Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill seeks to effect amendments to five separate Acts. The amendments will, if they are accepted, cause certain terminological corrections to be made, the distribution of joint estates of spouses who were divorced to be furthered, the registration of leasehold rights to be expedited, unnecessary formalities concerning loans between corporations to be eliminated, the reservation of land in certain towns or hamlets for acquisition or occupation by Black persons to be better controlled and provision to be made for the effective administration of such towns or hamlets, and essential adjustments in rules of certain courts for Black persons to be effected with a minimum of cumbersomeness.

Hon. members will note that all the amendments are aimed at causing the administration to function more smoothly, and because I am convinced that the entire House would like to promote effectiveness, I sincerely hope that the Bill will meet with general support.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister, hoping to learn a little more about the Bill he is presenting to us today. However, apart from a general statement made by him, in which he said five different Acts were being amended, I am afraid I am none the wiser, nor is any other hon. member any the wiser, about precisely what the hon. the Deputy Minister is envisaging by this amending legislation. With great respect, one would have expected the hon. the Deputy Minister would have taken the opportunity of enlightening the House just a little bit more about what he was doing in order perhaps to gain the support of the whole House.

He referred to five different Acts being amended. I believe some of the amendments proposed by him are, to some extent, innocuous. One of them in particular requires comment. The last amendment, the one in connection with Community Councils, gives us a good deal of difficulty. Therefore I trust the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain to the House exactly what he envisages.

The first amendment the hon. the Deputy Minister seeks to introduce to the Black Administration Act, 1927, particularly affects Natal. Inasmuch as the Xhosas and the Pondos of East Griqualand, which is now incorporated into Natal, were subject to the jurisdiction of previous legislation, I believe it is right and proper that the Natal Code, now to be called the Zulu Code, will not be made applicable to them. Since the Blacks living in Natal are mostly Zulu people, I do not believe there should in general be any objection against calling this code the Zulu Code.

There is, however, a slight anomaly in respect of some of those Blacks in that some of the Blacks living in Natal, apart those I have already mentioned, are not Zulu people. The Zulu Code would, nevertheless, also apply to them. I take it that the Natal Code also applied to them before. However, because they are not all Zulus there might be a slight anomaly in that this Zulu Code will now apply to them as well. Similarly we do not object to the way in which Zululand will be affected by this proposed legislation because it has been deleted previously.

I now want to refer to clause 2 of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 35 of the principal Act. I quote from page 5—

We take it that this reference is to section 10 of the principal Act. Where provision is now made for the inclusion of a juristic person, we take it that this stipulation will apply to him because he will be administering estates of Blacks who were married in community of property and who are getting divorced.

Clause 3 of the Bill adds the following wording to section 1 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945—

We do not object to that at all because we feel—and I think many people feel very strongly about it—that we are assisting a new concept of ownership among Black people, viz. the 99-year leasehold. I must say that I am somewhat disturbed by an answer to a question put in the House some days ago, in which it was said that only 100 applications had so far been finalized, while only 395 were still pending. When one considers the fact that 8 million Blacks are living in urban areas and that this is all that has been done so far in terms of the 99-year leasehold, is something that I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister should explain to the House. I therefore call upon him to tell us exactly what difficulties are being encountered and why there are not more applications in terms of the 99-year leasehold provision. After all, we are giving permanent tenure, which is the next equivalent to a title deed. That means that Black persons can actually own the properties on which they live. Some hon. members, including hon. members opposite, attended the meeting of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce when we consulted with businessmen and representatives of building societies. The building societies seemed to have no problems with the availability of loans to prospective home-owners.

In the circumstances why are there not more registrations? Is it because the system evolved here has left out the Registrar of Deeds, the system now obtaining in regard to land surveys, the expenses attached to registration of the 99-year lease and of any bond over it, the question of recovering debts should the mortgage default? Are these the difficulties which have given rise to the problems we are facing here today? We would like to know, because the 99-year lease is a good provision and I think we shall do all in our power to assist the hon. the Minister with this. If it now means that one does not have to lay out a township in order to add an extension, a number of stands, to an existing area, simply by having a general plan, we will gladly support it.

In so far as clauses 4 and 5 are concerned, if the power is merely being given to the parent or mother body to lend to its subsidiaries without interference by the hon. the Minister to control it, we will support that too.

In so far as the Black States Constitution Act is concerned, if there are areas which have not been or are not covered by any jurisdiction of a local authority as already defined, then we can understand that it is necessary to add these areas to it.

I now come to clause 7, which, I must tell the hon. the Minister, gives us a lot of difficulty and in its present form we in the official Opposition will oppose it. We do so for the reason that when it comes to the Community Councils Act, No. 125 of 1977—and we deal with chiefs’ courts—we see that the hon. the Minister already has power in terms of the existing section 7 to confer this type of jurisdiction, which is both civil and criminal, on a chiefs court in a community centre area. The hon. the Minister seeks to amend section 7 as follows—

This, with respect, is a new principle. The hon. the Deputy Minister is seeking to amend the provisions of the Act, and here we are dealing with sections 12 and 20 of the Act. The hon. the Minister is now asking for power to amend an Act without coming to the House. If he is seeking merely to amend the regulations, we can understand that, but we say he is going too far in asking this legislative body to confer upon him the power to amend the provisions of two sections of the Act, and not only to amend it by regulation, because he also has power to do so “in any other manner”, and one wonders what “in any other manner” is. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to send a letter to say he has changed the provisions of sections 12 and 20, or is he going to publish a notice in the Gazette that he is changing the provisions of sections 12 and 20? Is this the power the hon. the Deputy Minister is seeking? What does he seek to do? He seeks to take two sections of the Act, one of which, section 12, already empowers the establishment of Black chiefs or headmen to hear and determine civil cases—this section deals with civil cases—between Blacks. But there is a proviso—

Is it the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister by amendments of the regulation to take away or to vary in any form this proviso that the headman or chief has no powers over nullity, divorce or separation of parties? He could do so if we give him a start today. Furthermore, subsection (4) says—

This is a very fine provision, because the Commissioner’s court can deal very adequately with an appeal from a headman or chief. If the hon. the Minister wants to, however, he can take away this right of appeal because he is asking for the power to deal with the provisions of section 12.

Let me, however, take the matter further. [Interjections.]

Order!

In terms of section 12(5) of the Black Administration Act the Commissioner’s court can “confirm, alter or set aside the judgment”. Does he want to take away the right to confirm, alter or set aside the judgment?

I now want to direct his attention to subsection (6) on page 153 of the Statute Book. This states—

So if, in terms of existing statutes before us, he already has the power to amend the regulations, why then is the hon. the Minister seeking to ask this House to give him powers to make regulations or amend the provisions of the Act? Are these powers not sufficient? If, in effect, the powers to make regulations are insufficient, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will take this House into his confidence and tell hon. members why this is so?

Now that I have disposed of the civil jurisdiction, I should like to come to section 20. Section 20 deals with criminal jurisdiction, in regard to which it is stated—

1. (1) Any offence at common law or under Black law and custom other than an offence referred to in the Third Schedule to this Act.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister would look at schedule 3, he would see that it contains very serious crimes, e.g. murder, treason, arson, rape and assault. Is it the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention to take away this exception and perhaps even confer, upon a headman or chief, the right to have criminal jurisdiction over matters such as this, bearing in mind other provisions of the Act which do not permit legal representation before such a court which does not have records kept?

Let me now refer to subsection (2) involving the procedure for trial by a chief, headman or chief's deputy. I quote—

Let us consider what he has the power to do. He has power—

in the old monetary system—

Now is it the hon. the Minister’s intention to increase this jurisdiction in any way or in any way to amend it?

Apart from this, there are regulations as well. Before I come to the regulations, however, let me refer to subsection 7, and in this connection I quote—

Is it the intention to interfere with this, because he has the power to do so? Let me now come to the regulation itself, a regulation requesting powers to make changes. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister would have a quick glance at the regulations applicable to chiefs’ courts. Let us take regulation 4, e.g., which states—

He can interfere with that, if necessary.

Why should he want to do that now?

Simply because he has the power to do so. I am just pointing out to this House the folly of giving him jurisdiction over matters such as this. That being so, I do not think we can, in any way, support what the hon. the Minister intends to do here.

Section 7 of the Community Councils Act does confer, upon the hon. the Minister, the right to have courts with this type of jurisdiction on the part of chiefs or headmen, and this applies now in urban areas, too, as opposed to rural areas.

Up to now I do not believe it has been done. We have, however, heard a lot from the hon. the Minister himself, who has stated that he wants the community councils of Soweto and others to be more meaningful and that he wants to increase their powers. There could be a way of increasing their powers, of giving them more teeth, viz. by setting up this kind of court in a community council. He has the right to do so. He must, however, only establish it in respect of “any Blacks”, as it is stated, in the area. If the hon. the Minister intends doing that, I can tell him that we support the idea of this type of court sitting in the urban areas like Soweto, provided it is a court of record, in which evidence is properly recorded, a court of appeal, one to which appeals can be made in the usual way, and a court in which attorneys and advocates can appear, a court which must take the form of a legal court. On that basis we can do some good in bringing about this change. Perhaps there is a need for this, because the ordinary Commissioner’s court is not found in the urban Black townships, but is always outside of them. This type of jurisdiction and this type of power in respect of both civil and criminal cases will be far preferable to the type of “footnotes”, if that is the right word, which apply to these areas and which lead to a home-made type of jurisdiction being imposed in a home-made type of way by people who do not have the required authority, unlike properly trained people who are in a position to administer adequately the sort of justice that should be imposed.

In the light of all these circumstances our position is, as I have told the hon. the Deputy Minister, that unless he can give us a satisfactory explanation, we intend opposing clause 7 and in any event intend moving the necessary amendment at the Committee Stage, an amendment which will provide that the Minister cannot amend anything other than the regulations themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow gave his support to nearly all the clauses in this legislation. He accused the hon. the Deputy Minister of not providing sufficient information on the amending Bill which is before us at the moment.

In the first place I think that since this Bill is the first legislation which the hon. the Deputy Minister is dealing with here, in his capacity as Deputy Minister, it is appropriate for us on this side of the House to congratulate him on this. The hon. member for Hillbrow should have done so too. However, he is completely stupid—the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister is starting his career as Deputy Minister by introducing this Bill, has apparently made no impression on the hon. member at all.

With this Bill, we are once again experiencing the same problem that we always have with the official Opposition, viz. that they are for ever asking questions and for ever trying to meet trouble half-way. There is nothing sinister about any of the clauses of the Bill. To be sure, it is most probably a Bill that lends itself more to discussion during the Committee stage than during the Second Reading. Nevertheless, a few very important, interesting principles are to be found in this legislation.

In the first place, it is illuminating that we can now speak about Zulu law in the House, instead of Black law, and do so with the concurrence of the Opposition. As far as I am concerned, it shows great progress that we are prepared to talk about Zulu law and not merely Black law. It shows that great progress has been made in this regard. The hon. member is quite correct in saying that clause 1 does not contain anything peculiar. In fact, it is clear that existing legislation applies to Zulus only and that it was always intended to apply to Zulus only. This is simply being established beyond doubt in this Bill.

Clause 2 merely rectifies a matter which sometimes creates problems for us in practice. As the hon. member mentioned too, Whites may also act as liquidators and in other similar capacities in connection with the administration of an estate, particularly in regard to the provisions of divorce courts.

Clause 3 is very important in putting our leasehold policy into effect The hon. member asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to furnish reasons as to why so few people have asked to be considered for the leasehold system to date. There are various reasons. Firstly, I think we must appreciate the fact that we are dealing with a brand-new idea here, viz. that a person does not own the land, but that he does own the house and that the house may be used as security for any loan which he wants to make. Secondly we must accept that there was a major problem because there were no townships that had been properly surveyed and laid out. Those people who now have to accept the security for negotiating a loan for any Black man, will at least want some clarity as to where the borders of his security will lie. I support the clause and the principle whereby we can simply say by means of a regulation that it is a surveyed site and that it may be used. I feel that when planning Black residential area in future, we should establish proper, decent town planning schemes from the very beginning, because if this is not done, it is going to cause bigger problems in future than those we already have. However, I think it is a step in the right direction, which will help to afford the Black residents of South Africa the opportunity of obtaining their own homes.

I do not want to enlarge on the principles contained in clauses 4 and 5. Obviously, this is merely a practical regulation and all it does is to facilitate the proceedings of the corporation concerned.

I can assure the hon. member that the reason for the proposed amendment in clause 6 is a simple one. In certain areas of South Africa, Natal in particular, we are faced with the problem of having no local Government body; not even a health committee. In the Transvaal we still have the Peri-urban Areas Health Board, but this is not the case in Natal. Now, according to the way in which matters are conducted, it happens that certain territories are zoned for Black occupation and there is no local authority to which the people can go in order to make these arrangements. All that is being envisaged by means of this clause, is that provision is now being made, should no local Government body of any kind exist, for the Minister to be in a position to establish a form of local government, whether it is controlled by Black people only or by other bodies as well, in order to facilitate the proper functioning of the zoning which has to take place, and ultimately to integrate it with the Black areas that border on it. The entire clause, therefore, deals only with the practical implementation hereof.

