enthusiastic Treasury benches, the Ministers, the suppressed excitement on the other benches of the Government ranks and the crowds of cheering Tswanas in the gallery to celebrate this great occasion! Indeed, the only sign of emotion I detected in the whole of the Government benches was on the face of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, who listened to the hon. the Minister introducing the Bill like a knowing young lady listening to a maiden aunt delivering a discourse on the evils of the pill! It is not surprising that there should have been a smile on the face of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation when one bears in mind two closely related facts of recent memory. One is that the policy espoused by and which motivated the whole discourse of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in introducing this Bill is the latter-day philosophy of the late Dr. Verwoerd: Firstly, that no two races could live peacefully together in one state, secondly, that we were a variety of nations living together in South Africa, and consequently have to be advanced to the state of peaceful co-existence of independent nations, and thirdly, that no form of multiracial constitutional structure has any chance of survival in South Africa. Hence the second Bill to launch into independence a group of people in this country.

By comparison we had yesterday from the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation the direct antithesis of that philosophy, if we are to take him seriously; if he is not to be regarded as a joke. What did he say? He said, first of all, in defining his concept of cultural pluralism—which he supported and which he put forward as a vision for South Africa—that this was a State of equal co-existence in a mutually supportive relationship within the boundaries or framework of one nation … [Interjections.] … one nation of people of diverse cultures, and later of ethnicity. He did not only say that once. He said it a second time during the discourse, when he said—

And he used the word “nation” in the singular. [Interjections.] Not only did he state that philosophy, but on page 9 of the same speech he envisaged the urban Black man, or the Black man permanently situated in the White areas of South Africa, as taking a part in this exercise in the cultural pluralism of one nation.

Why do you not read what I said?

All right, I shall read what the hon. the Minister said about that. I shall read precisely what he said. He said this—

The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation did not dismiss that as an impossible situation.

[Inaudible.]

He did not dismiss it as contrary to the basic beliefs of Government. He admitted it as being the belief of reasonable people and posed it as a possibility for the future. [Interjections.] I need to say only that, to show up the direct conflict which exists between the two hon. Ministers I have just referred to. [Interjections.] If that is the new credo, what regard must we have for what the hon. the Minister who has introduced this Bill, has just said? What regard have we to have for—and to use his own phraseology—the statement that this is the logical consequence of a dynamic policy, of long-term views, of fundamental policy? Well, I suppose we shall have to get used to these divergences, just as we had to get used, after 1951, to these words—

Those were the words of the late Dr. Verwoerd in 1951. He repudiated that outlook to bring about the philosophy which the hon. the Minister has just given us. The hon. the Minister in turn has had his views repudiated by the hon. the Minister of Sport. So much for the consistency of the philosophy of the governing party. However, I suppose that for the purposes of this Bill I must accept the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration’s philosophy and must deal with it on that basis.

As the hon. the Minister has said, this is the second Bill to come before the House the purpose of which is to give content to the Government’s policy of separate development. The first was the Status of the Transkei Bill last year, a Bill in almost identical terms, save for one subsection, to the present Bill that we are now discussing. The subsection I am referring to concerns the question of citizenship, about which I shall have more to say in a moment. That Bill was opposed by all parties on the Opposition side of this House, including the gentlemen who now sit in the IUP. [Interjections.] Despite the honeyed words of the hon. the Minister, this Bill has primarily a political purpose. I think we should be quite clear about that. The Bill is part of a strictly political exercise whereby it is hoped to reduce the pressures from Black people for political expression in the Republic of South Africa by attaching them notionally to the new State of Bophuthatswana and requiring the people to whom the hon. the gentleman says he is giving freedom to exercise their civic and franchise rights in the new State of Bophuthatswana. This Bill deals, in the first instance, with political rights and with citizenship. I should like to say a word or two in that regard.

I was interested to read the speeches, because I was not here for the debate, of the hon. gentlemen who spoke on the introduction of this Bill. There were fine sounding phrases used by spokesmen on the Government benches. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West said: “Here we are according full citizenship.” The hon. member for Vereeniging said: “We want to grant independence to the Tswana people”; a phrase which the hon. the Minister used again this evening. The hon. the Minister’s phrase was that he was “giving independence to a territory and a people”. He used that phrase twice. I want to emphasize that the reference was not to a circumscribed area, a geographical area, to which independence was being given, but to a people. At the time of the introduction of the Bill the hon. the Minister said that he was granting rights and was not taking rights away. I believe we should look at this a little more closely in order to see to what extent, if at all, these noble sentiments accord with the reality of the case.

We are dealing here with the rights of some 2 million people of whom—and this is important—about two-thirds neither live nor work in the territory of Bophuthatswana. I should like to emphasize that. Of the 2 million people we are dealing with, about one-third live and work in the territory that is to achieve its “sovereignty”, to use the hon. the Minister’s phrase. What does the term “full citizenship”, which according to Government spokesmen we are granting to these 2 million people, mean in respect of any group of people? I believe it connotes the right to civic rights, such as ownership of land, full economic opportunity, participation in local government, freedom of association and freedom of movement. It also connotes political rights in all those legislative institutions by which one’s life is governed where one lives and where one works. It includes the ability to influence the authorities governing one’s life by legitimate political activities and pressure in a properly constituted form. I do not believe anybody in this House will deny that “full citizenship”—to use the phrase of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West—means at least all those things. That, it is said, we are giving to these 2 million Tswanas with this legislation. What is in reality their position? As I have said, two-thirds of them neither live nor work in the territory which is to achieve its sovereignty. Not only do they not live there, but at the present time they cannot live and work in this proposed new State. They live and work, and in many cases were born, in areas of what is known as White South Africa. To an increasing extent they will continue to do so. The lives of those people, people to whom it is alleged we are giving freedom and full citizenship—I now speak of the two-thirds— are governed from the cradle to the grave by this Parliament and the laws it makes, by the laws of the Transvaal Provincial Council and the administration of its Executive Committee, by the Free State’s Provincial Council and the administration of its Executive Committee, by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, administered by the department of the hon. the Minister, for the areas of the Western and Northern Transvaal and the Free State, and by the various municipal councils of the White towns in whose Bantu townships or villages they happen to live.

Those are the legislative institutions which govern their lives. Not in any of those bodies do they have any form of representation at all. There is no legitimate channel through which pressure can be brought to bear in a legitimate manner. They do not have any representation of any kind. They have no share in decision making. That pertains to the great majority, the two-thirds of the people to whom it is said quite glibly we are giving full citizenship and we are giving freedom.

Do you include those working in the border area of Brits?

I shall refer to the border areas in a moment. I shall deal specifically with the border area of Brits.

Not only does this legislation not give any citizenship or freedom in the political or civic sense to that two-thirds of those people, but it takes away their right as South African citizens to aspire to citizenship rights in the Republic of South Africa. Instead, they are given citizenship in a territory, the defined area of which is referred to in this Bill, in which they do not live, in which a great many of them have not lived and in which most of them are unlikely ever to live. They are given political rights in a legislative assembly, the legislature of Bophuthatswana, which cannot legislate on any of the matters which affect their lives where they live and work, whose laws do not apply in the area where many of these people were born, where most of them live, work and die, and whose executive authority is powerless to act as of right, except in a persuasive manner, as between Prime Ministers’ in the area where two-thirds of that population lives. Need one say any more to demonstrate the utter falsity of anyone expressing the view that this legislation in respect of the 2 million Tswana people, is granting them either full citizenship or freedom in the political sense?

What can be said in regard to the independence of the Tswana people, which is the other phrase which has been used? This Bill certainly gives independence to one-third of the Tswana people, i.e. those who live their lives permanently in the territory that we are to give sovereignty to. The Bill certainly gives independence to six fragmented pieces of territory about which I shall have a bit more to say in a moment. I repeat that it does not, however, give independence to the two-thirds of the population that is under discussion.

