I move—

In terms of the present provisions of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951, read with the provisions of the same Act as amended in 1966, a general election of Coloured representative members of the House of Assembly shall be held on a date not later than 63 days after 31st October, 1967, i.e., not later than 2nd January, 1968. In terms of the latter Act, however, the State President has the power to advance the date of such a general election in his discretion to any date earlier than 2nd January, 1968, which he deems fit. This provision was inserted in the Act with a view to the fact that the Select Committee to which the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill was referred was to have reported and that the matter would therefore have received further attention during the present Session.

On 13th October, 1966, the Select Committee in question was converted into a commission by the State President to inquire into and to report and make recommendations before 30th March, 1967, in connection with the matters to which this Bill relates and any other matters affecting the political representation of the respective population groups.

In view of the great public interest in this matter and the fact that all the members of the commission are members of the House of Assembly and have numerous Parliamentary obligations, the State President consented that the commission continue with its inquiry after the present Session of Parliament and report before 30th November, 1967. In terms of the above-mentioned statutory provisions a general election of these members of the House of Assembly shall be proclaimed before 7th November, 1967. It is consequently clear that it is necessary to extend the term of office of the present members until this House has had an opportunity to consider the recommendations of the commission. Under the circumstances this will be possible during the next session at the earliest.

Because it is impossible to determine at this stage whether the commission will in fact complete its investigation on or before 30th November, 1967, or what its recommendations will be, or what administrative actions will flow from them, recommendations which may perhaps take a considerable space of time to put into operation, there is a possibility that the extension by only a further year of the term of office of the members of the House of Assembly who are concerned in this may perhaps not be adequate.

At this stage it is impossible to determine any date, even approximately, on which such an election could take place. There is, however, a real possibility that after the next session administrative or other problems may arise which will require the attention of this House by legislation, only during 1969, but then the term of office of the members in question will have expired and the House of Assembly will not be properly constituted if the election has not taken place.

It is consequently proposed that the term of office of the present members should be extended by a further period of two years, to 30th October, 1969, but that, as at present provided in the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act, 1969, the State President shall retain the power to shorten this extended term of office to an earlier date, if necessary. I move.

We on this side of the House will support this Bill at the Second Reading because we accept first of all that the Select Committee has been unable to complete its task. The hon. the Minister said it was unable to complete its task because of public interest in the matters it was considering. I believe that means that there has been so much evidence placed before it, and there is still so much evidence for it to hear, that it has not been possible to complete its deliberations. I think that is a healthy sign, but at the same time it is a pity that we have to have this prolongation. I also want to say that I am still satisfied that no election which means anything can take place on the rolls as they exist at present, and I believe that steps have to be taken to see that that position is rectified. I am also convinced that after the report of the Select Committee is submitted, whatever that report may be, whether it involves a new system of representation or not, or a new system of cleaning the rolls or not, it is going to mean a tremendous amount of work by the Department concerned, work which I believe will require at least 12 months. That is the position, and quite obviously we may, and we probably will, run into the position that we cannot possibly have elections until after October next year. If we cannot have elections before October next year, it seems to me that perhaps the right thing to do is to extend the life of these members now for two years, bearing in mind always that the State President has the right to anticipate that date, in the event of the work being completed earlier and the recommendations and the necessary legislation, if there is to be legislation, being before this House before that time. We all hoped to have an answer to this problem earlier, but that hope has been dissipated. I do appreciate the difficulties, however, and I feel it is worth while waiting to get an answer which may be satisfactory to all sides of this House. In those circumstances we are prepared to support the Second Reading.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it was a pity that there should be a prolongation of the delay in the election of Coloured Representatives. I do not say it is a pity; I say it is a disgrace. This is the third time that this farce is being enacted in this House, and perhaps it is a good idea if I remind hon. members of some of the sordid history attaching to the Bill we are considering to-day.

This whole question of a postponement of the Coloured elections started in March, 1965, and it started for the simple reason that the Provincial Council seats were won by the Progressive Party. The Government took fright at this, and the Opposition also took fright because it was realized full well that if the Coloured elections took place when they should have taken place, last year when this House was re-elected, there is not the slightest doubt that the Coloured people would have chosen four completely different representatives for this House. From that time onwards we have had nothing but machinations and attempts to try to find some way out of the Government’s dilemma, and we have had all sorts of postponements. We first of all had that little amending Bill introduced in 1965 which divorced the Coloured elections entirely from elections of white representatives to Parliament. The excuse given at the time by the then Minister of Coloured Affairs was that it was necessary that the Coloured people should not be embroiled in the main issues that confronted the voters of South Africa at a general election, quite different, I might say, from the promises which had been given way back when the Coloured people lost their votes on the Common Roll and were given separate representation in Parliament. At that time they were promised, of course, that their elections would take place within a short time of the elections for the white representatives, and that they were to be considered part of the main stream of South African political life, and that the only difference there would be in so far as their representation was concerned was that they would get “four winners instead of 55 also-rans”.

That was the promise made way back in the 1950s, but of course when the hon. the Minister came along in 1965 and introduced the Bill which changed the time period of the Coloured elections and postponed those elections, he said it was necessary to divorce the Coloured people entirely from the political main stream; they were not to be embroiled in the issues that confront the so-called presumably responsible members of the South African voting society. Therefore the election was postponed and the Coloured election did not take place last March when the elections for this House took place. The other interesting reason given was that the Minister said that it was far better that there be a specific five-year period, so that the Coloured people would know exactly where they were. After all, the white voters could expect elections to be held to decide certain burning issues of the day, and those elections could take place in a shorter period than the five-year period laid down by our Electoral Act, but this was not to be “imposed” on the Coloured people. They were to have a fixed five-year period and therefore their election was postponed until October of last year in order to complete the five-year period. At that time the official Opposition opposed that Bill. They opposed it in the strongest possible parliamentary fashion. They moved an amendment and the spokesman was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who is sitting in the House to-day, and he moved that the Bill be read this day six months, the strongest form of parliamentary objection to a Bill.

The hon. member advanced some very cogent arguments when he opposed that particular Bill. He said that he was not deceived by all these specious reasons set forth by the hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill. This five-year period did not mean anything and he saw no reason why the Coloured people should be divorced from the general elections for white representatives. He called the Bill a piece of political manipulation. Those were his exact words. The whole of the official Opposition voted against that Bill at the Second Reading and the Third Reading. The Coloured representatives, who are conspicuous by their absence to-day, and I presume that they are recusing themselves because they have a personal interest in this Bill, did not recuse themselves in 1965. On the contrary the hon. member for Peninsula made a long speech in which he told us that he supported the Bill because he felt that it was much better for the Coloured people to have a fixed five-year period and so on. But he said that because they have a personal interest in the matter and because this might be misconstrued, he and the others would refrain from voting on that measure and they abstained from voting on the Bill.

The official Opposition opposed the Bill in the strongest possible way. So the Coloured representatives were given an extended life for an additional six months until October, 1966, came and then what happened? Last year we had another prolongation of the life of the Coloured representatives. This followed on the introduction of a Bill with what I can only call an indecent sounding title, namely the Improper Interference Bill. This Bill was introduced into this House and there were a lot of comings and goings between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Prime Minister after which a statement was issued and we were told about the Vorster-Graaff agreement on the Bill. The Vorster-Graaff agreement was that the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill should be referred to a select committee. Perhaps the hon. gentlemen would like to get together again and give us another cosy little agreement to destroy the only remaining representation that the Coloured people have. All this cosy “toenadering” about Coloured representation is a disgrace. Perhaps I had better remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about clause A of this agreement which the hon. the Prime Minister issued. Clause A gave this agreement a deadline which read as follows:

Prolonging of the term of office of the present Coloured representative until not later than 31st October, 1967.

That was the terms of the agreement, namely that there was to be a deadline and that the select committee which was to be appointed to consider this Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill and which could be converted into a commission had to report not later than 31st March. 1967. That was also part of the terms of the agreement. The hon. the Prime Minister also made it clear that as far as he was concerned, he did not really intend to change the point of view of the Government in so far as it was not going to tolerate, and let me quote the exact words, “any exploitation by one population group of the political rights of another, among others the Coloured people”. That was one point and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave us his reason, namely that he was not bound by the principle of that Bill, but that he was aware of the exploitation of the political rights of, among others, the Coloured people. The deadline is apparently not going to be honoured. It is going to be extended and as far as I can see it is going to be extended ad infinitum. That is really what this Bill means. It is going to be extended until the Government and the official Opposition and the Coloured representatives themselves can between them cook up whatever they have to cook up in order to see to it that the Coloured people …

Order! I do not think the hon. member should use the words “cook up”.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you.

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw those words.

I will withdraw them, Mr. Speaker. It suggests a mess of pottage and I will certainly withdraw them. This was to be the position until the select committee on which is serving a representative of the Coloured representatives and several Government and Opposition members manages to find a solution to the problem of preventing the Progressive Party from fighting and winning those four Coloured seats. When last year the Bill came before this House in terms of the agreement which I have just read out and which the official Opposition then supported and which the Coloured representatives supported, I made a somewhat prophetic statement. I said that there was no guarantee that next year, and I was speaking last year, we would not be asked once again to postpone the election. I also said that if the select committee had not found the magic formula to make the Progressives disappear into thin air, then the hon. the Minister would come back to the House and ask for a further postponement of the Coloured election. Of course that is just what is happening, only this time they are taking two bites at the cherry. The extension of life is now not only for one year because there is no guarantee that the select committee or the commission, whatever we are going to call it, is going to come up with a formula in the next year. We are therefore making it a little easier so that we do not have to come back to this House next year and we are therefore taking two bites at the cherry. [Interjection.] Believe me it is realistic. It would be even more realistic just to abolish the whole thing altogether because that is in fact the intention of this Government. I have no doubt whatever that the representation in this House, as we know it, is going to disappear sooner or later. It will probably be a good deal sooner than later. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to realize and what the Coloured representatives do not realize is that they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. They are setting a very ugly precedent indeed, because what does all of this mean? It means that the minute candidates are elected to this House in any numbers at all of whom the Government disapproves, then steps must be taken to see that constitutional elections are tampered with. That is precisely what has happened as far as the Coloured voters are concerned. [Interjections.] The hon. member speaks of hysteria. I am talking facts. I am exposing what has happened in this House in the long and sorry story of Coloured representation in South Africa, the whittling away of those rights until they are practically useless. In 1964 the Bill to set up the Coloured Council was passed. We still do not have that Coloured Council.

Order! The hon. member is drifting away from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if I may just put it to you; there is a close connection between the election of the Coloured Council and the postponement of these Coloured elections because we have had a statement from the hon. the Prime Minister and a statement from the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs telling us that one reason why the elections could not take place for the Coloured seats in this House is that the Coloured Council has not yet been constituted. In 1964 that council was supposed to be constituted. Instead, there has been no real attempt to register voters or to set up constituencies and delimit them properly so that elections can take place even within the foreseeable future. We now hear that the election for that council is not expected to take place until 1968 at the earliest. That is why all these postponements have come about one year after the other. I say that it is a gross betrayal of everything that was promised to the Coloured people at the time that they lost their cherished century-old rights on the Common Roll. They were given instead representation on a separate roll. I want to say, as I have said, that Charles I had nothing on this Government. Talk about the Long Parliament constantly prolonging the lives of the sitting members! This is just another Long Parliament we are having. The Coloured representatives will have been sitting for eight solid years. The hon. the Minister said two years ago that the five-year period was all that one could really ask the Coloured people to expect before they had to go to an election again. Eight years is what they are now having. They are now having an eight-year period. I made one mistake last year. Last year I said that we come back year after year and just like the Sobukwe clause—as that amending Bill is known every year to continue the detention of Sobukwe—we have a Bloomberg clause every single year to prolong the period of the Coloured representatives sitting here. But they have now had a two-year span. As far as I am concerned this span will probably go on indefinitely until the Government can finally come up, as I have said, with some solution to this problem.

I said earlier that an ugly precedent is being set in this House. It is the ugly precedent of tampering with constitutional elections for the simple reason that the Government does not like the representatives who are being sent to this House. I wonder what is going to happen if the Government looks like losing any General Election. Does nobody realize the sort of precedent that is being set here? Start this sort of thing and there is no knowing where it will end.

Order! I think the hon. member is going very much too far. She must come back to the Bill now.

With respect, Sir, am I not entitled to draw an analogy with the Bill which at the moment applies only to the Coloured people?

I think that is a very poor analogy.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you are right. I hope very much that you are right and that it is a poor analogy. I sincerely hope so, because if you are right, Sir, it means in fact that my fears are groundless. I sincerely hope that those fears are groundless. I should just like to remind this House that the hon. the Prime Minister—I wonder if I could have his attention for one moment—has made claims in the past about South Africa being a democracy.

I hope the hon. member is not travelling a road which has no connection with the Bill at all.

No, Sir, this definitely has a connection with the Bill. This is no diversion, I promise you. The hon. the Prime Minister has said in the past …

You must not talk about my golf pants again, please. [Interjections.]

No, though I might add that I could suggest some improvements there too. But I shall not.

I may just tell the hon. the Prime Minister that that is not relevant.

The Prime Minister has claimed, to me personally and in public, that South Africa is a democracy because of two main reasons. He has said that it is a democracy because we have an independent judiciary, which of course is true. [Interjections.] I said “which is true”. Secondly he claims that we are a democracy because we have free and regular elections. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. the Prime Minister admits that. Will the hon. the Prime Minister tell me how this in any way correlates with the Bill which is being piloted through the House to-day? Where are the free and regular elections for the Coloured people?

They will be held as soon as matters have been disposed of.