As far as clause 7 is concerned, I think the hon. member for Hillbrow is going far too far. The problem that has to be eliminated here, is purely a practical one. I do not foresee even one of the problems which the hon. member is so concerned about, nor that the hon. the Minister is going to adopt the powers mentioned in terms of this clause.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton may rest assured that the intention here is not to give the hon. the Minister further powers in order to do all sorts of obscure things. The issue here is that we are dealing with the factual situation where a set of regulations which apply to one chief's court, do not apply to another because there is a difference from one nation to another within Bantu law, whether it be civil or criminal. Now, one cannot simply establish a chief's court and promulgate a regulation in regard to that chiefs court and then say “Schluss!” In a place like Soweto one probably needs to have various chiefs’ courts dealing with various population groups. For each one of these chiefs’ courts one must actually promulgate a separate set of regulations. This is the sum total of what is actually being envisaged with this clause. It means that in terms of this clause, the hon. the Minister is basically being granted the right to stipulate these differences in nuance which exist by means of regulation, without coming back to the House and without having to do things in a roundabout way. I do not think that the official Opposition or any of the other opposition parties need be concerned about the amendment of this particular regulation. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow was completely off the track in regard to section 4 of the existing Act. It deals with sections 12 and 20 only and not with any of the other sections. In this regard it is only dealing with this problem which already exists. In fact, I should have been grateful if hon. members had supported this amending Bill so that we could carry on and finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first Bill the hon. the Deputy Minister is handling in this House and I should like to offer him our congratulations on the task he has taken up. I think that anybody who takes up a task in this department, is risking instant political suicide. It is like being in the Department of Agriculture. I can see the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development, the hon. member for Bethal, smiling. He was leader of the agricultural group and now he is in this department. So he is double jeopardy. We should like to wish the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation well with the job he is doing for the people who fall under his control.

We have no problems with the Bill, except for clause 7. I telephoned the hon. the Deputy Minister this morning, because we were concerned with precisely the same point raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I am wondering whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would not consider a change in the wording of the clause, because it conveys the impression that by regulation the Minister may, in terms of the Bill, change the provisions contained in sections 12 and 20 of the principal Act of 1927. In this House it has never been the understanding that one can change an Act of Parliament by regulation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made it quite clear that it is not his intention now to change sections 12 and 20 by regulation, but what he is seeking to change, is the powers which are conferred by those provisions. The point the hon. the Deputy Minister has made is that he seeks to vary powers according to the make-up of the particular community he is seeking to serve. With that we have absolutely no problems at all and we shall support it. We shall support this Bill at Second Reading, because we understand that that is the intention of clause 7, but I do not think that the clause, as it reads, is satisfactorily expressing what the hon. the Deputy Minister is really trying to get at.

I should also like for somebody to comment on the words “if he deems it necessary, in any other manner” in clause 7. However, what other manner is contemplated? One can change a provision in a principal Act by an Act of this Parliament and one can change a regulation by a regulation, but what other means is intended other than coming to this House or by acting through the powers conferred upon the Deputy Minister in terms of the principal Act to issue regulations? I think we shall in the Committee Stage have a discussion on this matter, and I should be very interested to support an amendment which would make the intention of clause 7 a great deal clearer. We shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to convey my congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister on his handling of his first Bill in this House, and I wish him a prosperous term of office in his new capacity.

†Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this Bill, which seeks to amend various Acts, our attention is once again drawn to the fact that South Africa is a plural society.

That is the best speech you have made so far. Why do you not support the statement?

Not only is South Africa a plural society, but we also have in South Africa different systems of law. In clause 1 reference is made thereto, viz. that the Black law, as it is called at the moment, of Natal is to be changed to Zulu law. The interesting thing is that it is not only the Zulu law which is generally recognized; but it is the only law of the natives which has been codified. I refer to “natives” because that was the original name by which it was known. We also have Pondo law, Hlangwini law, Baca law, Fingo law, Gaika law and Hlubi law.

Fanagalo!

As far as the Opposition is concerned we also have Fanagalo. Already in 1858 the first attempt was made to have something in writing about the various indigenous laws of the Black peoples. In 1858, a Mr. Maclean wrote a book entitled The Compendium of Kaffir Laws and Customs and the then Governor of the Cape, Sir George Grey, said that he recognized Maclean’s work “as a generally correct exposition of Kaffir jurisprudence”. I realize that such words are not being used any more today and that they have gone right out of fashion.

The next attempt was the Natal Code of Native Law. The Natal Code of Native Law was the result of the first real attempt to make a proper study of what native law was. The native law of Zululand was drawn up in a code by a board under the chairmanship of the then chief justice of Natal, after they had made a thorough study over a period of two years of native law as it was being administered at the time. This was drafted as a Code in 1877, but it was first proclaimed officially as a code in the Government Gazette in Natal on 21 June 1878 and it became Law No. 19 of 1891, when it became legally binding on the courts.

In clause 1 we now deal with the change of name, and if one looks to the history of the changes of name, one sees another interesting historical development. In the 19th century it was referred to as the Natal Code of Native Law. It was only in the late ’50s and the early ’60s of this century that the use of the word “native” also went out of fashion. Dr. Verwoerd then changed it to “Bantu”. It was then known as the Bantu Laws Act. Then, when the word “Bantu” went out of fashion about two or possibly three years ago, the then Minister of Plural Relations and Development changed the name “Bantu” law to “Black” law. But with the use of the phrases “Black laws” and “White laws” it could be thought that one was referring to names and not to laws and that is why today we again have a further change of name. It is now going to be called the “Zulu Law”. I think we have now got down to the basics again, because “Zulu Law” is the correct name of that law.

In 1935 Mr. H. C. Lugg was the Chief Native Affairs Commissioner in Natal and he wrote a foreword to a book by Mr. W. G. Stafford called Native Law as Practised in Natal. In that foreword he said that Chaka was not only a military genius, but like Napoleon also a lawmaker. In subjugating the many tribes which he subsequently moulded into the great Zulu nation, he effected much uniformity in tribal law, so that when the Europeans later made an attempt to codify indigenous law their task was greatly simplified. It is for that reason, because of the work which was done in Natal, where the law was properly codified and in fact proclaimed as law, that today Zulu law is the only Native law or Zulu law that is fully recognized as part of our legal system pertaining to Blacks in South Africa.

We have the amazing situation in terms of this dual system of laws that in certain circumstances the court judgment will depend on who the plaintiff and defendants are. We had a case where a Black plaintiff claimed damages for the killing of his stallion by the Black defendant’s cow. Under the Bantu system, damages are payable for injuries done by bulls, but according to native assessors from time immemorial no damages have been paid for injuries caused by cows on common pasture land. In this particular instance the court found that because of the particular circumstances damages should not be awarded. But we also have the situation that if the defendants bull had caused the injury he would have been responsible for the damages. On the other hand, if it had been a White man’s cow that had injured the Black man’s stallion, the court case would not have been in terms of the Black law or the Zulu law, but in terms of the Roman-Dutch law. The White man would then have been found guilty and would have had to pay damages. Consequently, we have two different systems of law pertaining in this country, depending on who is involved. This again brings to light the plural system we have in South Africa.

It is interesting to note that this Zulu law, to which reference is now made, deals with matters concerning tribal boundaries, chiefs and headmen, the personal status of the people involved, kraal heads, customary unions and guardianship, divorce and the annulment of customary union, lobola, the kraal family system, inheritance and succession, medicinemen and herbalists.

It also deals with certain wrongs and with offences and penalties that may be imposed. If we look at some of the provisions of this law an interesting feature thereof is that interest on loans or moneys owing is unknown in Zulu law, and that parties claiming interest as having accrued upon any debts or claims will have to prove a distinct contract to pay the same. In the whole system interest is completely unknown.

We also have interesting aspects pertaining to practices that might have been common but which are now being phased out. I have a brother-in-law who used to be a supporter of the PFP. [Interjections.] Whenever he heard a curfew bell ring in one of Natals small villages he said his stomach became upset. However, in terms of section 160(2) of the Zulu law we find that curfew laws are not exactly unknown in terms of Native law, now Zulu law. It says there—

This was already a provision during Chaka’s time. Amongst other things we find that grounds for divorce include a case where a wife of a customary union can sue for divorce from her husband by reason of him accusing her of witchcraft. We find another interesting point. A child born of a divorced woman within 10 months of her being divorced becomes a member of the family of such woman’s previous husband. The Zulus have a system of an extended family. This indicates the Zulus’ attitude towards a woman’s behaviour. That is why they have decided that if a child is born within 10 months of the mother’s divorce the child shall still belong to the previous family.

Today we deal with matters of influx control. However, we find that section 63 of the Zulu law reads—

Consequently influx control or efflux control is part and parcel of Zulu law as we have known it since the time of Chaka.

Order! I do not want to detract in any way from the interesting talk the hon. member is giving us. However, I have to point out that this Bill does not seek to amend the whole of the principal Act.

The Speaker, I am quite content to abide by your decision. I shall therefore confine myself to another aspect, an aspect relating to clause 3 of the Bill. The hon. member for Hillbrow wanted to know why there had not been more registrations under the 99-year leasehold system with regard to homes being made available to Black people. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has already indicated that this is a new system. Another aspect, however, is the fact that clause 3 provides that it can be made easier for Black people to obtain possession in terms of registration, to register a right of occupation in terms of the 99-year leasehold.

A recent survey undertaken by one of the major oil companies in South Africa indicates that home ownership is one of the aspects that enjoys the lowest priority as regards the Blacks’ desire for better living conditions in South Africa. Home ownership is actually foreign to the Blacks in general. Their traditions take cognizance of communal or tribal ownership. Individual ownership is something that is only now beginning to take root among them in the wake of the modernization of the outlook on life on the part of many Blacks.

This clause provides that it can indeed be made even easier to pass transfer and to register rights of occupation for thousands of Blacks who are at present residing in the Black Cities in White areas. The question that arises, however, is whether the administrative procedure which now provides that something like this can be registered far more easily without proper surveying and without the normal registration procedure, might not give rise to problems in future, however sympathetic we in the Department may be at this stage. I am convinced that the first transaction between the Department and the Black owner can take place without any problems. The building societies are also very keen to get involved in this. They are prepared to make funds available to enable Blacks to acquire such homes and to register the right of occupation in respect of those homes in their own names.

However, I am aware that building societies and, for that matter, also the Law Society of South Africa, hold the view that these provisions, as they are being applied at present, may yet give rise to problems in future. This can take place without great difficulties, provided transfer takes place from the Administration Board, as the present owner, to the first owner. The law provides, however, that such a right of occupation may be sold to another Black who qualifies for it. In terms of the law of succession it may also be transferred to the dependants or heirs of the owner. Consequently, I do wish to make an appeal to the Department to maintain very close liaison with the Association of Building Societies in South Africa and with the Law Society in order to ascertain what changes may have to be effected to obviate legal problems in future, for under the circumstances of most people in South Africa, whether they be Black or White, ownership of property is probably the biggest investment that is made.

I think it is important that we should accept the fact that the Blacks who are now to an increasing extent obtaining permanent residence in cities and are accepting Western norms with regard to their life-styles, should also be drawn in the system of Western norms, namely proper registration, inter alia, in respect of land ownership and rights of occupation. I am of the opinion that if we make a norm such as home ownership available to Blacks, it need not necessarily always be done by way of protection, by way of special grant or by way of special arrangement. In that case, the normal standards of the free-market mechanism should apply. Consequently I do want to suggest that there should be a thorough further investigation of this matter, for I take it that the initial transfer can be made without problems. However, I should like to see that it is placed on a sound basis for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to extend my most sincere thanks to the Opposition, specifically the hon. member for Mooi River, as well as hon. members on this side of the House who congratulated me on my promotion.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow remarked that my speech was very short and not informative enough. I just want to tell him, however, that being a newcomer to this job, I thought my entry should be a humble one. Apparently humility is not a quality admired by the official Opposition. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow, in particular, was opposed to clauses 2 and 7. It is a fact that the Zulu code in Natal is only applicable to a Zulu. It does not affect a Xhosa or anybody else living there.

*He also mentioned the fact that there were so few registrations under the 99-year leasehold system. However, here we are solving one problem which we experienced right at the outset, by means of the amendment contained in clause 3. I should just like to say something about this matter.

†Because of financial implications and the extent of the task it is at present impractical to prepare complete general plans for the purposes of section 6(a) and (b) of the Act in respect of urban Black residential areas. The amendment now makes it possible for a general plan in respect of only a part of such a residential area to be approved, and in this way it would be possible to speed up the registration of rights of leaseholders.

*Consequently I should like to tell the hon. member for Klip River that this matter has been cleared up with the building societies. In this way we shall be able to indicate these sites on a general plan and then register them accordingly in the name of the leaseholder.

†In regard to clause 7 it was never the intention to enable the hon. the Minister to amend Acts of Parliament willy-nilly. The fact of the matter is that the existing regulations for chiefs’ courts which apply in the courts held by those on whom judicial powers have been conferred in terms of the Community Councils Act, are directed at the situation obtaining in traditional courts and need adjustment, in certain respects, so as to be applied in courts in urban Black residential areas. It must be possible for the regulations to be adjusted for the urban courts to provide for, inter alia, the place of sitting, the constitution of the court, or makgotla, and the handling of fines or court tariffs. Where problems exist which are peculiar to any particular place, it would be inappropriate to amend the regulation, and it is contemplated that adjustments be made by means of ministerial direction.

*It is as simple as that. One finds that circumstances differ from place to place, virtually from people to people. In some of these chiefs’ courts one finds circumstances which are not at all applicable to another chiefs’ court. For that reason it would be undesirable to amend the regulations for everyone simply to solve a problem existing at one of the chiefs’ courts. That is why the Minister is now being empowered to make amendments and to make the necessary provision for the problems we want to meet by way of regulation.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked: In what other ways? It could, for example, be done by way of publication in the Government Gazette as well as by way of an ordinary instruction by letter from the Minister.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke most sincerely for his valuable contribution.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister—and in doing so also congratulate him and wish him luck in his post—whether he would be satisfied, if he had the power, to amend the regulations and not the provisions of sections 10 and 12 without coming to Parliament?

