I move—

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this stage of the proceedings on this Bill to express the misgivings of this side of the House about the manner in which this Bill has been presented to the House. I do not wish to move an amendment but I do wish to protest against the manner in which this Bill has been handled from the beginning. Year after year—I say that advisedly—we have asked the hon. the Minister to give us some information about the contents of this Bill. This is a Bill dealing with national education.

We have not had such a Bill year after year.

We discussed such a Bill in 1965 and 1966 and now we have it again in 1967. This is a Bill dealing with a national policy in education. Sir, in August, 1965, the National Advisory Council considered the final draft of the Bill for submission to the Minister. In September they submitted this draft to the hon. the Minister. I can quite understand that the hon. the Minister has been negotiating with other bodies in the meantime. Who are these bodies? Naturally, of course, the officers of the Minister’s own department and the Advisory Council, but it seems from Press reports that he has also been negotiating with the Executive Committees of the various provinces. Three of the provinces have Executive Committees consisting of members of the Nationalist Party. Sir, there is no difficulty about my having to discuss the contents of the Bill; I cannot fall into that pitfall because I do not know what the contents are; I do not know whether hon. members opposite know what the contents are? I do not know whether they have been taken into the hon. the Minister’s confidence; I certainly have not. Sir, who should have been informed, months ago, about the contents of this Bill? I think legislators throughout South Africa should have been informed. First of all, members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, should have been made aware of the contents of these proposals, and secondly, provincial councillors should have been made aware because they are concerned with the education of white children up to the matriculation standard. They should have been aware of the contents of this Bill; they should have had an opportunity to discuss it with the people of South Africa who are interested in its contents. Who are these people in South Africa who are intimately concerned with the administration of education? There are the members of school boards, of school committees and of that very important body, the Parent-Teachers’ Association. These are people who should have had the opportunity to discuss the contents of this Bill but they have not had that opportunity. Sir, I put a question to the hon. the Minister as recently as the 3rd of this month. I asked him—

His reply was: “Yes, on the 3rd October, 1966.” The second part of my question was—

Whether consideration was given to submitting the Bill to members of the House of Assembly for their information; if not, why not.

The hon. the Minister’s reply was—

In other words, we are to be treated as the members of the Transvaal Provincial Council were treated by a Nationalist member of the Executive Committee there. He said to them, “Don’t trouble about the Bill; we know the contents of the Bill and the contents are quite all right;”. The dear generous Nationalist Party will look after you. That is the attitude of hon. members on the other side.

They are not allowed to think; they just have to say “yes”.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to interrupt.

But, Sir, there is yet another body which has not been consulted, I think the most important body Of all, the members of my profession, the teaching profession throughout the country. They should have known about this. Could the hon. the Minister of Public Health have introduced a Bill without consulting the medical profession?

Quite easily.

It is unthinkable. Could the legal profession accept a Bill controlling their own profession without consultation with the hon. the Minister of Justice? It is not done. Therefore I think these bodies should have been consulted. When should this Bill have been published? With the time that the Minister has had available I would suggest that it should have been published at least three months ago—in November last year. Now that the Bill is before us what can we do to amend the situation. Because I think it has to be amended? I make this request to the hon. the Minister and to the Leader of the House that the Second Reading of this Bill be not proceeded with for at least a month because I wish to consult my constituents. I come from a constituency where we have some distinguished educational institutions. I wish to discuss this Bill with my constituents and therefore I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should make this minor concession.

Why did you not consult them last year?

Sir, I think the hon. member is giving himself away. He wants to know why we did not consult our constituents last year. He probably had the opportunity to discuss it; he must have known the contents of the Bill. I did not consult my constituents for obvious reasons; as I said at the beginning, I do not know what the contents of the Bill are. Sir, I am venting this protest on behalf of my Party, on behalf of my constituents, and of the people throughout South Africa who are interested in this great cause of education.

The proverb which says that one is never too old to learn cannot be applied to the hon. member for Kensington. I fear the hon. member for Kensington is too old to learn; he can no longer learn. If we were to deal with legislation in the way suggested by the hon. member, this House would simply make no progress with the legislation. Who has ever heard of consulting all the concerns mentioned here by the hon. member for Kensington? When will it be possible to place this legislation on the Statute Book if all those bodies have to be consulted? The one profession which the hon. member mentioned and which should be consulted, i.e. the teaching profession, was consulted. The teaching profession is. represented on the Education Council by 26 persons. Representatives of the teachers’ associations serve on that council; inspectors of education and all the various facets of education are represented on that council.

Were the associations consulted?

Surely those people are members of the associations. Why should one go and consult the school boards? Are we to ask all members of Parliament before we can proceed with certain legislation? Surely the time to discuss legislation is when it is tabled in this House. The hon. member’s information is quite erroneous—I regret to say so—because the Education Council did not submit a Bill to us in August, 1965. I do not think the Education Council has the authority to draw up a Bill. The Education Council is not a legislating body. What the Education Council submitted to me was a memorandum of principles to be embodied in this education policy. The Education Council certainly did not submit a Bill to me. Immediately afterwards those principles were considered by the Government, which is responsible for drafting Bills, and after those principles had been considered, they were re-formulated in legal terms.

There are concerns that are affected by this new legislation. Those concerns are mainly the provincial administrations, not in their legislative capacity as provincial councils, but the administrations in their executive capacity, with the administrators and their executive committees. It was essential that the consultations be held. A tremendous deal of chopping and changing had to be done to the legislation. There were vested rights which certain people had to give up, namely my Department and also the departments of education of the administrations. The hon. member is now making a fuss about something which has nothing to do with the matter. Now the hon. member for Kensington wants the legislation to gather dust for a month so that he can first go and ask his constituents what he should say in this House. The hon. member is on the wrong track altogether. The hon. members on the opposite side have a certain policy. Let us oppose one policy to another, and see which is best for education, for the child and for the country. That can be debated here. There is nothing to hide. It is a very simple Bill. Once the hon. member has the Bill in his hands, particularly the provisions to which he is most strongly opposed, the hon. member’s knowledge and the guidance he can give to his party will enable him to do it in two or three hours.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned last night I had indicated the difficulties that we on this side of the House had in accepting the plans of the Government in respect of the limitation of labour in certain areas and the effect the policy of directing industries towards the border areas was having upon costs of production and inflation generally. I had indicated that I myself had difficulty in reconciling the statement of the hon. the Deputy Minister that he had the full support of the Cape Chamber of Industries for his 5 per cent reduction scheme with statements made by them. I had indicated that he had a meeting with them in October which had led to a statement from the retiring president which was very inconsistent with the sort of support that he seemed to be claiming. He had another meeting with the Chamber of Industries on the 20th December. On the following day the president of the Chamber of Industries made a statement to the Press and included in that statement were the following passages:

Subsequently the Cape Chamber made a further statement in its weekly bulletin of 28th December. There it is indicated that after the statement by the Minister there had been considerable disquiet amongst members and that they had reacted to the request of the Chamber to make their views known. In that weekly bulletin is the following passage:

Then it goes on to speak of a meeting with the hon. the Deputy Minister and says:

It seems clear that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the council did not agree as to the exact manner in which this was to be implemented. A statement was drafted which apparently the hon. the Deputy Minister refused to sign as he wished to have the power and not an advisory council in respect of what industries needed Bantu labour. This is reflected again in a weekly bulletin given out on 23rd January:

Then they speak of instances of various firms which have succeeded in replacing Bantu by Coloured labour and stressed the necessity for a practical and flexible approach. One knows that the hon. the Deputy Minister is determined to keep control in his hands but so far there is very little evidence to support the fact that there is any possibility of their assisting him to reduce Bantu contract labour annually by 5 per cent. There is ample evidence that the hon. the Deputy Minister was prepared to use the big stick. There was even more evidence this morning in a Press statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister, only in there it is not the big stick but the super big stick:

This came from the hon. the Deputy Minister. There is no longer any question of consultation. Now the hon. the Minister is wielding the big stick. I want to ask him what is the scientific basis for this reduction of 5 per cent per annum. Has he had a survey? Can he tell us where the workers are coming from to take the place of these people? Can he tell us whether it is not a fact that certain of the industries which have reduced their Bantu labour have already reached rock bottom and that if they reduce any further, they will have to close down? Is he prepared to tell this House whether he was or was not told that if he enforced this formula rigidly, certain industries in the Cape would have to close down?

Who enforces it rigidly?

Now we are beginning to come to it. Now he is going to enforce it flexibly. But nevertheless here is the big stick. Can you imagine the sort of disruption we are going to have in our industry? Where is the scientific basis for an approach of this kind? What we have had is a bull let loose in a china shop and it is not even a Friesland bull. It is a wild bull. Where is the work for the 5 per cent who are going to be removed from this area? Will the hon. gentleman tell us how far the Western Province is from the ratio of one White to one Bantu in industry which he is seeking? Has he got those figures? I do not believe that he knows. I do not believe anybody knows. He is taking a shot in the dark and I believe that he is doing so to the detriment of industry and costs of production here in the Western Cape. So much for industry and the inflationary effects of what is being done.

Now let us turn to the farmers of the Western Province and let us deal with the statement of the hon. the Minister himself that the farmers supported in general the policy that Bantu labour should be replaced by Coloured labour in the Western Cape. I know that two memoranda were submitted to the hon. the Minister, one of which started off with the clear statement that the farmers there present supported his policy of replacing Bantu labour with Coloured labour in the Western Cape. The general story of replacing Bantu labour by Coloured labour is very different from replacing them at a rate of 5 per cent per year. It is very different from setting up a timetable. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that there was no difference in principle and he also told us that the farmers went away satisfied. Some may have gone away satisfied but I can only tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that very few of those whom they represented were satisfied with the result of that interview. I want to tell him that I am receiving representations almost daily from farmers who are dissatisfied with the result of those interviews.

Why did you not approach me?

I want to reply to the Deputy Minister. I want to say to him that when representations were made to him by the farming community they made it very clear that the labour requirements in the agricultural and industrial spheres in the Western Province were growing faster than the natural increase of the Cape Coloured people. I want to remind him also that they drew his attention to the fact that, despite the draining away of Coloured labour from the farms, nevertheless they had succeeded in increasing production in the Western Cape in the most amazing manner. They pointed out that in the Elgin-Villiersdorp area the apple harvest had increased from 3,670,000 boxes in 1963 to 4,640,000 boxes in 1966, and that they were hoping for 5,890,000 boxes in 1969. I want to remind the Minister that they pointed out that the increase in wine grapes had been tremendous. I want to point out that they reminded him what the position was in respect of export grapes and other export deciduous fruit, and indicated that their increased demands for labour were going to be very large indeed. Then they drew his attention to the fact that there had been periodic labour shortages in the past which they had been successful in combating in most cases through fortuitous circumstances. They pointed out what steps they had taken to try and meet the problem in recent years. They deal with mechanization, they deal with it in full. They show how far the Boland and Western Province farmers have succeeded in mechanizing, perhaps, Sir, over-mechanizing. They pointed out what they had done to give higher wages to the remaining Coloured labourers on their farms which they were retaining in competition with industry. They pointed out what they were doing to try and increase the productivity of their labour and to use it as sparingly as possible. They pointed out how they had had to fall back on Bantu contract labour to make up the deficiencies because of the competition and the demand elsewhere.

They then come to the present position, and they put it thus—

That is what they told the Minister. Then they went on to deal with the suggestions that they could cope with this matter by means of greater mechanization, and that there was going to be a natural increase amongst the Coloured people that would meet their labour demands. They dealt also with this argument put up so frequently that Coloured labour would be repatriated from other parts of the Republic to come and do their jobs here in the Western Province to meet the labour shortage. They point out how expensive it will be. They point out what the difficulties are of training them, and they point out that they are still free people who are likely to move from the farms in just the same manner as they have done in the past and as others have done before them.

With that situation in mind these farmers who visited the Minister deal with the future, and this is what they say—

I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that as many as 1,000 Boland farmers were represented by that delegation—

This is what they drew to the attention of the Minister. Then they went on and they said—

There are members of Parliament here from the Boland areas who were present when these memoranda were placed before the Minister. They know not only that these were the representations made, but they know that that is the true position as far as those Boland farmers are concerned.

They went away completely satisfied.

Here is the story, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Minister is going one jump ahead. I quote further—

Then they make their representations that this freezing of labour must be undone, and I believe that the Minister was prepared to make certain concessions. Then they go on and say—

It is possible, of course, that the Minister has attempted to satisfy these farmers by telling them that he will be reasonable, that if they come to see the Deputy Minister each case will be dealt with on its merits. Do these hon. gentlemen really think that the farmers of the Western Province want to exist by the grace of this Minister? Does the Minister really think that the farmers of the Western Province want to have their entire future and their plans for development dependent upon the whim of this Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration? What security have they for the future? All these hon. gentlemen want is to have the farmers of the Western Province come along to them with cap in hand when they want to lay out a new vineyard, when they want to buy another piece of land, when they want to develop in any way. Is that a healthy system? I want to say that these hon. gentlemen have misjudged the farmers of the Western Province. They are a freedom-loving community. They are not accustomed to being bullied by any Cabinet or any Minister, and they are not going to be bullied by this Cabinet or this Minister. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that if he wants to know where inflationary processes are coming from he should look to the right and to the left at the activities of the Ministers of Bantu Administration and Development.

Of course, Sir, there is the other aspect, and that is the attempt to establish industries in the border areas. We all know that they are not normally as economic as establishments in the more concentrated areas. We know that there have to be certain inducements offered for them to be established in those areas. We know here that the emphasis is on ideology, and that there is the straining of economic considerations.

We are already in this position that they are not able to cope with the natural increase in the Reserves at the present time, but despite that fact they try to increase the pressure by excluding a further 5 per cent of the Bantu contract labour here in the Western Province, and as far as that hon. Minister is concerned, all over South Africa. He wants to force them back, but what is he forcing them back to? What jobs is he offering them in the Reserves or on the borders of the Reserves at present? He is forcing them out of this area, to do what sort of work? Where is the work for them? Surely it will only cause greater poverty and more unhappiness among those people. Surely it will slow up the whole of the economic development of South Africa. Surely they will cease to be economically active, and surely we will find ourselves in a position where they will no longer be a market for our products.

Why does he not concentrate more on developing industries in the Reserves? Why does he not get busy by means of White capital and skill to establish industries in those Reserves which can attract the labour from here? Why does he not take steps to have Bantu labour trained here in these areas, in order for them to be more productive? Why are they forbidding the training of labour in the urban areas at present, and why do they insist on the Bantu going back to the Reserves? I tell you, Sir, that it is not economic considerations which are influencing the Government, but ideological considerations, regardless of what the effect is on the economy of the country, and regardless of what the effect is on the human beings involved, and regardless of the effect on the cost of living of the ordinary man in the street, which is being pushed up as the result of the activities of these two gentlemen, supported by a Cabinet which seems wholly irresponsible in respect of this matter.

I take the strongest exception to the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has produced this violent attack at the end of the debate and has left me exactly six minutes to reply to it. This debate has lasted three hours, and if he wanted to produce this type of attack, which calls for a detailed reply, which he will certainly get at sortie stage or other, he should at least have entered the debate at an earlier stage and have kept the hon. member for Sea Point out of it. But we know that what irks the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is the fact that I am succeeding, together with the Minister and my colleague here, in implementing this policy of the Government, not only as regards the Western Cape, not only as regards the industrialists, and not only as regards the businessmen and the farmers, in co-operation with those people and not in spite of them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may carry on now, if he wishes. He will not draw me into a quarrel with the Chamber of Industries and with the farmers and with the traders. We are implementing this thing in concert, and now I want to tell the hon. member this. At the meeting held in October—and he may go and find out, and on the last occasion I challenged him. Let him get a statement from the Cape Chamber of Industries, or from any Chamber of Industries, that they are opposed to the reduction of Bantu labour in the Western Cape. He cannot get that, because one after another rose at that meeting and said that they were in favour of reducing Bantu labour in the Cape.

