reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No 19—“Justice”, and Vote No 20— “Prisons”, had agreed to the Votes.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour, please.

This debate takes place in a period in which South Africa seems to be moving out of one of the worst drought cycles in the history of our country. During this period the water portfolio was certainly somewhat of a hot potato for this hon Minister. We do appreciate that. Furthermore, I want to convey the sympathy and condolences of those of us on this side of the House to the hon the Minister for the fact that in the past year he has had to carry the heavy burden of a personal misfortune.

Mr Chairman, in the very limited time at my disposal in this debate, I should like to make a few brief remarks and ask a few questions in connection with water affairs. I hope the hon the Minister will react to them in the course of the debate. Tomorrow I shall make my contribution with regard to conservation matters and fisheries.

First of all, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister very sincerely on the fact that both pieces of draft legislation on environment affairs which have been introduced during the current session—that is the Water Amendment Bill and the Forest Bill—have been referred to select committees.

†I would like to think that environment affairs is a subject about which all hon members of all parties in this House can make common cause. It is a matter of good management rather than of ideological conflict, and I am pleased that the hon the Minister has approached both these two important Bills in an open and co-operative spirit. Furthermore I should like to commend the hon the Minister and his department for the part they played in managing affairs during the aftermath of the hurricane Domoina. I hope that the hon the Minister will use the opportunity during this debate of giving the House a status report on this matter.

I should also like the hon the Minister to provide us with a status report in connection with the water supply situation in the urban areas of Natal and the PWV complex. I have made it clear on previous occasions that I believe the crisis in the urban areas of Natal was to a large degree the result of decades of neglect on the part of the Government in respect of capital expenditure on water storages schemes in Natal. This fact is borne out by the latest annual report of the department, in which it is stated that it was essential that the actual expenditure “on the establishment of additional water storage and distribution facilities should be increased in future in order to eliminate the backlog”. This is particularly applicable in Natal.

The people of Natal are to be congratulated for the way in which they have borne the crisis with fortitude, and also for having demonstrated great resourcefulness in conserving water during this time. As a result I believe they have now richly earned the reward of a crash programme of investment on the part of the Government in order to bring their water storage capacity to a more appropriate level.

The 1983 scheme to reverse the flow of the Vaal River shows what can be done where there is a will to act with vigour, and my call on the Government today is that it should take similar concerted action in respect of Natal. We need to build the Inanda Dam quickly. We need to tap the Umkomaas. We need to increase the capacity of Midmar, and we need to exploit the Tugela River for the benefit of both Natal and kwaZulu. I can see the need for water to be extracted from the Tugela in Natal and given to the Transvaal, but only on the minimum condition that Natal’s water supply needs are fully provided for at the same time.

In connection with the situation on the Witwatersand I was disturbed to note in a report on 1 May this year that the chairman of the Johannesburg Management Committee, Mr Francois Oberholzer, was reported as saying that the water situation of the Witwatersrand was still critical in spite of some newspaper reports to the contrary, I hope the hon the Minister will react to that statement.

A projection of the PWV complex’s water requirements in future would indicate that a great deal of imaginative investment must still be made over and above what is reflected in present estimates. It seems to me that an importation programme from the Tugela, and particularly from the Lesotho highlands scheme, is a prerequisite in respect of future planning in relation to the PWV complex. It also seems to me that an additional dam in the Vaal River, down stream from the present dam in the vicinity of Parys, might be called for, and that the underground water in the dolomite formations of the Reef should be exploited. I believe the water contained in those dolomite formations comprises a volume equal to three times the capacity of the Vaal Dam. It will of course require extensive modern technology and careful planning to avoid the developing of sinkholes. It does, however, remain a source which we will have to exploit.

It is also vital that a co-ordinated programme of financial inventives and penalties should be employed to shape and control the usage of water throughout South Africa. In this context, I believe, one can welcome the publication of the White Paper on water tariffs and related matters. The point is, however, that Natal has shown that tariffs can be a vital management instrument in the hands of the authorities to encourage extremely effective conservation measures, as demonstrated during the recent crisis.

On the subject of the recent water crisis it is also my duty to record that a number of complaints have been received from people in affected areas, particularly on the Witwatersrand. These are reports of allegedly unfair and erratic water restriction policies being applied. Some of the examples include the fact that Pretoria, Randburg and Verwoerdburg apparently refused to observe the Rand Water Board’s recommendation that no hosepipes should be used to water gardens. Another bone of contention was the fact that practically all flats had only one water-meter, which made it virtually impossible to track down those responsible for not observing the water regulations.

These complaints, as well as others, do not surprise me at all. It has been my view for many years that water management affairs have been a stepchild of the Government. It has been neglected and underfunded, and today the management of water affairs in general seems to me to be a rather confusing hodge-podge of divided and overlapping responsibilities, which together lack a clear-cut command structure. Water boards with differing powers often compete with local authorities and with the central Government in the formulation and application of policies. I do not reflect on individuals when I say this, Sir. I have great admiration for these people and also for the way in which they try to apply current legislation in a sensible manner. I do believe, however, we need a rationalization plan, a national programme for water management and development. I believe that this type of overall initiative should be a priority, particularly in the light of the fact that the President’s Council report, as well as other reports, indicate that our water demand could outstrip supply by the year 2020. What the Republic of South Africa really needs in order to meet the needs of the next century is perhaps a new semi-State national water supply commission, something along the lines of the successful Escom model. All in all, if we can say that we have learnt some valuable lessons in regard to the importance and the realities of water in our national life during the recent crisis then perhaps it was a timely blessing.

This brings me to another matter namely the question of regional co-operation throughout Southern Africa. The Lesotho Highlands Scheme is perhaps the most obvious example of the international co-operation that can be achieved in Southern Africa. It is a disappointment to us that progress under this scheme has only been modest. It has progressed very slowly. This scheme should perhaps have been the first source of imported water for the PWV area. The Tugela should have followed after the Oxbow Scheme. However, hardly any progress seems to have been made. Looking at the rest of Southern Africa, similar opportunities also seem to exist, and I hope the hon the Minister will take the initiative in co-operation with the Department of Foreign Affairs in this direction. Is it not possible in the wake of the Nkomati Accord for steps to be taken to develop storage and irrigation capacity from the Limpopo River in co-operation with Mozambique? In the longer term the subcontinent must surely also look to the water resources of Northern Botswana and the water resources of the Zambezi and Kavango Rivers. This is the longer term of course. In the end, my own water vision—if I may call it that—for Southern Africa is that one should establish the equivalent of a multi-national water grid which would optimize the storage, utilization and distribution of water throughout the economically co-operating states of Southern Africa.

As far as the present situation is concerned, I wish to raise two matters which are of more immediate concern to us. The first of these is the question of water management under the new constitution. It remains a vast mystery to us how water policy and management is to be divided between general and own affairs under the new constitution. One can make jokes about white water, black water, coloured water and general water—this does have its ridiculous side—but I do sincerely hope that the hon the Minister and his department will reassure the public that the transition to the new dispensation will be smooth. I think the hon the Minister owes it to this Committee and to the public clearly to set out the implications of the new arrangements as a matter of some urgency.

The second issue I want to raise is the question of the utilization of the water in the Palmiet River. The hon the Minister is aware that the prospect of damming the Palmiet in the heart of the Kogelberg State Forest, or lower down at the weir just above the Betty’s Bay/Kleinmond road, is a prospect that has greatly alarmed concerned conservationists. This is mainly because the Kogelberg State Forest represents one of the last and best completely pristine fynbos environments still in existence in the world. The hon the Minister is also aware of the fact that various schemes have been proposed with a view either to minimizing or avoiding the damming of the Palmiet. I should like to place on record the fact that it is my fervent belief that if we can avoid any major damming scheme on the lower Palmiet, we should do so, despite the fact that it is probably the last major dammable river still left in the Western Cape.

This then begs the question of where we are to obtain water. I hope that we can look to other ways of supplying this water some of which may perhaps be unconventional. We could perhaps think along the lines of a rapid development of desalination technology. It seems to me that South Africa should take advantage of the opportunity to move up among the leaders in the world in desalination techniques by grasping this nettle now instead of waiting for events to force us into it some 15 or 20 years hence. An authoritative projection of Western Cape requirements in particular shows that we will have to look to unconventional methods, and the commercial desalination of seawater and the processing of brackish and effluent water in particular, by the year 2003. This is according to estimates that I have seen, even if we maximize all other conventional sources including the Palmiet in the meantime. I believe further that present resources in the Western Cape will be inadequate for our needs after 1992.

I am obviously aware of the fact that cost is a factor in taking a bold decision to progress with desalination. For example, the world’s largest reverse osmosis desalination plant at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia produces 4 million cubic metres per annum at a cost of between 1 dollar 25 cents and 1 dollar 50 cents per cubic metre.

I understand that a major desalination plant today in South Africa which could produce 100 million cubic metres per annum— the equivalent of a big dam on the lower Palmiet—would cost some R400 million, compared to the R125 million for the dam on the lower Palmiet, and that it would produce water at a marginal cost of about R1,80 per cubic metre compared to approximately 60 cents from conventional sources.

However, it is only as the result of bold investments in technology that mankind and this country in particular have made significant forward progress. It seems to me that the exciting possibilities which could flow from successful desalination in the Western Cape and also for the isolated farms and villages in the vast barren reaches of the western parts of Southern Africa could earn the gratitude of future generations of South Africans, and we will have to grasp the nettle sooner or later anyway. I would therefore ask the hon the Minister to weigh up the costs against the vision in assessing the Government’s attitude towards this subject.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in associating myself with what the hon member for Constantia had to say. I have done so elsewhere before now, but I should also like to do so in the Committee in order to express the sympathy of this side of the House for the irreparable loss suffered by the hon the Minister and his family.

The hon member for Constantia mentioned several examples in regard to which he reproached the Government for having failed to give attention to better water supply in various places. I agree with him that there is a backlog as regards water supply in South Africa and I could mention several other places to him too, but there are important reasons why there are backlogs at the moment, backlogs that cannot be eliminated. In one respect I do agree with him, and that is that it is cause for concern for all of us to see that this is indeed the situation.

There is probably no other State department which is set such heavy demands by South Africa’s intense and extreme climatic conditions — unprecedented droughts on the one hand and unprecedented flooding on the other — as this Department of Environment Affairs. Moreover, in the past year we have experienced these two extremes to the full. During the year under review we have experienced a drought which increased in intensity and which, in its disastrous consequences for our economy, has had an increasingly wide-ranging effect, and this department had to keep abreast in general with a higher demand for water on a countrywide basis, and a demand which was not limited to one sector alone but applied to all three of the sectors: The primary sector — the irrigation farmers who had major problems with too little water; the secondary sector — the municipalities which had to impose stringent water restrictions; and the tertiary sector — industries which were encumbered by a shortage of water.

It is unfortunately the case that the department was simply unable to accommodate all these demands, let alone attempt to make up the leeway of previous years. I want to reiterate that it must cause every South African grave concern that this is the situation as regards water supply in our country because this emphasizes the following, and I just wish to mention a few points: Everyone concerned must show greater responsibility as regards the more economical use of our water. People must also be prepared and willing to pay more for the water that is available, and more effective steps must be taken to combat water pollution in order to ensure the high quality of the water we have. There must of course be effective enforcement of these measures with drastic penalties for offenders. In addition, greater attention must be paid to the development of alternative sources of water, and here I agree with the hon member for Constantia that we shall have to call upon technology to assist us in this regard. I have no doubt that we have the skills to do this. But we shall have to step up our research and obtain more funds for the department so that we may have a realistic budget to do what we have to do in South Africa.

The second challenge faced by the department during the year under review was the consequences of the Domoina flood, in Pongola in my constituency, and in Northern Natal. We know that damage was enormous, not only for the farmers whose crops were damaged and whose irrigation equipment was lost in the flood. Other bodies, too, suffered considerable damage, for example the provincial administration, due to damage to roads and bridges. Even the department experienced the consequences of the floods as far as the financial side was concerned. One need only consider the canal system of the Pongola irrigation scheme. On that alone the department suffered millions of rands of damage. But let me point out that in both his capacities the hon the Minister did an outstanding job of combating the consequences of the floods. In the first place, as Minister of Environment Affairs he had to take action, and in the second place, as chairman of the Cabinet Committee, he had to give attention to distress relief in the various spheres where damage had been incurred. On behalf of all of us I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister this afternoon on the way in which he acquitted himself of these two tasks. I want to thank him in particular on behalf of the irrigators of Pongola in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon member for Umfolozi for his visits and his sympathy, but chiefly for his vigorous action in that, together with his Cabinet colleagues, he handled the crisis in such a way that steps in regard to the provision of aid could be announced without delay. This contributed enormously to giving the farmers in that region fresh courage and instilling in them the confidence that their interests were in good hands. In this regard I cannot omit to thank the Directorate of Water Affairs, too, for what they have done and here I refer to the Director-General, his head office staff down to the local engineer at Pongola for the superhuman task they performed in impossible conditions. I was there personally and I saw the conditions in which they had to work to repair the canal system. The people of that region will be eternally grateful to them for that.

At this point I should like to say a few words about the forestry situation. The forestry division of the department has also shown over the past year that in various respects we have a leeway that we cannot make up, particularly as regards new plantings, new established areas, which have to be established to meet our future needs. We have indeed fallen far behind. It is true that over the past year the drought has been responsible for poor planting programmes, but as far the State—which is a very important plantation farmer in South Africa—is concerned, it is once again the old problem of inadequate funds with which to do the work. Therefore I am pleased to see that it has at least been possible to add about R2 million to the subprogramme of the department’s budget for the establishment of new plantations. However, this is still far too little.

In the private sector the problem is that the situation in the industry has become unattractive to the owner-occupier or small grower as regards the financing of timber plantations and the marketing of their product, because there are certain bottle-necks in both these spheres. This is one of the reasons why the disturbing phenomenon is being encountered that large companies are taking over the land of the smaller farmers. This is a subject that one could discuss at length but unfortunately I do not have the time now. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as a party we have already conveyed our sympathy to the hon the Minister. At the time we realized, and we still realize, that as a person and as a family man he must have passed through indescribably deep waters, so much so that he and Mrs Hayward must at times have wondered whether there was any end to what they were going through. We wish them strength for the difficult time of longing that lies ahead.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to discuss environment affairs and the future, the situation in 10, 30 and 50 years ahead, and I ask whether the department is duly equipped and capable and is able to show the necessary zeal with which to enter the future. My answer is an unqualified “yes”. It is an unwritten law that today’s generation must live not only for themselves, but also for the next and subsequent generations. I prefer to regard the drought and the times of limited water supply that we are still to a large extent experiencing at present, as something of the past, and to look ahead. We must not be obsessed by the few dry years that are past and the dams that run empty and the riverbeds that cease to flow. We must believe that years of normal rain will come again, that our dams will be filled again and that our rivers will flow again. In that belief we must enter the future. If every consumer plays his part as regards the water that is available in normal times, then the farmer, the industrialist and the private consumer will each again enjoy his rightful share of the water that is and will be available. As far as the future is concerned I believe that there will be development in accordance with the demands of the times and that new techniques will therefore be developed in due course for the acquisition and conservation of water. I shall refer to this again at a later stage.

The department has laid a very good foundation as far as environment affairs and water affairs are concerned, and I ask once again: How do environment affairs stand with respect to the future? I shall try to answer this by illustrating how matters stand in other parts of the world in comparison with South Africa. I have the April 1984 issue of Owgewing RSA before me. I should like to quote the following from it:

The author then goes on:

The author goes on:

The author goes on:

I quote further:

What are you quoting from now?

From Omgewing RSA, the April 1984 issue.

I say that I enter the future with faith as far as water and environment affairs are concerned. In contrast to these countries our department is laying a sound foundation and building on a foundation that has already been laid in the past.

I have before me the annual report of the Water Research Commission. These are men who are constantly engaged in research in the field of water consumption, the exploitation of water etc in South Africa. I should like to discuss the objectives of the Water Research Commission. In terms of the provisions of the Water Research Act, 1971, it is the objective of the commission to undertake research in respect of:

1. (a) the occurrence, preservation, conservation, utilization, control, supply, distribution, purification, pollution or reclamation of water supplies and water;
2. (b) the use of water for:
   1. (i) agricultural purposes;
   2. (ii) industrial purposes; or
   3. (iii) urban purposes.

Over the past year the commission has carried out research in the following spheres: Research on surface hydrology, ground water, hydrometeorology, irrigation, mineralization, eutrophication—excessive growth of vegetation in water—research on the treatment of municipal wastewater, research on sewage sludge, industrial effluent, water reclamation, desalination, water economy in urban areas, water economy in power stations, analytical techniques regarding water quality and the transfer of information and technology.

During the year this commission has also completed various research projects. Moreover some of the results have been successfully applied in practice. I quote:

I also wish to refer to the comprehensive annual report of the Department of Environment Affairs. When one reads through this annual report one is struck by the wide range of the department’s innumerable activities. Therefore I must say once again that I am optimistic and full of courage for the future, for tomorrow, and as regards the handling of this department’s affairs. What is striking in this report is the fact that the men and women of the department do their work in spite of the fact that the department is experiencing a manpower shortage. The staff of the department are, however, prepared to work many hours of overtime in an effort to keep the department’s activities up to date. For that we wish to convey our thanks and appreciation to the department. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Meyerton when he says that he hopes for a better future, and that we should hope that the drought is now something of the past. I also associate myself with the tribute he paid to the Water Research Commission and the thanks he conveyed to the department for the comprehensive annual report that was made available to us. In this regard I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the trouble they took to have the report typed for us, since there was no time to have the annual report printed.

Judging from letters to the Press a great deal of importance is attached to the Cedarberg as a wilderness area. However, one is concerned that the image created by this publicity is such that it may created the impression that the National Parks Board is more interested in the commercialization of South Africa’s nature areas than in their conservation. When one reads newspaper headlines such as “Duisende van BTK vra Sederberg-behoud”; “Stappers soek juis ontwikkeling”; “Beperkings op stappers is verontrustend”; “Ere-bosbeamptes groet Sederberg”, and so on, it may created the impression that if the Cedarberg wilderness area were to be proclaimed a national park, it would be lost to the nature lovers, to those who want to go hiking or mountain-climbing.

The concept of the conversion of wilderness areas into national parks is nothing new. There are wilderness areas in almost all our national parks. The map of the Kruger National Park clearly shows the wilderness areas in that park. One of the most popular hiking trails in the country, the Otter hiking trail in the Tsitsikamma National Park, falls almost entirely within a wilderness area. If the Cedarberg were to be proclaimed a national park, I want to state unequivocally that it can be assumed with certainty that the Parks Board has no intention of doing away with the wilderness concept in that region. On the contrary, in accordance with zoning proposals by the investigating team nominated by the Parks Board, the wilderness concept will remain as it is at present and the wilderness area will be enlarged.

According to the International Union for the Protection of Natural Life, national parks are formally defined as areas of a special scenic character and quality in which the conservation of the flora and fauna characteristic of the region or coastal area in question is regulated by legislation for the purposes of the enjoyment and use, education and inspiration of man. We ask ourselves, therefore, whether the National Parks Board is complying with the requirements of this definition and why the National Parks Board is concerning itself with the Cedarberg forest reserve. The answer is that conservation by the National Parks Board will in this instance be the highest form of conservation of an international eco-system. This region forms an important link in the chain of South African national parks. The National Parks Board is expanding in order to utilize and conserve all South Africa’s National assets. Why is the Cedarberg area important? For its unique endemic vegetation, its unique endemic fish species, its important mountain catchment area, its unique outdoors recreation facilities, or the opportunity it affords for such facilities, its potential to stimulate regional development. Why, then, should the National Parks Board be the controlling body? Because it has at its disposal multipurpose structures whereby to perform such a function. It has the people capable of carrying out the research, nature administration and planning, and who can control and promote tourism and deal with the aspects of guidance and education

We can see, therefore, that the National Parks Board is not merely commercializing but is in fact developing South Africa’s nature areas to the full in respect of far more facets than just hiking trails, mountain-climbing facilities and nature reserves.

The second matter I want to touch on concerns the Addo Elephant National Park. The history of the conservation of the Addo elephants and the Addo Elephant National Park, and the increase in the number of elephants from 11 in 1931 to 121 in 1982, are among the highlights of South African nature conservation. Since 1973, however, there have been indications that the present Addo Park area will before long be inadequate. There are signs that the quality of the Addo bush is beginning to deteriorate, chiefly due to overgrazing by the elephants. To conserve the elephants as a genetically pure species, representative of the original Addo elephant, there are indications that the balance which this animal must be able to maintain with its environment is in jeopardy. This also applies to the original Cape buffalo, which has here found a milieu in which to survive.

The vital need to place the conservation campaign in this park on a long-term basis and to undertake this is beginning to weigh very heavily and is causing grave concern in the National Parks board. The number of elephants has increased, while the buffaloes are having a difficult time of it due to the inadequacy of their prime habitat in the park. The steadily increasing tourist traffic to the park is evidence of the desire on the part of the people of the Eastern Cape to indulge in recreation in a natural area. As yet there is no substantial area that meets these needs in the Eastern Cape. Due to this need an investigation has been carried out into methods of extending the Addo Elephant National Park. The best approach is to ask that the Suurberg forest reserve be transferred to the Addo Elephant National Park. This forest reserve falls under the same department as the Parks Board, and the favourable aspect in this regard is that it would merely entail a take-over within the department. This application has been made, and my plea to the hon the Minister and the department today is that in the light of the gravity of this matter—it is so serious that the Parks Board is on the point of having to decide whether they should reduce the number of elephants or not—the department must please transfer the Suurberg forest reserve to the Addo Elephant National Park. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we in these benches would like to associate ourselves with the remarks expressing condolences to the hon the Minister and his family in the recent tragedy. We feel for the hon the Minister and are fully conscious of his and his family’s sufferings in their bereavement.

It is regrettable to note that the allocation in the Budget for 1984-85 is again dismally inadequate to meet the requirements of this very important department. On this basis it will be impossible to catch up on the backlog that has been created over many years. A classic example of this is to be found in the province of Natal where only approximately 10%, of the total amount allocated for water development over the years has found its way to this province. Yet, 40% of the country’s water resources are found in Natal.

At the outset of my speech, I wish to express my thanks to the hon the Minister for having acted so promptly and responsibly in dealing with the problems created by the Domoina flood. This was a disaster that has had incalculable effects on those who were directly affected. As is widely known, the damage was enormous, and it would have been considerably greater had it not been for the timely action taken by the Government in rendering assistance to those who were so badly affected. It will take years for the flood-ravaged areas to recover and this will involve considerable expense. The damage to a number of Natal Parks Board nature reserves will regrettably be permanent.

It is with a sense of relief that one realizes that the water problems experienced last year in many of the summer rainfall areas will not recur during the coming winter on account of the excellent rains that have been experienced during the past summer months. It is relevant, though, at this stage to refer to the considerable hardship that was experienced by consumers in the Pietermaritzburg and Durban metropolitan areas in having to comply with the severe restrictions that were imposed last year on the consumption of water. Their response to the need to conserve water was magnificent and great credit must go to them for having co-operated so willingly to avert what could have been a critical situation.

I also wish to pay tribute to Mr Haslam and his committee for their untiring efforts to eke out the meagre water supplies that were available to them. Mr Munro and Mr Phelines also deserve special mention. The fact that Natal has been blessed with an abundant rainfall during the past season means that dams are now overflowing and that river flow is higher now than for many years, it would appear therefore that there is little likelihood that the problems experienced last year will be repeated for several years to come.

The position of water supplies in the PWV area, however, still remains somewhat confused. It would be folly therefore to turn our backs on 1983 and merely to shrug off the possibility of similar water shortages recurring within the next two hundred years.

There are many lessons to be learnt, the most important being that existing requirements in Natal are inadequate to meet the future water needs of the metropolitan areas of Pietermaritzburg and Durban if similar drought years should be experienced in the foreseeable future. This is borne out by the fact that there are insufficient reserves of water available to meet the requirements during consecutive years of drought. In this respect I want to refer hon members to the annual report, in which mention is made of the state of storage in various regions. It is very interesting to note that storage capacity as a percentage of full supply is very illuminating in the case of Natal. On 30 March 1982, there was a 70% storage of full supply capacity. Within 12 months that was reduced to a mere 12%. It is in fact estimated that an amount of some R200 million would be required for water development work in Natal in order to take care of future such contingencies.

There is little doubt that the weir that was constructed at Mooi River, will assist in the replenishment of Midmar Dam during times of need. I must point out, however, that this only caters for surplus water, and that it will be of little use if the Mooi River were to run dry. I view with concern therefore recent reports that the construction of a dam on the Umkomaas River has been held back as a result of the Mooi River weir, and I wish to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the importance of the Umkomaas scheme, which will take many years to complete. It is logical therefore that a start should be made on this scheme in the relatively near future. One must not lose sight of the fact that the demand for water is increasing steadily and that it will become a more competitive commodity in future. Increased industrial development and expanding urbanization will call for more water. The extension of electricity supply to rural areas is providing a means whereby irrigation schemes are now becoming more feasible, with the result that there is an increasing demand for such schemes, resulting again in yet further pressure on water reserves. It would not be surprising therefore if the estimated 6% growth per year in water consumption, could prove to be too low. The picture that is emerging therefore is one of a need among all sectors to give priority to an in-depth study into the efficient utilization of the water resources which they have at their disposal, and it is also evident that the indiscriminate and extravagant use of water can no longer be tolerated and will have to be curtailed, as this will undoubtedly lead to water shortages in the future. The disaster, if this should happen, can be well imagined.

It is obvious therefore that the free availability of water must enjoy the constant attention of this department, and that this is why the application of conservation measures in all catchment areas is necessary. It is here that I see the need for closer co-operation with independent and national states to ensure that greater attention is given in the future to conservation practices in common catchment areas. Overgrazing and poor cultivation methods have led to the severe abuse of natural resources in many of these areas. The result is that erosion is evident everywhere. This is having the effect of silt deposits being left in the wake of floods, which was clearly evident after the recent floods in the Umfolozi area. I must point out, however, that this problem does not apply to the Umfolozi area alone. Similar problems are being experienced in Southern Natal and East Griqualand, and it is therefore important that every effort be made to ensure that conservation methods are practised in all catchment areas in order to preserve the availability of water and to prevent excessive run-off.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Mooi River. I cannot, however, share his disappointment that Natal received so little money from the Budget for the development of its water resources. In the times in which we are living he who has water, should not cry about a lack of money. Let us view the matter in that light and I think the hon member should console himself with that thought.