Mr. Chairman, the over-zealousness of the hon. member has just prevented me from saying that I am prepared to re-examine the wording of this clause in order to ensure that what we want to achieve, is contained in it, and not what some people think we want to achieve. We shall try to iron out the problems the official Opposition has.

“For after-action satisfaction, smoke a Lexington! ” [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As you know, there is still land that has been acquired or is to be acquired for inclusion in the territories which are already independent. The land mentioned in the schedules to the Bill is such land. This land has already been designated by Parliament for purchase by the Trust for Blacks. The land in question has also been listed in inter-state agreements between this Government and the Governments of Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda respectively, and in such agreements the South African Government has undertaken to include this land in the area of jurisdiction of the respective states after it has been purchased, planned and utilized for the purpose for which it has been purchased. It has been promised repeatedly that such land will not be transferred in a disorderly fashion, but that it will be done in a way which will not cause unnecessary disruption of communities.

As far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, certain land has been transferred to that state under the Bophuthatswana Border Extension Act, 1978.

However, the transfer of land by Act of Parliament is not without its problems and often causes undesirable delays.

This Bill seeks to grant the State President the power to effect the transfer of land so that the transfer may be effected at the best time in each specific case in the light of the surrounding circumstances and without undue delay. As you will see, Mr. Speaker, the transfer cannot be carried out at will, and the land which can be transferred is limited to land mentioned in the schedule, land which has already been earmarked by Parliament for Black occupation.

Mr. Speaker, I shall start by congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister on the new task he has undertaken. He has the best wishes of this side of the House.

In listening to him introducing this Bill this afternoon, I was interested to hear that he laid particular stress on the term “sonder onnodige vertraging”. I could not help smiling a little wryly at the thought that most of the land, in fact, I think, all of it, which is being transferred today to the independent States of Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda is land which was to be acquired in terms of the 1936 Land Act. It is a long time since that Act was passed.

It is fast for the Nats.

Certainly, I would say it is a rather long delay in the acquisition of land which was set aside in the quotas for the then Native Reserves in 1936. Such land should have been acquired many years ago.

Indeed, when that Act was first passed it was understood that the land would be acquired within 10 years of the passage of the Land and Trust Act of 1936. It is therefore a bit ironical that the hon. the Deputy Minister should come to the House this afternoon and talk about acquiring such land “without undue delay”. But I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we intend supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. We do so for the obvious reason that we believe that this Bill is, firstly, the legislative consequence of recommendations which were made by the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs, as it was known then, in 1975. The recommendations as far as the acquisition of quota land are concerned, were acceptable to me as a member of that Select Committee on behalf of the party which I then represented. I can think of no argument today which would make me, or my party, change our minds in that respect.

What is really happening now is that this land is now being handed over to territories which have become independent. They were not independent at the time the land was voted, but I have to say that, irrespective of the fact that we voted against the Acts making Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda independent, we believe that the undertaking which was given in 1936 cannot be violated because of the changed nature of the territories to which that land is now going to be given.

There are presumably Africans living on these farms that are going to be acquired, and whether they will move off the land when the White farmers cease farming that land is, of course, anybody’s guess. In any event, they will come under the jurisdiction of the independent homelands. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has made any attempt to ascertain the feelings of the people concerned and whether he can give us any information about the number of people concerned, in other words the number of Black families presently residing on all the farms which fall under the schedules in terms of the Bill before the House. A further question I want to raise concerns the international agreements which are now operative between the independent territories and the Republic. We accept that these agreements have to be honoured, although, as I have said, we originally voted against independence for these territories. Independence is now a fait accompli and therefore we believe that it is necessary to honour the agreements which were entered into between the now independent States and the Republic of South Africa.

I would like one assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister on a matter which worries us very considerably, and that concerns the question of the use to which the land is going to be put. All of us, I think, are well aware of the fact that the existing Black territories are over-populated. There is not enough land for agricultural purposes and the land is also, perhaps, over-stocked as far as cattle is concerned. What worries us, is whether this land is going to be given to the existing population so that a better spread of population can perhaps be achieved, the density be relieved and better farming methods be practised in areas which are, after all, extensive farming areas. We are also worried about whether the hon. the Deputy Minister intends to move, or dump, any people. I know the term “dump” irritates hon. members on the other side considerably, but unfortunately in the past we have had experience of people being dumped. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to assure us that the newly acquired areas are not going to be used for any type of forcible removal of the people concerned.

With these reservations and questions we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the official Opposition supports this bill. I just want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that I in my present position, and she in the position she occupies in her party in regard to Black affairs, have started off on a very good footing. I hope that we shall be able to maintain the same good footing for the rest of the year.

I would not bet on it if I were you.

The hon. member was of course a little wilful in dragging in the whole issue of the 1936 Act and the fact that the land is only now being purchased or is only now to be incorporated in the independent states. However, the hon. member will surely recall that this Government was not the Government of the day for a very long time after the introduction of the 1936 Act, and that after 1936 the party of which she was a member did not do the basic things in order to carry this out, as we wish to do today by way of this Bill. Therefore the hon. member was a little wilful in dragging that in here, because after all, she knows what the circumstances are.

I should just like to put one thing very clearly with regard to what the hon. member said and that is that it is not the aim of this Bill that all this land should be transferred immediately it has been passed. Parts of this land have already been bought out but there are other parts which are still to be bought out. It could be that some of this land may never be purchased, due to the present investigations into consolidation, although Parliament has already approved it. We do not know what the new situation is going to be as far as consolidation is concerned.

I think we should stress the fact that a misunderstanding seems to have occurred with regard to the contents of this Bill. This Bill, and the inclusion of the land to which the schedules refer, has nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation in progress with regard to consolidation. It only extends as far as the recommendation of the Commission with regard to these matters that was accepted by Parliament in 1975. There must be no illusions on that score.

Nor must there be any illusions with regard to another aspect. In 1975 the Government made certain promises with regard to how this land would be purchased and what would be done with it. It may be that the present investigations will indicate that we will not be able to purchase land in the conventional manner as we did in the past. It may be that some of this land may be affected thereby, but I must say that all the undertakings which the Government has given with regard to the land set aside by the Government in 1975 to be incorporated in Black states, will be honoured. The Government is committed to doing so; we have no choice but to carry that out.

I want to tell the hon. member that she can rest assured that the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Department will not merely transfer land at this stage either to the independent Black states or to any of the non-independent Black states without consideration in advance to what is to become of the land. It is not a question of the dumping of people on this land. The hon. member can look at the section of the schedule which refers to Bophuthatswana. I want to explain to her that much of the land, including the farm Gannalaagte, is still being leased to White farmers today, because the Black farmers have not yet been able to obtain proper occupation of that land and because the experience of many of those Black farmers has as yet been insufficient to make proper use of that land. The way in which the matter is being dealt with is that the Bantu Development Trust first acquires it. Subsequently it is planned and the people have to occupy it when it comes to resettlements, which in most cases are not compulsory resettlements, but are cases where the people occupy the land voluntarily. Only when the land is properly planned and it has been ascertained that the people can manage it properly, is the land transferred. It is important that we should note that large areas of land have been transferred to certain bodies and persons. Then, too, one also has cases where a farmer has rented his farm to another man for nine years and eleven months and now the SA Bantu Trust purchases that land. One of the arrangements in terms of this legislation is that when negotiations are conducted with a Black Government, negotiations are conducted in such a way with regard to that piece of land that the lessee’s right will also be recognized by the other government; in other words, that the man will not simply be deprived of the land just because the land is being transferred to a Black independent state but that he may retain his rights as lessee as long as the contract is valid.

There are other matters which are important and which concern the conventions, agreements etc. For example, with much of this type of land we have for example had an Escom servitude or other servitude registered on the land. Then, too, there is sometimes a lease of mineral rights. Before the land is transferred we must make sure that the Government which is to receive that land will respect those rights. It is our practice to ensure that our actions do not have a detrimental influence on people who are parting with land, and also that we should not harm the infrustracture or the country’s economy as a whole.

The matter of real importance in this regard is that the right which existed, the right of Parliament to pass legislation of this nature on every occasion in order to transfer land, the right of Parliament to decide that land may be incorporated in other independent states or non-independent states, will now be transferred to the State President. This will mean a great deal for the administration of this legislation. It will be possible to expedite matters because it will not be necessary on every occasion to wait until Parliament is convened before deciding on these matters.

Once Parliament has decided on the land, the decision can be carried out. To convene Parliament a second time in order to ask it to do this by way of legislation is just a waste of time. This is in fact the most important provision of this legislation and is the only principle which is really at issue. For the rest there is nothing to speak of, except that it must be stated very clearly that undertakings which the Government has given heretofore with regard to the method of purchase and the whole operation in connection with other activities surrounding the purchase of land, will be honoured with regard to the pieces of land mentioned in the schedule. There is a great deal of anxiety among the public, among people who are concerned that we will simply transfer land to an independent Black state in terms of this legislation and that we do not care two hoots what becomes of the Whites or the Black people working for those people. It is impossible to consult all the Black people living on farms who have to be transferred to a Black Government. One cannot consult all those people. Many of those people are employed by other Whites. Many of them remain on the land to be employed either by the Bantu Trust or the person who in fact comes into possession of that land, whether by leasehold or in any other way. It is impossible to consult with all the people. In any event they know long before the time what the situation is. It takes a great deal of time before land is in fact purchased.

The hon. member also spoke about the lengthy procedures etc. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the hon. Deputy Minister has already directed us, as a commission, to investigate methods and other related matters whereby to expedite the procedure from the moment one begins to acquire land in terms of legislation such as this until it is transferred, and we as a commission are looking into that. I agree that it is not pleasant for all Whites. If one begins to negotiate with a person about the land now and transfer is only really taken in two or three years time, it is not pleasant for him, and we are looking at new methods of expediting these matters.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to express my good wishes to the hon. the Deputy Minister on this his first bit of legislation. I mentioned earlier on that having had an agricultural background, I think he is peculiarly suited to deal with legislation of this sort and to follow it through. It must be absolutely clear to every member in this House that the traditional pattern of Black occupation of land cannot continue into our future. The pressure on agricultural land in South Africa is such, particularly in the Black areas, that the occupation pattern hitherto, in terms of which every man as part of the tribe was entitled to a plot or a holding, or this kind of thing, cannot continue. Therefore ground which is to be purchased in terms of this legislation is something which has to be handled in the most responsible fashion. The maximum agricultural production has to be aimed for out of this land which is to be handed over in terms of the Bill which we are now dealing with. I think the Black leaders realize the seriousness of the situation and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows the seriousness of the situation. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke says that all kinds of plans have to be gone into and all kinds of arrangements made, but I think the Government would be failing entirely in its duty if a discussion was not entered into on the basis of land transferred out of the hands of White farmers, where it is productively employed, into the hands of Black people, where it is not to be productively employed. I want to make this point very strongly indeed. This is probably the most urgent problem which faces us in South Africa today. We must ensure that productive land handed over into the hands of Black States, independent Black States in this case, is used in such a fashion that the productive capacity of food in our country does not suffer as a result.

The Bill we have before us is in fact the tidying-up of old battlefields and follows upon agreements entered into by the Government with independent States to transfer certain ground. The battle was fought in 1975 when the Select Committee reported and the battle was fought over whether those States should become independent or not. That is part of the political history of this Parliament and is now past. What we have before us today is a Bill which simply tidies up all the bits and pieces, brings them all together and provides that as the Government purchases pieces of land, these can be transferred to one or other of the independent States. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke says that the Government has not been in power since 1936. That is true, but they have been in power for a very significant portion of the time, during a time when the income of the Government has been escalating at a very rapid rate indeed, so much so that one might have been entitled to expect that they would have gone ahead faster than they have in fact done.

We will support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I emphazize again to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has a peculiar responsibility. Being an agricultural person, one trained in agriculture and who knows the implications of White productive farms passing into other hands, he must keep an eye on the practical effects of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River requested the hon. the Deputy Minister to hold talks with the leaders of the Black States so that productive agricultural land which is being transferred from White owners to Black States will at least be kept on more or less the same level of production. I take it that that was more or less the tenor of the hon. member’s request to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I have no fault to find with that. In fact, I should like to support the hon. member. However, I wish to bring it to his attention that this Bill has nothing to do with that matter. However, the fact that he brought it to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister is something with which I have no fault whatsoever to find. That is why I support him in his request.

I should like to associate myself with previous speakers in congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister on his promotion to his present position. I also wish to congratulate him on the competent way in which he introduced his first piece of legislation here, as well as on his handling of it up to now.

I also wish to add that I support the principle of the Bill, viz. that the State President, by proclamation, is being empowered to determine that land, as set out in the Schedule, which has already been approved by Parliament for purchase and transfer to Black States, shall become a part of independent or sovereign Black States and shall cease to be part of the territory of the Republic of South Africa. This will facilitate the procedure and also expedite matters. As has already been indicated, there is really no reason why land which has already been approved by Parliament for purchase and transfer should on a subsequent occasion be transferred again by way of legislation at that juncture to Black States.

Something in this Bill, however, which causes me some concern, is the contents of clause 2(2), because I think this may possibly be open to misinterpretation. The sub-section concerned reads as follow—

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has already stated that the undertakings given by the Government in regard to the purchase of land will be honoured. In my opinion, however, this wording could also be indicative of the obligation which does rest on the State to purchase the land of Whites, which is intended to be transferred, from the White farmers or owners of the land, before or after it has been transferred, or to give the owners the necessary guarantees to that effect.

Because this obligation is not singled out in the Bill, and also because this House cannot pass legislation which is binding on another sovereign State—remember that the Bill states that this obligation shall rest on another State—this House can at most release the Government from certain obligations. However, this House cannot provide by way of legislation that those obligations shall vest in another State.