You mentioned the 5 per cent.

Very well, I said that, and they were quite prepared to join me in signing that statement in which they say that they agreed with me and that they were fully in favour of the 5 per cent reduction. [Interjections.] That is what they said; it was not I who drafted that. I did not sign it because I was not prepared to accept the last part of it. [Interjection.] I say that thing was drawn up by Mr. Lee and by Mr. Goldberg, the chairman, and it was handed to me.

what were their conditions?

The condition was that an advisory committee was to be appointed, whose advice I would be compelled to accept. What nonsense is that? How can any Minister commit himself to having an advisory committee whose advice he is compelled to accept? Surely that is ridiculous. But they are prepared to help and to reduce it by 5 per cent. I shall read it—

That is what the Cape Chamber of Industries was willing to sign, and they are still willing, and I talked to them only recently. They say that they think they will succeed in doing so. But I shall go further. I say the City Council of Cape Town committed itself to reducing Bantu labour.

And the Railways?

Yes, the Railways too.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 99.

Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that at the end of this debate there is absolutely nothing left for me to reply to as far as financial matters are concerned. I find myself in the pleasant position that now, for the second time within a few days, a Budget Debate has taken place in which not a word was said directly on financial matters. I may now just as well fold my hands in the knowledge that my hon. friends on the opposite side have no objection to the administration of the country in the financial sphere, and that they have full confidence in the financial policy of this Government.

But before. I sit down, I do want to make one observation with reference to what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We on this side of the House have been accused so frequently, as again just now, of seeing all these matters from an ideological angle, of setting politics above economics, and of measuring economic affairs by the yardstick of politics. But that is exactly what that side of the House has been doing in the past two debates. Here they have had the opportunity, in two Budget Debates, to discuss the financial affairs of the country, and in each of those two debates they spoke purely about political matters, because they believe that they will gain most by doing that. I think that if ever an accusation was levelled against us which they have proved to be true of themselves, then it is the accusation that in these two debates they have set politics above economics. I therefore think there is nothing further left for me to say except to state, as a bare fact, that the accusation which was levelled at us was replied to by the hon. members on the opposite side themselves.

Before calling on the Minister, I wish to remind hon. members that on the motion for the House to go into Committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, as well as on later stages, debate must be confined to the subjects contained in the Estimates and the reasons for the increase of expenditure. Discussion should not re-open the questions of policy involved in the original appropriation.

I move—

Hon. members will have observed from the documents already tabled, that the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds for the year ending 31st March, 1967, require a further amount of R3,288,000 to be voted.

As is customary, I shall not comment at this stage on the revenue prospects. The earnings for the current financial year will be dealt with when the main estimates are presented to the House on 8th March next. I shall comment briefly on the main items appearing in the printed estimates of additional expenditure.

Under the main head Railways, the additional amount of R1.1 million required under Head No. 3—Maintenance of Rolling Stock—is mainly in respect of increased maintenance work particularly on goods vehicles and additional Brake-block requirements. Of the R453,000 required under Head No. 17— Miscellaneous Expenditure, Net Revenue Account—a R¼ million is for assets withdrawn from service and written out of Capital Account. Approximately R201,000 is provided to cover refunds of amounts deducted, as liquidated damages for late deliveries, from payments due to contractors.

Airways Transportation Services—Head No. 28—are expected to absorb an additional amount of R1.6 million. Of this amount, R595,000 is required mainly due to an amendment with effect from April, 1966, of the depreciation principles applicable to aircraft. Depreciation contributions on aircraft were previously raised only for the theoretical period of service life of the aircraft. In the case of other assets such as rolling stock and road transport vehicles, depreciation contributions are made for the full period these assets are in service, and it has been decided that this principle should also apply to aircraft.

The increase of R393,000 reflected against Administrative and General is mainly in respect of the acquisition of new airways offices in Paris, office equipment and rental charges, as well as an additional amount for rates and taxes on the new offices in London.

Expenditure under Sales, Advertising and Publicity increased by R242,000 as a result of higher commission payments to agents resulting from increased traffic.

The additional amount of R 177,000 under Services to Passengers, is for increased requirements in respect of meals, refreshments and catering uplifts for passengers; also additional appointments to render service to passengers. Aircraft maintenance costs are expected to rise by R154,000 as a result of additional aircraft acquired and brought into service. This concludes the items of additional expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds and I shall now deal with the Brown Book items.

An amount of R3,242,000 requires to be voted under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines. It has been possible to permit line occupations to a greater extent than originally anticipated so that faster distribution of rails, sleepers and ballast has taken place; the acquisition of more ballast tamping machines has also helped to accelerate progress on relaying works. R2,337,000 has to be appropriated from the Betterment Fund for these works.

A cash provision of R 183,000 for the construction of pier No. 1 at Salisbury Island was originally made under Head No. 5—Harbours. In terms of the Administration’s Classification of Accounts the work in question requires to be accounted for under Railways and the item is now accordingly transferred to Head No. 2.

Approximately R636.000 comprises individual items of delayed charges which have to be authorized in terms of a Resolution of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. Of the total amount of R461,000 provided for under Head No. 3—Rolling Stock—R82,600 is in respect of the conversion of 200 wagons for the conveyance of sugarcane traffic in the Transvaal Lowveld.

Price variation payments on roiling stock contracts account for R101,800, while an amount of R112,100 is required mainly in respect of delayed charges on items expected to have been completed in the previous financial year. In view of the heavy future commitments against the rolling stock section of the General Renewals Fund and an anticipated excess in expenditure over receipts during the current financial year, it is proposed to re-allocate a total amount of R165,100 being portion of the cost of certain vehicles—authorized in the 1966-’67 Brown Book—from Renewals to Capital Account. For the same reason it is also proposed to finance portion of the expenditure expected to be incurred during the current financial year on additional Road Transport Service vehicles from Loan Funds instead of from the Renewal Fund as originally intended; R750,000 is provided under Head No. 4 for this purpose.

Of the approximate R2.2 million required under Head No. 5—Harbours—R2 million is in respect of greater progress than anticipated having been made on the first stage of pier No. 1 at Salisbury Island. The restoration of the Eastern Mole in Table Bay Harbour has also progressed faster than expected, and provision for an amount of R81,000 is made to cover the additional expenditure.

Working Capital—Head No. 8—requires to be increased by R8 million due to the considerable expansion of the Administration’s activities. The increase relates more specifically to additional expenditure on spares and component parts required for new types of aircraft, locomotives, motor coaches and other assets.

All in all, R14,649,800 requires to be appropriated for Capital and Betterment works. Savings totalling R3.8 million under the existing appropriation can be utilized to finance increased costs on certain other items while R330,000 is available by way of Capital Credits, and R2½ million will be provided from the Betterment Fund. The remaining R8 million will have to be appropriated from Loan Funds.

Summarized, therefore, the position is that appropriations from Revenue Funds require to be increased to R684,927,600 and those on Capital and Betterment Works to R145,049,000.

Mr. Speaker, the information the Minister has given us has helped us considerably in estimating and evaluating the reasons why these increases are necessary. We of the Opposition do not want to oppose the motion to go into committee because we feel that the actual increases on a total Budget of R800 million are certainly not excessive. We may wish to have more information about details in the Committee Stage, but at this stage there are one or two questions we should like to put to the Minister which may expedite the discussions later on.

The Minister mentioned certain savings on the original estimates, but gave us very few details. You will understand, Sir, that in the circumstances of our life in South Africa today, we are particularly interested in these savings, in the money which was voted by Parliament for the South African Railways and Harbours to spend. For some reason or another we now find in the additional estimates that they have not been able to spend this money. We should hope that in the present circumstances those savings would be considerable. We find, according to the Minister’s statement, that they were very low indeed. In the case of capital expenditure the savings amount to 1½ to 2 per cent of the total amount voted by Parliament. In the case of the revenue account an amount of merely R450,000, which is less than .09 per cent of the total estimates, has been saved by the Railways Administration on headings which are not available to set off against increased expenditure. That is not a very good record. The record may very well be better if we could have more information about money saved under heads which were available to set off against increased expenditure. I think that the country would be interested in a full report from the Minister showing to what extent the South African Railways and Harbours could apply economies in the original Budget in view of the inflationary pressures that are being brought to bear upon South Africa today. We do not want to indulge in an argument in principle about the increases. They seem fair and reasonable. We should like to be satisfied, however, that in view of the economics of South Africa to-day, a real effort has been made by the Railways to save money on the original estimates. That is the one question we should like to put to the Minister.

The other one is that we are interested in the statement by the Minister that the system under which certain capital assets are depreciated has now been changed. We are interested in this principle. I take it that other members will ask the Minister some questions. I should like the Minister to give us an immediate explanation as to why the item under “Depreciation” is increasing. Why does this increase exist at all? One would expect that if capital assets are depreciated over their full actual life, if the depreciation should extend over a longer period, there would be a saving. Now we are asked to vote more money for depreciation because of the new system. I do not want to criticize and say that this is right or this is wrong. All I should like to have is full information to enable us to judge what is happening under the new system and what the value of the new system is. With those two remarks, I shall not discuss the details any further, but I await the opportunity that will be offered us in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek clarification in regard to one remark made by the hon. the Minister at this stage of the debate to make sure that we have the picture clearly. Referring to Head No. 28, the hon. the Minister mentioned that the system of depreciation on aircraft had now been changed so that depreciation would be payable for the total life of an aircraft. I should like to get it quite clear that that was in fact the tenor of the Minister’s remark and that this is in fact a new policy—a major new policy—introduced in the additional estimates, not as a new item, but merely hidden as an additional item. I submit that if this is in fact so, this is a matter of policy which should have been raised in a debate which was not limited as we are limited in debating the additional estimates. It is a change in the bookkeeping of the Airways which is likely to change the whole costing of Airways travel. We have had the unfortunate experience of the Constellation, a type of aircraft which was used by the Airways, which was later found to be unprofitable and was withdrawn from service, but which, year after year, had to carry their depreciation until the end of the fixed period which was laid down by formula. That loss was then debited against the running of the Airways as a whole. We have had that experience of aircraft not in use carrying depreciation.

Which aircraft were not in use?

The Constellations were only being used for occasional charter flights. There were not in regular use.

Which aircraft are those?

I am talking about the Constellations.

They have been sold.

Yes. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the Minister was not listening. It seems he was not. I was, saying that the Constellations were an example of the danger of an aircraft carrying depreciation for its total life. I know they have been sold—at a very heavy loss.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Sir, I want to establish whether what happened there is now to apply to all aircraft, and that as long as they are on the books of the Airways, they will have to carry depreciation. If that is correct, that will mean that it is likely that passenger and freight fares will have to take into account depreciation on aircraft which, under the old system, would have passed their normal depreciating life and would have become a nondepreciating asset of the Administration. It is going to make quite a difference in a few years’ time when the Viscounts reach the end of the period, under the old system, for paying depreciation. Then they would have become a free asset and would, have been bringing in revenue which would not have had to carry against it book value depreciation. I hope the hon. the Minister can deal with this matter at greater length at this stage so that in committee we may deal with the details of what appears to be a major policy change, slipped in quietly in the additional estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid both hon. members are under a complete misapprehension as to what the true position is. In reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, I should like to say that the savings that have been effected have not been deliberate savings effected with a view to the inflationary position in our economy at the present time. The savings are actually in respect of works that could not be carried out in time. A certain amount: was saved and utilized for other purposes. That, is all it amounts to. There has been no deliberate campaign to institute savings in regard to capital works merely for the purpose of combating inflation. It has always been the policy of the Administration to save, wherever it can, both on ordinary revenue expenditure and capital expenditure. This is not as a result of a deliberate policy to effect savings to enable us to combat inflation.

My reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) is that aircraft have been depreciated on the basis of a life of eight or ten years. It has now been decided to bring the depreciation of aircraft into line with the depreciation of other assets of the Administration, where depreciation is calculated not on the theoretical life but on the actual life of the asset. The reason for the increase in the amount in respect of depreciation is that there are a number of aircraft still in service which have been in service longer than ten years and in respect of which depreciation is no longer being levied. Now depreciation is actually being levied on those aircraft. Hence the amount being provided for here.

Were they not fully depreciated after ten years?

They were fully depreciated. The money is put aside, inter alia, for the purchase of new assets to replace existing assets. The more money there is in the Renewals Fund, which is really the depreciation fund, the less capital funds are required to purchase new assets. That is why provision has even been made for the replacement of assets with an enhanced value compared with the original assets. Obviously, if I have to replace to-day a Viscount aircraft that cost R350,000 ten years ago, I shall probably have to pay R700,000 for it. The same applies to all the other assets. Where a locomotive cost approximately R40,000 30 years ago, it costs R100,000 to-day.

Were they not written off in ten years?

They were written off but now the period has been increased on those assets.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister to give us more information about item 266, “Wages”. I should like to know why the amount of R152,896 has become necessary for increased wages. Has it become necessary as a result of overtime, or because more people have been taken into service, or has the work increased perhaps? If more people, have been taken into service, to which race group do they belong? Where were these additional people mainly required, if they have been appointed?

The amount is required as a result of the fact that more goods trucks have been repaired in the workshops. More wages are paid if there is more work and longer hours are worked. It is possible that more work units have been employed, but if is also possible that fewer work units have been employed. As a result of more repair work to goods trucks additional wages have been paid.

Then it is probably overtime.

No, it was ordinary working hours.

Mr. Chairman, item 534 (c) provides for an ex gratia payment to the Municipality of Beaufort West as compensation for two erven made available to the Administration for departmental housing purposes. Why was this made in the form of an ex gratia payment? Did these erven belong to the Municipality, in which case they should surely have been bought from the Municipality? It is a strange item and I think that some explanation is due to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us further information in regard to item 534 (a), namely the writing-off of supplies which have been withdrawn from service. I shall not go into it any further at this stage. I just want to ask him to give us further information in regard to the main item constituting this increase of 50 per cent on the original estimate. I should like to know the reason for that.

This particular item is merely a book entry. When assets are withdrawn from service, you have got to make provision in the capital account and this is a provision in respect of items which are being withdrawn from service. In other words, when for instance a locomotive reaches the stage when it can no longer be used, it is withdrawn from service. A certain amount has then to be voted with which that account is then credited.

In reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, the position is this. Erven 1823 and 1852, Beaufort West, have been expropriated from the municipality for departmental housing purposes. Although the municipality originally claimed R400 per erf, they agreed to accept R400 for the two erven plus survey costs which came to R63.22, In terms of the councils’ title deed land required for Railway purposes could be resumed by the Administration without compensation. The Administration felt however that it would be inequitable to resume erven without making any contribution towards the costs incurred by the council in establishing and developing the township. The transaction therefore involves an ex gratia payment.

I just want to say that hon. members may ask for reasons for the increase, but they are not allowed to advance reasons, as both hon. members have done so far. The Minister himself-will give the reasons.

Item 1002 shows an increase of more than 50 per cent and it is quite disproportionate to the increases under all the other heads. There is a footnote which says that the additional amount is mainly due to increased depreciation charges, additional expenditure in respect of overseas offices, more commission to agents due to increased traffic and increased requirements for services to passengers. None of the other items shows a rate of increase of 50 per cent and there must be some extraordinary reason for this. I may not make any suggestions, but we shall be grateful to hear from the hon. the Minister what the reasons are for this increase and also why it is so out of proportion to the increases under all the other sub-heads.

It is a pleasure to give the hon. member the necessary information. The South African Airways have hired new offices in Paris and to obtain offices in Paris is an extremely expensive undertaking. I think that we have to pay approximately R180,000 for key-money before we can obtain the offices. The same happens in London. Before you can hire decent offices, you have to pay almost R200,000 as key-money. In this particular case new offices were obtained in the vicinity of the Opera. We acquired these offices and we had to pay approximately R190,000 as key-money.

It is a most immoral practice.