My speech this afternoon is primarily concerned with a promised land—that wonderful Government water scheme, the largest of its kind in Southern Africa, Vaalharts. It is a promised land which as a result of a lack of water, and because of water restrictions, has become blighted land.

I want to start by saying that for the winter season from 1 April to 30 September each Vaalharts farmer has been allocated five turns to use water with the assurance that larger amounts of water will be released from 1 October for the summer season. My plea in this connection is that summer water which will be released in October be made available to the Vaalharts farmers now. With five turns to use water no farmer on the Vaalharts can produce any appreciable results if we bear in mind that with the water restrictions from April 1983 when every farmer received 15 turns to use water, the farmers suffered losses amounting to R21 585 000 compared with the crop yields of previous years. This therefore means an amount of R764 per hectare. I maintain that the allocation of only five turns to use water between April and September will lead to a disastrous situation, the consequences of which cannot be foreseen. Because there will be no harvest, farmers will simply not be able to meet their financial obligations. With few exceptions they will lose their implements and it is also possible that they will have to sell their allotments or that the allotments will have to be sold. This will become an increasingly vicious circle. My plea is that we give those farmers the water they would have received in the summer season from 1 October in the winter season.

I have a second request. There are several farmers who successfully sank boreholes on their allotments during the water restrictions. The question I want to put to the hon the Minister in this connection is whether these people do not also qualify for a subsidy on a borehole they have sunk to keep themselves and their crops alive. If a farmer qualifies for a subsidy on a borehole to keep his animals alive, can we not take this a step further and say he also qualifies if he sinks a borehole to keep his plants and his crops alive?

I have another problem. There are large milk farmers on the Vaalharts scheme who in the normal course of events, with the normal supply of water, are able to produce their own feed, but with the restricted amount of water they cannot produce enough feed and they have to purchase it elsewhere. The question to which we have to give very serious consideration is whether that farmer does not also qualify for drought assistance because it is owing to the fact that there is a drought that he cannot produce his own feed. As far as I am concerned it is an open question whether we should not consider whether that farmer also qualifies for drought assistance.

It is an acknowledged fact that the centre pivot irrigation system is an effective way of saving water and ensuring larger crops. Every consumer of water, whether in agriculture or in industry, should be encouraged to apply conservation measures. However, if we bear in mind that the installation of a centre pivot system on a property costs anything between R100 000 and R150 000 these days and that the present subsidy is only R7 500, I want to advocate that a subsidy of one-third be granted for the installation of a centre pivot system with no restriction on the maximum amount granted. I know the problem will be that we do not have the money and that this will cost too much, but if we do not begin to save water in this way, we shall have to resort to building another dam or dams somewhere, or seek another livelihood for the people who cannot make a living. That is why I am asking for a subsidy of one-third, with no fixed maximum, for the installation of a centre pivot system. This is all I have to say about my representations in respect of certain aspects.

I spoke about a blighted land, and one of the problems facing farmers in the Vaalharts scheme today is that in 1966, 28 years after the first water was diverted onto the allotments in the Government water scheme, the Government was compelled for the first time to abstain from providing the irrigation farmers with water. A season went by without a crop being produced. In 1983 the Government was again compelled to impose drastic water restrictions in Vaalharts, but this second drastic restriction took place only 17 years after the first restriction, in spite of the fact that in the interim the Sterkfontein dam and the Bloemhof dam have been built in the hope that the water supply would be stabilized after 1966.

I am not surprised that the farmers of Vaalharts are deeply concerned about the future of their area, which comprises 32 000 ha of scheduled irrigable land which yielded a crop to the value of R45 million in 1982-83. This concern of the farmers for the future of Vaalharts, is being fuelled by the tremendous expansions further up the Vaal River, the growing population, the establishment of large industries and the phenomenon of discriminating water restrictions such as those recently applied in the PWV area, which was asked to save 30% of its normal water consumption while the irrigation farmer was restricted to 10% of his normal water consumption. The urban resident could therefore use 70% of his normal water consumption to water his garden and lawns and for domestic use, while the irrigation farmer had 10% of his normal water consumption to provide the necessities of life and to assure an income for his family.

Mr Chairman, I want to start off by expressing my most sincere appreciation towards hon members for their words of condolence to my family in the sad loss we experienced on 18 March.

*I appreciate the sympathy conveyed to us by hon members in that time. It is not easy for a family to battle through such an experience, but with the assistance of hon members we were, after all, able to find a degree of acceptance of what had happened to our family. I thank hon members for their sympathy in this exceptionally difficult time for our family.

In the second place I want to tender my apologies for the fact that the annual report could not be published in time for this debate. I have already written a note to the chairmen of the various groups to apologize. However, I wish to do so in public in this House as well. Due to a concatenation of unfortunate circumstances, circumstances over which our senior officials had no control, this could not be done. Nevertheless we do hope to have it tabled before the end of this session. Together with other hon members who pointed this out, in particular the hon member for Meyerton, I want to congratulate the department on having been able to provide the members of the various groups with an annual report, albeit in typed form, despite these problems.

In the third place I want to express my appreciation for the contribution that hon members have made thus far. I think that thus far it has been a very constructive debate. At this stage it is my intention to give a broad overview of the department’s activities, of those divisions of the department that fall directly under me. Later, towards the end of the debate, I shall deal with hon members’ contributions.

The drought conditions that have assumed catastrophic proportions in various parts of the country, the destructive effects of the cyclone Domoina and the extreme climatic conditions that our country is subject to have once again strongly emphasized our dependence on nature and the need for water conservation schemes. In the nature of the matter this has imposed tremendous pressure on the department as regards both funds and staff. We are fortunate to have had ample rain over the past few days in the region in which we are conducting this debate, although once again one is sorry for those who have suffered in the process. This impresses upon us once again how vulnerable we are and how subject our country is to natural disasters from time to time. Nevertheless, all hon members, particularly hon members from the Transvaal, will concede that it is a pleasure to conduct a debate at this time of the year in such a beautiful part of the world about the activities of the Department of Environment Affairs. Winter in the Cape is a good time because “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?” We meet in a beautiful environment, an environment in its winter garb, and hon members, particularly those from the Transvaal, must have appreciation for that. The Cape is at its finest in the winter. I myself grew up in a dry part of the country. For that very reason I appreciate a green environment. But I produce a very sought-after product there. Indeed, many hon members as they sit here today are wearing that product. I know that hon members, as they sit here opposite me, envy me the tie I am wearing. This tie was made from a product of Goede Hoop. The wool was grown, washed and dyed at Goede Hoop, using natural vegetable dyes, and was also spun and woven, and this finished product I am wearing was the result. It is manufactured by a charming lady who is sitting in the Public Gallery. I am serving as an agent for this product. Mr Chairman, I do not want to abuse my privilege in speaking here but if hon members want to place orders they can approach me. I am acting as commission agent.

Initially, good early summer rains raised hopes that the drought would be broken, but on the contrary, in large parts of the country it increased in severity and extent. In these circumstances various emergency measures had to be adopted in the course of 1983 in Natal and in areas receiving water from the Vaal River, the Usutu River and the Komati River in order to prevent or at least to alleviate the crisis situation as regards the supply of water for urban, industrial and agricultural consumption. One of these measures was the imposition of a prohibition on the abstraction of water from certain public rivers and streams. Moreover, it was essential to impose stringent restrictions on the abstraction of water within certain State water-controlled areas and to curb drastically quotas on certain State water schemes. It must be emphasized that the imposition of restrictions of this nature is never done lightly, and only in situations of extreme water emergency, in order to protect the general public interest and not any particular sectional interest. Fortunately the water supplies in the dams in question improved to such an extent that it was possible to lift, either partially or entirely, the restrictions imposed in Natal and on consumers from the Komati and the Usutu regions. However, the situation in the Vaal River system still gives cause for grave concern and the restrictions on all consumer sectors have had to be extended.

Due to the problems South Africa may encounter in the future with regard to water in the Vaal River system, particularly the water supply to the PWV area, the Government has decided, and I now have the pleasure to announce this year, that a committee is being appointed to investigate all alternative water resources to supplement the supply in the region. The committee is chaired by Mr A J Raubenheimer, chairman of the Committee of Economic Affairs of the President’s Council, and former Minister of Water Affairs; with Prof D C Midgeley, previously attached to the University of the Witwatersrand as chief of the Ecological Research unit and Prof Willem Vrey, Director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of the Orange Free State, as members. I shall arrange that the terms of reference be made available to hon members and to the press. I have high expectations of this committee of experts and I wish them every success with this extremely important investigation.

I think that this also answers certain questions asked in particular by the hon member for Constantia. We share his concern with regard to the future water supply to the PWV area. However, our concern does not extend only to the PWV area. The hon member for Kimberley North referred to Vaalharts, the model irrigation area in South Africa and, indeed, in Southern Africa. We also share the concern of the hon member for Constantia with regard to the water supply to agriculture in this region, and if the hon member reads the terms of reference of this committee he will note that it is worded to include all water consumers, viz agriculture, industry and domestic consumers in the investigation.

I truly hope that we shall obtain answers, because it is essential that the nucleus of the industrial sector in the PWV area be maintained. I may elaborate on this tomorrow. However, it is essential that we stabilize water consumption in the beautiful irrigation schemes along the Vaal River and along the upper reaches — not only below the Vaal Dam. The drought has entailed extreme privation and suffering for may people. However, many have learnt how to run a household, factory or irrigation farm on a limited water supply, and they have found that in such circumstances there need not necessarily be a catastrophic drop in the standard of living, loss of income or crop production. If these lessons could only bring us to realize that optimum utilization of water is of cardinal importance in a country with scarce water, the price we are having to pay now will have a salutary effect in the long term.

Apart from the tragic loss of life caused by the Domoina floods, large-scale damage was also caused to farms, buildings, structures and crops. The flood distress relief being paid in this respect amounts to several millions of rands, at a time when the economy of the country can least afford such expenditure. Much of this damage has occurred in the flood-plains or rivers where development should never in fact have taken place. While the damage in these areas will qualify for distress relief, in future no financial assistance will be provided in compensation for damage or for any development within the area bordered by a ten-year floodline of the rivers. As far as this matter is concerned, we shall really have to take a final decision now about any development within the ten-year floodline. Over the years the state has paid millions of rands to farmers as a result of flood damage. I do not believe we can permit this any longer. A very large risk factor is built into a farming enterprise within this floodline. Farmers will have to realize that we simply cannot afford this any longer.

This principle will also apply in future along all rivers that are subject to periodic floods. The State cannot foot the Bill alone for damages caused by natural disasters People will increasingly have to have their property and possessions insured against damage of this nature, particularly in a country like South Africa which is afflicted by disasters of this nature from time to time. On this occasion, however, I also wish to convey my appreciation for several people who did make adequate provision — during the Domoina floods as well — for such eventualities.

The department is constantly trying to keep water losses, as well as the maintenance and operating costs of State water schemes, as low as possible in order to keep the tariffs for irrigation water at a reasonable level. Accordingly, the Government has taken certain decisions concerning the interdepartmental committee’s recommendation on water tariffs on water schemes and for irrigation boards as well. These decisions have just been made known by way of a White Paper, and therefore require no further elucidation at this stage. However, I should like to take the opportunity to extend my cordial thanks to Mr Claassen, one of our managing engineers, and his committee, for the excellent report and the positive decisions the Cabinet was able to take in respect of the recommendations of the report.

Since the policy in accordance with which the department awards water rights is apparently not yet known to everyone, I should like to summarize it briefly. What it entails is that when a State water area is proclaimed and a State waterworks is built, existing lawful development on the riparian farms from the river in question is recognized and every riparian property receives a free award of water rights up to a limit set by the Minister, except in cases where existing development has already exceeded the limit in question, in which case the owner gets nothing extra for free. For any further allocation of water rights on riparian properties and for all allocations on non-riparian properties which may fall within a State water controlled area, water rights must be purchased. If hon members do not understand what this entails, I should be obliged if they would raise the matter in the debate. Many farmers are not yet clear on how exactly the allocations work.

During 1982 a prohibition had to be imposed on the approval of subsidies for the building or installation of private irrigation schemes, due to a lack of funds. It was possible to lift this prohibition in September 1983, when additional funds were acquired. In the coming year consideration will also be given to increasing the maximum subsidy of R7 500 per scheme. This maximum of R7 500 is totally inadequate in the light of the increase in the cost of all equipment used in irrigation schemes, and for that reason we shall have to take an in-depth look at the possibility of increasing the limit. Tomorrow I shall refer in greater detail to the remarks made by various members with regard to the backlog we are building up in the budget.

†During the past year important developments have taken place with regard to contacts, with neighbouring states on water issues. The studies and discussions with Swaziland in connection with the development of the Nkomati River have proceeded and have resulted in a report by the Joint Permanent Technical Committee, a report which is at present being studied by the two Governments. Trilateral contact between RSA, Swaziland and Mozambique on the entire Nkomati basin has been extended further. A joint technical committee between the RSA and Botswana has also materialized, and the committee has commenced with its activities. In this manner a mechanism has been established to deal with applications by farmers to construct weirs in the Limpopo River where this river forms the boundary between the two countries.

At the invitation of Mozambique, Botswana and Zimbabwe, officials of the department had discussions with officials of these three countries on 22 March 1984, with a view to establishing a technical committee for the Limpopo basin. The terms of reference of the committee have already been prepared in draft form and are at present being studied by the four Governments concerned.

The studies in connection with the Lesotho Highlands project have advanced to the stage where it has already been established that the project will have large benefits for both countries, and it has been decided that the final feasibility study can proceed.

The Water Amendment Bill is at present being considered by a select committee of this House. One of the proposed amendments deals with dam safety, a subject which is of great significance for the protection of the public against the danger attached to the failure of large dams. It is essential that proper control be exercised with the design, construction and operation of dams. The dams’ safety subdivision of the design division of the Directorate of Water Affairs will be expanded to meet this need.

*A further adjustment of the Water Amendment Bill which will come before the House this year is aimed at considerably stepping up our campaign to combat pollution of our water resources. Whereas in the past attention was chiefly devoted to the tracing of pollution after it had taken place, in future efforts will be geared to prevention. It is realized that the prevention of water pollution will require a tenfold increase in the inspection of industrial premises, workshops and sewage purification works. In addition to this, the department, in co-operation with the Water Research Commission, has launched a research project to determine water consumption and the pollution load of virtually every industry in the country. When this information is available, greatly improved control of pollution ought to be applied.

In the past the establishment of, and the industry relating to, dumping areas for solid waste of domestic and industrial origin has in the past sometimes been lacking in effective control and co-ordination. Since such dumping areas create a serious pollution danger for both surface and subterranean water sources, all dumping areas will in future have to be licensed. A thorough preliminary investigation of the suitability of areas from a pollution prevention point of view will be a prerequisite for the allocation of licenses. The pollution of water sources by old, worked-out mines is continuing. Repair work to eliminate or reduce these sources of pollution is being tackled at an accelerated tempo. It has been ascertained that the contribution of certain local authorities to the pollution load is not due to a lack of facilities to purify effluent, but rather to inadequate operation of plant constructed at great expense. The Pollution Control Division will have to devote their energies to an increasing extent to ensuring that the staff operating such plant undergo training. Fortunately, the training facilities already exist and local authorities only have to be encouraged to utilize these facilities.

As far as staff is concerned, I am pleased to be able to report that the personnel strength of the newly established Water Quality Branch has been extended considerably by the filling of posts by experts in all aspects of water pollution and that the team that has now been built up is motivated and eager to tackle the major task that awaits them.

Mineralization of our water resources, particularly in the Vaal River, is now beginning to assume serious proportions, and drastic steps to deal with the problem are now imperative. Industries that contribute towards the salt load will in future be obliged to reduce this load. Here I want to make special mention of the hides and skins industry, which can also contribute towards reducing the salt load in our rivers by processing raw skins with proven chemical substances instead of salt. Together with the Department of Agriculture, I am at present investigating the permits of tanneries in the inland urban areas with a view to a possible prohibition on the processing of any hides or skins that are salted. I want to make it very clear today that particularly in the inland regions, when a chemical process exists which can protect a hide or skin until it arrives at a tannery, we cannot permit the processing of salted hides and skins. Somewhere during the process that salt load must be deposited in a river, and that can only be to the detriment of downstream consumers. We are at present investigating this matter and we shall have to take drastic steps in this regard. We shall simply have to take those people who are wilful with regard to the supply of unsalted hides and skins, by the scruff of their neck, and have done with it. I do not think that we can continue to be saddled with this problem.

We must always bear in mind that any water that is returned to a system has to be re-used by consumers further down the system. If people and industries would only realize that there are other consumers of the water that they return to rivers, water that is made available by the department and the Government at tremendous expense. We must really show an understanding of that and make the water that we return as clean and usable as possible for people lower down in the system. I think that that is, quite simply, a principle of basic decency which ought to be applied by everyone.

†On account of the drought it was necessary to construct various emergency schemes within a limited period in order to supply water to the Eastern Transvaal power-stations, the Durban-Pietermaritzburg area and the Newcastle area. The most important of these emergency schemes surely was the Vaal Grootdraai scheme, which was approved by the Cabinet on 19 April 1983. On 5 September 1983 seven weirs and eight fully equipped pumping-stations were able to supply approximately 9 cubic metres of water per second at the Grootdraai pumping-station. With the simultaneous increase of pumping capacity of the Grootdraai and Grootfontein pumping-stations and the doubling of the pipeline, 48 million cubic metres of water could be supplied to the Eastern Transvaal power-stations and Sasol II. Should the stations have been put out of action on account of water shortages, losses of several thousands of millions of rand would have been suffered.

Mr Chairman, you will allow me today to pay great tribute to my department, the planning, designing and construction engineers, our construction unit, as well as the various firms from the private sector and Escom for a team effort which prevented South Africa from coming to a complete standstill.

*I take great pleasure in paying tribute to my department for this wonderful scheme they have tackled in order to prevent South Africa grinding to a halt. I have before me a document submitted to the SA Institute for Civil Engineers for its 1984 award. If any hon member is interested in seeing it, I should like to show it to him. I do not think that there is anything anywhere in the world to compare with what South Africa and the department’s engineers and construction teams have achieved by way of this project. Many a night I have lain awake wondering what would happen if 80% of our power supply and Sasol 2 came to a standstill due to our being unable to supply water for these industries in time. The people and bodies I have mentioned did not, however, disappoint me. Often I landed there by helicopter to see how the work was progressing. The administrative engineer, or the engineer in charge, a short fellow by the name of Adam Botha, showed me around briefly, but then said to me: “Please, Mr Minister, you must excuse me now. I cannot give any further attention to you, because I have work to do.” Those were the finest words I could ever hear from an official’s mouth. I therefore pay tribute to the department and all its engineers for this exceptional achievement, besides their other achievements, in preventing South Africa from coming to a halt.

The Klipfontein Dam on the White Umfolozi River near Vryheid was also completed during the year, and due to the cyclone Domoina it was filled within a few days. Activities have begun in regard to the construction of the Inanda Dam on the Umgeni River to provide additional water to the Durban area. A start was also made with the construction of the Orange-Riet River canals and a start was made on the repair of flood damage to, and the securing, of the Loerie Dam, a link in the water supply network for Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage.

The drought has also given rise to exceptional demands for boring services, and this division has acquitted itself well of its task of providing groundwater in the droughtstricken areas. I think that the person who has made most money in this drought has been the borer. In fact, I have seen borers buying at one time as many as three to four of these big machines, that cost R80 000 apiece, without turning a hair. Then they move down to the Eastern Cape and Natal. They have made a great deal of money and I do not begrudge it them. I only wish that one of those bores which are no longer needed in Natal would head in my direction.

From time to time criticism is expressed to the effect that the State does not spend enough for the construction of new dams and the water distribution works for the various consumer sectors. Making water available when it is required is one of the top priorities of the Government, just as the provision of other indispensable services enjoys high priority. In its sustained battle against inflation, one of the most important objectives of the Government was to limit State expenditure as much as possible. This objective has of course also had a limiting effect on the availability of funds to the department. Therefore over the past number of years it has only been possible to tackle absolutely essential works. I shall have something more to say about this tomorrow.

As regards the supply of water for the purposes of primary industry, it must be borne in mind that the country’s water boards are also constantly engaged in building works for the large-scale distribution of water. By way of illustration I could point out, for example, that the Rand Water Board, the Umgeni Water Board and the OFS Gold Field Water Board together spent a total of R144,8 million on essential capital works in the 1982-83 financial year, whereas in the 1983-84 financial year the amount was R187,1 million. This expenditure would have had to have been incurred by the State if there had not been water boards. The expenditure in question must therefore be taken into account in assessing the adequacy of the construction of large-scale water schemes by the State.

In assessing the expenditure of funds on irrigation schemes, it must be borne in mind that several irrigation board schemes, as well as State irrigation schemes, have been delayed deliberately in the light of the financial climate over the past number of years. This course of action has been justified since the schemes in question are in fact desirable from a regional point of view and may even be in the country’s interest over the long term. However, the fact is that in normal circumstances there is at present a surplus of the products that would be cultivated in terms of these schemes. We must be very careful exactly how we tackle our water development with regard to agriculture. I shall have something more to say tomorrow about my point of view with regard to the cultivation of essential and basic foodstuffs under irrigation. In normal years we are saddled with surpluses of virtually every agricultural product. Last night on television we saw a programme in which the surplus in the wine industry was discussed. We know that in normal years we have considerable surpluses in the maize industry. In considering the development of new water schemes, we must be careful always to take into account precisely what can be produced in terms of such a scheme so as not to create further embarrassment for the specific industries as far as surpluses are concerned.

†It is true, however, that the allocation of funds for water schemes will have to be increased substantially in the near future in order to meet the exponential growth in the domestic and industrial demand and to embark on new irrigation schemes—I say “substantially”. According to a departmental analysis, a real compounded growth of 8% in the provision of funds will be necessary and, having regard to all relevant factors, endeavours will be made to provide for this type of growth in the long-term estimates of the department.

During the discussion of my Vote last year, I undertook to table a White Paper on the water situation. The preparation of this White Paper is a time-consuming task, but various draft chapters have already been completed and are now being sub-edited. It is the intention to circularize the draft White Paper to interested parties for comment. After the comment has been studied, the draft will be adjusted where necessary and it is hoped that it will be possible to table the final White Paper during the 1985 session of Parliament.

*We must realize that the total run-off of all the rivers in the Republic of South Africa, including the rivers of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei amounts to a mere 54 billion cubic metres per annum, of which it is calculated that approximately 31 billion cubic metres of water per annum is economically unexploitable. The water supply potential of these rivers will in future have to be utilized to the best advantage of the country, but it is already clear that other sources of water will in future have to be developed and judiciously exploited in the interests of the country. In this regard, purposeful attention must in the near future be given to the more judicious exploitation and use of groundwater. It is already established practice that groundwater is recognized as private water. However, I ask whether groundwater should not be regarded as public water, and as such, controlled and utilized in the broader interests of the country. I am aware that this way of thinking is in conflict with existing practice and therefore it is my intention to take this idea further with the organized farming sector by way of discussions. If an agreement can be reached, the necessary statutory amendments will be effected in this regard. Tomorrow I may have something more to say about the question of groundwater.

There is another aspect to which I should perhaps react at this stage. A few hon members have already referred to it thus far. The issue is water in South Africa in the future. Those who have read the report of the President’s Council in regard to demographic trends in this country will have noted with considerable concern the projections for the future in respect of the increase in population in South Africa. I believe that I fully share the concern of the President’s Council with regard to this matter. It is constantly being said by malicious people outside that the White people are trying to limit the number of Black people in South Africa, because they are afraid of the Black people. I want to state bluntly today that I believe that we have no fear of Black people. I believe that we have reached a stage in our history when we are able to speak to one another meaningfully and co-exist with one another meaningfully. However, I wish to state clearly that unless there is a drop in the rate of increase of the Black population in South Africa we shall be heading for a catastrophe in this country; not as far as food and so on are concerned, but as far as the supply of water is concerned. Our country has only enough water for about 65 million people. Hon members can go and find out for themselves what the future projections indicate for the time when South Africa will have 65 million people. That time is imminent. Therefore my standpoint is the following. I am not afraid of the outside world criticizing me when I advocate a population strategy in this country. I am not afraid of that, because the realities indicate to us that we shall have to curb the rate of population increase drastically. Whether it is in the nature of the Black man to have fewer children or not, is irrelevant. We shall eventually all die of thirst if we do not act drastically and take the bull by the horns as far as this matter is concerned. Therefore I request the honest co-operation of all hon members in this House with regard to this very urgent issue.

Then, too, I have some things to say about the Water Research Commission. I am very grateful that the hon the member for Meyerton also referred to this. Indeed, I believe that this is an extremely important aspect. In 1983 the Water Research Commission supported a total of 70 research projects, including 21 new ones which started during the year. The activities of the commission extend over a wide front, as is reflected in its annual report. The commission does not carry out research itself, but contracts with other agencies to undertake the research work, and in this regard a great deal of use is being made of centres of expertise. In its task of co-ordinating and promoting water research the commission at all times strives to achieve the highest possible utilization of the available water supplies and, with a view to the country’s limited water supplies, attention is also given to the re-use of waste water and the development of non-conventional sources.

If I may mention a few of the more important aspects, they are the research carried out in the spheres of ground water, irrigation, municipal and industrial waste water, the reclamation and re-use of water, water conservation, the stimulation of rainfall and the desalination of water.

I think the hon member for Constantia raised the matter of desalination of water. I shall reply to the hon member in detail in this regard tomorrow.

I now wish to discuss the Forestry Directorate. To begin with, I want to pay tribute today to Mr Wilson van der Merwe, the former Deputy Director-General: Forestry. He retired at the end of April and we have just taken leave of him in Pretoria. I pay tribute to this official who has devoted a lifetime to this cause, a cause for which he was so well trained and which he loved so intensely.