Therefore I should like to suggest the following amendment to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I shall be pleased if he would give serious consideration to it and possibly amend the clause in a suitable way in order to give effect to this suggestion. The amendment which I suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister reads as follows—

This refers to the obligation of the State—

This is a mere suggestion. I am doing so, however, because the clause, in its present wording, could be interpreted to mean that that obligation of the State may possibly disappear, and also because this House, in my opinion, cannot pass legislation which is binding on another State. For that reason legislation of this House cannot provide that certain obligations shall vest in another State. This can only be done by way of agreement or contract between two States.

People establish themselves in a specific State and accummulate particular assets and build up undertakings for themselves there. They also create for themselves certain interests in particular areas, precisely because they have the reasonable expectation and confidence that the Government of that country will not expropriate their property or assets summarily and without compensation, or that their land will not be excised from the area of jurisdiction of that State or country and, against their will and contrary to their wishes, added to the territory of another Black State. It is good that that confidence and belief should exist in the inhabitants and citizens of a State, for if such a guarantee does exist, it creates certainty, progress and stability and it provides people with a sense of security. But if such a guarantee does not exist, enterprise, development and production, regardless of what sector of the economy is involved, may be seriously impeded.

To relinquish land for the purposes of consolidation is frequently a highly emotional matter. However, it is not the intention of the Government that any person should relinquish his assets without the necessary compensation, and this is confirmed by what the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House last year during the no-confidence debate when he announced that renewed attention would be given to the consolidation of the Black States. I want to quote from the House of Assembly debates of 1979, Vol. 79, col. 242, in which the hon. the Prime Minister had the following to say—

I take it that this is also the undertaking to which the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke referred, but according to the clause this is not clearly stated.

I want to make it clear that not all the land referred to in the Schedule to the Bill has so far been purchased by the State. There is land which still has to be purchased. This could now be interpreted to mean that the Government will no longer be able to honour the assurance given by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House, and that the Government now wishes to shift that obligation onto another body. If the House divests the Government of this obligation, and if the guarantees given by this Government are to fall away because the House cannot make a law which is binding on another sovereign state, what guarantees are there for the White farmers who at this moment, or even later, have to relinquish their land for incorporation into another State?

There may be no misunderstanding on an important matter such as this. It would cause great confusion and uncertainty and literally hundred of inquiries on as to the actual intention and meaning of this clause will come pouring in, something which can be prevented if something could be inserted into this clause which would clarify the intention.

On an emotional matter such as this I do not think a mere communication to the House that this is not the intention of the clause is sufficient. What is written, is written and what is not written into the Act, is not written into it. Therefore I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give favourable consideration to the proposal I have put forward in connection with an amendment and that he will see his way clear to amending this clause in an appropriate way at a later stage so that the intention of this clause will be clearly apparent.

Mr. Speaker, firstly we wish the hon. the Deputy Minister success in his elevated position. We believe that he has the background and experience to master this portfolio.

I should like to join issue with the hon. member for Parys. He quite correctly refers to clause 2(2) and he is obviously correct when he says that the South African Government cannot compel the purchase of land by another State, after incorporation of that land by the other State. The hon. member for Parys suggested an amendment, but whether his amendment covers the situation or not at this point in time I cannot say. One will have to examine the amendment. The point that he makes, however, is very valid. The registered owner of that land has to have certainty before incorporation. There must be no doubt in his mind about his position after incorporation. This is a matter that has to be clarified, a matter the hon. the Deputy Minister must clarify during this debate. If necessary, the matter should be held over until one has obtained complete clarity, because one cannot have a situation in which a registered owner wants to sell before incorporation but is then told that for some rhyme or reason the money is not available, that there has to be a delay of that he has to negotiate after incorporation. He has to be satisfied, beyond all doubt, whether by a system of guarantees or any other system, that he will suffer no prejudice if he elects not to be incorporated or if he wants to sell his land before incorporation. So I think the hon. member for Parys has actually drawn the House’s attention to a very cardinal point, and I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister must thoroughly canvass this matter with us, because this is a subsection that is of great concern. Unless one settles the matter here and now one is going to find, as the hon. member for Parys pointed out, people coming from all over the country requesting assistance in regard to this particular clause. I say this because it cannot be allowed to go through in its present form, because if one lets it go through like that the South African Government will have no say after the incorporation of that land into the territory of another State. So there is no built-in safeguard for the present registered owner of the property.

If I may I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can tell us whether the South African Government will offer technical assistance in regard to the use of this land. I believe that this land that is being transferred will be laying the foundation for making the sovereign independent States far more economically viable, so I believe it is vital for these States to become self-supporting and self-sufficient as soon as possible. We do, of course, trust that the land will be utilized to the best possible advantage. The hon. member for Mooi River was quite correct in what he said. Where the land is food-producing, it is essential that the production should not drop. We should like to hear something about this from the hon. the Minister. We should like to know whether his department and the Government will give the necessary technical assistance to those States to ensure that the food production on that particular land does not drop below the present production figure. In fact, perhaps the production could be increased.

There is another point I should like to make. One would like to know whether the Government and the States concerned will plan in advance for the utilization of the land. If I understood the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke correctly, that planning will take place before the land is incorporated in the other States. Save for the one safeguard in regard to clause 2(2) about which we have our reservations, we shall not oppose this Bill. In fact, we welcome the Bill except, as I have said, for clause 2(2). The hon. the Minister looks as if he is going to react favourably to the suggestion by the hon. member for Parys that clause 2(2) be clarified. In the circumstances we shall be supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the fact that the consolidation of land destined to be added to that of independent States created in South Africa has come to be a very delicate matter. It is a matter that is charged with emotion. I came to realize this just a few days ago when my telephone rang incessantly with calls from voters in my constituency, and I am talking now about the Elliot-Maclear area. My telephone rang incessantly about a report which had been broadcast by the Broadcasting Corporation that morning. I am certainly not going to attack or criticize the Broadcasting Corporation, but I am just going to say that I think it would be a very good thing if they would be more careful in the future in choosing the words that are broadcast in such cases. [Interjections.] It was simply interpreted to mean that those districts would all be added to Transkei. These people had every reason to be worried. They had reason to phone me. We had to rectify the matter. As I say, I think this could have been prevented by a more careful choice of words.

I shall not go into the history of what has happened in this connection in this House in recent years. I am thinking in particular of the past five years, since I came here. During that period we have pleaded year after year for land to be purchased. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the hon. the Deputy Minister actually said in his speech that he wanted to expedite transfer. It was not so much concerned with the purchase of the land. If there is one person—and this is the way I have come to know him in this House—who has always supported those of us who have advocated the expeditious purchase of land, it is this very hon. Deputy Minister. I want to give her the assurance that the purpose of this legislation is in fact to expedite the transfer of land, and to make it unnecessary to come back to this House time after time in order to authorize the transfer of that land. For the sake of convenience, and for administrative reasons, the State President will possess that power in the future.

Sir, as I have said, this matter is charged with emotion. Some people were dissatisfied; others felt unhappy. For them, it was a question of great sadness at having to sacrifice land that had been in their family for generations. Then there were others who were literally glad because they had seen that their farming results were not very encouraging and had decided that it would be better to get rid of the land. However that may be, we have persuaded our people to support us in the implementation of our policy in this country.

As far as the Bill is concerned, I want to agree with the hon. members for Parys and Walmer and I want to say that as a lawyer, I, too, am concerned about the wording of the Bill. However, I want to suggest that the matter be rectified nearer the beginning of the Bill. I want to ask the Deputy Minister to consider adding at the end of clause 1(1), as an amendment—

This is the Development Trust mentioned in section 4 of the Development Trust and Land Act I think that would solve the whole matter. Personally I believe that as far as clause 2(2) is concerned, we cannot regard that obligation as an obligation to purchase the land. In my opinion, it refers rather to any obligations that may remain after the land has been purchased. The obligation to purchase the land is one which rests exclusively with the South African Government, and the South African Government must fulfil it. That is why I suggest that it should be added in clause 1(1) that full ownership should already be vested in the South African Government when transfer takes place. As I see it, full ownership can only be vested in the South African Government or the Development Trust when that land has been taken over and the registered owners of the land have been paid for it. This will solve the whole matter, and I think it will enable us to achieve the very aim we always want to achieve, i.e. certainly among our people. I want to emphasize and emphasize again the question of certainty. If only this can penetrate to those for whose ears it is meant, we shall not have any difficulty with consolidation in South Africa. The fact is that uncertainty has been created among the public. I am not saying that this has been done on purpose, but it exists. Therefore I ask that there should be certainty in this connection. It would certainly solve the problem of the people who have been phoning me over the past week if we were to write into the legislation that the transfer to the independent State concerned will only take place after full ownership has been obtained by the State, i.e. after the registered owner has been paid in full for the land.

As far as the other provisions of the Bill are concerned, these only refer to the fulfilment of the obligations which rested on the Republic and which have to be transferred to the State concerned. However, the State will have the right to release itself from that obligation. What is important, however, is clause 4 of the Bill. This provides that where we have entered into agreements with a State, such agreements will be honoured as international agreements between two independent States. This is a fine Bill, and I think that if the hon. the Deputy Minister were to consider the proposals made by me and the hon. member for Parys, the legislation would have a very favourable effect and would also be more readily accepted.

Finally, I want to join the other hon. members in congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister on the legislation, and I also wish to express the hope that any future legislation that he handles in this House will have just as favourable a passage as this Bill has had today.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for Houghton and Mooi River, as well as hon. members on this side of the House, for the congratulations and good wishes they addressed to me. I realize that an important and responsible task has been entrusted to me.

I want to deal firstly with the matters raised by the hon. members for Parys, Aliwal and Walmer, concerning the way in which land will be transferred. They want to be given the assurance that land will not be transferred in a disorderly manner and that it will not be transferred before certain rights of our own citizens, such as the right of ownership, have been taken into consideration. This matter has caused quite a stir among the public, and I have been obliged to issue statements in this connection. On behalf of the Government I have given the undertaking that we shall not transfer any land which will place people within the borders of another State, where they will then find themselves in a particular situation and will not be able to enforce their rights in respect of ownership, etc., and will have to run a lot of other risks. As far as guarantees are concerned, I do not think this is the first guarantee. I think it has been shown in practice that the method according to which land is transferred to another State, or a self-governing State, is decided by the Development Trust and Land Act, in terms of which the Trust receives the right of ownership. The Trust is a body corporate, and in order to transfer land, one firstly has to obtain right of ownership and full right of disposal over the land so that the land may be acceptable to the State to which it is being transferred. This has been the practice over the past 50 years. The principle written into the Bill is not a new one, therefore. In section 4(bis) of the Development Trust and Land Act, provision is made for the State President to transfer land to the self-governing State by way of proclamation. The difference is that in the one case it is not an independent State, i.e. the territory if not fully sovereign, and in the other case it is a self-governing State, i.e. the constitution of a self-governing State is still subject to this Parliament. I therefore assert that this is not a new principle and that it is already being applied in practice.

The other guarantee, if one may call it a guarantee for the sake of argument is that the Government gave an assurance when the independence agreements were drafted that it would purchase the land and that it would transfer the right of ownership to the Trust before transferring the land. I think this is a further guarantee. If I remember correctly, the Government issued a White Paper when Transkei became independent in terms of which it gave certain guarantees to Whites who would fall under the Transkei Government after independence. The Government is still carrying out some of those guarantees in terms of the White Paper. However, when one looks at the Development Trust and Land Act, one sees that it deals with the ownership, development and eventual transfer of land, and this system has been followed over the past 50 years. If, because of legal technicalities, there are certain problems which may create the wrong impression, I am quite prepared to examine them with the law advisers. However, the standpoint I want to adopt on behalf of the Government is that we shall not transfer land in such a way that it will disrupt communities. I am prepared to give that undertaking.

I want to come to the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton. This hon. member made the accusation—I think the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has replied effectively to it—that we have been struggling for 50 years to transfer this land to the Black people. But, Sir, it is easy to pass a law and to say that one will eventually transfer such land to Black people, without in the process identifying the land. Hon. members know that the principle of consolidation was accepted as far back as 1936, while we were only able in 1975 to identify the land in a consolidated manner. This is as far as Parliament has got, and we are still engaged in that process. The second problem which is experienced—and I think this is the major problem experienced with regard to the transfer of land to Black States—is the one of funds, for precisely because it is an accepted principle that the Trust should purchase the land, the question of funds is a problem, because the rate of progress in this process depends on the economic conditions in the country.

The hon. member also asked me to furnish certain figures to her concerning the number of Black people living on land to be transferred, i.e. land which has already been taken over by the Trust. I am afraid that we do not have these figures available, so I cannot give them to her. There are various stages with regard to the land now owned by the Trust. Some parts are rented by the previous owners, some parts are still being developed, and in some parts, resettlement is taking place. Therefore it is difficult to give her those figures at short notice, if they are available at all.

The hon. member was also concerned about the question of settling people on this trust land after transfer. The hon. member also said that people should be forced to settle there. I must tell hon. members that this is a very important aspect. The resettlement we are undertaking these days is not undertaken on a basis of force, but in co-operation with the Black States concerned. We negotiate with them. I could refer to a specific Black State where we are shortly to begin a resettlement project and where agricultural soil surveys have been undertaken on a scientific basis. We are going to try to settle the people in an agriculturally economic way. To a large extent, this also answers the question asked by the hon. member for Mooi River. We cannot purchase hundreds of thousands of hectares of land and sacrifice agricultural productivity in the process, for then we should break the economy of this country. At the moment—the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has already referred to this—my department is examining methods of properly utilizing the land. We shall examine these matters in greater detail at a later stage, probably when we discuss these matters during the budget debate.