It is a most immoral practice. We will, not allow it in South Africa but apparently it is allowed in France and England. Then the decoration and furnishing of the offices, which also had to be undertaken, comes to a considerable amount. There were also additional rental charges and additional payments of rates and taxes on the new offices in London.

I should like to return to Item 1024, “Flying Operations: Depreciation”. The hon. the Minister completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make in the motion to go into committee on this item and I wish to ask him again whether this item means that aircraft which in the normal course of events would have been flying and producing revenue for the Airways but which would not be showing any depreciation in the Administration’s books, will in fact now be showing depreciation. That is what it boils down to. The hon. the Minister himself said that aircraft which normally would have completed their ten years depreciation period, will now continue to pay depreciation because they are still in service in the same way as rolling stock. Nobody questions the fact that this means more money in the Renewals Fund but in the past new aircraft have been financed by a special vote provided by Parliament. The amounts which have been available from the Renewals Fund have never been able to meet the full cost of renewal. We voted that as a capital item. The point I am trying to make is that by changing the system between two budgets by means of an additional estimate we are now going to load the cost of flying. We are going to load the costs to the airways-user by adding to it additional depreciation to boost the Renewals Fund instead of voting capital for replacing aeroplanes that may have served their life. That is my fear. The paper cost of flying, the book cost of flying, is going to go up. The Airways’ profits may well turn into a loss, simply because of an administrative change in book-keeping to boost the Renewals Fund. I have very serious doubts as to whether this is a sound principle to follow, and I should like to have the Minister’s views as to the effect this will have on the bookkeeping of the Airways and its contribution—which has in the past always been a profit—towards the Administration’s overall finances. Is this not going to mean that the Airways are going to find it more difficult to make ends meet, and therefore ultimately the costs to the user of the Airways are going to have to go up? That is the fear that I have in regard to this change of policy.

The hon. member has quite a justifiable fear. Obviously raising additional depreciation charges is going to increase the costs of Airways. There is no doubt about that. But the hon. members of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours adopted the principle many years ago in regard to higher replacement costs. The resolution was adopted by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours that additional provision should be made by way of additional rates of depreciation for the higher replacement costs of assets. That is in regard to the Railways. As I tried to explain, the costs of assets are continually increasing. In other words, depreciation charges are being levied on for instance an asset which originally cost R50,000. When that particular asset has to be replaced it will cost perhaps R250,000. Obviously the replacement costs must come out of the Renewals Fund. It is not the purchasing of a new asset, but it is the replacement of an existing asset. That is why the Railways and Harbours Select Committee adopted a resolution to the effect that provision must be made for higher replacement costs. Originally it was decided to make a lump sum contribution once a year, but that system was found to be unworkable. Some years ago the rates of depreciation were increased to make provision for the higher replacement costs.

In the case of aircraft this was not done. In other words, depreciation was based on the theoretical life-time of ten years. The result was that when that particular aircraft had to be replaced the cost of the new asset was out of all proportion to the cost of the original asset. It was decided to bring Airways in line with Railways. This is in the interests of the Administration, because more money will accrue to the Renewals Fund so that when a new asset has to be purchased to replace the existing asset less money will be required from Loan Funds. As hon. members know, when Loan Funds are utilized for the purchase of assets we have to pay a high rate of interest to-day. But apart from that fact, the fact remains that in regard to all the aircraft that have been purchased over the years, a part of the costs has come from the Renewals Funds. It has not all come from capital funds. If I remember rightly, the Boeings which we purchased last year were purchased with money of which at least 50 or 60 per cent came out of the Renewals Fund and the balance came from capital funds. It has always been sound business practice that new assets, if possible, should be purchased out of revenue and not always out of capital funds which remain a permanent charge on Railway Revenue. In other words, for the next 30 or 40 years, interest at Treasury rates will have to be paid on the loan funds. It is better to utilize revenue for the purchase of new assets and to make revenue available for capital expenditure instead of relying exclusively on capital funds.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? It is the basis of depreciation which is now being brought back into this as a factor after a period of ten years. Is it exactly the same basis for depreciation as it was during the ten years over which it was decided to write off the asset concerned?

The amount levied is based on the life of the asset. In other words, depreciation charges on a fixed asset such as a building are considerably less than on an asset like for instance an aeroplane, which has a much shorter life. The amount of the depreciation is calculated and based on the life of the asset.

That is not quite my point. The hon. the Minister said this was based on aircraft more than ten years old. In other words, over the first ten years of the asset’s life the Administration wrote off the amount which they really wanted to write off, and they were not going to write off any more after that. On the first ten years of their life there was a certain basis of depreciation. Is the basis the same as it was during the first ten years of the asset’s life?

Yes, it is the same as it was before.

Is that reasonable?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply regarding his financing of these aeroplanes, I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether it is sound policy to do what is in fact being done in this respect?

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss policy now. He can only ask for reasons for increases.

Then I should like to refer to item No.’s 1093, 1095 and 1098 of Head 28. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us the reason for the substantial increase. One would think that with the forecasting of possible increases in passengers and staff, that information would be known, and that would have been dealt with in the main Budget last year. Has the increase been such that it is necessary to spend this extra money?

This additional expenditure is the result of an increase in staff, the expansion of services and more passenger amenities being provided at various out-stations.

Following on the question asked by the hon. member for Umlazi, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister the following question. If depreciation is now to be levied on aircraft for the whole of their operating life, is it not then only fair that the original basis of calculation of depreciation should also be changed? In other words if we have ordinary rolling stock which may last for 30 or 40 years, and its life is calculated as being 20 years, an additional period of depreciation provides additional money for renewal. But in the case of an aircraft where the calculation is based on a period of ten years that aeroplane is written off after ten years under the old system. Now double its value will be written off at the much higher depreciation rate extended over the longer period. I want to put it to the Minister that it will therefore be much fairer, particularly from the point of view of the Airways user, for the basis of depreciation now to be reviewed. So that, even if it is not put on the same basis as the Railways, then at least it will be closer to the same replacement period.

Order! I think that that is a matter which the hon. member can raise on the main Budget. The hon. member is now discussing a matter of principle.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, we are being asked to vote this amount. We are being asked to vote an amount which in effect is a new item. Although it is shown as an increase, it is a new item because it is due to a completely new policy being introduced. And I see that the hon. the Minister agrees with me. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether consideration has been given to the question of completely reviewing the basis of depreciation of aircraft. Instead of basing it on a ten-year life span as now, he should base it, I submit, on a 15-year life span, or a 20-year period, so that we do not have an artificially-boosted situation. We see here the effect of a 10 per cent increase for only part of a year. Over a whole year this amount is going to be a considerable figure, particularly as the Viscounts all exceed their ten-year lifetime. So I would like to ask, firstly, what consideration has been given to changing the basic percentage of depreciation, and secondly, what will be the effect of this item on a complete year’s accounts. Here we have it from an unknown date? The Minister has not indicated on what date the change in the system was made. I would like him to tell us what the estimated effect will be for a complete year, and whether he can give any indication as to what it will be in a year or two when a greater number of aircraft is likely to be affected.

I support the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Durban (Point), for the simple reason that if you are going to spread out the writing-off of an asset over 15 years, obviously the annual write-off will be much smaller. But what the Minister is doing now is to take the ten-year write-off and multiply it by 15 instead of by 10. If my memory serves me well, the Higher Replacement Cost Account, from which replacements are paid, is kept up by contributions from the working profits of the Railways, and not by writing things off at a higher rate.

No, you are wrong.

Then will the Minister tell us how that fund is constituted and how it has kept pace with the position?

It is paid out of Revenue, into the Renewals Fund.

Yes, it is paid into the Renewals Fund, but it is not paid out on the basis of assessing the amount to be written off at a higher rate than the asset is worth. It is a separate fund. My point is that if I am right in assuming that the Higher Replacement Cost Account is made up of contributions from another source, whatever that source might be, then the Minister will in fact write this off on the asset itself instead of writing only part of it off and making a contribution in the normal way to the fund. Would the Minister please explain it?

Is not the Minister’s difficulty this, that he calls this depreciation, whereas in fact it is not just depreciation but depreciation plus obsolescence? The Minister is faced with this difficulty that he may have an aircraft costing R500,000. He writes that off over ten years, and let us say, for the sake of the argument, that he writes it off at R50,000 a year. Halfway through its life he finds that to replace that aircraft will cost him R1 million. Therefore, the increased cost of R1 million requires an annual depreciation of R 100,000, or double the figure, due not actually to depreciation but due to obsolescence and due to the inflationary effects of higher costs. Therefore, to save his Department having to face the increased capital from a reduced Renewals Fund and the Loan Funds, he finds it better to meet, as far as possible, the whole amount from the Renewals Fund, and therefore this is taken into account, this Increased cost, and therefore it should be described not only as depreciation but as obsolescence. I suggest that is the correct explanation of the Minister’s new policy.

I want to repeat that all that is being done is to bring aircraft depreciation into line with the depreciation of other assets. In other words, instead of spreading depreciation over the theoretical life of the asset of ten years, the depreciation will now be levied on the actual life of that asset while it is in operation. In regard to fixed assets, for instance, there is a 45 per cent enhancement to make provision for the higher replacement costs, which is not done in regard to aircraft. Obviously this increased expenditure is going to increase costs, but it will have no earthly effect on passengers, whether they pay higher fares or not, because everything goes into the kitty and the Administration bases its decisions on what its revenue and expenditure is before there is any increase in rates or tariffs or passenger fares. This is a sound business principle. As I have said before, as many assets as possible and as many capital works as possible should be financed out of revenue instead of out of capital funds especially in view of the fact that capital funds are always limited. I am never in the position of being able to obtain as much capital funds as I actually require for capital expenditure on the Railways. The depreciation of these aircraft will be levied on the whole of their life instead of on their theoretical life. That money is put into the Renewals Fund, and when those aircraft have to be replaced by other aircraft at considerably enhanced cost, part of the money in the Renewals Fund will be utilized to cover the cost. It is nothing new. It is not a new principle. It is a principle that has been adopted in regard to all the other assets of the Administration, and aircraft are being brought into line with it.

How does the Administration estimate the life of an asset in order to determine the amount of depreciation in a particular year?

From experience.

Is it not a question of mere assumption? Should there not be some safeguards?

There is no fixed period laid down for the life of an asset. Depreciation is levied on the actual life of that asset, for as long as it is in service.

At what percentage each year?

The Department decides what percentage must be levied on each particular asset. It all depends on what the operational life of the asset is, and it is based on that.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Does the Minister think that his colleague, the Minister of Finance, would agree if I were now to depreciate the vehicles in my firm …

Order! That has nothing to do with this matter at all. That is a question between the hon. member and the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Then let me put it this way. Is it not in effect giving double the value of the item in depreciation recorded on the books? If it were a private business …

Order! That is not a question at all that the hon. member is putting.

I ask: If it is giving more than the value of the item, more than the cost of the item, in depreciation against it. If a plane costs R500,000 and you get 20 years’ service out of it, then under the present formula that plane will eventually have recorded against it a depreciation of anything up to R1 million.

That is the recommendation of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, that provision must be made for enhanced costs. In other words, the purpose of depreciation is not merely to write off the value of the original asset, but to make provision for the replacement of that asset, and when those assets are replaced it is done at considerably enhanced costs, and, consequently, depreciation has to be levied at a higher scale. That is why the Select Committee adopted a resolution to this effect, i.e. that a increase of 45 per cent on the ordinary depreciation must be levied to make provision for the enhanced costs. If the hon. member complains about that resolution, then I must point out that fie was a member of that Committee and fie should get that resolution reserved.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I think the hon. member has already had his three turns.

No, Sir, I have spoken twice but if you say that I have spoken three times, I accept it.

Yes, the hon. member has had three turns.

On a point of order, Sir, does that rule apply to a debate on financial matters?

We are not in Committee of Supply. The ordinary Committee rules apply here.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 30—Miscellaneous—Airways, R56.000.

Sir, I am concerned with item (b), “S.A. Airways’ share of amount payable by British Overseas Airways Corporation to Central African Airways in terms of a pool agreement”. Could the hon. the Minister explain to us how that amount could increase, because one is entitled to assume that British Overseas Airways Corporation will make no payments to Central African Airways in view of the fact that there is an economic boycott by Britain against Rhodesia. This is a most bewildering item and we should be glad to have a full explanation as to how this comes about.

An agreement was entered into originally by S.A. Airways, B.O.A.C., and Central African Airways, and in terms of that agreement certain amounts have to be paid. In other words, S.A. Airways get a share of the traffic. The original agreement was between B.O.A.C., and C.A.A., but for our share of the traffic we have to pay a certain amount to B.O.A.C., and this amount is being paid in terms of that agreement. What the details are I do not know, but apparently during the past year the number of passengers has increased. They have been travelling on B.O.A.C. planes, They do not land there apparently but seating capacity has been allocated to them. This amount is being paid in terms of that agreement.

The question is, is this amount being paid to B.O.A.C.? Because it seems to me that it is quite wrong that it should be paid to B.O.A.C. because B.O.A.C. is not paying the money over to Central African Airways.

Apparently they are paying it over.

They are not allowed to.

Well, there are many things that you are not allowed to do but you still do them.

I hope that this amount is being paid direct to Central African Airways.

No, it is being paid to B.O.A.C. by S.A.A. and B.O.A.C. is paying it over to C.A.A.

Is the hon. the Minister assured that this amount of money is actually reaching Central African Airways?

Well, I must accept that B.O.A.C. are honest people and that they are paying it over, otherwise they would not accept the money.

Will the hon. the Minister give the Committee some explanation with regard to the additional amount of R6,450 to be voted under item (a). The item is “Bad debts and sundry items including ex gratia refunds”. The original estimate was R1,350 and the revised estimate is R7,800, a very considerable increase.

My information is that on the basis of current indications, increased provision will be required. I do not know what the particulars are; I can get them and let the hon. member have them.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 33.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure— Pipeline, R1,500.”

I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give the Committee some explanation with regard to item (a) “Refund of amounts withheld as penalties …”. I notice that the original estimate of R100 has jumped to R1,600. There is an additional amount of R1,500 to be paid therefore.

This amount is required to cover refunds of liquidated damages recovered in the previous year.

Sir, I think the hon. the Minister has missed my point. The original estimate was only R100. Where did the other money come from?

We are being asked to vote the money now.

With respect, the hon. the Minister is still missing my point. He must have held back R1,500 somewhere because the original estimate is only R100.

I have already given the information to the hon. member.

Head put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

Head 2—New Works on Open Lines—R3,241,900:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us some information on item 68, “Table Bay Harbour: Additional accommodation for non-Whites”. Will the hon. the Minister please tell us whether that accommodation is for Coloureds or for Bantu. The amount to be voted is R30.000; it is a new item.

The money is required for the erection of a compound for labourers whom we are getting from the Transkei to work in the Docks here.

Mr. Chairman, since this is a new item, I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give us some indication of his policy in regard to the housing of Bantu labourers in the Western Province, particularly in Cape Town itself, and I would like him to tell us why it is that he has to provide housing for Transkeian Bantu at a cost of R30,000 and how this fits in with the policy of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He has asked for a reduction of 5 per cent in the number of Bantu employed in the Western Province, whereas here the hon. the Minister of Transport, in his capacity as Minister of Railways, is asking for R30,000 to build additional accommodation to house additional Bantu who are going to be employed in the sacrosanct Cape Coloured preserve of Table Bay harbour. I assume that these are therefore temporary structures which are being erected, but they are in fact permanent compounds with proper brick and morta buildings erected on proper foundations. They are not on a temporary basis, but a compound which could almost be described as a luxury compound in some respects. I have had excellent reports on the quality of the buildings which are being erected there. Does that not indicate that these buildings are being erected to house Bantu labourers on a permanent basis, not just for a few months or for a year or two, and not on the basis of a reduction of 5 per cent per annum in their numbers? Are we to assume that this compound is to become a permanent part of the buildings, fixtures, grounds and new quarters of the Cape Western system? I feel that embarrassing as this question may be to the hon. the Minister, the erection of this compound is in direct conflict with the policy of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Order! This is not a new item; the hon. member cannot go into the principle. He can only ask for the reason for the increase.