I have often wondered why Mr Van der Merwe and I have so much in common. Whenever we meet we seem to hit it off. I should like to repeat what I said in Pretoria. I think the reason is the fact that both he and I have an intense love for our country and our environment. During the years that he served in the Public Service, particularly the old Department of Forestry and later the Directorate of Forestry, Mr Van der Merwe has achieved a tremendous amount. I could not possibly mention everything that has happened in the department during Mr Van der Merwe’s period of service. However, I wish to pay tribute to him, and in his absence I say today that on behalf of all hon members in this Committee I want to convey my sincere thanks to him for the outstanding service he has rendered, and wish him a happy period of rest in the beautiful George area.

At the same time I want to welcome Mr At van der Dussen, who has taken over from Mr Van der Merwe as Deputy Director-General: Directorate of Forestry. He is with us today, and I also want to wish him a fine career in his further service to the State, particularly as regards this fine component of our department. Forestry is of course one of the fine components of our department about which, unfortunately, very little is said. I sometimes feel very guilty about the fact that we spend so much time on water and so little on this excellent department, this conservation department. This was the first conservation department that came into being in our country. Had it not been for Forestry, we should not have had our indigenous forest species. The indigenous forests in the George-Knysna area would have been wiped out entirely had it not been for the intercession of Forestry. We therefore extend a welcome to Mr Van der Dussen and we wish him an excellent career in this important post that he occupies.

Although the economic recession has manifested itself in the forestry and timber industry as well, this sector has nevertheless continued to grow and has not been affected to the same extent as have other economic sectors. It is expected that sales of plantation products during 1984-85 will be at the same level as during the previous financial year, and that there will even be an increase in sales towards the end of the year.

†In a continued effort to contain inflation, the forest and timber industries guided by the directorate were able to contain price increases to below 10%. The price increase of softwood sawlogs was limited to 7%, and other roundwood commodities followed suit. The price of softwood sawn timber was increased by only 9% as compared with the figure of 12% during the previous year. The market for sawn products improved, and a positive sales tendency was still evident during the last quarter. The estimated softwood sawlog intake for the year was 4,4 million cubic metres which represents an increase of 16,7% in the average log intake for the three years prior to 1983. Towards the end of the year sawmill production and sales were almost in equilibrium. However, fairly large stocks were still on hand at the mills due to the production/sales imbalances earlier in the year.

*The increased availability of forestry experts has enabled the department to move away from the provision of information services towards providing extension services to timber growers and to rural communities and neighbouring states. In this regard one of the main objectives will be to convey the latest research findings to the industry for implementation. Moreover, extension services will be provided outside of the traditional forestry regions. Research is being carried out to the extent that available funds permit, and good progress is being made in this regard. Due to drought conditions the department’s aim of 4 000 ha as regards new afforestation during the 1983-84 financial year could not be achieved. Limited funds for the 1984-85 financial year have again not permitted the achievement of the aim of 4 000 ha, but the new afforestation effort will nevertheless be aimed at those areas where timber shortages will occur in the near future. I may have something more to say about this aspect tomorrow in reply to the hon member for Ermelo.

The interdepartmental committee which investigated the desirability or otherwise of the transfer of commercial activities from the forestry directorate to a utility company or corporation has finalized its activities and submitted its report. The report is being studied at present and I shall make an announcement in due course concerning the recommendations that have been accepted by the Government.

It is the policy of the Directorate of Forestry consistently to increase the unit yield of plantations and achieve better utilization of land by way of constant upgrading and monitoring of plantation administration. In addition to this, the computerized operating plan system has entailed better control and therefore better utilization of available timber supplies. Moreover these facilities are being placed at the disposal of the private forestry sector to the greatest possible extent, and many of timber growers are already making use of them.

In the field of conservation the department will continue to contribute towards the national conservation effort by the expansion and continued management of its wilderness areas, nature reserves, mountain catchment and other conservation areas. These areas represent more than 80% of the land under the control of the Directorate of Forestry and are managed in accordance with the findings reached by virtue of ongoing conservation research.

Over the past year three new nature reserves have been set aside along the Eastern Cape coast, and one nature reserve in the Southern Cape is being enlarged, bringing the total surface area of nature reserves on State forest land to more than 870 000 ha. The surface area of the wilderness areas amounts to approximately 240 000 ha, while the State forest land which the directorate manages as mountain catchment areas comprises a surface area of approximately 1,2 million ha. More than 600 000 ha of additional land managed by the directorate as mountain catchment area consists of private land declared as such in terms of the Mountain Catchment Areas Act.

The importance of scientifically-based mountain catchment area management cannot be over-emphasized in South Africa, with its limited water resources, and the Directorate of Forestry is already investigating new areas with a view to their declaration and management as mountain catchment areas.

I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this aspect. One can travel through the country and look at the flood damage caused by Domoina. When one looks at the deposits of silt left in the lower Umfolozi and one flies by helicopter over these areas, one is really shaken to see how our country is being ruined, with the consequent silting up of our dams and river system. This is an extremely serious matter and we shall have to tackle it in the future with all the force at our disposal. It is disturbing to see how our rivers and dams are silting up. We have been conducting a conservation campaign for many years now, and I venture to say today that we are really not succeeding in checking the increasing silting-up of our rivers. Why not? It is the doing of man, and only man. We shall have to do more and show our country more respect. Moreover, this is a prerequisite for the continued survival of man here.

Virtually all the catchment areas on State forest land are also generally used for other purposes, such as the realization of the wilderness concept and for extensive outdoor recreation, in terms of the directorate’s policy of the multiple use of land. During 1981-82 more than 300 000 people visited the State forests for this purpose. Apart from the above, attention is being given to the control of plants encroaching on State forest land and in the declared mountain catchment areas.

I want to say something briefly about national parks, and tomorrow I shall reply in greater detail to the hon member for Swellendam. Negotiations in connection with the proposed founding of national parks in the Groot River-Spoeg River area and in the Richtersveld have been pursued, and it is to be hoped that they will be finalized during the year. Similary, the founding of national parks in the Langebaan area is being considered. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly in this regard too. The expansion of national parks, however, is being handicapped by a lack of funds and one trusts that the upturn in the economy will result in funds being more readily available for purchases of land for the expansion of national parks. I wish to convey my thanks today for the very fruitful discussions conducted with the De Beers Group as regards making available the Groen River and Spoeg River area. I sincerely hope that we shall reach full agreement in this regard. Thus far this discussions have been at a very high level and definitely hold promise. I want to express the sincere hope that this is the start of many fine things with regard to the expansion of national parks in this country by means of the Schedule V plan.

The application of the National Parks Board to take over the Cedarberg wilderness area and incorporate it in a much larger planned national park was and still is the subject of a polemic in the Press. I do not intend discussing the merits of the application now. As has already been announced, I have referred the matter to the Council for the Environment. However, based on my understanding of and great appreciation for the good work done by the Directorate of Forestry, I want here and now to give the unqualified assurance that before I decide to comply with this request I shall have to be absolutely certain that the main objectives of the Directorate of Forestry with regard to the management of the wilderness area and the mountain catchment areas involved here will not be frustrated in the process.

I wish to conclude by saying that what worries me is a chimerical image of national parks that is being created by the Press in the Western Cape. It seems to me as if some Pressmen really take a pleasure in publicizing reports of the National Parks Board representing them as the destroyers of all conservation efforts in the country. Surely that is not true. I think that the people in the Western Cape have too little knowledge of national parks and the programmes undertaken by the National Parks Board and its staff. I want to take up the cudgels on these people’s behalf. The National Parks Board is one of the finest bodies in our country. Apart from being of tremendous value for our country as far as tourism is concerned, they are also conservation-minded. Therefore I find it particularly depressing to find people in the Press fulminating against the National Parks Board and depicting them as destroyers lof everything that is good. I want to take up the cudgels for the National Parks Board and state unambiguously that it is one of the finest organizations in this country, not only with regard to the promotion of tourism, but also with regard to the preservation of our fine cultural heritage.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister apologized to the Committee for the quality of the report. I do not think the hon the Minister needs to feel too ashamed about it. It might not be printed on shiny paper, but it certainly contains all the information. In fact, it is so beautifully bound I feel like sending it across for him to autograph as it might become valuable Africana one day!

The hon the Minister raised a number of important issues in his reply to the debate so far. One I would like to comment on briefly, is his assurance to the Committee and the country that he takes the question of pollution of our water resources very seriously. By pollution he does not only mean pollution by industrial wastes and effluent but also by siltation, which is even a more serious form of pollution because it implies the destruction of other resources elsewhere in the country. In this regard it is interesting to note what has been done in other parts of the world. In England, for example, the river Thames was so polluted 20 years ago that if one fell into it, it was doubtful whether one would drown before one actually poisoned oneself. Today the river Thames is a crystal clear river once again with salmon, trout and other fish swimming in it. The Thames Water Board has succeeded wonderfully in restoring that resource. Given the necessary determination on the part of the authorities, we could do the same in this country.

They are even fishing in London!

That is right. It is a wonderful achievement.

I want to deal with conservation specifically, and the first matter I should like to raise with the hon the Minister concerns a specific issue, namely the use of poison by farmers in an attempt to control problem animals. The use of poison is an age-old practice. It was much used in earlier days when farmers used poisons such as strychnine and arsenic freely. They succeeded in exterminating practically all populations of large predators such as hyaenas and wild dogs and at the same time they also reduced the population of other problem animals such as the black-backed jackal. Unfortunately, because poison is an indiscriminate killer it was not only the problem animals which were decimated but many species of harmless animals and birds also suffered. One of the hardest hit was the Cape vulture and today this bird, which is endemic to South Africa, is considered an endangered species. There have been alarming reports in the Press of late of the vulture population in the Cape, which is a threatened species, having been decimated by poisoning. I will send these Press cuttings across to the hon the Minister in a moment.

Unfortunately certain irresponsible farmers do appear to be using poison indiscriminately regardless of the fact that they are causing the extermination of a unique creature of God’s creation. Something like 20% of the surviving population of Cape vultures has been poisoned in this year alone. At this rate of destruction the Cape vulture will in all probability be extinct in the Cape within five or 10 years, and I predict that unless something serious is done it will be as extinct as a species before the turn of the century.

I believe it is time that the department legislated against the indiscriminate use of poison by farmers. Personally I would like to see all poisoning outlawed, but I feel the least the hon the Minister could do is to make it an offence for anyone other than an official of his department to apply poison to a carcase in the veld. In this way there would at least be some sort of control over this means of killing animals.

The second point I wish to raise concerns a more general matter. I want to refer here to the Parks Board. Incidentally, I notice that there is no mention of the activities of the Parks Board in the report. I just wondered whether the Parks Board puts out its own report, and if so, whether this report is obtainable. I should like to know that.

The hon the Minister has control over one of the tourist industry’s most important assets in this country. One generally talks about tourism and the national parks in the same breath. What is good for the parks is good for tourism, and what is good for tourism is obviously good for South Africa. This means that the hon the Minister does not get the credit for earning the enormous amounts of foreign exchange for which the national parks are directly responsible. This credit goes to his colleague in the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. However, the hon the Minister is a farmer and he is accustomed to doing all the work and watching someone else cream off all the profits!

There is more to it than money though. The hon the Minister is custodian of a priceless natural heritage, and this is the aspect which I feel sure will give him the greatest satisfaction. It is in this area that I wish to make a few suggestions which I hope will be both innovative and constructive. I want to raise the idea of enlarging this country’s premier tourist attraction, the Kruger National Park. An enlargement can be achieve, not by including more South African territory, but by encouraging Mozambique to engage in a joint venture of their side of the park. If Mozambique could be persuaded to devote a similar amount of land on the eastern border of the Kruger National park, certain consequences may follow. Firstly, the joint park could without doubt become the world’s premier nature reserve. I have no doubt about that at all. Secondly, the Mozambicans could share in a fabulous tourist attraction with the promise of enormous financial benefits to that country. Thirdly, the security of our eastern border would be immeasurably improved. Not only would the current poaching problem in the Kruger National Park be alleviated, but there would be the more important security benefits as well. Fourthly, and perhaps most important, the animals in the Kruger National Park would benefit. Age-old migration patterns to the east of the Lebombo Mountain range could be re-established. There are already problems about the Kruger National Park being too small to accommodate the number of animals there. Lastly, projects of mutual benefit to our two countries could reinforce the peaceful accord which has been agreed to. It would be another example of peaceful international operation between ourselves and one of our neighbouring states. Mr Chairman, unfortunately my time has expired and I cannot elaborate on this but I think it is an idea which the hon the Minister might like to consider.

The last matter which I wish to raise is unfortunately on a more negative note. It is disappointing to see in the explanatory memorandum that the Government’s afforestation programme has fallen far behind the established annual target of 8 000 ha. This follows upon years of retrogression in this respect, and I believe the hon the Minister must make a statement of policy on this matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Albany raised a number of matters of current interest. I see nothing controversial in them, and I am sure that the hon the Minister or the Deputy Minister will react adequately to them.

The latest White Paper of the Directorate of Water Affairs, viz the sixth supplementary report on the first phase of the Orange River Development project, WP FI-84, is a very important document to a number of communities in South Africa. It is also important to the Eastern Cape, not only to my constituency, Sundays River, but to the whole of the Eastern Cape, and of course, more specifically to the Sundays River Valley, because an announcement in this White Paper is of special significance to us. That announcement confirms a previous announcement by the hon the Minister, viz that a diversion weir will be built in the Little Fish River. The first phase will cost approximately R20,5 million, whilst additional works will cost R5,5 million.

I should like to address a few words to the hon the Minister in this regard. Since the Sundays River constituency became my responsibility in 1981, I have availed myself of the opportunity each year in the discussion of this Vote to address pleas to the hon Minister concerned with regard to this scheme which has become so vital to the Sundays River Valley. This year it is my pleasure and privilege to thank the hon the Minister on behalf of my constituency for the announcement he has made. Those who know what our circumstances there were like, and what they will probably be like now, will realize that we want to thank the hon the Minister from the bottom of our hearts. It is understandable that the people in the Eastern Cape expected a great deal from this hon Minister’s appointment in August 1982, since after many years—in fact, after decades—we eventually got a Minister of our own—if I could put it that way. I am very pleased to be able to state that the hopes we had then were not disappointed. On the contrary, what has been achieved since the Minister was appointed to this post, has exceeded our wildest expectations. Within a matter of 15 months since his appointment he was able to make the dramatic announcement which is of epoch-making significance to the entire Eastern Cape and which will still have fruitful consequences for decades. Consequently, it is no wonder that this good news was greeted with remarks such as “After fifty years the Eastern Cape once again has a Charlie Malan”.

Of course, this has already been done personally and by way of correspondence, but I should like to avail myself of the opportunity today to convey our heartfelt gratitude to him once again so that it can be placed on record here as well. In the hon the Minister we have a Minister who displayed understanding from the outset, understanding not only for the vital importance of the scheme to the citrus industry and to the communities in the Sundays River Valley, but also its importance to the economy of the entire Eastern Cape.

As is to be expected, there are a number of questions being asked by the interested parties in the valley with regard to a variety of aspects affecting the practical implementation of the scheme. I wonder whether the hon the Minister would allow me to put a few questions to him this afternoon.

Firstly, there are questions in respect of the new land schedules we expect will be possible in terms of the new scheme. The first question, then, is approximately how much additional land will it be possible to incorporate under the Sundays River irrigation scheme because of the increased amount of water that will be available for irrigation now. The White Paper mentions 1 200 ha. However, there were other estimations by experts of up to 2 000 ha, and it would be a good thing if we could be given the correct figure in this regard.

The second question is how the additional land which qualifies for scheduling is going to be identified, and how we are going to go about doing so in the process. For example, will the irrigation board have to take the initiative of its own accord and lay down fixed criteria itself, with or without consultation with, and the approval of, the Directorate of Water Affairs, or will owners have to apply for scheduling individually?

The third question is whether land which cannot be served directly from existing canals could also qualify for scheduling, for example, by obtaining a servitude on intermediate property and, if so, what the restrictions will be in this regard as far as distance or the number of properties which it will be permissible and possible to serve in terms of a servitude are concerned.

Fourthly, assuming that owners who require new land schedules will have to purchase water rights for their properties, what will the conditions and requirements be in this regard, for example, the maximum size of such scheduled units per applicant and the price per ha that will have to be paid for the water rights? Linked to this is the question of how and by whom such conditions and requirements will be laid down.

Fifthly, and with reference to the previous question, what will the comparable conditions and requirements be in the case of an owner who already owns scheduled land in the valley and who wants to bring additional and as yet unscheduled land under irrigation by way of new scheduling? Does he get a new quota, or will he be restricted in total to the general maximum per owner with regard to additional land?

In the sixth place, what are the tariffs going to be at which irrigation water will be made available in respect of newly scheduled land and how and by whom are they going to be determined? That is to say, the question once again is whether it will be done by the Directorate of Water Affairs or by the irrigation board, or by one in consultation with, or with the approval of, the other.

Then there are questions with regard to land which has already been scheduled as well. In view of the fact that the aim and purpose of increasing the flow of water from the Orange River through Lake Mentz to the Sundays River Valley is not only to bring more land in the valley under irrigation, but also to make more water and a better quality of water available to the land which has already been scheduled, in order to counteract the alarming problem of mineralization, there are a few other questions that arise. Firstly, will the owners of land which has already been scheduled have to purchase additional or improved water rights by way of a non-recurring capital contribution and if so, once again, how and by whom will such capital contributions be determined? Will it be a uniform amount for all irrigators, and what are the criteria that will apply in determining such an amount? Secondly, as regards water tariffs, will all land in future be treated the same, ie will the tariffs in respect of newly scheduled land be the same as the increased tariffs that will in future be payable with regard to land which has already been scheduled? I assume that the owners of land which has already been scheduled will now have to pay a higher tariff.

Then I have on or two further general questions. Firstly, as regards the capital contributions which will probably be payable in respect of the purchasing of water rights, or additional water rights, as the case may be, will it be a lump sum or will it be payable over a particular amortization period, and in the latter case, at what interest rate; or will it be recovered in the long term by way of adjusted water tariffs? Then there is a second general question. In comparison with the approximately 4 cumec of the existing pumping station at Wellington Grove, a diversion weir with a capacity of approximately 22 cumec is being planned, which means that the flow will be increased approximately sixfold. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Sundays River in thanking the hon the Minister and the department for the sixth supplementary report on the first phase of the Orange River Development Project, because my constituency was very closely involved with the Orange River Development Project from the outset. I also thank the department for the White Paper on the Policy on Water Tariffs and Related Matters. It is a particularly interesting and informative piece of work.

Over the years my standpoint has been that the share of the Budget this very important Department of Environment Affairs received, was too little. I am still of that opinion. Due to the rapid growth of industrial development, the improvement in the standard of living of people in the Republic of South Africa and the expected growth in population, the consumption of water will double within the next 20 years. The expenditure on works for the development of water resources should have increased by approximately 8% annually in real terms over the past few years, but what is the true position? In reality, there has been a decrease of 8% instead of an increase of 8% over the past few years. We are therefore still accumulating a backlog in the supply of water in some areas. The possibility already exists that in the next drought cycle water restrictions will again have to be introduced in these areas. The hon the Minister and his department have a problem in that they do not have sufficient funds available for the development of new water resources. Under the heading “Planning and Design” in the Budget there is an increase of just over R5 million, in comparison with the previous financial year. For the establishment of Government water schemes the amount budgeted for is R18,5 million more than in the previous Budget. There is an increase of more than R9 million in this year’s Budget for the establishment of a State-aided water scheme. There is an increase of approximately R2,5 million in this year’s Budget for water-boring services. This increase has come just in time. We believe that applications for the necessary boring work that has to be undertaken in the drought-stricken areas will increase. I am also pleased to note that the service benefits of these people have improved. All these increases, although not sufficient, will at least bring relief to the department.

Until recently the hon the Minister and his department were saddled with the problem that there was only sufficient water stored in the PK le Roux Dam to irrigate 100 000 ha. Due to the lack of money, the canals for the distribution of that water could not be built however. The Ramatak Canal was completed in the interim, and a total of 5 200 ha can now be irrigated by that canal. I am particularly pleased to be able to report that the Government has given ear to representations which I and others have made for years, and that building has commenced on the Orange-Riet Canal from the right-bank canal of the Van der Kloof Dam. I should like to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for this. I recently visited that area again and I can therefore report that the work on that canal is progressing very well. Of course, that is as far as a layman can see. I therefore trust that the canal will be completed by 1988, as is being planned. However, perhaps the hon the Minister has a surprise in store for us in this regard, and the work may be completed a year or so earlier. Looking at the progress there, it seems to me as if those people are really getting a move on.

A section of the Riet River Scheme, as well as the Lower Riet River area fall in my constituency. This area cannot be detached from the Riet River Scheme as far as the supply of water is concerned. That region also had to suffer the same drought conditions that prevailed elsewhere. The water supply was inadequate and at times there was not even any water for irrigation purposes. If I interpret the White Paper correctly, it will apparently only be possible to transfer the surplus water from the canal to the Lower Riet River area during off-peak periods. Consequently, additional facilities for storing water will have to be provided. I should therefore like to make representations to the hon the Minister today that the State should build that storage dam for the Lower Riet River. Of course, one realizes that there are certain priorities. If it is therefore not possible for the hon the Minister to do so, an irrigation board could surely do so with State aid, and run the project itself afterwards. It is just a pity that there would not be a regular flow from that canal so that one could use the Riet River itself as an aqueduct lower down. I do not think a great deal of water would be lost if all the gaps are filled. To use the Lower Riet River as an aqueduct is also a cheap way of transporting water; perhaps even cheaper than a canal or a storage dam.

I was sorry to hear that the left-bank canal of the PK le Roux Dam would not be built in the near future. At that time our advice was taken that inhabitants on the bank on the Cape Province side should be permitted to pump water from the river. It would be a cheap scheme for the State, but a relatively expensive scheme for the farmer. However, I think it was a step in the right direction, otherwise we would have had to wait for years before the left-bank canal was eventually built.

As the hon the Minister is probably aware, the land at Skeurkraal, as well as other land in the Taaibos area, below Petrusville, belongs to the State. In fact, I think it will probably be made available for irrigation purposes shortly. I should therefore like to know whether the matter regarding that land has already been placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture to be dealt with further. The hon the Minister could possibly give me an indication of when that land will be available. The hon the Minister is aware of this, but I want to bring it to his attention once again that it has become imperative that De Aar be provided with water. De Aar has been designated as a growth point and it is essential that that town and the surrounding areas be supplied with water.

I also want to ask that the left-bank canal should not be shelved. If the left-bank canal could be built, a further 11 000 ha could be irrigated on the Cape Province side.

In conclusion, I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the assistance they have given Douglas. The Douglas Co-operative has now taken the initiative in supplying the weir with water from the Orange River, and I am proud that my voters are prepared to do things themselves. Bucklands still has a problem which the hon the Minister is aware of—the question of communal grazing etc—and I just want to ask that if, since I am going to make representations in this regard again in the future, he would be so kind as to give this matter his personal attention, since it has already been delayed for a few years, not as a result of the negligence of the department itself, but because legislation first had to be passed before we could enter a new dispensation of that nature.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Aar will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said. He raised certain matters pertaining to his constituency and I believe the hon the Minister will give attention to them.

It struck me that all hon members in this Committee today are agreed on the importance of water. We are all concerned about the matter of future water supplies, because our water consumption is increasing by approximately 6% per annum, and our water resources are becoming fewer and more expensive. For that reason we shall have to consider teaching our children from an early age to use water correctly and sparingly. We shall have to propagate this in the schools and we shall have to make everyone aware of the importance of water conservation.

New investigations into new water supply schemes are constantly being planned, but all the future water schemes are going to make very heavy financial demands. One asks oneself: Could we not achieve more with our available funds if we enlarged our existing schemes? Many of the existing schemes are designed in such a way that they can be enlarged at a lower cost than building new schemes.

I should now like to discuss my own constituency and bring a certain matter in this connection to the attention of the hon the Minister. The Sand-Vet scheme comprises 11 290 ha of irrigation land, but at the same time tremendous development and expansion is taking place in the mining and industrial sectors. This development of mines and industries requires a great deal of water. The irrigation farmers in this scheme are worried, for owing to the drought which has prevailed for the past few years their water quotas have been cut by 60%. If the mines develop any further, which is in fact happening, then they are faced with the threat of a further reduction in their quotas. As the hon member for Kimberley North said, if a man’s water quota is halved his income is also halved. I want to ask the hon the Minister if they cannot, at this stage already, begin investigating whether those dam walls cannot be raised because the expansion of the mines is a foregone conclusion, and it is also a foregone conclusion that those mines will need more water in future. We have to consider timeously whether those walls cannot be raised.

There is a little matter in my constituency with regard to which I should like to address a word of thanks to the hon the Minister and the officials. I am referring to the matter of the Vet River vlei area which was dealt with during the past financial year. For the past six years we have been involved in this matter of the vlei area of the Vet River which was destroyed by floods. On behalf of the Water Affairs Committee and the farmers concerned, I want to thank the department most sincerely today that we have now reached finality on this. We greatly appreciate it.

There is another little point I want to refer to, and this may be a very delicate matter that I should like the hon the Minister to give attention to. I see in the annual report that the investigation of the Lesotho Highlands Project is continuing. The hon the Minister referred to this in his speech a moment ago. The hon member for Constantia also said something about this when he asked that we extend such schemes to other neighbouring states. In the past it was found that projects in neighbouring states were subject to great risks. In this connection we can think of the Cahora Bassa scheme and the Ruacana project. For years the Cahora Bassa scheme stood idle until it came into erman operation again recently. I would be glad if the hon the Minister could inform the Committee this afternoon how far they have progressed with the Lesotho Highlands Project and what safeguards have been built into it.

That is a good question. [Interjections.]

Order!

It seems to me as if I have woken sleeping people.

When the hon the Minister took over the portfolio, he was thrown in at the deep end, precisely because of the droughts. I am confident, as other hon members have also said, that next season will be a good season, because the fishermen tell us that at the moment they are catching fish as they have never caught fish before. It seems to me the sea currents have changed, and they are bringing in the fish. When there are fish in abundance, it rains in the interior. I therefore think that our problems will be solved.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Winburg devoted the greater part of his speech to the water problems of our country as well as those in his constituency. I think we all realize what the water shortage or need of our country is. I do not particularly wish to discuss the water problem but the hon the Minister comes from a dry region as I do, and we know boreholes. Much has been written in the newspapers about our vast subterranean water resources. Since we are being told about the many billions of litres of subterranean water in the Transvaal, I should like to hear from the hon the Minister what his plans are in relation to groundwater, particularly in the Karoo.

