The Committee has to consider the taxation proposals on income tax, licence duty and customs and excise duties.

The Committee proceeded to consider the proposals in regard to income tax (normal tax and non-resident shareholders’ tax).

I move—

1. (1) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1941 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present Session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, there shall be paid as from 1 July 1961 on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of or deemed to have been received by or accrued to or in favour of all persons from a source within or deemed to be within the Union, a tax (to be called the normal tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ended 30 June 1961 shall be—
   1. (a) in respect of the taxable income (excluding so much as is derived from mining operations carried on in the the Union by any company but including so much as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income derived from mining in the Union for gold of any amount referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 7 of Act No. 31 of 1941)—
      1. (i) in the case of all companies, for each rand of the taxable income, 30c: Provided that there shall be deducted from the amount of tax calculated in accordance with this item a sum equal to 3 per cent of so much of the amount of tax so calculated as does not accrue for the benefit of the provincial revenue funds of the four provinces of the Union in terms of the proviso to paragraph (2);
      2. (ii) in the case of persons other than companies, as prescribed in the schedule below: Provided that there shall be deducted from the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the said schedule a sum equal to 10 per cent of the net amount arrived at after deducting the rebates provided for in Section 13 of Act No. 31 of 1941 (as amended) from the amount of the tax so calculated.

Schedule.

RATES OF NORMAL TAX CHARGEABLE IN THE CASE OF PERSONS OTHER THAN COMPANIES.

(b) in respect of so much of the taxable income as has been derived by any company from mining in the Union for gold (but with the exclusion of so much of the taxable income as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 7 of Act No. 31 of 1941), on each rand of the taxable income, a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

in which formula (and in the formulae set out in the proviso hereto) y represents such percentage and x the ratio expressed as a percentage which the taxable income so derived with the said exclusion) bears to the income so derived (with the said exclusion): Provided that if the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) does not exceed R40,000, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

and if such taxable income exceeds R40,000, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with a formula arrived at by adding to the number 20 in the formula one for each completed amount of R2,500 by which the said taxable income exceeds R40,000:

(c) in respect of so much of the taxable income as has been derived by any company from mining in the Union for diamonds, for each rand of the taxable income, 45c;

(d) in respect of so much of the taxable income as has been derived by any company from mining operations (other than mining for gold or diamonds) carried on by such company in the Union, for each rand of the taxable income, 30c: Provided that there shall be deducted from the amount of tax calculated in accordance with this sub-paragraph a sum equal to 3 per cent of the amount of tax so calculated;

(e) in respect of so much of the taxable income of any company, the sole or principal business of which in the Union is or has been mining for gold and the determination of the taxable income of which for the period assessed does not result in an assessed loss, as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (f) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 7 of Act No. 31 of 1941, for each rand so determined to be attributable to the inclusion of any such amount, the amount by which the average rate of normal tax exceeds 25c: Provided that for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, the average rate of normal tax shall be determined by dividing the total normal tax (excluding the tax determined in accordance with this subparagraph for the period assessed) paid by the company in respect of its aggregate taxable income from gold mining for the period from 1 July 1916 to the end of the period assessed, by the number of rand contained in the said aggregate taxable income: Provided further that there shall be deducted from the amount of tax calculated in accordance with this sub-paragraph a sum equal to 3 per cent of the amount of tax so calculated.

(2) That the rates fixed by paragraph (1) shall be the rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of Act No. 31 of 1941: Provided that one-sixth of any amount of tax determined in accordance with item (i) of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (1) (before deducting the sum referred to in the proviso to the said item) shall accrue for the benefit of the provincial revenue funds of the four provinces of the Union in such proportions as may be determined by the Governor-General by proclamation in the Gazette and shall in the said proportions be paid into the said provincial revenue funds in accordance with the laws relating to the collection, banking and custody of provincial revenues as though it were a tax imposed by the provincial councils of the said provinces on the incomes of companies.

(3) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1941 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present Session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, the non-resident shareholders’ tax at the rate of 7y per cent of the amounts subject to the tax shall be paid in respect of any dividend declared on or after 1 July 1960 by a private company to which the provisions of paragraphs (d), (e) or (i) of Section 51 of Act No. 31 of 1941 (as amended) apply, if the shareholder to whom the dividend is paid or payable is a company not registered nor carrying on business in the Union.

I can just explain briefly that the proposals now under consideration are intended to give effect to my Budget proposals regarding the income-tax scales. For persons the scales remain unchanged, but a rebate of 10 per cent instead of five per cent is being granted, while a rebate of three per cent is being granted in respect of the taxable income of companies other than gold and diamond companies. This concession will, however, not affect the provincial income tax. With a view to the abolition of the apportionment system in respect of the non-resident shareholders’ tax, provision is also being made for the application of this tax to dividends declared by a private company in which the shareholder is a foreign company. The other necessary provisions will be included in the Bill.

I want to deal with the taxation proposals, income tax and the non-resident shareholders’ tax, and I would like to ask the Minister when he proposes to let us have sight of the Bill. This is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. Under income tax here we see “non-resident shareholders’ tax”. It is proposed to impose a “non-resident shareholders’ tax” subject to the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1941 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present Session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts. Here we have taxation proposals which we are asked to pass and we do not know which persons will have to bear those taxes, because while we have the rates we have not the definitions. In the past we have been given the classes of persons on whom taxes were to be imposed, but in these taxation proposals we are advised of the rate but we are advised of the rates on persons who have to be defined in an Act. Some time ago when this matter was raised in the Budget debate, the Minister indicated that he hoped to let us have an advance copy of the Act before the end of April. Later on the Minister said that he hoped to have it before the end of May. We are now in this position that we are approaching the end of the Session and we are going to have the same old haste and the same ill-considered legislation. We are asked to pass taxation proposals that we are not competent to deal with adequately because the persons whom the Minister proposes to tax are not defined. We know the rates only and we feel that it is quite unsatisfactory to debate adequately this stage of Ways and Means without the relevant Bill, and I would make a special plea to the hon. the Minister to let us have the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity, not only so that we ourselves can discuss it, but that persons outside who are interested may discuss it.

I know that the hon. the Minister will say that he cannot deal with the Bill until this Ways and Means proposal has been dealt with. In answer to that, I say that in that case the hon. Minister should have had this stage brought on much earlier and he should have had the Bill earlier, because it is quite unreasonable to expect the country to consider an involved and lengthy amending Bill, particularly as the hon. the Minister has indicated that there is going to be no consolidating Bill this Session. It is quite unreasonable to expect us to discuss major tax proposals when all the information is not before us. For those reasons we do not propose to take very long on this stage because the hon. the Minister has not given us adequate information.

The hon. member has told the House that he cannot debate these proposals because he has not got the Bill before him. I want to remind him—he probably has forgotten it—that I cannot hand in the Bill until the proposals have been adopted. I gave no undertaking as to when I will have the Bill available, but last year I said that I would do my best to have the Bill available as soon as possible, and I went out of my way to show to hon. members on the opposite side who were interested in this matter, the draft of the Bill as soon as it came into my possession; I asked them to treat it as confidential—except of course that they could discuss it with people who have to advise them on it—but that they would otherwise treat it as confidential because it was not yet the final draft of the Bill. It was merely a draft of a draft. When certain changes were made, hon. members opposite to whom I had shown the Bill came here in the House and said “Well, the Minister has changed his mind”. I do not think that is playing cricket, because I warned them that that was not in the final form yet. I have not got the Bill yet. It is not such an easy matter as hon. members seem to think, but I am prepared to meet them again as far as I can possibly go. I have told them that in private, and I am sorry that they ask me to repeat it here, but I am prepared to meet them as far as I can possibly go with due regard to parliamentary procedure. In other words, I am prepared to do as I did last year: As soon as I get the Bill, I will let the hon. gentlemen have insight into it on the distinct understanding that that is not necessarily the Bill that will be introduced, that it is merely a draft that is put up to me and which I am allowing them to see before I have finally scrutinized and finalized that Bill. That I am prepared to do again. As far as the other point of the hon. member is concerned: The proposal for the non-residents’ tax states definitely that it concerns companies not registered nor carrying on business in the Union in respect of dividends declared by private companies which are exempt from undistributed profits tax. That is what the reference means. The full details of the Bill can be discussed by hon. members when the Bill is brought before Parliament and I can only say at this stage what I have said in my introductory words that the main purpose of the Bill is to give due form to the Budget proposals which I explained and which were adopted by the House. Those Budget taxation proposals are now before us in a more specific form in the Committee of Ways and Means. This is merely to give effect to the proposals which I outlined in my Budget speech.

There are certain other amendments to the Income-Tax Act which will be put before the House in due course and which I am prepared to show hon. members as soon as I have a copy of it, even before it is translated. I hope hon. members will realize that I am going as far as I possibly can. I don’t know whether I am not going too far.

I think I made it perfectly clear to the hon. the Minister that we realize that he cannot see the final Bill until this stage has been disposed of. We appreciate that position. We are in this difficulty that the hon. Minister spoke in the Budget debate in the middle of March. We are now getting on towards the end of May and we are taking Ways and Means at this stage …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the proposal before the Committee.

As far as this Ways and Means stage is concerned, it is quite impossible to debate these proposals adequately, and the hon. the Minister’s reply is not adequate, and I hoped that he would implement the promise he made last year and that was that Ways and Means would be taken earlier and that the Bill would be introduced earlier.

I think I will be in order in raising the point I wish to raise now with the hon. the Minister. It arises out of points I raised with him when the Treasury Votes were under discussion, because we are dealing now with the question of the Ways and Means proposals that will eventually be incorporated in the income-tax measure that will come before the House, and the Schedules that we have before us here in respect of the income tax of private persons, Schedules I and II, arise out of the proposals put before us announced by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech. The point that I want to take up with the hon. the Minister is that I want to ask him whether he cannot go further than this. Here we have the two Schedules before us for both the taxable income of married persons and persons not married. The hon. the Minister promised to give consideration to the question as to whether the amount of income tax payable by a married man with children should not also be placed on this variable scale as we have it here in these two Schedules. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has been able to take the matter any further, and whether such proposals as he may have will be included in the Income-Tax Bill when it comes before us in due course. I think the matter is quite in order when discussed here, because we are dealing with the hon. Minister’s proposal in respect of income tax in respect of private persons. If that is so and the Minister takes it out, then we will have the position before us in future years where in the Schedules that we have before us now they will be listed as persons with one, two, three, four or more children. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us whether he has been able to take the matter any further, so that the allowances will be on a sliding scale.

In reply to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), I want to say that we are adopting the same procedure as last year. The only difference is in the amount of the concession. It is now 10 per cent instead of five per cent.

Motion put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the proposed licence duty.

I move—

This motion merely makes provision for an exceptional position which applies to certain clubs. Considerable difficulty has been experienced and there have been quite a few divergent decisions as to whether a club, for example an ordinary sporting club, is a person which must obtain a licence under the general Licences Act for the sale of commodities. The courts have given two conflicting decisions on this point, and it is now proposed that the matter should be settled by definitely laying down that when a sporting club sells any of the commodities which fall under the general Licences Act, such a club must take out a licence for that particular purpose. But exemptions are also being granted. The legislation will provide in which cases exemptions will be granted. In general it means that any sporting club will be allowed to sell commodities such as smoking requisites, cool drinks,

cake, sandwiches, shaving brushes and shaving cream and these ordinary commodities to its members only. It will not require a licence for that purpose. But if it sells other commodities which fall outside the defined limits, it must take out the required licence under the item concerned of the schedule to the 1925 Act.

We are grateful for the information which the hon. the Minister has given, and I think that we can discuss the matter more fully when the necessary legislation is introduced.

Motion put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the proposals in regard to customs and excise duties.

I move—

That, subject to the provisions of Acts to be passed during the present Session of Parliament and subject to such rebates or remissions of duty as may be provided for therein—

1. (1) the Customs duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased as shown:

(2)the excise duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased as shown:

(3)in terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1955, and Section 9 of the Excise Act, 1956, motor cars and motor vehicles as specified in tariff item 129 of the Customs Tariff and motor cars as defined in Section 1 of the said Excise Act, which, at the time of this Notice is given, are still in the possession or under the control of or in transit to or have not been delivered from the stocks of importers or manufacturers or assemblers or distributors or dealers in wholesale or retail quantities (including co-operative societies), as well as subsequent additions to such stocks, be liable to the increased customs and excise duties specified in this Notice in respect of such articles.

(4)the customs duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased as shown:

I think it is probably necessary to make a very short statement in regard to the proposals here. They are of a rather mixed nature. The notices of taxation proposals which were tabled on 15 March, contain proposals designed to curb spending on non-essential imported goods and to divert demand to locally manufactured articles, without raising duties to a level where the cost of living would be appreciably affected. It is no longer as simple as it used to be to use the customs tariff for the purpose of curtailing imports. In the first place international agreements restrict the use of tariffs for that purpose, and secondly, the present tariff with its large groups of unspecified articles makes it almost impossible to use the tariff to any effective degree without affecting raw materials. In so far as the raw materials affected by the taxation proposals are concerned. I wish to state that the position is being investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries with a view to providing either rebates or reductions of duty. Such rebates or reductions to the extent of the increase will be given retrospective effect and duties already paid will be refunded. I also want to assure hon. members that while it was not the intention to increase the duty on raw materials, it is unavoidable when the general items covering groups of unspecified good are involved.

The second notice of taxation proposals which was published some time in May, I think, contains proposals which are designed generally to simplify the tariff, to prevent evasion of protective duties, and in most cases to curtail imports at the same time. Hon. members will appreciate that an unnecessary complicated tariff is expensive to administer. Moreover the tariff is being redrafted in the internationally accepted form, known as “the Brussels nomenclature”, and it would be very unwise to perpetuate anomalies which exist in the present tariff. Most of the items included in the second notice of taxation proposals, and some in the first notice, are intended to adjust such anomalies and loopholes. These adjustments will not only benefit the department in administering the tariff, but also importers and clearing agents who will be able to find the clearance of the goods concerned facilitated by the acceptance of the proposals I am now putting forward.

As the hon. the Minister pointed out again, the intention of these increases in custom duties is to curtail the importation of non-essential articles, but I think the hon. the Minister has now more or less admitted that he adopted rather an unfortunate procedure, and in particular he increased the duties on “catch-all” items. I just would like to refer to Item 73 (1) (b) which is a sort of “other item” relating to milinery, drapery, haberdashery, and textile articles, not specified in that specific item, and they then fall under item (b), and also Item 113, where he also has increased the duty on hardware items “not elsewhere enumerated”, and then of course in Section 335, which is a sort of catch-all item, where anything not caught under other items, is caught. There the Minister did exempt a specified number of articles, but then increased the duty from 10 to 20 per cent on all other articles. Again he stated that his intention was to limit the imports of nonessentials. But in adopting this rather shotgun technique instead of using a bisley rifle and shoot what he wants to shoot at, I am afraid he has hit a whole lot of raw materials of industries. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of that, to judge by his statement. He has hit raw materials of the footwear industry, the electro-engineering industry, the rubber manufacturing industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the paint industries, to mention just a few. I am not quite clear whether the hon. the Minister intends exempting all those raw materials when the Board has investigated that matter. I rather got the impression that he said that it was unavoidable that some of these raw materials would have to carry the higher duties.

Then there is a refund or a rebate, either a reduction or a rebate, as far as they are used by manufacturers.

They will be ultimately refunded?

Yes.

So this “unavoidable” only refers to a temporary period when it is unavoidable, but ultimately there will be a refund?

Yes.

Well, with that safeguard we on this side of the House are satisfied. Is this going to be put in the Act?

Yes, at the moment it is being discussed with the Board of Trade and Industries. That is the idea, as I explained.

Motion put and agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED:

Resolutions reported on income tax, licence duty and customs and excise duties.

Report considered and the resolutions adopted.

I just want to announce that the Bill will be introduced at a future date.

When the House adjourned last night, I was discussing with the hon. the Minister the question of people who escape service on medical grounds, and I would like to pursue the subject a little further, because I want the hon. the Minister to appreciate to some extent the professional attitude towards certification. I know that the certificate of the medical practitioner is regarded as of very high quality and strictly accurate. Nevertheless it does vary to some extent with the outlook of the particular practitioner and the object for which the certificate is given, and nowadays with the various industries and public departments, etc., demanding certificates whenever people are away, there is a tendency to give certificates perhaps a little more slackly than they were formerly given. For instance if a man rolls up on Monday with a certificate from his doctor that he has got a headache, there is no doubt that the doctor considers that he has got a headache, and it is not necessary for the doctor to add that the headache is due to a binge that the man had on Saturday night. Various things like that happen, and therefore the hon. the Minister in dealing with certificates of unfitness for military service should realize that a great deal of pressure is brought to bear on the family doctor and then gives a certificate which strictly truthful no doubt, but which is meant indeed, in the opinion of that doctor, to find a reason which will satisfy the parents that this person should escape military service. Now I think it would be wrong, and I think it is wrong now, of the hon. the Minister to give instructions that such a certificate should be blindly followed. I think such a certificate should be regarded merely as an indication from the family doctor on which a board should decide. The board should be guided and they should decide whether or not the particular cause or reason is adequate. There should be no blind acceptance of such certificates, and I think it would be wise on the part of the hon. the Minister to create boards containing at least one senior practitioner, and the practitioner should be varied according to the type of illness specified in the doctor’s certificate. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of escape from service on medical grounds, and I do not believe that the figure which I understand is about 12½ per cent which are declared as unfit is the true reflection of the physical well-being of the young men of this country. It is a constant source of discontent to people.

Now I want to move to another subject, and that is the question of university students. I think university students should receive special consideration. The country cannot afford to allow its brains to be wasted and dissipated in what is known as square-bashing and squad drill. On the other hand I think people who receive from the country more than others, and it cannot be denied that people who enjoy university education are given special privileges and receive extra money spent on them by the State, that such people owe to the State more service than does the average man. I think it would be advisable, if at all possible, that the Minister should make it a rule, and he should, if necessary, try to obtain power from Parliament, that all students at universities who are physically fit for service should be called up for service, the service to the State which they can render. Now I would divide those people into two groups, the humanities and the scientists. Dealing first with the humanities, I would say that these are the men from whom the Minister must expect to obtain his officers. These are the men who presumably are the future leaders of the country, and special arrangements should be made by which those students of the universities receive instruction and they should be all, without exception, made to serve. As regards the science students, science, medicine and dentistry, engineering, these men should be regarded as future officers in the particular groups, the particular sciences in which they are studying. Because there is room for engineers, scientists, technologists, doctors and dentists, and there is no reason why at the end of their university courses they should not serve and why in the future as reservists they should not be called upon.

I think it is incumbent upon the Government to take steps to see that these universities are regarded as the nurseries of the future leaders of the country. They should be put on an entirely separate basis and the subject should be very carefully studied. I would like to give a word of advice in regard to the Officers Training Corps in relation to this matter. That advice is not to think that because a man is a professor in a university, he is necessarily a good officer. I remember that professors were, with the old Officers Training Corps of the past, used as officers and that I think led to a great deal of inefficiency. If these young men are put into service for training, then professional officers should be used to train them.