Sir, with respect, there was no item on the original estimates.

Yes, it was item 740 in the 1966-’67 Estimates. That item has now been transferred to these estimates.

May I ask you, Sir, whether it was then a separate item or whether it was merely included as a globular item for housing?

I believe it was an item for housing in which this was included.

My question is this: Was item 740 not a general item for housing?

The hon. member is a member of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours; he should tell me what the position is instead of asking me to tell him.

May I take this as a point of order then? I was trying to be diplomatic. Item 740 was a general housing item, whereas item 68 is a new specific item dealing with a specific compound for a specific group and is therefore a new item?

The estimated total costs are R73,100, and this amount of R30,000 is to be spent during this particular financial year. The item of R73,100 is evidently an old item.

I want to say to the hon. member that this is a new item. A new compound has been built and the total cost is R73,000. But R30,000 will be required for this financial year and the balance will be spent during the next financial year. This is actually a new item to accommodate 400 Bantu labourers at the Table Bay Harbour.

Mr. Chairman, I was about to conclude my remarks by asking the hon. the Minister whether he was now asking the Opposition to support his opposition to the policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration because that is what it boils down to. The hon. the Minister is asking us as the Opposition to support him in employing Bantu in direct conflict with his colleague, which amounts to almost a slap in the face to the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration. We find ourselves in a difficult position. We do not know who to support. Do we support the hon. the Minister of Transport or do we support the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration? I must say that I would prefer to support the Minister of Transport. I think that his policy is a much sounder one, it is a realistic policy and which takes into account the economic facts of life. He requires labour and he is going to get it to make the Railways run, or bust. The Minister gave an undertaking. He said, “I will make the Railways work or I will resign”. He has staked his reputation on making the Railways work. The Minister of Bantu Administration has staked his reputation in support of his policy.

You had better get a move on or I will not have the chance to reply.

Mr. Chairman, we have had two reputations staked. The reputation of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration to remove the Natives and the reputation of the Minister of Transport to make the Railways run and to make them run he must use Bantu labour. I think that he deserves our support. He is basing his policy on economic facts. He is using contract labour and he is putting the interests of South Africa before airy fairy Canutism and policies of 2,000 years ahead. He is not planning 2,000 years ahead. He is planning for 1967. He is not building castles in the air, he is building houses for Bantu now. I feel that the Minister by the soundness of his policy has earned the support of this side of the House for this head.

I want to set the hon. member’s mind at rest. There is no conflict in policy between my colleagues and myself. I do not only support the policy but I implement the policy of gradually replacing Bantu labour in the Western Province with Coloured labour. At a later stage I will be able to give hon. members the number of Bantu who have been replaced by Coloureds. It has always been the policy of my colleagues as well that if Coloured labour is unavailable, Bantu labour will be permitted. That was even stated to-day during this debate. It is not the policy not to allow Bantu to enter the Western Cape and it has never been the policy. However, I have implemented that policy and in a very large number of cases Bantu have been replaced by Coloureds, and that will continue in future.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Can the Minister tell us whether he is reducing his Bantu labour force or in fact increasing the total?

I do not want to make a categorical statement, but I think that the total amount has been reduced. We do not employ only 400 Bantu in the Western Cape. My policy has been that I have not discharged any Bantu merely for the purposes of replacing him. I have either transferred the Bantu worker somewhere else, to the Eastern Cape for instance, were he has no monetary loss or when he resigns or leaves the service, he has been replaced by a Coloured worker when that Coloured man is available. It is obvious that if there are not Coloureds available, somebody must do the work. [Interjections.] Those hon. members have been under a misapprehension in regard to the policy of the Government. They have been trying to make political capital out of something which has never been said and has never been the policy. That is the policy and the hon. member can set his mind at rest. There is certain work in the Cape Town harbour which does not interest the Coloured people and which they will not do. In order to serve the public and to get the necessary work done, especially in the case of the export of deciduous fruit, Bantu had to be brought in from the Transkei to do that work. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that directly Coloured labour again becomes available, those Bantu will be sent back to the Transkei and not remain in the Western Province.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to item 11 on page 4. What is the reason for the additional amount when the same work is being done?

It is not the same work, but hon. members know that costs are continually rising. [Interjections.] Even if there is not inflation, it does not mean that there will be no increase in costs. The hon. member has never studied economics and that is why he makes these silly statements. Inflation occurs only when the increase in cost gets out of hand but there has been a gradual increase in costs over the past 20 years although we have not had inflation over the past 20 years. In regard to item 111 want to say that in quadrupling the existing double line and providing a direct link to the West line to cater adequately for additional non-White passenger traffic from the Umlazi Bantu resettlement area and Chatsworth Indian township, more work was undertaken than anticipated and therefore the increased amount has had to be voted.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to item 59, I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether this kitchen and restaurant are intended for use by Whites or non-Whites. If it is a White restaurant …

The hon. member may only ask the reasons for the increase.

I shall rephrase my question. Is this money to be spent on a White or non-White restaurant?

No, it is a White restaurant in the old station buildings.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question in connection with item 48 on page 10, namely the “Umgeni Road bridge”. What is the reason for an increase of more than 40 per cent in the estimated cost?

The increase over the amount originally voted is to cover expenditure on level crossings elimination schemes approved by the committee which cannot be recovered from the level crossings elimination fund or from local authorities. In other words, it is really a belated debit because the work has already been completed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with item 35 on page 8, namely “The replacement of unsuitable ballast by stone and the insertion of additional ballast”. How did it come about that unsuitable ballast was used, who was to blame and when was this ballast laid? When was it discovered that it was unsuitable and does this apply to larger areas of Railway track or only to these small areas?

No, there are certain tracks where unsuitable ballast has been used. The ballast was suitable at the time when the lines were originally laid. In South-West Africa, for instance, sand ballast was originally used but with the increase in traffic and the use of heavier locomotives, that ballast had to be replaced by more suitable ballast. That is all that is happening in this case. The ballast was suitable when the track was originally laid for light locomotives and very light traffic but with the increase in locomotive power and the use of heavier locomotives and heavier traffic, the ballast has to be replaced to strengthen the line.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 4.—“Road Transport Service”, R750,000, put.

Progress reported.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When I gave notice of this motion some time ago, it was, of course, impossible for me to foresee that circumstances in this country of contrast would change so rapidly in the meantime as they did in fact do. It is with a great deal of gratitude that the country and we in this House learned of the great relief brought by the abundant rains which fell in large parts of our country in recent times. The relief was as generous as the affliction was protracted and the visitation was depressing. All of us on this side of the House, and I think the entire country as well, think of those regions, especially the North-Western Cape and parts of the Karoo which are still stricken by drought. I think the entire country is praying that the necessary relief will come to those regions in due course.

The drought was exceptional in its range and its intensity and its duration. The one bright spot of this drought was the way in which our people in the far north pulled through the drought. The courageous and inspired struggle they waged against nature was really a manifestation of courage and perseverance and of the will to survive of our people in the rural areas. They displayed spiritual qualities of a nature which can inspire this entire country and nation of ours, because people who are capable of bearing such an affliction in such a way are also capable of resisting other afflictions in other spheres. I think those who were afflicted deserve the homage of this House for the way in which they have endured the affliction over the years.

In normal times it is possible to plan for normal risks. It is possible to deal with normal problems in a normal way. But in an exceptional drought such as the one we have just experienced it is impossible to make effective provision. We must remember that dams which are meant to be full during normal times have been empty for many years. Dams which were built during this time for the purpose of overcoming drought conditions have only just received their first supplies of water during the past few weeks. The normal provision which could be made—I am thinking of parts of the Northern Transvaal in particular—for restricting flood damage, could not prevent such damage. It was too overwhelming. The way in which the Department and the Government offered assistance over the past number of years deserves the gratitude of all of us. We tried to render assistance in many ways. In circumstances such as those in which we found ourselves it was impossible to render assistance in any other way with the then existing means and the people at our disposal. The hon the Minister and his Department tried to render special assistance, and, in fact, did render assistance with these people and the means at their disposal. We have in mind the way in which assistance was rendered in certain regions of the country where water, which is not normally available, was made available by means of special permits. We have in mind the measures taken by the Government in certain regions of the country to save citrus trees. We have in mind negotiations conducted with the private sector on the Rand to try to bring about the saving of water, as a result of which 21,900 million gallons of water were saved. We have in mind the spraying of the Vaal Dam which saved large quantities of water. We have in mind all the other measures of control and are grateful for what has been done. I think that under those circumstances the Press and the radio also deserve the gratitude of this House and of the country for the manner in which they assisted throughout the entire process to create the right climate, to try and seek co-operation and to keep the public’s attention on the measures of control which were being taken. I think they deserve our gratitude. I also think that the way in which the entire population who had anything to do with it cooperated as one large team to try to overcome this affliction by drought, deserves the gratitude and the homage of this House. That is why I express gratitude in one part of my motion to those who deserve gratitude in this regard.

Allow me to point out to you that during the recent drought the South African nation became acutely conscious of something of which it had only been vaguely aware before. The nation came to realize almost overnight that our existence in South Africa was closely tied up with our water requirements and assets and that all sectors of the population are more dependent on water than we had ever realized in the past. Whatever we may plan in the future as far as the development of South Africa is concerned, our existence is based on water to a much larger extent than public opinion has accepted up to now. This is the case because quite a number of alarm bells rang in the course of the past number of years. Alarm bells rang in connection with our subterranean water resources. The decline shown by our subterranean water resources and the realization which came to everyone that our subterranean water resources had been tapped to a lager extent than they ought to have been tapped, rang an alarm bell for the entire nation. The over-taxation of the large water schemes caused many serious questions to arise. The conservation assurance which certain of our large water projects were supposed to offer, caused many serious questions to arise in the minds of everyone whether such assurance was, in fact, what it was intended to be when those large water-works were built. The possible danger of an incorrect distribution of water between the agricultural sector and the urban areas is a question which came to the fore in recent times. The danger of water becoming brackish, which does not come to the fore so readily during normal times, but which caused many serious questions to arise, rang an alarm bell. The necessity of permanent measures for saving water, to which we did not give such serious thought before we came to realize how dependent we are on water, has caused a very important question to arise in the minds of everyone. The question is whether we have the necessary scientific and technical knowledge to prevent such a disaster in the future. In future we must give our strategic water position the same comprehensive consideration we give the future of our national homelands. This being the case, we ought to conceive a master water plan on which the entire nation and the Government have to build now and for generations to come because, Sir, it must strive to certain targets. It must be a water plan which we, who have been thinking in bits and pieces about plans and attempts in connection with our water, will see as one large compact plan. This plan should embrace various things, such as the necessity of saving water, of conserving the supply, of using that supply carefully and judiciously, of allocating it intelligently and of conducting research in connection with its origin and future. Our aim should be to afford more people, plants and animals, longer life and a greater future in South Africa than would have been the case under normal circumstances if we did not do so. Deeply conscious of the fact that we have reached a stage where we have to think very comprehensively about this matter, a water commission was appointed. This water commission has been instructed to conduct research in a very wide field and to focus attention on plans which we have not been able to see as a whole up to now. It is not my intention to anticipate this water commission and its plans, but I nevertheless think that it will be a good thing if we, while awaiting the findings of the commission, lay down certain directing principles which may serve as likely points to be borne in mind when we discuss this matter in the future. It will become more and more necessary to talk and think about this matter. If you will allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to point out a few of these guiding principles in the few minutes which I still have at my disposal.

In the first place we have reached the stage where we can no longer allow transmission losses in respect of water. We can no longer afford to spend a great deal of money on large projects to catch water at a certain point while we lose massive quantities of that water between the point where it is conserved and the point where it is consumed. The fact of the matter is that transmission losses in South Africa are simply too large. For that reason we ought not to think merely in terms of a wall when we consider any project in the future. We must think in terms of everything from the point where the water is dammed up to the point where it is consumed. In other words, we must draw up a comprehensive plan, because we have lost too much water in the past. During the recent drought rain fell at certain places and a limited quantity of water flowed to a certain wall. The water could not be used, however, because it had to flow for so many miles and had to fill large pools with the result that all the water was lost before it reached the point of consumption. I repeat: Transmission losses have been too large in South Africa up to now.

In the second place we have the problem of water pollution. It is important that we in South Africa should devise means in collaboration with the private sector to prevent a small country like South Africa from allowing its most important asset, namely its water which is so scarce, to become polluted to such a large extent. Polluted water is lost to us to a very large extent. It is a fact that it was necessary to negotiate with the private sector in recent times. During these negotiations strong emphasis was placed on this point. In future we in South Africa must try not to use water only once, but to use it more than once.

In the third place there is the problem of our diminishing water table. In South Africa the water table is diminishing at an alarming rate. Where our country can be described as an arid country and one of extremes and risks, we may ask whether the time has not arrived for us to decide that rainwater which falls and is conserved in the arid regions should be used for primary purposes only? Should we not think of this in good time before the water table drops away completely? Should we not take action at this stage already, i.e. before the remaining sources dry up at a faster rate than the one at which we shall be able to keep up sinking boreholes, whereby we may be caught on the wrong foot? Should we not in the meantime start thinking of conserving water and of transmitting such water by means of extensive systems of pipelines to places where it will be permanently available to man and animal?

The further question which we have to ask ourselves is the important question relating to the maximum capacity of our dams. We have built a large number of dams in South Africa during the past half a century. But these dams were built at times when less emphasis was placed on needs. However, the present need is much greater. We also know that there are dams in the Republic which have been built to a certain height only in the hope that such dams would be enlarged at a later stage. In the meantime we have allowed the development of the lower reaches of certain rivers. This development by far exceeds the available water capacity. In the past few years the Government has found it necessary to try to heighten dam walls at a fast rate. The question now arises whether we should not try in the future to complete all our construction works in this connection to the fullest extent possible? However, there is one important reservation, namely that when we build conservation projects we must not immediately start allocating all available water. It is a fact that when we do have water available it is very easy to allocate such water. What may happen is that more water may be allocated than the quantity which is certain to be available. The question is not only whether we should build more and larger dams and should enlarge existing dams, but also whether we should not increase the certainty factor by allocating conserved water with a larger margin of certainty.

A further important point is the planning and protection of all catchment areas of our water resources. It has become very clear during the past number of years—inter alia, as a result of data collected in this regard by the Division of Hydrology—that there is indeed a decrease in the flow-off coefficient from our high rainfall catchment areas, areas where we have disturbed the balance of nature. At present we have a vague indication, which research will possibly make more clear, that we have adversely affected our flow-off to such an extent through the afforestation of our catchment areas, that we have destroyed the capacity of our streams. We must ask ourselves, when we embark upon a project in a stream, whether the over-all planning should not be such that it includes everything from the upper reaches of the stream to its lower end. Does that not mean that when we give attention to the construction of a dam we must also give attention to all works for the subsequent maintenance of such a construction work? Did we give sufficient attention in the past to the adequate protection in years to come of those things we had erected as assets? For that reason it is important that the construction of a dam will not merely be the construction of a dam in future; it must be one large work for the maintenance of the dam and must include proper planning above and below its wall.

There is another very serious problem which I should like to bring to the fore and that is the brackening problem. To the best of my knowledge more money is spent in certain countries of the world, inter alia, in America, at the present time on arresting the brackening of existing water projects than is spent on the establishment of those projects. That is the case in all countries which have a low rainfall like us. The salt content of the soil is high, and irrigation may be a dangerous undertaking. The consequences of incorrect planning are not evident shortly after the commencement of an irrigation project; they are only evident years later. Hon. members will know that areas where we never expected that to happen at present have serious problems in connection with brackening and such problems are being experienced, inter alia, in the Boland. I think that hon. members from this area will agree that this has become one of the major problems of irrigation. Now the question is whether in future we shall not have to conduct much more research in connection with the problem of brackening and whether we shall not have to take a much wider view thereof than in the past. I want to advance it as my considered opinion that we shall have to set about this matter with greater care and that we shall have to think more comprehensively about it or it may happen that the labour of many generations will be destroyed during the next few centuries by a problem arising from that which we have tried to do.