†Many, many years ago, in fact I am told millions of years ago, our forefathers became extremely restless and most unhappy with their surroundings and as one-cell organisms they crawled out of the water and found themselves on what they called land.

Are you now talking about the Progs?

Further on in my speech I shall point out how clever they were, and then the hon member will realize that I am talking about the Progs.

After they had crawled out of the water they found themselves in a new environment which was incompatible with their one-cell structure, and they immediately crawled back into the water. I am told that millions of years ago they developed a protection which we now call skin. The one cell was bathed in fluid and covered by the protection called skin. They then decided they were ready to come out again as they found this earth very interesting. They crept back onto land and over millions of years they developed better and better models until man took his first stumbling step on this earth a few million years ago. Since then man has gone out of his way to destroy the environment that was created especially for him. This outside environment is called the milieu extérieur and the inside of the body the milieu intérieur. A happy balance of temperatures, moistures, etc, are maintained. As the medical profession protects the milieu intérieur—if anything goes wrong the individual will die— so the environmentalists, the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister especially should protect the milieu extérieur, otherwise the whole nation will die. My plea today to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, environmentalists and everybody concerned is to protect this. There is a song with the words “Don’t kill the world, it is all we have”. Yet we human beings are polluting the water, the air and the earth and we are also trying to kill all the inhabitants of this wonderful creation of God. There is oil in the sea, the air is becoming a gas chamber and the earth a garbage dump.

I have a few ideas on this matter. I was very disappointed by an answer I received from the hon the Minister regarding an experience which I had had. I was walking along the seashore on a Sunday morning on a perfect April day with the beautiful sea and the seagulls all about me. However, the seashore was like the main street of a city and the dunes like a rally track with motorbikes all over. Is it not possible to have one body to control this? The hon the Minister answered that he could not do anything about it as this falls under local authorities. But it is the environment that is being destroyed, and the hon the Minister and his department should have the authority to deal with it.

I will explain it to you.

I will be happy to have an explanation. I do not mean this in a bad way, but raise it merely as part of my deep dedication to this subject.

Secondly, I think a massive education plan should be launched to teach people how to protect the earth. Inside a national park it is clean, but as soon as one comes out, the environment is filthy. I think offenders should be punished. One can for instance hardly pass buses or lorries without being “poisoned” by diesel fumes. People throw rubbish everywhere. As there is a law prescribing the wearing of safety belts, why can there not be a law that each car should have a garbage can or plastic bag? People throwing rubbish should pay a penalty so that they can stop throwing rubbish from cars.

Why do you not suggest corporal punishment?

I think that is a good idea as I feel very strongly about this.

There should also be enough funds available for conservation of areas such as parks and wilderness areas.

I have very little time at my disposal and would therefore like to finish by broadening what I am trying to say. I would like to pay tribute to the National Parks Board and its people. These people are doing a great job. I was fortunate to be in one of our national parks yesterday, namely the Tsitsikamma Nature Reserve. The officials there were working on a Sunday and were very friendly and helpful to everybody to help us enjoy the environment. I do not think we know enough about the people of the National Parks Board. We do not know enough about the conditions they live under, sometimes under extreme conditions. Visitors to the park demand much of them.

Finally, in countries overseas which I have visited, foreign visitors have to pay higher entrance fees for enjoying the environmental beauty of the parks. I think the time has come that visitors from overseas to, for example, the Kruger National Park or the Tsitsikamma Park should pay more than local visitors. We already make our contribution. This extra income could be of great help to develop these wonderful places.

I can only pay tribute to the National Parks Board. In conclusion I can only ask the hon the Minister and his department to keep our country clean and to look after us.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown, who has just resumed his seat, pointed out that he comes from a dry area and is acquainted with boreholes and so on. I come from the Karoo and boreholes, windmills and the extracting of pipes are not unfamiliar to me either.

When weather forecasts were televised for the first time, I thought I was hearing a new terminology I had not come across before, until I began discussing terminology with geohydrologists. Today I want to talk about subterranean water and its exploitation and utilization.

In South Africa we have two basic types of aquifers. The first is the primary aquifer, where water is found in compartments under the ground. The other is the secondary type. Primary aquifers consist mainly of sandstone or sand, where the volume of water to stone can be as low as 1:20 or as high as 1:3. Approximately 80% of the earth’s crust of South Africa is solid. This is where the secondary water is found because one abstracts water from it by compartment, by seepage, crack or coagulation. These solid formations consist of intrusive and eruptive igneous rocks such as granite, gabbro, dolerite, basalt, andecite, metamorphic rock such as quartzite, hornfels, gneiss, granulite and sedimentary rock such as shale, sandstone, siltstone, dolomite and limestone. These are the basic formations comprising approximately 80% of the earth’s crust of South Africa. In these formations water is stored and absorbed as a result of leaching, undercutting and calcification in the rocks and owing to errosion of underlying layers into which the water has then been compacted.

Although secondary openings may be open to depths of hundreds and even thousands of metres as a result of tectonic deformation, most of the water we abstract is found at a depth of between 15 and 50 metres. In the Karoo and the Kalahari this would probably be deeper, even as deep as a hundred metres.

I listened to the hon member for De Aar—he is not here at the moment—when he spoke earlier on. He asked for more water to be supplied to De Aar. In this connection I should like to quote some interesting statistics. I ascertained which towns and cities abstract the most water for ordinary domestic use. De Aar abstracts 6 500 cubic metres of water per day from subterranean sources, followed by Lichtenburg and then Pietersburg! [Interjections.] I did not tamper with these figures, but when I saw them I did wonder. [Interjections.]

I suppose they want the whole world to be wet (nat).

The hon member is probably right. They do want the whole world to be wet (nat). A great deal of that water is, however, subterranean water! [Interjections.] I ascertained how this water was used, and found that 1,8% of subterranean water was used for urban purposes, while other areas used approximately 13%. It is interesting that 52% of all water used for stock-watering purposes is subterranean water. This is significant. Mining uses approximately 17% and approximately 28% of all this water is used for domestic purposes in the rural areas.

Not all the water we abstract is equally pure or fresh. The water is a high rainfall area, for example the Northeastern Transvaal, usually contains minimal amounts of dissolved salts whereas water in the dry areas, for example the Kalahari, the North West and South West Africa have a very high salt content.

Today I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister, and this concerns control over subterranean water. Subterranean water is considered to be private or own water, and I want to suggest that we pass legislation as soon as possible to make it public water so that the State can have control over it. I am not advocating cumbersome legislation but I am suggesting that everyone with drilling equipment should be licenced, or he should have a permit allowing him to drill for water. It should also be prescribed by way of regulation that he has to furnish the department with full particulars—this may be on a form prescribed by the department—so that we can compile a proper water chart for South Africa. In this way we shall be able to get a proper idea of precisely what the position is with regard to our subterranean water.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodeplaat will excuse me if I do not react to his speech, because my time is limited.

†My first subject is the Addo Elephant National Park. This was mentioned also by the hon member for Swellendam. I want to congratulate him on his speech. It was a good one and was very much along the lines of a speech that I made two years ago in that regard. At that time I pleaded for more land for the Addo Park, and I asked for a corridor to join the forestry area at Zuurberg with the Addo Elephant National Park. This would considerably enlarge the Addo Elephant National Park and create a greater grazing area for what I think is now probably the last elephant colony in the Cape Province, because the Knysna elephants, if there are any left, are certainly not sufficient in number to recover and ever become a viable population again. It is also the home of the Cape buffalo and many other creatures. It is now two years since I originally made this plea, and I should like to know what has happened since. Has my proposition been investigated, and what chance is there that we might succeed in having the Zuurberg forestry area part of the Addo Elephant National Park?

My second subject relates to the Orange River scheme. In 1982 and again in 1983 I motivated the need for a greater water supply to the Sundays River Valley and I got a very sympathetic reception. In fact, last year, on 25 May 1983, the hon the Minister said:

He therefore saw the need for it, and subsequent to this the hon the Prime Minister announced that the scheme would be going ahead.

We have also had a White Paper this session in this regard, and I see that in the 1984-85 financial year we might only be spending R1 million on getting the scheme off the ground. I really do not think that this is enough, and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether that R1 million is part of his budget this year, and what the possibility is of spending more than that amount. Is it being done by his department or is it being contracted out? Has the job been put out to tender or not? Perhaps the hon the Minister can give us more information about this. The people of the Eastern Cape will be most upset if no start is made on this project in 1984. Supposing that a start is made, it will only be completed in 1988. It now seems that a red herring is being drawn across this particular path. The original Orange River scheme called for a high-level canal 23 km in length. I am told that after building 16 km of the high-level canal, the scheme was shelved when there was only 7 km needed to be built. Now it sits there as a white elephant, and perhaps a monument to wasteful habits. The local farmers believe that it will be possible to complete that high-level canal in a period of only two years, thus saving two years on the scheme for the weir, and consequently saving on escalating costs. It would also create the opportunity of establishing a hydro-electric power-station at the point where the high-level canal water drops off into the Little Fish River. I am aware that Escom does not believe that this would make economic sense, but who know what the future hydro-electric development will be? In addition, I understand that the Port Elizabeth municipality wish to erect a pump storage project on the Little Fish River in about 15 years’ time. This scheme could be of great benefit ultimately to that municipality for hydro-electric power generation. All in all, there seems to be a case worthy of consideration in regard to this high-level canal. I want to ask the hon the Minister if he is aware of it, what he is doing about it and whether it makes any sense.

My second area of concern, relates to coastal area conservation, which the hon member for Parktown spoke about, or perhaps one should term it the lack of coastal area conservation. We have a magnificent coastline along the Eastern Cape coast and some magnificent estuaries. Two of the longest tidal rivers, if not the longest, in South Africa are the area, namely the Bushmen’s and Kariega Rivers. The ecological damage already done to the Bushmen’s River by a bridge that was built with no or very little concern for the environment, is enormous. I was horrified to read in the Press during March that the Dias Divisional Council have apparently approved the development of a coastal township between the Maitland River and Van Staden’s River mouths. This had apparently been done without any consultation on possible environmental damage, which could easily be done to the dune structure of that area. As a result I immediately sent a copy of the article concerned to the Council for the Environment and I am most grateful to them and the chairman, Prof Botha, for the action they have taken on this matter. However, what concerns me, is that the Council for the Environment has no teeth. I believe it is the job of the Minister to provide that council with the necessary teeth to carry out their job properly. In addition, there is a major job to be done with regard to consolidation. On the issue of giving them more power, let me say at once that I believe that the councillors are dedicated conservationists and that their decisions must be heard, and should not just be recommendations. They should be able to make decisions which will have long-standing results in South Africa. However, they can only advise and can only co-opt experts to help them with their advice. They do need power to prevent the rape of our natural resources, and in the context about which I am speaking, the rape of our coastal environment. There are no fewer than 26 Acts of this Parliament controlling the coastal zone, and they are administered by no less than eight State departments. There are also about 40 local authorities involved, with delegated powers. According to a report in the Eastern Province Herald there were only 54 fisheries inspectors two years ago who had 2 400 km of coastline to control. This means that there was only one fisheries officer to every 59 km. The problems are legion. There is the collection of bait and shellfish which creates problems, there is the harvesting of seaweed, beach-buggy damage, bad foreshore development, road-works across estuaries and interference with bird-life. The management is unco-ordinated and communication between the various bodies is poor. The Council for the Environment has made a study of coastal zone management through a working group. Their major recommendation is the following:

I echo this plea and I would add: Let us give this council the power to prevent development which will cause great ecological damage to our estuaries and coastal zone. I am sure that they will not abuse that power. I have walked on beaches in Europe and in America and also in the Far East and Islands in the Indian Ocean. Some of these are magnificent. Yet none can compare with our Eastern Cape coastal zone, and I believe that we should keep it that way.

Mr Chairman. I am not going to react to the speech made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He put certain questions to the hon the Minister and he will probably receive replies to them.

There has never been a time in the history of agriculture in South Africa in which we have been as aware of the risky nature of farming owing to fluctuating climatic conditions as we now are. If there is one production aid in agriculture which can bring about stability, it is the supply of sufficient water. This statement is supported by the fact that of the 85 million hectares of agricultural land in South Africa, only one million is under irrigation and this one million hectares of irrigation land yields approximately 20% of our total agricultural production.

Surplus water that is stored, has to be used in the immediate future because it is impractical and also impracticable to use water that is stored now only after a certain period of time has elapsed. The storing of water is seasonal and for that reason only a limited amount of water should be carried over from one season to the next with a view to ensuring that if no rain falls during the next season there will at least be a little surplus water which can be used. During the past drought it was proved that there was quite a bit of surplus water in the Orange River which could still be utilized effectively. There is, however, concern among the people living along the Orange River that too much water is being abstracted from the Orange River. There is, for example, the canal system being built at Riet River, and then there is the water being diverted to the Fish River Valley. There is also a request for a canal system to Britstown and De Aar. There are also requests from the city council of Kimberley and Bloemfontein to abstract water from the Verwoerd Dam.

We realize that we cannot be selfish in our view that water may not be taken elsewhere, particularly not when this is in the national interests. As far as irrigation possibilities are concerned, we feel that it would be wise to confine development to adjoining high-potential land for the time being. The reason for this is, in the first place, that it is estimated that there is 45 000 ha of high potential agricultural land between the Aughrabies Waterfall and the confluence of the Orange and Vaal Rivers which can be utilized. This does not include the thousands of hectares situated between the Aughrabies and the mouth of the Orange River. This development also creates an opportunity to increase the size of relatively small irrigation farming units so that they become economic units. From the point of view of a cost-benefit ratio, it is also essential that this development be given preference. We also know that as a result of the economic conditions in the country, it will not be possible for the State to initiate large Government schemes in the immediate future. That is why development is aimed mainly at private enterprise. The necessary infrastructure also exists as far as roads and electricty are concerned. The people who have to produce the agricultural commodities also have the necessary know-how. The necessary co-operatives also exist in this region.

Our concern is confirmed by a resolution adapted by the Lower Orange River Development Congress in which it was stated:

That is why it is essential that a third opportunity be created for people to apply to purchase water and that this should be done as soon as possible to keep development costs down. This should also be done subject to the conditions the hon member for Prieska will now set out.

Mr Chairman, wherever there is a stream of water and a piece of land available, with farmers on it, sooner or later there will always be a problem. That this is the case is an inevitable part of irrigation farming. We are very grateful that the department has introduced new mechanisms to place land under irrigation and that, now that the first two rounds of water purchases have virtually been completed, and the possibility of a third round of purchases exists, the department has created the opportunity for negotiations on these conditions. I should therefore like to say a few words about this. Along the Orange River the problem does not concern the farmers occupying economic agricultural units or approximately 300 ha of irrigable land. The present conditions make provision for the development and irrigation of those units. The problem arises in the case of large units. There are farmers owning approximately 2 000 ha to 3 000 ha of land, which is considered class A irrigable land. The present conditions required to bring that land into production, are causing problems. After the first 300 ha of land have been utilized, there is still a large piece of land which cannot be brought into production because certain problems exist.

The first problem is that that land has to be reduced in size or sold in the form of economic units. If a person wants to create an economic agricultural unit, he is faced with the problem that the Department of Agriculture does not want to subdivide the land because it is too small to use as grazing. At the same time the Department of Environment Affairs does not want to allocate a water right in order to turn that land into an economic unit because the new owner has not yet taken transfer of that land. The man who wants to purchase that land with the aim of developing it cannot, in his turn, obtain transfer because the two actions by the aforesaid two departments cannot take place simultaneously. Now the question arises whether we cannot bring about co-ordination here between the actions of the two separate departments. I suggest that this be effected by means of a deed of sales which can also act as an authoritative document in this connection.

I also feel that the development capital for that area will come from outside. Even farmers who already have 300 ha of developed land, do not have enough money to plan and finance the remaining 2 000 ha. This is a problem.

The second problem we are faced with concerns the financing of that new irrigation land. If a person wants to develop 300 ha of land, for example, he cannot, after all, do so within a year. That development has to take place in phases. Let us assume it takes place in phases of 50 ha a year, then it is going to take that farmer all of four or five years to get that land under irrigation and in production. This means that in the first year he must plan, for example, for pumps and other equipment which he may only use in four or five years’ time. At the moment the conditions are such that water has to be purchased in one transaction. All the water rights have to be paid for within one year, whereas they can only be fully utilized in five years’ time. Now the question arises whether such water rights cannot be allocated over a period so that the necessary planning can be done. The necessary financing is therefore provided in this indirect way, because the water is paid for as it is abstracted from the river. These are topical problems. It is not easy to turn fallow land into irrigation land. Fallow land can only be developed into proper irrigation land over a period of years. If a farmer therefore has to spend all his initial development capital on water and pumping equipment, in due course he will experience a problem with his cash flow.

I am asking that these water rights be allocated over a period of time. I suggest that it be decided in advance whether this will be over a period of five or ten years. I would say that ten years would be preferable. This is the only way in which that land can be incorporated economically into agriculture so that the correct product can be cultivated on it. If all that land has to come into production at once, this will create tremendous problems for everyone in agriculture The question is after all, what is going to be produced on that land. The crops produced there can only be established on an economic basis if due regard is given to correct conditions and thorough planning.

Mr Chairman, as I have very little time at my disposal I shall not follow upon what was said by the hon member for Prieska.

The drought in Natal has taught us some lessons and I should like the hon the Minister and his department to take careful note of two of these lessons. Firstly, there is the lesson in regard to tariffs and secondly, the lesson in regard to consumption patterns.

As far as tariffs are concerned, consumers, especially domestic consumers, were shocked to realize that although they had achieved savings of up to 80%, their water accounts remained very close to pre-restriction days. This of course illustrates the simple economic principle that costs are made up of fixed items and variables. In the supply of water the largest portion of costs is related to capital and other non-variables such as salaries and to forth, and the pumping and purification costs in fact form a small portion of the total costs. I suggest therefore that the various cost elements should be reflected on accounts by way of a semi-fixed amount incorporating capital and other non-variable costs, and a rate per unit of consumption to cover the variable costs. Telephone and certain other services are charged for along these lines, and this method would prevent dissatisfaction on the part of consumers if one were suddenly to raise the tariff per unit only.

A more important lesson, however, was in regard to the management of water resources and also the consumption patterns. Prior to the restrictions in 1982, consumption from the Umgeni system was roughly 550 megalitres per day. This was made up of 40% domestic and 60% industrial consumption. In 1983 with full restrictions the overall saving was 50% which represented an 80% saving on domestic and a 30% saving on non-domestic consumption. To date this year with restrictions lifted, non-domestic usage is still only 80% of the 1982 figures; in other words, the normal growth of 5% has not even been taken into consideration. One can assume therefore that a saving of 20% or a 20% better efficiency in non-domestic consumption is an achievable target in the longer term with advanced planning.

The domestic consumption pattern is, however, much more dramatic. To date this year it is only at 30% of the 1982 consumption. The truth is, of course, that since the partial lifting of restrictions the rainfall has returned to normal, and little water has been used for gardening purposes. However, I can assure hon members that gardens in Natal are exceptionally beautiful this year. I have been assured and I have seen it for myself that lawns have never been greener and shrubs never more prolific. What is more, very few trees and shrubs actually died during the drought. The important point that one must learn from this is that it appears as though we have designed our domestic water needs to cater for anything up to a 70% wastage through garden sprinkles that at most manage to keep lawns green for a few weeks longer and enable townfolk to live in an artificial paradise.

Assuming that a domestic consumption of only 50% of old patterns can be achieved— and, as I have said, Natal gardens have proved that a saving of 70% is possible if we let Mother Nature take its course—then these new consumption figures are quite staggering. They prove that in Natal we could now consume only 68% of 1982 figures. If we project these figures on the same basis as in the White Paper for the Umgeni system, it means that the consumption of 543 million cubic metres per year will be reached only in the year 2025 and not in the year 2005. [Interjections.]

I believe that in the Vaal system the ratio is completely the reverse in that domestic consumption accounts for 60% and industrial consumption for 40%. With the same pattern as in Natal, this means that a consumption of 62% of current patterns is possible in that system. I suggest therefore that the department has a very careful look at these figures since they can change the whole future planning and perhaps save valuable capital resources as well as prevent the early construction of facilities which have reducing capabilities as the result of siltation. I think the hon the Minister ought to look carefully at possible consumption patterns with better utilization.

I should like to come back to the Inanda Dam. The way in which construction was handled is most unsatisfactory, and it points to a total breakdown in communication within the hon the Minister’s department as well as between him and the Department of Co-operation and Development. In March 1982, more than two years ago, I asked when the dam would be built and where the people would be moved to, but the hon the Minister neither knew when it would be built nor where the people would be resettled, and he told me that it was being worked on. Last year when we discussed this Vote I raised the same issues, and the hon the Minister then replied that because of alternative plans which were then to be completed soon, the construction of the Inanda Dam could be postponed for a while.

This was even before the Mooi River supplementary scheme had been considered. The Mooi River scheme was completed just after Christmas and this scheme supplies at the moment 16% of the current annual consumption. The hon the Minister also told me that the construction of the dam would be the subject of a White Paper to be issued this year. Finally he said that certain conditions had been agreed to by kwaZulu and that they were being studied by the Department of Co-operation and Development.

Earlier this year I asked the same questions and then I was told that no compensatory land would be given to kwaZulu although the 1981 White Paper allocated R690 000 for that purpose. What is happening at this stage? Firstly there is no White Paper although it was promised by the hon the Minister. Secondly, notwithstanding the completion of two supplementary schemes, suddenly and without announcement, the construction was started and scrapers and bulldozers moved in. Some huts with small grass patches standing in between were left standing on an island right in the middle of the earthworks. Nobody in the valley knows where they will be moved to, nobody knows when they will be moved and nobody knows whether they will be flooded out of their homes. I have been right through the area. I have spoken to chiefs, the magistrate, headmasters and businessmen, but nobody knows. Nobody knows where they will have to go. Nobody had his property or his livestock valued. People are moving out of fear on to higher land on the edge of the escarpment near Hillcrest, thereby adding to the already severe problem of squatting right along the prestigious White suburbs.

Have you spoken to Chief Buthelezi?

I have not spoken to kwaZulu, but I am speaking to the hon the Minister because this is his water scheme and not kwaZulu’s water scheme. I therefore ask that the hon the Minister has a very serious look at the situation because what is happening to those people is intolerable.

Mr Chairman, tremendous demands are made of this department, and this afternoon it struck me that all the speakers from all the parties agreed that the department needs more funds to be able to do the work it is called upon to do. Water is needed for human consumption, and for use in agriculture and industry. We are living in a country of tremendous extremes. Hon members spoke about the tremendous droughts we have experienced, but I live in a province that has been ravaged by an enormous flood.

On this occasion I want to express our appreciation to the department for the imaginative scheme it has tackled to ward off a major disaster in this country. We want to congratulate most sincerely everyone who was involved. This department needs a great deal more funds for research and for the supply of water in the future so that the backlog that has been built up over the years can be eliminated.

I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Ermelo and thank the Government, and the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries in particular, most sincerely once again for the flood relief the Government voted after the Domoina floods. The floods which occurred on 31 January and 1 February as a result of the cyclone Domoina, are the worst this country has ever experienced.

On this occasion I want to express a few thoughts on the Umfolozi Co-operative and specifically on the 2 500 ha of sugar plantations that are covered in sand and about which finality has not yet been reached with regard to flood relief. The statement which the Government made through the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries on 6 March excluded these 2 500 ha, except that it was stated that an ecological study would have to be done before a final decision could be taken. All investigations have now been completed and I hope and trust that a final decision will be taken as soon as possible, because the morale of these people is declining. There are individuals who are opposed to any assistance whatsoever being given to these farmers, and I want to refer briefly to a few points of criticism. Firstly, it is stated that the farmers should not have farmed on this floodplain in the first place. Yet people farm on flood-plains in many places in the world. I do not want to go into detail now, except to say that this is done on a large scale in countries like Indian, the USA, Canada and Australia. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Umfolozi sugar farmers were settled there by the State, first by the old Natal Government, and later by the Government of the Union of South Africa. After the First World War soldiers were settled on the Umfolozi plain, and after the Second World War 30 ex-servicemen were settled at Monzi. It is also claimed that since the farmers were aware that it was a floodplain subject to floods from time to time, they should bear the consequences, since they were aware of the risk involved in farming in that area. Everyone who farms there is, in fact, aware that they are ravaged by floodwaters from time to time.

This has always been realized and accepted, but what these farmers cannot accept, is that the catchment area of this region is deteriorating year after year. This catchment area is taking on alarming proportions. After the cyclone Domoina, I flew over this part of kwaZulu and it was alarming to see how large parts of kwaZulu are still irreparably damaged and that it is extremely urgent that the necessary steps be taken to save what can be saved in that area. The way of life of the people there will have to alter drastically. The Zulus will have to be taken from the land and settled in towns so that the land can be planned and preserved effectively. It is imperative that serious attention be given to soil conservation in kwaZulu. The position is deteriorating, and if drastic steps are not taken, it spells a major disaster not only for kwaZulu, but also for the areas that kwaZulu serves as a catchment area.

Over the past 70 years the farmers on the Umfolozi plain have had to face 12 floods. They did the necessary repair work themselves by way of loans and bonds. Over the past 20 years, R900 000 per annum has been spent on flood protection works. It is therefore clear that the farmers have done more than their share. However, with the past two floods it was clear that the sand and silt problem has increased dramatically. The towns of Mtubatuba, Hluhluwe and Nyalaziowe their existence to the Umfolozi Sugar Co-operative, as do thousands of Black workers in this area. It is therefore clear that the unsympathetic attitude towards the farmers is unfounded and completely unjustified. The question is: What is to be done about these 2 500 ha of land that are covered in sand? The depth of the sand varies from, 5 metres to more than 2 metres. We are therefore dealing with approximately 50 million cubic metres of sand. The sand contains only approximately 1% silt and 1% clay. Consequently, it is completely sterile and unsuitable for agricultural purposes. In the present unstable conditions the sand poses a great danger, since it could be transported by the two rivers, the Umfolozi and the Umsunduzi, to the mouth of Lake St Lucia, with disastrous consequences for this lake. The sand in the rivers also has a financial implication for the sugar co-operative, since the rivers have to be dredged to ensure efficient run-off and drainage.