Let us look again at the question of citizenship. It was hinted by various hon. members on that side of the House, when the Bill was introduced, that a change had been made in the draftsmanship of the Bill to the effect that this Bill did not deprive the Tswana people of their South African citizenship as the Transkei Bill had done.

Who said that?

The hon. the Minister, amongst others. I must admit that what the hon. the Minister said was so muddled that I had difficulty in understanding what he intended to convey. The hon. the Minister did say the following—

I really do not know what that means. It was generally understood, however, by those listening at the time, both in respect of that speech and the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, that the hon. the Minister was indicating that this Bill would be different from the Transkei Bill in respect of the question of citizenship. In all material respects, it is no different at all. It does away in specific terms with the South African citizenship of the Bophuthatswana people. In terms of the present legislation there is dual citizenship in respect of these people, enacted by this Government. This Bill, in clause 6(1), does away with the South African citizenship upon its promulgation in exactly the same terms as did the Transkei Bill. After all, the main object of the legislation is to prevent these people from remaining South African citizens so that they can no longer claim political rights in the South African context. Clause 6(2) makes provision for the creation of the board which deals with doubtful cases just as in the case of the Transkei Bill. Clause 6(3) is new, but what does it do? All it does, is what the hon. the Minister said, although he did not explain it in any way, that if they wish to acquire another citizenship, they will be able to do so with the consent of the South African Government. The hon. the Minister must not tell me that he is going to allow them to renounce their Bophuthatswana citizenship and take on South African citizenship. Of course the hon. the Minister cannot say so, because it would make the whole of these proceedings absurd. The whole object of these proceedings is to deprive them of their South African citizenship. All the provision is inserted for—I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will say that I am wrong if I am wrong—is to allow them to acquire the citizenship of another homeland, should they for some reason not wish to remain as Bophuthatswana citizens.

I believe that is all it is intended to convey. The White Paper does not tell us; the Bill does not tell us and the hon. the Minister does not tell us; so presumably we must draw our own conclusions. Consequently it is, I believe, quite clear, and can be stated emphatically, that this Bill does not grant independence to the majority of the Tswana people. It does not grant full citizenship to the majority of the Tswana people and it does not grant them rights; it takes rights away, in particular their South African citizenship which is one of their rights at the present time. The important factor is that in taking away those rights, no adequate substitute is given in return by this legislation.

What is being given independence and what are we dealing with in reality? We are dealing with six geographically separate pieces of land stretching across the western Transvaal, from Kuruman in the west to Pretoria in the east and as far south as Thaba ’Nchu in the Orange Free State. From its physical aspect and geographical features, this has no appearance of an independent State at all. The only link that one can find in the entire exercise is the ethnicity of that minority of the people who happen to live within those territories. The Transkei, by comparison, at least had an old-established regional entity, an old-established form of regional government and a considerable potential in its seaboard, its climate and its agriculture. By comparison the new State of Bophuthatswana is no more than an ad hoc piecing together of a loose collection of geographical pieces.

What about the viability of this territory and its chances of success in the future? One of the most interesting documents published has been the economic survey, a review of Bophuthatswana published by a body known as Benbo, which is one of the secretariats of the hon. the Minister’s department. It is an official publication brought out in 1975. What does it have to say about the economic viability of this territory? Under the heading “Employment Creation and Income Generation: Agriculture”, which is generally regarded as the mainstay of emergent African States, the following is stated—

This refers to the period after consolidation. I quote further—

We are creating a State where a bare 6,6% of the land is arable while the rest is given over to pastoral farming which is, shall I say, the least advanced of the farming pursuits in any part of the world. There is almost no afforestation. However, there is some mining.

What about the mining potential?

Hon. members opposite ask: “What about the mining potential?” And their smiles light up. I do not have the time to go into this, but if one looks at the Benbo report, one finds that all the mines are White controlled. They are controlled from Johannesburg and no Tswanas—I repeat, no Tswanas—are employed on the mines. [Interjections.]

Why?

Why? Because the Tswanas will not work on the mines. That hon. gentleman, however, will not hear it from me—

The only economic activity of any consequence in this territory is mining, and the people concerned do not work there. The workers for the mines have to be brought in from outside. I cannot go into detail about the industrial activity at Brits, Babalegi and other places. In any event, this is industrial activity outside the Tswana homeland. In respect of these areas, the Tswana homeland is merely used as a dormitory suburb. The most telling phrase of the lot, again coming from the Government survey, is: “Less than 14% of the income earned by the Tswana people is spent in the homeland”. Can you believe it, Sir? Less than 14%! It is quite easy to understand why. The money is not spent in the homeland because the people who earn it and spend it are not there. They are in White South Africa; that is where they earn their money and spend it. Perhaps the most tragic part of this whole survey is the heading: “Justice”. Justice is an important factor, and if hon. gentlemen doubt me, I can read it, but my time is short. Under the heading “Justice” we find only four lines which say that Bophuthatswana has twelve magisterial districts and—here is the rub—only four police stations. That tells a tale, does it not? We are sitting here, seriously listening to a discussion on the production, according to the Minister, of a grand new, viable, independent State. Yet it can boast of only four police stations.

I think that I have said enough to indicate that this is not a piece of legislation which can be supported by this side of the House. I believe that it warrants the moving of an amendment similar to that which we moved when the legislation a similar kind concerning the Transkei was introduced in this House, namely—

There is one other thing that I should say before I sit down.

May I ask you a question?

No, sorry, I do not have the time. One of the most important parts of this legislation is not the Bill, which consists of six clauses, but the agreements I have here in my hand—two volumes of them—which the hon. the Minister, or his department, has for months now been negotiating.

There is one volume, but two copies.

I have two volumes of agreements which are as important for the proper consideration of the legislation before this House as the Bill itself.

That is not relevant at all.

These were given to the Opposition a short while before the dinner adjournment this evening. [Interjections.] We are expected seriously to debate this matter when the great bulk of the matter we are concerned with is entirely unknown to those of us in the Opposition benches who have to debate this. I must assume, unless preferential treatment has been given to the Government benches, that hon. gentlemen on the Government benches do not know what is contained in these volumes either. If any of them can claim to have any knowledge of what is in these documents, it brings even greater discredit on the hon. the Minister’s head. If that is so, he has given the information to his own benches and has refrained from giving them to us. I believe that this conduct is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, this evening we have again had the typical tirade from the United Party, a party which opposes merely for the sake of opposing. In the first place, a country has been slighted in that all kinds of jokes have been made about the freedom of that country, a freedom which has been requested by that country itself. Jokes were made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

He did not make jokes.

Of course he made jokes about the freedom of Bophuthatswana. [Interjections.] This is a serious matter which is now being debated in this House, but they are joking about it. It is time that the Cabinet and people of Bophuthatswana take note of the attitude of that party opposite. Of course, they were again taken in tow this evening by the small party sitting next to them.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech the hon. member touched on various matters which will be dealt with by other hon. members. Unfortunately my time is very limited and I cannot reply on the issue of citizenship. I can only say that the Opposition reminds me of a French dynasty, namely the Bourbons.

The Broederbond?

Members of this French dynasty returned to Paris in 1815 after having lived a full 20 years in exile due to revolution and the rise of Napoleon I. When they returned from exile, after some time people said of them that they had forgotten nothing and learned nothing. They wanted to go on as if they were still living in 1789 and as if absolutely nothing had happened between 1789 and 1815. That is how the members of the Opposition are living. They imagine they are still living in 1948. I want to prove this.

The UP and its leaders are the modern Bourbons in South Africa. They have been in the political desert for 29 years now and during this period they have really learned nothing and forgotten nothing. This Government has won election after election. They have done so with the aim of eventually bringing about the independence of Bophuthatswana and other homelands. This has been the aim for which we have fought in every election: Separate development. What happened? On every occasion we have had bigger and bigger majorities. These people do not even ask themselves why we were getting bigger majorities.