All these things can only be done if we have more knowledge about these matters. Now, we are aware of the fact that the Department of Water Affairs has established an Institute for Water Research in the vicinity of Pienaarsrivier and we are very grateful about that, but I just want to make the point, in view of the fact that we in South Africa have been placed in such a special position as regards our urgent need for greater knowledge, that I am afraid that our thinking in that regard will not be comprehensive enough. Water problems in the northern hemisphere and in the southern hemisphere differ considerably. There are no leading countries in the southern hemisphere which can take the lead in solving this major problem. We are the obvious country to do so. With regard to the position of Africa and our own problems which are many already, top priority must be given to research covering a very wide field. In order to be of assistance research must cover the fields of meteorological research, hydrological research, hydrophysics, hydrobiology, as well as hydrochemistry, all of which are facets of the natural sciences which bear a relation to this matter; and the question is whether we, in drafting the groundplan for the future, should not think in much more comprehensive terms, even in more comprehensive terms than the construction plan of this Institute at Pienaarsrivier. I want to make the plea that we may not save money on research in connection with this important raw material, namely water. I also believe that the Minister will have the support of this entire House when he asks for these funds in future.

In view of the fact that one of the largest consumers of water is the generators of power, and in view of the fact that power and water go hand in hand in all development, and in view of the fact that there are the two natural resources which are taken into account as one in any planning for the future, and in view of the quantity of water which has been used for generating power and which will be used to a much larger extent in the future, the position will arise that we shall require more power—which we will get—but for more power we also require more water, and the only thing which we cannot make more, is water. Now the question is this. In view of the fact that these two resources are so closely bound up with each other, has the time not arrived for power and water to be more closely linked as regards the activities of this Department?

We have learnt that there are plans for the greater utilization of atomic power. I just want to express the view that atomic power will play a very major role in our lives in the future, and we hope that if science and technology expedite the utilization of atomic power, such power will be used by this Government.

Finally, if you will allow me, Sir, I should like to make the following remark. South Africa is fast reaching the point where it has to start thinking about how it is going to divide its water between the White man and the Black man in this country. The time has arrived that we who are responsible for planning the homelands of the various population groups must draft a very comprehensive plan so that we may be able in good time to do everything which is necessary for giving every population group that share of the water of South Africa to which they have a right.

In what I have said I have not tried to anticipate the report of the Commission, as I said before. What I really tried to say is that where we are aware that the Government is engaged in many of these things, this House thanks the Government in anticipation for what it is doing and also promises the Government its support in the implementation of a major plan which the Government is drafting. We hope that in days to come water and its importance to the nation of South Africa will be elevated in our debates and in our thoughts to the place of importance which it deserves, because we can make many other things more but water we cannot make more unless science may possibly help us to do so. We can conserve and control and re-use water, but we cannot make it more. If we look ahead and anticipate the development of South Africa we would like to have, then it is necessary for us to think of what I, a short while ago, called the master water plan for the Republic of South Africa.

If the speech of the hon. member for Soutpansberg had been an oil painting, I would have called it “The Soul’s Awakening”. At last, after years and years of us on this side attempting to persuade the Government of the seriousness of the position, we have had an admission to-day of how little actually has been done. The demand is now being made for a master water plan. How long have we not asked for it? How often have we not said that the planning on the part of the Government is bad? To-day the hon. member has admitted that the planning in the past has been fragmentary. To-day I experienced instances of how this Government has been neglecting its duty in the past in regard to water conservation. I am glad that the hon. member for Soutpansberg has at last awakened to the danger of the position, but that in no way excuses the Government for its neglect in the past. I mention three instances. The first, as I have said, is the hon. member for Soutpansberg himself who, in his own motion, urges the acceleration of all plans to ensure the conservation of all water resources. He wants to accelerate the plans. In other words, he admits that they have been too slow. Go faster, he tells the Government; get a move on; why have you been so slow in the past? He has admitted that there has been fragmentary thinking in the past.

Another instance of what I might call the neglect by the Government of this important issue is what we have before us here in the House. Last year the hon. the Minister of Planning stood up in this House and explained what a vast problem this water planning was and how it involved different Ministers and Departments, each one keenly interested in the problem. Where are these Ministers who should be so keenly interested? Where is the hon. the Minister’s Deputy, who was here a few minutes ago and who last time had to carry the ball for him?

Let me mention a few of the Ministers and Departments which the Minister of Planning told us last year had an interest in this water plan. First of all, the Water Commission itself was appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister should take an interest in this important debate. The Department of Planning itself has to administer the work of this important commission. I do not see the Minister of Planning here, past, present, acting or deputy. We would have been satisfied if any one of them was here. The hon. member for Soutpansberg made important suggestions in regard to the use of atomic energy. The Atomic Energy Board falls under the Minister of Mines. ‘Where is the Minister of Mines, under whom the Geological Survey Division also falls? All these were mentioned by the Minister of Planning last year. The Minister of Economic Affairs was also mentioned last year as one who had a keen interest in the planning of water conservation. Where is he to-day? The Rand Water Board is the body responsible for dividing the water of the Vaal on the Rand and the whole big complex there. That Board falls under the Minister of Health, and I do not think we need ask where the Minister of Health is now.

The second instance of how this Government has neglected waiter planning I saw this morning when the plane was flying from Johannesburg to Cape Town and we passed over Vaaldam. The dam was full to capacity and it was overflowing to the extent of 2,600 million gallons a day. Where was all that water going? The vast proportion of it was wasted and flowing into the sea, due to the lack of planning and action on the part of the Government. If the wall of Vaaldam had been raised by only 10 feet more, that dam would have contained 45 per cent more water to-day and we would not have seen the overflow and the wastage that we saw to-day with water running into the sea, and it would not have been necessary to impose those water restrictions on the whole of the Witwatersrand. Why, in a single day, more water now flows over the wall of Vaaldam and runs into the sea than those precious drops that were conserved day by day over the months by the people and the farmers in the Vaal Triangle. All that would have been unnecessary. Does the Minister not admit that if the wall of Vaaldam had been raised in time, the overflow would not have occurred and the dam would have had a 45 per cent greater capacity? [Interjections.]

There was eight years’ delay in doing construction work in regard to the Vaaldam, until work was started on the Oppermansdrifdam. The other day we got the report of the Department of Water Affairs for the year 1964-’65. I stated that very little was done in regard to improving the capacity of Vaaldam since 1957. Here I have proof as to what was done in the latest financial year in respect of which we have figures. Under the heading “The Vaal River Circle” it is mentioned what construction work at Government water schemes in the Vaal Circle was completed or tackled during that particular financial year. I am not referring to local small works for private or local bodies, and I am not referring to surveys. I am referring to construction work at Government water schemes. What was done in that one year? Here are the facts: “Vaal Dam: Security fences and three houses for security guards were under construction and had reached an advanced stage.” That was all that was done in a single year under the new Vaal Dam plan—a couple of fences and three houses for security guards. Sir, this whole story is one of muddle in the past; it is a story of procrastination at the present time and it is a story of uncertainty in the future, and therefore I have no hesitation in moving the following amendment—

1. (a) condemns the Government for its lack of foresight in failing to take adequate steps to meet the recent drought conditions; and
2. (b) calls upon the Government immediately to publish a list of priorities in connection with water storage and conservation as a guide to the urban and rural populations of the Republic.”

Sir, I said that there had been muddle in the past. There has been muddle such as we have never seen before, and let me prove it by mentioning a few instances. I am very glad to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs is in the Chamber.

I have been here all along.

The hon. the Deputy Minister left the House for a short while. I am quite prepared to admit that he is here now. But, although we are discussing this important motion, the previous Minister of Water Affairs, the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Mines and Planning are not here.

Let us take only one project; let us take the Orange River project and look at a few of the muddles that occurred in connection with that project. Sir, we all remember the story of the bridge that was submerged. The Government claims that they have been talking for a long, long time, for decades, about the Orange River plan. The Minister of Railways went along and built a bridge near Bethulie at a cost of R600,000 to the country. It was completed in 1957. The Department of Water Affairs never told him that they had great plans for the Orange River. I do not know whether he asked the Department of Water Affairs whether they had any such plans; but a couple of years later, in 1961, according to a reply given by the Minister, he was told, “that lovely new bridge of yours is going to be under water”, and what was the result of this muddle, of this lack of planning? A deviation had to be built …

Do you want us now to lower the wall again?

Sir, listen to the hon. member! He wants to know whether we want the wall to be lowered again. We do not want the Government to lower the wall but we say that if we are to believe all their stories about the grandiose scheme that they had in mind in connection with the Orange River, then surely they should have known the futility of building a bridge which would be submerged in two years’ time. As I was saying, it meant a rail deviation of 11¼ miles for a new bridge, at a cost of R7½ million to the country, as admitted to me by the Minister of Transport, according to Hansard, 1965, col. 7164. The hon. the Minister of Transport also stated that that amount of R7½ million was recoverable from the Department of Water Affairs. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs this afternoon what the position is. His colleague said that he was going to get that amount of R7½ million from him. Has he paid this amount to the Railways? Has that amount of R7½ million possibly been hidden amongst some of the expenditure which they claim has been incurred by the Department of Water Affairs in the past? I am not making any accusations; I am asking a question.

Order! What has this to do with the motion before the House?

Sir, I am pointing out the lack of co-ordination between the Department of Water Affairs and the Railway Administration.

Order! The hon. member must return to the motion.

Sir, I will not pursue this point except to say that it was stated that this amount was recoverable from the Department of Water Affairs.

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

Having dealt with this incident of the bridge, I now come to the next instance, and that is what I regard as the muddle in regard to contracts and tenders for the Orange River scheme. There was such a muddle that a special committee of the State Tender Board had to be appointed after R9 million worth of tenders had already been given out. I believe that the chairman of the Committee of the Tender Board was a Mr. B. Verster. I do not know whether it was Mr. Victor Verster, a former Commissioner of Prisons and a capable man. After tenders to the value of R9 million had already been granted there was such a muddle that a special committee had to be appointed …

What was the muddle?

Why was it necessary to appoint a special committee of the State Tender Board to go into these particular contracts and tenders after R9 million worth of tenders had already been granted?

One can always effect an improvement if something is not too bad. They can elect a better member in your stead.

Very well, I will reply to the hon. the Minister. In reply to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in February last year, he admitted that there had been accusations of misuse of moneys and all that sort of thing in regard to contracts for the Orange River project.

Accusations, yes.

Those accusations were later found to have been unfounded, but those accusations were of such a nature that actually a prominent police commissioner, Brig. Bester, had to be appointed to go into them and he did not find that there had been any corruption; I grant the hon. the Deputy Minister that.

Where was the muddle then?

But he did say that a few errors of judgment may have been made, and when such an accusation is made against a department it behoves us to find out what those errors of judgment were, and I am asking the hon. the Minister to tell us what those errors of judgment were which Brig. Bester found in regard to contracts for the Orange River scheme. We asked the hon. the Minister’s predecessor that question and his predecessor evaded it. Possibly the hon. the Minister will now have the particulars for us.

Sir, I mentioned that there was procrastination in regard to the conservation of water at the present time. The hon. member for Soutpansberg wants further investigations; he wants further research. I am all in favour of further investigations and further research, but we must remember that there has already been a great deal of investigation and research and that the results of those investigations and of the research have been largely ignored during the past few years. Sir, here is the proof that there are files which have been forgotten and which are gathering dust in the Department of Water Affairs.

Sir, I do not know whether the hon. the Minister ever listens to a Radio programme called “Current Affairs” I do, and in Current Affairs of the 4th November of last year it was stated in regard to water plans—

Sir, these reports are there; the files are there. Why have they not been used? Sir, it took the Government 28 years before the appointment of the Water Commission was announced at the beginning of last year. It took a further six or seven months before that commission was appointed, and then that commission set to work, and its first task was to bring out an interim report. That interim report had to deal largely with the problem in the Vaal triangle. That interim report was handed to the Minister, according to Press reports, towards the end of last year or at the beginning of this year, and circularized to his Cabinet colleagues. It does seem to me a delay, which is just a little bit too long, since the appointment of this commission in July last year. It is quite clear to-day that there has not been any real decision taken in regard to construction works as the result of that interim report. You see, Sir, a newspaper of the hon. the Minister’s, Dagbreek, had reported that the Minister of Planning had said that by the end of January or by the end of December last, action would definitely be taken as a result of the recommendations contained in the interim report of the Water Commission. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether that is the case; whether Dagbreek is correct.

We had an important speech from the hon. the Minister at the opening of the Verwoerd Dam at Oranjekrag last year, where he announced the planning of “a giant scheme to give permanence to the water supply for the Rand-Pretoria-Vereeniging complex”. The Press, naturally curious, then asked the hon. the Minister whether he could give the details; he said “no”. He was asked whether he could give an outline and again he replied “no”; all he could tell them was that plans were being drawn up and were being worked on. Several weeks later I tried again here in Parliament and I put the same question to the hon. the Minister. I asked him: “What are these grandiose plans of this gigantic scheme for the Vaal River?” His reply was that it consisted firstly of the Opperman’s Drift Dam, which was being speeded up; secondly, it consisted of a promised White Paper on possible plans for the diversion of water into the Vaal River from the sources. I then asked him whether any money would actually be spent on new construction works, apart from the Opperman’s Drift Dam, in the Vaal Triangle, to conserve water there—new Government construction works—and he would not tell me. Last year his predecessor was not afraid to tell me and to say “no”. This year the hon. the Minister refuses to tell me. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor last year did not hide behind the excuse that he would be giving away a Budget secret. He said that there would be nothing on the Estimates for the Vaal Triangle apart from the Opperman’s Drift Dam.

Sir, I am asking the hon. the Minister pointedly this afternoon whether there will be anything on the Estimates, not for planning and surveys, but for the raising of the Vaal Dam wall, which, as we have seen to-day, is such an important matter. Is there anything on the Estimates for a second dam between the Vaal Dam and the Vaalhartz, which is one of the very important factors in this whole matter? I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is looking at me. We know that last year he outlined to us his grandiose scheme for the Vaal Triangle. What is happening to those plans? Sir, I am almost prepared to wager that no significant amount for actual additional constructional work in the Vaal Triangle will be provided for in the Estimates this year. I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny this and to tell us whether he has a concrete plan for the Vaal Triangle. We have this grandiose promise with regard to Oranjekrag but where is its fulfilment?

Sir, we have given the hon. the Minister money in the past; Parliament has not been chary of voting money for the expansion of water conservation projects. Again I can only go by the latest report, the 1964-’65 report which we received a few days ago and which shows that R30 million was voted in that year for Government water construction schemes. Of that R30 million no less than R10 million was not used. Is that a sign of planning and of “kragdadigheid” as indicated at Oranjekrag in November last year by the hon. the Minister?

Sir, things are going equally slowly in the Western Province. We had a shower of White Papers last year, many of them dealing with the Western Province. We know what White Papers are. Some of them can be effective; some of them can be an excuse for delays. I can give him two instances of people who are not supporters of this side of the House criticizing the Government for its lack of planning in the Western Province. The first one is Mr. André du Toit, Chairman of the K.W.V. He said in July, 1966—

But I want to come closer home. I do not see the hon. member for Paarl here. Here I have a cutting from Die Burger of August last year. In it there is a report of a speech by the hon. member which he made at Paarl. He said this—

Then he mentioned a few of these White Papers and said this—

And remember, the hon. member for Paarl is a front bencher. But, my time is running on. I do not want to go into all the staff difficulties in the hon. the Minister’s department. He knows about these staff difficulties. It is not only difficulties in regard to staff shortages, there are other difficulties too. As the responsible Minister he has to see to it that these difficulties are resolved. The last information I have in regard to staff shortages is that there were 167 posts for engineers in his department and that of those 74 were not filled; that in 1964-’66 no less than 33 South African engineers and 19 immigrant engineers that were on contract, resigned. These were statistics given in reply to a question. So, Sir, we can only say that there is indecision in so far as the future is concerned.