Another major danger, of course, is that the sand could be blown onto neighbouring sugar plantations, with extremely detrimental consequences for those farms. The sand therefore poses a danger to continued farming in the area, as well as to the ecosystem, and more specifically, to Lake St Lucia. There is therefore no doubt whatsoever that the 2 500 ha will have to be expropriated so that the land can be stabilized as soon as possible by establishing suitable vegetation there. If the farmers are expropriated, it must be borne in mind that they will have lost everything, and not only a small section of their land, as is the case in other areas. Ex gratia payments to farmers will definitely not provide a solution, since the area will remain as it is, which will not be in the public interest, nor in the interests of the ecology of the area. Expropriation is the only solution. It will then be possible to plan, control and stabilize the affected area. Where parts of farms remain as uneconomic units, it would be desirable to expropriate such properties completely. Remaining sections could then be added to land bordering them, or they could be consolidated as separate units. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umfolozi correctly identified the serious environmental degradation in the Pongola catchment area which aggravated the problems experienced by farmers as a result of the flood. My speech today deals directly with this issue. Many of the points which he raised will again come up during the course of my speech. The hon the Minister during the course of his speech expressed his serious concern about the erosion that is taking place in many parts of the country. We on this side of the house are equally concerned.

There is little doubt that the most serious problems originate in the Black areas, the homelands. The hon the Minister may of course argue that this does not fall under his department—strictly speaking this is true— but of course he cannot escape the consequences of what happens there. No area is totally independent from another. I should like to illustrate my point today by referring to one specific area, namely the Tugela-Vaal scheme. I have been there in the past and the hon the Minister has also been there. He will know that the catchment area for most of this scheme is in the Upper Tugela location, as it is called, in the Drakensberg. It is in this area where the most serious environmental degradation is taking place. I have mentioned this in previous discussions of this Vote, and interestingly enough, the hon member for Klip River recently expressed concern about what is happening in this area under the Vote of the Minister of Co-operation and Development. The hon member for Klip River correctly observed that the first problem relates to over-population in the area while the second problem relates to incorrect land use; in other words, over-stocking and wrong grazing practices. This results in the loss of a sustained flow of clean, silt-free water from the area which will naturally collect in the Tugela-Vaal pumped storage scheme and as a consequence can have a spill-over which can affect the whole PWV area in years to come.

Of course, it is easy enough to identify the causes. The next step is to find the solution. There are solutions which can be implemented from a purely non-political point of view and obviously there are solutions which will involve political decisions. One solution is to allow people to move off that land. In this particular area, many people on the land are families of migratory workers. We have often pleaded in this House that where migratory workers have permanent work in towns, their families should be allowed to accompany them and that we must embark on urbanization projects to provide housing in city areas. If we do not do this, we are simply sitting on a time bomb in the Tugela catchment area and the problem is not going to be solved.

Secondly we could promote some form of industrial development in those particular areas in order to attract people from the rural areas to the more urbanized areas. I believe the Tugela Basin has a number of advantages for development, for example it has water, labour, coal and from a locational point of view it lies between the PWV area and Durban. It is therefore well located and has natural advantages.

One plea that I want to make to the hon the Minister is to dust off some of those studies which were done in the 1950’s by the Natal Regional Planning Commission, the University of Natal and the CSIR, and see whether we cannot introduce some labour intensive type of industry in the area. Of course there is one other issue in this regard, and that relates to the pumping of water to the Sterkfontein Dam. I noticed in a White Paper which has recently been tabled that the pumping capacity is going to be increased from 11 to 20 cubic metres per second, which will make greater demands on the Upper Tugela region. I should therefore appreciate an assurance from the hon the Minister that the amount of water taken from there will not in future affect any development programmes in the Tugela Basin as such. In other words, the remaining rivers, such as the Mooi River, the Little Tugela and the Bushman’s River, should be left for the development of the Tugela Basin.

Finally, the type of development which we would actually be looking at will be small-scale irrigated agriculture. This has a considerable multiplying effect in terms of jobs for smaller home industries. We will also be looking for some sort of co-operation in that area on accepted and allowable stocking rates and the type of industries that I have already mentioned would preferably have to be labour intensive.

Although industrial development can help to a certain extent, we do not believe that decentralization is going to solve the whole problem. The other solution, as I have mentioned earlier, is to allow people to move away from these areas into urban areas where we should provide some co-ordinated urbanization plan in order to get them permanently off those areas.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House would like to add our gratitude to that which the hon the Minister expressed to Mr Wilson van der Merwe, who is retiring, and at the same time convey our congratulations to Mr At van der Dussen on his appointment.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central must please pardon me for not pursuing his theme directly, since the subject of my speech is forestry.

It is not possible to quantify precisely the effect of the drought on the forestry industry. Reports are being received of trees that have died and problems with establishment and re-establishment schemes which have resulted in direct losses. Many more trees had to be sacrificed in certain areas, but the less obvious loss of greater proportions is the loss of growth and greater expansion of existing plantations. The drought is already in its fourth year in many places.

According to the department’s annual report, the state is unable to complete its regeneration programme. The Minister has also indicated that the department will not reach the target of 4 000 ha during the 1984-85 financial year. The South African Timber Growers’ Association, Satga, estimates that half of the plantations have shown no growth. That is approximately 500 000 ha at an average of 16 cubic metres per hectare per annum and at an average of R10 per cubic metre, which is equal to R80 million. Calculated in the same way, the loss in the wattle industry is approximately R7,3 million. The loss in the wattle industry in particular will still be felt for many years, and it is estimated that during the next 10-year cycle there will be a loss of up to 25% in timber and bark production.

Another side-effect of the drought is the danger of fires and the increased cost involved in being in a state of readiness to fight them. I see in the department’s report that 30 457 ha were damaged on 31 March 1982, of which 86% was privately owned.

There is doubt in certain circles about the industry’s ability to meet the needs of the country. Since the years 1975-76 the total number of hectares for new afforestation has progressively declined from 25 468 ha per annum to 10 034 ha in 1982. Apart from that, since 1978 an average of 3 326 ha of plantations per annum have been withdrawn from forestry and turned into agricultural land. The 6 708 ha in 1981-82 constitutes only 17% of the estimated 39 000 ha per annum of new afforestation that is necessary to meet all the needs of the country. The figure of 39 000 ha per annum could probably be questioned because methods of treebreeding, the selection of a site, the improved control and management of plantations, better methods of cultivation and better processes of reclamation, not only in the plantations, but also in the mills, could decrease this figure. The research advisory committee of the Forestry Council has done very good work with regard to the identification of research needs in the industry and the allocation of funds to more deserving research projects. In 1983-84, 45% of the council’s funds were allocated to research and development.

I should like to praise the department for its policy of upgrading plantations. This will contribute a great deal to ensuring a greater yield. Even if this figure of 39 000 ha per annum for new afforestation is too high, it remains an indisputable fact that the new afforestation is too little to meet future needs, the fact that many small producers have sold out to larger processing producers, is cause for concern. I believe that it is an indication of the problems which are being experienced by the smaller producers who do not have a great deal of capital in particular. Whilst new afforestation has decreased, there has been increased investment in timber processing on the other hand. It is estimated the demand for roundwood will increase by 3 million cubic metres per annum, or 25% of the present production, over the next two years.

There has been little afforestation in the independent and self-governing states over the past 10 years. The reason for this is not a lack of suitable sites, but a combination of other factors such as soil deficiency, tribal land tenure, a lack of understanding of the benefits of forestry and, in many cases, a lack of funds. However, where there have been indications that plantations that grow rapidly and which produce firewood and building poles can generate cash, there has been a great deal of interest. Examples of this were the SAICCOR Mills at Umkomaas and Sappi’s Tugela Mills at Mondini. Zulu nurserymen plant eucalyptus and are paid cash for it by weight. The tonnage was considerable.

I welcome the announcement by the hon. the Minister that he is going to extent the department’s information service, that more forestry artisans are available and that this information service will also be renderend to neighbouring states. We can only hope that the University of Transkei will go ahead with the establishment of the forestry college which is being considered at present.

Other factors that have hampered the producer are high interest rates, increased rail tariffs and cost inflation.

The total intake of the sawmills was 4,4 million cubic metres, which is an increase of 16,7% on the average for the previous three years, as the hon the Minister has told the House. Plantations destroyed by the drought and which had to be processed immediately, could have contributed to this, but 1 618 000 cubic metres of processed timber were sold in 1983, or only 1,8% more than the average for the previous three years. However, it is estimated that the accumulated stock of sawmills represents 23.9 days production. Calculated at an average price of R150 per cubic metre, it represents a stock with a value of R30 million. At an interest rate of 20% per annum, this amounts to R17 000 per day.

I do not have enough time to deal with possible financial and non-financial incentive measures. However, I understand that the planning committee of the Forestry Council, which was instructed to formulate proposals, has completed its proposals and has submitted them to the hon the Minister for his consideration. I believe that a very good case can be made out for the necessity of introducing incentive measures to meet our increasing need for timber products, in the interests of the country. I trust that they will be well-founded proposals, and I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to consider these proposals sympathetically, which I am sure he will do.

I should like to refer to research. I should like to thank the hon the Minister for his announcement that research is being continued within the confines of available funds. I have already indicated that the Forestry Council has spent a large portion of its funds on this. This research will have to contribute to greater returns, and it is not only to the benefit of the industry itself, but could also keep costs down and improve the increasing backlog we are facing. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Nelspruit spoke specifically about forestry. In fact, it is a subject which is very important to his constituency. I want to speak about environmental conservation in general.

There is probably no doubt whatsoever in anyone’s mind that we in South Africa, and particularly here in the Western Cape, must have one of the most wonderful heritages, particularly with regard to the vegetation and animal life, but especially with regard to historical buildings. I do not think anyone in the world has such a rich heritage. However, we are only the guardians and patrons of this rich heritage he have received. This heritage existed long before man made his appearance in South Africa. I wonder how many of us, for example, know that the name of the little town of Hout Bay was derived from the fact that there was a whole forest of yellowwood trees there in the previous century. That yellow-wood was used as firewood at that time. I wonder how many of us are aware that the entire Peninsula was covered in everlastings at one stage, which were used to make mattresses. Thus some of our most valuable assets in the Western Cape, in the Cape Peninsula, as well as in South Africa, have unfortunately been destroyed over the years. We therefore greatly appreciate what has already been done in South Africa in the field of conservation.

I also want to thank the Council for the Environment, which has been active for a little more than a year now, most sincerely for its tremendous work and the potential it displays. In this regard, however, I want to point to a certain anomaly in the activities of the Council for the Environment. That council consists of five subcommittees, viz a Standing Committee on Policy and Strategy, a Standing Committee on Man and the Environment, a Standing Committee on Living Resources, a Standing Committee on Pollution and Solid Waste, and a fifth Standing Committee, whose specific aim is to involve itself in the built-up environment. This is precisely where I believe there is a serious anomaly in the whole situation in South Africa.

The Council for the Environment, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment Affairs, involves itself specifically in a Standing Committee on the Built-up Environment. If it concerns the conservation of old buildings, however, it specifically falls under the jurisdiction of the National Monuments Council, which, in turn, falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Education. I am really extremely concerned about the question as to whether the necessary co-operation and co-ordination always exists between the National Monuments Council, which falls under a specific department, and the Council for the Environment, which is really responsible for environment affairs and for conservation as a whole.

Now it was interesting that a one-day conference on urban conservation was held recently at Stellenbosch. On that occasion the role and the meaning of conservation in modern urban development was specifically discussed. On the basis of many examples one could in fact refer to the deficiencies that exist due to the fact that there is not always the necessary co-ordination. It became very clear at that conference that at last our architects, our town planners, municipalities and town councils are becoming extremely concerned about our city centres, the historical character of our towns, as well as the human facet, which is so easily lost through insensitive development.

I could add another example here. I have been concerned for a long time about the destructive role the motorcar plays in the central areas of our large cities. If I had my way, I would very much like to see that the motorcar be kept out of the centre of Cape Town. Of course, that is not impossible. We already have fine examples of streets that have been closed to traffic in Cape Town, and where only people are allowed to move around.

There are also fine examples of this nature in cities overseas. For example, I think of a city like Cologne, and even Salzburg, where the city centres are closed to traffic and where only pedestrians are permitted. It is interesting that people have been brought back to the city centre in those cities. I would very much like to see the Standing Committee on the Built-up Environment of the Council for the Environment giving this matter its urgent attention.

I just want to single out the problem area once again that all conservation bodies, inter alia, the National Monuments Council, should make their contribution in this regard with absolute co-ordination under the Department of Environment Affairs, since I am concerned that the necessary co-ordination and co-operation do not exist at present.

I want to refer to my constituency as an example. The integration in the main street of Paarl between the white wall, the oak trees, the shadows and the winding of the old main street with the vineyards and farms that are still situated in that town, are surely precisely what gives that street and that town its character. It is precisely those elements that will get thousands of people to flock to such a town in the future to come and see what is really happening there. It will be an exceptionally beautiful sight, provided that it can be preserved in its present state and that it is not unnecessarily interfered with. Consequently, it is essential to me—it will only be possible to do so if one can have the necessary co-ordination and co-operation— that such a street ought to be declared in its entirety, not as a dead monument, but in order to be able to exercise expert control over it.

My problem is that the preservation of the oak trees in the main street of Paarl—unfortunately a number of them were uprooted last week—in fact falls under the Department of Environment Affairs via the municipality at present, whilst the preservation of the buildings falls under the National Monuments Council and therefore under the Department of National Education. I can attest to the fact that there is very fine co-operation in Paarl—I am taking this case merely as an example—between the branch of the Simon van der Stel Foundation, the National Monuments Council and the municipality. The National Monuments Council, for example, recently announced that they had specifically singled out 84 historical buildings for preservation only in the southern section of the main street of Paarl, and one is extremely grateful for this. Could one imagine this happening: 84 beautiful buildings, but that some of the oak trees could disappear, for example, as a result of the widening of the main street? In addition, some of the beautiful granite walls that exist there today could also disappear. I therefore want to make a very urgent plea that the Government give attention to much closer co-ordination and co-operation between the National Monuments Council under the Department of National Education, and the Council for the Environment, and specifically its Standing Committee on the Build-up Environment under the Department of Environment Affairs, so as to see our town centres, our city centres, our fine collection of Cape Dutch houses, but also Victorian houses, Georgion houses and even houses of Malayan origin as one large whole and preserve them as well as possible in the interests of posterity.

Mr Chairman, because I am afraid that the wrong impression may go out in the Press tomorrow on account of the speech made by the hon member for Greytown in connection with the building of the Inanda Dam, I wish to make just one remark. I have in my hand a telex from the Secretary to the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, Chief Buthelezi, stating the following:

I think that hon member must get his facts correct before he speaks in this House on a question like this.

None of my facts was incorrect.

The fact is that the hon member never consulted the Chief Minister of kwaZulu. I therefore suggest to him that he gets his facts correct before he points out to this department that we have acted wrongly in this whole regard.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr Speaker, I move:

During the discussion of the Vote of the Commission for Administration on 25 May 1983, I informed hon members of this House of several decisions which had been taken by the Cabinet about the commission. Among other things, I pointed out that the Cabinet had decided that the Public Service Act of 1957 should be revised and that separate legislation should be introduced to deal with the Commission for Administration.

A draft Public Service Bill is ready for consideration by the Cabinet. Since these two Bills actually go together, it would have greatly facilitated the consideration of these measures by hon members if the second one could have placed before the House immediately after the first one. Under the circumstances, this is not possible, but I really do not foresee that this will cause any serious problem.

Mr Speaker, since the seventies, the commission has increasingly been required to advise the Government on matters outside the statutorily defined Public Service. An example of this is the role played by the commission in the co-ordination of conditions of service in the Government sector, which is undertaken on an on-going basis. Furthermore, its advice to the Government concerning government organization has resulted in government institutions outside the Public Service being established, abolished or transferred. In a word, the Commission for Administration has long ceased to be a commission for the Public Service only, and that is the reason why its name was changed by statute, in 1980, from “Public Service Commission” to “Commission for Administration”. In the light of the development I have just outlined, the Government has decided that the affairs of the commission as an institution should be regulated by its own Act. At the same time, the commission had to be authorized by law to perform the functions it is already performing in respect of institutions outside the Public Service, in addition to its powers relating to the Public Service. The result is contained in the Bill which is now before the House.

†Hon members will appreciate the fact that the provisions of the Public Service Act, 1957, which at present provide for the composition of the Commission for Administration and for the conditions of service of the members of the commission, have been written into the Bill, mostly with the minimum of change. An important amendment in this regard concerns the requirement that the State President, in terms of section 4(2)(a) of the Public Service Act, has to take into account the knowledge of or experience in the Public Service of a person to be appointed as a member of the commission. Clause 2(3) of the Bill now requires the State President, in view of the commission’s greater involvement with institutions outside the Public Service, to appoint a person as a member of the commission with due regard to his knowledge of or experience in public administration. In this way not only is recognition given to the role of the commission in the broad public sector but the field of knowledge from which the State President may consider possible candidates for appointment to the commission is extended.

In terms of current legislation the State President may, for a specific reason, suspend a member of the commission from office and remove him from that office after Parliament has been informed of the reason and has given its consent that the member concerned be so removed. The State President may also in terms of current legislation allow a member of the commission to vacate his office on request only if such member is suffering from a permanent infirmity of mind or body which enables him from the proper discharge of the duties of his office. During the drafting of the Bill now under consideration, the commission requested the Government to amend the provision for the vacating of office and the removal from office of a member of the commission in order to make these provisions less rigid and cumbersome. The commission proposed—and it has so been incorporated in the Bill—that a member of the commission may be removed from office by the State President for almost the same reasons as at present but that each such removal shall be communicated by message to Parliament. The Government is of the opinion that the proposals of the commission for the amendment of the existing provisions, do not derogate from the protection which the commission now enjoys under the Public Service Act against capricious or unjustified removal from office. The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, implies that the State President may remove a member of the commission from office only on the advice of the Cabinet. Having been informed of the removal of a member of the commission from office, hon members shall by means of questions to the responsible Minister or during debates in Parliament, be able to obtain further information regarding such removal, if necessary. It would be contrary to the accepted norms of sound administration if a member of the commission were to be removed from office through the expedient of abolishing his office. The Bill thus provides that a reduction in the number of members of the commission may only be implemented when a vacancy in the commission has arisen as a result of the operation of other provisions of the Bill.

A new provision is included in the Bill to permit a member of the commission to request the State President to allow him to vacate his office before the expiry of his term of office. If the State President deems the reason which the member concerned has advanced for his request, to be sufficient, he may comply with the request. In that case the State President shall at the same time determine whether the member on retirement should be credited, or not, with a supplementary period of service for purposes of his pension. A similar provision, in terms of which a judge may retire at any time with the consent of the State President, was legislated in 1978. At present the provisions for the retirement of a member of the commission are largely in agreement with the provisions which in this regard apply to an officer in the Public Service. Since a provision similar to section 14(4) of the Public Service Act, which provides for the retirement of an officer before reaching retirement age, does not currently exist for a member of the commission, the inclusion in the Bill of a provision which provides for a member of the commission to vacate his office during his term of office, eliminates the existing deficiency.

*Mr Speaker, the powers, functions and duties of the commission are defined in a large number of Acts; for this reason, it was only necessary to refer to these in general terms in the Bill. However, specific provisions are being laid down in the Bill to enable the State President or a Minister to ask the commission for its advice in relation to the employment, remuneration and other conditions of service of persons employed in a department in terms of any law other than the Public Service Act, and also in relation to the remuneration and other conditions of service of the staff or councillors of institutions outside the Public Service. In order to enable the commission to advise the State President or the Minister concerned on the basis of all the necessary information, the Bill authorises the commission to obtain full particulars with regard to the matter referred to it from the institutions concerned. Because the South African Transport Affairs and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications fall under the direct control of a Minister and their funds are directly appropriated by Parliament, they are excluded from these provisions. I am satisfied that in terms of these provisions, the commission will be even better able to give well-considered advice to the Government on a wide range of matters.

Mr Speaker, the legislation which is before the House will usher in a new era in the history of the commission. Not only is the commission as an institution being removed, after 27 years, from the ambit of legislation relating to the Public Service; it is also being enabled to play a greater role in determining the course of public administration. As such, I hope that the Bill will receive the wholehearted support of all hon members.

Mr Speaker, I would like to inform the hon the Minister that we on this side of the House will be supporting this Bill in principle but that we will be moving a number of amendments in the Committee Stage.

Clause 2(2) states that the commission shall consist of one or more members. We feel that it is not correct that a commission of this nature can consist of only one member. Therefore we will move an amendment, and I am sure the hon the Minister will accept it, that the commission should consist of two or three members and not only of one. It is completely unfair to expect one man to carry the tremendous burden of the whole of the Public Service of South Africa as well as to have control over a large number of other bodies which receive funds from the State. We feel this must be done. As a matter of fact, on 22 February 1984 when a previous Bill was introduced the hon the Minister himself said (Hansard, col 1567):

Now he wants to introduce a commission that could consist of only one member. We feel it should consist of more. As a result of our amendment certain clauses will also have to be deleted. These will be consequential amendments.

As far as clause 2(5) is concerned, we are pleased to see that a person shall be eligible for reappointment with his own consent. I think it is correct, when one is dealing with people holding such a responsible position in the administration of the State of South Africa, that their consent should be obtained.

An innovation that is being brought in is the fact that the State President shall from time to time designate two heads of department for the purpose of rendering service, and that they shall be available to the commission from time to time in order to give help and advice. I should like to sound a note of warning in this regard to the hon the Minister. He knows as well as I do that with the coming into effect of the new dispensation the onus that will rest on the shoulders of heads of department will be even greater than they were before. I am just a little perturbed that in their case they might find that they are carrying too great a burden when they really have to do two jobs at the same time. I believe that some effort should be made to ensure that they are relieved of the one position while they are fulfilling another one. Being a member of the commission is in itself a tremendous job, and to expect anybody to be a member of the commission and head of a department would be unfair and unjust. It might be too big a burden for any one person to carry. However, I believe it is an experiment that should be carried out in any case because it will then provide continuity so that people will have gained experience well in advance for taking over a post in the commission. As the Public Service structure gets more and more complicated in the course of time it will be necessary that they should get the experience well in advance.

Clause 3 deals with the conditions of service of members. I am very glad to see that we are now adopting the contractual basis whereby everything is obtained. The question of salaries and conditions of service can be laid out in the form of a contract, which the hon the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech.

Clause 4 deals with the discharge and vacation of office of members. We on this side of the House are going to ask the hon the Minister to delete the provision which authorizes the State President to remove a member of the commission from office if, for reasons other than his own unfitness or incapability, his removal from office is deemed expedient by the State President. As the hon the Minister has mentioned in his speech, in the new dispensation we will have a completely new state of affairs. There will be an Executive State President. It is completely and totally incorrect that the State President should have the right to remove the chairman of the commission—that is the person who is in control of the conditions of service of all members of the Public Service—for any reason whatsoever. I think that that should be dropped because it is quite incorrect that he should be able to do so. If it has existed in a previous Act it should never have been there in the first instance. However, under the previous Act it was at least on the recommendation of the Cabinet to a non-executive State President, and that makes it completely different because in the new set-up the State President will be connected much more closely to the Public Service than the State President is under the existing dispensation. We therefore feel that this should be covered by giving this right only to Parliament and not to the State President. We have one Public Service and one Auditor-General and the chairman of the commission must be in no different position to what the Auditor-General is to Parliament.

There is one other point that I should like to mention here which I believe is a very good rule indeed. In terms of clause 7 the powers, functions and duties of the commission, at the request of either a Minister or the State President, will now cover all organizations which receives their funds or part of their funds from the State. This is very important indeed because it brings about some uniformity. There is a tremendous amount of distress amongst public servants that certain people in semi-state bodies receive higher salaries and enjoy better conditions of service than the public servants, and I believe this clause in particular will help to eliminate that anomaly.

Clause 8 deals with the commission’s power of inquiry, and this is very good indeed, particularly as a person is now covered by law relating to privilege when he gives evidence.

I am also pleased to note that in clause 9 there is reference to a chief official to the commission rather than to mention a person by name. This obviates the necessity to amend this clause from time to time.

However, we intend asking for an amendment to clause 10, and that relates to reports of the commission. In terms of this Bill it is necessary to frame an annual report and this report shall be placed upon the Table of Parliament. Particularly in view of the new dispensation we want to introduce an amendment to that as follows:

Mr Speaker, the reason for this is quite clear. In the new dispensation, as I have said before, the situation is that the State President will be an executive President and therefore we must allow the chairman of the commission and the commissioners to be able to report any problems that they may have with the executive President to Parliament from which the State President as well as the Public Service get the power to act. I hope that the hon the Minister will accept that amendment.

There are quite a number of things that I should like to have discussed if I had the time, but there is one particular point that I should like to raise now because I will not have an opportunity later. It relates to public servants and housing subsidies. There is an anomaly in that many people by virtue of their jobs are required to live on the premises on which they work, for instance wardens of residences and certain categories of hospital staff. A warden of a residence is for example often a member of the staff of a university or he may be living on State premises. In the normal course of events, he would qualify for a housing loan, but because he cannot live in his own home, he is prevented from obtaining a loan. This creates severe problems for this category of person when they eventually wish to acquire a home of their own. It is a bit unfair when a man is 35 or 40 and is a warden or “huisvader” who has to live in a certain place and cannot get a loan, and at the age of 50 he and his wife have to go and look for a home …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt, but is the hon member discussing the Bill now?

No, Sir. I would now like to deal with the question of the new dispensation and how the administration is going to operate in terms of the new dispensation. The hon the Minister, in dealing with this, said on 22 February:

During the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote which took place in this House a little while ago, the hon the Minister dealt with the question of how it would operate under the new dispensation. He said that there would not be a large expansion of the department. He also said:

I would like to ask the hon the Minister if he could explain to this House how these three administrations are going to work. There is going to be own affairs for Whites, own affairs for Coloureds and own affairs for Indians.

Order! Once again I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but I want to ask him again whether he is now discussing the Bill before the House.

Yes, Mr Speaker. This falls under the powers and the functions of the commission and how it is going to operate under the new dispensation.