Lastly, I want to take up another subject, one which should be given a great deal of thought. That is that in my view doctors and nurses should not be given ranks. The sight of a matron walking around with a crown and a star on her shoulder, is a ludicrous one. It is, moreover, a handicap to a doctor attending to sick men when he occupies the position of an officer with executive authority. It is much better that the doctors and the nurses should use a different uniform so that they are recognizable for what they are. They should, at any rate, not be designated as officers. It is not necessary for medical men in hospitals, in particular, to have any discipline from the Army. It is true that it may be necessary at odd times but hospitals are run with discipline. Civilian hospitals are run with discipline and the nursing code of discipline is one of the strictest codes in the world, and there is no need to reinforce that discipline by giving rank. That is a serious handicap to a doctor in his work. I myself have served in two wars as an officer and I have found that it was a great handicap to be an officer. If it should be necessary for the carrying on of hospitals that there should be rank, then let there be a few administrative officers. There is, in any event, always a quartermaster who is an officer and there is the medical superintendent. Doctors looking after the sick and wounded should, however, not have rank. It is a handicap to them, and I hope therefore that the hon. Minister will give serious consideration to this matter. I want to pass on with this matter and point out to the hon. Minister that this will be of great value to him in regard to the Cape Corps which, according to a statement last night, he has agreed to reconstitute. It will be of great advantage if he could employ Coloured doctors with that Coloured Corps. There are plenty of Coloureds doctors. Also, if he decides to create an Indian Corps, he will find that it will be advantageous to employ Indian doctors. Otherwise it will be a handicap to him, because if he is going to give doctors rank, he must give Coloured doctors a certain standing. He may find himself in difficulties with Coloured and Indian officers, for instance, and my idea may also be of advantage to him in such an event. I hope I have made myself clear because this is a point to which I have given a great deal of thought and I am satisfied that it is in the interest of the serving soldier.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with some of the remarks which were made by the hon. member who just sat down, the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). On the question of medical examination, I think it is of importance that such medical examinations should be sound because, as a preliminary to military training, medical examinations are of considerable importance, particularly in regard to classification, that is the categorization of men entering the service—in other words, whether they should be in the A, or B, or C category. This is a very important point and should be given due consideration by the hon. Minister because in so far as the striking force is concerned—I am referring now to the armed section—it is essential that the men going into the front line should be 100 per cent fit because if not, they are subject to breakdowns due to physical hardships and mental strain. A sequel is this, that, in such an event, pensions would have to be paid for war-time disabilities in the post-war period. I emphasize this point also for another reason. The medical examination is generally a cursory examination done only through the medium of the stethoscope and auscultation (tapping of the chest) and it is extremely difficult for any medical man to detect any underlying desease or any incipient disease by those methods, with the result that when the subject of examination goes into action, he is subject to a very early break down. On the question of medical boards, therefore, I agree with my colleague that medical boards should operate in the examination of recruits for the services.

He has also taken up a second point, namely the elimination of rank for nurses. It is an old axiom that doctors often differ and so I differ from him in that I certainly do not advocate this. It might be that his suggestion will bring repercussions from the nursing profession itself. From my own knowledge, I can say that nurses do like military rank. From a military point of view nurses have to impose a measure of discipline in the wards. I am, however, not prepared to enter into the pros and cons of the matter because, as I have said, my hon. friend has more moral courage in regard to such a proposal than I have.

Then I had better stay away from it as well.

I disagree with the doing away of rank in so far as medical officers are concerned, because in the administration of a hospital discipline is of equal importance as it is in a regiment. Medical officers having ranks does facilitate discipline within a hospital. I have had experience of that fact, Mr. Speaker, and I know of the difficulties in the way of securing a firm discipline within a hospital. Now, in regard to medical boards, I feel that they have a very important preliminary function which can be associated with training. In regard to classification, it is important that the A category recruits go into the ranks of the combatant forces. They will, in other words, be the striking force, namely the front line troops. In connection with the classification of the other categories, comes the question of where, in what particular branch of military service, will their particular abilities be best utilized; that is where they can make the greatest possible contribution. There are two sections to this Bill, Mr. Speaker: the preliminary clauses deal with training; the latter clauses with the exemption boards. In view of this fact, it is of paramount importance that there is the closest co-operation between the manpower board on the one hand, and the exemption board on the other hand. We are living in a world of tension which may explode at any moment. It should be the function of the manpower board, under these circumstances to allocate people to the various spheres of wartime activity. We are likely to be faced with a total war and total war implies total effort. Men must therefore be detailed into the services—the striking forces, the auxiliary and specialist branches, keymen, etc. We cannot afford to wait with this. There is, after all, no longer a formal declaration of war, but it can hit us suddenly—within a few hours—and if there exists no blueprint prepared by the manpower board in conjunction with the exemption board for detailing the available men to the specific activities relating to war, we are going to have chaos, and chaos brings within its train a degree of panic. It is for this reason that I say that a survey at this stage of the manpower we have available in this country, is of utmost importance, in order that men and women may be earmarked for the various wartime activities. That is, I repeat, of paramount importance, and should be done without delay. We cannot afford to delay this matter and I would, therefore, ask the hon. Minister to consider seriously the proposal I have just made.

In regard to our limited manpower resources, I would like to say that there are specialist duties for which women are peculiarly suited. Nursing of course is an obvious occupation, but over and above that, there is the question of clerical work in those branches of the services which are supplementary to the armed forces. Morale is a very important factor in defence and although military proficiency is a requirement of training, the ultimate objective should be the production of morale. When I refer to the specialist branches, I have in mind one department where women would display a marked aptitude for the work because they are meticulous in their approach to anything that they are asked to do. That department is the pay section. This may seem a very simple matter, but it has a distinct relation to the morale of the troops in the front line. That was the experience during the last war where due to inexperience in the building up of a pay section, families on the home front had to wait weeks and weeks, and sometimes months before receiving their pay cheques, and the morale of the front line soldier was affected. What is the soldier’s reaction under such circumstances? Inevitably it is one of worry and anxiety on the account of his family’s plight. These are important factors. Morale is the important factor in the building up of a sound army. I would like to refer to morale as related to the individual soldier and to the regiments. The build up of morale is connected with tradition, and tradition builds an esprit de corps, and an esprit de corps brings with it morale. On this basis, I would suggest that the Government should restrict any governmental interference with the existing traditions of regiments—Afrikaans- and English-speaking regiments. There is no doubt —and I say so without hesitation—that there has been, particularly with our A.C.F., a deterioration in the morale of our defence forces, but I am satisfied that through the policy of this hon. Minister and administered by his general staff, that dying morale is now being resuscitated.

That is kind of you to say that.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) put forward a proposition which was misunderstood by the hon. Minister, namely the utilization of young men—not delinquents—and others in specialized units. I have here in mind the Special Service Battalion which was created in the 1930s in the period of the depression. That battalion served a wonderful function. It produced fitness and, what is more, also discipline, so much so that when employers looked over those who came to them for work, they could pick out an S.S.B. man by virtue of his general demeanour, by his upright attitude. It would, therefore, be a good idea, particularly as the military gymnasia—both military and naval—will be filled to the point of overflowing, to consider the question of re-creating the S.S.B. which functioned so efficiently in the period of its existence. Now, on the score of manpower, I have already referred to the uses to which women could be put. When war hits us, there is the necessity for detection of invasion from the air or invasion from the sea. The use of the technique of radar is, therefore, of extreme importance for detection in the air and under water. Here women can play their part. I explained earlier, that when we are hit by a total war, it implies total effort—every citizen would be involved. In order to release all the available personnel, therefore, due consideration should be given also to males and females who are physically handicapped but who are still mentally alert, to be used on clerical work at the bases. I emphasize once again that when war hits us, it will be total war, and our mobilization, therefore, should also be total and every citizen of the country should be mobilized for some form of service.

I want now to deal with four aspects of organization and training, namely the training of auxiliary services associated with conventional warfare, training in nuclear weapons, training in chemical warfare, and finally, biological warfare. Let me deal, first of all, with conventional warfare and the use of conventional weapons. The traditional organizational set-up as far as the medical services are concerned, is as it still more or less exists, the R.M.O., the regimental medical officer and his first-aid post; further back the casualty clearing station; still further back the base hospital. Now I want to ask whether, in our defence organization, has due consideration been given to the personnel required, the siting of hospitals, the stockpiling of the necessary equipment, etc.? It must be appreciated that in a war the Cape route, which is of strategic importance, may be blocked and our supplies cut off. Quite apart from the stockpiling of stores, has the Minister also taken into consideration, or has he had discussions with the pharmacy board to ensure that the production of pharmaceutical supplies—medical and surgical—will be adequate to meet the needs of the country in such an event? In regard to hospitalization, I would like the hon. Minister to appreciate this, that in view of scientific advance and the use of nuclear weapons with their devastating effect, that casualties on the home front are likely to be infinitely greater than in any previous war, even greater perhaps than the casualties inflicted on frontline troops. In view of this has he earmarked existing hospital facilities and the improvisation of such facilities in time of war by the use of existing buildings and tentage, especially marquees. These are important needs and it is possible that due consideration has not yet been given to them. What are the number of field ambulances that will be available? Or, if it is difficult to give the number, can he tell us whether he is satisfied that the number is adequate along with the casualty clearing stations? What is of importance is that investigation should already have been made and that a blueprint has been drawn up for the utilization of improvised hospitals and that the question of siting thereof has been mapped out. There is not the slightest element of doubt that he must eliminate from that blueprint the civil hospitals because even in peace time there are not enough hospitals for the needs of the people.

Let me come now to the question of nuclear missiles. What is the position here? The tendency amongst numerous people is to adopt a defeatist attitude, a fatalistic approach and to say that with modern nuclear weapons, with their devastating effect, everything is hopeless. I say that it is the obligation of defence authorities that, where it is possible to preserve life, then that life must be preserved. What does that mean? I am disturbed if the degree of isolation of our country has separated us from that necessary co-operation in order to keep pace with scientific advancement. Is there liaison between ourselves and the Western powers in this respect? Are we kept informed of the advances in protective measures against nuclear explosions? There are two aspects of nuclear exposure, namely the blast effect and the other, the burn effect, which follow. Has the Minister sent overseas scientists to ascertain what knowledge there is of the use of nuclear weapons, and whether there are protective measures available against the effects of the use of such weapons? In his organization set-up units should be set aside, scientific units, for an investigation of these questions so that protective training may be undertaken. I know that there have been discussions with Britain, the United States and with Russia with the object of avoiding nuclear weapons being used. There has as yet been no agreement on this matter but due to the terrible effect of these weapons, it is essential that one should plan accordingly. In the 1914-8 war chemical warfare was resorted to and the older members in this House will remember the use of mustard gas and that gasmasks were supplied, as well as protective clothing. But there have been advances in this field, with the Russians leading, and there is no assurance that the Russians will not use chemical and biological warfare weapons (referred to, in abbreviation, as C.B.W.). Only recently I read an article in one of the local newspapers which I would like to read as it gives a clear indication of the devilish effects of chemical warfare and it emphasizes that the defence authorities have an obligation to ascertain through its intelligence services what the latest advances are in the field of protective measures. These extracts will, I think, be interesting to hon. members in this House. I am only going to read a few of those extracts—

That is one single gas, and this indicates its devilish and devastating effects. How much more must they have? I am rather concerned, in our isolation to-day, seeing that we are out of the Commonwealth, whether there still exists liaison and co-operation with the Western Powers, so that we can be fully informed on any matters of this kind, because surely their secret services, their intelligence, will know more or less what products are being produced in Russia.

The last point is the question of the existence of biological weapons in war. This is an insidious method and it is conceivable that our enemies may be advanced in this connection. I do not know whether that is so, but I feel it my duty and my moral responsibility to draw the attention of the Minister of Defence to the possibility of germ warfare so that his intelligence services and his scientists can secure information and help to protect the forces and the population in the event of any such attack.

Now let me say this in conclusion. It is imperative and it is the responsibility of every citizen in this country, whether male or female, to fulfil his or her obligations to the state. In the event of total war our survival is wrapped up in it, and in view of this it is imperative that this country, through its defence organization, through its personnel, its training, its morale and the allocation of people to special services who can contribute, by virtue of their specialized training, to those services, to come forward. Without their help and without the Minister’s planning, namely to put us—I hope that is his intention—on a footing where if an emergency arises and there is little or no warning, no formal declaration of war, this country will be prepared immediately to take action for its own protection.

I think it would be fair to comment, in closing the debate for this side of the House, that this has probably been one of the most objective debates on defence matters that we have had in this House in the past decade. There have been lapses, one or two, but I do not intend to make such a lapse. I wish to discuss one of two matters objectively with the Minister, but before I do that may I be permitted to make this comment. There seems to have been considerable emphasis placed, perhaps because of the present situation of the country, on this Bill being introduced from the point of view of internal disorder. The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) devoted practically his whole speech to that aspect. But I do not think we should approach it in that way at all We are dealing with a Bill concerned with the training of the manpower of South Africa for the defence of South Africa, and when it comes to using men and the Minister makes a call on any man serving in the Defence Force, there is no question of for what purpose he is calling upon these men. They are there to defend the country, right or wrong, as a soldier.

That is the right attitude.

Therefore I do not think that these side issues are important. May I also say that it is encouraging to have noted in the course of the debate how the thoughts and the propositions that have been stated over the years have become accepted not only by the Minister but by other hon. members on the Government benches. For instance, it was most encouraging to me to find a member like the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) pleading with all his power for the training of officers in the commandos, which was a proposition actually moved by way of amendment which was fought tooth and nail in this House some three years ago.

That has always been my view.

At that time the hon. member voted against it, but now it is encouraging to hear him support it. It is also encouraging to hear the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), who always makes a very objective approach, quoting the words and content of speeches made from this side of the House. To give an example, the hon. member in giving arguments in favour of this Bill, quoted the percentages of the budgets that other members of the Commonwealth and other Western countries spend on defence. It is interesting to note that what the hon. member quoted was actually extracts from a speech—I will not say whose speech—made on this side of the House on a previous occasion, when we urged the Government to take larger steps in respect of this very matter, when we all agreed that there should be longer periods of continuous training for our A.C.F.

But before discussing one or two specific issues with the Minister, may I be permitted to make these points. It is quite clear that the changes proposed in this Bill in the training of our manpower, according to the reasons given by the Minister in his introductory speech, must have been based on a military appreciation prepared by his Department, and that is borne out by the fact that the Minister now introduces this Bill after having amended the Defence Act once before during this Session. Therefore this Bill seems to try to put into effect that military appreciation given to the Minister. Let me say right away that I appreciate that the Minister cannot give us all the details of that military appreciation, for obvious reasons, nor would I ask for them, but the fact remains that where fundamental changes are being made in the training of our manpower, as is done in this Bill, particularly in respect of the call-up provisions, the defence policy of the Government and of the Minister which they had in the past has been discarded in favour of a new policy based on that military appreciation, and that seems to be evidenced by the speech of the Minister in introducing the Bill.

The Minister spoke about the dangers of a cold war and the threat of possible aggression, and said that we must be prepared to meet without any delay any possible attacks on our country either from the inside or from without, and he quoted General Brink in this regard. Now let me say this to the Minister, that the cold war of which he spoke has had the same tempo over the past few years. There were periods in 1953 and 1954 when the cold war almost became a hot war, but we do not see any evidence of a hot war this year, although the cold war has been carried on for the past nine years. I can quote many statements—Hansard is dotted with them—made by the Minister’s predecessor in regard to our state of preparedness, that we have never been more prepared to face aggression and to look after ourselves. It is encouraging to me to note that the Minister has not taken that line, but that he has become a realist in regard to these matters. One fact must arise out of this appreciation. It must have been considered by the Government and its military advisers that intermittent spells of training for our A.C.F. were then considered sufficient to meet the requirements in respect of the training of our armed forces and to meet our obligations in respect of past policy. But what we do expect to hear from the Minister is the broad basis of the policy on which these changes he is now introducing are based—not the facts of the appreciation, but the broad changes of policy. You see, Sir, we have heard often enough in the past of squadrons of aircraft, of terrific armoured divisions being immediately available for service beyond our borders, and the formation of defence pacts south of the Sahara, of 44 fighting units being immediately available and 12 armoured units and 60,000 trained men, etc., etc., all for service beyond the borders of the Union. It therefore seems quite clear to me that events in Africa, with the emergent states, have brought about changes in defensive strategy on the part of the Western Powers in Africa. Even our departure from the Commonwealth must have had an effect on defence policy. Therefore I think it is fair to say that the fact that we have this Bill before us evidences one clear fact from that military appreciation that the Minister says he has had, namely, that we now stand alone on the Continent of Africa with increasing enmity on the part of other African states, and increasing unrest amongst our own non-White population due to Government policies. I do not want to take that further at this stage, but that military appreciation must have been based on certain changes of policy in Africa and in our own country and on the part of the Western Powers in Africa, which means that these changes and the discarding of past policy… [Interjections.] It is clear that it must be based, that military appreciation must have been based on these facts. Therefore it means that the Minister has had to change his policy, which, in turn, means that we have to keep a larger force of men under arms for longer periods of continuous training, thereby discarding the policy of intermittent periods of training for our A.C.F., while other forces acted as a buffer for the protection of South Africa in an emergency. Now we have to meet the emergency ourselves. Therefore, let me say that I found that possibly the only discordant note introduced by the Minister in his speech was that he created the impression that there was an African army being established and that it is possible that we may have to meet the threat of an army in Africa as the result of the enmity of the other states in Africa. I do not want to take this matter any further. I have stated what I feel about it generally.