There are two factors that I want to mention finally which I believe is worsening the position. The one is the Bantustan policy of the Government which will make it possible in future for independent black nations to control the head waters of our biggest rivers and secondly, there is the policy of border development which can lead to the Government not doing its utmost to grant water to an important area such as the Witwatersrand, thereby cutting down industrial expansion in those areas so that industries are forced to go to the so-called border areas. As long as this country is bedevilled by the indecision of ‘this Government in hiding behind this water commission, and by its ideological measures, I fear that another disaster in regard to water shortages may well occur before the end of this Government at the next election.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove did not understand the motion, because all of us saw the motion of the hon. member for Soutpansberg as a positive contribution. The hon. member surprised me. Just as the Opposition seized on the drought last year like a bunch of opportunists, they are now suddenly seizing on the flood damages, the abundant, unprecedented rains that have fallen. When the Opposition members talk like that they make me think of people—the hon. Chief Whip said they were political shipwrecks—who are drowning politically. [Interjections.] Knowledge has nothing to do with this motion. Nothing at all. But one can appreciate that if a person who comes from Orange Grove talks about water, the lifestream of our people, it is hardly to be imagined he would ever understand such a positive motion. However, into each is given his talents. One gets fewer, the other more. And I did not want to sling mud to-day. I wanted to try to make a positive contribution as far as this motion is concerned. But if one listens to such things it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth—and that coming from a person who should really have more experience. Now I feel that although the Opposition was very far to the back of the queue when talents were handed out, I do want to give them some credit. During the period 1910 until 1948, when they as United Party were in power for the major part, they also contributed their share through their few talents. And I want to acknowledge that to-day. During their régime, a period of 38 years, they built 55 dams with a capacity of 1,210,000 morgen feet. That is fine, and one should be appreciative. From 1948 until now this Government has built 70 dams—some of them are still in the process of construction—with a capacity of more than 5 million morgen feet, at a cost of R181 million.

Now I repeat, just imagine that a man should come along with such negative stories, that this Government is doing nothing to conserve water. But I should like us to deal for a moment with the actual problem that awaits us in the future. From 1911 the physical volume of this country’s food production kept abreast of the population increase. From 1933 the production exceeded the population increase—we had surpluses. But now it is estimated that in the year 2000, with a population of 35 million, our production will not be able to keep abreast of the population increase. And if one considers these things, one wishes to start planning now and to make a positive attempt to see whether we cannot meet this problem. The Republic’s rain-water flow-off comes to 21.6 million morgen feet annually. That represents 9.3 per cent of the rainfall of this country. The rest is absorbed by the soil or evaporates. But 9.3 per cent is flow-off water. The conservation capacity of our dams is slightly less than 7 million morgen feet. Now we know about schemes and great ideas which the hon. the Minister has already announced, but if we want to see the picture in its full perspective we should consider the 395 irrigation schemes existing in this country at present, which irrigate 700,000 morgen, whereas 243,000 morgen are irrigated by pumps, from rivers, private schemes, reservoirs, storm-water and boreholes. All in all we are at present irrigating 943,000 morgen in this country. Once the Pongolapoort and Orange River schemes have been completed, the total area under irrigation will be 1.3 million morgen. Of the 123.7 million morgen available for agriculture in this country 105 million morgen, or 85 per cent of the 123.7 million morgen, are unsuitable for cultivation. These are too stony and too mountainous and are at present also allocated under grazing. There are therefore 18.6 million morgen left.

In this motion we refer to the steps that should be taken to make it possible for our children and our progeny to be fed—even after the year 2000, a time when the children at school will learn as part of their history about something that once existed, the United Party. Of those 18.6 million morgen 12 million morgen are already under irrigation to-day, including wood and wattle plantations and also orchards, and of that 40 per cent is under maize and 12 per cent under wheat. This irrigation, which I outlined to you a moment ago, is responsible for only between 15 and 20 per cent of our country’s food production. The rest is produced under dryland conditions. Now I shall gladly acknowledge that agriculture consumes water liberally. The total amount of water used by irrigation farms in the Republic is 4,000 gallons of water per day, compared with the total consumption for domestic and industrial purposes, which is only 500 million gallons. That has produced only 15 to 20 per cent of the food.

The interest on capital invested in irrigation works in this country amounts to more than a million rand a month. That shows what an expensive undertaking irrigation is. In this regard we are not buttering up the irrigation farmer or this section. It was the intention of the hon. member for Soutpansberg that we should take a realistic view of the planning, conservation and utilization of water in our country. Ours is a vital nation with great ideals, and we want to be self-supporting. We have to take care of irrigation in our country, even in the year 2000, for the sake of our children. I envisage that the day will come—and soon perhaps, and I should like to include that in the master plan—when in view of all these facts we will no longer allow the farmer to use irrigation land for growing maize, for example, when we have surpluses. The day will come when the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will decide: this may and that may not be grown under these expensive schemes.

Mr. Speaker, then we must also take into consideration the variations in temperatures from region to region in our country. In the east a crop transpires one unit of water to produce a pound of dry substance, whereas in some regions in the west that same crop transpires two units of water to produce a pound of dry substance. Once again we shall have to be guided by the experts, by the Department of Technical Services. At present it takes 455 lbs. of water to produce a pound of wheat, and 835 lbs. of water to produce one pound of lucern. All these small technical points will have to be borne in mind when we speak of water conservation in future. As regards the reclamation of drinking water and industrial water, and its re-utilization (which the hon. member mentioned), are you aware of the fact that the water of a city like Paris, with the Seine River flowing through it, has passed through human kidneys eight times? That is how it is re-utilized. It is not only here but throughout the world that water is used again and again. In time the United Party member will drink the water of the Nationalist.

In the same connection as the re-utilization of water and the conservation of our water resources, I just want to mention this. It demands planning for the future in every field, and I do not want to bore you by mentioning this again, but I also see in this motion that of the land of our country, which covers 143 million morgen, 19.5 million morgen is utilized by cities, towns, roads and railways. I ask myself the question, if we have this master plan, should we not look at the full picture and consider: Is it really necessary to plan a road with a 150-ft. road reserve and a 30-ft. buffer stroke in the centre?

To-day this may smack of theory, but in the year 2000 we shall ask ourselves: Are we utilizing the opportunities in this country to the full? We have a country with a wonderful capacity for recovery. We have gone through unprecedented droughts. In large parts of our country the shrivelled plains and dry trees were transformed within six weeks, and now those parts look like paradise. In large areas the farmer has regained his courage. I hope the other parts will also get water. But if we are filled with courage and daring at the moment, we should certainly come to grips with these things with greater determination, and adopt the best practices, fertilization and conservation in all fields, to the best of our abilities. We must realize that every dust-filled storm and every stream that is heavy with sediment is a hazard to our progeny and to our children. We asked for rain. You know how our people asked for rain, and we got it, liberally and abundantly. We should be grateful and we should show our gratitude by appreciating that ours is a country of fluctuating climatic conditions, and that the next drought will certainly come again and that we should plan for it right now.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the hon. member who has just sat down, but I shall refer immediately to his last sentence, because I want to come back to it. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister will have the opportunity of making a speech if he is able to say anything in regard to this important matter. I do not think he has anything to say about it. I do not think he is capable of doing so. But if he has, let him turn up and make his speech presently.

Order!

He is the Minister. He ought to know better, Sir. The last sentence of the hon. member who has just sat down referred to a feature which is accepted by each side of this House. That is, we have just come through a great drought but another is coming. The time to make provision for the next drought is now. Year after year these droughts come, in a lesser degree in some areas, in a greater degree in others, more widespread, less widespread, but there is complete certainty that they are coming. That is the background first to the motion, moved by the hon. member for Soutpansberg, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The matter is looked at from two different angles, but precisely the same point of view is expressed in the motion and in the amendment. Now, Sir, may I commence this afternoon by saying that I appreciate the position the hon. the Minister is in, the Minister who has just recently taken over this portfolio. He has now to carry the load which has been left to him by his predecessor, who for many years occupied the position which he has just vacated. I am sorry he is not here this afternoon. I think it would have been very much better if he was here. He is the man who is responsible for the position we are in in South Africa, because he paid no attention to the fundamental principle enunciated by the hon. member for Standerton. In regard to the hon. the Minister for Water Affairs, we have to recognize that, while we are blaming the Government because there is collective responsibility by all members of the Government, the Minister, who was responsible for this particular matter, is not here and he is no longer Minister to see the bitter fruits of the failure of himself and his department to apply themselves to dealing with the question of water conservation here in South Africa, particularly in regard to dealing with the effects of bad droughts. Water conservation is not just a matter of building dams. Water conservation in relation to the economy of South Africa and the well-being of South Africa goes very much further than just the building of dams, than the mere keeping of water at certain spots where certain waterworks have been constructed. Conservation measures are related to the whole question of water and soil conservation on the land and the holding of water in the soil itself, as well as to the question of conservation measures involving the building of dams which are primarily intended for urban and industrial areas. The other purpose of building dams is for use in irrigation activities. We have to be particularly careful to see that we do not muddle up the position of dams erected initially for irrigation purposes, and those which are really meant for supplying water to urban areas and industrial complexes. I think that the history of the Vaal Dam over the past few months showed how careful we have to be. When the two interests obtain their water from the same dam, there is immediately a conflict. My sympathy goes out to the hon. the Minister who has had to try and solve that conflict in regard to the Vaal Dam, where that exact situation arose.

We want more foresight on the part of the Government than has been exhibited in the past.

Will you please explain that last statement?

Yes, I will explain to the Minister what I mean when I say we require more foresight. I have now attempted to draw a distinction in regard to water conservation between works designed to keep the water in the soil and works designed to store water in a dam for irrigation purposes on the one hand, and on the other hand water required for an urban town and an industrial complex. Water conserved for the one purpose should be dissociated from water stored for the other purpose. Because when the industrial complex and the town receive their water from the same dam from which water is also used for irrigation purposes, then we have a conflict of interests as soon as there is a shortage of water.

I said that there should have been more foresight. Certain hon. members on that side are so fond of quoting figures. They proclaim that so many hundred million rand are being spent on dams; so many hundred million rand spent this year and in other years. I am a member of the Select Committee dealing with water affairs year after year, and what do we do on that Committee? We write off literally millions of rand every year in respect of irrigators who cannot obtain water with which to irrigate from dams in respect of which long rows of figures are quoted in this House, figures that mean nothing to me because the money has been spent, the dam has been constructed, but there is no water in it. What is the good of that?

Who is to blame for that?

Foresight is the answer. Surely the hon. Whip can understand that. He has had 18 years in which to cultivate the foresight, and that against the background of a drought which we knew was coming. It was known that the drought was coming. It was known that there would be a shortage of water unless certain measures were applied. The hon. member for Standerton has again emphasized it here this afternoon. What they do is they build a dam and then they let everything else go. The dam dries up and there is no water for irrigation. That dam does not pay for itself. It does not cover the interest and amortization charges on the capital costs. As a result the irrigators find themselves in difficulties and we on the Select Committee have to review the position year after year, receiving requests from these good people asking that charges for irrigation water be written off, irrigation water which they never had, charges with which to pay the interest and amortization payments on those works. I should like to see a private member’s motion come before this House and accepted by the Minister asking for a complete review of every single irrigation settlement throughout the whole of South Africa. We will then once and for all grapple with the problem of the irrigator who has to petition Parliament, a process which costs time and money. It diminishes irrigators’ resources to come here for assistance. It is said that one cannot get blood out of a stone. Well, one cannot get water out of a dam which has no water. We have these unfortunate people coming along year after year with their petitions. During the last session well over R1 million was written off in respect of one single scheme. The people there are living from hand to mouth and hoping that the rain will come to help them out of their difficulties.

I know that the Minister cannot make rain; I know the Government cannot make rain. Every one of these irrigation schemes should be dealt with with the necessary foresight. It has to be decided that they will provide water either for irrigation or else for an urban and industrial complex. Those are basic requirements. We have to have faith in our own country and its development. We must have faith in our country at least to the extent that we appreciate the vast development that is taking place, the speed with which this development is taking place, the growth of our population and the growth of our towns. We on this side know what we are asking when we ask that this matter be dealt with as one of priority. We should like to hear from the Government whether they agree with us when we say that the priority now is to provide for adequate water for the future during the most severe droughts in respect of those areas where we have an established population, whether it be an urban, an industrial or a rural area. It should be a matter of priority to ensure that the established population shall be ensured of their water supply in the future. Let this be a matter of top priority in South Africa, irrespective of the amount of public money now being spent under this head. Only when that is done can we go over to developing the other areas.

I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs a certain question last year, and he made me a promise. But he has not carried out that promise. I asked the Deputy Minister to tell me what they were going to use the water from the Josini Dam for. That is a development dam and that is why I asked him that question. I said that they were establishing experimental plots there now that the dam is practically completed to find out what they were going to grow with the water from the dam.

The experimental plots were established two years ago already.

That is right, Mr. Speaker. They needed at least two years to carry on with the experimental plot. How did it come about that R19 million was spent on that dam before they knew what they were going to use it for? The Deputy Minister said to me last year, “I shall tell the hon. member what we are going to grow there. Wait until he sits down, and I will tell him.” But he did not tell us. We are still waiting. I hoped that the Deputy Minister will tell us to-day what they are going to grow with the waters of the Josini dam. Will the Deputy Minister tell us whether they are going to irrigate to the east or to the west of the dam?

If you look at the White Paper you will find what will be done there.

Do they even know on what side of the mountains they are going to irrigate? Are they going to irrigate on the east?

We will irrigate where the water will go.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister does not know. A dam has been built holding thousands of millions of gallons of water, and yet he does not know what they are going to do with it. And yet they talk about planning. That is a development dam. We say that that is not right. What we need is to secure the water for the population that is already established. Thereafter we can build dams for new projects, for development projects.

I now come to the question of pollution. In regard to this matter there has been so much trouble. We must be fair and give the devil his due. The former Minister of Water Affairs—he is not here now—took a strong line in regard to a certain factory. After we had approached him about the matter over and over again he adopted a strong stand, and that was that. In my submission it is wrong, and we have always held that it is wrong, to shut down a factory after it has been established. That leads to endless trouble. A factory should be prevented from starting its nefarious work before it is even established. We should not wait until people come along and object. [Interjection.] It is not a question of the registration of factories. I will tell the Minister how to prevent it, but just let me make my speech. I say it is wrong to let a big factory come along and spend their money, R14 million, and then afterwards hammer them because they are polluting the water. The factory cannot establish itself unless it gets a permit from the Minister of Water Affairs to abstract water. That is the issue, and not the registration, and we have pleaded with the previous Minister, and I plead with this Minister, to give no permit for the abstraction of water until that factory produces a certificate from the C.S.I.R.—this is recommended in the report of the Select Committee on the Water Bill of 1956—to say that they are satisfied that this factory will produce no effluent which is noxious. You see, Sir, effluent, a million gallons or 10 million or 20 million gallons, depending on its toxicity, if that is turned into the water of a big river a long way from the sea, it can pollute the water from the point of pollution right down to the sea. It is not only the amount of effluent that is at stake; it is the amount of good water polluted by that effluent which, running down that river, pollutes all the water in the river. It is no use talking about re-using the water; it is a case of seeing that the water we have is not polluted before it has even been used once. These are the issues, and that is why we say that foresight is necessary, and why we want a list of priorities. We have explained what those priorities are and we would like to hear whether the Government agrees with that, and whether the Minister will say that development must come after we have secured the water supplies for the future in the times of greatest drought for those developed areas which we are already serving.