The hon member may proceed.

What is, for example, going to be the situation in the administration for Indian own affairs? Are there going to be Whites, Indians and Coloureds working for that administration, or are there only going to be Indians in that administration? I do not believe we have the public servants available to have that situation. Later on in his speech the hon the Minister said:

I do not believe that there are sufficient people among the other colour groups who are experts in their particular fields to fill these posts. On the other hand—and I think this is a fair question to ask the Minister— what will happen if the Indian House demands that the Director-General shall be an Indian, and the Coloured House demands that the Director-General shall be a Coloured? What is the situation going to be then? I am not asking because I want to provide the CP with ammunition for them to go shooting around the countryside. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon member is deviating too far from the provisions of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am dealing with the work of the Commission for Administration in the new dispensation and the appointment of people to posts.

Is the hon member not discussing the Public Service Act now?

No, this is a decision that has to be taken by the commission. It is not the Public Service which comes into existence by itself; it is the commission which decides in what form it is going to exist. They are going to lay down all the rules about where people are going to work and how they are going to work. The whole organizational structure is decided by the commission.

The hon member has once again convinced me that he may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Coming back to that question, I would like to ask the hon the Minister how he thinks this system is going to work. He goes on at a later stage in the same speech—we believe this is important because we want the new dispensation to work—to say:

I could not agree with the hon the Minister more. He said further (col 5850):

I do not want people like those found in the Conservative Party to come and destroy what can be the first opportunity of having a Public Service consisting of people representing all the people in South Africa, a Public Service which will be based on the three important requirements the hon the Minister laid down. The hon the Minister put it very clearly, as follows (col 5848):

On behalf of this party, I want to say that we accept that, as the hon the Minister stated, that will be the way in which the Commission will appoint people. We want to see people appointed on merit and we do not want to see people worrying about losing jobs. I stated the same thing in a speech I made previously when I mentioned that the members of the Public Service Association had said, according to a report of one of their annual general meetings (Hansard, 22 February 1984, col 1571):

Then the chairman of the Public Service Association said:

I realize that it is a difficult task which faces the hon the Minister—it is not going to be easy—but I think that, with the quality of the people he will be appointing to the Commission, he will overcome these problems to the benefit of South Africa as a whole.

The hon the Minister also said (col 5847):

I think it must be welcomed that there will only be one Public Service for all the people in South Africa. The hon the Minister went on:

I should like the hon the Minister to explain that particular point to me.

In conclusion I should like to deal with the retirement of Mr J W A van der Merwe, who has asked to leave the Public Service. The hon the Minister also dealt with this. As this will be the last opportunity we on this side will have for this, I want to say, on behalf of all of us on this side of the House, that we shall miss Mr Van der Merwe. We feel sure, however, that Dr De Beer and Dr Du Plessis will effectively take his place. We also want to wish him and his wife a happy retirement. However, I do have a job for him. I hope that the hon the Minister will just listen to what I have in mind. We had a Defence debate last week and unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to make this point then, but I think I have found a man sutable for the job I have in mind. With the Army going into various areas and having to exercise a certain amount of control over those areas, I feel that it is necessary for some civilian support unit to be established to support the Army in its job, particularly in respect of civilian interests. I think that the only person capable of undertaking such a job is a man with wide experience, one who has worked in South West Africa and who knows the problems there. In spite of the fact that we have peace at the moment, let us not underestimate the possibility of trouble in the future. It is, therefore, essential that there should be co-ordination to win the hearts and minds of the people of South West Africa. It is very important that any armed force or police force, when it goes into a particular area, should have with it civilians of great capability. There has to be some sort of liaison. I want to suggest that Mr Van der Merwe be given the opportunity of studying the problems of South West Africa so that they can be avoided in future.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister will not hold it against me if I now extend a very sincere welcome to him. His timing was exceptionally good. That was very clearly evident from the fact that he only just arrived here on time this evening.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout made a relatively good start to his speech. He always makes fairly positive speeches on the Public Service. In line with that, he also supported this measure on behalf of his party. The hon member also gave notice of a few amendments he wanted to move in the Committee Stage. The hon member may rest assured that when he moves his amendments in the Committee Stage we shall profitably debate them. Before I briefly come back to what the hon member for Bezuidenhout said, however, I am sure you will permit me, Mr Speaker, to thank Mr Jimmie van der Merwe, on behalf of hon members on this side of the House, for his friendly and positive co-operation at all times, particularly the way in which he co-operated with hon members on the Government side who are members of the internal affairs study group. We wish him and his wife a very pleasant and well-deserved period of rest.

Towards the end of his speech the hon member for Bezuidenhout was very provocative …

He cannot be. [Interjections.]

… with regard to the Government’s policy of employing people in the Public Service. I do immediately want to point out that I do not think that this is the time to enter into a debate with hon members of the Opposition about the Government’s employment policy for the Public Service. As the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, we can expect new legislation in regard to the Public Service. I think that once that legislation has been introduced here, we shall very fruitfully be able to conduct that debate with the hon member for Bezuidenhout.

The unfortunate part of it all, I think, is that the CP will again be seizing this opportunity to steal a political march on a few hon members here in so far as the Public Service is concerned.

I do not steal anything from any NP members. [Interjections.]

I just want to put it to the hon member for Bezuidenhout that the Government standpoint, and in particular that of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is entrusted with matters involving the Public Service, was very clearly set out by the hon the Minister during the discussion of his Vote here in the House earlier this month. We on this side of the House consequently content ourselves with that. The hon member for Bezuidenhout must quite clearly realize, however, that there is a very clear distinction in the Public Service—and this will also be the case in the future—between departments that will be dealing with general affairs and those that will be dealing with own affairs. In regard to departments that will be dealing with own affairs, there are very clear guidelines indicating that matters will be dealt with on a population-orientated basis. This means that a department that is dealing, for example, with matters relating either to a White, Coloured or Indian Chamber will also remain population-orientated.

Hon members of the CP must therefore tell us this evening whether, in the event of there being a Department of Coloured Education, for example, they are going to put a spoke in the wheel when it comes to a White person from the Department of Coloured Affairs holding office as an official or a teacher. If a person adopts a racialistic attitude, of course, it is surely necessary to carry that attitude right through to the end. I therefore think that hon members of the CP who will possibly, in my view, try to play a little petty politics in this debate, must give us a reply in this regard.

When, however, we are dealing with a general department, which is to deal with general affairs, the hon the Minister has made it very clear—and I am addressing this to the hon member for Bezuidenhout—that merit and efficiency will be the decisive criteria in the appointment of officials in the Public Service. I hope that that will satisfy the hon member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] There is very little merit in politics, that being the reason why the hon member for Bezuidenhout is here too.

We should like to tell the hon the Minister that we on this side of the House welcome this measure. The mere fact that the objectives, powers and terms of reference of the commission extend far beyond the boundaries of the Public Service make it essential for this service commission, which was brought into being many years ago in South Africa, to be dealt with in terms of a separate measure such as the one before the House at present. Although the draft Bill on the Public Service is not ready yet, it does not in any way detract from the importance of this measure, nor from the necessity for having this measure.

One aspect of this measure—I would say probably the most important aspect in the measure—involves the appointment and suspension of members of the Commission for Administration. This measure also makes provision for the appointment of members of the commission from outside the normal boundaries of the Public Service. This commission is a service commission, its chief role being to ensure efficiency in the public sector. Hence the necessity for an impartial commission directly accountable to the legislative authority.

This measure also provides for more flexibility in regard to the suspension or the termination of the period of service of members of the commission. At present the State President can dismiss a member of the commission for some specific reason, after Parliament has been notified of his reason for doing so and has agreed to it. The State President can also permit a member to vacate his office—and I quote from the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech:

You will note, Sir, that this limitation of the present measure is a very strict one.

The commission requested the Government to take a look at this measure and make it more flexible. The measure before the House therefore provides, on the recommendation of the commission, for the State President to suspend the membership of a member of the commission and only notify Parliament of the fact. We want to make it very clear that we on this side of the House are satisfied that this will not encroach upon the rights and privileges of members of the commission. Any member of the House of Assembly will always have the right, by way of a question in the House of Assembly, or in the course of a debate, to determine from the hon the Minister the real reason for such suspension. It therefore does not encroach upon the rights or privileges of members of the commission.

This measure also provides that a member of the commission can, only at the request of the State President, vacate his post prior to his period of service expiring. That decision therefore rests with the State President. This arrangement does not involve any change in the situation; it is also applied in regard to ordinary senior officials in the Public Service. All this measure is therefore doing is providing for a member of the commission, for his own personal reasons, to be able to request that he be removed from office as a member, regardless of any of the other provisions.

Particularly since we are now entering upon a new dispensation in South Africa involving the tricameral system, are entering upon a new era, it is perhaps a good thing to take another look at the objectives and powers of this service commission which extend much further than the confines of the Public Service. I want to refer to a few of these.

In this dispensation particular attention is being devoted to the objectives of this commission. An attempt is being made, firstly, to establish structures and processes for the implementation of governmental functions; secondly, to establish administrative practices and managerial self-sufficiency in the Public Service; thirdly, to recruit personnel, to retain them and to facilitate their optimum utilization; and, fourthly, to maintain close liaison with other sectors at the personnel level.

If one were to summarize the powers of the Commission for Administration, basically this amounts to giving formal advice, making formal recommendations and given format instructions.

The role of this service commission is indispensable to the Public Service in South Africa. That is why it is essential for its impartiality and its important role to be clearly defined, and here its task covers a wide spectrum. It is responsible for initiatives for renewal in the Public Service. It is responsible for the administrative realization of constitutional reform. It is responsible for the extention of the managerial self-sufficiency of Government departments. It is responsible for dealing with occupational differentiation. It is responsible for dealing with the personnel position on a day-to-day basis. The commission must always keep ahead, for example in regard to system development, personnel structuring, organization and establishment control, career supervision, the procurement of personnel and personnel training and, lastly, in regard to organization and work study in the Public Service and the administrative evaluation of officials in the Public Service. The detail is contained in the annual report of the Commission for Administration, and I shall therefore not elaborate any further.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to express the hope that this legislation, in terms of which the Commission for Administration will now be dealt with as an entity on its own, divorced from the old Public Service Act, will better enable the commission to achieve its objectives and utilize its powers.

I want to conclude by alleging that it would not surprise me if the CP came to light with a few political gimmicks, but we now leave them to their small delights.

Mr Speaker, it does not surprise me at all that the hon member for Turffontein is so concerned about what the CP’s standpoint is going to be, because if there is an hon member in this House who is in deadly fear of the CP, it is that hon member. That is why he is anticipating the CP’s standpoint. Let me tell the hon member that I think that officials in the Public Service and the commission are already familiar with my standpoint in regard to the Public Service and its officials.

And your party’s standpoint?

For that hon member’s information, that is my party’s standpoint. My advice to the hon member is to calm down a bit; he can repudiate what I have said at a later stage, if he wants to and if he has the courage to enter this debate. He does not therefore need to sit there shouting whilst I am speaking.

The CP does not try to make politics out of the Public Service or its officials, but the Government makes it necessary for the CP to take a stand on certain standpoints which the Government adopts and which frequently have a very decided political slant. Under these circumstances we shall therefore also possible be compelled to adopt certain standpoints this evening.

The Commission for Administration Bill deals with the commission of the State whose powers, functions and duties—I am now referring to clause 7 of the Bill—encompass the Public Service as such, or rather Public Service administration. When one talks of the Public Service or Public Service administration, one is not talking about an organization dangling in thin air, but rather of an organization that functions by virtue of certain individuals. That is why, as far as I am concerned, the emphasis falls time and again on the people who have to keep this organization, this machinery, going, have to let it function. That is why it is of fundamental importance to me this evening that when one talks about a Bill that aims at the restructing the Public Service Commission in a new guise, one should never lose sight of those people with whom, in the final analysis, the commission is dealing.

I therefore want to say—and in terms of clause 7 I think I am keeping strictly within the confines of the Bill when I say it—that the commission will, to the fullest extent, be responsible for a selected Public Service, in other words, for selected Public Service officials, for a trained public service or public service officials and, in addition, for an effective Public Service or public service officials. Therefore, in my judgment, in its present form the commission is, in point of fact, acting as a sound buffer between the Government and the officials. I am convinced that this Bill—and what I now want to say the hon the Minister actually confirmed in the concluding paragraph of his Second Reading speech—deprives the commission of that function. The commission is being divorced from legislation relating to the Public Service and is being treated as a separate entity.

I am not convinced of the fact that in terms of this Bill, which now, in structuring the commission, wants to divorce it from the Public Service and determine its functions, the commission will be a commission of the State that has to create the machinery enabling officials to function happily and effectively. The commission is now being elevated, the impression thereby being created that it will now be able to look at matters more objectively. But in view of what I am now going to refer to, it is my opinion that it will become more subjective. The commission will preeminently become a commission of the State President, of the executive State President in the new dispensation. One can argue about this legislation as much as one wants to. It is now going to be implemented, but when must it function? Will it only be functioning for the next two or three months, or will it be taken through into the new dispensation? It is inevitable that it will have to be taken through into the new dispensation. It therefore exclusively becomes a State President’s commission that will be fully accountable to him, because the members are appointed by him and he can also remove members from office without having to obtain Parliamentary approval. He therefore appoints members for five years, and when it pleases him, for certain reasons, as set out—I shall again be referring to this at a later stage; it the fourth reason, in particular, that I find extremely vague—he can, within that period, dismiss them merely on the strength of his own judgment. Parliament is then merely notified of this having happened, and nothing more. Parliament can do absolutely nothing about it.

What’s that?

You with your orang-outang face, get lost!

Order! Did the hon member for Rissik use the expression “orang-outang face” in addressing an hon member of this House?

No, Mr Speaker, I did not use it in addressing an hon member.

Order! To whom, then, did the hon member address it?

Mr Speaker, I quoted what the hon the Prime Minister said to someone at a meeting by referring to him as “you with the orang-outang face”. With the interjection I therefore meant that the President could come along and say to a person: “You with the orangoutang face, get lost”. I was not referring to an hon member of this House.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik was definitely referring to the hon member behind me. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik has given his explanation, but I want to ask him whether, at that moment, a conversation was taking place between him and the hon member for Hercules?

No, Sir.

The hon member says he was merely repeating a remark. I shall accept that, but the fact remains that an hon member is not permitted to refer to another hon member as someone with an “orangoutang face”.

I did not do so, Sir.

I am convinced that the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Hercules must, in some or other way, have been gesticulating to each other. Can the hon member for Hercules tell me whether he and the hon member for Rissik were gesticulating to each other?

No, Sir, we were not gesticulating. What happened was that the hon member for Koedoespoort said that in specific circumstances Parliament would merely be notified, to which I interjected “What is that?”. In response to that the hon member for Rissik remarked: “You with your orang-outang face, go away.” [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Rissik’s exact words were: “You with the orang-outang face, get lost!”.

Yes, exactly.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to suggest that you obtain the Hansard report. In his speech the hon member for Koedoespoort said the State President could say to an official “Get lost”, to which the hon member for Rissik responded by saying “You with your orangoutang face, get lost!” [Interjections.] That is the truth. [Interjections.]

Shut your mouth. Send your police to apprehend me.

I am in no way convinced that I must let this issue rest here. If it was a question of repeating a remark that someone else made—who made it is not at issue—it was aimed at an hon member of the House. We cannot allow an hon member to be referred to as “You with your orang-outang face”.

But I did not say it.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: The hon member for Rissik gave his explanation and gave his word. I would like to suggest that you accept his word.

My difficulty at the moment is that it was a remark that was repeated here as allegedly referring to an hon member of the House. The remark that was made then referred to an hon member of the House. It was repeated here and therefore again refers to an hon member of the House.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: At the time the hon the Prime Minister said to a member of the public, at a public meeting in Pretoria: “You with your orang-outang face”. It was with reference to that that the hon member for Rissik made the remark. [Interjections.] It was never used in regard to an hon member of the House. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Hercules were apparently engaged in a conversation. Can the hon member for Rissik tell me whether, at that moment, he was engaged in a discussion with the hon member for Hercules, yes or no?

No, I was not engaged in a discussion with him. I made a remark about the possibility of the hon the Prime Minister, as the new State President, being able to say to a member of the commission, whom he did not like: “You with your orang-outang face, get lost!” That is what I said.

For the moment I shall accept the hon member for Rissik’s explanation, but I want to point out that under no circumstances will I again permit that expression to be used in the House. It does not matter what the circumstances are; in future it will immediately have to be withdrawn. I am compelled to accept the word of the hon member for Rissik that he did not use it in regard to another hon member of the House. The hon member for Koedoespoort may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling, but I should like to raise a further point of order: Is an hon member entitled to insinuate that the Prime Minister, as the future State President, might say that to someone? [Interjections.] That is an unjustified reflection on the hon the Prime Minister.

The hon member for Rissik explained that, in reaction to something the hon member for Koedoespoort said in his speech, he said that the State President would be able to do this or that. He then merely repeated a remark that was allegedly made at some or other time. He did not intend it as a reflection on the State President or on any hon member. I accept the hon member’s explanation, but I want to make it very clear that this specific remark must never again be used in this House. If an hon member uses it, he will be brought to book. The hon member for Koedoespoort may proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: On occasion you have indicated that we, as members of this House, should show each other some respect. While you were giving your ruling, the hon member for Rissik said to the hon the Minister of Law and Order: “Shut your mouth; send your police to apprehend me.” Does that remark accord with what you require of us as members in this House?

Order! If that remark was indeed made, it is very poor conduct, but I shall not intervene in the matter at this stage. The hon member for Koedoespoort may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask your permission to repeat myself merely to link up with what I was saying. What it is all about is that the State President can appoint the members of the commission and also dismiss them for certain reasons. It is my conviction that the principle contained in this legislation is not a good one, because it can result in Parliament not having the power finally to approve or reject anything.

On another occasion, and in a different context, I expressed my reservations about people in the employ of the State merely being appointed for a specific term, and from this legislation I deduce that the Commission for Administration is still to be in the employ of the State, or at least in the employ of the State President. The fact of the matter is that those people are in the employ of the State, because they will be dealing with public servants. I object to the top official of a Government department merely being appointed for a specific period, even if it is possible for him to be appointed for a further period. The possibility exists, of course, that he will not be appointed again and that will, in that case, probably have to be used in another capacity, and inherent in that there is the possibility that he will have to function in a lower-ranking capacity Here we therefore have a situation in which someone can be appointed to the commission for five years and, after that term has lapsed, not be appointed again. He may, however, still be young enough to give productive service and will therefore have to be appointed elsewhere in the Public Service. In such a case it is difficult for me to accept that after the relevant person has served on the commission, he will subsequently have to serve in a lower-ranking post.

Read the Act!

The hon member for Turffontein should do himself a favour and stop shouting “Read the Act”, because I have not said anything here that I did not read in the legislation. Perhaps the hon member himself should go and read the Bill again.

I gained the impression—and this was also confirmed by the hon the Minister this evening—that the State President can appoint members of the commission from further afield than merely the Public Service, on condition that they have sufficient knowledge and experience of the public administration. I personally have always objected very strongly—I shall give my reasons for doing so—to people from outside the Public Service being appointed to the Public Service on the grounds of certain qualifications they have obtained.

Like Rhoodie?

It does not matter to me who it is. I can mention a great many more people than the one the hon member has just mentioned by way of an interjection. He is merely dong so to prejudice someone outside the House who cannot defend himself here. It does not matter to me who the person is. I have, however, always objected to that on the grounds that the majority of public servants, the major percentage of them, take on their jobs when they are young and inexperienced. Such an official then works his way up, step for step, until he reaches the highest rung and is able to hold down that position. In terms of the new Public Service dispensation, which has already come into effect as far as the officials are concerned, the best can reach the top. There is in-service training and the system of merit ratings and also certain methods of rewarding good work that get the best out of the officials. Within the Public Service they can, academically speaking, obtain the highest possible qualifications. If there were a possibility that Public Administration could, in future, allow a person to reach the highest rung, many officials would endeavour to obtain the best possible qualifications in that sphere. I think that a person who has devoted his life to the Public Service should be the first choice when it comes to occupying the highest post in the Public Service. I am therefore convinced that members of the Commission should be appointed from the Public Service. It is the person who came up through the ranks who would know best how the State’s administration should be restructured or extended. It is not necessarily the person who is brought in from outside who furnishes the best service. I can well understand, however, why the provision in clause 4 is included in the Bill. If someone from outside is appointed and cannot cope, he must be got rid of. It must therefore be possible to remove him from office. It is, however, my conviction—and this has been proved in practice—that the public servants who have come up through the ranks and have eventually taken their places on the commission, have given good service, and I have not yet heard of any of them, except perhaps one who had to retire for health reasons, who had to be dismissed from the commission owing to incompetence. On these grounds it is my conviction that members of the commission should be drawn from the ranks of the Public Service and that people from outside should not be appointed to the commission. This power should not be granted to the State President, and the members should come from the ranks of those they must eventually serve. So this clause is unacceptable to me.

Today the best in the Public Service can reach the highest rungs, and therefore we must not have someone from outside filling a post that could motivate a young official always to give of his best. He should never have to fear that a post can, at any time, be filled by someone from outside. I think that that is being unjust and unfair to someone who devotes his life to the organization he is serving.

In principle I have no objection to the possibility of being able to remove from office, at his own request, a member of the commission who eventually came to serve on the commission after long years of service to the State and who felt that in his job he had now reached the fullness of his years and wanted a rest. I think that it is a good thing, in such a case, to have provision made for that. We must bear in mind that the people who eventually serve on the commission are officials who have had many years service and who have, along the way, shouldered a great deal of responsibility, in the Public Service, in the interests of the State. Their service was gruelling and exhausting. It was service that took its toll of both mind and body. That is why I can well understand that a person, a year or two before he is to retire, reaching a stage where he asks to be dismissed in order to have a rest. In such a case I think it is quite within reason.

I now come to clause 4. As far as that is concerned, it goes without saying that if a person’s health has deteriorated to such an extent that he can no longer give of his services, he can confirm by way of a medical certificate, that he is no longer, physically or mentally, able to do his work. Then it is fair to have such a person removed from office.

Secondly there are, after all, in the Public Service itself, disciplinary steps that can be taken against officials who are guilty of misconduct. Such steps can also be taken against an official occupying such a post. I can understand that. There are, however, other methods that can be employed.

The third subparagraph reads:

I understand very little of this third subparagraph, firstly on the grounds that it is my conviction that with a person climbing up through the ranks of the Public Service, thanks to his training and qualifications, and eventually being selected for such a choice post, it would only be the best in the Public Service who would be selected for such a post. So I can hardly understand how, in regard to this most senior of posts, such a terrible mistake can be made that a person is appointed who does not have the ability to do the work. What I want to say is that it is only a person who is appointed from outside and who knows nothing of the machinery of State who can eventually show himself to have been a failure who must be removed from office.

The fourth subparagraph reads:

For what reasons would the State President deem it expedient to remove such a person from office, if not for reasons of unfitness or incapacity. Firstly it sounds to me very much as if he would be removed from office it were discovered that “he did not agree with my politics”. [Interjections.] Therefore he must go. Let those hon members who say I can do better, stand up and spell out acceptable reasons. I am gravely concerned about the possibility of the Public Service being turned into a political machine in which political appointments can be made. Then it can be decided that “those who do not serve my political ends must go; and those who do serve my political ends, can stay.” When, in this whole process, the State President makes a decision in terms of subparagraph (iv) no one can object to it. I see here no provision for a member of the commission being able to lodge an appeal with Parliament or whatever. He is completely subject to that decision that he must go, for a reason that is not spelled out here in full, but which does not relate to his own unfitness or incapacity. What other reasons are there? What can a member of the commission be guilty of that could result in his having to be removed from office? I think that the first three sub-paragraphs have fully covered all possibilities that exist.

Because of this clause, in particular, we cannot support this Bill. [Interjections.] This Bill is chiefly going to be implemented in the new dispensation. In the new dispensation Parliament is already to be stripped of certain functions. Here Parliament is being stripped of even more authority in regard to certain powers over its own officials. So in taking stock of these clauses, as I have tried to pinpoint them, observing the shortcomings they embody, I think that we have here the first reason why the CP cannot support the Second Reading of this Bill.

There is, however, also a second reason, and that is one I want to touch on for just a moment. I am referring to the fact that the intention is to have this Bill implemented in the new dispensation, which the CP does not support either. Because of that we are not, in any way, prepared to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to quarrel with the hon member for Koedoespoort because he made the statement that this commission which was being envisaged would function under the new dispensation as well. We have almost come to the end of May 1984. If everything goes smoothly, the new dispensation will come into operation on 7 September this year. Surely we would not pass legislation during this interim period in order to allow the said commission to function for a short while only. The hon member for Koedoespoort also argued that it was now being laid down that the term of office of the commission would be five years. But it has already been accepted—in fact, the hon the Minister made it clear during the discussion of his Vote—that at the level of Directors-General and Deputy Directors-General, too, the terms of office are going to be of a specific duration. Surely this is not something new which we are introducing here. I do not know, therefore, why the hon member should be so concerned about it. Furthermore, he said that if the office of a member of the commission were to be abolished by the State President for some reason, that man would have to occupy a lower rank in the Public Service. I believe, therefore, that the hon member was quite correctly told that he had not read this Bill properly. Clause 4(2)(b)(ii) lays down very clearly what is to happen to such a person if he has to leave the service in terms of this particular provision.

I now want to refer briefly to what is perhaps the central theme of this Bill. This is more effective public administration, and its regulation and establishment. Because of the heavy demands which are being made on the government sector at the moment, it is essential that this great machine should function smoothly. The man in the street is becoming increasingly aware of the important task which the Public Service has to perform. The demands of today and tomorrow are great, and they are becoming ever greater. Administratively, these demands can only be met if all the departments and related bodies function on a scientifically regulated basis.

The Commission for Administration is not only a body which has to advise the Government on salaries and salary adjustments. This is perhaps the idea which the man in the street has of the activities of the Commission for Administration. The Commission for Administration is a scientifically orientated advisory body, which in addition to exercising control over the employment, remuneration and other conditions of service of officials, also has to plan and provide guidance with regard to the smooth functioning of this seemingly cumbersome machine.