Now I want to discuss the matter from this angle. There has been much talk during the course of this debate of the obligation of every citizen to render national service. The view has been expressed in the debate that every young man must become liable immediately for national service and to render duty to the State, and that this Bill now embodies this new principle. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) had a great deal to say about that. But let me remind the House that the question of national service was agreed to by this House in 1952, with the introduction of the ballot system, because then we threw overboard the volunteer principle in order to staff our military forces, and accepted the principle of national service where all men were equal in their obligations to the State, but whether or not they served was entirely dependent on the ballot. But the principle of national service for all men was accepted then. Let me tell the Minister a little history. It is when those proposals were agreed to after consideration and discussion by this side of the House and hon. members opposite it was mooted, when the Bill was sent to the Select Committee, that there should be longer periods of continuous training. Let me remind the House that it was in 1952, with the introduction of the ballot system, that we first introduced the system of three months’ continuous training, and then the question was raised whether that was adequate. Through the years we have persisted, and I personally persisted, in the thought that this period was too short in conditions of a cold war, and that it was unreal to train an effective force in this short period of continuous training, and I, myself, on many occasions, advocated a period of nine months’ training. Let me also remind the Minister that when the Act was reviewed in 1957 it was actually discussed in the Select Committee whether or not the period should be made nine months. We were prepared to accept it, but the Government was not. I mention this because I do not think the idea should be spread abroad that this is a new thing. I hope the Minister does not mind my referring to this, because I get some satisfaction out of supporting this Bill to-day. Only a few days ago, when we discussed the other amending Bill, I said that I hope the Minister would go one step further, and I asked whether the time had not arrived when we should have to consider the whole question of staggered periods of training, because, if the Minister wants well-trained men, we should have to adopt the principle followed in most Commonwealth countries, and even by the small countries like New Zealand, where a man is trained for a particular period until he finishes his military training in one smack. For years we have advocated that, and that is why this Bill should be looked at realistically and not be regarded as something new. It is only extending the period of training from three months, from being a mere rookie, by another six months, to make him a soldier. That is the essential point in this Bill. Therefore I do not think it is such a far-reaching step and such a very new thing. The thought has long been propagated. The idea of national service was agreed to eight years ago, but it is obviously an impracticable proposition to think that any country can call up all its young men at the same time and put them into the army. In every other Western country, where there is national service, it is done by the system of balloting for what the State needs and what it can afford to train. Let us remember that the strength of our citizen forces have always been determined on the basis of what money the Government was prepared to spend on the training of the men. That was the only limitation ever placed on the numbers of men to be trained. The question I want to ask is this: If this is merely a six months’ extension of the present period of three months’ training—as the Minister pointed out, after three months the man is still a rookie and has only received the rudiments of military training and discipline. The Minister has said that in the second period of three months he will be given unit training. I have never been more glad of anything in my life than at that statement, because one of our great fights on this side of the House when the ballot system was introduced was that the essence of training was that the man should be made proud of his unit, so that he feels that he belongs to it. It is most encouraging to hear that, in his second three months, he will receive unit training, but what about the other three months? The Minister says he will be given specialized training. What system will the Minister adopt? Where a man gets specialized training, will it be lost to the unit? Will he be sent on a specialized course, and then, when he comes to his further period of continuous training, will he be lost to the unit, or will he be posted, having been trained as a specialist, to an A.C.F. unit which has as its function that specialized work? If you have a radar unit, and he is trained as a radar specialist, will he serve the rest of his time as a radar specialist in that radar unit? I would like the Minister to make that clear to us.

Then there is another fact. If you are going to establish a citizen force of 10,000 men or more and you do that on the basis of a quarterly intake so that you have a stabilized number of 10,000, who will officer it? How will the officers be found for this force? It is a very important question because the Minister will know that you cannot turn a rookie into an officer in a few months, and officers do not stop at the first rank; they go on to the higher ranks.

There will be any number of officers in the beginning.

Yes, but the beginning does not make an army. An army is made by its officers and by its staff corps and the staff corps work cannot only be done by the Permanent Force; it has many other functions to fulfil. What I want to know is how will it be achieved that you have a stabilized corps of officers for the A.C.F.? I raise the question from this point of view. It has always in the past been achieved in the A.C.F. units by the volunteer, the man who came forward and was prepared to make a career in the Army, even on a part-time basis, but he attached himself to a unit and stayed there for many years, and received promotion and perhaps eventually commanded the unit. What I want to ask the Minister is this: Why did he not go further in this Bill? Why did he stop where he did? Because the Minister will recall that there stands in the original Act the powers that he has to fix the number of volunteers which will be accepted every year. There have been various limits placed on the numbers in present years. I do not want to quote the figures now. When that provision was introduced in 1952, the one effect it had was that a man said: Why should I now volunteer; I will get caught in the ballot? When citizens outside heard that the numbers of those to be accepted as volunteers were limited they said: What is the use, they do not want me. The impression was created outside, rightly or wrongly, that the Government did not want volunteers. But now the position will be entirely different, and I shall explain why. The Minister needs men, if he wants to build up this effective citizen army, who will be prepared to stay on longer than four years. When once they have risen to commissioned rank he wants them to remain on for longer, because they will supply the tradition and the leadership, and the best men the Minister can have in that respect are the men who volunteer to do it. Let me point out to the Minister that there become available every year 26,000 to 27,000 men for balloting, in January.

It is 30,000 at present.

What is the Minister taking out of that 30,000. If there are 12½ per cent of lame and sick, and another 15 per cent are granted deferment or exemptions, you will still ballot 26,000 men, and of those the Minister will take 10,000 and the others escape. There are men amongst those escapees who may wish to serve. Many of them want to volunteer, so why have this restriction in the Act, and why not remove it? There is no compulsion on the Minister, if it is removed, to accept all the men who volunteer, but let us create the impression outside that if men want to volunteer they will be accepted. But that is not the impression created outside at present. I know of cases of men who were not drawn in the ballot but who were anxious to serve and they were debarred from doing so because the numbers were limited by the Minister and the quotas had been filled already.

The quotas have never been filled for the last few years.

Why not? For the simple reason that the volunteers went to the gymnasiums, but that will not be the position now. The Minister gave figures the other day to show that more volunteers come forward than the gymnasiums can take. Why? It is because the gymnasium is being looked upon as a means of getting out of military training. The man thinks that he will go to the gymnasium and put in his year and then he will have finished his training. But things will now be different because those who go to the gymnasium will be in the same position as those who are balloted.

But the volunteer will always be free to go there.

Then let the Minister stand up and say so in his reply, and I am prepared to move an instruction in the Committee Stage to delete those provisions of the Bill which restrict the number of volunteers.

We are discussing the gymnasiums now.

I was saying that the gymnasium got its men out of the volunteers, many more than they could take, and if that is the case with the gymnasiums under this system where there is now no distinction between the nine months’ continuous service and the periods spent in the gymnasium, you will get a much higher percentage of volunteers. It is an old military axiom that the volunteer makes a better soldier than the conscript, and I hope the Minister will bear that aspect in mind.

But I also want to deal with certain implications of this continuous period of nine months’ training and its impact upon the ballot itself. In terms of Section 63 of the existing Act which Clause 6 of this Bill seeks to exempt, every citizen is required to register in January of the year in which he turns 17. Under the existing Act he cannot be called up until he is in his eighteenth year. The Minister says that he wants to call up men a year earlier; he wants to call them up in their seventeenth year. I want to make this submission to the Minister that he is not in fact calling up men now in their seventeenth year but in in their sixteenth year because under the proposed amendment, a man shall be balloted for in the year in which he registers. All the men who are going to turn 17 in 1962 have to register in January. That is so, is it not? Only one-twelfth of those men can be 17 because they do not all turn 17 in January. They may turn 17 on 30 and 31 December next, and the Minister want to ballot for these men in terms of the provisions of the Bill as it now stands. I think this is an over-sight. I think this amendment has been badly drafted. I have checked this with the law advisers. In actual fact the Minister will be balloting for people who are 16 years of age. What percentage of our 16-year-old youths who register are out of school yet? A very small percentage. The effect of leaving this provision as it is, is that the youth who is going to be balloted for in the year in which he registers, is going to get his call-up notice when he is still at school. He will then obviously have to apply for a deferment, and the effect of the provision as it now stands is that the Minister is going to have thousands upon thousands of applications for deferment on the ground that the boy is still at school and that application cannot be refused. After all, it is not the Government’s intention to take boys out of school to do military training. There is another important aspect of this. It is clear that this measure cannot be applied this year; the Minister has said so. The earliest that this measure can be applied, if it is promulgated after the Session, is January next year. The first registration under this measure will take place in January next year, and in terms of the Act as it now stands the provisional ballot lists will be posted up at 31 March next year. The list upon which the ballot will actually take place will be as at 31 May next year. I want to ask the Minister this—and this is a very important question upon which a great many families in South Africa would like to have a clear-cut answer from the Minister when he replies to this debate: When is it proposed that this new intake for the nine months’ training should take effect? There are many families who look ahead in planning the careers of their sons. If young boys are now to be taken into the Army for a period of nine months and this does not apply to the existing intake and the ballots which have already taken place under the present Act but will apply from 1962, then I want to put this direct question to the Minister: Is the first call-up under this Act going to take place in January 1963? If it goes through as it is, then next year you are going to have boys of 16 years of age in the majority of cases called up for a period of nine months’ training, and if the Minister consults the parliamentary law adviser he will find that that is a fact. I will therefore move an amendment in the Committee Stage to provide that young men should be balloted for in their 17th year. I think that would be better wording and it would be more equitable. We have no objection that young men should be balloted for in their 17th year but we have every objection to young boys being balloted for in their 16th year and called to serve their time in the Army. But quite apart from that fact, Sir, you will get thousands upon thousands of applications for deferment of the ballot under the present system and I do not think that the Minister would want that, because the only effect of it would be that your future ballot lists would have thousands upon thousands of accumulated names.

Then there is another thing on which I think the Minister should give us a clear statement of policy. Over the past three or four years large numbers of deferments have been granted under the present Act—men whose names will have to come up for the ballot in forthcoming years. Is it intended to include the names of those men for this period of nine months’ continuous training? My view is that that would be unfair. If the Minister is not making present personnel who were called up this year liable to do nine months’ continuous training—the Minister has said that he is not going to make this apply to those men who have already been exempted—then I think it is only fair to say that those men who were drawn but granted a deferment in the past will not have their names carried forward. There are sufficient to draw from so why carry those names forward so that those men are prejudiced, while those who were drawn but not granted a deferment are in the privileged position of serving a shorter period. I hope that the Minister will give this matter consideration and make a statement of policy in that regard.

Then there is another matter that has been raised by one or two members on this side and that is the question of compensation to personnel who are now required to undergo nine months’ continuous training. Let me tell the hon. the Minister a little bit of history on this matter. When we agreed to the introduction of the ballot system in 1952 and the extension of the period to a period of three months’ continuous training, the question of pay and allowance to personnel who were not single men was discussed in this House. An agreement was reached between all parties that adequate measures would be taken to see that no citizen on account of this extended period of service, would be prejudiced in his standard of living or the standard of living of his dependants. Because it was found impracticable to include a provision in the existing Act to protect those particular personnel, the Minister’s predecessor undertook to make a public statement in this regard. I have here the original copy of the statement which the Minister’s predecessor was prepared to make at that time to give a public assurance that these men who received this longer period of training and who had dependants would not be prejudiced in any way. What I want to ask on behalf of this side of the House is whether the Minister will be prepared to offer similar assurances to these people who are now to be called up. This is a serious matter from this point of view that in terms of the existing Act a man can be granted deferment of military service up to the age of 25. His name can then go into the ballot box and his name can be drawn and he can be called upon at the age of 25 to undergo nine months’ continuous training. That is the law as it stands. I submit to the Minister that there will be many married men with dependants, holding responsible positions and enjoying a decent standard of living, who would be called upon to go into the Army without any question of compensation from their employers during this extended period of training and who would have to ask their families to make this sacrifice because the State requires their services for nine months. I submit to the Minister that that is quite wrong in principle, and I want to ask him on behalf of this side whether he will make a statement similar to that made by his predecessor to ensure that people will not suffer because the State requires them to do their duty and that their dependants will not be called upon to make any sacrifice or to suffer in any way. The statement made by the Minister’s predecessor read as follows—

Will the hon. the Minister give the same public undertaking, that he will ask his Department to go fully into this question to ensure that these men with heavy responsibilities and family commitments will be protected while the State requires them to do nine months’ continuous training? I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give the same public undertaking that was given by his predecessor.

Then I want to raise one other matter with the Minister. I refer to the question of the commandos. I do not want to deal with the whole of this question but we are called upon in this Bill to make an amendment to Section 35 of the Act which deals with compulsory service in a commando. The original Act provides that any man whose name is not drawn in a ballot will automatically become liable for service in a rifle commando. The Minister is now introducing an amendment which says that men drawn in a ballot but not allocated to any unit of the Active Citizen Force will still retain their obligation to serve in a commando. But, Sir, the commandos are not in the same position as the A.C.F., and it is a matter of distress to me personally that the hon. the Minister who has talked a great deal about the value of internal security and the important function that commandos can fulfil in that regard, makes this amendment but leaves the original provision as it stands. Because let me point out to the Minister that there is no compulsory service in the commandos that thousands upon thousands of our young men do not know the back from the front of a rifle because they are not called up to serve in the commandos. The Minister still follows the policy of his predecessor to allow large numbers of volunteers to make up the existing establishment of the existing commandos. There are men of 45, 50, 60 and 80 years of age sitting in commandos to-day, men who are quite useless as effective personnel for maintaing internal order in the event of any trouble.

Eighty?

Yes, I can produce their names. You still have five or ten per cent honorary membership of commandos; you still work on the principle that a commanding officer, a lieutenant of a commando is chosen at a braaivleis. It is a fantastic situation, because let me tell the Minister that the commandos to-day make up part of the forces of South Africa.

Why do you say they are chosen at a braaivleis?

They are. The system amounts to nothing more nor less than a lot of men sitting around chewing a chop and electing the man who is going to be their lieutenant and their commanding officer subject to the approval of the Minister. I want to associate myself most strongly with the plea made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) that men who are put at the head of a commando should be men with military training and a knowledge of military matters. I do not want to go over the debates of the past, but I want to put this to the Minister: It is quite clear in terms of Section 35 that there is no obligation whatsoever on anybody to do compulsory service in a commando The words are perfectly clear. The section says that he will only be liable to be enrolled and “shall, if so enrolled …”. What about all these thousands of other men? The Minister has talked about establishing unilingual commandos in the cities. We do not want that. We want South African commandos, where the language does not matter, where the men are mixed, where you do your training on a compulsory basis.

The present-day commandos are Afrikaans.

Has the Minister thought of the thousands of men in the cities who are prepared to do commando service and go into a week-end camp in the same way as their Afrikaans-speaking fellow citizens in the country? Why should the country-man have preference over the man in the city? If you want internal security, you want it in the cities more than in the country.

That is just the point that I made. I want to establish them for the cities too.

I want to ask the Minister why, if he is going to establish commandos in the cities, he does not have the same degree of compulsion for service in the commandos in respect of men whose names are not drawn in the ballot, in the same way that he is compelling men to do nine months’ training in the A.C.F. That would be fair and equitable. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down thought it fit to make reprehensible remarks about the commandos. I am convinced that he knows absolutely nothing about the commandos. What he has said is completely devoid of any truth. He said that there were people of 80 years of age in the commandos. I challenge him to give me the name of one person of 80 years of age so that we can check his statement. If he does not do so he must not take it amiss if we tell him that that statement of his is devoid of any truth. Mr. Speaker, it was amusing—I cannot say interesting—to listen how that hon. member tried to make this House believe that he advocated a measure such as this as long ago as 1952. He wants to take the credit for this Bill, but there is not one word of truth in that statement, because when the Defence Act was consolidated under the previous Minister he served on that Select Committee and I challenge him to prove that he suggested anything similar to the provisions contained in the Bill which is before us to-day.

I gave you the proof from Hansard a moment ago.

He realizes that the hon. the Minister has introduced a measure which is absolutely essential in the times in which we are living and the proof of that lies in the fact that not a single Opposition member has advanced any argument to prove that this Bill is not absolutely essential. On the contrary every hon. member on the Opposition benches who has spoken has said that he supported this Bill but there was something very interesting in connection with that aspect of the matter. The main speaker on that side, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), inter alia, said that he supported this Bill but that it was a drastic measure. And if it is a drastic measure what is wrong with that? The leader of the United Party’s defence group called this Bill a drastic Bill but various members on that side of the House immediately suggested that it should be even more drastic. Whereas the Bill provides for the training of 10,000 young men per annum, various members on the Opposition benches got up and said that we should have wholesale conscription; that the measure should be even more drastic. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) explained a few moments ago what difficulties this Bill would cause to families. Does he forget that the hon. the Minister has made provision for an exemption board? Where there is real trouble the machinery is there to cope with that trouble. Some hon. members on the Opposition benches want 100 per cent conscription: nobody should be exempt from service and everybody should receive training. That, to my mind, Sir, is a wonderful ideal. Military training has never as yet done anybody any harm. On the contrary, everybody has benefited by such training. But when such a suggestion is made, you have to ask yourself the question whether it is possible to give effect to it, and as far as I am concerned my reply is very definitely that it is impossible to have 100 per cent conscription in this country. You will disrupt the whole economy of the country and what will the Opposition say in that case? They will be the first to accuse the Government at the first available opportunity and to say that its Defence Act has completely disrupted the whole economy of the country. No, the Government cannot do that. Although this Bill makes provision for the training of a certain number of men there is nothing to prevent us, if it is found necessary to train more men, from amending the Act in future so that we can have more young men available. There is nothing to prevent that, but it would be unwise on the part of the Government if it did not keep a close watch on the economy of the country and see to it that it was disrupted as little as possible.

I do not want to say a great deal, but I cannot refrain from referring to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin). If I understood him correctly he alleged that threequarters of the population of South Africa were excluded from the ballot system. That was what he alleged. I want to ask him this direct question: Does the Progressive Party wish this Act to be applied to Coloureds as well as Whites? When these 10,000 young men are called up to undergo their military training, do they want three out of every four who are called up to be non-Whites? Is that their policy? The hon. member stated that very clearly, didn’t he? I do not think he will deny that he said that. Is that definitely the policy of his party…

Interpret it as you wish; I stated our attitude.

If the threequarters of the population who do not fall under the Act to-day have to come under it White and non-White will have to be trained together. If they do not want that, then they cannot be against our apartheid policy, because in that case they are in favour of the apartheid policy. If the men are to be trained together will there be non-White officers as well as White officers? Will they be placed on exactly the same footing? We should like to have clarity on these questions. I am sorry that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is not here. I asked the hon. member whether I could have his Hansard so that I could study what he had said about the training of our naval forces, and see what he had said about the proper training of sailors for our naval forces, and he was kind enough to say that I could. I am sorry that he is not here, because I would have liked him to hear my reply to what he had said. Perhaps the hon. member for Simonstown would kindly convey it to him. The hon. member for Kensington said—

What exactly did he mean by that? If they have to become fully-fledged sailors, I assume that they will also be able to attain officer’s rank and if they have to be fully-fledged sailors in our navy they will have to serve with White sailors on the same ship. Or is the idea that we should train Coloured sailors and then give them a ship to themselves to man? But even in that case it will mean that when they come ashore the Coloured sailors and the White sailors will be accommodated together. The White sailor will have to salute the Coloured officer and take orders from him; he will have to show him the respect which an ordinary sailor shows an officer. We have become accustomed to the hon. member for Kensington continually saying something which is really detrimental to the defence of this country and we do not want him to come forward with vague statements such as those. It is not necessary for him to do so because he is an educated man. He is not somebody who is not aware of it when he makes a vague statement, a statement which can be interpreted in many ways. He is not an irresponsible person. He is a well-educated man, a former inspector of schools, a cultured man. I should like to know what his object is in making vague statements like that. Why is he not more explicit in what he says in this House? Does he deliberately make vague statements in this House?

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister most heartily on having introduced this Bill at this stage, but what disappointed me was the fact that, while every member of the Opposition said that they supported this Bill, not one of them had the courtesy to say to the Minister: “We congratulate you on having introduced a piece of legislation into this House which all of us can support.” Not one of them said that. I am sorry that the hon. member for Turffontein has left the Chamber, but he, too, made a statement which I cannot refrain from commenting upon. In referring to statements made by the previous Minister of Defence about the state of preparedness of the country in the event of trouble, he said: “We had fantastic figures”. In other words, I do not think it can be taken amiss if I conclude from that that the hon. member for Turffontein insinuated that the previous Minister of Defence had deliberately misled this House with the information he had given it. If hon. members think carefully about what he has said they will have to conclude that the hon. member for Turffontein has made a mean insinuation…

Order! The hon. member cannot say that.