We now have the question arising of taking water from one watershed and pumping it into another. There is the suggestion that water be taken from the Tugela and pumped into the Vaal. This is not a matter to be dealt with in five minutes or even in a debate like this. It is much too vast a subject and much too important. If you once start moving water from one watershed to another, you are starting a certain train of events and you are creating a precedent which may have the wildest ramifications. While I am on that point, I want to mention the Oxbow scheme, in regard to which this Minister of Water Affairs said only a year ago that we could not place ourselves in the hands of a foreign nation after the way our representative had been treated in Lesotho.

I still say so.

I agree with it, but I say that when this question of taking water from one watershed to another arises, it is perhaps too easy for some people to say that we must get it from the Oxbow scheme, or we must take it from a Bantustan, from the Tugela, or from the Umzimvubu, which is in the Transkei. The Transkei and Zululand will have exactly the same principle applicable to them as applies to the Oxbow scheme in Lesotho. Sir, we have to develop what belongs to us first of all. Let us develop to the fullest extent our own water resources and find security for our own people who are established here, whether they are in the rural areas or in the urban complexes. When we have done that there will be time enough for us to go and look beyond our borders for other sources of water, for other development. I suggest that when that time comes it may be easier for us to seek water beyond our borders, but for the time being, let us stay within our borders and develop our resources to the fullest possible extent. That is the point of view of this side of the House.

It is my great pleasure to-day to express my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Soutpansberg on this constructive motion which he introduced and on the constructive way in which he discussed it. It was for me, as Minister who has only been dealing with Water Affairs for a short while, a real education to listen to him on the topic of the more general planning of our water affairs and I want to thank him very cordially for that.

Before I go any further I also want to express my gratitude for the beneficent rains which we have had and for the abundance of water we have in the country to-day. I wish to express the hope that where we are now experiencing these tremendous floods the damage will ultimately not be as bad as one expects it to be at this stage. But I want to give the assurance that whatever I as Minister of Water Affairs, together with my Department, can do to minimize the damage, will be done with all the powers we have at our disposal. I may just say that along the Orange River, where there have been serious floods, we are now making unlawful use of State equipment. I do not know whether I will get into trouble but I am now using State equipment, for which money was voted, for use on other schemes. But I must use all the powers at my disposal to save the islands in the Orange River. The embankments have been washed away and the slightest flood will destroy them completely. It is now my duty to see to it that every effort is made there. I have instructed my Department to do so even if they have to fetch equipment from other schemes. I have also given instructions that farmers may repair their canals without waiting for approval from my Department. All they have to do is notify the engineer that they are going to start working and we will subsequently assess their works with a view to subsidies, etc. But this work has to be done in all haste now and we are doing our best.

Now, as far as the hon. member for Soutpansberg is concerned, I want to say that he made a very serious mistake in regard to this question of salinization. I do not know what happened before my time but I am now insisting that whenever we build dams proper soil surveys have to be made. Yesterday I had to deal with a case where people were exerting pressure on me to begin building a dam before soil surveys had been completed. The argument was that the dam could only irrigate 600 morgen, that there were thousands of morgen available and that the land there must necessarily therefore be good land. I shall see to it that if it is humanly possible soil surveys will be made in advance. We must be certain about the quality of the soil before building a dam. I am in agreement in regard to the question of pollution. It is a very serious matter. The hon. member for South Coast also feels very concerned about the pollution of water by factories. No one could be more concerned about the prevention of water pollution than my Department, but it is a difficult question. The hon. member for Zululand said for example “that we should not give out a permit to an industry before that industry can prove by means of a report from the C.S.I.R. that the effluent will not be poisonous”.

The hon. member for South Coast; not the hon. member for Zululand.

I am sorry; I meant the hon. member for South Coast. I know that Zululand chose a better man! Sir, I do not know whether we can go as far as that but we will do everything that is humanly possible to prevent our streams from being polluted by effluent from factories.

*The hon. member for Soutpansberg also raised a point and stated that the reconsumption of water should be speeded up. He is correct, but I nevertheless want to tell him that a little while ago I read a report in which an expert stated that the reconsumption of water was very expensive as long as there was still a possibility of damming up natural water. The damming up of natural water is cheaper than the reconsumption of water but many of our factories have already resorted to the reconsumption of water.

The hon. member also posed a very interesting, practical question. He asked whether we were not building our dams too small and whether we should not build our dams to full capacity immediately. My reply to that is: “No, I do not think so.” I do not think it will be economic to build a dam of a size which is not justified by the demand for water from that dam at the present moment for this reason that we will then be storing water there—and the storage of water is expensive—which will be lost through evaporation. I am also in favour of our building dams for the sake of security and that those dams should be able to store water for a longer period than a year or so, but to build dams which have to store water for too long a period is uneconomical as a result of the fact that there is so much evaporation. The minimum evaporation in our country is here in the vicinity of Table Mountain and Cape Town, and the evaporation here is more than 38 inches per annum. The average evaporation in the country is more or less that of the Kalkfontein Dam at Riet River, and there it is 74 inches per annum. The maximum evaporation is at Rietfontein on the border of South West Africa, and there it is 119 inches per annum. The evaporation at the Vaal Dam is 67 inches per annum, or 139,000 morgen feet, or 15.6 per cent of the full capacity of the dam’ Evaporation is a tremendous factor in out country. When we were experiencing the water shortage I had the Secretary for Water Affairs with me almost every day. We made plans and I asked him to furnish me with short-term plans, apart from the normal planning, to save water. One of the items he mentioned as a possibility was the spraying of dams with a certain type of alcohol, but they were not yet certain whether it would be successful. I immediately gave instructions for the spray to be ordered at once so that we could perform the experiment, because someone in South Africa had to carry out the experiment and the State was the right body to do so. I am very glad to be able to report that we have saved more or less 15 million gallons of water per day since we commenced spraying. The spraying has cost us 8c per thousand gallons, which is very reasonable. I do not think that it would be economical to build dams to their full capacity, but while we are discussing that matter I nevertheless want to raise this point here to-day. I think the hon. member for Soutpansberg also said something in this direction. In future when we are planning dams my instructions to the Department are going to be that the inflow of the dam is going to be determined as if complete soil conservation works have already been established above the dam. That will entail that in the beginning of the life of that dam there will be more water in that dam than the quantity for which the dam was planned. But ultimately when the soil conservation works are finally completed then that dam will have the water capacity and the inflow for which it was planned. I may just mention that we are at this moment engaged in making very great attempts to protect the Orange River dams against silting up. Prodigious efforts are being made in regard to soil conservation schemes, schemes in which the State are subsidizing the costs of those works up to 90 per cent, but it is my contention that where the State is undertaking the construction work there, the State will simply have to accept that the conservation of the area of those dams will most probably cost more than the construction of the dams themselves. I want to assume that the conservation of the areas feeding the Orange River dams will ultimately cost more than the construction of the dams themselves.

The catchment areas.

Yes, the areas feeding the dams. Mr. Speaker, I was driving across the Caledon River last week and my chauffeur said to me: “It is not water flowing down there; it is mud.” We shall simply have to make a hugh effort to keep our streams of water flowing into these large catchment areas unmuddied or do something to make them less muddy. It is easy to say that we should rather have begun with this or that. One usually begins too late with whatever is good in the world. That is simply the way things are. One either begins too late or the timing is wrong. The reproach is being hurled at us that we should have built the dams sooner, then they would have been full to-day. But another tragedy is that the hon. member for South Coast and I do not always agree on when a certain thing should be tackled; the one is too late and the other is too early. We can do nothing about that; that is simply the position. The State is engaged in large-scale planning. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke in his usual way where he exaggerates all the points he makes. He went on and on in that vein this afternoon and it is beginning to become a farce. The hon. member for Orange Grove, as the Englishman says, “overstated his point”. He always exaggerates. The hon. member stated here this afternoon that we had made a muddle. In that case I want to describe the hon. member’s speech as a muddle. I have never heard a worse muddle than that in my life. What are the points the hon. member made? He began by putting up a great performance about scandals or what have you which had allegedly taken place in regard to the tenders for the Orange River scheme. What was the end result of his own speech? It was to the effect that an enquiry had been made and that it had been found that nothing was wrong. He then said, “If there was nothing wrong, why was a special board appointed to consider those tenders in future?” If the Government and the Minister of Water Affairs think that they are able to improve on their own system, they are not only compelled to do so, they are also entitled to do so. I have never in my life been ashamed to improve on what I had done in the past. That is why I like committees of enquiry, not because I want in that way to disparage what has been done in the past or admit that what had been done in the past was bad, but, as a new Minister for example, I like committees of enquiry in regard to my affairs because they afford me the opportunity of developing along with the findings of that commission. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove is talking about a muddle. I cannot understand what this “muddle” was. There was no scandal and there was nothing wrong, but we have now put another system into effect which will prevent anything from going wrong.

May I ask the hon the Minister a question? Why does the hon. the Minister not tell us what those errors of judgment were to which Brig. Bester referred in regard to contracts?

I know nothing about those errors of judgment. The whole point is that there was nothing wrong. Errors of judgment can occur every day. Take for example what happened in Orange Grove with the election. What did the voters do? A worse example one cannot find.

The hon. member for Standerton, in his customary way, made a neat, well-thought-out speech. I do not think it can be improved upon and I do not think I can reply to it. I just want to tell the hon. member that it was an instructive speech and I thank him for it. In regard to my old friend the hon. member for South Coast. I want to say that he gets very concerned about a matter.

†I must acknowledge that I could not follow him too well this afternoon.

You probably weren’t listening.

No, I was listening all the time and I did my very best to listen. But I think I will go and sit over there when you speak next time because I will be able to follow the hon. member better there. I am not a youngster and my hearing is not so good any more. I want to say that the hon. member for South Coast put this question to me: Will I agree that it is our policy to give top priority to supplying the established areas with the necessary water? In other words, will I acknowledge that we will supply the established areas with the necessary water and that I will not agree to supplying water to newly developing areas? I cannot agree to that. I can never agree to that. I cannot be a party to over-concentration in certain areas. From a military point of view, for instance, it is absolutely wrong to over-concentrate in a few areas in South Africa. I want to put this question to the hon. member for South Coast. If we have only four or five concentrated areas in South Africa where all the development is taking place, what is the danger factor during the time of war?

I never suggested that. I am sorry but the hon. the Minister has missed my point altogether. I never suggested concentration.

But you want me to state that it is top priority to supply water to the established areas, to the thickly populated areas, as the hon. member called it.

No, I said “including the rural areas which are irrigation schemes where there is an established rural population with an irrigation scheme, a large town or an industrial area”. Wherever you have developed areas and there are people, give them security as to their water supply before we go spending millions of rand on developing another area altogether so that if a drought comes, the people who were there first get protection and security. I am not advocating concentration in a few areas of development. I am not advocating that.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to make another speech. The hon. the Minister must please proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is my policy as far as possible to see to it that where people have already spent money and where there is the greatest concentration of people and industry, to supply the necessary water for farming or industrial purposes or for whatever other purposes they need it.

You agree with me then?

Yes, partly, but it is very dangerous to agree with the hon. member. I must emphasize again that we must develop our country overall and for that reason we must also supply water to those areas which have been neglected up to now.

*I just want to touch upon one other little point, the same one on which the hon. member for Soutpansberg touched on, and that is the speedy application of atomic power. Now I just want to say that it has nothing to do with me, but I am very fond of day-dreaming. The hon. member for Soutpansberg said that we could increase the supply of everything except water. I do not want to agree with him on that point. Science may improve our water position in the future by the desalination of sea water or the seeding of clouds. I cannot say for certain, but science may improve our water position in the future. But what science will never be able to do is to give South Africa more land. For that reason I believe that when we think in terms of conserving or storing water in South Africa we must necessarily link it up with the conservation of the soil. That is my contention. I will, as long as I am Minister, do everything in my power, and have my Department do the same, to make soil conservation the basis of our water conservation. That is how I see it. Since the Vaal Dam and our other dams are now full, I want this afternoon to make an appeal to everybody. In eighteen months’ time work on the Oppermansdrift Dam ought to have progressed so far that it will be able to hold water. We are working on that dam with tremendous speed. During the year the state gave me almost R3 million extra to expedite the work there. As far as other planning for the Vaal River is concerned, we know that the first scheme to be planned, if my memory serves me correctly, is the Vaal Dam as it is at present. The second is the Oppermansdrift Dam. The third is another dam between the two. The fourth is the raising of the Vaal Dam above its present height. That is not to say that the provision of water to the Witwatersrand complex should be seen in this precise order. If I hear of a better scheme or if the Water Commission suggests a better scheme to us than one of these four, or one of the remaining three, I shall recommend to the Government that we tackle the other scheme.

What do they say in their interim report? Did they not make any recommendation?

The interim report is not yet available to us. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove is greatly upset because that is so. Cannot the hon. member realise that to enquire into a water scheme does not take a mere half-hour? In the case of those schemes, boreholes are now being sunk to test the foundations. How long does the hon. member for Orange Grove think it will take to plan things like that? Water planning is not a question of a half-hour. It takes a long time to plan a waterhead, let alone water. In regard to the Water Commission, which commenced its activities last year, I just want to tell the hon. member that when one appoints a commission of that nature, one appoints a commission on which people of status serve, not people whom one can collect and bring together when one pleases for any bagatelle. They are busy people. That is why it is not so easy to have such a large, comprehensive commission such as that one operating continually and rapidly. Tremendous progress has already been made. If that commission has an acceptable scheme to supply water to that complex at a more rapid rate within a year’s time, I will not be afraid to go to the Government. Even if it is not in the Estimates now, I will get that money if it is necessary. Merciful Providence has now filled our dams. If the inflow for the next year is what it was in the driest year in our history—I think it was round about 1932—if it is as low at that in the coming year, we still have enough water to last us to the beginning of 1969. We have learnt from past experience. If it becomes necessary I shall again call for water conservation. After all, we have a decent public in South Africa. They have in the past reacted favourably to my requests. They know how busy I am supplying South Africa with water. If I have another shortage, and I make another appeal to them, they will again say “yes” as they did in the past. I am still quite popular when I walk in the streets in Pretoria. There are not many women who are angry with me because the flower-gardens went without water. Uncle Joos does not stand a chance if he were to walk beside me there.

Order!

I beg your pardon, Sir. It is a private matter between the hon. member and myself. I want to conclude, and I want to thank the hon. members who spoke on this motion very cordially for the serious way in which they discussed the question of water here this afternoon. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that when we are dealing with serious matters we must try and discuss them objectively. That sort of criticism which the hon. member expressed here this afternoon does not do any good. Nobody takes it seriously. I do not think the hon. member’s own side takes it seriously. There is absolutely nothing for me to say about it, except to say that I never in my life heard a greater “muddle”.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the remarks and the words of sympathy which the hon. Minister expressed to those people who suffered terrific damage as a result of these floods. I happen to know the Orange River and I have seen the damage of previous floods. As this flood was the biggest ever, I have every reason to believe that the damage along the Orange River, especially near Upington and those parts, must be very severe. Floods do not only break the walls. They make new channels through these people’s lands. They carry silt on to the lands up to five feet deep. They cover everything that is on the lands and the people, apart from having to prepare the lands again, have to replant everything. The damage is very severe. I am pleased that the Minister is acting immediately in order to do something for those people and to rehabilitate them as soon as possible.

I should just like to raise a point which was raised by the hon. member for South Coast in connection with the use of water. The hon. member for South Coast suggested that the Minister should not give a permit for the abstraction of water to a factory unless that factory has a certificate from the C.S.I.R. that factory will not pollute the water. I think that is correct. The permit should not be issued without such a certificate. It would be entirely wrong to give. a man a permit to abstract water, and when he has built his factory costing millions or rands, find that he pollutes the water and that he has to close down his factory. I think the hon. the member for South Coast was quite right.

I thought so, too, at the time, but I thought it was rather dangerous to say “Yes”.