And in 1970?

In that year too we had a big majority, but that was when we passed from the Verwoerd era to the Vorster era. As I said, we have had bigger and bigger majorities and this is still happening. However, the members of the Opposition did not ask what the people of South Africa wanted. They are still the Bourbons of South Africa.

Last year we passed the Status of the Transkei Act in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Transkei was given its independence on 26 October.

And look at it now!

It is a disgrace that an hon. member can make a remark like that about an independent country. What is wrong with the Transkei? Last year we cherished the hope that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana would see the light. He put the standpoint of the Whites against majority government very well. He said that the issue had nothing whatever to do with colour, race or pigmentation. He formulated it very well and stressed that the Whites preferred a democratic way of life and a democratic parliamentary system. They prefer private ownership of land. He respects the sovereignty of law, the freedom of the individual, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press. He concluded by saying that it was a question of the White having a strong preference for his system and refusing to accede to any other system. We thought there was hope for the UP and we thought that they had begun to see the light. But they are doing what the Bourbons did and living in the past. They are still living in the year 1948. The hon. member turned round at that point and said that this matter should be linked to a federal system and that then there would be a wonderful South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon hon. members to make fewer interjections. The hon. member may continue.

On 26 October last year Transkei became independent. This year it is envisaged that Bophuthatswana will most probably become independent on 6 December, and everyone in South Africa is aware of that. In spite of this the public of South Africa has been voting for the Government in even greater numbers. We have had two by-elections, both of which have resulted in stunning victories for the NP. Surely this is a verdict that the UP is on the wrong path. Everyone knew that the issue was independence and that is why those results were significant. It is a fact that the UP cannot even perceive the significance of those election results because they are honestly opposing this important legislation which gives freedom to Bophuthatswana. The time has come for the Black people and the Black Cabinets of South Africa to take cognizance of the attitude adopted by this party.

The freedom which is now being given to the Black people is something they have asked for. We did not impose it on them. We want to emphasize very strongly that they asked for it in a free and democratic way. The elections they are holding also concern this single aspect, namely independence. We have seen this already in the outcome of the election of chiefs when 47 of the 48 chiefs who will have a seat in the future Parliament of Bophuthatswana were elected.

South Africa can be sorry that it does not have a responsible Opposition. There is hope when I look to my right and see the IUP.

Any party which had studied the politics of South Africa at all would have realized a long time ago that they should move closer to what the NP is doing in South Africa and that that is the only way in which racial peace can be maintained in South Africa. It is the only way in which a true solution will be found. That way is the implementation of the policy of separate development. If the UP has said years ago that they supported the NP, they would have been a party which we could perhaps have regarded as an alternative Government for the future. I fear that in view of its actions today, that party cannot be regarded as an alternative Government for the future.

I want to confine myself to one aspect only, namely the issue of consolidation. Other hon. members will reply to the many aspects raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It is very easy to draw lines and maps, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has often put it. It is very easy to make proposals and to sit in an armchair drawing up all kinds of theories. However, when one if is faced with reality one finds that they are sometimes impracticable. We on this side of the House are the first to admit that it is the ideal to leave one piece of land for these people as their eventual territory. Furthermore, plans were drafted in terms of which that territory could be consolidated into one piece of land. This was done scientifically by professors at the University of Potchefstroom. Other people and groups also submitted plans. In the first place we were dealing with various physical factors which made anything of the kind entirely impossible. The first was the issue of finances. The cost involved ran to vast sums of money. The taxpayers of South Africa would have had to pay up and it could have landed us in financial difficulties for the next 20 or 30 years is an attempt had been made to consolidate the whole of South Africa in this way so that each separate Government could have one separate territory.

Furthermore, the resettlement of people in their thousands would have resulted in inconvenience on a vast scale. One of the most important of the other factors which played a role in this matter was the issue of the quota of land provided by the 1936 legislation. Even though we had had the finance and even though we had been able to carry out the necessary resettlement of people, the quota of land would still have remained a major stumbling block and the matter could only have been negotiated by a mutual exchange of land. One Government would have had to exchange land with the other. Taking into account the physical factors to which I have just referred, it ought to be mentioned that the Government has in fact exchanged pieces of land in certain areas. However, co-operation could not be obtained in all cases and unfortunately it was not always possible to iron out the problems of all the various tribes in every case, tribes which sometimes refused to go and live in other tribal areas.

However, what is the significance of this whole matter? The good faith of the White in South Africa towards the Black man can never be questioned. One of the fundamental proofs of this is the protection of the Black man by the Whites since Union. The hon. the Minister put this very clearly last year during the debate on the independence of the Transkei when he said (Hansard, Vol. 63, col. 8304)—

That was in 1913—

This is important. As far back as 1913 the rights of the Bantu had been entrenched.

In other words, protection was afforded the Black man. He is protected against competition and that is why he is still able to live on and own his own land today. That, too, is why the various Bantu tribes can still be the owners of their own land. South Africa therefore has a clean conscience in this matter. We have protected the land of the Black people for their own sake.

In 1936 the territory of the Tswanas comprised 35 separate pieces of land. As the hon. the Minister rightly remarked, Bophuthatswana comprised 17 separate pieces of land in 1975. After consolidation there will only be six separate areas of land. As the hon. the Minister rightly indicated, it is not impossible to control and administer six separate pieces of land. He indicated by way of example that it could in fact be done. I want to add that the present borders are not yet the final borders. Exchange transactions could still take place in the future between the two Governments. It is true that the land quota has been allocated. As far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, it has been done finally. However, changes could be effected in the future when the two Governments agree that certain exchange transactions could take place with regard to land. It will then be a matter between Government and Government, in the best interests of both of those Governments. Now, hon. members may ask what advantages this entails. They may ask what advantages those six separate pieces of land entail.

They do in fact entail advantages. In the first place, the skills and entrepreneurial abilities of the Whites and the labour of the Blacks are needed on both sides. These areas of land are in fact distributed between Pretoria and the Vryburg district and extend across a large area, through the districts of Rustenburg, Zeerust, Mafeking, Vryburg and Thaba Nchu. What this entails, therefore, is that more labour can be made available over a wider area and that the skills of the Whites can be used more extensively in the future independent Bophuthatswana.

As regards the natural resources about which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had so much to say, it is true that there is potential in Bophuthatswana. There is much strong agricultural potential which could be developed. A large section in the Vaalharts area can be irrigated. The economy of Bophuthatswana is developing and we are aware of this development and towns which have already been established. It is true that as far as mining is concerned, all the mines belong to Whites, but royalties are paid to the Blacks and this represents revenue for the country. Taxes and other levies also derive from this.

Another benefit which we want to stress once again is the interdependence of Bophuthatswana and the Republic of South Africa. I think the people of South Africa and the people of Bophuthatswana realize that this interdependence will have to be maintained at all times. I want to tell the people of Bophuthatswana that it is not a disgrace to rely on another country. We ourselves rely heavily on Bophuthatswana as far as their labour is concerned and they can rely on us as well. South Africa is prepared to help them at all times.

In conclusion, I just want to say a few words about the new capital city of Bophuthatswana, M’Mabathu which means “the place of the people”. M’Mabathu is situated six kilometres north-west of Mafeking. I should like to congratulate Chief Minister Lukas Mangope, his Cabinet and his people on their choice of a situation for their capital city. It attests to statesmanship. M’Mabathu is the most central place in Bophuthatswana. It is situated close to Mafeking on the railway line. There is sufficient water and electricity and the city is so situated that it can develop gradually. It is unnecessary for development to take place overnight because other facilities already exist and the development can take place with minimum disruption in the future since the other Black town, Montshiwa, and Mafeking are situated nearby. Many of the hon. members will ask why Mafeking did not become the capital city and why Mafeking is not becoming a Black town.