I think I have now replied to most of the matters, and, as I have said, we shall look at the guarantees that hon. members have requested. As I said in my introductory speech, the intention with this legislation is to find a more rapid method of transferring land to Black States. Specifically in order to initiate certain development projects in such Black States, it is essential that we should have the legal machinery for expediting that transfer.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, 1947, provides for the registration of agricultural remedies and aspects related to the examination, labelling and sale of such remedies. With the exception of the application of cyanogen gas, however, there is no control over the commercial application of a great many poisonous agricultural remedies which are dangerous for the person who applies them as well as for the general public and the environment.

The necessary care is not always taken by the commercial pest controllers in applying agricultural remedies. Therefore, it is deemed essential that such operators be registered, so that their activities may be controlled, and requirements may be laid down with which they have to comply.

†In view of the foregoing, the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee for the Protection of Man against Poisonous Substances requested the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to implement control measures in respect of the application of agricultural remedies for compensation as soon as possible. To achieve this aim, minor adjustments to the Act are therefore necessary.

Provision is also made for the registration of sterilizing plants and the renewal of all registrations under this Act.

The proposals contained in the Bill enjoy the support of the South African Agricultural Union and are being welcomed by all concerned.

Mr. Speaker, in this amending Bill there are two new concepts in particular that have to be debated. The one is the registration of a pest control operator and the other is the registration of sterilizing plants. All the other amendments are actually of a consequential nature.

We are living in an era today in which increasing use is being made of highly poisonous and dangerous remedies to bring about better and cheaper production of food. When these remedies are correctly used, this is to the advantage of the community, but when these remedies or fertilizers are used in the wrong way, it can easily cause death or pollute the environment to such an extent that it poses a threat to vegetation as well as man.

The provision that pest control operators who comply with certain requirements must be appointed and registered is acceptable to us in principle and we agree with it. However, the legislation does not specify what the requirements are that have to be complied with. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us more information about the requirements that will have to be met.

There are a few questions I should like to ask him in this connection. Firstly, does such an operator have to be trained, and if so, what kind of training will he have to receive and where will he receive such training? Will these training facilities be made available to all citizens of South Africa, so that all citizens may be appointed to these positions?

Furthermore, we notice that the operators to be registered must only be people who administer fertilizers for a reward. I therefore take it, and I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm this, that the farmer who administers fertilizers himself will not have to be registered. The question that arises is: What about the man’s employees? Do they have to be registered? In terms of clause 6, no person may administer an agricultural remedy for reward unless he has been registered as a pest control operator or unless it is applied in the presence and under the supervision of a pest control operator. If the farmer applying the fertilizer is not registered, what is then the position of his employees? Will those people have to be trained or will the farmer have to be trained? What is the situation?

The provision that pest control operators have to be registered is certainly not an arbitrary one. There is a reason for this provision in the Bill. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister made no reference to the background of or reasons for this new provision which is being inserted into the Act. I should like the hon. the Minister to elaborate on the reasons why the amendment is necessary. Have certain incidents taken place or is the industry experiencing certain problems? If so, it would help me to know what these incidents or problems are.

One wonders whether the reason is perhaps that great losses have been caused by incorrect application of fertilizer. Can it be that people have in the past been killed accidentally either because of ignorance because of the fact that the people under whose control they worked did not have sufficient knowledge?

I do not know whether the matter is sub judice, but the hon. the Minister can tell me if this is so. I am referring to the problem in the Franschhoek valley, when a fertilizer was incorrectly used a few years ago, and this led to great losses. Could this be the reason why this amendment is being proposed? I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to this.

The other new provision in this Bill deals with the registration of sterilizing plants. It seems to me that the question of sterilizing plants obviously does not belong in this Bill. After all, it has nothing to do with fertilizers, nor with farm feeds, agricultural remedies or stock remedies. In fact—so I understand or infer—it is concerned with the meat industry, specifically with the situation at all or at certain abattoirs. However, I am not quite sure about this. If this is so, I should like the hon. the Minister to elaborate on this as well, so that we may understand why this clause of the Bill is providing for this.

I know that there are certain problems in the meat industry. I also know that the Minister intends to introduce legislation in this connection at a later stage. Nevertheless, I should like to know what these sterilizing plants would refer to. I should appreciate it, therefore, if the hon. the Minister could shed some more light on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg put certain questions to the hon. the Minister, questions to which he will definitely be given replies. I should like, however, to comment on the question of the requirements for pest control operators. I assume that these requirements will be stipulated in regulations. I cannot imagine that we could stipulate precisely what will be required under all circumstances at this early stage. I assume that this will differ from one operation to the other. As you know, there are so many different operations and methods, as well as new developments in this sphere, that I believe one should rather leave it for the future so that the hon. the Minister can have the right to promulgate regulations in regard to this type of operation.

Then the hon. member for Wynberg also referred to clause 6, in terms of which section 7 of the principal Act is to be amended. This clause refers to people who do this type of work for reward. I simply cannot conceive that it could possibly apply to farm labourers. I think it definitely applies to business undertakings and people who do this type of work for farmers for reward.

In general I just want to say that, to my mind, effective agricultural production today involves the use of a large variety of chemicals and other remedies. New remedies are also being added to the list practically every day. Methods of application, for instance by means of aircraft etc., are changing all the time too. Moreover, the trend abroad is to make increasing use of large contractors to do this type of work. Aircraft and other machinery which apply these remedies on a large scale, are extremely expensive. I feel that this trend should also be encouraged here in our country so that farmers do not have to expend large amounts of capital on apparatus which will simply stand idle on the lands, under a tree or in the farmyard and ultimately serve as a nesting place for chickens. Tremendous capital expenditure is involved here, and I feel it would be a very good thing if we were to consider encouraging more and more contractors to carry out this type of work for our farmers.

As the hon. member for Wynberg correctly remarked, many of these remedies are extremely dangerous to both man and beast. We already have legislation to control the registration of remedies. Consequently I think it is only right and fair that we should now exercise control over the proper application of these remedies too. We must do so in the first place because the farmer must be sure of the competence of the business undertaking or person who undertakes that application. Secondly, we must also protect the public from the injudicious or uncontrolled application of such remedies. I want to put one question only to the hon. the Minister. It concerns the efficiency of the remedies that are registered. I assume that the proposed section 3(1 )(a), which provides for the effectiveness of the remedies concerned, also serves as a type of guarantee to the farmer that the remedies concerned will effectively combat the pests for which they are being used. Now I notice that the same words are not used when operators are mentioned. I wonder whether it is not perhaps necessary, when discussing the method of application too, that we should lay more emphasis upon the effectiveness of the remedy. These remedies are extremely expensive; farmers have to incur tremendous costs in order to apply these remedies. They are often influenced by people—I do not want to make accusations now—who are simply out to sell a remedy, and who are not aiming at helping the farmer. That is why I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether there is also a guarantee that assures the farmer that the method of application will be effective.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill is a tribute to the growing technological revolution which has been taking place in farming over the past eight to ten years. It seems that one of the ironies of our existence is that as our chemists, boffins and “fundies” get cleverer at produce remedies that kill certain plagues the plagues themselves get cleverer in becoming accustomed to the remedies which are produced. It seems almost to be a viscious circle but we know one thing every farmer knows, i.e. every time one has to buy a new remedy it costs more than the last one did. That is something which I …

They have got smart chemists.

Yes, I have got smart chemists. That too is the reason for it. The point is that every time a farmer is involved in some new process there is always an increased cost. I think the hon. member for Humansdorp made a very good point indeed, namely that a guarantee of efficacy is something which farmers would like very much to have built into all these things they are sold, which are promised to be absolutely sovereign remedies against all the plagues of Egypt which beset the farming community. What is happening here is that a new class of person—a pest control operator—has been described and regulated under all the provisions of the Bill to ensure that certain things happen and certain things do not happen. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that with all the goodwill in the world, I am quite certain that the Bill as intended here will not avoid the sort of accident that happens when one is dealing with chemicals of this nature because in my rounds, as I have been going about my constituency and other places, I have, several times, seen Black labourers happily stirring the most potent remedies with their bare hands before applying them, while protective clothing is lying at the side of the tractor or whatever it happens to be. I must say that one is amazed at the low level of fatalities in cases like this. Were there something which …

The farmers too.

I have seen some farmers doing it but not very many; I never went back. I was almost always too afraid to go back to see what had happened to them. I think the technological nature of our society is such, particularly in the agricultural field, that we have to be continually aware of the sort of changes that are taking place, and any regulation such as this would bring it under control. I think the hon. the Minister mentioned cyanide particularly as a problem which has arisen just lately. I think the Bill has got to be welcomed, although one does not want to load farmers any more with bits of paperwork than they have to do, or any more regulations than they already suffer under. This Bill is designed to assist them and I hope it is going to have the desired effect. The NRP will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River that it is important what we do in future as far as agriculture is concerned because in that sector increased demands are being made on a decreasing number of farmers by an increasing population. I agree that we shall have to resort to technological methods in order to feed our people during the next decade or two. I also agree with him that too many farmers entrust too much of this type of work to untrained people. That is a weakness of our people. One puts a semi-trained person or someone who has not had any training at all in charge of a tractor and he has to manage the best he can while one sits and chats to one’s neighbour. That is a fact. We must enlighten and educate our people not to be reckless in the handling of anything dangerous. Surely one would not put a loaded gun in the hands of such a person. I shall at a later stage say what I think ought to be done in this regard.

As I have indicated, greater use will have to be made of technological methods. We shall have to use better fertilizer and eradicate weeds more effectively, pest control will have to be improved and better substances used. However, I do want to express my appreciation to the private sector and the numerous undertakings that are spending large sums of money on research and development in order to put these things on the market. That is deeply appreciated.

The part of the world which I am privileged to represent, is in fact the area where sheep farming originated in South Africa but there are areas which, till recently, were unsuitable for the raising of sheep. That was as a result of internal parasites and other problems. However, since effective and proven remedies to combat these diseases have come on the market, certain areas have become as suitable for the raising of sheep as any other part of the country. As a result of the fact that the deficiency in their feed, e.g. a deficiency in phosphates and other trace elements which is a problem throughout the country, has been remedied in the areas to which I have referred, sheep are a major money-spinner for the agricultural industry.

I remember a classic piece of history from the days of my youth. It is the story of a farmer whose farm was more or less cut in half by a river which flowed into the sea across his farm. He was a very successful sheep farmer and he divided his farm on each side of the river between his two sons. As any sensible father would do, he naturally did not want to favour the one above the other. After a few years the sheep of the one son started to deteriorate. Not only did they deteriorate in size and general condition but their wool lost its curl. Hon. members who know anything about wool will know immediately what I am talking about. Even as long ago as that—I am now referring to the years of the depression before most hon. members were born—some of the clever men at Elsenburg concluded—that the deterioration was due simply to a deficiency in trace elements. In this specific case I think it was cobalt or copper, although I am not quite sure. When the correct diagnosis had been made and the necessary trace elements added to the feed, those flocks recovered completely. The problem was simply that the trace elements were present on one half of the farm but absent on the other. While the father was still farming, prior to dividing the farm, the trace elements were evenly distributed, but this was not so when the sons took over.

I also remember the case of a farmer who suffered severe losses because he had used a certain fertilizer which a quack had sold him and which had proved to be unsuitable. I also remember how we had to import phosphate from Morocco during World War II. Because nothing better was available some farmers used manure from the Karoo but that completely ruined irrigation land and made it brackish.

Years ago there was a stud farmer in the area I come from who had bought medicine for his sheep from a commercial traveller. The result was that he lost all his stud ewes. He was paid compensation after he had gone to court but no money could replace those animals. In this respect stud animals are like antiques. The loss of those stud ewes can be compared with the loss of a yellow-wood chest when a man’s house bums down. It is impossible to replace it.

I know of a farmer who detected a new disease among his sheep. Because he was given the wrong advice he dipped his sheep in a dip containing insecticide instead of fungicide with the result that his entire flock became infected.

The same applies when weed-killers are applied at the wrong time or under the wrong circumstances. This can also damage adjoining properties. In this connection the hon. member for Wynberg referred to a classic example in the Boland and I do not want to repeat it.

Sir, as you know, wheat is a crop that is very sensitive to intrusion by weeds. Not only must it be sprayed or treated at a certain stage of its growth but that has to be done at a time when the weeds have also reached a certain stage of growth. It often happens that the person who has to decide on the type of weed-killer to be used has simply to use two types of weed-killer in order to achieve his objective.

Climatic conditions and methods of application are often the cause of problems. In this connection I should like to quote from a supplement to the Landbouweekblad of September 1978. It reads as follows—

Dr. Nico Pretorius, the writer of the relevant article, points out the following—

The article goes on to state—

Dr. Pretorius writes further—

That is an important point. As a result of ineffective application harm is done. Dr. Pretorius goes on to say it is clear—

That is as far as Dr. Pretorius is concerned.

Sir, I trust you will allow me to refer briefly to the days—I shall not say “the good old days”—of DDT. A certain person named Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring. The title of the book refers to spring without the twittering of birds. Subsequent to that Frank Graham wrote a book with the title Since Silent Spring. That learned author deals with the ecosystem of Lake Michigan which at that time was the subject of comprehensive experiments in connection with the effect of DDT on life in and on the lake. I quote from page 111—

Here is the point I have already made—

Here we have proof of the cumulative effect of a poison which at the time we thought we could not do without. I want to conclude by pointing out that the person who makes a living through the medium of pest control is not the only culprit. Farmers who undertake pest control themselves are not careful enough either. I know of cases where farmers themselves have had to rush to doctors but were unable to tell the doctors what kind of poison they had been handling. I have been in sheds of some farmers where I have noticed a Coca-Cola bottle on the shelf containing a black liquid that looked like black coffee or Coca-Cola.

That was probably intended for his mother-in-law!

“If you live with your in-laws, just keep mum!” [Interjections.]