I am sorry, Sir, but I do not know what matters are being disposed of. There is nothing to stop the hon. the Prime Minister from deciding that there are matters to be disposed of in other elections as well. I say that his claim to democracy goes by the board to-day as far as free and regular elections are concerned. I have other reservations about this “democracy”, of course, but let us leave that to one side because they are not relevant in the case of this particular Bill. As far as this Bill is concerned, South Africa’s claim, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, goes by the board. There are no more free and regular elections as far as the Coloured people of South Africa are concerned.

Have you given evidence already?

Yes, as a matter of fact we have given evidence. Everything is an over-statement if it does not suit the hon. the Minister. I say that this Bill is just part of a whole series of measures which have whittled away the rights of the Coloured people. I see no excuse for this. There can be no possible explanation for this. I want to move the same amendment that I moved on the last occasion when this very same measure was introduced into this House, and that is:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton has tried to establish, on the grounds of this measure, that the Government side is now proving that South Africa is not a democracy. This matter is completely out of the hands of the Government. In respect of this there has been a unanimous resolution by this House, with the exception of the hon. member for Houghton. It is always said that the exception proves the rule. She proves, in fact, that South Africa is a democracy. By the unanimous resolution of this House a commission of inquiry was appointed. This commission has not yet reported. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was quite consistent to-day. This commission was actually created at the instance of the United Party. That Party virtually took the lead. For that reason I say that in supporting this measure to-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party have been quite consistent. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rightly said, the rolls for Coloured voters which exist at the moment cannot be used. They are in fact unfit for use as a result of the dark machinations of the hon. member for Houghton and her Party. If there is any delay in this matter, the hon. member and her Party are the cause of that delay. Every effect has a cause, and the hon. member is the cause of the effects of this measure. I can appreciate that the hon. member for Houghton is very bitter. If I were in her place, with a dying party which has only one representative—if that one disappears, there is nothing left—I would have been just as worried as the hon. member. Not only is she embittered against this Government, but she is equally embittered and even more embittered against the Opposition. She is embittered because she and her Party want to keep a platform in this House on the backs of the Coloured voters, a platform to continue the foul work against South Africa in the outside world. She will be even more embittered in future. The hon. member wants us to be consistent. But how inconsistent are that hon. member and her Party? Through all the years she and her Party have fought every measure in the interests of the Coloured population, and fought it bitterly. First they suggested that the Coloureds should not go to the polls but that they should ignore them; they should not take part in the election of their representatives on the separate Voters’ Roll. They even went so far that one of the reasons why she and her Party broke with the United Party was, amongst other things, that at the time the United Party would not give a guarantee that if they came into power, they would restore the Coloured voters to the Common Roll. They stood aloof and they fought every measure. When her Party began to die out among the Whites, they turned to the Coloured voters to obtain a platform in this House for their Party. Is that consistent? They wanted to get representation here in every conceivable and inconceivable way. We on this side want to thank the United Party for the consistent attitude they have adopted in respect of this matter. We think it is right that a commission appointed by this House should get an opportunity to continue its deliberations and bring out a report.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have had from the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon a typical display of frustration and sweet unreasonableness. You see, Sir, I can appreciate her attitude because just when she and her colleagues thought they were poised for victory in the field of the Coloured elections, having failed dismally— and I repeat the word “dismally”—in the field of white elections, the course of events has changed. Does the hon. member take into consideration, as my Leader has made quite clear during the course of these debates, the existing state of the Coloured roll? If she does, then she must admit one thing, and she must admit it quite frankly, namely that to gain a victory on the Coloured vote, with the roll in its present state, would be completely and utterly dishonest.

Three years have passed during which it could have been cleared up.

The hon. member should know quite clearly, being in the political field herself, that a victory on those rolls to-day would not be an expression of the wish of the Coloured people. I want to repeat this, and I want to make this point very clear indeed. She knows this. Everybody knows what happened during the provincial elections. I do not have to go back into history. Everybody sitting in this House, and that hon. member more than anybody else, knows what happened during the course of the provincial elections which were fought on these very rolls. She knows what happened there, and I make bold to say—that an election held to-day on the present rolls would be a dishonest election because it would not under any circumstances reflect the opinion and the wishes and the wants of the Coloured electorate.

The whole basis of the election by the Coloured people of white representatives in this white Parliament depends 100 per cent upon the wishes of that electorate being correctly interpreted. It does not depend upon them being misinterpreted. I want to make this quite clear so that nobody can misunderstand what I want to say. If we are going to have white people representing the Coloured people in this House on a false basis then, obviously, those people are not being represented in this House. And the hon. member should know this. The hon. member for Houghton does in fact know this—of that I am absolutely certain.

Now, my hon. Leader has made our position quite clear. At the moment there is a Select Committee sitting. We are not entirely happy with the setup at the moment. We never said that we were. But at least we have the decency to have regard to the process of Parliament whereby when a Select Committee is sitting to deliberate on a certain matter, its decision is awaited. We sincerely hope that the select Committee will come with a method of representation for the Coloured people which will be acceptable to all people, including the Coloured people. We hope that its recommendations will give the Coloured people honest representation so that they will be able to put their case on a political platform where it will mean something. We do not want a position where their case is put forward by somebody who purports to represent the Coloured people, but who is guided by his own thinking rather than by the thinking of the Coloured people. This is the aspect in which we are so vitally interested. We want to see the Coloured people have proper representation and we are going to have patience. We are going to await the outcome and the recommendations of this committee in the sincere hope and belief that its recommendations will in fact solve the problems with which we are faced and will answer the very questions and the reasons which resulted in the appointment of the select committee. It was not appointed for no reason at all. It was appointed because everybody in this House realized that the present method of electing representatives and the present state of the rolls were quite unsatisfactory. We are also prepared to grant the period of two years, bearing in mind section I of the 1966 Act, which says that the State President can shorten that period if necessary. It means that the Minister will not have to come back to Parliament. Adequate time will be given now for the commission to report and also for the rolls to be put into proper order. So when the Coloured people do go and vote, their wishes will in fact be interpreted correctly. This is what we want. I support my hon. Leader 100 per cent in this.

The hon. member for Houghton has said that this is an indication that there will be no more free and regular elections for the Coloured people. What utter nonsense! This Bill does not provide for free and regular elections, or otherwise. This measure merely provides for the postponement of elections for a period not exceeding two years. That is all it does. It does not provide for the future after the expiry of that period. That is something that we still have to deal with.

What would you have to say if this applied to the white elections?

You see, the hon. member uses arguments which are not germane to the Bill which we are now considering. She wanders so far and she swipes all around her— if I may put it that way—that she brings in things that are not under consideration here. At the moment we are considering an extension of the life of the people representing the Coloured people in this House, people elected by the Coloured people, by a period not exceeding two years. No more, and no less. We support this wholeheartedly. To couple to that the suggestion that this now means that there will never be another Coloured election, as the hon. member for Houghton has done, knocks the foundation away from any argument which she might have put up. Because it is so stupid, so unacceptable, and so unreasonable. I must support my hon. Leader 100 per cent for the reasons which he has put forward, namely that it will give the commission an opportunity of doing the job of work for which it was appointed by this Parliament —not by a group of individuals, but by this Parliament. It will also give the Minister and his department time to put the rolls into proper order, so that whatever follows will be done properly and will give a proper expression of opinion by the people whose rights we are considering here to-day.

In my introductory speech I advanced, very briefly, the essential reasons why this amending Bill is before the House. I did not expect the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to do anything else but support this Bill, which he did in fact do for the realistic reasons he advanced here. I do not want to enter into a lengthy debate with the hon. member for Houghton; I just want to refer to one point made by her. The other points were dealt with adequately and at length by other hon. members on this side. I just want to say that the remarks she made here to the effect that this Government was developing into a dictatorship because a precedent was being created here by which we could simply act arbitrarily and postpone and cancel elections as we pleased, was actually ment for overseas consumption.

She denigrates her own country.

The hon. member is an old parliamentarian. She should know that this is not the only example of elections which were postponed or delayed. The life of the Senate, for example, has been extended; I think it was shortly after the war. Similarly, the lives of the provincial councils have been extended. I am not quite certain whether the life of this House has been extended, but I do know that the life of this House has in fact been shortened; it may also be that its life has been extended. Mr. Speaker, this is the mark of a democracy. This measure is not simply carried by an overpowering will; it has been properly debated in this House and this House has taken its decision.

In conclusion I just want to mention this: I was not surprised at the hon. member’s opposition. She mentioned quite a few reasons why she was so violently opposed to the Bill, but her one important reason, which she did not give, I just want to mention now. That reason is that the hon. member, as the only representative of the Progressive Party in this Parliament, realizes that since last year the Progressive Party’s shares with the Coloureds have dropped so far that they are worth virtually nothing, and that if we are to have a Coloured election, their shares would be worth absolutely nothing with the Coloureds. Their shares would have no price on the market. The hon. member realizes that, and she realizes that lies have short wings. Her grapes are very sour, but she will have to swallow those grapes. This is not the only disappointment awaiting her and her party.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion and a division demanded:

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

House in Committee:

Clause 1:

The purpose of this clause, which of course is the only clause in the Bill, is to extend the life of the Coloured Representatives still further, and they are now going to sit in this House until 1969, unless, of course, the State President decrees otherwise, which is unlikely. Sir, one of the points which have been made as to why it is necessary to introduce this clause is because it would be impossible to hold the election at the present stage having regard to the state in which the Coloured Voters’ Rolls are at present. But I would like to know what efforts have been made during the last three years to clear up the so-called rolls to which hon. members apparently have so many objections. To the best of my knowledge no move whatsoever has been made by the Government since 1965, when the first objections to the election of Coloured Representatives were raised, to set up the Coloured Council which is the prerequisite to any further election of Coloured representatives. There has been no attempt, to my knowledge, to do anything about cleaning up the Coloured Voters’ Rolls. If there were any grounds whatsoever for the arguments advanced as to why this clause should be introduced, they fall away completely in the face of the evidence that no efforts have been made to bring the Coloured Voters’ Rolls sufficiently up to date for an election to be able to take place. The Government has made no move whatsoever in this regard. Sir, this is not the reason for the introduction of this clause. Indeed one might well say that in 1961 the Voters’ Rolls for the election of Coloured representatives were in a very much worse condition than they could be said to be to-day because only something like 20,000 to 30,000 Coloured voters had remained on the roll out of a possible 70,000 to 80,000 registered voters. Sir, I wonder if the hon. member for Umlazi would pay me the courtesy of listening to me for a moment because I paid him the courtesy of listening to his speech.

That is my deaf ear.

I should prefer to have the hon. member’s other ear rather than his deaf ear. I wonder if the hon. member who advanced this as a reason for this particular clause, would tell us whether he thought that the views of those who were on the rolls in 1961 and who formed a minute percentage of the total number of Coloureds who were qualified to go on to the rolls, were a truer reflection of what the Coloured people want, than the views expressed by those who are on the Voters’ Rolls to-day?

Order! What has that to do with the Bill?

Sir, this whole Bill is a one-clause Bill.

It is simply postponing the election.

The reason given for postponing the election is that the Voters’ Rolls are not in any condition …

Order! There is no reason given in the Bill.

That was the reason given here in the debate.

Order! That was the principle.

I am sorry, Sir, I must argue this out with you. This is a one-clause Bill and I am arguing on this particular clause.

But the principle has been accepted already.

The reason advanced is that the elections cannot take place in 1967 and are going to take place only in 1969 because the rolls are not in order. I say that no good grounds have been advanced for introducing this Bill and therefore I intend to oppose this clause as I opposed in principle the Bill at Second Reading.

Clause put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 2 put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I expressed my views during the Second Reading and there is no point in delaying this farce any longer.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I was referring to the Bill being a farce.

The hon. member is reflecting on the House. She must withdraw those words.

I withdraw. I move as an amendment—

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

I move— That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

We accept this Bill as it has finally emerged from the various stages. It is a different Bill from the one which was presented to the House in the first place. One can now say that it is a workable Bill, with prospects of being successful and being of value to the population as a whole. On that account we feel that we should give it our hearty co-operation. We are particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister saw fit to increase the powers of the council, which formerly seemed to be merely an advisory council but which now has certain definite powers. But during the Committee Stage last evening, unfortunately at the last minute, the hon. the Minister saw fit to introduce a new clause 2, which we on this side of the House had not had an opportunity of seeing beforehand. It is quite a lengthy clause and we would have commented on it had we had further opportunity of considering it. We feel a little disturbed that the hon. the Minister should have sacrificed, as he has done here, one of the cardinal principles of his Bill. We hope he will consider changing this new clause 2 later, or in the Other Place. I want, therefore, to take this opportunity of putting my feelings and thoughts on this new clause 2 before him, because we had no real chance to do so last night. I think it detracts from the value of the Bill. One of the main principles of this B II is the creation of a pool of funds contributed by the various medical schemes. It is a so-called central pool which is under the control of the council and which is to be utilized particularly for rather serious and expensive health procedures such as long brain operations which require teams of doctors and nurses to deal with them and heart operations, and even complicated operations which may come into being in the future but of which we know nothing at present.

The success of this central pool depends on the success of the other medical schemes. If the other medical schemes are successful, there will be that much more money to put into the pool. But the Minister saw fit in his new clause 2 to exclude from the operation of the Medical Schemes Bill the most stable groups of people in the country. He has taken out the Army and the Railways, which last in fact he had done before, and he has taken out Prisons, and I suspect—he certainly has the power to do so should he wish to do it—that he will take out the public servants. Now, these are amongst the most responsible and reliable and the best-living groups, the people who do not change their occupations. They are the people who should be to a large extent the backbone of that central pool, or at least their contributions would be of immense value to that pool. I hope the Minister will not give in to his colleague, as he appears to have done in this instance, and will think it over again and consider whether he cannot bring into his Bill those groups he is now exempting from its control.