What about Rustenburg?

The hon. member had better ask the hon. member for Rustenburg that question. There are definitely certain advantages in keeping Mafeking a White town. In the first place, experience has taught us that businessmen and industrialists like to invest in homelands, but one of the most limiting factors in regard to such an investment is that of the employees who have to be obtained. The provision of accommodation for the employees and facilities for school-going children and other facilities for the Whites themselves is always a matter of concern. In a set-up where Mafeking and M’Mabathu are situated alongside each other, it will be easier for industrialists and businessmen to establish themselves there. They can build their factories in Bophuthatswana and live in Mafeking. The infrastructure is already there and that is why Mafeking could play a very major role in the future development of M’Mabathu. Mafeking and M’Mabathu can create a future for each other. They are virtually twin cities, like Babelegi and Garankuwa near Pretoria and King William’s Town and Zwelitzia in the Eastern Cape. They can be complementary to and dependent on each other.

We have every confidence in the future Republic of Bophuthatswana because we have confidence in its people and because there is potential—in spite of what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said—for a vigorous and a viable country with a democratic form of Government, a country with a strong and stable Government which inspires confidence. Just as in the case of Transkei, we want to tell them that we should be very glad to welcome them into a future South African commonwealth. They must always bear that in mind. We are convinced that the establishment of such a commonwealth is not far off.

This is a great day for the NP Government; a day on which Bophuthatswana becomes a free and independent Republic. In company with the people and the Government of Bophuthatswana we rejoice and are grateful that it was possible to take this great step in such a peaceful, evolutionary fashion. We wish this future republic and its people happiness, prosperity and success. May their blessings be manifold and may the firm bonds of friendship between our countries be strengthened even more. May the Government of Bophuthatswana always be the champion of a democratic view of life. We know that we are dependent upon each other. That is why we must tolerate each other, as friends tolerate each other.

I want to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Prime Minister and express the confidence that the Creator will bestow his richest blessings on this new State.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member who has just sat down dealt with the concept of independence, one sensed the general excitement and the feeling that this was something worthwhile. However, whenever he dealt with the realities of Bophuthatswana, one found him becoming more and more apologetic for the lack of services and the lack of development. He became more and more defensive as far as the actual achievement of the Government as regards the development of that territory is concerned. He suggests that those who oppose a Bill of this kind are slighting to the Government and the people of Bophuthatswana.

We in these benches shall be opposing this Bill. We do so with considerable sympathy for the dilemma in which the people of Bophuthatswana find themselves, ground as they are by the fists of apartheid in South Africa. Our attack is not aimed at the people of Bophuthatswana in their dilemma. Our attack is aimed at the Government for the cynicism they displayed towards real self-determination, for their meanness and for their lack of generosity towards the Tswana people, a people that desires to become independent. This was reflected in the cavalier way in which the hon. the Minister brushed under the carpet some vital issues in respect of this Bill.

*He mentioned a certain number of non-Tswanas who were living in Bophuthatswana, but he did not mention the fact that one third of the de facto population of Bophuthatswana were not Tswanas. He spoke of continents and islands, scattered units which had a great security value. However, he must admit that the scattered islands in that part of South Africa makes a farce of real independence for this homeland.

†He speaks of citizenship and says that those who want to change their citizenship will be able to do so. I want to ask him: Change to what? The hon. the Minister must say whether people who were South African citizens and have become Tswanas under the provisions of this Bill, will be freely allowed to opt, to change back to South African citizenship. We would like to know that. Much of the value of this Bill and the value of independence depends on the agreements which have been reached between the South African Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana. Yet, it was only a few minutes ago that these agreements were made available to us. Half of them have not yet been concluded, and we are being asked to vote for a Bill without knowing the nature of the agreements, and the hon. the Minister cannot tell us what the nature of the agreements is going to be.

It is quite clear that, on the part of the hon. the Minister who introduced the Bill, it is not only a Bill of a fundamental nature, but also one of great significance. Perhaps it is of significance, because it flows from this old-fashioned vision, the Verwoerdian vision, of the future of South Africa. Last night we had another vision, i.e. that of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. If this is the new vision, there is going to be some hope for South Africa. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he shares the vision of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Sport. Does he share this vision of a shared political structure in South Africa, where all the people in the geographic territory of South Africa are considered to be one nation, but consisting of diverse ethnic and cultural groups? I do not want to be unkind to the hon. the Minister in trying to see his vision of the future, i.e. a South Africa fragmented into a number of separate States. In one of these States, being the heartland of South Africa, will live Coloureds, Whites, Indians and millions and millions of Africans. These Africans will form the backbone of our labour force, they will probably form the greater part of our consumer force, and yet they will not be recognized as citizens in that heartland of South Africa where they live and work. As a consequence, they will have no political rights in that part of South Africa where they are going to live and die. We in these benches believe that that vision of South Africa is dangerous for all of us. The danger is based not so much on the vision, but on the way in which the Government is trying to implement it.

The way in which the Government is trying to implement that vision, they will not succeed in removing any of the sources of potential conflict from within our society, such as the whole question of the allocation of land. I should like to know if there is any hon. member on that side of the House who believes what Pollux in Rapport called a “lappieskombers”. Is Bophuthatswana a fair apportionment of land and is the independence of Bophuthatswana going to resolve the conflict over land between Black and White in South Africa? It is not, in fact, going to remove the problem of the inadequate and inequitable distribution of the economic resources. It is not going to remove the areas of conflict, the demand for meaningful political power and a say in the direction of their own affairs. Indeed, the way in which the Government is going about giving substance to its vision, it will merely aggravate these areas of potential conflict. It will convert some of them from areas of internal to areas of international conflict.

Hon. members on that side of the House know that we in these benches have a very different vision of the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] I would like to put it to the House, because it comes, in a sense, fairly close to the vision presented last night by the hon. the Minister of Sport. We see one South African nation, rich in diversity, diversity of colour, race, language and religion. We see individuals of various groups comprising that nation, all co-operating to an increasing extent in the field of sport, in the field of education, in the field of religion, production, commerce and in industry, in mining and in the defence of our country. We see these people participating and co-operating to an increasing extent in the decision-making process in our country, within that geo-political entity which they share with one another. Within this geopolitical entity in which we find ourselves, we believe that there has to be a progressive extension of full citizenship rights to all the citizens of the country. We believe there should be a massive decentralization of power on a regional or, if preferred, a canton basis. We believe that there must be effective guarantees for the rights of individuals and minorities. We believe that there must be protection for the cultural, the religious and the language heritages of all sections of our community. What we do not accept, as the hon. the Minister does, the Verwoerdian hypothesis that one cannot have co-operation within a shared political system.

We believe that this vision which we present is shared by the majority of the people of this country. We believe that it provides the basis for negotiation and for future joint decision-making by Black and White South Africans on a pattem of co-existence for the future. Hon. members will say: “But do you not subscribe to the philosophy of self-determination?” The hon. member for Brits will say that the self-determination of nations is one of the basic elements of United Nations philosophy. Yes, we do share that philosophy, but we see self-determination in the light of South Africa’s people as a whole. We see it as our right, as citizens of South Africa, to control the destiny of our country. We see it as our right not to be dictated to by others. We see our right of self-determination in our resolve to defend our country and its integrity. We recognize that no society is static. We also realize that no constitutional situation is to be seen as final, and the NP is evidence of this. There is a constant “ontplooiing” of their policy. So it could be that the ethnic and racial differences that exist in our society, compounded by the discriminatory policies of this Government, which have now been applied for 29 years, may cause some of our people to want to break away from the main body of South Africa. These people who want to break away from this great body of the people of South Africa, may either want to do so to express their separateness from the dominant White group which has repeatedly rejected them, or else they may want to do so to get relief, even within a small, restricted territory, from the daily harassment of apartheid and discrimination. It is clear that many of those Tswana people, who are going along with this measure, are doing so for the latter reason. They want to escape from apartheid and discrimination. There is something I want to say now to hon. members opposite. I believe that it is to the eternal shame of this Government that many of these Tswana people are having to face the agonizing decision of renouncing their South African citizenship, and with it any claims to future opportunities in South Africa, in order to escape from the oppressive system of apartheid. The hon. member for Brits lives almost next door to Bophuthatswana. Let me tell him that the whole matter has nothing to do with Tswana ethnic separation. One only has to listen to what Chief Minister Mangope has repeatedly said. He says that they want to create a non-racial State. He does not want to have an ethnically pure Tswana State. The matter has therefore nothing to do with the ethnic purity of the Tswana people. Secondly, the matter has nothing to do with national self-determination, because he says that in his State—