Am I allowed to say, Mr. Speaker, that he has made a reprehensible insinuation against our previous Minister of Defence? We cannot allow the integrity of the former Minister of Defence to be doubted, and nobody in the world can prove that the information that the previous Minister of Defence supplied to this House was false. I am compelled to record my strongest objection to it that such an insinuation should be made against the former Minister of Defence.

I want to sit down, but the hon. member for Pietermartizburg (City) (Col. Shearer) spoke a few moments ago and I shall be failing in my duty if I did not congratulate him on the speech which he made this afternoon. I should like him to know that we very much appreciate his speech because he made a constructive speech from the moment he got up to the moment he sat down. We appreciate that. He tried to make a contribution to this legislation whereas most other hon. members of the Opposition, while saying that they supported this legislation, tried to cause as much trouble as possible and tried to wreck this legislation by coupling as many difficulties to it as they could.

You people are the cause of it.

I do not want to refer to that hon. member at all.

Order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be distracted by interjections.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but you know that when a fly settles on a horse, the latter at least switches his tail. I merely wish to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will adhere to this Bill because in the circumstances which prevail in the country to-day this is the best Defence Act that we can have. I congratulate him on it.

I am a little reluctant to enter this Defence debate because for one thing I have never considered myself a soldier, I have never been trained as one except for the paltry training that one received at Potchefstroom during the early days of the war with dummy guns made out of telegraph poles, and of course the practical training that one got in the desert. Moreover, Sir, I have not even got one of the first qualifications of speakers on the Government benches, namely, a reputation as a parade-ground soldier, nor have I got the Coronation Medal. But I am constrained to enter this debate…

You were made a prisoner because you could not run fast enough.

I want to support the remarks made earlier on in this debate, first of all by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), and secondly by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) where they pleaded that in the defence of South Africa it was necessary if we were to survive in the future to draw upon the whole of our population for our fighting forces. I believe that this is the most important question that faces this country to-day, because I believe on this vital aspect depends the whole of the future existence of the White man in South Africa. I believe those two hon. members made it quite clear that if we are to go into the next war in such a position that we find ourselves with some three-quarters of our population sullen, resentful, antagonistic, and possibly even hostile, then, Sir, we are going to be hard put to it even to keep order within our boundaries, still less to defend our frontiers simultaneously. I was appalled when the hon. the Minister said that he had no intention of arming non-Europeans. Of course I can understand the political background which forces him to say that, but in entering this debate, I am going to make a further appeal to him that he should reconsider this matter in conjunction with his military experts, because unless we can be reassured of the full support of the whole of our population in the next war, it is going to be a very poor outlook for this country. Sir, at this time when the hon. the Minister announces that he is taking steps of placing South Africa on a war footing, as it has never previously been placed in time of peace, and simultaneously says that arms will not be given to three-quarters of our population, he is surely parading our mistrust of the great bulk of the people of South Africa. And, Sir, if we want to evoke a response of loyalty amongst our fellow-South African citizens who don’t have the privilege of bearing a White skin, then surely the way to get the best response is to show a spirit of trust towards them. I say that I believe that if this attitude—an attitude which can be described in the words of the man in the street at “don’t arm the kaffirs” —is going to be our outlook, then it is an outdated relic of nearly a century ago, an outdated relic from the days of the kaffir wars, the Great Trek, the Zulu wars. Surely in all the years that have passed, we have outgrown these prejudices. Surely in the 50 years of our existence since Union we have built up something. Have we not built up a certain measure of trust and respect and belief in one another? Must we still go parading our distrust in people simply because they have a coloured skin? In other words, can we only regard people of colour as the hereditary enemies of the White people? Because if that is the attitude, then we Europeans can fold up our bags and depart before it is too late. I put this point of view because I believe that in any coming war, if any overseas power contemplates military action in conjunction with us, then I believe that their judgment is going to be seriously affected if they find that they are allying themselves to a nation three-quarters of whose population are sullen and hostile and not trusted by the Government itself. I believe that in itself will be taken as an exhibition of the fact that we are not sufficiently serious about our own situation to do anything about winning the support of those people.

We in the Progressive Party believe that the only plan that holds any prospect for the future of the White man in South Africa is to get national unity, to judge a man by merits instead of colour. One can appreciate the Government benches not being able to adopt that attitude, but I suggest that as a first step towards winning the loyalty of the non-European, surely the easiest way they can start is to offer the non-European a chance of putting on this country’s uniform. Is there anything that makes a man prouder than the fact that he is wearing the uniform of his country? Is there anything that makes him more proud of knowing and calling himself a South African? I say that because I did have certain privileges in the war, and one was to see at first hand on the battlefield the manner in which our non-Europeans behaved themselves. In an earlier speech the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) made an interjection and said, “How many of them were armed?” Well, had he ever been on the field of battle, he would have known the answer to that.

None were armed.

Well, I would tell the hon. gentleman that once they got onto the battlefield with the exception of course of the field ambulance personnel, everyone of them was armed.

General Smuts denied that.

Mr. Speaker, they performed outstanding acts of heroism, and I can tell you also that I was very pleased to know that the non-Europeans who were with us also carried arms. Quite apart from that, even at a later stage as a prisoner, and as an escaped prisoner in Italy, I was very proud of the outstanding feats of heroism and loyalty to their fellow-White South Africans that were performed by non-Europeans, and many a White South African soldier owes his life to-day to that loyalty of those non-Europeans. So don’t let me hear hon. members querying the fact that no non-European South Africans carried arms during the last war or that they cannot be trusted. We have men here who were in the higher ranks who will know that every word I have said is true.

Let me also deal with another point of view. In the next war it is quite possible, certainly in the initial stages, that we may have fantastic problems to face. During the past war we of course had a limited force in the field with which to go into battle, and they fought in far distant lands in company with men of many other races. They did not have the problem of protecting our country here against external invaders, and that may possibly be the initial problem that we will have to face in the very early stages of any war that develops. Let me remind the hon. the Minister that not only have we to draw our fighting men from 20 per cent of the population, from which must be excluded people of non-military ages and all our key men and all our technicians, all our administrators and so on, but that small balance has to protect our frontiers, and our frontiers cover no less than 3.500 miles of coastline and close on 2,000 miles of land frontiers. I admit that a small efficient force, provided with an adequate air force, can do a tremendous lot as a mobile force working on a centralized defence system. But that does not alter the fact, Sir, that if you may have to maintain internal order and keep down a sullen three-quarters of your population and at the same time defend such vast frontiers, then it is a task which is obviously beyond the ability of the White people of South Africa.

There is one other point I want to make and that is that my experience in the last war, and I believe it was the experience of a great many other people in other countries who came into contact with the South African Forces was that compared with any other army in the world, the South African army probably have a far higher officer potential than any other fighting force. That is a matter of tremendous significance, because what happened in the last war was nothing short of a national scandal. Many of our regiments contained anything up to 60 per cent or even 70 per cent of potential officers in the ranks, and we fabulously squandered these vast human resources. Are we never to learn from history? Are we going into the next war doing exactly the same thing? Because after all, look at our Europeans in South Africa. They are born leaders, they live an outdoor life, they are noted for their resourcefulness and their initiative; many of them are trained as hunters, trained in the administration of men. To put these men in the ranks when they are adequate to officer a trained army of several times the size, is simply to repeat the error of the last war. Sir, with our small White population, we should look upon them as the elite of the fighting forces, not as the men in the ranks, but used to the best advantage, as officers. I believe that if we were to follow the example of what Great Britain has done in her African colonies, and form regiments like the Kings African Rifles, or form regiments as they did in India, the finest fighting forces in the world…

That is why they kicked the English out.

I know what I am talking about. It was also my privilege in a South African regiment to be drafted to the Fourth Indian Division and I saw the finest fighting material in the world going into action. Why cannot we do the same in this country? Why can’t we raise an army which no other country in the world can surpass? I believe we have got the fighting material amongst our African tribes in South Africa and if we harness them with our European manpower, I believe we could put up a fighting force which could render us immune from invasion under any circumstances whatsoever. So I make this brief appeal to the hon. the Minister not to approach this simply with a closed mind, not to allow inherited prejudices to blind him to realities. Because what is at stake is our existence, the existence of everyone of us, myself and people on these benches just as much as members on the Government benches, and I ask the hon. the Minister to bring this matter up to our defence chiefs and see if we can’t have some new thinking on this matter and shed ourselves of these age-old prejudices which may ultimately cause our own destruction.

It was not my intention to take part in this debate, but I feel nevertheless that I should say a few words. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) said that during the previous world war there were armed South African Coloured troops as well as armed Natives. I merely want to refer him to Hansard where he will find that General Smuts said in this House that there would not be armed Natives or Coloureds in the war. As a matter of fact my brigade was the first to go to Madagascar and there was a number of Coloured soldiers on the troop-ship who did auxiliary services but not one of them was armed. The ship the Empire Trooper had hardly left the dock when there were disturbances and they started to mutineer. Secondly you cannot trust them and I want to prove that by referring to something else. This happened in 1944 in the camp to the south of Heluan where Natives and Coloureds were accommodated. They openly revolted against the Government.

I spoke about the fighting line.

That makes no difference. The Government had to intervene with armed forces. I want to go further: White soldiers had to go and do the work in the areas where they had to work because you could not depend on them. I want to go further and point out to hon. members what happened to a section of the South African Sixth Division, to the south of the mountain ranges in Italy. An American division which consisted of Negro soldiers were sent into battle. The Germans repelled them and the South African Sixth Division which consisted of White soldiers was sent in to win the battle. That is history to-day. And now they plead that soldiers on whom you cannot depend, should be armed. I do not want to go further into that. I merely wanted to say these few words in order to prove to the hon. member how incorrect his facts were. He pleaded for the non-Whites. Had he been a person who had the interests of South Africa at heart and had he been a person who stood by South Africa, he should in the first place learn Afrikaans.

Order! That has nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one further matter in connection with the training of university students. I do not know why we should differentiate between the ordinary man in the street and the university student. The best students at our universities to-day are those lads who have had a year’s training at one of the gymnasiums and if all the students who go to university spent their first year at a gymnasium, they will be taught self-discipline and how to look after themselves, and if they can undergo their nine months’ compulsory training before they go to university, I see no reason why every university student should not receive military training.

I shall be very brief. I just want to touch on two points. Firstly the economic point. I am not going to oppose this Bill. I believe that as long as we believe in war, we need armies, we need our forces, and consequently, because of that, I welcome this Bill. The hon. Minister wants to strengthen our army, our defence forces.

But I wish to point out that the great battle with which we are confronted is not primarily the battle of armies. It is going to be a battle of ideologies, and of ideas, and so far as physical weapons are concerned, I hope that the small contribution which South Africa can make will at best, together with the Western world, bring about a situation where we can establish a position of parity between the East and the West in regard to armaments. But after having said that, I believe that that is perhaps the most important point to reach, parity, where no nation would dare to start a nuclear war. That is perhaps humanity’s only hope for the time being. But when that position is achieved, the great battle I am referring to is going to continue, that battle of ideas, that battle of ideologies in this world, and I hope that the hon. the Minister while he is going to extend our military forces, will not forget that aspect that our young men, and I take it also our young women, will get something with which they can meet and go into that greater battle, the battle of ideas and of ideologies.

The other aspect that I just want to touch upon is this, that I hope the hon. the Minister and the Government will not forget that if you go back to the last war, you find that as we build up our army chiefly out of the White citizens of South Africa, some 200,000 or more of them, you left an economic vacuum in the ordinary economic machine and that vacuum is never tolerated in the economy of any country. With the result that it was in that period that as we drafted White people out of our industries, out of our economy into this war economy, or shall I say this military economy, we drafted non-Whites by the hundreds of thousands into our ordinary economy, and while we were fighting to safeguard White and non-White throughout the length and breadth of South Africa (our young White fellows were fighting to protect South Africa as a whole), you drafted into your economy to increasing extent, especially in industry, non-White labour. Now I am not against that, but we must keep our eyes open in regard to the future. If the White man wants to protect the whole of South Africa, both White and non-White, we must realize what we are doing if we draft in an increasing measure non-White labour into our economy. While our White youngsters are giving up their lives for the defence of South Africa, we are giving more and more economic strength to the non-Whites, which I have often said in this House, is the real political strength in South Africa. From this point of view, I believe that the time has undoubtedly come that the Black man and the Coloured man should be considered as South Africans and that they should bear their full share in the defence and in the defence forces of South Africa, so that we do not get that unbalance where the White man is called upon to defend South Africa, while we give a dangerous political weapon, dangerous economic power to people who are not accepted fully as South Africans, and the fact that we will not allow them in any capacity in the fighting forces is an indication to them that they are not trusted, that they are not really part and parcel of South Africa.

I just wish to state these few points. Let us not have more of job reservation, job reservation between White and non-White also in regard to the army and in the fighting forces of South Africa. But above all, I must stress that the battle of the future is going to be a 100-year war, at least and we shall never win, the West will never win that battle by material, physical forces. The real battle is going to be the battle of ideas, the battle between Christian Western civilization and the basic values of ideas of Christian Western civilization and the ideologies of Communism. And when we have done all our fighting no matter who wins in the physical sense, then the big battle of which I have spoken will continue. I hope that in every sphere of life, including the army, we shall arm ourselves for that great battle of ideas in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude right at the outset of the great measure of support which the basic principles of this legislation have received. I realize only too well that we have had many constructive speeches. I would remind you, Sir, of a few of the speeches which we have had this afternoon, for example the speech by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and that by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. Shearer) and many others. Those were constructive speeches, and what those hon. members said will have to be studied very full in future—it will set us thinking. It is impossible for me, Mr. Speaker, to reply to all the constructive speeches that we have had during this three-day debate. I will try to reply to the speeches where various matters of principles have been raised. The other matters can be discussed in the Committee Stage and under my Vote.

I think the matters of principle that were raised were more or less the following: (1) That the non-Whites should be accepted as part of our fighting forces; (2) that all citizens should be trained; (3) the uncertainty as to what is threatening. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) in particular asked me a very pertinent question in this respect. (4) The further principle that was discussed was that South Africa found herself more isolated at this stage in the military field than ever before—that she was standing alone more than ever before.

Let me deal immediately with the question of the acceptance of the non-Whites in our fighting forces, or whether the principle should be accepted in South Africa. Let me say very clearly at this stage that every country and every nation has its own way of life and we in South Africa too have our own way of life, and the inclusion of the Bantu in our fighting units clashes with our way of life in this country. In reply to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) said that it was true that it was also the attitude of the late Gen. Smuts not to use non-Whites in the fighting forces. But he reminded the hon. member for Wakkerstroom that what he had quoted was what Gen. Smuts had said in 1917 and that since those days a lot of water had flowed under the bridge and circumstances had changed. I want to point out to the hon. member, however, that Gen. Smuts did not cease to be in power in 1917. He continued to govern at intervals right up to 1948, and he never made an attempt to depart from that traditional policy of South Africa. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say at this stage that as far as I as Minister of Defence am concerned, I am not prepared either to change that traditional policy.

Our non-Whites are indeed used in our forces. They are used in our auxiliary services and we make good use of them. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) said that we were choosing the men to serve in our defence forces from merely 20 per cent of the population of the country. That is incorrect. The hon. member said 20 per cent represented the White population. We are using that 20 per cent in our actual fighting units but we are using our non-Whites on a large scale for other services in our Defence Force. It is not entirely correct, therefore, to say that we are only using 20 per cent of our population.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add this: The hon. member for Salt River asked this question: Why do you not use non-Whites to maintain internal order? I want to put this question to him: Why did he ask that question; what was his object in asking that question? I am asking him this question because the hon. member for Salt River, as a former Minister of Justice, ought to know how totally incorrect that statement is. The hon. member ought to know that the police form the first line of defence in maintaining internal order, and nobody knows it better than he does that we have thousands of non-White policemen. Nobody knows better than he does that some of our non-White police are armed. Why does he want to create the impression in the world outside that there is not a single non-White in this country who is sufficiently well-disposed towards the White man to try to maintain internal order together with the White man? Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand that type of argument, particularly when you get it from the hon. member for Salt River who was a Minister of Justice himself and who knows what the actual position is, a person who knows that the non-White is used on a large scale in this country for the maintenance of internal order. I deprecate it that impressions like that should be created abroad. As I see it, that can be the only object, namely to make the world outside believe that the Bantu of South Africa do not want to assist the White man in maintaining law and order.

It is scandalous.

The question was also raised that we should make use of the Coloureds and I want to say that I am seriously considering—we are already making plans—re-introducing the former Coloured Corps. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, not as an active fighting unit, but there are various ways in which we can use them. I shall give the House an indication of what we have in mind—

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this afternoon that confidence is something that has to be cultivated and I want to say that the way the Coloured people behaved themselves last year during the riots has proved to me that they are trustworthy, and that trustworthiness can be developed. But where trustworthiness fosters confidence, that confidence must manifest itself. If, through their actions, we find that we can trust the Coloured people, we must show them that we trust them. I have gained suffiicient confidence in them up to the present, if they continue to behave in the way they have, to recommend that the Cape Corps be re-established in the near future.

The hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) made a very constructive speech. As a former military man he appreciates the value of training. But the hon. member asked us to go further and give more people military training. I agree with him that from a military point of view alone, it would be better if we did that, but there are specific reasons why we cannot do that. The first reason is that we have not got the physical ability to do so at this stage. We lack the trained men to serve as instructors at this stage. Secondly we lack the financial resources to do so at this stage. Where you extend your Defence Force you have to retain its balance. Shortly after I became Minister of Defence I asked for a thorough military appraisal. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said just now that I should change my policy. Mr. Speaker, I have never as yet changed my policy. When I became Minister I asked for a military appraisal. As a result of that military appraisal I formed my own ideas, I drafted my policy which I submitted to the Government. It became clear from that military appraisal that in the present circumstances a great deal had to be done in South Africa to develop our Defence Force. Capital is required in various directions and where capital is required for equipment and for men, the balance must be retained. So really, Mr. Speaker, that is as far as we can go at this stage. The hon. member himself said that the quality of an army did not depend so much on the number of men but on the standard of training that they had received. If we had to call up all the young men for training, that training will have to be superficial under present circumstances, because we will be unable to control it. To start off with we shall have to use the advanced ballottees to train the beginners. The hon. member who is a military man himself, will know that by doing that the training necessarily becomes superficial and less thorough. That is the reason why I do not think it is possible for us to do so.