In the first place I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express our thanks to the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry, Professor Coertze, in his absence. I think he performed a tremendous task as far as the preparation of this Bill is concerned. It is also gratifying that we have progressed to the stage where the Bill is now before the House for its Third Reading, because I think it is in the interests of the well-being of our people that this legislation should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible in order to defray the costs of health services. It is also gratifying that the Opposition and the Government are able to agree on this important Bill. I want to confine myself more particularly to the benefit funds, which will be accorded their rightful place under this Act in the future. The Bill, as submitted in its original form, gave rise to some misgivings and objections on the part of certain of the suppliers of services as far as benefit funds were concerned, and we hope that the time has come now that the vendetta which existed between the Medical Association and the medical benefit funds will come to an end now that medical benefit funds will be protected in terms of this legislation. We are also thankful for the co-operation which has since been forthcoming as far as the recognition of medical benefit funds is concerned. I just want to point out that under the existing medical benefit funds—and I am speaking specifically of the benefit funds—protection is given to 835,000 white members and their dependants. If the legislation had not been accented in this form, it would have meant that these medical benefit funds would have had to switch over to aid funds. I want to express my misgivings to-day as to whether aid funds provide a cheaper and better service than that rendered by the benefit funds to their members. I just want to say that one of the objections raised against the continued existence of benefit funds was that the patient would not have the same free choice of doctors as he would have under aid funds. I just want to prove my statement by referring to evidence given before the Commission. I take, for example, area A, in which 5,015 members belong to benefit funds and in which there are 28 practising family doctors and where there are 21 serving on the panel. I think the objections that were raised originally as regards the free choice of doctors and the continued existence of benefit funds are unjustified, as these statistics show us, and that there is, in fact, a wide choice of medical practitioners. The other objection against the continued existence of benefit funds is that members belonging to benefit funds allegedly take advantage of their medical practitioners. I want to squash this idea once and for all because there is no such thing. If we look at an article which appeared in the South African Medical Journal of 12th December, 1964, we find a report written by a medical practitioner in that magazine in which he happened to deal with benefit fund patients, private patients and aid scheme patients. From this report it appeared that the objections raised against medical benefit funds, namely that patients allegedly abused their privileges because they paid a monthly subscription fee and then did not pay for calls made by the doctor, were unfounded. He analysed the three types of patients. Forty-eight railway families belonged to a benefit fund. 40 were private patients and 36 belonged to aid schemes. It appeared that the number of patients per family was 2.72 in the case of a benefit fund, 1.95 in the case of the private practice and 2.41 in the case of the aid schemes. The number of consultations per patient over a period of one year came to 2.06 in respect of patients belonging to benefit funds, 2.12 in respect of the private practice and to 2.38 in respect of aid schemes. This proves the fact I mentioned here a moment ago that the danger which is alleged to exist in that patients belonging to the benefit fund schemes take advantage of the services of medical practitioners is not a real one. We are glad that the benefit funds have now been recognized once and for all under this Bill. A further objection originally raised against benefit funds under the Bill was that medical practitioners would not receive the necessary remuneration for services they had rendered. I am the last person who would like to see that the medical practitioners in this country, who fulfil such an extremely important role, do not receive due remuneration for the services they render to our people. I think that in this regard, too, the evidence given before the Commission proves that this objection is really unfounded. For example, there are doctors who serve on the benefit funds panel. I quote the example which appears on page 20 of the Report of the Commission, where it is stated that Dr. A received a gross remuneration of R11,375 for the period January to September, 1965, while his estimated gross remuneration for the year was R16,000. I think this is a reasonable income for a medical practitioner where he runs his private practice and has an additional income. I mention these things because there were some misgivings that medical practitioners would not receive due remuneration as far as this is concerned.

We are also grateful that the Central Council will have statutory powers in future, although they did not have them in the past. If we look at the work that has been done by that Central Council without Statutory powers during the short period of approximately three years that it has been in existence, we find that in a period of three years that Council has established 28 new medical schemes which provide cover to 356,000 members. In view of the fact that the Central Council will have the necessary powers at its disposal, we expect to be able in the near future to provide the population of this country with much more comprehensive cover as far as health services are concerned. Another important provision which will have a significant effect is that, although difficulties were experienced in the past among the suppliers of services, particularly in respect of the preferential tariff, such services will not simply be withheld in future, because the necessary machinery has been created for arbitration and mediation so that it will not be possible in future to withhold medical services from patients, as has happened in the past. That danger has also been eliminated now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to avoid a discussion as to which schemes are better, i.e. medical aid schemes or medical benefit schemes. I feel that both schemes do their work to the best of their ability. I shall say something more about each of the schemes in turn and I will try to avoid contrasting one with the other. Since this Bill first appeared in the Government Gazette of the 26th February. 1965, it has come a long way. The present Bill is very different from the original Bill set out in that Government Gazette. The reason is that the public have had the chance over the last two years to interest themselves in the contents of the original Bill as it appeared in the Government Gazette and were able to make their representations. A select committee was appointed and later became a commission of inquiry. To show the interest that organizations and the public took in this Bill, the commission received 61 memoranda from various organizations and individuals and interviewed 30 organizations and individuals who wished to give oral evidence. Arising from the statements made by these organizations and the written evidence that was presented to the select committee and to the commission a new Bill was presented to the Minister, who in turn received further representations from organizations who were dissatisfied with the contents of the Bill. The Minister then amended the Bill again. The Bill as we have it now and which has now reached the Third Reading Stage is, I feel, a Bill which is worthy of support from all people. It is the beginning, as I said, of a new era in treating the sick.

It is my sincere hope that, arising from the work of the council which is now being instituted by this Bill, medical aid societies and medical benefit societies will be able to function on a better level so that the persons who subscribe to these medical schemes will be given a better deal—a deal with which they perhaps did not feel very satisfied in the past. It has already been stated by the hon. member for Vanderbilpark that very many people are going to be affected by this Bill. In all I would estimate that one and a half million people will come under its protection. I say “protection” because there is not any protection at the moment. From now onwards this council which has been instituted by this Bill will be able to protect the interests of the subscribers to medical schemes. Not only is it wise to have control over the establishment of medical schemes, but I think it is even more wise to make sure that those schemes in existence and any that may come into existence, should be given as much assistance as possible by the council to make their future secure. With the experience that has already been gained in the past, much of the teething trouble which is experienced with the institution of a medical scheme will be avoided. One and a half million people are going to receive medical attention from most of the doctors who work in the Republic to-day. It means—and this is very important—that the doctors, whether they be general practitioners or specialists in any field, are giving service to one and a half million people at a reduced rate. I do not think there is any other profession or any other group of persons who would be willing to do what the doctors of South Africa are now prepared to do and have been doing in the past. In the same way as the doctors are willing to work for these people at a reduced rate, I feel that the other persons who give a service to the medical aid schemes or benefit schemes should also be expected to do their share for the sick so that the burden which has been increasing over the years will be lightened, especially for those who find it impossible to meet the ever-rising cost of illness.

The Medical Schemes Council which is now going to be instituted is going to be challenged by the medical schemes themselves. This challenge must be met. It is a challenge to help give the best possible service to the subscriber for the smallest contribution. There is another challenge which the council must meet. That is the challenge which has arisen because of the Minister’s introduction of the new clause 2, where a very large group of individuals may be excluded from participating in and enjoying the protection given by the council. I would say then that it is for the council to make medical schemes as attractive as possible so that those who are outside the ambit of the council’s work will seek registration. That is a very important challenge because it will affect hundreds of thousands of workers of our country—important persons who, to some extent to-day, have protection. But I feel that through the workings of this Bill they will have added protection and added benefits. I would say then that we on this side of the House, as the hon. member for Durban (Central) has said, welcome the Bill. We wish it well. We hope that the Minister will find that more and more persons will want to join this scheme as envisaged by this Bill and that the future will be easier for those who cannot afford private medical and allied treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make use of this opportunity to express my gratitude to hon. members on both sides of the House for the friendly cooperation on their part in the preparation and passing of this Bill. The hon. member for Durban (Central) referred to clause 2 and expressed his doubts about it. I tried yesterday to note down briefly what those really amounted to, but may I just emphasize this again. The effect of this clause really seems worse than it is. The additions to clause 2 mean that people employed in the Services are provisionally excluded until such time as the Minister asks that they be included. In other words, it means that members of the Police, the Defence Force and the Prisons staff are excluded for the time being, but that they may, be included as soon as the Minister asks that they be included. In the first place, the clause is not so wide as it really seems. Normally officials employed in the Prisons Service, the Police and the Defence Force are entitled to free medical services. They do not have medical schemes and consequently they could not have been included in this Bill in any case. When it does concern them, is when these officials leave the Service or when they go on pension. Their widows or children also come into the picture. In other words, this is a much more limited group already.

In the second place, it seems worse than it really is because at the last moment doubts arose in the minds of these three Services as a result of, in my humble opinion, a complete misunderstanding. They misunderstood the legislation. They do not realize that this Bill, in fact, contains nothing but advantages for them. I am convinced that, as the hon. member for Rosettenville also said, once the Act is functioning and once people come to understand its meaning, they will hasten to join the scheme. I have no doubt about that. I shall be surprised if that does not happen. We had to follow this course simply to avoid suspicion. It is better to obtain the friendly co-operation of the people—and I am convinced that we will get that co-operation—by meeting them now and by affording them an opportunity to understand the position, rather than to force them into this now, with the result that they may be dissatisfied for some time and may expect consequences that will never materialize. I am also convinced that this Bill, once it is in operation, will prove that many of those difficulties which could not be overcome in the past can, in fact, be solved. The machinery to bring together the doctor and the patient in connection with petty, insignificant matters simply did not exist in the past. The machinery will now exist which will solve all those problems and which will, as a matter of fact, bring about harmony which could not be brought about before. I am also convinced that we are now placing a Bill on the Statute Book which will enable thousands of families to obtain good medical services.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned last night I had already indicated the detrimental effect the drought had had on our soil conservation and the destructive effect it had had on conscientiously applied grazing systems. I had also pointed out the threat of desert conditions here in our country. Furthermore, I want to focus attention on the extremely detrimental effect it is having on our merino sheep farming as such. The wonderful rains which we have had, have solved all these problems for the time being, but we may not forget the lessons of the past. We must see to it that those dust storms a’-e prevented as far as possible and we must combat the encroaching desert conditions. In particular I want to emphasize four causes which contributed to the serious conditions of the past. I want to refer inter alia to the termite plague. This plague is one of the most serious threats to agriculture in this country, particularly as far as the destruction of our soil conservation schemes and our grazing procedures are concerned. We are aware that our best reserve camps and most advanced grazing conditions are being seriously threatened by this termite plague. Up to now a particularly effective pesticide with which to combat termites has not been found. Recently a new pesticide against termites was introduced but we found that it was very expensive. Perhaps it is not the best one we have. At the moment it is still rather unpractical. Then, of course, we have the old tried pesticides, i.e. sodium fluo-oxilicate and the dieldrin treatment. In particular I want to point out that up to the present there have been many problems connected with these insecticides. There are also many dangers inherent in their use. I have an article here which I do not have time to quote from. We probably all realize that what is necessary— and this is what we are all pleading for—is intensive research in respect of this matter.

That also affects the second matter to which I want to refer, i.e. the Karoo caterpillar. This caterpillar is a threat to our merino sheep areas, and is a destroyer of that good Karoo bush. We are very concerned about that situation and I want to advocate that serious attention be given to the combating of these two plagues and the necessary research in that connection.

Another matter to which I want to refer is the injudicious ploughing in areas where the rainfall is very low and very uncertain. I feel very concerned about that question. We are becoming very concerned because large areas of our country are suffering as a result and I want to entreat the hon. the Minister to give this matter his attention. I regret that I cannot elaborate on this matter any further because my time has now expired.

Mr. Chairman, year after year the conservation of our soil is discussed in this House. I think that we all regard the conservation of our soil as a very serious matter. In the short time at my disposal to-day I want to say a few words in regard to the injudicious utilization of our land. In particular I want to refer to the injudicious laying out of towns, roads, and so on. Roads and towns are being laid out on our most valuable land. We are very fond of the land. After all, it is something which we are dependent upon. Not only we, but also our descendants will be dependent upon the utilization of our land. That is why it is a very important matter and for that reason I want to suggest here that there has been a certain degree of poor planning in the past in regard to our agricultural land. I should like to raise an earnest plea and suggest to the hon. the Minister that there should be zoning as far as our agricultural land is concerned. I want to plead for the introduction of a zoning system. We know for example what land we can use as agricultural land to-day. But despite that, when a town or a road is being planned, it is not taken into consideration, and the result is injudicious steps in respect of the laying out of towns and roads on that agricultural land. We are thinking for example of certain towns which could have been laid out in such a way that they did not affect our agricultural land at all, towns which would have served the same purpose if they had been laid out somewhere else. But they have been laid out on our most valuable agricultural land. We shall have to see to it that zoning of arable land takes place in future. It must be made applicable.

Our agricultural lands?

Yes, I am talking about agricultural land, agronomic land. That land must be zoned. It should be laid down as a policy by this Department so that that land may be conserved for our descendants. If in future we continue to lay out all towns and roads on that valuable land it will only contribute to the ultimate elimination of our agricultural production. That of course will be fatal. We cannot afford to continue in this way any longer. It is absolutely essential that we undertake zoning. Because the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has for example made their contribution in the past, we also expect that Department to make a contribution in this respect which will be conducive to the welfare and prosperity of our agricultural industry in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I must agree with the hon. member for Aliwal when he says that we must watch very carefully in the future where we make our new roads and relay existing roads. I believe that much useful agricultural ground is wasted in that way and I must support the hon. member in his plea in that particular regard. I also support the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) when he raised the question of termites and “ruspes”, as well as the question of ploughing in areas where the plough should never have been used. I believe these matters require the urgent attention of the department at all times.