It therefore has nothing to do with national self-determination. It is a desire to escape from apartheid and from separate development. Does this have anything to do with separate development? Once again I quote Chief Minister Mangope—

He goes on to say—

He wants to escape from that. He says that time and time again. I quote further—

Are hon. members proud of that? Are they proud of the fact that the Chief Minister says that the only way they can escape the daily harassment of apartheid and the discrimination of this country is to renounce their South African citizenship? I believe that this Government has debased the concept of separate development and has used this policy as, and converted this concept into, a device for depriving Black South Africans of the rights of citizenship in this country, which is theirs as much as it is ours. If in the circumstances of South Africa a section of our community freely elected independence, we in these benches would have to acknowledge their wishes. In these circumstances our argument would not be with the people who had made that grim decision; our fight would be with the Government because of the meanness of its policies and its failure to create the conditions in which independence can be meaningful for the 1,6 million Tswana people. This is the charge against this Government. Our charge is against the coercive nature of its policies, against the meanness of its approach and against its failure to create conditions in which independence for Bophuthatswana could contribute towards a resolution of the conflicts in our society.

Let us ask ourselves a few questions. Have the Tswana people freely elected independence? The very concept of “freely electing” means that there must be a choice between two comparable alternatives, a choice between full citizenship in the South Africa to which they belong and full citizenship in a divided South Africa to which they might belong. The choice for the Tswana has, however, been the choice of full citizenship in scattered fragments of South Africa or continued discrimination in a shared South Africa. Their choice has been Hobson’s choice. Has there ever been a proper test of this by way of a poll or by way of a referendum? Quite clearly, there has not been a proper test of public opinion. One can make various assessments and projections. But quite clearly the 1,1 million Tswana people living outside of Bophuthatswana, those who will be most affected by this measure—because they will be losing their South African citizenship despite living on in South Africa—have not been properly tested on this issue. The only Tswana Legislative Assembly election was held way back in October 1972, and in that election the issue was not independence. There were a variety of other issues. There was only a 50% poll. What is more important, is that it is estimated that in the urban areas, where the people are going to be most affected, the poll was no more than 15%. In fact, it was only three years after that, on 4 November 1975, that Chief Minister Mangope called a meeting of Tswana chiefs, headmen and their representatives and got his first mandate from them to proceed for independence. He got a mandate from his party on 9 November, and he got a further mandate from the Legislative Assembly on 19 November. However this was not a mandate from people for independence. It was a party and a body which, at that stage, consisted two-thirds of chiefs, paid and appointed by the Government, who gave him a mandate to implement Government policy. The Chief Minister said that there would be no referendum, but that the next Tswana election could be judged as such. I think one must be realistic. When it comes to elections, as the hon. members know, it is a question of political parties and of personalities. In this particular instance it is the power of the chiefs, who are not only legislators, but also judicial officers. They have an enhanced status.

There are complaints about harassment from the police, the BAD and from the Special Branch. Chief Minister Lucas Mangope said that he had already raised this with the Minister of Justice. The Opposition parties there say that it is almost impossible to have meetings in the tribal areas, because the chiefs would not allow them to have it. When they go to the magistrates, they say that they must first go to the chiefs. So here we have all the elements of coercion and of the pressures of a political system. Surely when you want to go independent, when you make what is perhaps the most important constitutional step in the life of a country, you test the individual. Why was it done in South West Africa? Why did they go to the White people there and say: Do you support the Turnhalle and the next constitutional step? Why was it done in 1960, before we became a Republic? Why was it not good enough that there was a National Party majority in this House? No. Dr. Verwoerd said it was important to get a mandate from the people of South Africa. We believe that here too there should be a referendum so that the question of whether the Tswanas want independence or not can be put beyond the grounds of speculation.

There are three other reasons why we oppose this measure. First of all, the Government has failed to provide adequate consolidated land to enable independence to be meaningful for the 1,6 million Tswana people. Amongst these six fragmented pieces of land in the North Cape and in the western Transvaal, there is one piece 400 kilometres away, near the borders of Lesotho. As an hon. member said, of the 3,8 million hectares of land, only 6,6% is arable. What is important is that 35,5% of the people live in Bophuthatswana and that 63,9% of them live outside Bophuthatswana. There is therefore no prospect whatsoever of the Tswana “coming home”. Quite clearly, the land itself is of no value as a base for real independence. The Government has not even completed its consolidation programme. Bophuthatswana is entering into independence before the Government has even completed its plans.

As we have said before in the House, we believe that the time has come for the Government to adopt a totally different attitude towards land for homelands. We believe it should redraw the boundaries and should increase the homelands vastly, not necessarily by buying more land from the Bantu Trust, but by changing the jurisdiction. Let White farmers and White entrepreneurs stay on in what may be independent States. They are doing it in the Transkei and in Swaziland. The hon. the Prime Minister is encouraging Whites to stay on in Rhodesia under Black majority rule. Why can we not have the situation here that vastly increased land areas can be made available, if independence has to be, so that these countries can provide some viable economy and viable resources for their people?

Secondly, the Government has failed to provide for Bophuthatswana an equitable share of the economic resources of this country. The 1973 report of Benbo, referred to by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, shows that the per capita income earned in Bophuthatswana is R40,2, while the Tswana working outside Bophuthatswana earn R230. What a miserable disproportion. R40 per capita earned within Bophuthatswana and R230 outside! Within Bophuthatswana only 23% of the population is economically active, but of the 1,1 million Tswanas living outside Bophuthatswana, 43% are active. One can go on and on in this way. The simple fact is that there is poverty in Bophuthatswana and that it is going to be aggravated by this Bill. In Bophuthatswana near Pretoria there is the Winterveld, a vast squatting area in which an estimated 350 000 people are already living. Are we going to shed ourselves of responsibility for uplifting these people? Are we going to hand them over to an impoverished Bophuthatswana?

Thirdly, the Government has failed to provide access to meaningful political power for those Tswanas who live permanently outside Bophuthatswana, the majority of them. I believe this is one of the most cynical aspects of Government policy. They give no effective political rights to people who are today South African citizens and who live permanently outside Bophuthatswana. These include people who own businesses and homes; they have children who have been born and have grown up here, but they will have no political rights and they will have no say over the affairs of that part of South Africa in which they live. I want to say that no vote in a distant, independent homeland can compensate for a real and direct say in making the laws which rule his life from the cradle to the grave. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many more Sowetos—I use the word “Soweto” in the sense of what happened there last year—there have to be before the Government comes to its senses and realizes that one cannot deny people the right of participating in decision-making. [Interjections.] I believe that this Government by this measure, by cutting off two-thirds of the people from the right to rule their own lives, is busy building into our constitutional structure an explosive factor which one day will tear this country apart.

Finally, the Government is depriving South African citizens of their citizenship without their consent. We believe it is a fundamental principle that the one thing one cannot take away from a person without his consent is his citizenship. I think the hon. the Minister must explain further what the nature of the agreement is in this regard. Will a South African citizen who is compelled to become a citizen of Bophuthatswana be able to opt back into South African citizenship? If the answer is “no”, we believe this is the ultimate of cynicism.