*Attention should be given to containers left lying about; their contents may possibly contaminate water and food. The question arises whether, in view of the great danger of unemployment, mechanical means should not give way to more manual labour and whether weeds should not be combated on a more labour intensive basis. This has the advantage also that when grass had been hoed, the grass dries out and the roots assist in keeping the soil loose and porous. This does not require heavy capital investment and I wonder whether greater attention should not be paid to this aspect.

Some of us will remember the days when finches flew around in flocks, wagtails picked up the worms where one was irrigating and the butcher-bird impaled the praying mantis on the fence. We used to shoot butcher-birds with catapults because we regarded them as being murderers! The ladybird was scarce. At one stage after we had started to use weed-killer, they fed on the leaves to such an extent that the leaves resembled the windows in one’s house. Then they disappeared again. I do not know where they went. They could either not get enough food or they were destroyed by their enemies. The sugar-birds that used to draw off the water from the protea repens with their long beaks have also disappeared. For what it is worth, I want to suggest today that we should not always think only of the immediate benefits but should be careful that in the long term the balance is not upset because when that happens one only experiences problems.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to support the Bill before the House. Before I, however, discuss this Bill, I want to, with your permission, sketch my own unique position in relation to this particular Bill. I want to tell the House exactly where I, as an Independent member, stand on agricultural matters and on whose behalf I am speaking here. Am I speaking on behalf of myself or am I speaking on behalf of any particular group? I think it is important that the House knows, before I discuss the Bill, exactly where I stand and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will afford me the privilege to discuss this.

Is this a statement of policy?

No, it is not a statement of policy. I just want to outline to hon. members exactly what my position is.

†I think it is necessary for me to spell out exactly where I stand. I can tell hon. members that I am getting a little tired of being a political football. I do not enjoy interjections such as “Wat sê jy, Gerrie?” when an NRP member speaks, “When are you going to join them?” when a PFP member speaks; and when an NP member speaks the interjections suggests that I am an NP supporter.

Are you feeling somewhat sorry for yourself?

No, I am not feeling sorry for myself. I am very happy, thank you.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, if you will allow me—I shall get back to the subject in a moment—that on Saturday the headlines in a Natal newspaper said: “De Jong votes PFP.” That is not quite true. What I did was to vote against the Government. I want to point out too …

The hon. member should not digress too far from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I realize it; I shall come back to the Bill directly. I just wanted to point out that I did not have a speaking turn. In a speaking turn I would have made my position very clear by pointing out exactly where I stand in relation to agriculture. At that stage I would have complimented the Government on the direction they have taken and on the climate of optimism they have created. I would also have gone ahead and complimented the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His brilliant speech was inspiring. I think all of us in this House enjoyed that debate.

However, I should like to point out what I am standing for. In the no-confidence debate not one word was uttered on behalf of the farmer. Hon. members who recall last year’s debate on agriculture will know that I was accused of playing the role of a vulture.

*The hon. the Deputy Minister said that I was preying on the misery of the farmers.

When are we going to get the statement.

You are not going to get a statement.

†My very good friend the hon. the Minister also insinuated that I was doing a song and dance over a mere 70 000 farmers. This is the song and dance I want to come to in stating whom I represent in respect of this particular Bill, because it is important that it is understood whom I represent. The hon. the Minister said that 70 000 farmers merely represent five constituencies. I should like to inform him very kindly that there are not only 70 000 farmers. I feel that I do not only represent them in this House, but also approximately 10 million people who are directly related to agriculture and who are in fact totally dependent on agriculture for their livelihood and their future well-being. It is a great pity that the House did not find it necessary to speak on behalf of these people in last week’s debate.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

Alright, Mr. Speaker. I shall switch from that tack if you so rule. However, if you do not mind my doing so—you may regard it as an interjection if you wish—I should like to give notice to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that as soon as I get the chance, I shall have a full debate with him. Mr. Speaker has given me a turn in the main budget debate, and I should like the hon. the Minister to be prepared. Last year the threat was made: “Hulle gaan jou derms uitryg.”

Order!

I am just saying what is going to happen. I should now like to discuss the Bill itself.

*I know that I have made a major detour to arrive at the Bill.

†This particular Bill is necessary for the agricultural sector of our country. I tried to tell hon. members exactly why it is so necessary for these people to be represented in this Parliament. This Bill provides for very qualified and proficient technicians who will administer certain pest controls, and the hon. member for Wynberg asked earlier whether any examples could be given to this House to indicate why this Bill was actually necessary. I can quote one example to him. I know of a farmer who employed a pilot to crop-spray his wheat, but unfortunately this pilot was not properly qualified and as a result the farmer’s whole wheat crop was turned into dust. The simple reason was that the crop-sprayer did not know that he first of all had to clean out the tank which had previously contained weed-killer. So instead of the pesticide, for which the farmer was applying for a licence, the residue of the weed-killer wiped out his whole wheat crop. The provisions of this Bill make it very clear that the pilot doing the crop-spraying will have to be under the supervision of somebody who is qualified to administer the exact quantities and who knows how to apply the preparations.

To quote another example, I inquired from the Department of Health how many people were seriously affected by pesticides, weed-killers and poisons and was told that during the years 1940-’64 324 people had died in South Africa due to poisoning by pesticides. Due to the fact that there has been a great increase in particular weed-killers, pesticides and necessary poisons that are required in South Africa, in the year 1978 alone 113 people died due to pesticide poisoning. I believe that this legislation will now put an end to that serious state of affairs. Obviously there were people who died because they were murdered by means of poison or took poison by accident, but I believe that if stricter controls are applied to the use of lethal poisons used in the agricultural sector many lives would be saved. Control is absolutely necessary, and hopefully this control will result in the suffering due to these various poisons being entirely wiped out. I do not think we will ever get to that point because, as the hon. member who spoke before me said, one will always come across some people putting poison in empty Coca Cola bottles. This can happen, but with stricter control and supervision a large number of these accidents can be prevented.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot look at one aspect which has not been covered in this Bill and perhaps incorporate it in a Bill next year. Could he not, in some way, formulate the legislation to encompass the salesman who sells fertilizer, pesticides, weed-killers or possibly any form of dosing medicines and dips. These salesmen are the general advisers to the farming community. Most of them operate on a commission basis, but unfortunately so many of them are so entirely motivated by the monetary side of the matter that they are only interested in selling their products and really do not care about the exact quantities that are required. I think it is important that, by some means or other, these people be better trained. I know of some people who are totally untrained but who are nevertheless selling tens and tens of thousands of rands worth of herbicides, weed-killers and fertilizers which they are really not competent to sell. I believe millions of rands are going down the drain because of poor advice by these people who are selling to the farmers. I must immediately add, however, that there are many people in the field who are employed by responsible companies and are particularly good. They know their job, are qualified, have degrees behind their names and certainly know what they are talking about, and they are assisting the Department of Agricultural Technical Services with advice. If there were any way by which the unscrupulous dealer who is merely flogging an agricultural product could be brought into line, for example if there could at least be some form of registration under which he must sell his products, that would be a very good thing. I must hasten to add that millions and millions of rands are involved in this type of salesmanship. If the hon. the Minister could find a way of bringing them within the orbit of an Act such as this it could be beneficial to the agricultural community.

On behalf of the farming community I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South warmed up slowly, but once he had warmed up, he made a good contribution. I am referring in particular to his data concerning the number of people who have already died as a result of pest control remedies.

The hon. member for Caledon, to whom I listened with attention, also made a very good contribution. The things he spoke about, were not flights of fancy, but the truth. I do not think there can be a living being today that does not have DDT in its bone tissue. He referred to the books Silent Spring and Since Silent Spring.

We speak lightly of pollution, but the hon. the Prime Minister has already pointed out that South Africans are inclined to pollute their environment. The fact that pest control remedies are used injudiciously and sometimes unnecessarily, is also a form of pollution. People are still too inclined to use “shotgun therapy” in this regard.

I want to refer briefly to the tremendous increase in the sales of these farm remedies and also to point out the concomitant element of wastage. In 1950, farmers in South Africa spent R16 million on fertilizer. This amount had increased to R83 million by 1970, whilst it reached almost R300 million in 1978-’79. Vast sums are therefore being spent here and it is important to take care that unnecessary wastage should not occur in this regard. Care should also be taken to use these remedies in the right way.

When it comes to cattle and poultry feed, producers purchased only R18 million’s worth in 1950. This had increased to R91 million in 1970, whereas the amount spent in 1978-’79, was approximately R370 million. Therefore, there has been a tremendous increase over the past eight years.

As far as dips and sprays are concerned, an amount of only R2,2 million was spent by producers in 1950. The expenditure had increased to R20,5 million by 1970 and to R85 million in 1978-’79.

Granted, technological development has progressed considerably during this period. There are thousands of hectares of land in the USA today where maize is planted and harvested without a plow ever having broken the soil. The grass or weeds are simply sprayed with weed killer and the maize is then planted.

Today, it is essential to make use of trained people who offer their services for remuneration, specifically due to the danger of pollution and of upsetting the delicate balance of nature. I recall a certain man experiencing problems with his litchi orchard many years ago. The leaf structure was not as it should be and various people who gave advice, said that they thought it was due to a trace element deficiency. Eventually it became apparent that it was the red spider or red mite, because DDT had been used to kill the other insects, including the predatory insects which prey upon the red spider. There are many cases like this.

In addition, today we have the new approach where biological control is applied as far as possible. The scale insect, among others, has built up so much resistance against these remedies that stronger and stronger remedies have to be used. The result of this has been that so many people have died, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South pointed out. The hon. member for Mooi River said that he saw a black farm labourer stirring poison with his bare hand. I think he got a shock when the hon. member for East London North said we must not call into question the effective methods of our farmers. However, the hon. member for Mooi River need not be afraid. Our Zulus are tough people. They can stir poison with their hands without batting an eyelid. However, I can mention a case—just to show how dangerous some of these remedies are—of an orchard that was sprayed with a remedy so dangerous that when someone sat eating under a tree the following day, the few drops of the remedy which fell on him, were sufficient to cause his death. Of course this was a contact poison. Such remedies often result in death.

With the biological control which is being applied today, it is necessary to make use of the services of trained people, and to use fewer of those remedies because we must also take into account the fact that pests have their natural enemies and that the application of these remedies should occur at the right place, at the right time.

The other day in the House, somebody said of a certain hon. member that his brain was so small that if it were dynamite, it would not even blast his spectacles off his nose. These insect remedies, however, are very much the same. A little common sense is much better than a great intellect which will provide so much dynamite that it will blast the roof off, but is of the scatterbrain kind. This is precisely what must be aimed at with these remedies. A small amount, used in the right way, is by far the best. Similarly, a small brain that works efficiently, is much better than a scatterbrain. I just mention this in passing, by way of illustration.

This Bill also deals with various other matters. The apparatus and the methods of application are also mentioned. One of our biggest enemies today is the eelworm. The apparatus which applies the pesticide in this case, is an extremely refined one. The Bill also refers to the apparatus which must be used for this.

We all know that the Department of Agriculture does very good work. Every year the Department distributes a brochure which contains the remedies that have been registered. There are so many trade names. There are also so many people that do this type of thing that it is not always easy to decide who is the best and which remedies are the most suitable. Of course the remedies are registered. We find, however, that one and the same remedy has up to five different names, depending on the company which manufactures the remedy and names it. Consequently, we can understand why it is necessary for these people to be registered and to undergo the correct training.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to address one more word of warning. There are people, city dwellers in particular, who believe that all insects are dangerous. They do not want to see an insect, and spray them whenever they can. I know of people who even sprayed outside in their gardens and in doing so, destroyed all the birds and doves there.

One contributory factor here is that people do not realize how dangerous these remedies are. They really do not realize that these remedies also disturb nature. These remedies also cause diseases, such as nervous and allergic conditions, and even certain carcinomas. For instance, I can think of a certain TV advertisement in which someone uses a spray can. When he depresses the button, it seems as if he is also sniffing the spray. Then he says: “Just smell how fresh it smells.” I have seen people sitting relaxing on a Sunday afternoon. There may be a few flies buzzing around. They jump up at once, and almost with pleasure, grab the spray can and spray every fly in sight. To top it all, they then sit down and sniff the air with pleasure.

I feel it is necessary to make people aware of how poisonous these sprays are. Warnings are printed on the containers, but these are sometimes in very fine print. I am therefore asking for this warning to be put on containers in larger print, not in fine print.

I believe that this is important legislation; that is why I support it enthusiastically.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to thank the hon. member for Wynberg, because I understand that he arranged with his Chief Whip for us to be able to pass all the stages of this Bill today. I also want to thank him for his approach to the Bill. He put extremely fair questions to me and I should like to answer them now. Firstly he asked what the requirements are. These are determined by regulation in consultation with the industry and the department. The people will take a diploma course at the Pretoria Technikon. The hon. member asked whether all citizens could be trained. If it is demonstrated in practice that we have to train all citizens because a demand exists, we shall do so, because it is the private companies in particular that must be in a position to train people at any time as they choose. It is also being envisaged that this type of training will eventually be made available to Blacks as well at the Black training college at Bospoort.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister refers to the Pretoria Technikon, does he mean only Pretoria, or is this simply an example he is using? Will there be others as well?

As the demand increases, it will also be extended to other technikons. Someone also asked what the extent of the problem was. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also referred to this. Several of these questions have already been replied to correctly by the hon. member for Humansdorp. Last year approximately 2 million ha were sprayed from the air. Last year the number of deaths totalled 113, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was correct in saying. However, they were not all directly connected with agriculture. I want to analyse them: Of the 113, seven were cases of murder, 35 were suicides, 25 died of unknown causes and 45 died as a result of accidents. That is why we are now introducing this Bill. One case was that of a witchdoctor. When one analyses the figures one sees that the principal cause is the incorrect handling of pesticides and toxic substances. The hon. member asked what happened with regard to the case of the Railways versus certain farmers at Franschhoek. The matter is sub judice, but this is just by way of illustration in order to prevent that type of thing in future. However, there are outstanding claims against companies amounting to approximately R2¼ million owing to the incorrect application of sprays. We propose to eliminate this type of problem by means of this legislation, for we are going to use this to an increasing extent in future.