The motion of the hon. member for Soutpansberg is something like the curate’s egg, good in parts. We agree with him when he urges the acceleration of all plans to ensure the conservation, protection and realistic utilization of all water resources. I shall not go into that, because the hon. member for Orange Grove made that point. That part of the motion is good and we agree with it. We cannot, however, agree with the other part because the motion is bad in parts. We do believe that the Government should have been able to foresee many of the difficulties caused by the drought. I want to deal with a particular aspect. I want to confine myself to the Western Province, and particularly to the fruit-producing areas in the Western Province. The fruit-producing areas are more or less the De Doorns Valley, the Berg River Valley, Worcester and those areas around there. I want to confine myself to those areas. The industries in those areas have been built up by the farmers without much assistance from the State. They have pioneered the work themselves. Admittedly they have received aid in the form of research work done by the State. But not enough has been done by a long way. Far more research work should be done than is being done. Farmers are always clamouring for more research work, and their requests should be acceded to. For the rest those farmers by way of their own initiative and their own research have built up a fine industry in the fruit industry in this country. The industry in 1961 produced 153,000 tons of fresh fruit. Over a period of five years this was increased to 307,000 tons. The fruit production was doubled in that period. But at present the increase in production is slowing down very much. I believe that it is estimated that in ten years’ time the production figure will be 400,000 tons, and that is a very slow increase. Fresh fruit exported last year brought in foreign exchange to the value of R50 million. I mention these figures to illustrate the importance of this industry as far as South Africa is concerned.

But now these people have reached the stage where they find that the development of this important industry is being handicapped by the lack of water. I do not think there has been a big water conservation scheme in the Western Province for the last 20 years or even more. I think the Clanwilliam dam was the last big scheme in the Western Province, from the farmer’s point of view. The Wemmershoek dam was of course built, but the intention there was to supply water to Cape Town.

We are supplying Cape Town with more water now.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and, of course Cape Town needs more water now. The city’s consumption is increasing to the extent of 3 million gallons per day compared to the consumption last year. Therefore the city needs more water, and I can quite appreciate that the city must receive more water which the Government must supply. That is one of the priorities which a settled community requires.

A small scheme was built, I think, in the Berg River area. The scheme was completed by the farmers themselves. The Government loaned them the money, but the initiative was entirely theirs and at present water is being pumped out of the Berg River into a dam, from which irrigation of those areas is undertaken.

It has been established that if fruit, such as table grapes especially, and also wine grapes, can get sufficient water during the summer months, apart from the rains, it increases the fertility of those vines by 100 per cent. Therefore I want to make the point that it is absolutely essential that farmers in those areas should have sufficient water to give their crops additional water through the summer months. The Paarl River Valley requires about 12 inches during the four summer months, and in De Doorns I believe about 20 inches are required. Therefore I think that it is so necessary that schemes should be undertaken immediately for providing water for a settled community as well as for development purposes. I have already made the point the additional water will double the production of the already established vines and grapes. Additional water is required to give us the additional production. But there are vast areas in both the Paarl Valley and De Doorns which can still be cultivated. These two areas, especially the Hex River Valley, I suppose, are as fertile as any other area in the world. Perhaps the Californian soil is a little better. But with our climatic conditions those areas are equal to any fruit-producing area in the whole world. Therefore I want to stress that it is absolutely necessary that we should get on with water conservation schemes there.

The farmers in the De Doorns valley are people with plenty of initiative. They have made boreholes and built a couple of dams in which to keep their water. However, those dams do not amount to very much and only a few of them have such dams because they do not have the necessary space. Up to now they have had to rely on boreholes. The hon. the Minister in his Worcester, speech referred to them. He said that the water table of those boreholes has sunk from something like 120, 130, or 140 feet to as much as 400 or 500 feet. The result is that farmers can only pump a fifth or a sixth of the amount of water that they pumped before, and that at double the cost. Consequently those people cannot obtain the additional water which they require.

But we are building a big dam there now.

Yes, a dam is being built on the Sanddrif River. But, Sir, the scheme was started long ago, and from what I understand it is so far from completion that I feel that in this case much greater “kragdadigheid” should have been shown. In 1959 the dam was sanctioned, in 1962 building operations started, and my information is that the scheme is not even half-way yet, and that it will take a long time to complete it. I do not think that there are sufficient workmen busy at the scheme. The Minister can tell me whether he is applying the Deputy Minister’s policy there, namely of having one White man for one Bantu. One feels that this policy is in fact being applied there because the progress being made is very small. I hope that the Minister will investigate this matter to see whether he cannot expedite matters, because it is absolutely essential that the completion of the dam be expedited.

In the Hex River valley there are farmers who, as a result of the drought and the fact that they cannot water their export grape vines, are losing those vines. There are farmers in that area who produced 20,000 cases of grapes for export, but who now only produce 2,000. Those farmers will go under. There are numbers of smaller farmers who will go under because they cannot supply the extra water that is so necessary during the summer period. In the Nonna Over-Hex area it is so dry, that I believe there are farmers who do not have drinking water. Something must be done, Sir.

They are getting water from the dam.

They are going to receive half of the dam’s supply. But by using half the dam’s supply will mean that there will not be sufficient water left for the former users. The other scheme Buffelshoek should be built in the other kloof in that area. That scheme should be built for those people; it will also contain additional water for Worcester. I want to emphasize that these schemes should be planned immediately. They are essential right now. The people are suffering under the drought, they are losing their vines, and therefore this work should be done immediately.

The Berg River Valley project has been investigated time and again. The farmers there have also shown initiative. They have had engineers planning the scheme, and according to them there are large pieces of ground available for irrigation purposes. All that is required is the building of the necessary dams to ensure that their own lands, their own vines and other crops will receive sufficient water for increased production and also for use in new areas to be brought under irrigation.

According to engineers’ reports there are at least another 20,000 morgen of the finest soil in the world which can be bought under irrigation when the Berg River scheme materialises. The production of export and other products will be boosted, and therefore this scheme should be tackled at once so that the extra land can be brought under irrigation. Our foreign exchange position will also benefit to no mean extent when this has been done.

I suppose the question of markets comes into the picture. It is necessary to find the necessary markets if we are to have increased production. I believe that markets in this country can be increased. I also believe that the markets overseas can be extended. I believe that, even though Britain may join the European Common Market, we will still find markets in Europe for our products.

Britain’s joining the Common Market will not mean the end of the world for us.

That is my contention also. We will still find the markets for our products. I believe that we have opened up markets in Canada, where in 1962 we sold only 25,000 boxes of grapes whilst in 1964 we sold as many as 300,000 boxes. If we continue to produce the right article, if we can produce a first-class article, then those people will buy our goods. I believe that we have markets in North America, in the United States, provided we continue sending our best, first-class fruit.

You should always talk like that.

That can only be done if the necessary water is available. If I must always “so praat” then I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will now make a plan to supply the necessary water to those areas.

I think that the Government must get on with the job. I do not want to hear about how little was done in the days of the United Party and how much was done since the Nationalist Party took over. Those figures mean nothing to me. Circumstances were completely different. In the one case there was a war, in the other case there was not a war. In the United Party days preparations were made for tremendous industrial expansion. In those days the value of money was three times its present value. Therefore the comparable figures quoted by hon. members on that side mean nothing to me. Let us rather get on with the job. I maintain that this Government is not getting on with the job expeditiously enough. They should get on with it much faster.

Mr. Speaker, in the discussions about water this afternoon, the hon. member for Orange Grove in particular lost his way and landed in the mud. The hon. the Minister gave the hon. member advice as to how to stay out of it in future, and I hope that the advice sinked in and that we shall therefore no longer have this problem in the future. Therefore I do not want to pause at the points raised by hon. members on the other side. I want to come back to the motion as it was introduced here, and I want to say that I consider it to be a particular privilege to be able to look back at this stage at what happened during this state of crisis, and how, through the agency of the Department of Water Affairs, the Minister and the Government left no stone unturned in rendering a wonderful service over a long period of tension and frustration, in doing their best for the country and its population under those difficult circumstances. That is why I want to emphasize all of this once again and express my thanks and appreciation along with the other hon. members—also the hon. member for Soutpansberg who introduced this motion— to the hon. the Minister. At the same time I want to tell the Minister that along with him we are all rejoicing over the relief which came in the form of welcome rains. A month or so ago I heard that he had said that the Vaal Dam would overflow yet. That is why all of us are glad along with him that the Vaal Dam, which is actually a cause of anxiety to him, does in fact overflow at present, and that the Minister is now able to give further thought to planning and other work which lies ahead.

Now that this period of crisis has passed, it is necessary for us to pause and to think so that the lessons the drought taught us, may be applied to our best advantage. We must learn from that; we must derive benefit from that. It is necessary for us to adopt a very objective attitude towards this matter. If we look at the annual report of the Secretary for Water Affairs for the period 1964-’65, we see that even then the warning was sounded that the drought in certain parts of the country was the worst in the past 100 years. I do not think we can afford to plan too much for this extremely low point. We must be realistic. I think the Minister replied very clearly to that aspect. It will be too expensive to plan for these very lowest points. We must be realistic and undertake the practical. I want to suggest that, having taken note of our limitations and the fact that the lowest points also determine our potential to a large extent, and having taken note of the fact that the average flow-off of our rivers in this country is in the vicinity of 18 million to 20 million morgen feet per annum, while only 7 million morgen feet of that can really be utilized, used and harnessed, it is necessary for us to consider how we are going to plan. That is why the water commission was appointed. I have the fullest confidence, Mr. Speaker, that with the thorough study in which they are engaged, it will also gradually become apparent to us what methods are the best, the cheapest and the most advantageous for the country as far as the storage of water and priorities are concerned, and even as far as the generation of electricity is concerned. I think this is an aspect which has been left in abeyance up to now. I am convinced that all of us will derive benefit from the appointment of this commission. and that the commission is going to be of great value and assistance to the Minister and his Department.

We have heard a great deal about planning. However, we may not content ourselves with planning only. What is to me an important aspect and something I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, is the following: We have one body in this country which has been responsible over the years for the planning of water supplies, for construction and for administration. I am referring to the Department of Water Affairs. I think very few of us have estimated the tremendous task of the Department of Water Affairs at its true value before this drought, and in view of what has happened, there may perhaps still not be enough of us who are doing so. Therefore it is necessary for the Minister to give serious attention to that Department. I want to mention to you that the Department has been given more and more responsibilities through the years. In terms of the old Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act of 1912, it was the Department of Irrigation and Water Conservation. In 1956 this Department was given new recognition in the Water Act, and it was also called the Department of Water Affairs, whereas previously it was known as the Irrigation Department. By passing the 1956 Act, the State accepted an important principle, namely to exercise control over the water resources of the country. The Department of Water Affairs was charged with that task. If we analyse the position, we gradually come to the conclusion that it is a very complicated task. Hence the fact that the Department of Water Affairs is mainly a technical department. If we carry out a survey of the staff, we shall find, in the first instance, that quite a number of them are used for construction work. Some of them are also used for research and guidance. It is a department which provides an extensive series of services. The Department employs more than 100 engineers. One of the problems of this Department is the great number of vacancies. The Department had to compete with the private sector for the services of these highly skilled people. I have already mentioned that they are people who are in many respects performing exceptionally specialized work. They do the reconnaissance, the planning, the surveys—everything as far as water affairs in this country are concerned. There is a tremendous shortage and the Department has to compete with other sectors.

We also find that the engineering field is one of the most difficult fields of study. In other words, the number of students it attracts is also limited. Remuneration for the services of these people is particularly high in the private sector, especially because of our relative prosperity. That is why I also want to congratulate the Department on being able to compete so successfully that they still have 119 full-time engineers on their establishment. I want to pay tribute to those people who are carrying out that important function for the Department. Over the years I have visited a considerable number of these construction schemes and made the acquaintance of the engineers, and it is necessary to realize that these highly trained and competent people are rendering a wonderful service. They are really responsible for the fact that the Department of Water Affairs is not merely a research department; it is also an administration department which watches over the life-artery of our country in terms of this important Water Act. In addition it has virtually become one of the largest construction enterprises in our country. Not only do they see to it that our dams are planned, but also that they are built. Therefore I want to make a special appeal to the Government to reconsider the entire position of the Department of Water Affairs and to see to what extent the engineering corps of highly skilled and specialized people can be reinforced even further. It does not help to do all the planning in the world, to have all the fine theories about pipelines and taps which we must merely open in order to have water everywhere, if we do not have the manpower to carry out such planning. We have heard that in certain years amounts were voted which were not used. If the funds are made available it is necessary for us to have the people to utilize them to the full and to the greatest advantage of the country.

I felt that it might perhaps be necessary in future to make greater use of private enterprise in the construction of our dams, canal networks and other water construction works. However, I have come to the conclusion that the Department of Water Affairs has succeeded in carrying out these construction works much more cheaply than private people would have been able to do. The Minister and the Department should be congratulated on that. That is why I want to plead for the retention and the further development of this Department, in order that we may continue to have this service provided much more cheaply. I may add that most of our cheaper dam sites in this country have already been utilized. We are now passing on to the larger, the more intricate and the more expensive construction works. That is another reason which makes it necessary for us to concentrate the best brains in that Department.

A final aspect I want to emphasize is the fact that, as a result of the 1956 Act being passed and the fact that the State, through the agency of the Department, accepts responsibility for the water resources of our country, we must see to it and the State must see to it that the methods used in the allocation of water are absolutely beyond suspicion. Therefore it is necessary for us to show the public outside that the State is implementing that power which was granted to it by this Parliament to the greatest advantage of our country and with the greatest care.

In addition it is not only necessary for the technical staff of the Department of Water Affairs to be strengthened to the very highest degree, but also for the administrative section of that Department to be extended as far as possible. I feel that if anything should be wanting in even one of the sections of this Department, the country and its people as well as the development of our water resources would suffer.

With these few thoughts I want to express my thanks once again to the Government and the Department for everything that has been done, and I want to express the hope that they will continue to build and that, for the benefit of our country and people, the Department of Water Affairs will be made much more proficient in these two spheres.

Mr. Speaker, there is very little time left before the House adjourns, but I do want to say that the Minister jumped the gun on me, because I also want to associate myself with his remarks about and his thanks for the lovely rains that we have had in this country. I also say that we pray that those still drought-stricken areas in the Cape and in Zululand will also get rain in the very near future. As far as the people who have suffered in the Upington complex, near the Orange River, are concerned, I want to go one further and say that we sympathize with those who have become bereaved on account of these floods. I am very glad to hear from the Minister that it is his intention to compensate those people who have suffered there. I can only say that I sincerely hope that the compensation will be adequate to allow of their rehabilitation to what it was before the flood.

We admit that both droughts and floods are endemic to South Africa. I think of the 1925 floods when twice as much water as goes down the Victoria Falls went down the Aughrabies Falls. A few years later, in 1933, not a single drop went over the lip of the falls.

In South Africa water is our limiting factor. By interjection hon. members have asked what has been done over the past eighteen years. I want to go back further than the past eighteen years. I am quite happy to go back 45 years. I wonder what hon. members would have said if they could have seen the now famous complex of the Witwatersrand that the Vaal River then had to feed. In those days there were only a few houses—not even towns around the main headgears of the mines on the East Rand and the West Rand. It was the Smuts government that built the Vaal Dam.

That is not correct.

Yes, it is. I think that at the time the dam was adequate. But to-day things have advanced so rapidly and the area has become industrialized to such an extent that the catchment area is not adequate to fill the Vaal Dam. Other sources should be found so that more water can be pumped into the dam to fill it. If the wall is raised by some ten feet—as the Minister says he intends doing—then I can well imagine how much waiter will have to be pumped into the Vaal Dam to ever make it overflow again.

One hon. member asked the hon. the Minister whether the commission of inquiry had submitted an interim report. The Minister replied in the negative. It is not my intention to pull the Minister up about it, but I asked him a question on this aspect to which I got a reply on the 3rd February, 1967. The answer was as follows—

But the Minister was not prepared to state the facts of that report because it would have interfered with certain negotiations that the Government were conducting with certain other bodies about this matter.