The hon. member also pleaded that the age limit should be raised. That, Mr. Speaker, is an important matter, but a very complicated matter. I may say that I am giving attention to it but the hon. member will know that it will be difficult to justify the fact that certain men can join the army and get promotion in a direction where the age limit can be raised whereas others will have to serve in other directions where that is not possible. Because as I see the position to-day, it is not possible to raise the age limit to such an extent in all directions that it will be worth while. This is a very complicated matter, but it is receiving our attention.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown said that these drastic steps I am taking at the present moment, might have the effect of becoming a cause for alarm. I agree, Sir, that drastic steps can be cause for alarm. But certain hon. members on the opposite side said that we should have introduced this Bill ten years ago. During the last decade things have not become calmer in South Africa or in Africa. In fact, they have deteriorated. Affairs in Africa have taken a very serious turn since the early ’50s. The position in our neighbouring states has certainly not become more reassuring. In fact, we all know what the real position is to-day. I agree that a Bill of this nature on this occasion will focus public opinion on the serious times in which we live, but, Sir, with a realistic public it should be more reassuring than alarming.

The hon. gentleman also touched on a very, very important question. He put the question to me: What is our real threat? This question of a threat has bearing, not only on what we in South Africa think, and on how we act, but certiainly also on how our potential allies think and what their resultant actions will be. In my second reading speech I mentioned what our threat is, but in spite of that the question has again been put. Perhaps, Sir, I was not explicit enough on that occasion. I shall try again, and attempt to be more explicit on this occasion. I must make it clear that if our potential allies believe that we in South Africa have no direct threat, it is bound to influence their present reaction towards us. Sir, I am not building up my conclusions on the words of wild politicians, but they must also be taken into consideration when we try to get a picture of the whole position. In addition to what I have already said, I want to add a few quotations. It is always good to hear the opinion of other people, especially the opinion of people who know. I have with me a copy of the Intelligence Digest World News Service, and I want to quote from that. The article is on “A candid disclosure from Russia”. Inter alia it says this—

Then it goes on to discuss the question of communistic progress in Africa, and it says—

The article goes on to say—

And then this statement—

Then they speak about communist rivalry in Africa, and say—

The directive adds—

Later on it is stated as follows—

Our correspondent writes:

Now, Sir, this as a whole is serious enough as a threat, but I want to point out that in that communist rivalry itself lies a very particular threat for South Africa. The East German communists want to retain the training of the Black African soldiers for themselves alone. We all know the history of the Central German Reich which has to be established right across Africa and it is clear from what I have quoted that communist East Germany is reviving that idea in Africa. If we keep in mind that South West Africa was a former German colony, then that is, to my mind, a direct threat to South Africa. I have also with me a copy of the Cape Argus of 17 May 1961. We all know that the military correspondent of that newspaper is a man who knows what he is about when he speaks about military matters. I do not think he has the same knowledge about politics, but we will leave that aside. Now, that correspondent wrote as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I have drawn attention to these few quotations to show this House that we have reason to believe that there is an actual threat to South Africa and that we have an immediate threat as the correspondent of the Argus said.

The other point which I would like to deal with is the point made that South Africa was to-day more alone in the world than she has been in the past. With that statement I cannot agree. Why should we now be more alone than we were in the past? As far as I know this Government has recalled no military agreement which existed in the past. In fact, the only military agreement which does exist, is one which was entered into by this Government. We are as near to the West now, Sir, as we have ever been, and our strategic position is worth as much to the West as ever. The hon. member for Pinelands said yesterday that our strategic position would not be worth as much in future as what it was in the past, but on that question I have also another opinion, namely that of Lord Harding. What does he say? He said this—

But that was under a United Party Government!

That is a very serious accusation, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. member for Green Point now want the world to believe that in a future war the West will not be able to depend upon South Africa? [Interjections.] God help us if they do believe that and I hope no Western country will be mad enough to believe the hon. member for Green Point. [Interjections.] That was a very irresponsible remark because it creates the suspicion that South Africa will not be true to the West in a future war. But we have proved all along that they can depend on us. We have never left the Western world in the lurch before—not the previous Government, nor during the regime of this Government!

You have not had a war this time.

Did South Africa not take part in the Korean War?

Who forced you to do it?—The Opposition!

Our defence of the Middle East is another proof that the West can depend upon South Africa. South Africa will always be found on the side of the West, like the hon. member for Kempton Park said. We will always be on the side of the West but not only that, but we intend to work intimately with specific countries of the West. It is our declared policy to work as intimately as possible with the United Kingdom in the field of military defence and services. Now, how can the hon. member for Green Point come along and suggest that South Africa will not be true to the West. [Interjections.]

Order, order! There is no war in this House!

I want to emphasize the fact again that South Africa has never yet left the West in the lurch, and that under different Governments—under the former United Party Government, under the Botha Government, and under the present day National Party Government. We have always sided on the side of the West and I will tell you why. In 1947 the late General Smuts said that we were entering a new world. He said that it was clear that the leadership of Western Europe was being challenged, although he spoke in glowing terms of the cultural leadership of the West and enlarged on what that meant to the world. He added that our South African culture was a branch of that age-old European culture. That, Sir, is only too true. In fact, our whole way of life depends upon that leadership. Now, if the Western world is eliminated, then South Africa must also be eliminated and under these circumstances, and after having proved to the world time and again that we stand by the West, I cannot see that we are standing alone in the world now. In the past, the West had on different occasions, the need to quench their thirst at our South African fountains, and all I can say at this moment is that we will keep the fountains clear, and the streams running well in case they need them again in the near future. We might require, now and again, some purifying material and I hope we will be able to get that from the West.

*The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) became quite excited the other evening when he made his speech, and I can well understand a man who has sacrificed for South Africa what he has sacrificed becoming excited when he talks about military matters. I want to say to the hon. member, however, that I think his approach is wrong when he says that he has no confidence in the discharge boards. We have to have discharge boards. There is no method on earth whereby everybody can be taken up in the Defence Force. There are people who are medically unfit and there are others who for some reason or other have to be discharged and we have those boards for that purpose, and as those boards are to be constituted it will be possible for them to perform that function in the best possible manner, except for the recommendation that there should be medical boards where it is a case of discharging somebody on medical grounds. But I do believe that these boards will act as impartially as possible. The hon. member said that in times of war local boards will be better able to serve local communities, but it is not the local community that has to be served during times of war, but the whole community, and for that reason I think these boards will be much better than local boards. I do not think the military organization has the necessary people available. We cannot have a board that will give exemptions in a scientific way and because the Department of Labour is in close touch with other organizations, also with the Manpower Board, that Department is in a better position to handle these boards than my Department. The Department of Defence will be represented on every board by at least one member, but that does not mean that we cannot have more members on them. I really believe that these boards will function best under the Department of Labour.

The hon. member also said that if we introduced conscription it should apply to everybody, even though they are not all used in a military capacity. I fully agree. I wish we could have conscription in respect of every young person, male or female, but this legislation has nothing to do with that; it only deals with those men to whom we want to give military training. I want to say once again that not only am I very grateful for the support that I have received so far as far as the principle of this Bill is concerned, but I appreciate the extent to which both sections of the community inside and outside this House, have co-operated in the military sphere in South Africa. We have our differences on various matters, but we can always convince each other; we are working together happily and I do not harbour the slightest fear. It was during the course of this debate that various members said that we were only a small and a weak country. We are weak. We are not a strong country, but this country has in the past shown to the world that its men could fight when they wanted to. It was President Steyn who said “We do not want to fight, but by jingo if we do, we have the men and the courage too That has been proved over and over again. That was proved in the War of Independence when only one section of the nation fought, and also during the First World War when it was also only one section of the nation that fought. That was proved during the Second World War when there was also no positive co-operation between the two national groups. But if we decided to-day to stand together in defence of South Africa, I do not think every Dick, Tom and Harry will attack us. We will be strong enough to put up a fight until something really serious happens.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Since the principal Act, namely the Atomic Energy Act, was placed on the Statute Book in 1948, it has already been necessary on five occasions to ask this House to amend it. In 1948, of course, with this legislation, we were entering a totally new terrain and even at that time it was envisaged that there would have to be amendments to keep pace with new developments and changed circumstances. As hon. members will remember, in 1959 we had to include certain provisions in the principal Act relevant to the financing of the research programme of the Atomic Energy Board, and since then there have again been further developments including the “stretch-out agreement” which now again requires amendment and to which I shall refer again.

Clause 1: The amendments contained in Clause 1 are mainly of an administrative nature, and as far as Clause 1 (a) is concerned it enables the Atomic Energy Board, in addition to controlling the use etc. of radioactive elements or isotopes, also to ensure the safe transportation of such elements and isotopes, which is of course a desirable and logical rounding off of the powers of the Board in this connection. Clause 1 (b) again provides that the conditions under which isotopes, for example, can be used may be prescribed by regulation. In some respects there are internationally accepted conditions which can also conveniently be applied here by way of regulation.

Clause 2: Clause 2 envisages an important amendment of Section 13 (f) of the principal Act which is intended to enable the Atomic Energy Board to give financial and other assistance in connection with the training of research workers and other workers in the sphere of atomic energy, in order to ensure that we will have enough trained persons available to us in this sphere. As Section 13 (f) reads at present, the Board can promote research as such, but it is doubtful whether it can have the necessary workers (technicians, etc.) who are not necessarily research workers or engaged on research work, trained. This doubt has now been removed, because it will not be of much avail to us to undertake and to promote research if we do not have the trained men to apply the results of this research in practice. This measure will in future also enable the Board to train, or to allow to be trained, persons up to the stage where they can undertake research, and then to assist them further in their research work in terms of the existing Section 13 (f) which is again included in the new Section 13 (f.)

Clause 3: At first glance the new Section 13 proposed in this clause seems to be a very lengthy new provision, but in fact it consists mainly of a repetition of the present Section 16, which deals with the finances of the Atomic Energy Board. This section has already been amended on various occasions, and acting on the suggestion of the Treasury it has now been completely rewritten to make it more readable. However, it contains a few new provisions, the most important of which concerns the “stretch-out agreement” and which are contained in sub-paragraphs (iii) to (vi) of Section 16 (4) (a). The hon. the Minister of Mines already made a public statement on 23 January 1961 in which information concerning this agreement between the South African Atomic Energy Board and the Combined Development Agency was given. Statements were also issued on 26 January and 3 February 1961 by the Chamber of Mines, and individual uranium-producing companies also made announcements concerning the effect which the agreement would have on them.

Briefly, the position is that in terms of this agreement which came into operation on 1 January 1961 28.350 tons of uranium oxide which had to be delivered over the period 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1966 will now be delivered over a longer period, ending on 31 December 1970 with the result that uninterrupted production in our country is now ensured until at least the end of this decade. That is of great importance to us because as the result of this we hope to remain in production until the use of atomic power has assumed the dimensions where there will be a steady world demand for nuclear material, and we are fully confident that we shall be able to deliver such material in whatever form it might be required by that time at highly competitive prices.

Also, in so far as employment and keeping people in employment is concerned, this “stretch-out agreement” gives the opportunity to make adaptations over a longer period and with much less disruption than would have been the case if the delivery of uranium oxide were to have been completed over the period 1964 to 1966, as would have been the case in terms of the previous contracts.

Instead of the former type of cost-plus contract, the South African producers will now receive fixed prices under the new arrangements, which are in line with the prices received at the termination of the previous contracts. Repayments of loans granted by the partners in the Agency through the Import-Export Bank for the erection of the uranium installations will not be affected in view of the fact that certain payments will be made in advance to the board for the purpose, inter alia, of enabling the producers to comply with their loan obligations within the original loan period. The proposed new sub-paragraphs (iii) to (v) of Section 16 (4) (a) will enable the Atomic Energy Board to retain such advance payments and to invest the money until it becomes necessary to repay the loans and also to repay such advance payments when the money is no longer required. In terms of sub-paragraph (vi), any surplus earned from interest on the investment of such advance payments must be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund whilst any shortage must be paid from funds voted by Parliament for that object.

Provision is also made in Section 16 (4) (b) in terms of which the Minister of Finance. on behalf of the Government, can guarantee the repayment of advance payments. The furnishing of such a guarantee forms part of the agreement between the Atomic Energy Board and the Atomic Energy Authority of the United Kingdom.

For the rest there are two new provisions in the proposed new Section 16, viz. the one in Section 16 (5) (d) which provides that surplus funds in the Atomic Research Account of the board may be repaid to the donors, and Section 16 (5) (e) which provides for the payment into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of any surplus funds voted for research by Parliament when the Research Account is finally closed one day.

Clause 4: This clause deletes the present requirement of Section 17 that in the provision of prescribed material for research and training purposes the Atomic Energy Board can act only in consultation with the C.S.I.R. and that radio-active isotopes for that purpose can be provided only by the C.S.I.R. Both bodies are satisfied that this provision is no longer required, and the C.S.I.R. agrees that it should be deleted.

Clause 5 amends Section 19 which refers to applications for patents for inventions in connection with the production and use of atomic power. It is essential that the Atomic Energy Board should particularly have two powers in connection with inventions of this nature, namely the power to prevent a patent being granted in cases where it considers that it is not in the national interest to grant such a patent, and secondly, the power to enforce secrecy in connection with inventions of this nature. Sometimes it is necessary to impose secrecy not so much because local security considerations demand it, but as a counter concession for similar provileges we enjoy in other countries. The patent legislation of other countries with which we have connections provides for the granting of secret patents in the sphere of atomic energy, and our Act makes similar provision, which provisions are now being simplified, brought up to date and supplemented.

Clause 5 (a) now firstly groups in a single paragraph all the types of applications for patents in regard to which an applicant must notify the Atomic Energy Board, and Clause 5 (b) imposes this obligation also on the Registrar of Patents, to make doubly sure that all these types of applications will in fact come to the notice of the board. Clause 5 (c) provides, firstly, for the automatic freezing of such an application for a period of three months in order that the board may institute the necessary investigations; secondly that the board can then instruct the Registrar of Patents not to grant a patent and to keep the invention secret; or, thirdly, in the case of an application received from abroad, the board may instruct that the invention be kept secret without concerning itself with the question as to whether a patent should be granted or not.

Clause 5 (3) contains two provisions for the protection of inventors in South Africa who because of compulsory secrecy or for other reasons could not or did not take steps to safeguard their inventions. Firstly, the board may give instructions that patents should not be granted to others in respect of the same inventions and, secondly, where a patent has in fact been granted, in litigation arising from the infringement of a pattern, information that the invention has already become known or has been used in this country secretly or otherwise may be adduced as evidence that the invention was not new at the date of the application. The Registrar of Patents has been consulted in drafting these provisions.

Clause 6 merely makes it clear that the obligation of the Atomic Energy Board in terms of Section 24 (1) (a) to pay compensation in respect of the withholding of a patent is limited to cases where such withholding was done at the request of the board. Clause 7 is a consequential amendment in connection with Clause 1 (d), viz. the prescription, by way of regulation, of the conditions under which isotopes, etc. may be used.

Mr. Speaker, this is briefly the purport of the proposed amendments, and I now move.

Mr. Speaker, when the original legislation was put on the Statute Book, atomic energy was in its infancy, and it is only natural that it should be necessary for the legislation to be amended from time to time in view of the tremendous developments that have taken place over the years. We remember that it was Gen. Smuts who in the last years of his government took the first steps to impose control in respect of atomic materials and energy. That far-sighted son and servant of South Africa realized probably much more clearly than many other persons in the world what a tremendous part atomic energy was to play in the years ahead and how important it was that careful control should be kept over atomic energy and its use and also over the discoveries made in connection with atomic energy, in view particularly of the great dangers that might arise not only from the use but also from the misuse of atomic energy. This is one of the matters on which there has never been any difference in principle between the two sides of the House. I would like to say at once that we regard this legislation as necessary, and although there are one or two points which will be raised in regard to administrative matters. I understand from inquiries that the interests concerned also believe that this Bill is necessary and that it is advisable that it should be put on the Statute Book. It is something of great importance to South Africa that agreement was reached along lines that allow of the extension of the present arrangements in regard to the sale of atomic materials. This also enabled the mining industry to regularize the production of atomic elements to a far greater extent than previously. In regard to control there is therefore no difference between us and we must support this Bill.

In regard to the finances of the board, it is natural that with the development in the methods there ought to be put on the Statute Book appropriate provisions and in regard to those provisions also no exception is taken, but I would like to express the hope which was expressed from this side of the House previously that the day will come when it will be possible to provide for parliamentary supervision in respect of financial legislation re provisions of this nature. It is true that the accounts of the board must be audited by the Auditor-General, and that is satisfactory. In the nature of things we cannot object to the fact that the report of the Auditor-General must go to the Governor-General, and in future no doubt to the State President, and that there is no opportunity for parliamentary debate. I want however to express the hope that the day will come when that will be possible, but the reasons why the provisions as they stand here are being included in the Statute Book are fully understood. It is fully appreciated that there is no change in principle as against the legislation as it stands now, which is subject to the same defect, necessary though we concede that it is at this moment. Sir, the Bill has a large number of provisions which the Minister has explained very clearly, and I do not want to traverse them all, but I would like to refer to one or two of them.

I do not intend detaining the House very long but I should like to refer to one or two further points. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Deputy Minister would tell us why there are two different dates in Clause 3 providing for different periods of retrospectivity. We fully appreciate the date 1961 which arises from the “stretch out” agreement to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred, but there is also a reference to one of the provisions as “being deemed to have come into operation on 1 April 1959” I should like an explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to that Sir. One does not like retrospective provisions but they are sometimes necessary in measures of this kind.

I would also like to refer to the question of patents. I understand the necessity for the provisions which are contained in the original legislation but I am concerned whether it will not be possible that a very valuable patent may be lost as a result of an error on the part of the board. The board is, quite rightly I think in the circumstances of the case, given very extensive powers but in the event of the board directing that a patent shall not be registered—they have the power to do that—because in their view there is a prior patent which means that the device or the discovery is not patentable, it may be that they are making an error. Thereby not only the patentee but South Africa may lose the benefit of a very valuable patent. It is true that the old principle of the law seems to be that patents will not be registered in circumstances where it is in the interests of the country that they should not be, and that the object desired can be obtained by secrecy, but I am concerned that while a discovery may be made, if no patent is registerable, there is always the possibility that the rights may be lost. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to give us some assurance in that regard. I wonder whether it would not be advisable to establish some machinery whereby, if the applicant of the patent is in disagreement with the decision of the board, will have certain rights. I am not suggesting that he should have the right to apply to a court of law in this case, although I would like to see that, but perhaps the right to appeal to some board of review to be appointed by the Minister in order to ensure that a very valuable patent is not unnecessarily lost to this country.

I see that in Clause 4 of this Bill, the connection between the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and the atomic energy board is being broken. I would like to pay tribute to the very valuable work which the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research has done during the years of its existence for South Africa in this field. In view of the developments that have taken place in the atomic field it is natural that this association should be broken.