This provision is applicable to contractors and people who do aerial crop-spraying. However, if a farmer does the application himself with the assistance of his labourers, he has to act in accordance with the health regulations and, particularly when he uses remedies such as Paratheon, he must provide masks, etc., in accordance with the regulations of the Department of Health. Our regulations are going to be applicable to contractors who do this work for reward. The hon. member mentioned sterilizing plants. He asked why we introduced the legislation with regard to abattoirs. Bone meal is produced at the abattoir. The regulation must apply during the de-boning process, i.e. to the production of bone meal and other byproducts at the sterilizing plant of an abattoir as well.

I think that I have replied to almost all the questions asked by the hon. member for Wynberg.

The hon. member for Humansdorp asked a question about effectiveness. We should note, he said, whether this preparation is effective. The department registers any spray after it has been tested and if it complies with the requirements and conditions under which it is sold. Gradually the farmers, as these substances became more expensive, realized the importance of this. The hon. member for South Coast referred to this. Last Saturday I myself stood by and watched while boll-worms in their sorghum lands were being sprayed for farmers from the air. The salesman answered many of the farmers’ questions. We should bear in mind that the man does not pay before the spraying has been completed. The farmer told the salesman that he would pay when every boll-worm in his land was dead. Of course one cannot get a better regulation than that. In this case the firm providing the aircraft was also the firm that provided the spray. The salesman then said: “You will see; provided it does not rain this afternoon—for this is a systemic poison—you will see tomorrow afternoon that the boll-worms in this sorghum land have died.” This is the best method of seeing whether a thing is effective. This applies to weed-killers as well. In such a case a large sum of money is at stake. A person is not going to spray weed-killer if the weeds do not die, nor is he going to do so if the stuff kills the maize as well as the weeds. Then he is also going to suffer adversity and refuse to pay. Consequently the preparations are tested. This is not our problem. We merely want the regulations in this form in order to make the practical implementation of the law possible when it comes to peoples’ lives.

The hon. member for Mooiriver also asked whether the preparation was effective. He asked us to give more attention to this matter. We do not register it if it is not effective. The hon. member for Caledon explained something with which I agree. He also asked whether we should not go back to manual labour. One of our greatest problems today is that we have mechanized to such an extent. The hon. member for South Coast referred to America. I can show him thousands of hectares of maize lands in our country where the tracks of the planter are still visible when the ears and grains are already fully formed. As a result of the high diesel price, mechanization was never again used on that land. The weeds are sprayed from the air and the land is spotlessly clean, but we no longer have manual labour. In the Bethal district I could show hon. members thousands of hectares of sorghum that was sown from the air. With this year’s welcome rains that man can harvest ten tons of sorghum per hectare. The sorghum was sown from the air and covered over only once with a long, light harrow. After that the gate was closed. The fertilizer, foliage food and weed-killer were applied by aircraft. There are a quarter of a million young plants on a morgen, correctly spaced. The land was never trodden down and you can push a stick deep into that soil. That farmer is going to have an extremely good crop. There is no longer any manual labour. Unfortunately this is the direction in which we are moving and we are faced with a situation of unemployment. However, the profit margin has become so small that a person has to do everything in such a way that he can cut out incidental costs as far as is practicable.

†Let me reply to the question of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South about whether a salesman should be motivated and also educated in the selling of his product. In other words, should we get better trained people to do the selling? My answer is that a man will not buy something unless it is effective or if he does not get results. This legislation is not aimed at salesmen; it is only aimed at certain aspects involving safety, etc.

*The hon. member for South Coast pointed out the increase in the use of fertilizer—a figure of R300 million. He also referred to resistant strains of scale-insects. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services has now come across a resistant strain of scale-insect which has begun to build up resistance against a certain preparation. This is like certain ticks that are heartwater carriers and that began to build up resistance to a certain type of dipping fluid. The department has now carried out experiments with a natural enemy of the resistant scale-insect in order to control it biologically. One sees to it that a certain type of ant or beetle is bred and released in the specific orchard in which the scale-insect is present, an ant or beetle which lives on the scale-insect and destroys it. In this way, without expense and without any sprays, one allows nature to take its course by allowing a natural enemy to do the work for the farmer. This is the direction in which we are moving.

I have in mind, for example, a specific fruit-piercing moth which causes tremendous damage to deciduous fruit. As a result of research that was carried out, a spray can now be sprayed which emits the smell of the female which has to be fertilized. But at that stage the female is not yet susceptible to fertilization. As a result of the smell the male seeks out the female for purposes of fertilization. However, because the female is incapable of being fertilized, the male dies. He chases around like mad and then dies. [Interjections.] In this way one exterminates the pest.

I think I have replied to the hon. members and I thank them for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I made the point that as I interpret clause 6, it is necessary for the farmer who is not registered and who makes use of farm labourers who apply fertilizer for reward, to be registered. The hon. the Minister stated in his explanation that he was only referring to contractors applying fertilizer with the aid of aircraft, etc. It does not appear to me as though clause 6 puts it that way. Let me just read it—

I assume that an agricultural undertaking is also a type of industry—

The employee of the farmer surely does this for reward. The agricultural undertaking is, after all, “an industry, trade or business”. I cannot understand how that person can be exempted from registration according to this clause, as it is worded.

For further illustration of my point, I wish to quote from the explanation I have of clause 6—

I just feel that we have a problem here. Either the hon. the Minister should specify that only contractors be registered, or clause 6, as it is worded, will in fact have to be made applicable to employees of farmers, even though they might use the agricultural remedies under supervision.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member desires that we should specify who may use the remedy, but in my view the words “for reward” takes care of the whole problem. The legislation has been in force since 1947, and the problem has never arisen, for this wording has been taken from the principal Act. The words “for reward” mean that a person acts as a contractor to other people, but if the farmer does it himself, he does not receive remuneration since he does it for his own purposes. However, I could go into the matter to ascertain whether this has created difficulties in practice in the past. However, I am not going to lay claim to all the wisdom of Solomon. We can go into the matter and if there have been problems in practice in the past, we can rectify the matter, but at the moment I cannot see any problem.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act is based on the principles contained in the convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (Upov). The Republic is a member of Upov and as such it is bound to accommodate any adjustments made to the Upov convention in its legislation.

†In 1978 Upov approved certain amendments to its convention with the result that corresponding amendments have to be effected to the Act. It appears that matters concerning plant breeders’ rights will continuously be reviewed and amended by Upov according to prevailing circumstances. In order not to burden Parliament unnecessarily with trivial amendments to the Act, it is considered expedient to remove from the Act those stipulations, especially procedural matters, which are subject to change and to make provision to prescribe these matters by regulation under the Act.

*The only other appreciable amendment to the Act results from the important concession which Upov added to its convention, to the effect that plant breeders’ rights are being extended to include the yield from plants, for example the fruits of certain apple varieties. This means that a breeder of a new apple variety, for example, may feel that the compensation which he receives for this particular type of apple is not sufficient. He wants to sell the product but wants a royalty on the apple crop, and he can then arrange this with the buyers. This is a free trade transaction and Upov’s regulations are of such a nature that provision must be made for such a case. I do not know whether we shall find a farmer who will be prepared to pay an amount of, let us say, one cent for every case of apples to the breeder of such a new variety indefinitely, but provision must be made for this in the legislation to comply with the standards of Upov. This will cause breeders to be encouraged to market their best varieties in the Republic and could result in larger and better crop, thus promoting agriculture in the Republic.

The Bill has the full support of the S.A. Agricultural Union, the S.A. Plant Breeders’ Association and other interested bodies; in fact, they asked for it.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have much to say about this Amendment Bill. We are supporting it. It is obvious that if one were to try every year, by way of legislation in Parliament, to try and effect the changes proposed at an annual meeting of Upov, then each year we would have to effect a whole range, perhaps a very wide range, of changes and amendments to this legislation. That would be a futile undertaking. For this reason we are supporting this amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer to this House I should like to support this Amendment Bill. I was born and bred in one of the most beautiful and one of the best constituencies in the Republic of South Africa, and there we have lots of good material, plant as well as human.

When I look around me in the House, and look at the hon. members, it seems to me there is also reasonably good plant material here. What strikes me most is that it is my fate and my privilege to sit next to some of the best material in this House. I do not know who allocated the seats, but it must have been some one who used his head, for I am not sitting next to just anyone. May it be the privilege of the hon. member for Germiston District to sit next to me for a very long time.

When I came to this House, I thought we would be seated in the same order as we were elected. I then thought that I would sit next to the hon. the Minister of Health, for we were elected on the same day, but I should like to tell him that I got the better of the exchange by far. [Interjections.]

Before I return to the Amendment Bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask your permission to say something about my predecessor, for he also had something to do with breeding at an earlier stage of his life. The Ambassador to Venda was a busy man who was ready to do anything for his constituency. I pay tribute to Piet Palm with his business and all. I wish him everything of the best in his new sphere of activities.

Worcester has always been privileged in the sense that it has always sent only top-notch representatives to this particular place. [Interjections.] For their information, I can just tell hon. members that the hon. the Minister of Health, the member for Ceres, also drives a car with a Worcester registration. There was one other, but we soon dealt with him. As far as I can remember, he is very far from here. As far as I am concerned, he was not of the best plant material one could find.

Now I find myself here and I hope that I will be able to serve my constituency in this great House. I should like to tell hon. members that if it had not been for my bench-fellow on that very first day, I would have gone scuttling back home, but things are going better now.

We live in a time of population explosion. These massas must be fed and therefore food is necessary. To improve our production, we need varieties which can produce more and which will produce only the best quality. The disadvantages of existing cultivars must be eliminated. We do not have much agricultural land left in our country to exploit. The Dear Lord has stopped creating land. The existing land must be better utilized, with improved plant material. The Plant Breeders’ Rights Act was passed in 1976 and since then our plant material has improved a great deal. The Act contained a few loopholes, which are now being eliminated by means of these amendments.

We farmers and plant breeders must make better use of the improved plant material. Just to show hon. members what can be done, I want to point out that the production average for apples is 40 tons per ha and we think this is very good, but at the Fruit Research Institute at Stellenbosch the yield is 120 tons per ha. These are the figures for the Granny Smith variety; in other words, thanks to plant improvement and the right material, one ha can yield as much as three ha. Do hon. members realize what this means in the saving of water consumption and fertilization? These things are so extremely expensive today. I want to mention another figure to hon. members. At the Food Research Institute at Stellenbosch the yield for plums is 60 tons per ha, in comparison with six tons per ha in the general industry. This shows what can be done. Our farmers will have to wake up and pull up their socks. Improvements can be made.

South Africa is a member of Upov, the International Union for the protection of New Plant Varieties. As the hon. the Minister said, this enables us to get only the best plant material. We have made much progress in this regard, to such an extent that whereas the State first undertook this on its own, the private sector is also assisting now. This is to be welcomed, for these plant improvements are so extensive and so specialized that the machinery of the State cannot handle it alone. This legislation now provides for the protection of plant breeders’ rights. To my mind it is one of the best Amendment Bills ever to come before this House. Therefore I gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to welcome the hon. member for Worcester to this House and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. Actually, one is glad to hear that yet another hon. member has joined our number who not only can laugh, but can also make other people laugh. That is something that can alleviate somewhat—if that is a permissible word—the burden of the hard work of this House for us.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quite rightly mentioned that the farming community in South Africa must understand that there is a tremendous burden placed upon them to increase their production on an amount of agricultural land which is continually decreasing. With regard to this whole question of food production and the increasing burden that every single person involved in food production has got to carry, the development of new varieties and techniques is something of the utmost importance. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti told me that some research is being carried on overseas and a method is being used where apples are produced on a basis which one may almost call a revolution in the apple industry. Whereas in the past apples were always grown on big trees and reaped by hand with a considerable amount of labour being involved, today varieties of apples are being developed which are grown on a stalk about as thick as a man’s finger on a tree which is not very high. Only a few apples are grown per stem and the crop is reaped by a machine which simply cuts the whole plant off at ground level. The plant grows up again the following year, another crop is produced and it is again picked and marketed in that way.

I think the challenge that lies before the farming community and those ancillary to the farming community, the people who do that sort of basic thinking, is an awesome one. It is not just a question of continuing to farm in the old way by having three-foot rows, so many plants per hectare and so on. There has to be a totally new and better way of producing food from a given area of land. If you find a new way, you have to have new varieties of plants to be able to meet that new challenge. Anything which enables, encourages and guarantees the rights of people who have undertaken that sort of work, is something which this House should welcome, as we welcome the provisions of this Bill.

Quite obviously there is a principle involved in this Bill. The hon. the Minister is now taking out of the Act certain provisions which are passed by this Parliament and which are required by this Parliament to be amended, so that by means of regulations the Minister would be able to prescribe certain things, because, as he quite rightly says, from year to year there will have to be amendments, new visions, new ideas and new thoughts on this matter, not only in our country but also in other countries, according to international agreement. We think this is a streamlining of the situation, but I want to warn hon. members on the other side that we shall not support it in every State department. As regards the Department of Agriculture, however, we think we can support it in this particular instance. We support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations extended by the hon. member for Mooi River to the hon. member for Worcester on his maiden speech in this House. I want to tell the House that we can expect a great deal of this new member in future. This afternoon within the narrow limits prescribed for a newcomer, he has already given the House a foretaste of the shrewdness of Hans Rabie. But he had to stay within the narrow confines permitted a newcomer and he could therefore this afternoon not give us the full picture of the real Hans Rabie. I want to give the House the assurance that now that he has made his maiden speech we are going to spend many happy hours here in listening to the shrewd remarks of the new member for Worcester.