In the Bill which is under discussion, the commission is accordingly being given the power and the right to inquire into any matter which may fall within its sphere of inquiry. This will mean that in future, and especially under the new dispensation, heavy demands will be made on the commission. Great skill will be required in dealing with staff in future. I believe that the commission will lay down effective guidelines in this connection as well. Understanding, mutual trust and absolute loyalty on the part of the public sector are going to be the golden thread which will have to be woven in by the commission in future and which will have to be present at all levels of the country’s administration.

The commission will also be required to perform a training function. The training of high-level management will have to be one of the top priorities of the Commission for Administration in future.

One of the reasons advanced by the hon member for Koedoespoort for the fact that his party does not support the Bill is the fact that the commission will be involved in the new dispensation. I submit that it will in fact be the commission’s task to ensure that the administration will function smoothly. I believe that under the new dispensation, all the participants will increasingly have to depend on the ability of their people to administer their own affairs.

If in addition we accept that the new dispensation is going to place a heavier burden and responsibility on the shoulders of the Public Service as a whole, the Commission for Administration will have yet a further function, and that is an activating function. It is appropriate, therefore, that we should confer the necessary powers upon the Commission for Administration in this proposed statutory amendment to enable it to carry out its challenging task with confidence. For this reason, we take pleasure in supporting the Bill, and we should like to convey our best wishes to the members of the commission, knowing that they will face the new challenge which lies ahead with enthusiasm and dedication.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I should like to make comment to the effect that over the years I have had a fair amount to do with the Public Service Commission as I still think of it, and generally I have found them to be a very loyal, co-operative and reasonable commission. There have been occasions, if one remembers back, where in the Stander affair we and the commission were at variance, but generally, as I say, they have been a body which has done an excellent job and have been eminently fair in their functions.

I say that because in my address this evening I shall possibly appear to have certain criticisms of the Bill before the House. I should say at first glance this appears to be a very simple Bill to remove the commission from the Public Service Act of 1954 and to set it up under its own Act. Furthermore the Bill contains certain amendments and it updates certain terminology and so fourth. Upon closer examination, however, one finds that there are fairly substantial alternations in detail and, I may add, there also appear to be major alterations in principle which must be very carefully considered because, as I say, they are very substantial and to a degree appear to be of a constitutional nature. I want for the moment just to touch upon certain matters of detail so as to illustrate my point. I shall deal more fully with these points during the Committee Stage.

As other hon members have mentioned, in terms of the present Act there shall be three commissioners, and all decisions must have the support of at least two of them so as to be effective. In the Bill before us, there may be only one commissioner but not more than three. In effect this means that one person can constitute a commission and have total control over the service conditions of the whole of the Public Service. In common with other hon members who have spoken, I have great doubt in regard to the wisdom of this provision.

In terms of the present Act, if the State President wishes to remove a commissioner for any reason, including the provisions of clause 4(l)(a)(iv), he not only has to advise Parliament of his removal but also submit to Parliament the reason for his removal. I want to quote a portion of clause 4(l)(a)(iv) because of the unusual terminology that is used. It states:

I want to emphasize the words “deemed expedient” because in my opinion expediency should not be a factor when dealing with staff matters or the Public Service generally. It is a word that has a completely elastic meaning against which neither Parliament nor the commission can argue. If may mean a matter of national importance or security or it may be something relatively trivial and of a personal nature. In any event, I find it difficult to accept the fact that an appointment of this nature can be terminated as a matter of expediency and with nobody at all in the country being in a position to query that decision or having the right of appeal against it.

I come now to the part of the Bill that effects major changes in principle to which we in these benches take the strongest exception. In fact, we consider these differences to be of such importance that we will not be able to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I refer here specifically to subsections (2) and (3)(a) of clause 7.

I am not sure at all about the meaning of these provisions, and this is my problem. These provisions are couched in such broad terms as to mean almost anything. Whether it is the intention or not I cannot say but as I read this clause it extends the functions of the commission to cover the conditions of employment, salaries and so forth of all provincial employees including institutions established by them as well as the staff of parks boards, development and services boards and so forth. The clause also extends the functions of the commission to cover town and city council employees as well as the bodies they establish including, for example, transport management board staff. The provisions go further in respect of local government in that the commission would have control over office-bearers, such as deputy mayors and council chairmen of committees. It is clear that this clause extends the power and authority of the commission enormously to cover all levels of government and all persons employed by them. I think you will agree, Sir, that this is a vast extension of powers indeed.

Whilst I can accept the fact that the intention of this Bill is to cover employees at all levels, I can hardly believe that it is intended to cover the service conditions of democratically elected office-bearers. However, it definitely does, and in this regard I want to quote as my reference a fairly definitive source. I want to refer in this regard to a book by J J N Cloete entitled Central Provincial and Municipal Institutions of South Africa. He states clearly that office-bearers include mayors, deputy mayors and chairmen of committees as far as local authorities are concerned, and, as far as provincial councils are concerned, it also covers whips and the chairman of the council. As far as Parliament is concerned, it covers the Whips, the Chairmen of Committees and the Speaker. They are all office-bearers, and I quote Cloete as a reference. These are all matters referred to in this particular Bill. I do not know if the hon the Minister intended this to be the case—he can reply in this regard—but that is clearly what is stated in this Bill. I want to ask the hon the Minister unequivocally if it is intended that the commission have authority over such office-bearers or not? The answer to that is very important.

I want now to revert again to the question of the employees of provincial councils and town councils, but I will deal with them separately. In the provinces directors and deputy directors are appointed by the commission after consultation with the executive committee concerned. Hon members may recollect that only a few days ago I made an appeal in this very House regarding the appointment of certain senior officials in Natal. They have had that authority since time immemorial. Generally speaking, all other employees of the province, with a few exceptions, of course, are employed and/or promoted by the province itself. This is an important function of the provinces, and to the best of my knowledge they have performed this function statisfactorily. Why is this authority being removed from them, or is it just another part of the prelude to removing the powers of the provinces and ultimately provincial councils? I will again refer to this point later.

Local authorities have always had almost complete autonomy in respect of their employees, the main exceptions being in respect of town clerks’ salaries and the dismissal of town clerks, as well as the allowances and salaries payable to councillors and office-bearers, all of which have to be approved by the executive committee of the province concerned. I am at something of a loss because I do not really know if what is written into this Bill is really meant. However, I must assume that it is. Why is this authority being removed from the local government bodies that have for so long done this job satisfactorily? Or is this again a prejudgment on the dissolution of provincial government and the control of local government being taken over by Pretoria?

To the best of my knowledge the future of local government and provincial government has not as yet been finalized. As far as local government is concerned, high level committees are at this very time debating this matter although finality has not yet been reached and certainly no Bills have been tabled on the issue. As regards the future of provincial councils, no decision has been taken. If it has, it has been kept very secret and we do not know about it. Therefore, we in these benches look upon the extension of the powers of the commission, as would appear to be the case in this Bill, not only with extreme suspicion but with the strongest objection.

I can raise a few more points if one wishes to take this argument to ridiculous limits. The Bill refers to councils or other institutions or bodies that receive assistance from the State. Therefore, the commission can control, for example, university councils, divisional councils, industrial councils and even the Council for Industrial and Scientific Research. All these bodies fall under the generic term “council”. At the very best this. Bill is very loosely and badly worded and should be changed. At worst, if the intention is that the commission should take control of these various bodies, it will be thoroughly iniquitous and quite wrong. What is more, I think it is appalling that there was absolutely no mention of this in the hon the Minister’s address.

You misunderstand.

That may well be, but the point is that what is in this Bill is clear and unequivocal. It states quite clearly:

I emphasize that:

It is clear what is meant there. I also have a copy here of that Act. The Bill also states:

That is all there. This is what worries me. At best this is a badly drafted Bill and at worse it is iniquitous. We in these benches cannot support this Bill in its present form.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umbilo has made a fairly slashing attack on the Bill. I would not like to respond immediately to his rejection of clause 7(2) and 7(3)(a). I will leave that for a little later. However, I should like to commence by making due reference to some of the points raised by my colleague the hon member for Bezuidenhout who has set out clearly the views of the official Opposition on this Bill. I should like to extend a little further his remarks in connection with the two areas of the Bill with which we have some difficulty. In addition I consider it only correct at this stage to make some remarks regarding the vexed question of teachers’ salaries since conditions of service and remuneration fall under the Commission for Administration.

Section 28 of the Constitution Act of 1983 reads as follows:

In the light of this I think we should look at the Bill and the significant change that it makes regarding the termination of the services of a person serving on the commission.

On 7 September we will have—and we are rapidly approaching that date, as the hon member for Gezina quite rightly pointed out—a change from a titular head of State to an Executive State President. I believe we must certainly guard against the faintest possibility of unilateral executive action. We must read section 28 of the Constitution Act together with section 19 where the executive authority of the Republic in regard to own affairs of any population group is vested in the State President acting on the advice of the Ministers’ Council in question and, in regard to general affairs, acting in consultation with Ministers who are members of the Cabinet. In the light of that we must really reassess the whole legal position of the Commission for Administration. I quote what the hon the Minister said in this regard:

This presupposes that the Commission for Administration becomes a general body. As such, as I read the Constitution—section 28—the State President has this right of appointment and removal. I begin to wonder then as to whether the Public Service is secure under this proposed legislation from indiscriminate dismissal at whim. Clause 4(l)(a)(iv) states that the State President may remove a member of the commission from office if, for reasons other than his own unfitness or incapacity, his removal from office is deemed expedient by the State President. What did the previous Act provide? It provided that:

Here I agree to an extent with the hon member for Koedoespoort who, I think, has quite rightly viewed this with a grave degree of suspicion. [Interjections.] I think that clause 4(l)(a)(iv) falls into that category where the proposed change to the existing Act is certainly not to the advantage of the security of tenure of the commissioners. Here one might ask—and it has already been asked earlier—what are the reasons that may be deemed expedient by the State President that are not covered by the present Act?

Secondly—my colleague has covered this well—we believe it is very important not to have only one commissioner. We believe that to have one commissioner as the only and highest State employee in this land, in a State administration that is diverse in the extreme, will be a danger, not only to the State itself but to that person’s particular interest. For this country it is important, we believe, that there should be more than one commissioner.

I make no apologies now for turning to teachers’ salaries, and I will return to the hon member for Umbilo’s argument a little later. I want to remind hon members of the public display which occurred in 1980 when teachers were being short-changed by this Government. Hon members will recall mass meetings. They will remember the pressure being exerted on members of Parliament in their constituencies. They will also recall the parental pressure, and they will remember the problems that they had in their own political parties. They will recall the television debate in which Mr Punt Janson tried unavailingly to justify salary increase delays. Indeed, hon members had better remember it because we are in that situation again. We have all seen headlines such as “Teachers angry”. Teachers’ leaders of all groups have said the Government must produce and produce now. We have had two mass meetings, one in the Eastern Cape and the other here in the Western Cape during the past few weeks. The hon member for Gezina said two weeks ago that that side of the House was fully acquainted with the progress that was being made in the negotiations and they believed that they were going to have a relevant answer in the near future. [Interjections.] When is near, Mr Speaker? We have no doubt that within the inner circles of teacher leadership there is growing frustration regarding the lack of a date or any hope of a date of announcement regarding teachers’ salaries.

These discussions have been going on for three years now. In January 1981 this whole debate started, and it is interesting to quote from SAPSE-104 report on teachers’ salaries. [Interjections.] I make no apologies for this because the Commission for Administration is involved. The report states:

I believe that it is time that we find an answer. Platitudes are not enough. In 1980 there were commitments that the salaries of State employees would be reviewed annually, and it is one of the tasks of the Commission for Administration to review regularly the conditions of service of State employees. In that same year, 1981, clear indications were also given that the deal that the teachers received was not the final word. What has happened since then? In April 1982 the whole Public Service received an increase. In January 1984 they received another increase. However, between April 1981 and April 1984 all Public Service groups advanced according to occupational differentiation using the Patterson and Peromnes system applied by the Commission for Administration. The teachers have, however, slipped behind and they are now 25% to 30% behind compared to their colleagues in other State departments. Why has this been allowed to happen? The Commission for Administration is vested with the duty to review conditions of service of all State employees regularly.

You know that it is being investigated at the moment. [Interjections.]

It is no good saying it is a key profession or a mother profession, in the words of the hon the Minister of National Education, and then let the profession slip back. It has taken three years to move from April 1981, when they were in the lead, to the back of the queue. Is it going to take another three years to get to the back of the queue again once the investigation has taken place? It is up to the commission to make that investigation regularly and to ensure the hon the Minister of Finance has the funds to keep this going. There needs to be a concerted effort from all involved to ensure that each year a satisfactory allocation is made to ensure comparability. Otherwise GST will have to be increased suddenly. I raise this, because it appears quite clear to me that there is no serious financial provision made in the present budget for the remuneration of the approximately 70 000 fully qualified teachers this year. Or is that why we are looking at an increase in GST? I sometimes wonder whether the hon the Minister of Finance should not have emblazoned on his wall his own words of 1980, namely: “The improvement of the conditions of service is a planned process which receives continuous attention.” There are times that I find that laughable.

I could go on to look at the salaries. The starting salary of a woman teacher with a four year diploma qualification is R730 per month. The equivalent salary for a male teacher, who has perhaps spent two years in the army as well, is R960 per month. When one looks at tonight’s Argus we see posts for secretaries advertised at a salary of R900 per month. An industrial relations manager, a job a senior teacher would look to, is advertised at R30 000 per year. Is it any wonder therefore that there is a bleeding-off from the profession? The maximum these people are on, is between R16 800 and R19 600 per year for a man and R15 000 to R17 600 per year for a woman. Thousands of teachers are on these maximums, they are disgruntled and they want an answer. They want answers to direct questions. What percentage are they going to get, and when can they hear?

I want to warn the hon the Minister that if he is looking for an answer and wants to wait until 1 October, teachers who intend to resign at the end of 1984 will have sent in their notice. What about structural changes, what about parity in respect of salaries for women, what about lecturers’ salaries? I could go on and on, but let me just issue a warning to those hon members who appear to find this slightly amusing. [Interjections.] Let them do a count of the number of teachers in their constituencies. I have more than 500 in mine.

I now turn to the words of the hon member for Umbilo in regard to the whole question of office-bearers and the question he raised in connection with clause 7(2) and clause 7(3)(a) regarding the role of the commission in setting out remuneration and conditions of service. As we on this side read this Bill we believe that what the Commission for Administration is doing in this case is ensuring a degree of comparability. The commission has always had, in terms of provincial councils, the right to ensure that the conditions of service are balanced among the provinces. In clause 7(3)(a) reference is made to the remuneration and conditions of service of office-bearers of councils, institutions or other bodies referred to in subsection (2). Clause 7(2) refers to section 24 of the new constitution, of which subsection (1) reads as follows:

In clause 7 reference is made to councils, institutions or other bodies which are not departments of State and which therefore fall under the State President. That is how we read this Bill. They do not fall under any local authority.

We on this side of the House will support the Bill with the amendments that are proposed on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, I could not quite make out why the hon member, who has just been speaking, was in favour of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Any legislation dealing with the Public Service always puts me in mind of the famous Loskop Dam speech which the late Dr Verwoerd made in 1965. [Interjections.] There is only one hon member in the House who, as far as I know, was present that day, and he is the hon member for Springs. The theme at the time was the survival of the Whites in Southern Africa. Besides many things which the late Dr Verwoerd said, he made one statement which has remained firmly lodged in my mind ever since, namely that the fact that we had a sound Public Service in South Africa which had grown out of a Western society with the specific constitutional dispensation we had come to know, was one of the reasons why any Government could be assured of stability and security in South Africa. In that spirit and in that frame of mind we all consider the Public Service to be an important pillar in our State structure.

As far as this particular Bill is concerned, it appears to me that, as my colleague the hon member for Koedoespoort rightly said, the Commission for Administration is now being separated from the Public Service as we have known it since the beginning, and that we are now lifting out or removing the commission from the old Public Service legislation.

Do you not like this kind of apartheid?

No, I do not like it. The hon member is right. We know that this Bill is one of the preludes to the new constitutional dispensation. We cannot get away from that. I think it would have been better if the hon the Minister had introduced this legislation only after the new dispensation had come into existence and the components of that new dispensation had been able to make their inputs in respect of this legislation. I do not think we should have any doubt in our minds that this Bill forms part of the preliminary process leading up to the new constitutional dispensation.

Last year we debated the future position of the President in the new dispensation for a very long time. The hon the Minister knows what our objections were to the exceptionally strong position of and the extraordinary powers which the new President could have. Here we now find that the new commission will be directly appointed by the President and will be responsible to him. Consequently, this is no longer a Commission for Administration, it is a commission of the President. It is a President’s Commission. [Interjections.] We have been warning the hon the Minister for a long time now that if one begins to tamper with the State structure in South Africa, one thing will lead to another. This new State dispensation we are getting is like Pandora’s box: Once one opens it one can no longer control the things emerging from it. This Bill is an integral part of that new dispensation. The President, with his extraordinary powers—he will not always be a White person either—is acquiring this strong control over the Public Service. I agree with the hon members who raised the objection that there could be one member only, or two, or three, as the President sees fit. However, the moral basis—or the basis in principle—of the new dispensation is the 4:2:1 basis. In the new State structure there will be so-called own affairs and general affairs, but the hon the Minister knows that most of the matters which the new Parliament and consequently the new Public Service will deal with will be general affairs. If that new Parliament is now to rest on the three pillars of the separate chambers for the three particular population groups, I think it is only morally correct to contend that it should not be a maximum of three, but …

Now what exactly do you know about what is morally correct? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I shall certainly not allow myself to be led astray by the hon member for Turffontein. In the new dispensation, as I have already said, the ratio of the three population groups in the new Parliament will be 4:2:1. Since we are now dealing with the prelude to the new dispensation, I should like to know from the hon the Minister why it is not possible to provide at this juncture that the members of the commission shall consist of four Whites, two Coloureds and one Indian. In that way, surely, it can be laid down statutorily that we are bringing a very fair structure into existence.

Of course, there is another matter here which I feel very concerned about. It is the provision in clause 4, in terms of which such a member who is appointed by the State President may also be dismissed on account of misconduct. For many years I sat on the Government side in this House. I listened frequently to hon members of the Opposition—and that, of course, also included the hon member for Turffontein—who lodged objections and expressed scepticism in regard to every piece of legislation in which it was provided that a responsibility of this nature would be vested either in a Minister or in the State President. Since I now have the opportunity of sitting, for the time being, on the Opposition side of the House, and since I also know for certain that I will subsequently find myself on the Government side again … [Interjections.] … I just want to make it clear that I fully appreciate that an Opposition party reacts very critically when legislation is introduced here in terms of which a Minister or—as in the present case—the State President acquires certain powers. Experiences, particularly during the past two or three weeks, has taught me that a situation could, in fact, arise in which a person who plays a very prominent role in society …

To whom are you referring now, Daan?

No, you just keep quiet and let me make my own speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am now referring to a situation in which a person who plays a very prominent role in society, a person against whose fulfilment and discharge of his obligations no objection can be raised, a person with whose conduct everyone is satisfied, has dared to say in public—particularly in the present-day political milieu in South Africa and particularly if he is a conservative person—that he differs with the Government and that he does not agree with the course on which the Government has embarked. In view of this kind of situation, I should like to know what manner of things could not be used under the cloak of so-called misconduct to take action against such a person. The hon member for Koedoespoort, of course, referred to a few other reasons in this connection. I am inclined to be very sceptical that a person appointed, as in this case, by the powerful State President would suddenly, for some reason or other through critical conduct and statements, find himself in confrontation with the powerful State President, with the result that that man simply has to go. This causes an enormous degree of concern in my mind, particularly in view of the fact that we are, in the new dispensation awaiting us, going to experience a process of nationalization, which is going to affect almost every facet of our pattern of life. Consequently, to agree to legislation here, in terms of which a State President who is already so powerful, may simply take action against a person merely because he does not like him, or perhaps because he did not like what his wife said, is something which I simply cannot accept or agree to.

Moreover, it is also true that we are moving towards a situation of so-called general and own affairs. Earlier this evening I listened attentively to the speech made by the hon member for Gezina. Just as I do, he represents a constituency in Pretoria, where many people employed in the Public Service live. We are now moving towards a political situation in which we are going to have a mixed Public Service. [Interjections.] Yes, hon members can moan and groan if they wish. They are not very inclined to admit it, but it is true that we are moving in that direction. More than 90% of the matters that are going to be dealt with by this new commission are going to be general affairs. The fact of the matter is that the Public Service of the future is going to be mixed, from the Director-General of the department in question all the way down to the bottom.

This evening I want to ask the hon the Minister again whether he is aware of the direction in which he is moving with this specific Bill. One of the hon members on the Government side, who spoke earlier this evening, said that it was only merit that counted. I also agree with that within a homogeneous society. I think that as far as our present Public Service is concerned, it is only merit that counts. [Interjections.] I say that we are moving in a direction of a new nation which the Government is creating, in which we are going to have a mixed Public Service with all the consequences that will lead to. I know there are many hon members sitting on the opposite side who feel precisely the same way as I do about this, and I just want to point out that this legislation empowers the State President to exercise control over a mixed Public Service with all the consequences that is going to have for our public servants.

I want to sound a warning tonight that this legislation, with its consequences, is going to cause a great many problems which are going to lead to tension within the State administration. There can be tension in a political party and there can be tension between various political parties, but when there is tension in one’s Public Service in respect of what we already see in our White society, then I want to tell the hon the Minister that we are undermining the foundations of a firm and strong State structure in this country. I say that it is a dangerous kind of norm or criterion which is being established here.

I also want to refer the hon the Minister to the provisions of clause 8, dealing with the power of the commission to hold an inquiry. This clause grants powers to the commission, which is dependent on the State President, and provides inter alia:

This provision sounds very odd to me. One gets the impression that one is dealing here with a certain kind of tribunal, because the commission can simply summon people to produce something which it thinks such a person has in his possession, and may deal with it as it sees fit. This is a provision which could lead to very unhealthy situations.

I want to conclude by saying that the hon member for Turffontein said that this legislation was also part of constitutional reform.

I did not say it was part of constitutional reform. I said that it was initiated prior to constitutional reform.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Turffontein does not seem to be very happy in the present NP. The hon member has not changed. I just want to tell the hon member that in the days when he was still a member of the old United Party he was never really able to tell us what the consequences of that party’s policy could be, and the hon member is still unable today to tell us what the consequences of the NP policy are going to be. [Interjections.] In time, of course, these things will become clear to us.

We are dealing here with a splendid word which has a splendid meaning in the Western and Christian world, namely reform. I say that if a person wants to reform, then one must come back to the basic foundations and the basic norms, and then one will have good reform. We say that this Bill is not part of that reform. It does, however, form part of a process of deformation, because it makes provision for the establishment of a structure which cannot function at all.

For this and various other reasons the CP cannot support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am just taking the floor to respond quickly to a few points the hon member for Rissik broached. It is with a great degree of displeasure that those of us who come from Pretoria and have constituencies in which large numbers of public servants are living, take note of the efforts of the hon members for Rissik and Koedoespoort to polarize the Public Service this evening. The hon member for Rissik tried to intimate that we should not transfer the present-day volatile climate, prevalent amongst members of the public, into the Public Service. I want to point out to hon members of the CP that as parliamentarians they have an obligation to the State and the country to see to it that their arguments and their speeches in the House do not, under any circumstances, contribute towards politicizing the Public Service.

We should like to tell the hon the Minister that we on this side wholeheartedly identify ourselves with the Bill. I should like to ask the hon members of the CP whether they have taken the trouble to consult the Commission for Administration. They pretend that everyone is opposed to the Bill except the hon the Minister and those of us on this side of the House, but surely that is not true. The Bill does, after all, have a long history. It has, has it not, been through the mill, and it is surely quite erroneous to allege that it is a creation of the NP and—worst of all-—to allege that this measure would be an instrument allowing the future State President to act in a dictatorial fashion and, in conflict with all the rules of good and sound public administration, arbitrarily exercise certain powers, dismiss people arbitrarily, apply the principle of merit in such a fashion that by implication Whites are prejudiced—that is what they said—and to view this measure as if it is giving rise to a lack of confidence amongst the officials.

The hon member for Koedoespoort speaks of officials who must move from the bottom to the top rungs in the Public Service, implying that this measure would prevent them from doing so. I want to ask the CP to mention, across the floor of the House, the name of one single official who joined the Public Service as a young man, was dynamic, had merit and yet was prejudiced by the Government in the Public Service and could not get to the top.

I can mention the names of many.

I want to allege the contrary and state that we have such a shortage of people in the Public Service that not a single official, not a single person of merit in the South African State machine, who can do his share, who is dedicated and makes use of all the benefits that the Commission for Administration makes available to him by way of training, by way of sound structures and by way of salary negotiation will be prejudiced. What I am asking the CP to do is to bring me just one official of whom one can say that although he falls within the category I have just spelled out, he was held back and prejudiced, in spite of his merits. That simply is not true.

You surely know that is not true.

In future the hon member for Barberton may feel quite at liberty, across the floor of the House, to put questions to the hon the Minister about what he judges to be the prejudicing of any specific official on ground of merit.

What happened to the magistrate of Louis Trichardt?

The hon member for Rissik spoke this evening about the mixed character of the Public Service. I should like to make the point, firstly in the interests of truth, that any hon member who gets up in this House and uses this measure to allege that we are now introducing a mixed dispensation into our Public Service, intimating that at present there are not people or officials of all population groups in the Public Service, is in point of fact embracing a falsity. In our overall national economy there are officials of all population groups. There are many senior officials of all population groups in our national economy. We have spelled out the fact that we are going through a process of having people serve their own population groups, and we shall continue with that process.

The hon member for Rissik speaks of general affairs. As a representative of a large number of voters, a large number of public servants, I am not ashamed to tell the people in my constituency—all public servants go along with the principle—that in future we shall have to lean heavily on the merit principle. I should like to present it to hon members of the CP, for their consideration, by way of a practical example: Taxation in South Africa, in the broad sense, will be a general affair in future. Do we now really, across the floor of the House, want to say that we would see our tax levy structure and our national economy come crashing down rather than, on merit, also using people from other population groups in that department? We on this side of the House say that the first and foremost norm is the sound and ordered administration of the national economy, in a manner that promotes sound administration.