I want to raise a matter too that was raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agricultural and Water Affairs yesterday evening. Listening to his speech one was inclined to gather the impression that all is well in so far as our technical services in this country are concerned. The Minister showed by figures to what extent our country had been planned, how many soil conservation districts had been proclaimed and how many farms had in fact been planned. He also referred to the fact that a foreign country had applauded our efforts in the field of technical services and one generally fathered the impression that all was well and that there was little room for improvement.

I did not say that there was no room for improvement; there always will be.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he does not think that there is a great deal of room for improvement in the technical services in this country.

There will always be room for improvement in all departments.

I want to ask him whether he does not believe that the Government, of necessity, will have to play an even greater part in the future than it has played in the past in this field of combating soil erosion.

That is what we are doing.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has had plenty of opportunity to tour this country both by plane and by train and even by motor car, and I want to ask him whether he is not alarmed at the extent to which our natural pastures are retrogressing in the country and whether he is not alarmed at the extent to which soil erosion is taking place in this country?

I was the first person to warn against it.

I want to ask him whether he is satisfied that what we are doing at present is sufficient to get this matter under control. I believe that we are a long way from reaching that point. I think the Deputy Minister is taking his work very seriously but I believe he must not create an attitude of complacency at any stage. This is a task that we will have to tackle in the most vigorous manner for many years to come, and I really believe that it is wrong to create the impression that all is well.

Why then did the United Party take it amiss when I did warn in the past?

However, Sir, I really want to raise another matter. I want to raise the question that involves our livestock industry. Our livestock industry is confronted with two major problems; the one is the tremendous decline which takes place in the feed value of our pastures during the winter season, and with that very rapid decline in the feed value of our pastures, you get a very rapid decline in the condition of the stock throughout the country and in their ability to produce. Coupled with that we have the oft recurring droughts. If there is one aspect of weather forecasting about which we can be precise, it is the coming of droughts. We have just had a serious drought and we can be perfectly sure that the next drought is not far away. We must benefit by the lessons we have learned during the past drought. Sir, the livestock industry is faced with the problem not only of feeding our present population but an ever-increasing population. I do not believe for one moment that the livestock population should be increased. I think that probably this country is carrying sufficient livestock, large and small, but what we must do is to investigate ways and means of increasing the productivity of the livestock that we have on the land at the present time. I believe that our merino sheep which to-day produce an average of 10 lbs. of wool, could very easily produce 20 lbs. if they got the proper feeding. In that way we could double the wool clip. Our dairy cattle which are producing something like 300 gallons per lactation, could quite easily produce 600 gallons with proper feeding. The calving percentage of our beef cattle, which at present is something like 50 per cent, could be pushed up to 100 per cent with proper feeding, and the same applies to our mutton sheep. Sir, I believe that in this country we have vast untapped resources of fodder which is going to waste year after year. I refer in the first instance to the thousands of morgen of grass land which, when the summer rains fall, grows quickly, matures quickly and very soon reaches the stage where it is no longer palatable and no longer nutritious. Much of that grass, instead of being used, is burnt away in preparation for the next season. I believe that with modern machinery and mechanisation that grass can be utilized. I believe that our extension services must find ways and means to assist and encourage farmers to use every blade of grass that grows on our prairie lands. Coupled with that we have our vast maize crop, a big percentage of which is exported every year. It is alarming to find that over the last 13 years the monetary loss in exporting our surplus maize crop has been something like R45 million. It seems to me that we are adopting an entirely wrong policy. We go on year after year condoning the export of maize which is so vitally essential in maintaining our livestock in good condition throughout the year. Sir, apart from that we have another important source of fodder; I refer to the by-products of our sugar industry. Sir, when I look at the revolution that is taking place in the feeding of livestock by the introduction of the pellet-making machine, I believe that we in South Africa, if we used our resources properly and if our division of technical services gave a proper lead and proper assistance, are on the brink of a great break-through. As I have said, we have the resources for making these pellets; we have the maize which gives you the concentrates; we have this vast supply of grass which gives you the roughage and we have the by-products of the sugar industry which give you the binder-material. I believe that if a proper lead is given, we can rectify once and for all the peaks and the valleys which you see in the nutritional plane when our livestock is subjected to severe winter conditions and to severe droughts which occur so regularly. Sir, as you know, we hear a great deal about the pill in reference to the population explosion, but I think that this pill, this stock-ration pellet that we have to-day, is going to play an equally great part in helping us to feed the rapidly expanding population we can expect in the years to come.

It will be a different pill, will it not?

It has a slightly different shape but it can help at the other end. At any rate, it is this fact to which I wish to direct the Minister’s attention to-day. I believe he will be doing the country a great service if he can get his division of technical services to take up this matter seriously and see that the great potential of feed which we have in this country, in the shape of our grasses, our maize crop, which I think we are so unwisely exporting, and the molasses which we obtain from the sugar industry, is used in the shape of pellets. The farmers can be helped to make them. [Time expired.]

I want to congratulate the previous speaker on his speech. It was constructive, particularly what he had to say in regard to the manufacture of fodder in pellet form in order to bring our stock into a marketable condition. Land has become so expensive to-day that one cannot afford to pay R40 per morgen for land and then keep sheep on that land in order to fatten them. If one has the balanced fodder in the form of pellets, one can keep hundreds of sheep in a small camp, on five to ten morgen, and one can then bring them into a marketable condition with the pellets which are being manufactured to-day. They work very well. I have tested them, on various occasions and they work very well.

I should like to say something in regard to the eradication of locusts. This matter has been brought to my attention and it does not apply to my constituency only where there are quite a number of locusts at the moment in their various stages. There are the flying locusts and the hoppers, and it is very difficult to eradicate them. It has now been brought to my attention that the Department is sending out teams with big trucks to spray them. In the first place they are using a spray which gives the veld such a flavour and a smell that the animals do not want to graze there. In the second place, as a result of the abundant rains, the trucks are churning up the veld, particularly in the marshy regions where there are many locusts. I should like to ask the Minister to see to it that the operation is properly supervised, or perhaps the teams need not use such heavy trucks. Somebody who cannot be present here to-day asked me to suggest to the Minister whether the responsibility should not be restored to the farmers so that they can eradicate the locusts themselves, because they will do less damage to the veld than a lot of city people who come and churn up the veld.

Another important matter is the following. We have just had a tremendous drought and it has cost the State many millions to assist the farmers. Before the rains, and even after the rains, tribulosis broke out amongst the stock. I know the Minister is giving this matter his attention, but the losses which are being suffered are very heavy. I think that more than 100,000 sheep have already died from tribulosis. What would they not have been worth to the country? That is why attention must be given to this matter. We got in touch with Grootfontein and they said that there was a vaccine to counter tribulosis, but that the vaccine was very expensive. One has to inject the sheep every day and it costs one in the region of 50 cents per dose. The farmer cannot afford it. I want to ask the Minister to instruct his Department to undertake research into tribulosis, so that we can combat that dangerous disease. Our farmers are all aware that the disease is caused by the devil’s thorn, but we do not know how to restore the sheep to health. That is why I am asking that research be undertaken.

I should also like to associate myself with the hon. member for East London (City) where he spoke about the Karoo caterpillar which is our greatest enemy to-day and is destroying the veld. We all know that once a caterpillar has fed on a bush no sheep will touch it even though it dies of hunger. We have large stretches of Karoo where there is no grass, only Karoo bush. It is of no avail controlling the caterpillar only; we must also control the moth. It is the moth which lays the egg, and once the caterpillar has hatched, it is too late. Proper research should be undertaken in order to discover a way of destroying that moth before it lays the egg. It is a major problem but in order to afford the Karoo farmer an opportunity of avoiding those tremendous losses, research must be done. Sooner or later we will have to find an insecticide to destroy that caterpillar.

I should like to follow up on what the hon. member for Colesberg said in regard to the reclamation of the grazing veld, the veld restoration scheme, and I should like to put it to the Minister in this way, that whereas in the past he has restricted this scheme to emergency areas only, I find it difficult to see why the scheme cannot be extended to other areas which have not been proclaimed as emergency areas. If the expansion officers were to advocate that it was necessary to apply veld reclamation in certain areas and it were to be left to the individual farmers to apply and participate in this reclamation scheme, it would be of great assistance. The farmers who are not necessarily in a disaster area should also be able to apply to participate in the veld reclamation scheme. They must be able to tell the extension officer that the veld can no longer carry the stock and that it is necessary to reclaim the veld. I want to bring it to the specific attention of the Minister that the drought is only now affecting the sheep industry. We are feeling the results now. Here in Cape Town the clipping which is being offered is already 30,000 bales less than last year, and in Port Elizabeth it is 50,000 bales less. If at the end of the season the wool is not coming in in greater quantities than it is coming in at present, our clipping will be 10 per cent down, or in other words, we will be earning R20 million less in foreign currency. That is what is happening in the sheep industry. It is of no avail saying that there are plenty of sheep at the abattoirs. There are plenty of sheep at the abattoirs because the farmers are having to pay high rates of interest and that is why they are being forced to sell their stock. That is the only reason for that. But the sheep industry is deteriorating, and the barometer of that industry is wool. I have already indicated how much less wool is being produced, quite apart from the quality. I want to make specific representation to the Minister in this connection. This subsidy of R8 for a cattle unit or for six sheep is not nearly what the farmer can make out of his stock. He can make much more out of six sheep than R8, but if he chooses to reclaim his veld by not using it for two summers, particularly now after the rains, and take the R8 for the six sheep, let him for goodness’ sake take the stock off his farm and in this way try and reclaim the veld. To my mind this is a sensible approach and I want to recommend it very strongly to the hon. the Minister.

In the little time remaining to me I should like to discuss the pineapple industry with the Minister. It would be better if I mentioned the figures to the Minister at once in order to indicate the importance of the industry. During the last three years the following quantities of pineapples have been absorbed by factories: 118,000 tons in 1963-’64, and in 1964-’65 as well as in 1965-’66 it was approximately 80,000 tons. If one calculates this at an average of R20 per ton, what the factories took in was worth R2 million, and when the product is exported in its processed form, the amount involved here is between R6 million and R8 million. Apart from that there have been exports of fruit over the past two years at an average of 3.6 million pounds per year. And that also amounts to a considerable total in the form of foreign currency. In addition, the industry supplied an average of 11,000 tons per year to the domestic market in the nine controlled areas over the past three years. I want to go further and state that of the amount taken in by the factories as such 50 per cent consisted of waste products in the form of peels and stones which have to be removed. Although I have said that over the past three years the amount was a 100,000 tons. 50,000 tons of that quantity were waste products, which is a very high figure. As the hon. member who has just spoken indicated, if the sugar industry has a waste product which can be used for the manufacture of cattle fodder, then the pineapple industry has 50,000 tons of waste products with a high sugar content which is exceptionally suitable for the manufacture of pills tor cattle. What I am trying to say is that there is a need for more research in regard to the pineapple industry as such, and not only in respect of the fruit and the diseases to which the fruit is subject. I just happened to mention to the hon. the Minister a moment ago that although we exported cases of pineapples a month ago at a rate of a 1,000 per week, that figure had dropped to almost zero now owing to the fact that the pineapples had black spots on. There are very few people who can tell you what this is caused by. I want to entreat the hon. the Minister to expand this research station in the Eastern Cape, which is at present an agricultural research station and not specifically a pineapple research station, so that it can undertake a great deal more research in connection with the pineapple industry as such— not only in respect of fruit and the diseases associated with that fruit, but also in respect of the extraction of its fibres. The machines they have there—and I live nearby and I have seen these things—were elementary and the effort being made to extract these fibres in a country where we have a shortage of fibres, particularly since we can extract large quantities of fibre from this product, which makes a particularly strong fibre although a hard one, was a poor one. Up to now we have not yet been successful in extracting the fibre of the pineapple plant. I want to maintain that if we should succeed in doing so, we would give not only the pineapple industry but our fibre industry in this country a tremendous boost as a result of the tremendous additional amount of fibre we will be able to make available, together with the fibre which is already available, for the manufacture of wool-bags. For me it is a disgrace that we have to struggle with the manufacture of wool bags from paper in this country. The paper-bag costs twice as much as the jute-bag. The farmers have to pay for the paper for the manufacture of wool-bas, while we do have fibre, such as pineapple fibre, which can be used with good results for the manufacture of wool-bags, even if we do not want to use it for any other container. It is a particularly strong fibre and it is only as a result of the problem of extracting the fib e from the leaves and the top of the fruit that the fibre cannot at present be used. I want to say that there are farmers in the pineapple arras who have gone as far afield as Hawaii to fetch experts there who could advise them in regard to the cultivation, the spraying, etc. of the pineapple. It ought not to be necessary, in a country such as this, and with a Department of this nature, which ought to do the research work for an industry as big as this one has already become, for individuals to go overseas to fetch their own experts in order to try and promote the industry. I want to make a particular appeal to the Minister to the effect that this research institution near East London should be strengthened by additional research workers who must undertake specific research into the pineapple industry, its fruit, the processing of that fruit, the plagues associated with that fruit and the extraction of its fibre.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Colesberg, particularly where he entreated the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the locust plague. In my constituency large areas are plagued by locusts. We in the Free State are having a great struggle with the hoppers and the M mister as the ex-Minister of Defence will probably be able to devise for us a means whereby we can deal with them.