The answer is “no”.

This is then a device to deprive South Africans who live and work in South Africa of their birthright, of their rights to advance within the community in which they live.

These are the reasons why we are opposing this Bill. This Bill could well become law. If it becomes law, it will prop up the façade of Government policy but it will make no real contribution to the problems of co-existence in South Africa. I want to repeat, it will internationalize internal conflict. Because of the Government’s coercive and ungenerous approach it is going to intensify rather than reduce the areas of conflict for the future. Fortunately for all of us in South Africa this is not the end of the road. We believe just as Chief Minister Lucas Mangope does, that the Government’s policy of separate development has within it the seeds of self-destruction. We believe that the time will come, when people have passed through this era of apartheid in South Africa, that our South African community will become whole again.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana moved the traditional amendment that the Bill be read this day six months. We shall vote with the hon. gentlemen on our right when it comes to the putting of that amendment. But we feel that in the circumstances of this Bill, it is necessary that there should be recorded in specific terms in this House the precise reasons why we on this side of the House are going to oppose it. I therefore move as a further amendment—

1. (1) to hold a referendum to determine the attitude of those South Africans whose rights will be effected by the independence of Bophuthatswana;
2. (2) to negotiate the provision of—
   1. (a) an adequate area of consolidated land to enable independence to be meaningful for the Tswana;
   2. (b) an equitable distribution of economic resources between Bophuthatswana and the rest of the Republic;
   3. (c) effective political rights where they live for the Tswana who live permanently outside Bophuthatswana; and
3. (3) to ensure that no citizens of South Africa will be deprived of their South African citizenship without their consent.”.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to speak in the language that that hon. member has between his ears. I think he is suffering from indigestion from the working breakfast that he had with Mr. Young. He is suffering from indigestion and he is confused.

You are being feeble.

The day I become as feeble as that member is, I shall leave the country. However, he will leave and I shall stay. The hon. member for Sea Point is not only a paternal liberalist. If he were just that, we would accept the fact that it was his way of life to be a paternal liberalist, but there is much more in his motivation than purely being a paternal liberalist. There is much more in his way of thinking and in his whole set-up. The hon. member spoke about coercion. I believe he is an authority on coercion.

*I want to put it very clearly that the fiasco we have seen on the Opposition side is something they ought to be ashamed of. They ought to be intensely ashamed of the behaviour towards a nation in embryo, towards a nation with its own citizenship and its own identity. [Interjections.] I want to make the statement that there is not a single hon. member opposite who knows anything about the Bophuthatswana nation. [Interjections.] I am a descendant of people who lived alongside the Tswanas for generations, people who have grown up with the Tswanas, who know their way of life, and I can say frankly that the Tswanas reject each and every one of those members opposite. [Interjections.]

I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the PRP whether he has sent any of his hon. members to Bophuthatswana in an effort to influence Chief Minister Mangope against the independence of Bophuthatswana. [Interjections.]

No.

The hon. leader of the PRP denies it. I now make the statement that this is a gross … [Interjections.] Sir, I ask the hon. member in all politeness whether he has sent anyone—anyone from his party— to influence Chief Minister Mangope of Bophuthatswana.

No. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I may not say that the hon. member is telling an untruth, but I have other facts and I am justified in making the statement that the hon. member’s people have been rejected with contempt in Bophuthatswana.

They chased Horace away! [Interjections.]

I know the Tswanas. I know that the Tswanas have had a good look at the people of the hon. leader of the PRP. The hon. member of the PRP thought that they could use the Black people of Bophuthatswana for their own political purposes and to their own advantage. The hon. member for Sea Point said: “We believe in one whole nation.” Does the hon. member believe in “one man, one vote”? I want him to be candid and to tell us openly whether he believes in that.

No.

The hon. member denies it. To Mr. Andy Young, of course, he would have said: “Yes, I believe in one man, one vote.” The hon. members of the PRP put everything into their effort to muster the Black people of Bophuthatswana and impress them with the concept of Black Power. They did so because they know—the hon. member of Sea Point knows it—that there is not the vaguest possibility that they will ever come to power in South Africa unless they can muster Black Power. However, the Black man of South Africa rejects them with contempt. I am convinced that this legislation will be one of the most important landmarks in the removal of discrimination in South Africa. The Tswanas are an interesting nation, a nation which has shown over many decades that it reacts positively to the development aid it receives from the Whites. I refer for example to the George Stegmann Hospital at Pilansberg. It is in the Tswana homeland. There one Dr. Roux and his wife, also a medical practitioner, have assisted the Tswanas for the past 25 years with great dedication and total unselfishness. Dr. Roux is a man with more degrees behind his name than the hon. member for Sea Point could ever dream of. He also has more honorary doctor’s degrees than the hon. clay ox of Pinelands. [Interjections.] When it comes to a fine future for White South Africa, people like the Roux’s are people …

Order! The hon. member may not refer to another hon. member in that way. He must please withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. [Interjections.] I referred to Dr. Roux and his wife, people who have served the Tswanas for 25 years in the hospital at Pilansberg. Then, too, there are the clergymen of the Dutch Reformed Church. However, we must understand clearly that those people belong to the NP. I have never yet seen a United Party supporter or a Prog in the homeland. Over the years I have never seen the Progs prepared to be of assistance in the development of these people. No, they only began to take an interest when they could make political capital out of them. Then the hon. member for Houghton started with receptions for certain chiefs. It is interesting to note that Dr. Selma Browde, a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council, also entertained certain chiefs. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton to tell Dr. Browde that she is skating on thin ice. [Interjections.] They thought that they could influence chiefs from the homeland—I am not referring to Chief Minister Mangope. However, the Bantu leaders from the homelands view them with contempt. [Interjections.] I want to repeat that the members of the PRP only began to take an interest in the Tswana people when they thought they could use them for their cheap politicking. Previously they took no interest whatsoever in the Tswanas.

Citizenship is something which one cherishes. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands can laugh if he likes, because he is not a true citizen of South Africa; he does not love South Africa. [Interjections.] White South Africa sets the Tswanas a fine example of committal to one’s country and what citizenship means. Citizenship entails the realization of what is one’s own. Citizenship is what causes one to accept challenges and to convert problems facing a country and its people into challenges. The Tswana nation have learnt from the Whites in South Africa and they are going to respect their citizenship. As regards the story that citizenship will not be acceptable to the Tswanas, I want to say that Tswanas not living in the homeland will be full-fledged citizens of Bophuthatswana. I speak from experience. Weekend after weekend, literally thousands upon thousands of Tswanas stream out of the metropolitan areas to the homelands. They go to what is theirs. In Pilansberg I heard Paramount Chief Pilani saying in the presence of the hon. the Minister that the border industries should be established because his people wanted to come back to the areas bordering on the homeland.

The Tswana is not detribalized. I know the Tswana. I know them as a student in that same “red university” where I had to sit together with a lady like the hon. member for Houghton, and that confirmed me as a Nationalist so that I shall never be able to change. [Interjections.] I had to deal with the type of element sitting there and I saw how they misused the Black man in South Africa. [Interjections.] Because of the academic stories of the hon. member for Hougton, I am not proud of that Alma Mater at all. [Interjections.] The Tswanas would like to be citizens of Bophuthatswana. Very few of them go and ask not to be citizens of Bophuthatswana.

A number of statements have also been made about the viability of the homeland. This shows a lack of knowledge. Take the Bushveld igneous complex, for example. Do hon. members realize that a major part of this complex is situated in Bophuthatswana? This complex is a geographic wonder. The mineral wealth of the Bushveld igneous complex is greater than that which the goldfields of the Witwatersrand have yielded in the past and will yield in the future. It is an area of vast mineral wealth. However, these are not merely dreams of the future. Do hon. members of the Opposition realize that the second biggest platinum mine in the world is situated in Bophuthatswana? The mine-owners pay 12,5% to 13% royalties on their taxable income. [Interjections.]