I also want to refer to a point raised by the hon member for Koedoespoort in regard to people appointed to the commission from outside the Public Service, and with this I shall be concluding, because I think the hon the Minister will reply to all the points in detail. In this House it is no use our making politics of the fact that people from outside the Public Service can be appointed to the Public Service or to the new commission. If we did so, we would be insulting people in the private sector, because we would then be implying that there are no competent people outside the Public Service who could, under specific circumstances, be appointed to specific positions. The obverse is true. There are a mass of middle-ranking and top-ranking officials in the Public Service who, as a result of their experience and qualification, are snapped up by the private sector.

We are now entering upon a new situation, a situation in which we can grant our State machine its due maturity, with a sound interdependence between the State machine and the private sector. In fact, my plea to the hon the Minister is that on the road ahead we increasingly pursue the principle of having an interaction between people in the Public Service and the private sector. That is the case in other outstanding Public Services overseas, for example in France. There must be no discrimination, and we must forge ahead on the course already set by the commission, ie that someone who has gained a good deal of experience in the private sector, having previously been in the Public Service, should not be prejudiced when he returns. He should rather be accorded special merit for having gained specific experience.

The hon member for Koedoespoort must show me the Public Servants who are grumbling about any sound process of interaction. [Interjections.] Now I am not talking about the prejudicing of officials. Hon members of the CP must show us where, in this Bill, it is provided that the principle of using outside individuals in the commission and in the Public Service means that there will be any discrimination against people in the Private Service. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Koedoespoort where in the Bill, it is provided that a competent individual who has climbed up through the ranks of the State machine, cannot be appointed to the commission. There is a balance between the private sector and the Public Service, and the Government respects that balance. I want to ask hon members of the CP to take an honourable stand in regard to the State machine and stop this ridiculous politicking in regard to the officials. The hon member for Rissik may, with the greatest pleasure, stand against me in Innesdal—he is not going to stand in Rissik again—so that we can debate these matters under the eyes of the voters.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank hon members who participated in the debate. I cannot thank all of them for their support, but I do want to thank those who did support the Bill for doing so, particularly the three speakers on this side of the House, namely the hon members for Turffontein, Gezina and Innesdal.

I want to tell the hon member for Innesdal that we believe that interaction with the private sector can certainly be expanded further. Of course, the equilibrium must be maintained when it comes to the job security of loyal career officers in the Public Service. In my opinion, however, there is definitely room, in cases where no one is available in the Public Service, for bringing in a person who had previously worked in the Public Service and subsequently acquired experience outside. We should get away from the idea that such a person ought to be penalized because he acquired experience outside the Public Service. There is room for inquiry in this connection. However, one should nevertheless ensure that people who remained loyal to the State and who are able to compete on merit and also as regards effectiveness, are not prejudiced.

Ladies and gentlemen …. [Interjections.]

It seems to me you are practising for Potgietersrus.

Mr Speaker, hon members will pardon me, but having just listened to two speeches from the CP, I imagined for a moment that I was already in Potgietersrus. What else were they doing if not to try to collect material for a pamphlet with a view to that by-election? In my mind’s eye I can already picture Die Patriot, full of selective quotations from the “kragdadige” speeches of the hon member for Koedoespoort and the hon member for Rissik, accompanied by selective quotes from replies from this side. We shall also be able to play this game.

The hon member for Rissik requested that the commission be constituted on a 4:2:1 basis. If we wished to apply their kind of tactics, we would now be able to publish reports that the CP is in favour of a commission consisting of four Whites, two Coloureds and one Indian. [Interjections.] If we wished to descend to their level, we could cause it to be published that the CP had asked for a mixed commission. [Interjections.] We must not play political games with the Public Service.

While I am dealing with the hon member for Rissik now, what suspicion did he arouse here? He aroused the suspicion that we were, with clause 8, granting the commission almost diabolical powers and turning it into a kind of many-tentacled monster which would be an instrument in the hands of the State President, and that the commission could even summon people. Let us look for a moment at what the Act has always said about this matter I am quoting section 8—I think that is the relevant section—of the existing Act:

That was the case under the old dispensation; we are now on the verge of a new dispensation.

Precisely the same words, only slightly modernized, are contained in the provision in the Bill. What did the hon member say? He implied that this was a new provision which was in some way giving the commission new powers. In the meantime, he was simply trying to attack a sinister interpretation to something which has been on our Statute Book for years.

The hon member for Koedoespoort was also guilty of this. I shall quote the passage in question in a moment, for example section 10. [Interjections.] Either the hon member for Koedoespoort did not do his homework, or he was being wilful. I shall quote section 10 in full to the hon member in a moment, when I come to it.

Let us begin with the hon member for Bezuidenhout. He and other hon members discussed the question of how many members the commission should consist of. But one should at least be a little consistent in one’s approach. In February this year this House unanimously—if my memory serves me correctly—resolved that the commission could in future consist of three members two members or one member. We passed that legislation in February, but now the hon member is again conducting a vehement argument in regard to the matter. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that were advanced then, but I do wish to briefly emphasize a few facts.

Hon members must understand that, as a result of reforms which the commission itself introduced, the commission has undergone a shift in emphasis in the role which it plays. In July 1983 a multitude of powers which the commission has always had was transferred to the various departments, and these now fall under Ministers of those departments and their Directors-General. This led to the commission no longer being so encumbered with the paper work involved in individual promotions among the lower ranks, as the position had been in the past. This brought about a shift in their work-load. Because there had been such a shift in their workload, a retiring commissioner once told me that he was no longer busy on a full-time basis.

We therefore decided to consider a more flexible composition of the commission, from the point of view of effectiveness. Commissioners are working extremely hard on the reformation and reclassification of departments with a view to the new dispensation, and this is making heavy demands on them. However, the normal course of activities of the commission has been scaled down and reorganized. The emphasis has now shifted to policy-making advice and to the task of being a watchdog over the interests of individual officials. Previously an official whose appointment was dealt with by the commission, and who felt that the had been incorrectly treated, had to appeal to the commission. The present situation is different. The Director-General now accepts the responsibility for the official’s promotion or otherwise, and more justice is being done to the commission now because if the official concerned was wronged in any way, he may now have recourse to the commission. Consequently there is nothing sinister in the smaller commission, and I may just say that I do not foresee that there will soon, in my time, be only one commissioner. [Interjections.] However, it may happen that a commissioner dies or retires for a specific reason. We may then want to appoint someone else. But the person concerned may be engaged on a specific task, and consequently we may have a commission consisting of only one member for one, two or three months until that other person has completed his task and is able to accept his appointment to the commission. Consequently we are merely asking for flexibility. Besides, every appointment may, after all, be debated here in this House.

The commission is not a body which meets behind locked doors somewhere. It has, after all, a strong substructure of expert officials, and the increasing professionalism of the office of the commission has reduced considerably the number of decisions which the commission has to take on a discretionary basis. Firmer guidelines are now becoming an integral part of its structure, and there is a growing expertise as far as personnel administration is concerned, and therefore I should like to say at this early juncture that I shall not be able to accept any amendment that would diminish it.

The hon member referred to the position of the executive State President.

†The hon member, and also other hon members, emphasized that under the new dispensation there will be an executive State President and tried to create the impression that where we refer in this Bill to the State President, it has a totally different connotation than a reference to the State President in the existing Act. But there are no differences.

There are differences.

There is no difference.

There is a difference.

But not everybody said so.

[Inaudible.]

Must I speak Afrikaans? The hon member must not make deductions merely from the language used. The hon member also referred to it and I am showing him the courtesy of replying in English. But I can always switch to Afrikaans if the hon member does not want me to speak in English. [Interjections.] In any event, the Progs and the CP vote together so often that I might as well address the CP in English too. [Interjections.]

In terms of the new dispensation, the executive President will, with regard to all his functions in terms of this Bill, have to act on the advice of his Cabinet. Similarly the State President, in terms of the existing law, acts on the advice of the Cabinet. There is therefore no real difference.

*There is nothing sinister here. There is no expansion of the powers of the President. They remain precisely the same—except that they have been rephrased—as was stated in the old section 10. The hon member for Koedoespoort objected to the words “on account of unfitness for the duties of his office or incapacity to carry them out efficiently.” Section 10(a)(2) of the existing Act read in exactly the same way. [Interjections.] But the hon member did not say that when he was speaking, and that is what I hold against the hon member. In his argument the hon member presented a distorted image, implying that we were inserting here what did not form part of the existing law. That is unfair and is a political way of addressing a scientific subject. It has no place in a debate of this nature. In respect of removal from office, the obligation still rests on the State President to report to Parliament. Parliament is fully competent to take that report and do what it pleases with it within the rules of Parliament.

Which Parliament?

His party and the Public Service.

The hon member for Lichtenburg did not attend the debate and now he cannot stop talking. If he has something to say, he can request a turn to speak during the Committee Stage. The hon member is like one of those toy cars that one winds up and which then simply keeps on running.

You are terribly nervous.

I am not nervous at all, I am enjoying myself immensely because of the political issue those hon members are making of such an innocent Bill as this.

In terms of the present Constitution Act, as well as the new Constitution Act, the State President acts on the advice of the Cabinet in all these matters. What is new is that there is an added stipulation that the State President may allow a person to vacate his office owing to continuous ill-health or for any other reason which the State President may deem sufficient. This was inserted for the reasons we have already debated, and in regard to which there does not seem to be any difference of opinion. I can only say that similar provisions exist in respect of judges. Section 2 of the Judges’ Pensions Act, Act No 90 of 1978, contains such a provision. Section 14(4) of the Public Service Act provides that an officer, subject to the recommendation of the Commission, may be compelled to retire before reaching retirement age. No reason is specified for such retirement in the section concerned, and consequently what we are dealing with here is a reason which is acceptable to the Commission. Precisely the same principle is being applied here. The provisions in the Bill that are under discussion bring the retirement and dismissal measures more into line with those applying to officers, including our most senior officers.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to clause 10 and said that he would move an amendment to the effect that if the Commission for Administration makes a recommendation and the State President refuses to accept it, it should be reported to Parliament and that Parliament should then give a decision. That aspect has already been covered in our law since 1974.

*Now I come to the question of own affairs.

†The hon member asked me who will man the own administrations. He asked whether there would only be Coloureds in the Coloured Administration, yes or no. He also referred to the question of merit and efficiency, which I have dealt with in a previous debate. He did not, however, mention a third point I made in that debate in almost the same breath.

*The third point is that specific opportunities are being created for persons to go ahead and make progress in their own administration.

I want to say a little more about this matter, because hon members, particularly the hon member for Rissik, also referred to it. For a long time now we have been applying the policy of creating special promotion opportunities for the members of specific population groups and are trying to upgrade their occupational mobility within the service they have to render to their own population group. Those departments and organizational sections of departments which are already clearly geared to satisfying the needs of specific population groups are reserved for staffing by members of the population groups concerned, where they are available, provided— and this is the reply to the point made by the hon member for Bezuidenhout—that where posts cannot be suitably filled, members of other population groups may be appointed to these posts provided effective functioning will in that way be maintained or enhanced. Despite the fact that we should like to have a Coloured teacher in every Coloured classroom, there are still White teachers who are teaching in Coloured schools, and also in Black schools. We are compelled to do this because there are shortages. For that reason the emphasis should fall on training and on the creation of opportunities for these people.

We are going further, however. In respect of general affairs as well, the service that is being rendered is sometimes of such a nature that it can be centralized and that one can actually say that in a specific area the service is being rendered to a specific population group. In this respect, too, the policy that is being applied is that if a member of a specific population group is equipped to occupy a post, we prefer to appoint him to that post which will place him in direct contact with his people, even if the service which he is rendering there is of a general nature. I want to give an example. If the Police has a person among their Coloured members who is suitable for appointment as station commander, they will prefer to make him station commander in Mitchell’s Plain rather than appoint a White person as station commander there. Conversely, the hon member for Rissik need not be worried about who the station commander in Rissik will be.

Consequently there is no venom to be derived from this, and in conclusion we must tell one another in this connection that the principle of merit and effectiveness has since the beginning of our Public Service legislation formed the basis of such legislation. It is stated thus in our legislation, and no changes have been made to it. This is the basis which was established since the beginning, and in regard to this matter our legislation per se contains nothing to the contrary. When a person is, in fact, able to make adjustments from time to time, according to circumstances and requirements, what is then involved is a matter of policy, but not a matter of what is embodied in the legislation. In this Bill, therefore, there is nothing which the hon member need be concerned about in any way.

Finally, the hon member for Bezuidenhout—other hon members also did so—referred to the retirement of Mr Van der Merwe. I have already conveyed a few words of tribute to him.

†The hon member specifically proposed that, if Mr Van der Merwe is willing, we should use his expertise, knowledge and experience in a specific capacity with regard to a specific subject. I can assure the hon member that, if Mr Van der Merwe is prepared to do something like that and there is a particular area which we identify as one in which we can make use of that wide experience, we shall do so. However, I cannot tie myself down to a particular project or anything like that and in this regard we will have to let ourselves be led by Mr Van der Merwe.

*The hon member for Koedoespoort tried to absolutize the role of the new State President as allegedly being a completely new one, and I have already replied to this. He then made a few specific statements. For example, he said that he objected to term appointments for commissioners. Surely this has always been the case. Surely there has always been a term for commissioners. This is nothing new. Has he always objected to it? We should like to know. This Bill is not depriving the commission of a single power in respect of the Public Service. When a member’s term expires, he may be appointed for a further term. If a member is not reappointed, he may retire from the service with added service years, or be compelled to retire from the service in that way. He may also, if he is not reappointed, be utilized elsewhere inside or outside the Public Service if he prefers not to be reappointed and if it meets with the approval of the State President. The hon member tried to seek something sinister in connection with appointments from a wider circle. However, there is nothing sinister in this respect. The Commission for Administration plays a key role in determining conditions of service, not only for public servants in the narrow sense of the word, but for many thousands of other people who are also paid by the Exchequer. Consequently, I now want to know from the hon member whether it would be wrong on an occasion to appoint a senior educationist with a great deal of experience to the commission.

He nevertheless remains an official.

No, he is not an official. A teacher is in a somewhat different position. [Interjections.] Would it be wrong to appoint a high-ranking expert from a statutory board to the commission, a person who has also devoted a lifetime of service to the State? All that we are making possible in this way …

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member definitely need not seek something sinister in this. I should like to point out to him that in terms of present legislation, the State President is under no obligation whatsoever to appoint a person from the Public Service. Here, too, no change is being made to the status quo.

I have already quoted to the hon member the matter pertaining to the old section 10, and pointed out how in essence it agreed precisely with the new provision. The hon member, however, concluded his speech with the statement that he and his party was opposed to this legislation because it was intended for the new dispensation. Surely, Mr Speaker, they should then be opposed to all Bills in future. All Bills, also those dealing with new court institutions, family courts, etc, are also fully intended for the new dispensation. There is no particular constitutional facet involved in the legislation under discussion. It is legislation which is the result of the moderate reform of personnel administration in the Public Service, which was initiated on a basis completely separate from the new dispensation. It would have happened in any case, irrespective of whether there was a new dispensation or not. It is concerned with better efficiency and modern staff administration measures, of course without throwing proven measures overboard and also without prejudicing or rejecting in any way expertise and experience acquired over the years.

†I have already replied to some of the points raised by the hon member for Umbilo. Referring to clause 7 the hon member expressed the fear that provision was made now for a tremendous widening of the scope of the authority and the capacity of the commission. There is one particular point, I believe, which the hon member misses completely. In this respect I should refer him to clause 7(2), which reads as follows:

The important, the crucial words here are of course “… under any law conferred upon, entrusted to or imposed upon a Minister …” It is clear therefore that in terms of this particular stipulation the powers, functions and duties concerned are limited to those given to a Minister in terms of an Act of Parliament.

But then there is going to be a Minister of Local Government.

Well, if there is such a Minister, the hon member’s opportunity of expressing his opposition to powers granted to a Minister will come along when legislation granting such powers is being discussed in the House. The scope of the commission’s activities is limited therefore in terms of the words I have just quoted.

Once again, in connection with clause 7(3) in terms of which a new scope is given, I should like to point out two things. Firstly I should remind hon members that clause 7(2) is identical to the stipulation that has existed in legislation throughout the years. Clause 7(3), on the other hand, contains new provisions. Clause 7(3) is, however, limited in two ways. Firstly the commission may only act in terms of clause 7(3) upon a direction given by the State President or at the request of a Minister. That means that there are no inherent powers in that regard. Such powers must be activated, requested, brought into being by the State President or a Minister of State. Secondly, in lines 50 and 51 he will see that reference is made to “councils, institutions or other bodies referred to in subsection (2)”. Once again, it is limited to the extent to which any power, function or duty has under any law been conferred upon, entrusted to or imposed upon a Minister. I can assure the hon member that the commission has no power over city councillors or mayors in the sense in which the hon member raised the matter, and so he need not be concerned about it.

The hon member for Pinetown made a speech about teachers’ salaries. I want to say in the first instance that I do not think we should politicize this question. I find it rather unfortunate that in view of all the knowledge that the hon member has gained after the discussion of both my Vote and the Vote of National Education he should use the occasion of the Second Reading debate on this Bill to make a speech at this stage about teachers’ salaries. [Interjections.] I want to say, Sir, that we must not bid against each other in expressing our regard and appreciation for and evaluation of the importance of the teaching profession.

When are you going to show us?

I am replying at the moment and if the hon member will just give me the chance I shall deal with all the points that have been raised. In respect of the teaching profession we must accept the fact that we stand together. No country can afford not to appreciate the importance of the teaching profession. No country can afford to allow the teaching profession to find itself in the position where it cannot effectively perform its important duties because of financial problems of any kind whatsoever.

*Surely the hon member knows that, in the first place, we disposed of the occupational differentiation programme a year sooner than was initially planned.

And where would the teachers have been in a year’s time?

Initially it was the case that the teachers would have been first in line for revision only in a year’s time. When they did get something, they got it earlier than they would normally have done so, precisely as a result of the acceleration of occupational differentiation.

In the second place the hon members knows that teachers are represented on special research and consultative bodies. Does the hon member now want me to announce an increase …

Only a date.

… before we have received the inputs from those research bodies? Surely I would then have been by-passing them. Surely I would then have, foolishly, been saying to them: You are just wasting your time, because we have already decided. Surely that is no way to do things. The hon member knows that the hon the Minister of Finance said that an announcement would be made in this connection, and the hon the Minister of National Education and I indicated quite clearly that as soon as those investigations had been completed, an announcement would be made. With all his contacts in education I am certain the hon member knows that those bodies have made a good deal of progress with their investigations, and that it will not be very long before they have completed them. Therefore he knows that the announcement will not be long in coming.

The hon member did not play the game tonight. In a debate on a Bill where it was not really very relevant he tried to make a little political capital out of the teaching situation. [Interjections.]

I conclude by saying that this bill contains nothing sinister but that it incorporates the tried and tested truths which are contained in the existing legislation. These have been refined and moderate adjustments have been effected, which will enable us to serve the public service, in accordance with modern and more private sector orientated managerial methods, and by means of an effective Commission for Administration.

Question put,

Mr Speaker, I move:

For the most part the proposed amendments concern administrative adjustments that do not require much explanation. However, there are a few new principles in the Bill which I should like to explain to hon members in greater detail.

With regard to the further regulation of the Commissioner’s powers of delegation as embodied in clause 2, I just wish to mention briefly that due to the manifold duties performed by the Commissioner with regard to his advisory role in the field of security, his seat on various bodies advising the Government, his role with regard to the Government’s peace initiatives in Southern Africa and his decision-making and policy-making role, it is exceptionally difficult for him to perform in all respects the innumerable administrative duties that are also entrusted to him. As hon members are aware, I announced the creation of the post of senior chief deputy commissioner last year specifically in order to afford relief in the administrative sphere. Since the existing provision does not state the position clearly, the amendment in the Bill is being proposed. Proper control will continue to be exercised.

As far as clauses 3, 4 and 6 are concerned, the content is self-explanatory and does not require extensive elucidation. As far as clause 4 is concerned, however, I wish to mention that the envisaged new arrangement will entail that it will be possible to finalize investigations in respect of officers far more expeditiously than is at present the case. The implementation of the new procedure will entail that the alleged misconduct of an officer may be investigated in the same way as an ordinary criminal case, still with adequate opportunity for the officer in question to offer an explanation or to make a statement denying guilt. The amendment embodied in clause 4(d) will eliminate an existing loophole.

Clause 6 regulates in a different way the position of witnesses at departmental hearings and boards of inquiry which may be appointed in terms of the Police Act and the regulations. The procedure is being brought more or less into line with the equivalent procedure embodied in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, and can only lead to improved adjudication of a trial or inquiry.

A new principle with regard to discipline is contained in clause 5, which will give the Police Act extra territorial effect with regard to misconduct or a contravention of the Act by a member of the Force. This is ascribable to the constitutional development which has taken place in South Africa over the past number of years. Subsection (6) already covers the position with regard to members serving outside the Republic in accordance with a directive in terms of section 6(6) of the Act. The proposed new provision will, however, apply whether or not a member is serving outside the Republic in terms of a formal directive, and will mean that a member who is guilty of misconduct or an offence as envisaged in the Act or the regulations committed outside the Republic may be tried within the Republic as if the offence had been committed within the Republic.

An example of a case in which the new provision would apply would be a case of a member in training at the police college at Hammanskraal absconding from the Force. Because the college is situated within the borders of Bophuthatswana, the Attorney-General of Transvaal has on occasion refused to institute a prosecution, because the offence was committed outside his area of jurisdiction. There is no justification for allowing such absconders to get off scot-free.

A further example of the application of this clause is where a member is guilty, outside the Republic, of conduct which could create an embarrassment not only for the Force but also for the State. Cross-border traffic between the Republic and the independent states occurs virtually without limitation and on a large scale, and for the purposes of good order and discipline in the Force it must be possible to take action against a member who is guilty of misconduct, whether on or off duty.

The amendment of the system of national service which already applies in terms of the Defence Act has necessitated adjustments being effected to the Police Act as well to ensure that there is no disparity between liability for national service in the SA Defence Force and in the SA Police. It is to ensure this that the amendments embodied in clause 7 are being proposed.

The most important aspect I wish to mention in this regard is that provision is now being made for the service liability of a person who become or becomes a member of the Police Reserve on or after 1 January 1983 to be brought into line with service liabilities in the SA Defence Force, amounting to service of 720 days in total instead of the present 240 days. Moreover, it is also provided that a member of the Police Reserve who has completed his service obligation of 720 days can still be called up for service for a maximum of 30 days in a full cycle of three years until he reaches the age of 55 years. In the SADF this obligation is 12 days per annum in respect of commando members, but because it would not be practicable or feasible for the Police to call up a member of the reserve for 12 days per annum, it was decided to make it 30 days in a cycle of three years. This requirement will apply to a person who has served in the Force in a permanent capacity, as well as a person who, in terms of section 24A(11), has been or is allocated to the Police by the SA Defence Force for training and service.

A new principle is embodied in clause 7(a), which regulates voluntary service of a reserve member who has already fulfilled his obligations. This provision will not cover a wide field, although there are several professional persons in the reserve who offer their services. As is evident from clause 8, the employer of such a volunteer has no obligation towards him as intended in section 34B.

A further new principle is embodied in clause 7(c), in terms of which it is provided in the proposed new subsection (5B) that a person who became or becomes a member of the Police Reserve and who, due to any act or omission on his part, has not rendered the service to which he is liable, shall still remain liable to render that service unless the Minister or an officer acting under this authority directs otherwise.

Mr Speaker, as the hon the Minister has indicated, this Bill mainly deals with administrative amendments, the tidying up of the wording of some of the sections, and the bringing up to date of aspects such as fines and the procedure which is laid down for the calling of witnesses at trials or board hearings.

An overall reading of the Bill leaves one with a positive impression due perhaps to two clauses, the first one being clause 2 which clearly lays down the procedure which the Commissioner of Police has to follow in delegating his powers to other officers in the Force. The hon the Minister has explained why this has become necessary and why the Commissioner is no longer able to take upon himself the many duties which until recently he fulfilled personally. That certainly is an improvement as it clarifies the position and provides that the delegation has to take place in writing.

A second clause which introduces a positive change is clause 5 which now provides that if a member of the Force commits an offence beyond the borders of the Republic, it shall be deemed to have taken place within the Republic. As the hon the Minister has explained, there are a number of circumstances in which this could happen—we have the Hammanskraal example—and there is also the position generally where a member misbehaves or contravenes a law beyond our borders which could be an embarrassment to the State. This clause will therefore deal with such eventualities.

Whilst we are on the Police Act and whilst the hon the Minister referred to the possible embarrassment to the State if clause 5 is not included, I do want to raise one aspect which I believe is still an embarrassment to the Police Act and to the Police Force as a whole, and that is section 27B which prohibits the publication of certain information relating to police activities. I raise this specifically, Mr Speaker, because we have seen in the Press over the past few days that there appears to be a change of attitude towards the corresponding section 44 in the Prisons Act. Not that that Act is going to be amended or the provision deleted altogether, but at least one senses a more sympathetic approach towards the publication in the media of information relating to prisons. I am not suggesting that the hon the Minister can overnight delete section 27B but I do want to ask him whether he envisages a change of attitude by the department towards the implementation of section 27B.

The answer is no. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister makes that curt announcement with a look of glee on his face. That is unfortunate because it remains a fact—and I can quote what one of the Sunday newspapers said in this regard:

Which clause of the Bill are you referring to now? [Interjections.]

I am referring to the Police Act. It remains true that the South African experiences suggest that every secrecy clause creates a presumption of hidden evils.

Where is that in the Bill? [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is unfortunately not prepared to consider an amendment or a change of attitude.

I have said no.

Mr Speaker, if the hon the Minister believes that a curt, fairly rough “no” is enough to make us sit down and accept the position, then he is mistaken because he knows that this clause …

Which clause?

… this section of the Police Act—section 27B of the Police Act of 1958.

Where is it in this Bill?

I am referring to the Police Act, Mr Speaker. If the hon the Minister wants to ask a question I will answer it. He knows that that particular section has brought more discredit to the Police Force as a whole than any other provisions in the Police Act. It has also been recognized as a sensitive area by another department and it is a pity that the hon the Minister is not prepared to look at that section again.

As far as the Bill is concerned, we will support it because the measures which are provided for in it are positive and they improve the Police Act.