There is another little matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. During the inauguration of the building activities at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam by the hon. the Prime Minister in November 1966, the Prime Minister pleaded inter alia that soil conservation should take place in these dam areas in order to prevent the dams from silting up. As you know this silting up of dams is a tremendous problem in South Africa, so much so that each year we lose a volume of water from dams which is almost equal to the volume of the Hartebeestpoort dam as a result of silting up. There are various problems in my constituency. In the first instance there is the problem of silting up, and at the Riet River scheme the soil conservation has progressed to such an extent that it is now being complained on the other hand that an insufficient quantity of water is flowing into the dam. Personally I believe that this is an ideal state of affairs, and that we should actually plan our dams in such a way that the soil conservation is taken into account before any demands are made on the capacity of the dams. Now I have another problem however. In the vicinity of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, where the people are in earnest about and would very much like to respond to the Prime Minister’s appeal for soil conservation, which he made at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, a serious shortage of technicians is at present being experienced by the farmers, technicians to assist the farmers in making surveys of soil conservation works which will restrict the silting up of these dams to a minimum. I want to entreat the Minister to regard these areas where dams are being built as priority areas and to try and supply the necessary technicians there in order to enable the farmers to undertake those soil conservation works, something which they would very much like to do but for which they cannot get the technicians to make the necessary surveys for them. I realize that everybody would like to have their works surveyed and that everybody would like to complete their soil conservation works, but it is my considered opinion that priority should perhaps be given to these areas rather than to other areas.

Mr. Chairman, just as was the case the other day, there were very interesting speeches again to-day. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) spoke the other day about a safety code which should be developed for agricultural machinery. At that time I forgot to reply to his suggestion. All that I may say in regard to this matter is that the testing of farm machinery is in fact a function of my Department, but we have no control in regard to how the machinery should ultimately be manufactured. I want to express the hope that with the co-operation of our Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the farming organizations we will in fact reach the stage where we will get the various manufacturers of agricultural implements to apply more safety measures.

The hon. member for Kroonstad and other hon. members again spoke to-day about the harvester termites. I made a report on this matter the other day, and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister also spoke about it. We are busily engaged undertaking investigation and research in regard to the matter. It is not only the Department which is undertaking research, various companies in South Africa connected with the chemical industry are also undertaking research and we have every hope that they will discover a very good insecticide soon. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) spoke about the gas which has to be pumped into the harvester termite nests. It is of course a very expensive method because it is a difficult one to apply. After all, we do know that the termites usually begin on a small scale in any area. If one makes a start with the application of this method soon enough, when it is still on a small scale, then them development can be nipped in the bud. I admit that where the plague is widespread, that gas spraying method will be very difficult.

The hon. member for Zoutpansberg made a very erudite speech yesterday in regard to water utilization. I may just say that I find it very difficult to reply to that erudite speech of his. All that I can say is that the Department finds this question of land, vegetation and water co-ordination so important that we have arranged a very important symposium on irrigational matters to take place during October of this year. Various eminent speakers will appear there. The purpose of the symposium will be to present a picture of the present-day irrigation seen from various points of view, with a view in the first instance to affording interested persons the opportunity of participating in the discussions on a professional level in order to identify existing problems and ensure the most efficient use of irrigation water; secondly, in order to become acquainted with the latest research activities; thirdly, to determine the need for future research and instruction work: and fourthly, to develop the necessary teamwork in regard to irrigation problems between my Department and other interested bodies. That is the most important task, which the hon. member discussed. We are already engaged on this matter and I hope that this symposium will have good results.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) spoke about injudicious ploughing. He said that it was the forerunner of the creation of desert conditions, which were encroaching ever nearer to us. The hon. member for Aliwal, in his turn spoke about the injudicious use of our agricultural soil for laying out towns and building roads. Both hon. members pleaded with me this afternoon for the more regimented utilization of land. The question I want to ask is this: Have we in South Africa come to such a pass that we can tell a farmer where he must go and farm? We have definitely not come to such a pass that we can tell a farmer where he must farm. I want to tell you that I do not want to be the Minister who has to tell the farmers of South Africa on what farm and with what they must farm. We are still living in a free democratic country and every man can farm with what he wants. We cannot discourage the people from doing that.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I just point out to the hon. the Minister that I did not imply that …

Order! That is not a point of order.

I am talking now about the regimentation of land utilization. At the moment I am talking to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). I want to tell him that I realize his problem. The hon. member said that as a result of this good year people are harvesting good crops in regions which are in no way arable regions. He said that that would encourage them to plough even more land next year, that is so, and we must discourage the people from doing it. At this stage our only means of doing so is by way of education. My Department and I cannot go and tell the people what they must do and where they must do it.

The hon. member for Aliwal also believes very earnestly in the regimentation of land utilization, said that we must proceed very carefully so that we do not in future build roads across good agricultural land. That would be a very difficult thing to do, Sir, because then we would have to build all the roads in South Africa on that hon. member’s land and in his area, and none in mine, and I must also drive about. Sir. I do not believe in that. When I was Administrator of the Free State, my first instruction to the road building engineers was that they could even go so far as to build a circular drive, but they had to see to it that they did not build any roads through potential dam areas. Our Administration can be of assistance and see to it that roads are not built in an unplanned way. I am not making any accusations here. I am not saying that it has in fact been done. I am saying that our Administrations can be of assistance in seeing to it that roads are built in a planned way, but the fact that roads will now and again have to pass through good agricultural land, is unavoidable.

Then they must remove the topsoil and put it to one side again.

Sir, I have dealt with roadbuilding. The people want roads and roads are expensive. We must make them as economically as possible.

I then come to the hon. member for Walmer. He spoke about the feeding of our cattle during the lean periods, the winter periods and the drought periods. He spoke this afternoon about the regular deterioration of our stock during the winter periods. He said that that could not be allowed to take place. There is no progressive farmer who does not know that it is absolutely harmful for the productivity of the stock to deteriorate during those winter months. The hon. member said that it was a disgrace that South Africa should export so much maize while our own animals were deteriorating in the winter. I agree, but what must the poor mealie farmer do if the hon. member for Walmer did not buy his mealies to feed his stock with during those times? The mealies would then have to be exported. It depends upon our stock farmers whether or not we want to use those surplus mealies to keep our stock in condition. Or did the hon. member for Walmer mean that the State should intervene and that the State should manufacture the fodder? If the hon. member and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) were maintaining that the State should intervene and buy up the mealies, and that the State should process those mealies into fodder, I just want to say that those hon. members are being less sensible than even I believed they could be. That is totally impractical. I do not think that that is what the hon. member for Walmer wants. He says no. What the State can do is to educate the people. The State can establish the amenities there, if farmers want to avail themselves of those amenities, but really, Sir, the farmers will have to make use of these things themselves.

The hon. member for Walmer also pleaded that we should make more hay out of our grasslands. As a practical farmer I want to say here this afternoon that I accept that there are regions where we can in fact make hay from the grass. That is in those regions where particularly coarse grass is growing. On my own farm—I am now talking about the red grass region—I have had the experience that when I cut the red grass for the purpose of making hay the grass did not develop there the following year. For two years I carried on cutting my normal, decent and good sweetveld red grass for hay. I have now forbidden my farm manager to do so. He may no longer do so. I found that it was tremendously prejudicial to my veld.

The reverse applies in my case.

The Deputy Minister farms there in the Tambookie grass regions. I just want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it would be better to burn his grass. No, I am merely saying that as a joke. I did in fact say that where the grass grows to a tremendous height, this could be done. But for our other farmers whose red grass does not grow so luxuriously it would be very dangerous to cut that grass and make hay of it.

In addition the hon. member for Colesberg, as well as another hon. member, complained about the eradication of locusts. According to them the eradication was not proceeding according to plan. The hon. member for Colesberg asked whether we could not return to the old days because this heavy machinery which was being used in the rainy season which we are experiencing at present—locusts usually hatch after the rains—was ruining the veld. Do you know Sir, that years ago when we had that great locust plague it was left to the farmers themselves to eradicate those locusts. The poison was issued to us and we undertook the spraying ourselves. Now I want to say that if that locust plague had continued for another two weeks then there would have been large-scale murder in South Africa! Our farmers were on the point of murdering each other on a large scale, because every farmer suspected the next farmer of not having done his duty as regards the eradication of locusts and that that is why the locusts had all moved to his farm. I shall never forget the following example. I went riding into Rouxville one day and came across the hon. member for Vereeniging’s father. He was a commandant of our district, he was the mayor, he was all kinds of things—and he was also a locust commandant. He was a bad-tempered man. In any case one of our old friends came to us and he was carrying two locust pumps. He then said: “For mercy’s sake, you want to kill me with a sword!” He had thought the man had wanted to kill him with a sword because his neighbours had threatened to kill him if he did not eradicate his locusts at once. No, I am afraid that we cannot return to the old days. I think it is much better that the State should eradicate the locusts. One of the officials of the Department, Mr. Louwrens, has interviewed the hon. member for De Aar at Douglas in regard to the eradication of locusts, in order to see whether better methods cannot be devised. At this stage I cannot agree that we should return to the old method where we left it to the farmers to do the eradication work with these small pumps, or whatever they were.

The other day I spoke about the question of tribulosis. I know that it is a tremendous plague. The hon. member for Colesberg and myself were in Middelburg a few months ago when the tribulosis plague was at its worst there. The other day we held a long conference with officials and farmers. We are doing everything possible but I am afraid that where we, as I said the other day, are having to deal with a plague which is caused by plant poison, we are dealing with one of the most difficult plagues in the world. All that we have hitherto been able to recommend is better and planned grazing. But that is only as a precautionary measure. Unfortunately we do not have a remedy against the poison. Neither can I hold out the prospect of our discovering a remedy against it soon.

Now as far as the Karoo caterpillar is concerned. Somebody on that side of the House said the other day …

It was probably the hon. member for East London (City).

No, it was not he, it was a clever person … I am just joking. Somebody on that side said that we must try to eradicate the moths using lights. Well, I thought when it was mentioned that that proposal was entirely impracticable. But I have heard more and more about this method of eradicating moths using lights, and I now want to give the assurance that I shall give further attention to this suggestion. Therefore I shall instruct the Department to see whether a method, along the lines suggested, cannot be devised. The farmers will themselves have to do the eradication work; the State will not be able to do it. But I want a method to be discovered, a method of setting that moth-catching process in motion cheaply, so as to help our farmers and supply them with information in this regard.

The hon. member for East London (City) also made a serious plea here for more research in regard to the pineapple industry. He wanted more research in regard to the processing of the fruit, the cultivation of the plant and the processing of the leaves. I am no expert. I do not want to express any criticism of the fibre which can be extracted from pineapples but I have been told that we have much better fibres than that in South Africa which we should rather give our attention to. But the question is this: If there is an industry which has been established reasonably well and that industry experiences difficult times, what must be done? Is it better for us in South Africa to pay attention to new fibres which have to be cultivated for the sake of the fibre only, or should we give more attention to the use of the pineapple fibre because we can in that way help an established industry? I think that in future we will have to give attention to both.

I have been told that we now have that research station at East London and that we have one professional officer and two technicians there. Well, to my mind, that does not seem to be enough. I have not had any experience of that kind of work, but honestly, it does not seem to me to be enough. We shall have to go into the matter. I do not know whether we have sufficient experts in that field in the country, but we shall have to go into the matter. But now I want to differ strongly from the hon. member for East London (City) when he says that these strong companies which cultivate pineapples, should not have to feel themselves obliged to import experts. I think the hon. member is quite wrong there. I think it was a very fine gesture on the part of those people. If they are farming on a large scale and they are going in for pineapples on a large scale, if they are making money out of the industry, it is a fine gesture if they themselves make a contribution by themselves bringing expert advice into the country. I say again: I think it was a very fine gesture.

Now I really do not know whether there is anything left for me to talk about. I think I have replied to all the points. I just want to conclude by saying, thank you very much, gentlemen, for the objective speeches we have had here in regard to agriculture.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 34—“Water Affairs,—R10,107,000” and Loan Vote E—“Water Affairs—R67,415,000”:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? I should like to commence right away this afternoon by referring to a matter which I believe has a very important national character, and that is that with the approaching completion of the Pongola Poort Dam, the hon. the Minister should give his attention to the possibility of the release of some of the water of that dam into the St. Lucia lake system. The position is that at the moment the rivers, which flow into St. Lucia lake and provide fresh water to act as a dilutant, have had big pumping plants installed: they have had dams and weirs erected on them by farmers, and even in flood times it was nearly six weeks, in the case of the Mkuze River, after the floods started before the water reached the lake system. My information is that the salinity in the St. Lucia lake system to-day is something like 10 or 15 per cent above ocean parity, so that St. Lucia is becoming so salty that even the fish are dying as well as other marine organisms. Sir, this is really a dreadful state of affairs. I know that there has been an inquiry and that an investigation has been carried out by the hon. the Minister’s Department. What their report is I do not know. I do not know whether the Minister will make that report available to us in due course, because it was a departmental inquiry. I do not know just what will be the outcome of the report, but I would be grateful if the Minister could make a copy of the report available to us, even if it is of a confidential nature, so that those of us who are concerned with the matter can see exactly what the practical possibilities are. But at this stage. Sir, I ask whether it is possible for the Minister to take into account the possibility of releasing some of the stored water for the purpose of transferring it either by a furrow or through the medium of the Mkuze River into the lake system. The Pongola does not go into the lake system. There is this other dam on the Hluhluwe River, the water of which I understand cannot now be used for irrigation purposes. Possibly if that water, or most of it, is released, it will help very considerably.

That dam is there partly for that very purpose.