Finally I should like to say that it is quite clear that South Africa has been very amply endowed with the sources from which atomic power can be obtained. We have some of the leading scientists in the world and we have played a very important part in the attainment of atomic knowledge. We know that a reactor is shortly to come into full production—the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to that—and there is no reason why South Africa should not play a leading part in this very important field. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us whether any steps are being taken in respect of a matter of some importance to this country. We are very richly endowed with coal but there are areas of this country, and some of them are important areas, which are far away from our coal supplies. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us any information as to developments which will eventually lead to the use of atomic power in those areas of South Africa which are far away from our coalfields. There is no doubt that it will be of immense value to South Africa if we could in the course of time, make use of some of the riches with which we have been endowed in respect of atomic material in order to provide a better life in those parts of the country where coal is expensive because of the cost of transportation from the coalfields. Not only that, Sir, although we are richly endowed there is no question about it that coal is an expendable asset. It would be of great value to this country if something were done by the Government to encourage the use of atomic power in appropriate areas of this country far away from the coalfields of South Africa. Cape Town is a city which is very much in point in this regard.

I have indicated that so far as the official Opposition is concerned, we welcome this Bill. We regard it as a natural development that there should be changes from time to time. In conclusion I should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we appreciate very much indeed the very clear way in which he put the objects of this Bill before this House.

I want to give my wholehearted support to this Atomic Energy Amendment Bill and, just as the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has done, I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the clear and calm way in which he has put his case to-day. Sir, there was a time when everyone thought that urnaium would have a very great commercial value. As we all know, our country produces uranium and has one of the greatest uranium potentials in the world. We do not know what may happen in the future but through a combination of circumstances and due to circumstances beyond South Africa’s control, uranium at this particular stage has not achieved the expected commercial value. Consequently changes have had to be made to the agreement which exists between the South African Government, the Atomic Energy Board and the Combined Development Agency. Together with the hon. the Deputy Minister I want to express the hope that through research we shall keep pace in future with new developments and that our uranium will one day be of greater commercial value, not so much for military purposes, but for peaceful purposes, and that when that time comes we shall have reached an advanced stage as regards the utilization of uranium. I should just like to refer to one or two benefits which flow from this new stretch-out agreement. I want to congratulate our negotiators on the tactics and the far-sightedness they have revealed in entering into this agreement. To me the value of this agreement, apart from the financial benefits which we shall enjoy as a result of the continuity of sales, is represented by the fact that certain of our mines will be able to remain in operation for a longer period and that the employment of a large number of our workers will be assured at least until 1970 and that we shall for as long as possible be able to sell uranium and process it, bearing in mind the fact that future developments will give uranium an increased commercial value. What is also important is that the old cost-plus system under which uranium was sold, is to be replaced by a stable price. I think that under the circumstances this is the very best method which could have been adopted. It is now necessary and it is also possible that mines which had uranium installations—some of them have had to close their uranium installations, as we know—can make arrangements amongst themselves and they can now apply a system of rationalization so that mines with the lowest costs of production can concentrate on the production of uranium. What is also important in respect of this amending Bill is that provision is not only being made for research but that particularly in Clause 13 (f) provision is being made for training. The Board can now grant bursaries for the training of workers, of technicians, in all spheres affecting the utilization of atomic energy. An over-all technical staff can therefore be built up; technicians can be trained on a broad basis which will cover all aspects of the utilization of atomic energy. With these few words, and I think that I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members, I want to give our full support to this Bill and we want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the excellent piece of work which he has submitted to us to-day.

I should also like to say briefly that we of the Progressive Party support this Bill. The original Atomic Energy Act had to be drawn up during a period when this subject was still a new one and there must have been a great deal of uncertainty as to what the future of the industry would be. Since then developments have taken place which have of course made it essential for the Act to be amended from time to time and this amendment which is now before us represents in my opinion an adjustment of the legislation to meet the latest developments.

This is the first time that you have said something with which I agree.

There is no reason why we should go into details on this occasion. I should just like to say—and I hope that this will please the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling)—that I support what he has said about the latest agreement which has been entered into, the so-called “stretch-out” agreement. This agreement definitely redounds to the credit of those who negotiated on behalf of South Africa. It creates a better position for the mining industry than that which would otherwise have applied if it had not been possible to reach this agreement. I should also like to affirm what the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has said about the valuable work which the C.S.I.R. has done in the past in this regard. Sir, this type of legislation which will extend the life of the industry, and perhaps to operate more profitably than would otherwise have been the position, should be welcomed by all sides of the House and is welcomed by us.

I should like to associate myself with what has been said with regard to this legislation and I should like to refer to Clause 2 which now empowers the Atomic Energy Board also to train other workers as research workers. The Atomic Energy Board when it was established a few years ago, had to rely for its staff mainly on persons who were working in the nuclear physics section of the C.S.I.R. and at universities, and I think that I can say that the establishment of the Atomic Energy Board has taken place, as far as staff is concerned, at the expense of other institutions; and seeing that these institutions have spent a great deal of time and money on the training of their staff, it is only right that the Atomic Energy Board, which with its future expansion will certainly require a great deal of staff, should also contribute to the training of research workers, scientists and technicians who are very much needed to-day. I think it will be one of the important functions of the Atomic Energy Board in the future to meet the need which exists for this type of person. You know, of course, Mr. Speaker, that in the Western Province a nuclear research station is to be established which will probably also attract staff, and the position is simply that the nuclear physicist is just as much an international commodity as uranium itself. These people are being attracted from one country to another and if South Africa wants to be in any position to give the required attention to nuclear research we shall have to ensure that these people are trained and well paid. I hope that this will be one of the matters to which the Atomic Energy Board will give attention. As the use of nuclear power develops, we can expect it to have a very drastic effect on our economy, and that in the long run it will replace coal, and we shall have to think of the possibility of the Atomic Energy Board falling under another Department than the Department of Mines in the future. I think that it belongs under the Department of Economic Affairs. A few years ago it was said that by 1970 it would be possible to produce uranium power at a cost of .47d. as compared with .66d. in the case of coal in South Africa and that by 1980 it would be possible to reduce that cost to .40d., so that it will be considerably cheaper than power derived from coal. It is with this in mind, that I say that the scope of the activities of the Atomic Energy Board will be so extensive in the near future—within the next ten or 20 years—that they will actually affect our economy as a whole and that will cover a far wider field than merely that of mining.

I welcome the fact that all parties in this House have given this measure such strong support, and also the appreciative remarks which have been made about the C.S.I.R. It is fitting that we as Parliament show proper appreciation for the pioneering work which that body has undertaken. It has done great work and it is right that we should record our appreciation. We also want to place on record our appreciation of the way in which agreement has been reached between the C.S.I.R. and the Atomic Energy Board with a view to the future co-operation for which this measure provides.

The hon. member for Springs wanted to know whether the time was not opportune to incorporate the report on the accounts of the Atomic Energy Board in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, which is tabled in this House. As hon. members will remember, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman), raised this matter a year or two ago and the Minister of Mines promised to investigate the position in order to ascertain whether it was still necessary to observe secrecy. Well this matter has since received full consideration and I must say that we feel that the time is not opportune yet to include these particulars in the report of the Controller Auditor-General for public notice. It is not only that it touches on the question of the research fund and the research programme but we also have to consider other countries and the Combined Development Agency in this matter. They prefer that quite a number of matters be kept secret and we have to respect their wishes in this regard. But as soon as we feel that we can disclose the information in question we will bring about the necessary amendment of the Act.

The hon. member also wanted to know something about the retrospective effect of Clause 3 (2). This applies to the new Sections 16 (5) (d) and (e), relating to the Atomic Energy Research Account which came into existence on 1st April 1959. The other date, 1 January 1961, is the date on which the “stretch-out” agreement came into force. The hon. member also asked for information concerning the possibility of erecting atomic power stations in those areas which are situated far away from our coalfields. As the hon. member knows, we have considered this question and a commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Forsyth which went fully into the matter. The Commission has now submitted its report and the report states that it is not economically possible immediately to erect such atomic power stations. We still have sufficient cheap coal in this country and the Commission does not regard the establishment of such power stations as opportune at this moment. I may add that this commission has now been replaced by a standing committee which will continue to watch the position and if it should find that the time has arrived for the establishment of such an undertaking, it will certainly advise the Government accordingly.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether there was not a possibility that we might lose some of the patents referred to. Well, the question of patents rests also with the Registrar of Patents who has representatives on the Patents Committee of the Atomic Energy Board, so I think they are in a position to ensure that people applying for patents get a square deal.

I want to conclude by saying that I think the unanimous support which has been given to this measure is also a source of gratification to the people who have devoted a great deal of very difficult work to this so called “stretch-out agreement”. This “stretch-out agreement” which has been reached by the Atomic Energy Board with the assistance of representatives of the mining industry is a most complicated agreement. Complicated negotiations had to be carried out which called for the utmost tact and perseverance. They have entered into arrangements which are to the advantage of our country and of our whole uranium industry. As the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has correctly remarked, it is also in the interests of the provision of employment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

When the debate was adjourned we had not got very far into the second reading so I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), to the effect that this Bill should go to a Select Committee before the second reading. If ever a Bill should have been sent to a Select Committee before the second reading this is that Bill for the following reasons, Sir: When the present Act was a Bill it was sent to a Select mittee for some three years. The hon. member for South Coast and I sat on that Select Committee and we dealt in that committee with this very important subject of water and water control which is the very lifeblood of the country objectively. The reasons why I say that this Bill should go to a Select Committee before the second reading are as follows: Some of the amendments in this amending Bill were in some form or other very fully discussed and were thrown out by that Select Committee after due consideration. Secondly, this Bill as read a first time is very different from the Bill which was published in the Government Gazette. Thirdly the White Paper which purports to explain the provisions of this amending Bill was actually compiled for the Bill which was published in the Gazette and does not cover all the new principles which are contained in this amending Bill. If you read that White Paper carefully, Sir, you will see that certain matters there are very differently dealt with from the way they are dealt with in some of these amending clauses.

As you will recollect, Sir, when the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill he warned us in his introductory speech that he intended introducing a long amendment to the amending clauses in this Bill in the Committee Stage. The Minister’s amendment covers some three and a half pages and it constitutes only a section of this Bill if it is passed. I think it is very unfortunate that a matter that is of such importance to us as water should be the subject of amendment in this way in view of the fact that we had a consolidating Act as recently as 1956 an Act which was given much thought and consideration and which covers all aspects of water and water control. As I have already said certain of these amending clauses contain matter which was discussed very fully when we dealt with the present Act. That complicated Act actually contains some 183 sections and as I said before the Select Committee sat for three years. We had experts before us, we had the Department of Water Affairs with all the departmental officials to assist us and every consideration was given to all the points some of which are now again appearing in this Bill, points that were discussed and then thrown out by that Select Committee as undesirable in our opinion.

I feel that this amending Bill has come before us rather hastily if in such a short space of time there have been so many changes, since the time when the Bill was first published in the Gazette and now when the Minister confronts us with this long amendment to the amending clauses. Clause 8 (1) and Clause 12 of this Bill do make provision for an appeal to a water court. We did everything we could on the Select Committee to try to eliminate the very costly business to the irrigator and the farmer of having to go to the Water Court for an apportionment of water or to have his riparian rights or vested interest rights recognized. The Minister tells us to-day that his riparian rights or vested interest rights This proposed new amendment—that is all I can call it—which the hon. the Minister says he will introduce in the Committee Stage, runs into over three pages, and I should like to read part of it. In respect of Clause 12 of the amending Bill it says—

1. (i)determine the total quantity of water to be made available under sub-section (2) for abstraction, impounding, storage or use during any period by all persons who are the owners of riparian land in relation to any public stream or natural channel within the Government water control area in question which can be beneficially irrigated by means of water from that public stream or natural channel and who, but for the provisions of sub-section (2), would have been entitled to the use of water from such public stream or natural channel for irrigation purposes on riparian land within such area;
2. (ii) determine the formula according to which such quantity of water is to be apportioned between the persons referred to in sub-paragraph (1) either generally or in respect of any portion of the Government water control area in question

We have all read that.

I know, the hon. member has read it, but this was sprung on us on Friday afternoon at the second reading, and I am just trying to show you how complicated it is. I wonder how many hon. members on that side of the House spent the week-end, as I had to do, going right through this in its application to the amending Bill and comparing it with the Water Act as such. I have only read a page and a half of the three and a half pages of this particular amendment that the hon. the Minister says he intends to introduce in the Committee Stage. Mr. Speaker, you can see the difficulties that we had on this side of the House when the hon. Minister sprang this on us. You see how complicated it is and this is only a portion of the amendment to one sub-section. When you have got an Act of 180 odd clauses, you can see why I say that this Bill should go to a Select Committee before the second reading. Because how can we in this House at the second reading deal with this amendment and other amendments? I am sure the average member on the other side has not gone into this question, unless he had the amendment before Friday. We did not have that amendment before Friday. One or two people on the other side of the House actually referred to the amendment and seemed to know something about it, but if this hon. Minister comes at the second reading and lays an amendment to an amendment of this nature before us, you can realize why we on this side of the House say that it is unreasonable to expect us to deal with the second reading where the principles of the Act are passed. It is all right for the hon. Minister to say, “Oh yes, we can deal with it in the Committee Stage”, but Mr. Speaker, you will not allow us to amend the principles of the Bill when we get to the Committee Stage, and that is why we are pressing on this side of the House for this Bill to be sent to a Select Committee before the second reading.

Further on in this long amendment, the hon. Minister, who interrupted the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) when he said that there was no appeal in respect of the apportionment of the hon. the Minister, said, “Oh yes, there is a right of appeal”. We know that under certain other clauses, such as 8 (1), there is a right of appeal, but in regard to this particular amendment he has given the right to appeal to the Water Court, but, Mr. Speaker, our whole idea in the Select Committee, members on the other side as well as on this side, was that we should try to save the heavy costs of going to the Water Court, because the ordinary irrigator is not in a position to afford the expenditure to fight the Government in any Water Court. The hon. Minister is introducing an appeal here and if the Clause 8 (1) covered all these provisions, why has he re-introduced in Clause 12? Because, Mr. Speaker, we on the Select Committee were very anxious to try and save the heavy costs of a Water Court which has helped to break many small farmer and irrigator in the past just when he was trying to protect his own rights, especially as a riparian owner. But when it comes to the Minister, and in a proclaimed area, taking the right to apportion all water in the proclaimed area, it means that the Minister can diminish the water rights of an aggrieved person and that aggrieved person can go to a Water Court, but what hope has the ordinary irrigator got in fighting the Government when it comes to the apportionment of the Minister who has taken away riparian rights which I, and I think the average farmer, has looked upon as vested rights, because a man paid a higher price for land that has riparian rights than he does for ordinary land.

Do you want to do away with the right of appeal?

If the hon. member for Cradock would only keep quiet and let people deal with these things objectively, it would be much better for this House.

You have not much knowledge of the matter.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is another one who makes a running commentary in debates when we are trying to deal objectively with very important matters. Undoubtedly there are new principles introduced in this amending Bill, new principles to the Act, but principles which were, as I have said, discussed in that Select Committee. We discussed them fully and we did not give the hon. the Minister certain powers, deliberately. The present hon. Minister was not then Minister of Water Affairs, but the department then wanted those powers for themselves and we deliberately did not grant those powers as a Select Committee. They were voted down unanimously by the members on the other side of the House as well as members on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker you will recollect that when that Select Committee reported to this House, that Bill was given the blessing of all parties in the House. It went through all stages in one day in a matter of minutes, which proved that we all supported this Act, as it is to-day. I think it is most unfortunate that these hastily drawn up amending clauses have been put together to give the Minister greater powers, to give the department greater powers in respect of the handling of water, and I think it would be much better from everybody’s point of view, especially from the point of view of the country, if this Bill was sent to a Select Committee.

I want to come to Clause 7. I will come back to Clause 12 later on. Clause 7 of this amending Bill asks for an extension of time, in the one case to eight years and the other from five years to ten years. Now Section 24 of the Act, as amended by this clause, actually controls Section 21 of the Act which deals with pollution, purification and disposal of industrial water and affluence. Now Section 21 (7) reads as follows—

And (8)—

Mr. Speaker, that shows how serious we felt about this question of pollution of water, and pollution whether it be of rivers, streams or the sea affects all sections of the community. Although many people may not think so, Mr. Speaker, anybody who lives below the point of pollution of a river through any means, certainly, is definitely affected, and of course those adjacent to a pollution of the sea, in adjacent areas, are very much affected. Recent statements in the Press made by medical authorities have stated that the discharge of untreated sewage into the sea can lead to serious outbreaks of disease, such as typhoid, etc. That is quite apart from the question of pollution by filthy matter causing a serious nuisance to the public, or chemicals killing off all fishlife or vegetation. Such pollution can affect the economic position of holiday-resorts or of the natural growth of communities or townships. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Have permits been granted by the hon. the Minister to any local authority for the disposal of untreated sewage into the sea? Has the Minister granted permits to factories discharging effluents into the sea where such effluents is leading to serious pollution? Does the hon. the Minister really think that granting such long period of exemption as suggested by the amendments in this amending Bill will put a stop to such pollution, and are these periods of exemption not much too long and against the interest of the community in areas where pollution is taking place? Section 21 of the Act deals with the purification after use by factories where such water comes from either a public stream, private borehole or even underground water. The Select Committee spent some days discussing all aspects of pollution, especially the handling of water after pollution, and Mr. Speaker, after listening to experts, after questioning all authorities that we had on the subject, we came to the conclusion that these periods of exemption as laid down in the Act were long enough for anybody to stop pollution of rivers or the sea. I think here it is unfortunate that the hon. the Minister wishes to extend this period of exemption up to ten years. I would also like to ask the Minister what has been happening during this period since this Act was put on the Statute Book in 1956 and to-day in relation to pollution? The Act in Section 21, sub-sections (7) and (8), which I read out, shows how important the Select Committee thought this problem was. So once again that proves how necessary it is that this mater should be further considered rather than passing it through this House at this stage. This question of further consideration where we can discuss the matter and have full discussion across a table rather than here where the principles are really laid down in this amending Bill at the second reading, should receive the serious attention of the hon. the Minister. There we can get round a table and discuss the intimate problems, with the Department of Water Affairs to help us, with experts to advise us and answer to questions. I feel that not only the clause I dealt with, but also especially Clauses 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 need to have that very full discussion so that we can deal with the new principles in those particular amending clauses.

The hon. the Minister earlier in this Session said that where he proclaimed an area as a water control area, as in the Blyde River Irrigation Scheme (because I questioned him on that scheme, because of complaints from the irrigators of the Blyde River Irrigation Scheme, which was an entirely privately developed scheme), said that there were no vested rights and an apportionment of water was made by him. Mr. Speaker, some of those people bought fairly large farms. I said on that occasion to the hon. the Minister that where a man had 100 morgen, the Department now considers that 13 morgen of irrigation ground is an economic proposition, and it does not matter whether he owns 100 morgen or 200 morgen, which perhaps he has purchased and in respect of which he has paid a price for the land and riparian rights, and he may have developed those rights. And then the Minister says that there are no vested interests! That man may have bought the land with the idea that he would keep his sons on the farm because they could develop that water in that area. Now the Minister comes along, providing no more water, and limits these people to that extent. I want to repeat that the hon. the Minister is not providing further water by either building a dam or providing water in any other way. If the Minister had provided more water by building a dam or other works, then the Government in my opinion would have the right to apportion water as they think fit, that is to say the extra water he supplies. But the Minister goes to that area where water has been beneficially used by irrigators who have bought that land and have been irrigating for some time, and the Minister in reply to my questioning said—

That refers to his right to proclaim a government water control area, even where the Government has done nothing to augment that water supply. Mr. Speaker, we all know that many people are developing irrigation works from normal flow, but they very often also impound surplus water. But you see, the hon. the Minister is making no provision for that at all. He says they only have the right to the normal flow. Then the Minister continued—

May I ask the hon. member a question? What is the hon. member reading from?