The place will not be the same again.

I have known this hon. member for many years and I have heard him speak on various subjects. I look forward, and I am sure the whole House looks forward, to listening to the typical Hans Rabie in his plenitude as a shrewd speaker in the years ahead.

I should like to return to the Bill before us. The hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Mooi River referred to the fact that the Bill deals mainly with the principle of bringing about certain future changes by regulation rather than by legislation. Because we are a member of the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (Upov) we must of necessity adjust to the conventions of that international association. To do this always by way of legislation is a cumbersome method. That is why this Plant Breeders’ Rights Amendment Bill provides that the State President may by way of regulation implement the changes effected by this international organization which we in turn must also bring about. Perhaps it would be interesting if I gave hon. members a peep at the scope of the sphere of the creator of new cultivars and clones which are protected by the original Act of 1976, and will also be further protected by the legislation we are now dealing with. As the hon. the Minister has said, it is a fact that it is very expensive to cultivate new cultivars. That is why provision is made in this Bill that the breeder of a new cultivar should receive a royalty on the fruits of any such new plant that is registered. It is an expensive process and therefore the breeder of such a new cultivar is entitled to the fruits of his labour.

Up to the middle of the ’thirties new varieties or cultivars were the result of careful observation by farmers. When they noticed aberrations in their orchards—perhaps they saw that the fruit on one branch of a tree was different to that on the rest of the tree—they propagated that branch and so obtained new and better cultivars. There could also be a chance crossing if the fruit-pip fell below the tree and a new cultivar was brought into being by incidental cross-pollination. Since the middle of the ’thirties, however, the deliberate breeding of new cultivars has gained new momentum. Under the guidance of the Department of Agriculture the breeding of new cultivars has gained even more momentum, with the result that the old known cultivars, which were famous and sought after in their day, are not in great demand today. That is because through deliberate breeding we have such improved cultivars that the old ones have fallen into complete disuse.

But what we still have to do is to breed new cultivars for the various regions. A cultivar which takes very well in the summer rainfall area, for instance, does not of necessity do so well in the winter rainfall area. That is why we must give still more attention to this aspect and we must also give the necessary compensation to those breeders who breed such new cultivars for a particular region. For the umpteenth time provision is being made for this in this Bill. Since the middle of the ’thirties special attention has been given to the breeding of new cultivars, and with great, great success. But, unfortunately, because there has not been the necessary recompense for the breeding of new cultivars, very few people, with the exception of the State itself, have taken the trouble to breed new cultivars. But with the compensation which the legislation in question now proposes, more people will be encouraged to breed new and most useful cultivars.

When we look at our exports, we see that our citrus industry earns approximately R130 million in foreign exchange for South Africa. Our deciduous fruit industry also earns more than R100 million in foreign exchange for this fatherland of ours and so it is necessary for us to encourage these people to breed new and better cultivars. We can only do this if we give the breeders the necessary recompense, and that is what this Bill in fact seeks to do. I want to say at once that not all countries protect their plant breeders by ensuring that they are paid royalties and when a breeder demands a large royalty, his new cultivar will not be in great demand.

In our country we are fortunate to have State researchers who have already bred very valuable new plant material for us. It is a fact that what does exceptionally well in one part of the country does not necessarily do well in another part of the country. For instance, on my farm I have a number of grape cultivars which were bred at Roodeplaat and they have given outstanding results there, but they have been a failure here in the winter rainfall area. The converse is also true, and therefore not only the State but also individuals must strive to breed cultivars for the different climatic conditions which will then be suitable for those particular regions. I think, for example, of quite a small town in Germany, viz. Wurzburg, where in one district alone scores of different types of grape are bred to adapt to the various climatic and soil conditions of that part of Germany. In the same way we find in the Western Cape, which is not a very big region, that in one part a cultivar has taken exceptionally well but that when one plants that cultivar in another part of the Western Cape, it is not a success. Therefore new cultivars must be bred continually and the breeders must be protected.

At the moment we actually have only two important breeding-stations which breed cultivars in our fatherland, one in Pretoria and one in the Paarl district under the control of the department at Stellenbosch. We must have many more in order to breed cultivars for each particular region with its climatic and indigenous circumstances. Our Department of Agriculture has had great success with the breeding of these new cultivars and I foresee that the old cultivars will in time be superseded and replaced by new cultivars. Our problem is that plant breeders who are highly specialized scientists are in such demand in the private sector that our two research stations, the one in Pretoria and the other at Stellenbosch, are rapidly losing some of these people with the result that their work is lost and one has to start again from scratch. For instance, we have had a number of very promising varieties of strawberries, plums and peaches, and now we are also starting to obtain grape varieties, but each time one of these breeders leaves the service of the department, his work comes to a standstill for some time and it takes years before that work gets under way again. Particularly because it is so important to have an indigenous cultivar for each different climatic and soil condition, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister—and he must talk to the hon. the Minister of Finance again—to ensure that we have more breeders of cultivars to satisfy the requirements of the various regions. Breeding is a time-consuming and an expensive process, and selection is a useful aid. We need only think of what we have achieved in the field of wine grapes and table grapes in this country of ours. As far as grapes are concerned, we have bred very few of the new cultivars in this country, and we need many more new cultivars as the old ones become outdated and no longer satisfy the requirements of the Consumer public at home but more particularly abroad. These two industries in themselves, the citrus industry and the deciduous fruit industry, earn more than R200 million a year for our fatherland, and therefore it is the utmost importance that we should make more determined efforts to breed the new cultivars. This, of course, calls for more scientists to be appointed.

We are grateful for what has already been done by the Department of Agriculture, but we do ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to give more attention to the Department of Agriculture to enable more men to be made available to breed the necessary new cultivars and make them available to this industry, because this industry is a very valuable earner of foreign exchange for our country.

If we look at the Bill before us, it is clear that a lot of red tape has been removed from the original legislation of 1976 and it is being made easier for the whole industry to proceed more rapidly to give us the necessary cultivars. I can give hon. members the assurance that this Bill will help to encourage people, not only the department but also private people, to establish new cultivars by way of breeding and selection, cultivars which can earn an enormous amount of foreign exchange for our country. We can earn very valuable foreign exchange for our country not only through breeding but also through selection. I think for instance of the grape variety which accounts for about 50% of our grape exports. By means of selection a certain farmer has succeeded in having that grape variety ripen so much earlier that they had managed to make the trough of production supply between the two high points or peaks more even. Accordingly he has succeeded in placing our supply to foreign markets on a more regular basis. With this Bill we will encourage people to do that sort of work which can be of enormous benefit to our country in terms of foreign exchange. That is why I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Paarl in advocating the training of more qualified plant breeders. It is in fact true that there are two research institutes where mainly plant breeding is undertaken. As a result of a shortage of the necessary trained people the breeding programme cannot be carried out at the tempo at which one would like to see it.

As a result of the particularly high production costs in agriculture it is necessary that at present use should be made exclusively of the very best plant material and seed to enable one to obtain the highest possible return from one’s undertaking. This means that more people must be engaged continuously in the breeding of new cultivars which will comply with that demand for higher production so that one can keep abreast of higher investment costs and still make a profit. In South Africa most breeding work is done by the institutes of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. There are also various private breeders who put new cultivars on the market. Because each crossing which is made does not amount to much in itself and because there are literally thousands of crossings which must be tested and evaluated before one finds a cultivar that is worthwhile, it is obvious that the breeding of new cultivars is enormously expensive. The latest figures at my disposal show that it costs the State approximately R40 000 to breed one worthwhile peach cultivar. That is only one example. It is clear therefore that there is no encouragement to interested breeders to breed if the requisite legislation is not there to protect their rights and to make provision to recompense them for their expenses and to guarantee that they will be protected in that respect.

Before 1964—and the hon. member for Paarl referred to the period from 1930 up to approximately that year—there was no such legislation to protect plant breeders’ rights. Plant breeders were only given protection under the Patents Act. That was a very unsatisfactory state of affairs which prevailed then. I can still remember how at meetings of the S.A. Plant Breeders’ Association this matter was continually discussed and representations made for legislation to give plant breeders the necessary protection. I can still remember that the plant breeders were very happy when an Act was passed in 1964 which protected plant breeders’ rights in the Republic for the first time. Since that time particularly great progress has been made with breeding.

In this connection I refer specifically to the breeding of new cultivars in the breeding industry, that is, of deciduous fruits and roses. Breeders have succeeded in bringing out new cultivars which have provoked great interest overseas. There are also a large number of new cultivars that have been exported under our plant breeders’ rights which have also enjoyed protection under plant breeders’ rights in foreign countries. The consumers of our material however, began to experience problems with breeders abroad who were no longer prepared to purchase our material which was only protected unilaterally by the South African law. Our legislation only provided for protection in respect of the use of South African material in South Africa Consideration must therefore be given to an improvement in the legislation. Consideration had therefore to be given to improving the legislation so that bilaterial protection could be enjoyed and for this the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act of 1976 made provision. It opened doors particularly to the fruit industry which is engaged at a high level with plant improvement, by enabling it to make use of good cultivars from abroad. It also provided opportunity for the South African Plant Improvement Organization, known as SAPO, to enter into important and worthwhile agreements with big foreign breeders. For this purpose, the services of Prof. Strydom were engaged two years ago for travel abroad for a year to make a preparatory evaluation in orchards overseas and to enter into agreements with breeders in terms of which promising cultivars could be imported, which cultivars could be further evaluated in South Africa in order to save time. Because South Africa is an exporter of food and wants to remain an exporter of food, the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act of 1976 opened the door to us to become a member of the International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties, known as Upov. The Upov convention is accepted world-wide as the most advanced guideline on legislation for the protection of new cultivars.

Because we are a member of Upov, South Africa is obliged to adapt its legislation in regard to the protection of plant breeders’ rights in order to comply with the requirements of the convention. Changes were effected by the Upov convention in 1978 and as a result our Plant Breeders’ Rights Act had to be amended accordingly. It is logical and acceptable that administrative and technical provisions regarding plant breeders’ rights be adjusted and changed by Upov from time to time. It is necessary therefore that the South African Plant Breeders’ Rights Act should be amended, and that is why the object of this legislation is to provide that certain provisions which do not entail changes in principle and which can be dealt with by regulation, be removed from the legislation. This means therefore that each amendment need not be dealt with by legislation of Parliament. A great deal of time will therefore be saved in dealing with these requirements. This is particularly important because in the case of some plants and seeds, one is bound by the seasons. I have noticed that mainly hon. members in the fruit industry have spoken today, but this matter is also closely related to the protection of seed. In many cases the material is bound by the season, and with a cumbersome procedure a year or more could easily be wasted before one is able to enjoy the benefits of the production of a certain cultivar. There may also be heavy financial losses involved in this. An important principle in the Act is the reciprocal protection of rights which we share with foreign countries. To keep this reciprocity streamlined, our legislation must keep abreast of Upov requirements. This is of the greatest importance and it is also being done now. The importance of better and certified cultivars must also not be underestimated. By the use of such breeding material our agricultural industry, which is in any case experiencing hard times in many respects, will benefit. It results in higher production and better harvests.

I have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Wynberg as the Opposition speaker for his support of the Bill. He is quite correct when he says we do not want to bring about annual amendments.

The hon. member for Worcester is a farmer. I want to congratulate him on his first speech, particularly because he has a sense of humour. We live in a time of more tension than relaxation, and therefore it is so essential to have a sense of humour. He mentioned examples of how, with the right research, we can breed cultivars which can produce yields up to five times greater per ha over the same area. There are commodities which show an eightfold production increase on the same area, and has only begun the research. The hon. member is quite correct; our Creator creates babies every day, but He does not create land every day. The available land is decreasing, and therefore we have to move in this direction. The hon. member for Worcester is aware of the fact that the department is now starting to release virus-free rootstock on which we, together with other researchers, can bud the right varieties so that we will then be able to produce even more than eight times more per ha than we produced in the past. I want to welcome the hon. member for Worcester very sincerely as member of the agricultural group. All the intelligent people in this Parliament are members of the agricultural group! [Interjections.]

†That also includes the hon. member for Mooi River, who referred to new techniques in the apple industry overseas. He is perfectly right in saying that we must keep abreast of new developments and problems in future to prevent shortages in the production of food.

*The hon. member for Paarl knows this industry. He spoke of cultivars adapted to certain regions. This is the direction which we must take. We have made such progress with vinicultural research that we are planting certain varieties in specific regions in the Northern Cape which simply would not thrive in the Western Cape or in the Winter rainfall regions. Therefore we must produce the right fruit in the region where it grows best. The hon. member referred to the citrus and deciduous fruit industries, industries which earn more than R230 million and which export more than 70% of their production. We can increase this amount considerably. I am glad that you raised the question of the loss of researchers. We can discuss this at length under the agricultural Vote. That brain drain is one of our bottlenecks, for there are too few of these people. We have too few of them. There is a demand on the market on the part of private enterprise which is draining this brain-power away from us. We can discuss this again later. The hon. member referred to a certain farmer who made a selection of a clone of the Barlinka variety which adjusts to its ripening. It is a farmer who made this selection. The hon. member is too modest to say this, but I can say it is the hon. member for Paarl who achieved this. We gave him an award at a farmers day at Bienne Donné for the work which he did for his fellow farmers which meant thousands of rands for the industry. I am glad it is a member of the agricultural group who did this.

The hon. member for Middelburg is chairman of the Breeders’ Association of South Africa and from his speech hon. members could deduce that he knows the industry backwards; he knows what is happening in the industry. I thank him sincerely for making such a contribution. It is on record so that all our other fruit farmers can read this and pay attention to it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.