I am glad to hear that. That helps considerably. The Pongola itself, as it goes on down to its junction with the great Usutu River, goes through the Ndumu Game Reserve and in flood times it fills up certain pans like the Nyamiti, Mamsi and other of the great pans in the game reserve where there are thousands of wild duck, wild geese, wild water fowl, etc., and where the Pongola Poort Dam is now levelling off the floods. The question has now risen, as a result of a survey by the Provincial Water Engineer, whether water will now flow into those great lakes or whether the lakes will in fact dry up. This is a matter for experts’ advice and for expert investigation. I merely mention that at this stage to see whether it is possible for some of the water to be made available so as to safeguard the future of those lakes. The Nyamiti particularly is always saline; the amount of fresh water that it gets in is always limited; it is a saline lake. In the case of Mamsi that is not so. The flood water can come from the Great Usutu sometimes and sometimes from the Pongola, but with the Pongola flood water cut off or reduced because of the Pongola Poort Dam, it would have a very detrimental effect on the lakes in the Ndumu Game Reserve.

Now I come to another matter which is of growing importance and that is of precisely what is to be our policy with regard to the storage of water in dams where we are associated with foreign countries. Sir, the hon. the Minister was present when I raised this matter under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. I come back to it now, because of the news items which are continually being put across the S.A.B.C. The broadcasts from time to time refer to certain developments and certain conferences which are being held, and I think I am right in saying that only to-day—it may have been yesterday but I think it was to-day —reference was made to a meeting of authorities from the Portuguese Territory, from Botswana and from South West Africa with certain officials from the Republic who were described as observers. The purpose of this meeting was to deal with the question of water from the Kunene and the Okavango, from the point of view of irrigation. The report goes on to say that these are the preliminary investigations and that these matters are being investigated by professional officers and so on. But what I am concerned with is the part which the Republic has to play as a matter of policy. Sir, let me repeat very briefly what this side of the House feels. We feel firstly that we should secure supplies for our own separate communities, irrespective of their race, irrespective of whether it is a rural community dependent upon irrigation or water for their stock.

I cannot follow that point of yours very clearly.

Let me put it this way: There are settled communities in the Republic. Some of them are vast complexes of urban and industrial communities. I refer, for example, to an industrial and urban complex like the Witwatersrand.

They have nothing to do with those border rivers.

No.

Now I follow you.

Some of them are small communities of an urban character but they are laying out developments in connection with industry. Let us take Pietermaritzburg as a case in point. That city is a growing industrial area, which is shooting ahead now, but with a big settled urban population. Then you have populations which are of a settled character in our irrigation settlements, dotted all over the country. Vaalhartz is perhaps a case in point. We on this side of the House say that we should secure the supply of water for the settled communities in our own country as priority number one. Sir, it is a well-known law that when the greatest abstraction of water takes place, it always coincides with the time of least flow. Your abstraction of water is greatest at the time of the lowest flow so that when you have a bad drought, your greatest abstraction will be at the time when your water is running at its lowest. We say that we must first safeguard our own settled communities. Secondly we say that the people who have that security are our own people and that we must develop our own water resources before we go outside our borders. Where we have our own rivers which are not yet fully exploited by means of dams or barrages—and by “water resources” I do not necessarily mean rivers only; there may be other sources of water such as underground supplies—we must first exploit our own rivers. Thirdly, when we have reached that stage, then comes the time for a national grid for water supplies. When you look at a map and you look at Mont-aux-Sources in the Drakensberg you can see at once where the Orange the Tugela and the Wilger Rivers all start alongside each other. Here is a case where you could arrange for the start of a grid. In other words, if there is a bad drought in one part of the country and there is an amplitude of water elsewhere, then let us try to arrange for the grid system to be interchangeable to help the place that is suffering. But this is all within our own confines. As against that, Sir, we have plans, which are continually being referred to, for the Oxbow scheme, the industrial scheme on the Ruacana Falls; we have the Cahora-Bassa scheme, and to-day we hear on the wireless about the Kunene-Okavango scheme. These are either on our boundaries or outside our boundaries. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House are not opposed to that type of scheme. We think from the point of view of development in South Africa and keeping our own development and our own money in our own country, it would be well if we gave security to our own people, if we developed our own resources, if we established our own grid, before we put in vast sums of money running into hundreds of millions of rand in the aggregate, where those schemes may be at the mercy of a foreign state. We know that the Minister has spoken on this point before and, as I say, we are not against those schemes, but we would like our own development to come first. There may be reasons of a diplomatic character which are not really associated with the use of water and which will impel the Government to go ahead with one or more or all of those schemes. The Government in its wisdom might say: “This is a case where we are prepared, for diplomatic reasons, on the basis of a good-neighbour policy, to go in with our neighbours with a view to developing such and such a water resource”. It may lead to a hydro-electric scheme; it may lead to irrigation or it may lead to the development of mining areas. We would like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication as to what his policy in this regard is.

I will do so.

Then, Sir, I come to the question of pollution again. I am very pleased to see at page 197 of the Estimates under E, “Miscellaneous Expenses”, that the R10,000 voted last year to deal with this question of pollution has been increased to R60,000. I am very pleased indeed, and may I say that I am very pleased indeed that the Minister’s Department, according to a letter I received from the Minister, has undertaken the question of the enforcement of the pollution regulations. Sir. I am not going into the question of the difficulties; I know what they are. I have been only too well aware of them ever since we sat on the Select Committee on the Water Act in 1956. The Department has all those difficulties to-day and they will get all the help they possibly can from this side. Sir, this question of pollution is one of the most pressing problems in connection with our water supply. It is no good our building a dam on the headwaters of the river and allowing that water to be used by a factory which then pollutes the whole of the river from the site of the factory right down to the sea. They pollute not only the water which they put through their process.

They pollute the lot.

Yes, that is the trouble. Where a big dam has been constructed in a river and the water from that dam is used by a factory which pollutes the water, that factory pollutes all the water between the factory site and the sea. That river, together with the dam, virtually becomes a private concern for one single factory. Sir, we are becoming an industrial nation in many ways. I have one case in mind where one single factory to-day is using 20 million gallons of water per day. That represents nearly a million gallons an hour. If in fact that was one of the factories which was polluting our rivers —I hasten to say that that is not the case— then think of the catastrophic effect. Why then do I mention it? I mention it because there are other big factories of a like nature being contemplated. Sir, we were told by the previous Minister of Water Affairs, “I will give no permission for the abstraction of water for any factory from any of our rivers until I have a clean certificate from the C.S.I.R. to say that the process which will be carried on in that factory will not leave a noxious effluent for discharge back into the river, or into the sea, as the case may be”. He first of all wanted a clean certificate from the C.S.I.R. Sir, the certificate can come from his own Department as things are at the present time. I see no reason, in view of the letter which I received from the Minister, why his own Department should not be responsible for giving that certificate and saying to the Minister: “We are satisfied that the processes carried on here will not result in a noxious effluent”. But if indeed, there is doubt or difficulty, then the C.S.I.R. should be utilized for the purpose of giving that practical advice which they can give. It would not be altogether reasonable to expect the Minister’s Department to be able to follow the industrial processes which can result in either an effluent which is of a noxious character or an effluent which is not of a noxious character, which is of a benign character. This question of pollution is one which to-day is literally making our hair stand on end when we see what is happening in other countries and what is already threatening us here in South Africa in regard to our water supplies. I put it to the hon. the Minister that from Durban, from the Umgeni River to the Cape border, a matter of 115 miles, those rivers are the only ones in the Republic which are not committed. They are not all exploited to their fullest extent yet. Far from it, but all the other rivers are committed, except those from Durban to the Cape border. That is one reason why I am so pleased that the hon. the Minister has accepted the invitation to come and look at those rivers during the recess, because once those rivers are committed you will have factory after factory on the same river. The time may yet come when the Minister will come to this House and say: I have had enough of this nonsense about pollution and I am coming with a Bill to amend the Water Act and to provide that all the effluent of every factory shall be put into the intake of that factory. Let the factories get the proof of the pudding in re-using their own effluent. If the factory’s methods of cleaning the effluent are such that we can rely upon their assertion that that effluent is no longer noxious, let them re-use that effluent, and if it is good enough for that then probably we will not have much cause for complaint. But take the case of America, where one of the greatest lakes in the world, Lake Erie, is so polluted that it is going to cost countless millions of dollars to purify it.

It is just a sewerage dam.

That is quite right. That is the danger of pollution. When once you start putting noxious effluent into a porous river bed, we do not know how far away from it pollution of our water supplies will take place. Are we going to be surprised one of these days when we find that a river with a porous bed has been absorbing polluted water and it is now perhaps coming out in fountains or wells many miles away? Our data in connection with underground water supplies are still insufficient, and we have neither the money nor the time nor the manpower at this stage to carry out such a survey that we can say with certainty where this water goes to once it is turned into a river bed. So from every point of view I would ask the Minister to deal with this matter of pollution with a very firm hand. We on this side will support any measures he may take in that regard.

I should just like to tell this House that when the hon. member for South Coast discusses water affairs in this way and does not make a political issue out of it then it is worthwhile listening to him. I think that if one is able to put forward such a positive case in regard to something which is near to our hearts then we can listen to it, and I want to congratulate the hon. member on having done so.

But I have risen to discuss only one aspect. The hon. member asked that some of the water from the Pongola Poort Dam be transferred to the St. Lucia lake. In the first instance I want to agree with one statement which the hon. member made, i.e. that there is the tremendous problem that St. Lucia is gradually becoming brackish and that as a result the natural animal life in the lake can be totally destroyed. It is true, as the hon. member said, that there has been a commission of inquiry which was concerned with the increase of the undergrowth surrounding that lake with the result that the springs which formerly fed that lake were drying up. The springs were drying up as a result of the increase in the undergrowth. On a previous occasion the hon. member also discussed the Pongola Dam in this House but on that occasion he made a political issue of it and it is necessary that the matter be rectified in this House.

I have here in my hand an extract which comes from the Supreme Court in Durban, and I want to read it out [translation]—

I want to say here that when we make statements in regard to the utilization of water and the building of dams, and then sow doubts and suggest that there was no planning, or that the dam had been planned for a purpose which had now been abandoned, we must really make sure of our facts. We should not try and play the one Minister off against the other in regard to the utilization of water from such a dam. I do not think that that is fair.

But I want to go further. On that same occasion it was said that this dam had been planned without the necessary preliminary investigation having been made, and that we still did not know what the position there was Let me tell this House that soil surveys have already been carried out on 133,500 morgen, and I want to say that 35,500 morgen of this land is good irrigation land which will be irrigated from this dam. Then there is another 18,400 morgen of reasonably good sandy soil which is only suitable for spray irrigation. Suitable land which is still being investigated covers an area of 10,000 morgen. In other words, in this one area alone 54,000 morgen can be made available for irrigation. There is a further 35,000 morgen of white sandy soil. One should not summarily dismiss white sandy soil, for just look at what is being done on the Cape Flats where vegetables are being grown with spray irrigation, and in many places grapes are being cultivated in this white sand. It may perhaps be possible to make that white sandy soil suitable by means of spray irrigation. I want to put it to this House that this dam was not without planning, which was submitted to the House in a White Paper. That White Paper was submitted only after an investigation had been instituted by the Natural Resources Development Council, and after the report had been laid upon the Table and the Minister had inspected the reports on the production problem, and after we had also established a research station there to investigate thoroughly the possible danger of the soil becoming saline and what kind of crops could possibly be cultivated there. I just rose to place on record this matter in regard to the economic usefulness of the water from that dam. I want to agree with the hon. member for South Coast that we may possibly be able to use some of this water on the western side of the mountain as well, on that fertile red soil—and according to the White Paper it can be led into the Nkosi. If we are able to lead some of this water into the Nkosi and with the development of tourism in South Africa it subsequently becomes essential, then it may perhaps be a good thing to investigate and consider whether we should not let some of that water flow into the St. Lucia lake as well because I want to agree with him that that area is a paradise for holiday-makers and tourists. That is a very positive suggestion which the hon. member made, one which is worthwhile investigating because it is possible that we may be able to earn as much currency from tourism as we can earn from irrigation land, particularly where we have this beautiful scenery all along the East Coast. I say again that when the hon. member discusses the pollution of water, as he did to-day, and does it so positively then I have no quarrel with him. I can only agree with him because he gave practical examples, and because they are matters which we have to investigate. We are dealing with these matters every day. When the hon. member goes further to mention the possibilities and problems of other dams then we can debate the matter. But if the hon. member wants to make a political issue of these kinds of things then for his own sake I want to ask him not to do what he did in regard to the Pongola Dam when he attacked the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. He should first acquaint himself with the true facts before doing anything like that.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in regard to the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast. In regard to water affairs the hon. member for South Coast adopted a different and non-political attitude. His attitude is appreciated in view of the fact that water is something without which we cannot do in Southern Africa. The hon. member for South Coast said that before investments were made elsewhere on our borders our own resources had to be developed. He referred to a grid of water canals or pipes by means of which water could be taken over an entire area from places where there was water to places where there was no water. The Department of Water Affairs is already engaged in doing that. We see that it is already engaged in damming the Usutu River so as to let the water gravitate to the Jericho Dam, which is under construction, from where the water will be pumped and gravity-fed to Camden. It is also diverting water from the Orange River to the Sundays River. There are also similar plans in regard to the Tugela basin from where it will be possible to pump water over the drainage divide into the Vaal basin. If one wants to make politics of this matter one can say that it is only the National Party Government that wants to divert the water flowing towards the Atlantic Ocean to flow in the direction of the Indian Ocean, or vice versa. The United Party, of course, has never had any such ambitious idea but with a view to future development the National Party is looking towards the horizon or even beyond the horizon. But I want to come back to another statement made by the hon. member in regard to the water schemes contemplated to be established on the borders of South West Africa, on the Kunene and the Okavango, on the Zambezi, or even those closer fey in Lesotho. The hon. member expressed a certain degree of concern as did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in another debate. The hon. member for South Coast said, “We will be at the mercy of a foreign state”. He referred to the question of security and said that we first had to give attention to our internal sources of water before embarking on the schemes on the borders. In large-scale planning, however, it is essential to take into consideration all sources to which one is entitled and even those in the Kunene, the Okavango and the Zambezi ought to be planned along with internal sources of water as a single unit. Consequently it is essential for us to enter into negotiations at the present time so that we may plan on a long-term basis. The hon. member is concerned about the security aspect. I can give the hon. member the assurance that there are many examples in the world of similar schemes being in operation. I have in mind the scheme contemplated to be established on the Kunene River, for example, where much of our capital expenditure will be made in the Portuguese territory. A similar case, for example, is the scheme on the Columbia River on the border between Canada and the U.S.A. where capital expenditure was made inside Canada. Large storage dams were constructed on Canadian territory whereas the electric turbines are on U.S.A. territory. We contemplate a similar scheme to be established on the Kunene River in co-operation with the Portuguese. The hon. member said that that involved the aspect of security. What security do we have in such a case? The security is to be found in the fact that there is a common interest in the water and the electricity and if one nation were to destroy those dams, from sheer hatred because there was political friction, for example, that would be to the detriment of both. There is common ownership. This common interest which exists is actually the security which is offered to both countries which are concerned in the matter. We have a fine example in the case of the Kariba Dam. In spite of the fact that there has been and still is political friction between the two states, one does not find that anyone has made any attempt to destroy that dam. Why has no such attempt been made? It is for the simple reason that both states derive benefit from the supply of electricity. That is an asset to them, it is important in their political economies and consequently neither state interferes with that dam with the intention of harming the other. In a previous debate the hon. member for South Coast also referred to the friction which existed between India and Pakistan in regard to the Indus River. The various tributaries of the river are such that a treaty has been entered into which involves the question of development and payments to be made. I have the particulars here and if hon. members are interested I can read them to you. The fact remains, however, that in spite of political friction existing between those two countries, neither has dared to destroy capital assets. I am mentioning these points to illustrate my point of view that the fear of sabotage is unfounded.