From Hansard, Col. 5911 (4 May 1961). The Minister of Water Affairs was replying to my questions in regard to the Blyde River Irrigation Scheme. I questioned the hon. the Minister in regard to complaints from the irrigators who have been using the water there beneficially for a long time; they now have been told that they were going to be apportioned water only to irrigate 30 acres irrespective of the size of the ground owned by the individual, and that for the remainder of the land they would only get 12½ per cent of what water was available for the other land.

You have got it all by the tail-end and it is the wrong tail.

That is the statement I made here and the hon. the Minister never contradicted it. It is also in a memorandum submitted to the hon. the Minister.

I cannot contradict all the silly statements that are made.

Unfortunately I have not got much time and I have to cut out a lot, but I want to deal with this point. The hon. the Minister said—

Then it goes on to say—

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you have got a riparian farm and you are irrigating 50 morgen out of a 200 morgen farm, I would not call that over-development. I would say, “Thank God for that, thank God the man had the initiative to do it”. The Government steps in and now says that all the water will be apportioned. The Minister goes on and says—

I have not got the time to read it all, but hon. members can read it, and I think it is most unfortunate that this hon. Minister should apportion water and then just say to the irrigator, the small farmer, “If you do not like it, you can go to the Water Court”, which, as I have said before, may be sufficient to perhaps bringing him into the insolvency court. The Select Committee had in mind the protection of the water rights of the riparian owners of both the normal flow and any surplus water that was there.

Why did you not put it in?

We did so in the Act, and he is protected in the Act, but the hon. the Minister is now coming with this Bill taking the power to apportion water and he is not providing further water supplies. If the hon. Minister were to build irrigation works, he would be entitled to apportion the additional water and nobody could quibble with him, because then, the development would be by Government capital, but where the private irrigator has invested private funds and has developed an irrigation scheme to the benefit not only of himself but of the country, the Government should not come in and proclaim it a Government control area and take the water he is using and give it to people who are not riparian owners. That is the gravamen of my charge. Water is being taken away and the Minister says: If the irrigator or the man with the water apportionment is not satisfied, he can go to the Water Court. That is what we are against. We do not want to force the ordinary irrigator to have to go to the Water Court to protect his rights. This Bill should be sent to a Select Committee before the second reading and I support the amendment most strongly.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) has said he supports the amendment which asks that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee before the second reading and he gives two reasons for doing so. He says that the first reason is that he has been trying for four days, since last Friday until to-day, to understand an amendment, and he now wants a Select Committee so that he can have more time to understand the amendment. He served for three years on the Select Committee which analysed the Water Act and the hon. member still does not understand the Water Act to-day. I think that it is a very subjective yardstick which he wants to apply in asking for the appointment of a Select Committee. The second reason which he has submitted is that the Select Committee which originally considered the water legislation did not want to encourage people to appeal to the water courts. This is certainly very far from what the Committee intended at that time. The water court is there to protect the rights of individuals and it was precisely the object of that Select Committee to see to what extent they could preserve the rights of the individual despite State control over our water. That was in fact the great problem and the hon. member apparently still does not understand that to-night. I think it is therefore very essential that we should get to the crux of the problem with which this Bill deals. The important clause in this Bill is Clause 12 which goes to the crux of the principle embodied in the 1956 Act. Mr. Speaker, the unprecedented and phenomenal industrial development which has taken place in the post-war years in South Africa made it essential for this House to adopt a new Water Act in 1956 in order to keep pace with the requirements of our modern industrial economy, as compared with the pastoral and agricultural economy of earlier days. The main object of the Irrigation Act of 1912 which gave substance to the doctrine of the rights of riparian owners, of the English law as applied at that time in South Africa, was to further the agricultural development of our land and therefore to assist riparian owners in achieving that object; the 1912 Irrigation Act succeeded in this object. The large-scale exportation of our fruit to-day and other primary products is for example very definitely a testimony to the fact that this 1912 Irrigation Act succeeded in its object. But South Africa’s industrial development and her mining development have far exceeded her agricultural development over the past decade, and has resulted in a basic change in the nature and the tempo of our national life. While our population in 1912 when the Irrigation Act was adopted was a rural population, our population has now become urbanized and to-day there are great cities where formerly there was only agricultural land. The inevitable result has been that the 1912 Irrigation Act was no longer suited to these changed circumstances, and that is why the 1956 Act was adopted.

What was the object of the 1956 Act? I just want to quote from the Hall report on which that legislation was based. The Hall Commission put it as follows—

I want to emphasize “and the maintenance of the riparian principle”—

It was the task of the 1956 Select Committee to find such a formula. The main object of the 1956 Water Act was therefore to bring about a fair distribution of water between the requirements of agriculture, urban consumption and of industry. But all this had to be done with due regard for the principle of riparian ownership. It was not only the Hall Report which put it in this way, but the Select Committee which considered the matter for three years also made that its basic premise. In order to achieve the required distribution of water between agriculture, the cities and industry, without derogating from the principle of riparian ownership, the 1956 Water Act divided the country into two parts, if I may put it in that way, into two types of water areas. In the first place there was an area in which the principle of riparian ownership would remain unaltered.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that a measure of freedom is allowed to hon. members who read their speeches, but I ask whether it is in order for an hon. member to read his speech?

The hon. member may not read his speech.

The fact that he uses such a method shows how bankrupt he is of any policy.

On a point of order, I have risen on a point of order and you have upheld me. That being so, may the hon. member make such a remark?

What did the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) say?

I said that it is a man who is bankrupt of any policy who raises such an objection.

It is unnecessary for the hon. member to make such a remark.

Mr. Speaker, the 1956 Act divided our country into two areas, if I may put it in that way. In the first area the principle of riparian ownership of water was left unaltered. The apportionment of public water was to be left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the water courts. In the second area there was to be Government water control areas in which the apportionment of public water would fall under the exclusive control of the Minister. That is the principle which was laid down in the 1956 Act. It is in regard to the Government water control areas that the problem has arisen of how to apply the principle of riparian ownership. Now it is obvious that if the riparian owners were to have full rights to water in a public stream, no control could be exercised. It is obvious that if the Minister is to exercise control in apportioning water for agricultural consumption, urban consumption and industrial consumption, he must infringe upon the rights of the riparian owner, and that was the problem with which the Select Committee was faced. In order to overcome this difficulty and still to uphold the principle of riparian ownership to a certain extent, the Act offered the following solution. A distinction was drawn between riparian owners who had exercised their rights as riparian owners and the riparian owners who had not exercised their rights. Those who had exercised their rights were protected by Section 62 (1) (b) of the Water Act. The Minister had to give them a permit to continue exercising their rights. This section is now being amended to make it clearer that the Minister must apportion to such a person that quantity of water which the Water Court would have apportioned to him if the Water Court had still exercised jurisdiction; and in those cases where the Water Court has not made an apportionment, this section now provides that the Minister must, nevertheless, apportion that quantity of water to the person concerned as the Water Court would have apportioned if it could have made an apportionment.

It is clear that the principle of riparian ownership is fully recognized and maintained in those cases where riparian owners have exercised their rights. The riparian owner who considers that he has been done an injustice by the apportionment of the Minister, has, in terms of this Section 62 (8), recourse to the Water Courts by way of an appeal. But what is the position of riparian owners in a Government water control area who had not exercised their riparian rights. The 1956. Act deprives those people of all their rights. Under the Water Act as it reads at present, and not under the amendment which this Bill now proposes to introduce, they lose their rights completely, and they are left to the mercy of the Minister. I want to say at once that I do not want to imply that the Minister and his Department are merciless in such instances. On the contrary, the evidence is that the Minister and his Department are treating, and are trying to treat, such people very reasonably, because the Minister has laid down for himself the rule that he will apportion water to such people on the basis that a Water court would have adopted. He has laid that down as a policy. It is obvious that owners who were riparian owners and who bought land with a view to future development were not satisfied with this provision of the Water Act. They protested against it. These people along the Blyde River, to whom the previous speaker has referred, are also amongst those who have protested. They have bought large tracts of land along the Blyde River, for example; the Blyde River was then declared a State water control area, and they now find that, because they had not developed their land at the time the 1956 Water Act came into operation, they will now no longer be able to develop their land on the basis of their riparian rights, and they will have to approach the Minister for a permit. That is the reason for the great dissatisfaction amongst them. They did not know that that area would be declared a Government water control area, and they also have the objection that they will now be given less water than they would have had as riparian owners. A great measure of dissatisfaction exists. It is not only they who are threatened, but all riparian owners in the country feel that they are faced with the threat that they may in future be deprived of the riparian rights which they have not yet exercised if their areas should be declared a Government water control area in the future. I am thinking, for example, of many farmers who have as yet done too little to be able to utilize their surplus water fully. If they have not yet fully utilized their surplus water and a Government water control area is declared, they will no longer be able to develop the use of their surplus water in future.

It is for this reason that I am very pleased to learn that the hon. the Minister is to amend the 1956 Act by means of this Bill to provide that all the water which is available for agricultural purposes, after he has provided for the requirements of the urban consumers, for industry and for those people who have exercised their riparian rights, will be distributed amongst the farmers in accordance with the principle of riparian ownership on the same basis as a water court would have apportioned the water to them. I think this is a fair and reasonable amendment which is being inserted, and will meet the position of these people to a very large extent. But the hon. the Minister is in addition going still further. He is also giving the right of appeal to those people who previously had no rights whatsoever. He is saying: While I am now going to apportion water to you as a water court would have done, I am in addition giving you the right of appeal to the water court. More than that no Minister on earth surely can do.

To sum up the position, Mr. Speaker, I see the position as follows: In the first place, when an area is declared a Government water control area, all riparian owners who have exercised their rights will be entitled to the quantity of water which a water court has or would have apportioned to them. The Minister will and must leave this water out of account when he apportions water for other purposes. In the second place, when an area has been declared a Government water control area, the Minister will apportion the available water—that is to say after having made provision for those people who have exercised their rights and who have preferential rights—amongst agriculture, urban consumers and industry. And in the third place, in making that apportionment the quantity which he has available for agriculture, can be apportioned to other riparian owners who have not exercised their rights. He will apportion this water in accordance with the principle of riparian ownership.

Mr. Speaker, this amending measure can only be applauded because it restores to such a large extent these principles of riparian ownership which the 1956 Water Act disturbed This amending Bill will succeed to a far greater extent in realizing the object envisaged by the Hall Commission than the 1956 Water Act because this Bill complies fully with the principle it mentions, namely “maintenance of the riparian principle”. That principle is upheld fully, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister is given the power to apportion water between the three main groups in our country. That is all I want to say as regards Clause 12.

I now want to discuss Clause 11 as well. It amends Section 60 of the Water Act which deals with the expropriation of land for servitudes and other purposes. (Quorum.) Mr. Speaker, I say that Section 60 of the Water Act which Clause 11 amends, deals with the expropriation of land for servitudes and other purposes. Under the existing law the State becomes the owner of expropriated land after it has given three months’ notice to the owner concerned of the expropriation. The State becomes the owner, whether the owner accepts the offered compensation or not. Then the owner can say that he does not want to accept the compensation. If he does not accept the compensation, he must go to the water court to have the compensation determined. He is given a year from that date in which to go to the water court. After he has submitted the matter within that year to the water court, it probably takes another two or three years before the water court can hear the case. In other words, the State has already had that servitude for three years or longer, or has already been the owner of the land expropriated for three years and during those three years that person does not receive any compensation. But the Act does not provide for the payment of interest to such a person. I think this is a little unreasonable. It is on this point that I associate myself with the hon. member for East London North (Mr. van Ryneveld) in making an appeal to the Minister. We must remember that the farmer’s assets have been expropriated and that he is only compensated two or three years later. This represents his capital and I think that it is only right that at least a reasonable interest rate should be paid to him.

I want to refer to another matter in connection with expropriation. I want to illustrate what I am saying by a case with which I have been concerned myself. This section which is now being amended deals with the access which the State requests to land which it wants to expropriate. I think it is also reasonable, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has asked, that the person to whose land access is needed, should be given notification. I know it is the policy of the Department to instruct its officials that, before they enter the land of a farmer, they should first tell the farmer that they are coming for this or that purpose. But there are unfortunately officials who do not comply with that rule very faithfully. Furthermore the Land Board also comes at a later stage to value the land. That falls under another Department, namely the Department of Lands. They carry out an inspection and they too do not ask the farmer on every occasion for permission to go on to his land to carry out the inspection.

I want to ask that whenever an inspection is to be carried out the farmers should in fairness be given prior notice; then he knows that people are not simply walking across his land and doing what they like. They do have the right under the Act and the farmer cannot stop them. But let us just be reasonable and fair, because after all is said and done, it is that man’s property.

I just want to illustrate by an example what happens when an expropriation is carried out. This is a case with which I have been concerned myself. In 1955 an offer was made to a lady with a view to the expropriation of a servitude. She was offered an amount of £250. After a protest had been submitted to the then Minister Strijdom, he instructed the Land Board to carry out another inspection, and £750 was then offered. In the meantime there was an appeal court case which was a test case and on the basis of that appeal court case the lady should have been given approximately £7,000. The matter was then taken to the water court and she was prepared to settle for £3,000. But even that settlement was not accepted, and the court then fixed the compensation at £5,600. I do not know where the trouble lay, but I want to say here to-night that since this Minister, with his new Director, has been in charge of the Department, there has been quite a different spirit in our Department of Water Affairs. I am convinced that such a thing would not have happened under their regime because we have only received courtesy and the utmost assistance from them. Such cases will certainly not take place under their regime.

Well, that lady has now been given £5,600, but from 1955 to 1960, when she was paid, five years elapsed and the interest for five years on £5,600 is far more than £1,000. This was her money because she was entitled to it from the date of expropriation in 1955. I, therefore, urge that attention should be given to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the first step which the Department takes is to carry out an inspection. The second step is the valuation. The third step which it takes is to make an offer; the offer is then not accepted and in this way a great deal of time elapses. I think that the farmer could be told from time to time what the intentions are regarding his land. I understand that it was the policy never to have a discussion with a farmer when his land is to be expropriated with a view to telling him what the State intended giving him. The matter is never discussed with him. After all is said and done it is his property. Can he not be asked: My friend, what do you want; what do you think the land is worth? Can the matter not be discussed in a reasonable spirit. Do not let us simply make an offer from outside to him. The system does not work satisfactorily on this basis and it creates great dissatisfaction.

I come to a third clause about which I want to say a few words. I am referring to Clause 9 which inserts Section 42(bis) into the Water Act. As I have said, the amendment merely adds a new clause. I have great doubts regarding this clause. The clause provides that the Minister can intervene in the public interest in a suit between two parties and can make any evidence which he considers necessary in the public interest available to the court. I now ask: At which stage will the Minister ever become aware of such a suit? He is not notified of the fact that there is a dispute between myself and my neighbour over water rights. If he becomes aware of the position in the final stages, it will surely be very unreasonable to provide the information at that stage because the parties concerned will already have incurred heavy expenses. If the information had been provided in the initial stages, all that expense could perhaps have been avoided. For that reason, if the Minister wants to intervene, then he should not do so in the final stages of the court proceedings by means of evidence. If that information had already been made available to the parties during the initial stages, then they might never have gone to the water court. In the second place, when evidence is given, both parties will then be able to cross-examine the witness. Will the State also become a party to the suit in such a case? In other words, will the State be represented by an advocate or an attorney? If the State does take such action, it will be lengthening the hearing of the case and every day in a court results in heavy expense. Why must either of the parties, because the State has intervened bear that cost? Finally, will the evidence which the Minister considers to be in the public interest, be permissible merely because he so decides, or will such evidence be subject to the ordinary rules of evidence in our courts? I want to suggest that this matter should rather be tackled conversely. The Department can administratively make the information it has at its disposal available to those parties who ask for it. If the parties consider that the evidence is necessary for their case, then they can summon the State and its officials to make that evidence available. If they do not want to do so and the Minister nevertheless considers that the court should have that evidence, then I think he should submit that evidence by way of a sworn affidavit to the court, and then the court can decide for itself or the parties can decide that the State should be summoned to be cross-examined on the sworn affidavit.

Then I want to say a few words about Clause 6. It deals with the purification of the waste water of industries. Anyone who has seen the red colour of the industrial effluents along the south coast of Natal which are completely destroying all sea life for miles along the coast and for miles out to sea, and anyone who has experienced the smell at Hout Bay, cannot be indifferent towards this matter. Recently while on a visit to the north coast of Tasmania, I saw this same destructive effect of industrial effluent in the sea—for miles and miles the sea life was being destroyed. The original section was so worded that it also covered effluents which ran into the sea, and it was definitely the idea and the intention of the Water Act that every individual industry should be subject to restrictions as regards effluents. We have heard that according to the legal opinion obtained by the Minister that is not the position. I am therefore very pleased that the Bill contains this amendment which will make this provision applicable to each and every industry for specific periods. With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Bill.

I do not ordinarily intervene in matters of this kind, but as vice-president of the Buffalo Catchment Association which has done a great deal of useful work in conserving the water of the Buffalo River at East London. I venture to bring one or two matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I shall deal principally with Section 59 of the principle Act as amended by Clause 10. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not present tonight because what I wish to say deals with matters wherein his responsibilities and those of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs overlap.

Under the Native Trust and Land Act the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is responsible for the control of land in the Native Reserves, which often includes catchment areas of the rivers upon which the communities living outside the Reserves depend. Under Section 59 of the principal Act (Chapter 5 of the Water Act) as amended by Clause 10 of this Bill, the Minister of Water Affairs has power to control any catchment area wherever it may be situated, and to protect the water of any public stream from erosion and pollution.

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs what steps he is taking and to what extent he is consulted by his colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in the exercise of these powers. I refer particularly to some of our important rivers whose catchment areas fall wholly or in part within the Native reserve and upon which the life and welfare of the whole country depends, not merely of the Natives living inside the reserves, but of large populations and big industrial developments in the areas beyond. A good example of what I refer to is to be found in the catchment area of the Buffalo River and its tributaries, upon which the cities of East London and King William’s Town and other important interests depend for their water supplies. There are three major dams in this river, the Maden Dam, a Municipal Dam that supplies the Municipality of King William’s Town: the Rooikrantz Dam that was built by the Irrigation Department to maintain the large Cape of Good Hope Textile industry and the growing Native population that has settled around it and who live in the Native area and, finally, the Laing Dam which supplies East London and a number of adjoining suburbs. In addition, the Municipality of East London contemplates constructing yet another major dam at Fort Grey for further expansion.