It does not belong to the Tswanas.

The hon. member for Yeoville cannot see that. I had expected him to have more sense than that. [Interjections.] The minerals belong to the Tswana people, but it is also true—and rightly so—that the skills of the mine-owners and mining enterprises are necessary to develop that wealth. The Tswana did not have the capital to develop it. However, who gets the royalties?

The shareholders.

No. Thirteen per cent of the taxable income from these mines goes directly to the State. This fact is disparaged. The possibilities of this homeland are disparaged.

Bophuthatswana has vast mineral wealth. Economic interdependence will play a very major role in the years that lie ahead. The skills of the Whites are necessary for the establishment of services. Bophuthatswana already has a water connection with the Rand Water Board. Electrical power is also being provided. This is a viable area. Through economic interdependence one builds better relations. We must seek to bring about better relations. I want to refer to the issue of border industries in the Brits and Rustenburg areas. The hon. members on the other side of the House speak in disparaging terms about the Tswanas who do not live in Bophuthatswana. However, who have been the chief opponents of border industry development over the past few decades? It has been the Opposition. As soon as one spoke about border industrial development, the Opposition raised strong objections and resorted to suspicion-mongering. Where are these border industries situated? They are situated on the threshold of the homelands, so that the Black people who work there can spend the night in their own homeland. The Opposition begrudges them this. The Opposition still has to learn about economic integrity. This party and this people have a history of economic integrity. In inter-state relations, economic integrity must be put first. The rest of the world may not like our policy, but we compel respect through our economic integrity. Bophuthatswana and its people will be afforded the opportunity to develop. The story of a patchwork quilt and these disparaging statements being made about the homeland are ridiculous. It is true that the homeland has been divided into six areas, but seen from an economic point of view, this entails benefits in the sense that there are certain growth points where labour can be used. This entails a number of benefits for Bophuthatswana. It is not essential for the homeland to be consolidated into one unit. That is the ideal, but as it is at the moment, it is in the interests of the Tswana, because it affords him far more employment opportunities and possibilities to trade with various White areas.

I wish we could impress upon the Opposition that they should stop misusing the Black man and the South African people. We are engaged in a gigantic task on an evolutionary level. We are acting as a responsible Government. However, there are those who are influencing or attempting to influence the people of Bophuthatswana. They are attempting to sow suspicion against norms of responsibility. They are attempting to cast suspicion on the White Cabinet, a Cabinet which is attempting to put South Africa’s guardianship to the Tswanas in a proper way. Then one hears the kind of speech made by the hon. members for Sea Point and Umhlatuzana. I ask them in all politeness what the reactions of the Tswanas would have been if they had been sitting here this evening. The hon. member for Sea Point said that it was a pity that due to a lack of enthusiasm not a single Tswana was here this evening. What would have been the impression formed by the Tswanas if they had to hear this disparaging, destructive approach on the part of the Opposition? I want to felicitate the hon. the Minister and tell him that I know the Tswanas, because I come from one of the biggest towns in the area bordering on this homeland. The people of my constituency have already showed a sense of responsibility by making an effort to establish better relations. The Afrikaanse Sakekamer is considering various ideas on how to be of assistance. Then, too, there is the Bophuthatswana Investment Corporation and various other organizations and people who are assisting in the development and the establishment of rights for the Tswana nation. It is really a pity that we have to deal with an Opposition that attempts to undermine these things. I do not like making predictions, but I do believe that in the years that lie ahead, this will be a country which will achieve success and will set an example to other homelands. It will be an independent country with which agreements may be concluded which will be to the benefit of White South Africa and Bophuthatswana.

The hon. member for Rustenberg mentioned that he knew the Tswanas. I, too, feel honoured, because I, too, know the Tswanas.

What do you know about the Tswanas?

I was even baptized in a Tswana mission church, as was my wife. [Interjections.] I am very proud of that because long before the Bible appeared in Zulu, Xhosa or any of the Nguni languages, it had already been translated into Tswana by Moffat. In fact, back in the 1820’s, before the Battle of Blood River, the Tswanas had already made contact with the Whites. Of all the different population groups in South Africa, the Tswana is perhaps the one which has made most progress outside its tribal background. One does not find such a strong tribal background among the Tswanas as among the Zulus of the Xhosas.

You do not know the Tswana.

The hon. member states that I do not know the Tswana, but I grew up with a Tswana on a farm. For example, when this Tswana heard that his uncle had died and that he had to go and fetch the sheep or cattle he had inherited, when he entered the reserve they told him that he had to go and speak to the chief first and pay extra money before he could take the cattle away. There and then he decided that he was not going to do so, and early the next morning he was home with his cattle. He had brought them out of the reserve without paying a cent. My mother asked him how he had managed this and his reply was: “Ounooi, ek het vir hulle gesê ek is ’n Sap so uit die grond uit; ek ken nie soiets soos ’n kaptein nie.” In other words, we are dealing with an entirely different type of person.

The hon. member for Rustenburg said that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, but who are the people who ought really to be ashamed of themselves? They are the Government, because they want to give a proud people like the Tswanas a fragmented little country and tell them that they are independent. They are the people who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

† When one looks at the Bill and at the map of the proposed independent Bophuthatswana, one cannot help but agree with the saying that the truth is stranger than fiction. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Government is actually seriously suggesting that Bophuthatswana should achieve its independence on the basis of its present fragmented territory. Yet it is true, because it is happening in front of us.

*We South Africans have really set up many records. We are proud of most of them. Many of them appear in the Guinness Book of Records. However, what we are doing here is contributing towards the next Guinness Book of Records or perhaps Ripley’s Believe It Or Not series. I am referring to the independence of States. I believe that that whole section will have to be rewritten after we have passed this legislation and Bophuthatswana has obtained its independence on the present basis of consolidation. Let us just consider a few aspects. One cannot even argue about these points any more. In the first place it will be the most fragmented country in the world. Is this something for us to be so proud of, as that hon. member said? On the contrary, it is something I feel ashamed of. Yes, I feel ashamed of it. I feel ashamed that we have a Government which wants to escape its responsibilities to such an extent that it can tell the people that they should be satisfied with this. Where could one ever find another country so potentially difficult to administer as this one? All the fine words of the hon. member of Rustenburg are meaningless. Let us look at the facts. This will undoubtedly be the country with the longest borders in relation to its surface area. Hon. members opposite are very fond of saying that one should not assail the human dignity of a people. However, it will go down in history that if independence on this basis is granted to those people, then that will undoubtedly constitute impugment of the human dignity of the Tswana people.

Why?

I shall tell that hon. member why. I shall furnish all the reasons in the course of my speech.

Tell us why.

Surely that hon. member has been in this House for a number of years and he knows that I have half an hour in which to speak. If he sits and listens a little longer, he will hear. If it should be so that the only solution for us in South Africa is to give independence to various countries, then surely the Tswanas are justified in asking whether they as a people are not at least entitled to something better. They are entitled to ask why they should be treated so cavalierly. Have hon. members ever thought how a Tswana must feel when he looks at a map of the Republic of South Africa and has to see this envisaged country of his? Do hon. members think there is any reason why he should regard this dispensation as a just dispensation?

Of course!

That hon. member says “of course”! However, he does not know the Tswanas. He does not even know their history.

You do not know them either.

I do not know where that hon. member comes from. I know their language. I learnt it at university and I grew up amongst them. They are my people and I know them. Do hon. members think there is any reason for them to say that this dispensation is a just one? However, the hon. the Minister comes along here with the old story of the protectorates. I just want to put the hon. the Minister straight with a few historical facts. The impression the hon. the Minister tried to create when he referred to British Bechuanaland, was that there were only Tswanas in that region. The part known as British Bechuanaland … [Interjections.] … Oh, of course! My grandfather arrived there with the rinderpest in 1896.