I want to come to another aspect also raised by the hon. member for South Coast, and that is water pollution. I want to express my appreciation for the attitude he adopted in that regard. This is an extremely important aspect, particularly in view of increased industrial expansion in Southern Africa in the future. All water in municipal areas, for example, has to be taken into account and in this regard I have in mind Johannesburg, for example, whose daily consumption is approximately 220 million gallons of water at the present time. If we assume that half of that quantity is used for essential industrial purposes, approximately the same quantity, minus approximately 2 million gallons, flows down the sewerage systems or is returned to the rivers, etc. If people can be forced to re-use that water instead, it will be possible to use all that water on a basis of rotation and to keep it in circulation and. with the necessary supplement, the process can simply be repeated, minus approximately 2 million gallons of water at every repetition. In this way enormous savings can be effected. We do find that an enormous quantity of water is flowing away in Johannesburg’s numerous sewerage systems at present. In Windhoek it is the intention to reclaim such water. The plant is at present being erected and sewerage water will be purified to such an extent that it can be returned to the consumption canals or reticulation system. It will then be utilized for domestic purposes. The water will then be re-used. That ought to be an obligation in respect of all sewerage water and in places such as Johannesburg. Pietermaritzburg and Cape Town it ought to be made compulsory to return such water to the reticulation systems for domestic use. In this way we shall be able to go a much longer way with our limited supplies.

I now want to come to another point and I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to what has been said here from time to time. I think the hon. member for Soutpansberg has mentioned it in various speeches. He also did so yesterday. It relates, to be specific, to an institute for water research which is being established at Pienaarsrivier by the Department of Water Affairs. During the discussion of a private motion last February— it appears in column 1244—it was said that the Department of Water Affairs was going to establish an institute for water research there. Can the hon. the Minister give us more particulars in this regard? It seems to me as if there is going to be tremendous overlapping in regard to the outstanding work which is being done by the National Institute for Water Research of the C.S.I.R. under the leadership of one of our most capable researchers, a person of world-wide renown and stature … [Time expired.]

Once you get the waters from South West flowing, Sir, it is apparently difficult to cut them off. I wish to leave the matter of the Pongola Poort Dam with the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for South Coast. I believe the hon. member will return to this debate to-morrow. I want to say that as far as we are concerned, there is still a lot of explaining to be done in regard to the Pongola Poort Dam. We are not satisfied with what was said here this afternoon. We believe that much has still to come out, which has not yet seen the light of day in regard to the planning, the development and the projected development of this dam. We await with interest the developments that will take place and the revelations that will come from hon. members on the other side.

I want to express to the hon. the Minister my appreciation of the words he used here when he said that we have to put a stop to water pollution. I believe that we in South Africa are only just beginning to tackle that problem. I believe that our problem up to now has been that our big municipalities have been battling to find a supply of water. Our problem has been one rather of water supply than of the control of pollution. I think that in future we are going to find more and more, as our development becomes more and more intensive, that the control of water pollution is going to become our prime problem. If you consider the size of the United States and the fantastic resources of fresh water that country has and when you consider the tremendous efforts which are now being made by the United States of America to control and to catch up on the pollution of their fresh water resources, it becomes evident that we must, before our development really gets started, make the effort and give to this Minister and his Department the powers to enforce control over this problem of water pollution. A tremendous effort has been made in the United States. It started when President Johnson said, and I quote from a pamphlet issued by the United States Department of the Interior, entitled “A new era for America’s waters”:

That is the position in the United States. He went further, and this is where it comes very close to us here in South Africa:

And that applies to us.

I believe that we have to take very timeous note of the developments that have taken place. I refer particularly to the area of Natal known as the Tugela Valley, because there is a projected development which the Natal Town and Regional Planning Board said could house 15,000,000 people. But it will not be able to house 1,000,000 people, should the control of water pollution not be embarked upon at the beginning. I would hate to see the whole of this matter simply go by the board because attention has not been paid to it in time. I wish to question very seriously whether the department is in a position to give due attention to water pollution, whether that branch of the department is strong enough to make sure that it can control from the beginning the pollution of water and whether it has the necessary knowhow and staff to plan the utilization of water in the Tugela Valley to ensure that this valley is not spoilt for the future industrial development by the pollution of water. I believe we have embarked on the problem in the right way in that the Water Act insists that the treatment of effluent is part and parcel of the use made of water by factories. I think this is the right way to do it, because it has been proved that the modern practice in the treatment of effluent is to treat in the factory the various elements of the industrial effluent and to treat them separately as they emerge from the various processes, rather than allowing them to mix together in one big tank, for instance, where complex reactions take place among the various elements themselves. Each plant should treat its own effluent rather than allowing it to go into a municipal sewer, where it will mix with the effluent from other factories and with the human waste which comes from the municipality itself, because then one is merely compounding the difficulty of the problem of sorting out and purifying the effluent which has to be discharged eventually into a river. I believe that we have a very big problem. I think the hon. the Minister, as an ex-Administrator of the Orange Free State, will agree with me when I say that the ordinary, small local authority, or even the small town in the rural areas, will be considerably strained financially to make the type of provision that is going to have to be made if effluent control is to be exercised—because the normal small municipality does not have the financial resources to cope with that kind of problem. Where there is this development in the Tugela Valley, places like Ladysmith. Colenso and some of the smaller areas there are inevitably going to be burdened with big industrial complexes, which will have complex and complicated chemicals to be extracted from the effluent which they are discharging. I think that the Minister must begin to consider to-day whether it is not possible by means of some enforcement agency, something which is bigger than the local authority, to provide funds which are going to enable that local authority to cope with this problem. Because I do not see in my own mind the ordinary small local authority being able to cope with it. It means that somebody is going to have to supply technical knowledge and finance. This could be done by an enforcement agency such as has been mooted before by the hon. member for South Coast. It could make a charge, if necessary, for the treatment of effluent. This is something which I think the hon. the Minister must consider. But I believe that it is along that road that we have to go if we are going to find any kind of solution.

I want to bring to the Minister’s attention one other matter which has emerged from the problem in the Great Lakes Area. Spioenkop Dam has been built. There is R1,500,000 on estimates for this year. The White Paper makes specific mention of the fact that the river is comparatively free of silt and that this dam will serve as a protection for the dams lower down. The experience in the U.S.A. has been that, by reason of the enrichment, as it is called, of the Great Lakes, which are colossal bodies of water, by municipal sewage and other factors, the algae in those lakes have built up to such an extent that under favourable conditions, particularly a period of heat and low inflow from the rivers, there is what they call a “bloom” where the algae simply goes mad and covers up the whole surface of the water, killing the fish and creating a tremendous nuisance by reason of the smell that it gives off. I believe that we have to see to it that any dams in a series, as they will be on the Tugela, the Umgeni and other big rivers of our country, should be protected against this sort of pollution. [Time expired.]

It is particularly pleasant to participate in this debate today, because it is rarely if ever that we experience such calm during a debate as is the case this afternoon. We have just had two truly constructive speeches from the opposite side. It will be of much more importance to our country as a whole if we have more speeches of that kind.

The recent years of drought created a serious water famine throughout the biggest part of the Republic of South Africa. Lately that has led to countrywide discussions on and planning in regard to water conservation and making provision for future years of drought. That is a very healthy trend indeed, and the steps taken by the Government in this connection are praiseworthy. We are all fully conscious of the sympathetic attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister in this connection. That is why I feel myself at liberty to-day to raise an urgent and important matter in respect of a group of irrigation farmers on the Harts River. Perhaps I should give a general picture of this river seeing that most of the hon. members in this House do not know where the Harts River is. The catchment area of the Harts River extends over an area of hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles. It extends from the west of the Witwatersrand plateau to 75 miles to the north of Lichtenburg, and to 50 miles to the north of Vryburg, where the Dry Harts originates. It includes the entire Ghaap mountain range to the west and the entire Vaalharts irrigation area to the east. The rainfall over the biggest part of this catchment area is plus/minus 18 inches per annum, but the rains usually fall during thunderstorms, with the result that a great deal of water flows away. Large quantities of water flow away annually without having been utilized. Surveys were made during the forties with a view to building a dam on the Harts River. A suitable place was found immediately above Spitskop. According to information at my disposal, such a dam can be built fairly cheaply. The basic ingredients for concrete, namely sand, stone and cement, are all obtainable in the immediate vicinity. The cement factory at Ulco is approximately 40 miles from the area, and sand from the Vaal River is also close at hand.

At present there are approximately 30 irrigation farmers along the Harts River who irrigate approximately 2,000 morgen. This figure can quite easily be increased to 5,000 morgen. This figure merely relates to land irrigated by Whites, and does not include land irrigated by Bantu. For many miles the reserve borders on the west bank of the river. Many Bantu are dependent on the water of the Harts River for domestic use and for their animals. Even many of the Whites are dependent on this water for domestic use and for their animals, because borehole water is too salty in most cases. There is a prospect of a large Bantu village, namely Paper Village, being established at Mamutla—that is a reserve in that area—and there is talk of approximately 225,000 gallons of water being pumped from the Harts River daily in order to supply the needs of those people. That will have the result that there will be less water for the irrigation farmers.

Of the aforesaid 30 farmers along the river, 27 are completely dependent on irrigation and, without irrigation, their farms will definitely be uneconomic units. These farmers have all installed pumps at a cost of thousands of rand and, according to my information, they have never asked for any State subsidy. The preparation, deforestation, etc., of these irrigation lands were carried out at their own expense. In other words, there was no Government expenditure as is the case at irrigation schemes being established at present.

For the most part fodder crops are grown on this land, and the past number of years proved that there was a tremendous shortage of fodder in the Northern Cape. This state of affairs can be relieved to a large extent by building this dam on the Harts River. During the winter months wheat is also grown if there is water in the river. With a dam which will ensure a constant supply of water in the river, it will be possible to expand this industry.

In addition a dam on the Harts River will, indeed, bring relief to the Vaal River. I have in mind, for instance, the pumping of water from this dam to the Gainagarra pipe-line. At present water is being pumped just below the confluence of the Vaal River and the Harts River. Such a dam can also bring relief to the Vaal River. What is more, this dam can also supply water to farmers lower down on the Vaal River. But, apart from that, the situation of this river is such that it will be possible to transfer surplus water through the canals of the Vaalharts scheme to this river. At times it happens that the Vaal River is in flood and that a large quantity of surplus water has to flow down to the sea, while no rain has fallen over the catchment area of the Harts River. This dam could quite easily absorb the quantity of surplus water which was to flow down to the sea.

I have just outlined these few ideas in brief so that the importance of this dam may be realized. I do feel convinced, however, that this matter justifies an investigation by the Department so as to investigate all aspects of the urgent need for a dam on the Harts River. This river is, admittedly, an insignificant one, but the building of a dam on this river will be of tremendous assistance to the country as a whole in its attempts to conserve water.

Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker on the opposite side, as well as the hon. member for South Coast, once more deemed it necessary this afternoon to raise the question of the Pongola Poort Dam. I am truly surprised that these hon. members persist in raising this same matter over and over again. I want to say immediately that / do not intend replying to that. It is, however, necessary to point out that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure gave a conclusive reply to those gentlemen during a previous debate. Again this afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agricultural and Water Affairs gave a detailed reply to that and pointed out that in the past the Opposition had blundered as far as this matter was concerned. The hon. member indicated that henceforth they were going to ask many questions in regard to the Pongola Dam. Are they not satisfied with the detailed replies they have received on ministerial level?