There are a number of European owned farms within the catchment area, some of them almost integrated with the Native area. Proposals have been put forward from time to time for the purchase of these farms by the South African Native Trust for Native Settlement, but strenuous objections have been raised against these proposals by the Buffalo Catchment Association on behalf of the local authorities concerned, on the ground that any further concentration of human beings and their stock in the catchment area will aggravate still further the danger to the river. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has received our objections to these proposals very sympathetically and has promised that these farms will not be acquired, but representations continue to be made and we feel very anxious about the position. We have to look to the future, and as the surrounding European areas are deeply concerned in whatever happens to the catchment area, we feel that the control of our water supplies is a responsibility that belongs to the Department of Water Affairs even more than to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. We feel that any decisions as to future development should be the joint responsibility of both the Minister of Water Affairs and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Another matter that affects this catchment area to which I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention—and I have no doubt the same applies to other areas similarly situated, —is a proposal for the establishment of an immense Native township in the European area at Umdanzani between East London and King William’s Town, to provide labour for future industrial development. The idea really is to establish industry in that neighbourhood, and the Native township will then provide the necessary labour. The establishment of this township in that locality may well result in further pollution of the Buffalo River. Investigations have been carried out under the auspices of the National Resources Development Council and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development with a view to drawing up what is termed a Master Development Plan for the Cape Eastern Border region, incorporating East London, King William’s Town and Berlin. A technical committee was recently appointed to collect the relevant data, to indicate the areas where industrial centres could be developed, and to pinpoint Native townships. The Municipalities of East London and King William’s Town have given their wholehearted support and are anxious that developments on these lines should proceed as soon as possible. Meanwhile the Department of Bantu Administration and development has been planning the establishment of the enormous Native township at Umdanzani, and the idea is ultimately to house Natives there. It is to this development that I wish to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) and I made representations to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in regard to this matter, technical committee, so that he was unable at that stage to state whether the Umdanzani site was to be approved or not. However we have been given to understand, on good authority, that the technical committee eventually came to the conclusion, after an exhaustive investigation, that the concentration of such a large Native population at Umdanzani would constitute a danger to the Buffalo River. They preferred another site on the West Bank of the river where the danger of pollution would not exist. As Umdanzani is situated in the European area, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs what steps he proposes to take in cases of this kind to protect our public streams from pollution in accordance with the authority vested in him under Section 59 of the principal Act as amended by Clause 10 of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to me that the Minister’s Department does not appear to have been represented on the technical committee to which I have referred.

In conclusion may I draw attention to another important consideration in the control of our water supplies. I refer to the Government’s intention to give the Natives independence in their own reserves and to transfer the Trust Lands to the Bantu Authorities. In such an eventuality it is of paramount importance that the control of our rivers, such as the Buffalo River on which a huge population depends—rivers which are the life blood of our country should be safeguarded. It is not a matter that should be left in the hands of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development alone. That department is preparing to abdicate its jurisdiction over these catchment areas, to the untold damage of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has had any experience of Native administration will know that under Native control these catchment areas and the sources of our rivers will be irretrievably destroyed by over-stocking and other malpractices in a decade and a grave responsibility rests not only upon the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but upon the Minister of Water Affairs who represents the water interests of all sections of the community.

We are deeply anxious over these developments and I trust that the hon. the Minister will give us an outline of what he proposes to do to protect our water from the dangers that we fear. I submit, too, that this is a matter that should go to a Select Committee before the second reading of this Bill.

The amendment moved by the hon. members of the Opposition has not yet been motivated by them and no fundamental reasons have been advanced for the amendment. They have not advanced anything which could convince one that a Select Committee is necessary in this case. It becomes a little boring to have to listen to a new amendment on every Bill which comes before the House, namely to ask for a Select Committee to deal with the matter. If the Bill contained any amendments of principles then one could still be in favour of a Select Committee. But I really do not see any amendment to the principle in this Bill. If hon. members study the different clauses carefully they will be convinced that really no change in principle is being made.

What about Clause 12?

I will come to Clause 12 shortly and will discuss it in greater detail. The trouble is that the hon. members opposite talk so very confusingly about this matter. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District (Capt. Henwood) spoke about the water control area of the Blyderivier. Unfortunately he knows nothing about that area. I doubt whether he has ever been in that vicinity.

The facts were given to me in writing.

The hon. member says he got the facts. Well, listening to his representations in connection with the Blyderivier water control area, I would say he obtained his facts from the speech made here two years ago by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) which was but a lot of stories and completely wrong. The hon. member enunciated the same inaccuracies here this evening. Now he says he was talking about facts. What he mentioned here are not facts. The hon. member has the whole matter out of perspective. I can perhaps explain very briefly to him what the exact position is in the Blyderivier area. It was proclaimed a Government area, and in that the hon. the Minister acted according to the prescriptions of the Act. Where water servitudes were registered, where Water Court allocations were made, he honoured those allocations and servitudes. He decided also that 30 morgen would be recognized as an economic unit. He then gave every riparian owner who owned 30 morgen or more the full quota of water for 30 morgen. After those allocations were made the remaining water in the river was divided among the riparian lands. The hon. member will surely realise that one does not irrigate every inch of riparian land from a river if there is not sufficient water to irrigate all the land. There must be an equal division of the water available in the river. That was done. This is the whole story of the Blyderivier area. This story about a person who obtains water for 30 morgen and that the rest of his farm is dry is quite incorrect. Hon. members insisted that we deal with the matter objectively. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) asked that the matter be kept out of politics but he was the first to talk politics instead of dealing with the matter objectively. He is the one who asks the hon. the Minister for the assurance that the measure will not be placed under the crack of the whips and that there must be a free vote. He knows what the procedure of Parliament is when a Government measure is under discussion, but every member is entitled to express his opinion freely. He must not ask that the discussion be kept out of politics and then be the first to talk politics.

I have my Hansard here. Will the hon. member show me one sentence in it in which I spoke politics?

Just the mere fact that the hon. member asks the hon. the Minister whether the measure is now under the crack of the whips is sufficient to show that he is making politics out of the matter. The crack of the Whips is not the issue here. To return to the confusion which exists here, the hon. member objects to the hon. the Minister moving an amendment which gives riparian owners the right to appeal to the Water Court. He objects to it, but in the very next breath he objects to the hon. the Minister exercising the provisions of the Act and making allocations in a Government water control area. We welcome the right being given to riparian owners to appeal to the Water Court when they consider the allocation made by the hon. the Minister to be unfair. I have said that this Bill contains no change of principle. I just want to mention a few of the most important clauses.

The first clause which I regard as important is Clause 8 which amends Section 30. In Section 28 provision is made for the proclamation of subterranean Government water control areas to protect the arterial geological area and the subterranean waters. In Section 30 it is provided that the hon. the Minister can make regulations to exercise control over the sinking of boreholes and the sinking of wells and the extraction of subterranean water. This is a clause which the hon. member voted for in the Select Committee, but it really also affects the rights of owners because the hon. the Minister can declare a Government water control area and thereby exercise control over the extraction of water in such an area. This is a curbing of the rights of owners. The hon. member voted in favour of it but now he pleads for the rights of the owners. This section has been put into the Act to protect the water resources because it is realized that a tremendous amount of subterranean water is being drawn out and provision must be made to limit the injudicious drawing out of such waters. The Select Committee did not really realize what wide powers were being given to the hon. the Minister and what great demands were being made on the Department to implement the provisions of the Act. This is one of the sections which makes great demands on the Department because where such a subterranean water control area is proclaimed it demands a great deal of research to determine the size of the area. The amendment is intended to enable the hon. the Minister to proclaim even a part of such an area. There is therefore no change of principle in that section. We come to Section 11.

What about Section 7?

I will come back to Section 7. In Section 12 there is no change in the principle. It amends Section 62 of the existing Act. As the hon. member knows, Section 59 of the existing Act empowers the hon. the Minister to proclaim a Government water control area. This is a section which was fully discussed in the Select Committee and which was unanimously adopted. But hon. members apparently did not realize what wide powers were being given to the hon. the Minister. I just want to read the second part of Section 59—

This clause as it stands gives the hon. the Minister the right to declare a public stream to be a Government water control area without there being storage or Government water works under construction, and the hon. member voted for that clause.

Now we come to Clause 12, the amendment to Section 62. I just want to point out that Section 62 (b) states very clearly—

In a Government water control area it is stated very clearly that a person can only extract water if he receives a permit from the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister can issue the permit subject to such conditions as he deems fit. That very clearly states the whole purpose of Section 62. The amendment being made here simply puts the matter more clearly and states what the full powers of control of the hon. the Minister are. Clause 12 (c) states—

This just puts it more clearly. Section 62 places the matter under the full control of the hon. the Minister. There is therefore no change in the principle of Section 62. The hon. the Minister now in any case moves an additional amendment which permits people who have not yet abstracted their water to appeal to the Water Court if they consider that they are not being treated justly by the hon. the Minister. It is of course a very far-reaching principle and I do not know whether all the members of the Select Committee realized it at the time. They are principles which affect the rights of riparian owners and which in particular takes away their rights to the use of surplus water but it is a principle which is laid down in the old Act. These Government water control areas only came into being recently and produced many problems and much unpleasantness for the hon. the Minister and the Department, and it must be pointed out that everything possible is being done to eliminate the unpleasantness as far as possible and to meet riparian owners as far as possible and to satisfy them in regard to the permits. We hope that as further experience is gained in the application of these control regulations and it is found that further allocations can be made to riparian owners, the hon. the Minister will be prepared to make the necessary adjustments where it is perhaps found that insufficient water is being allocated; because there are cases where the available information of the Department is not quite reliable in connection with the quantity of water and the normal flow of the stream and in many cases more water from the normal flow should perhaps be allocated, and we hope that adjustments will be made. As far as the rivers of the Eastern Transvaal and Natal are concerned, I think one must remember that they are very different from the Karoo rivers. I do think that if the Government will make use of the surplus water from those rivers in the eastern part of the country, if storage works are erected, there will be sufficient water for industrial purposes and for urban use for all the years to come and more liberal use can then be made of the normal flow of those streams to provide for the needs of agriculture.

The hon. member asked me what about the other clauses. I also want to mention Clause 6 which amends Section 2. Sections 21, 22 and 23 are very important sections of the old Act and it is a new extension of the old Act, namely the conditions for the purification of water. In Clause 6 there is also no change of principle. All that is being done is that the hon. the Minister is being empowered to lay down standards on a national scale or on a regional or a river basis, or for specific industries. This task of setting standards for the purification of water is also an enormous task which is being placed on the Department and the Bureau of Standards, who have to determine the necessary formulas, and as is stated in the explanatory memorandum, it will only be in 1962 that a standard formula can be laid down. It is an enormous task and it is only a matter of time before provision is made on a regional basis or a river basis or on an industrial basis for the purification process.

The hon. member asked what about Clause 7. It is only an amendment of Section 24 and there is also no change of principle. The only difference is an extension of the period. I have just said that the question of laying down formulas for the purification of water is a lengthy process and involves a great deal of work. I think the Bureau of Standards is working on it and they will only be able to have the first formula ready by 1962. The Act was passed in 1956 and it is now 1961. Five years have already elapsed. The maximum period of five years’ exemption has already expired as a result of the inability of the Bureau to prepare the necessary standards and therefore an extension must be given to the hon. the Minister of the time when the standards will be applied. There is no change of principle; it is only an extension of the time. Here too, the Select Committee felt very strongly about the question of purification because it is a very important problem which is to be tackled. [Interjections.] It was started with immediately. The Bureau of Standards gave evidence before the Select Committee and they pointed out to the Committee that it was an enormous task. But I repeat that members of the Committee did not appreciate at the time what a big task it is to prepare these purification formulae. But it is a matter of very urgent necessity and the sooner that specifications are completed the better for the country because there are undoubtedly certain rivers which are already contaminated by industrial waste and waste from the mines. I can mention various streams in the Eastern Transvaal which are contaminated by waste from the mines. I recently saw a statement by an oceanographer in which he says that there are parts of our coast where the bottom of the sea is already so contaminated that the plant and animal life have disappeared and that deserts have actually been formed under the sea. Those things must be combated at all costs but it is a big task and I am convinced that everything possible is being done by the hon. the Minister’s Department and the Bureau of Standards to draw up specifications for the purification of water as soon as possible and thereby to prevent contamination in our streams and the sea.

I have now mentioned the most important clauses and in my opinion none of them contains any change of principle and therefore I see no necessity for the Opposition to insist on a Select Committee. The matter can just as well be discussed here.

Before calling on the next speaker I just want to say that I hope we will not do all the work of the Committee now by continually discussing the details of the Bill.

I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie). He has touched on a subject in which I am very interested myself. I am only sorry that he misunderstood the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) when he intimated that the hon. member had introduced politics into the debate. I listened carefully to the hon. member for South Coast and I must admit that I never detected anything. Whether the hon. member for Nelspruit is super-sensitive or suspicious, which I never thought he was, I do not know.

I am but a layman, with some experience, but the more one listens to this subject the more one feels that this is a very far-reaching measure. I myself, as I will show later, am also anxious that we should get on with this Bill, because it is long overdue, and if you listen carefully to what the hon. member for Nelspruit said, it was an admission that there was unnecessary delay. There might be reasons for it, but I think that the Government has delayed this and it is long overdue and we are to-day in the position, as the hon. member so ably stated, that to a great extent the damage has been done already. For the reason that the measure is so important, I support the hon. member for South Coast that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee before the second reading. The Minister himself has found it necessary to introduce amendments in Clause 12, which in itself indicates how necessary it is. This amendment is not even before us at this stage for discussion. I support the hon. member for South Coast that this measure should first go to a Select Committee.

I would like to come back to Clause 6 which my hon. friend has touched on. I say that while these provisions have been long delayed, they have certainly made it possible for the Minister to establish purification standards. Now it is more than five years ago that I had the pleasure of having an interview with the then Minister of Water Affairs, the present Minister of Lands, and while at that stage he was very sympathetic, he did indicate that we had a lot of problems to overcome and that it was just this sort of amendment which had to be brought about, and of course the purification standards should be established by the Bureau of Standards before we could get going. I say it is a pity that there has been so much delay in bringing this measure before the House. We have around our big cities rivers which are not only used as water supplies, but I could indicate some of these rivers which furnish a lot of pleasure resorts and which have been polluted. As the population has increased and industries have developed, the position has become worse. I accept the position that wherever you have a river and where industries develop, you must anticipate that pollution will follow. This is exactly the problem that has developed and it has been permitted over the years to develop at such a rate that to-day we find ourselves in this position which has brought about the necessity to introduce an amendment of this nature. Where these amenities are situated on a river which I must mention in particular, the Swartkopsrivier, it has afforded pleasure for many years to the communities which live on the banks of the river, and we have faced this problem from year to year. We have known that this river was being polluted. We have appealed to our local authorities to assist in the matter, but the principal drawback has been this very matter. I would like to say that while I realize that the Minister will have a tremendous amount of work by way of establishing these standards, he should—and I make an appeal to him—give priority to these areas where the rivers are flowing …

May I ask a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether he does not think this matter should he discussed under the Minister’s Vote and that it has nothing to do with this Bill?

The hon. member probably thinks I am talking about wool, but he is wrong. In this particular case where we have these amenities the public has been complaining for many years and through the local authorities we have been trying to remedy the position, but it was not possible. What has actually taken place is that through lack of control, the rivers have been polluted by industries and sewage systems. That is a very distressing state of affairs in which we find ourselves, and it is for that reason that I welcome this particular measure in Clause 6, because it seems to me that we will now have every reason to criticize the Minister if once this power is in his hands where he can grant specific standards for specific areas, instead of over-all measures, as was the position to put right what at this stage is in my opinion very wrong. I will not attempt to deal with the health side because it has been dealt with by those who are qualified to do so.

The other matter which I must bring to the notice of the House is the fact that commerce and industry, and particularly industrial development, are likely to suffer considerably, and if we do not arrest the position they will be suffering even more financial loss. Already we have the position where these people will be called upon to apply the standards that are now laid down, and they will have considerable expense in further development. The development that has been allowed was not controlled and no standards were laid down, and therefore they established their factories without taking into consideration the necessary further development which will have to take place when they are called upon to comply with these standards. I only wanted to put this matter briefly. I want to stress its urgency and I want to make a special appeal to the Minister that purification standards should be established at the earliest possible opportunity to meet those dangers and difficulties we are facing, particularly in the big cities where we have rivers and where our industries have been allowed to develop on the banks of those rivers.

Mr. Speaker, we are here dealing with the principle of an Act and we are not discussing schemes and the implementation of such schemes. That can be done under the existing legislation, but here we have one or two special points which we want to discuss with a view to expediting matters. We are fully familiar with the history of the Water Act. We know how it arose. We know of the 1914 Act and the 1924 Act with its various registrations and we know of the 1934 Act. Later we had the 1956 Act and what was the object of that legislation? It was to give the State the right to make the best use of the waters available in South Africa. It was our former Prime Minister who while he was Minister of Irrigation introduced this legislation at the time with a view to obtaining certain powers so that the water could be put to the best use. When we say that we are giving the water to the Government, we mean that the Minister of Irrigation is actually the Government. Here we have a provision by which we actually want to take certain rights away from the Minister. It is not giving him additional powers, but is restricting his powers, and will also make it possible for him to work more quickly than in the past. Hon. members have referred to pollution. There is in fact a clause which lays down how pollution can be combated in the most expeditious and effective way because under the 1956 Act there were so many little points that the whole problem could not be tackled. The other aspect is of course the apportionment of water. We know that all water in respect of which people had rights, is registered and that no one can take away those rights, but here we have a case where there have been new apportionments. The old apportionments remain unchanged, but the new provisions give the Minister the right to apportion the water. We are now merely saying that we do not think it is right that the Minister alone should have the right, as he does under the 1956 Act, and that there should be certain restrictions and that the individual should be protected and that he should be able to go to the water court if he thinks that the water has not been correctly apportioned. How anyone can object to this principle, I do not know, because the Minister already has the power under the 1956 Act to do anything. He is the master of our water, but he has now agreed himself in terms of this Bill to restrict his powers and the individual will also have the right to go to the water court. I can therefore not see what objection there can be to this legislation. It is an easy Bill. It also makes the following provision. While the 1956 Act also gave the Minister the power to protect subterranean waters, in this Bill we are now limiting the Minister’s powers and we are giving the individual the right to go to the courts. I therefore cannot understand how there can be objections to this Bill. We had the old Act and we then had the Hall Act which was based on the report of the Hall Commission. We passed the 1956 Act on that basis, but one always finds weaknesses and mistakes in any Act which one passes. To expedite matters the Minister has now introduced this simple Bill and he has even agreed to restrict to a certain extent the powers which he has under the 1956 Act so that the State will protect the individual. I do not know why we must discuss the matter any further. The principle is quite simple. I think that if the Minister will give hon. members the amendment which he is to move to Clause 12, they will see there is nothing which they need fear and that he is reducing his own powers in order to protect the individual. I do not know why we have to discuss the matter any further.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 24 May.