Looking at you, I can see that!

The Koranas also lived in British Bechuanaland, as it then was. Why was the name British Bechuanaland used? There were also the Republic of Stellanland and Goshen. They date from the latter half of the 19th century. I just mention this in passing. Then too, there were the Griquas who lived in certain parts, but they were more established in Griqualand West. The question which hon. members on the other side of the House should constantly be asking themselves is: Have the Tswana people not also helped to develop South Africa? Not only the parts which are now being given to them, but also the 63% or 64% of them who are living outside their homeland on a permanent basis, are helping to develop South Africa every day. The fact is that the Tswanas are prepared to accept independence.

Why do you not accept that?

On this point the hon. member for Sea Point is quite correct. That is what makes me feel so ashamed, that with regard to people who form part of this country’s history, you can …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he and his party are prepared to give representation in this Parliament to the large number of Tswanas who live outside the borders of Bophuthatswana in White South Africa?

If the hon. member knows the federal policy of the UP, and I take it that he is a student of politics and does therefore know it, then surely it is very clear that that does not pose a problem to us. Whether a person is inside a homeland or not, and whether he is White or non-White, everyone will share political rights in a federal system. We do not adopt the standpoint that a person belongs to any specific race. Just look at the hon. the Minister of National Education and Sport and Recreation. There he sits—Piet Federation!

I am not going to explain the whole federal policy now, but hon. members surely know that we have accepted that there are different communities and that they will have a legislative assembly. We accept that we must share power in the federal Parliament. All these things we accept. We accept the realities of South Africa and we do not spend all the country’s money trying to run away from the realities of this country. It makes me feel heartsore when I realize that people are prepared to accept this form of independence because they see in it an opportunity to allow a small part of their population to escape the yoke of apartheid. That is all. People are prepared to give up their South African citizenship because after all, it does not mean much to them. I am ashamed when I think that a real choice or alternative has never been offered these people. I can understand why they want to accept independence on this basis rather than maintain the status quo. This is something about which we should have no illusions.

There is another important aspect which we should not fail to bear in mind. That is the fact that the citizens of this future independent country have never had a share in decision-making on the true extent of their own area. They have not had a real share in the decision-making process. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we know that he has held consultations and negotiated, but there was no stage at which the Tswana could place the seal on the final decision. However a Tswana looks at it, he will always regard Bophuthatswana, not as his own endproduct, but as the endproduct of a White man’s decision, in which he had no share. This is the fact that they will always have to face. The Government thinks it is being clever when it does not want to give the Black man a share in the decision-making process in the country. They think they are being clever by not giving them joint responsibility in decision-making. That is one of the most short-sighted policies one could ever adopt, because whatever one does, the Black man can always be justified in saying that it is not good enough for them.

And under your policy for an exclusively White Parliament to arrange the future of everyone?

I cannot help it if the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs no longer believes in what he always believed in. [Interjections.]

Order!

Apart from my objections in principle in regard to the legislation, I regard the legislation as a tactical mistake as well, from the point of view of the Government’s own policy.

Oh no, really!

The hon. the Minister is definitely making a tactical mistake here. The person who ought really to get the blame for it, however, is the hon. the Prime Minister.

You are really very good at convincing yourself, aren’t you?

Some years ago the hon. the Prime Minister made the tactical mistake of saying—although at that stage it was a good answer—that any group could receive its independence. They need only ask for it. That is what is happening now: They are now asking for their independence. The Government has busied itself with trifles for so long that it has been caught entirely off balance and is not even able to grant independence to the homelands on a sound basis. I believe that an independent Bophuthatswana as it is being planned here will furnish the world with concrete proof that the policy is nothing but a farce. Hon. members can come along with their examples of archipelagos; they are always talking about archipelagos that are widely dispersed. However, they should bear in mind that one cannot draw such a comparison. The archipelagos are surrounded by the sea and the sea does not belong to a foreign power, because the wealth of the sea is shared. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs knows just as well as any one of us that the moment one sets foot outside the homelands or one of the fragmented areas, one is in the territory of a foreign power. Now and again we also hear some hon. members saying that we should look at the United States of America.

Yes.

Just listen there! They mention Alaska and Hawaii as examples.

Why not?

I am not really a betting man, but I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that I believe he has a better chance of selling refrigerators and ice-cream to the Eskimos in Alaska in winter, than he has of selling this fragmented country to the international community as a full-fledged independent community.

The Government must realize that they have played their last trump card in regard to their own policy. Last Sunday we had a typical last-ditch tirade over television from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He states that the Government is not prepared to share power. His words were that it would not happen now, nor tomorrow, nor the following day. It would never happen. The Government is now playing its last trump card in regard to their own policy in respect of a little under 2 million Tswanas. After they have played their trump card, they can do absolutely nothing more as far as the Tswana people is concerned. Both in theory and in practice the policy of separate development can offer them nothing more. Because the Government does not want to share power and responsibility, they are obliged to give up power. That is what they are doing here. Gradually and systematically, power and control which we used to exercise over certain areas of South Africa are being given up. The Government is of course eager—understandably so—that there should be international recognition of this so-called endproduct of their cherished policy. The various population groups affected thereby have to accept it, and although they try to make out that they do not care about world opinion, nevertheless it is of vital importance that an independent Bophuthatswana should eventually be afforded international recognition. The moment this happens, the Government can say that their policy is finding favour to a certain extent. We know what happened in the case of the Transkei. In spite of the fact that Transkei’s claim to international status in the African situation is a far better one than that of Bophuthatswana, until today there has only been a negative reaction. It will be far more difficult with Bophuthatswana because apart from other considerations, Bophuthatswana will also have to prove to the world that they are indeed an independent country— “They must be seen to be independent.” They must establish their own character. It must be a country with its own territorial integrity. They must be seen to enjoy and uphold territorial integrity. The dilemma facing the Government is that for administrative reasons and purposes, it will be very difficult to implement the territorial integrity of Bophuthatswana in practice. Purely due to administrative reasons it will constantly be assailed. This is inevitable. The citizens of Bophuthatswana and those of South Africa will come and go after independence just as they have done in the past.

The hon. the Minister mentioned that apparently this is an agreement which has not even been drafted yet. I did not hear very clearly, but I think that that is what he said. For economic and administrative reasons we know, for example, that there will never be an extensive customs and border post system between Bophuthatswana and South Africa. There will therefore be no clear, noticeable division between the pre-independence era and the post-independence era.

Was there such a thing in 1910?

What did the hon. member say?

Was there such a thing in 1910?

Oh yes! Most definitely. People could clearly see that unification had taken place in South Africa. Whereas previously there had been geographic separation, a noticeable difference occurred then. One could speak of the pre-1910 period and the post-1910 period. There was a major difference. [Interjections.] Let us take an example. Let us look at the district of Thaba Nchu. If one has a map this district should really be included by way of an insert map and it would also have to be enlarged. The problem is that one has in fact to play hopscotch between one area and the next. The problem with the country is “now you see it, now you don’t.” On the map, the district is included as an insert map and furthermore it has been enlarged. For practical purposes, how is that territory which is situated in the Free State going to demonstrate its territorial integrity, its independence? How is it going to demonstrate it in a dramatic way? In practice, the district of Thaba Nchu will fuse and melt away just like that, as is the case with Thaba Nchu at present. After all, it will simply remain part of the Free State. The Baralong tribe which is found at Thaba Nchu forms part of the Tswana tribe. Then, too, there are also the Batlhaping and other tribes living elsewhere. Many of the people living there will not even realize that they form part of this enormous country which is so far-flung. For all practical purposes they will simply carry on there as they have done in the past. Territorial integrity for Thaba Nchu will only be possible if both Governments are prepared to spend millions of rands and establish a bureaucracy serving just one purpose, namely, to see to it that this little spot will in fact preserve its independence in all respects.