No.

As far as this matter is concerned, we prefer to leave the hon. member at that. We want to support him, however, as regards another aspect mentioned by him, namely water pollution. In this connection, as a previous speaker said, he made a positive contribution. Now, the hon. member for Mooi River intimated that nothing was actually being done in this connection. The hon. member tried to create the impression for the benefit of the public that the Department was not at all concerned about the pollution of water, and that is something which is not true at all. We all know, and surely the hon. member also knows, that a special division has been established in the Department of Water Affairs to deal with the prevention of water pollution, as well as the purification of polluted water. I can bear testimony to the fact that that division has from time to time carried out tests in the constituency I represent, with particular reference to the pollution of water. Consequently, we are grateful for what is being done. We do not want to say that there is not much room for improvement. We readily concede that. However, I do not think that it is fair to say that as little is being done as the hon. member wanted to intimate here.

This afternoon I should like to raise another matter here. The following question has been asked very often lately: “Is water a restricting factor in the development of the Republic of South Africa?” The limited time at my disposal, unfortunately, does not permit me to give a conclusive reply to that question nor to make an analysis of the facts. But that that is a topical question is obvious. Consequently, it is necessary for the Government to give its attention to this matter, as it is, indeed, doing. It is also necessary that any other body or person who has anything to do with the consumption of water, no matter for what purpose, should regard this matter as something serious. It is also necessary for us to appeal to our primary consumers of water, whether for primary or any other purposes, that we must have a new approach in respect of the consumption of water. We are inclined to adopt a very liberal attitude in respect of water, and an appeal should be made that we are to be much more conservative in our thoughts when we speak of water. When South Africa was young all the water belonged to the farmers, there was free use of water and there were never any disputes about water, but gradually, as the country developed, we found that disputes did arise about water. In 1912 all the existing Water Acts of the different republics, as well as all the existing ordinances of the provinces, were consolidated into the 1912 Act. That Act contained a very explicit formula according to which water was to be divided. As I have already said, the 1912 Act was a consolidating measure and, as a result, the principles embodied in the various Acts of that time were included in that Act. According to a very clear formula in that Act, the consumers of water for primary purposes had precedence, then came the consumption of water for secondary purposes, i.e. for irrigation purposes and, in the third place, the consumption of water for tertiary purposes. As our country developed and industry started to play a much more powerful and important role in our political economy, it became necessary to consolidate our legislation a second time and, after a very thorough investigation, and after a select committee of this House had considered the measure, the 1956 Act was passed. The 1956 Act, which is called the Water Act, departed from the formula contained in the 1912 Act in the sense that our water was nationalized, and that the State was granted the right to divide water according to a system of merits, something we fully accept. We do not say that the principle which applied prior to 1956 was entirely discarded, but what is, in fact, true is that the rights of the consumers of water for secondary purposes, i.e. for agricultural purposes, who will have precedence over the consumers of water for tertiary purposes, i.e. for industrial purposes, were not clearly defined in the 1912 Act, with the result that people have doubts when it comes to the application of the Act at the present time. Prior to 1956 thousands of millions of rand were invested in the agricultural industry on the strength of the availability of irrigation water in terms of the 1912 Act and, as our industries began to develop in the catchment areas of the irrigation regions, our people began to fear that the consumption of water for tertiary purposes could have adverse effect on the interests of the agricultural industry. I want to say immediately that the Department and the Minister are going out of their way to protect established agricultural interests, and I want to emphasize the fact that that is so, but the fact remains that development which is being planned for the future in the agricultural sphere will have to have due regard to the possibility that it may be hampered to a certain extent as a result of the application of the 1956 Act. I want to emphasize here that our farmers in the agricultural industry as such are concerned about the possibility that the agricultural industry will gradually be dominated by industrial development.

But let us go a little deeper into the matter. What is the potential of South Africa’s water sources? According to expert opinion, South Africa’s potential is approximately 1,000 gallons per day per person. In contradistinction to that the quantity is 70,000 gallons per day per person in Canada and 5,000 gallons per day per person in the U.S.A. These figures prove that here we are concerned with very Limited sources which we can develop. But how do these figures compare with the consumption of water? Experts maintain that every person in the Republic needs a total quantity of 300 gallons per day. Of those 300 gallons, 250 gallons per person per day are used for irrigation purposes and 50 gallons for industrial purposes. In other words, 50 gallons per day per person are utilized for primary and tertiary purposes.

Mr. Chairman, it is necessary for us to take a closer look at this matter. Time does not permit me to analyse this statement, but experts make the statement that, by using 1,000 gallons of water, seen from an industrial point of view, up to R5.60 may be earned, whereas 1000 gallons of water for irrigation earn 10c only. In addition, it is stated that 60 gallons of water are required to produce steel which is worth R1, and that 11,000 gallons are required to produce lucerne which is worth R1. Mr. Chairman, these are very interesting figures and, when one views the matter from a purely economic point of view, there may be a great deal in favour of that, but as soon as one approaches this matter from another angle and includes other factors in one’s calculations, one finds that a completely distorted image and confused impression is created amongst the public in respect of our water consumption, and it is against that trend that we should like to issue a warning. [Time expired.]

I am very surprised to hear the hon. member for Potgietersrust accusing me of saying that I was looking down on the effort made by the Department to control water pollution. That was certainly not my intention. The question I asked the Department and the Minister was whether the time had not arrived to give more and increasing attention to this problem which is going to become one of the most important that we are going to have to face. I am not satisfied in my own mind and I ask the hon. the Minister to satisfy me and to tell me whether in fact the machinery available in his Department is enough and whether he regards it as sufficient to cope with the problem, which is going to become more and more serious. I refer specifically to the Tugela Valley because I believe there we have an opportunity to create the first place probably in the whole world where an industrial complex has been planned on the basis of water utilization. This is entirely virgin veld as far as industry is concerned. There are no industries of any significance there to-day, but this area is designed to be one of the prime industrial areas of South Africa. We have the Minister and his Department starting to provide water here, and I want to know that they have this matter of control of pollution in their minds right from the beginning and that they have the machinery to do it. Sir, you only have to look at the things which are done in the United States, where you get report after report as to what is being done to control water pollution. You find that inter-state conferences are being called to control waters which flow through more than one state. Sir, the problem that worries me is this question of the control of pollution. I do not want the hon. member for Potgietersrust to think that I am sneering at the Department; that is not so. I believe they are doing a job of work under great difficulties, and I appreciate what they are doing, but I want to be assured that they can take adequate steps to deal with a problem which is becoming more and more serious.

Having said that, I now want to turn to a matter where I regard this Department as being completely and absolutely culpable. I believe that the Department has been negligent in what I regard as a very serious matter indeed. I want to raise this matter with the Minister, and I raise it as one of urgency because of the tremendous development which has taken place in this country of ours in regard to the storage and reticulation of water. Sir, every single major dam that is built will reticulate the water by means of pipelines, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to what is done when the pipelines are laid. I want to refer specifically to an area outside Pietermaritzburg, an area called Lincoln Mead, which is a private development. There are perhaps 200 people living there. The pipeline from the Midmar Dam to Hammarsdale traverses this area, right through the middle of it, following the line of the oil pipeline which was put in by the Department of Transport. I believe it could have bypassed this area and I want to ask now that the Minister should consider in future paying specific attention to bypassing such areas where possible. If possible, settled areas should be bypassed. I believe that the Department has been lax in what happened in this particular case, and I believe it is something which could happen in every other case where a pipeline traverses a settled area. What happened here was that a contract was let to a private contractor to lay the pipeline and that contractor contracted with another concern to dig the trench. The trench was dug and to-day it is practically as far down as Camperdown, and it was dug right through the middle of Lincoln Mead and every 100 yards or so, or wherever it was necessary, a plug of earth was left by the contractors in that trench to give access from one side to the other. Representations were made to the Minister’s Department, in the person of the engineer at Midmar, to fence off that trench. The trench in some places is ten or twelve feet deep, and anybody who knows Natal will know that in the rainy season those things will fill up with water. I believe it was a lack of foresight and a lack of commonsense on the part of the Department, which did not foresee that where you have a settled area with little children and you have a trench in which there are plugs of earth and which may fill up with water, it is likely that there will be a fatal happening with some of these small children playing around next to the trench. That is what happened. This cost the life of a small child. I am informed that representations were made to the Department to ask them to fence it off, and it was not until after this fatality had occurred that it was fenced off. I am not here to try to make anything out of this. It is far too heartrending an occurrence to try to blackguard the Minister or his Department about it, but I ask that it be considered in the future because there must be many communities throughout South Africa where trenches are going to be dug for pipelines, either through or near their areas. Consideration should be given either to covering over the pipeline or else to delay the digging of the trench until such time as the pipeline reaches the boundary or preferably half a mile away from the boundary of a settled area, and on both sides, so that this kind of thing cannot happen again. Not only that, but in this particular area roads cross this trench and there are places where it is 15 feet deep. It is quite possible, in view of the rains we have had, that some family will be driving along there on a dark night and find that the plug has been taken out by the pressure of water. This is something which can affect any community and I ask the Minister to accept this as a matter of principle. How it will work is not my function to tell the Minister in detail, but where a trench is dug for a pipeline, either the pipeline should be laid and covered over or if that is not practicable the digging of the trench should be delayed until such time as the pipeline reaches the settled area and then it should be run straight through and covered up with a minimum of delay. My information is that in this area the trench will be open for eighteen months, and that presupposes another rainy season. There is now a barbed wire fence along both sides of the trench, but it is still possible for children to get round it or through it, and there is a way of avoiding it, as I have just pointed out to the Minister. I do ask that consideration be given to this point.

Mr. Chairman, on this first occasion I should like to address you on the development, with State aid, of the water sources of the Breë River valley. But before I do so, Sir, allow me to pay tribute to that great son of South Africa, Dr. Dönges, who served the constituency of Worcester and his country with great distinction for many years and who will shortly be inaugurated as the second State President of the Republic of South Africa. Our very best wishes accompany him and his wife where they are about to assume this high office, one to which we firmly believe they will bring new glory.

The constituency of Worcester forms the central area of the Breë River valley, which looks like a very flourishing area to outsiders. That, however, is not the full truth and that is evident, inter alia, from the fact that the average rainfall, excluding areas on the mountain slopes, is approximately 10 inches only which may be compared to regions such as Willowmore and Victoria West. What one sees there to-day, the beautiful vineyards and orchards, is the creation of successive generations of farmers who started irrigation farming as long ago as 1730. They developed that area, often on poor soil and with very little water in summer, into one of the most intensively irrigated areas in the Republic at present; its agricultural production already amounts to R22 million per annum.

But now this region can go no further, and that is evident from the fact that the increase in the white population has become absolutely static. Up to 1951 the increase in the population in Worcester, which is a relatively large town, kept pace with the average national increase in population but subsequent to that it no longer did so. During the years 1946 to 1951 the White birth rate still increased by 7.9 per cent but during the nine years from 1951 to 1960 it increased by .93 per cent only. At present the position is that private initiative and local bodies and persons can no longer develop the valley by themselves without State aid.

What is more alarming is the fact that in 1950 there still used to be one White for every two non-Whites. By 1960 72.4 per cent of the approximately 140,000 inhabitants of this valley were non-Whites, i.e. a ratio of one to three; and we are heading very rapidly for a ratio of one to four in an area which is considered to be brown and white man’s country. The position is that after a peaceful and even development of approximately 250 years, we are faced with the situation that it may virtually become brown man’s country only. In spite of that the valley and its inhabitants are very confident because to a large extent the resources of the valley have not been developed. There are approximately 727.0 morgen of arable land of which only 24 per cent is scheduled under irrigation boards and only 15.6 per cent is actually under irrigation. The climate is very favourable and permits of agricultural produce reaching the desired quality and there is a very reliable and high rainfall in the higher regions which gives the Breë River an annual flow of 727,000 morgen-feet of silt-free water. At present only 6 per cent or 44,000 morgen-feet are stored in dams of a capacity of more than 2,000 morgen-feet. The secret of success in this valley is to be found in the combination of the following three things, i.e. land water and climate, with White initiative and capital. It happens to be so that nature shaped the valley for irrigation. The highest rainfall occurs in the higher regions. The arable land is situated in the lower, dry regions. There are sufficient sites for dams at suitable places and it is possible to construct canals on both sides of the valley along contours, whereby virtually all arable land can be placed under irrigation. Water is the major restricting factor in the development of our country. Where we are approaching a very large increase in the population, it is encouraging to know that it will be possible in the Breë River valley, which produced two per cent of the total agricultural production of the country in 1960, to increase that production by more than seven times to 15 per cent of the production of 1960 if the sources of water are utilised profitably. It is doubtful whether there is another valley in South Africa at present with such great potential as the Breë River valley where such a large quantity of water is flowing away to the sea without having been utilised. We want to plead with the hon. the Minister to give the most careful consideration in the meantime to the major benefits which a large scheme in this valley hold, not only for the region concerned, but for South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Worcester on his maiden speech. He has approached his speech in an objective manner and if he continues in that way we will continue listening to him with great interest in future. We wish him every success for the rest of the time that he is in this House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River has referred to the pipeline from Midmar and I want to carry the matter a stage further. The Midmar Dam was planned by this Government and this showed foresight and indicated that the Government was taking into account the long-term use of water in the Natal Midlands and the water requirements for the coast. As the Minister knows, when that dam has supplied all the requirements, another dam is contemplated in the Albert Falls area. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he thinks that sufficient attention has been given to the planning of the Midmar pipeline down to the Camperdown-Hammarsdale area because it seems to me that the department has not looked far enough ahead and, furthermore, that the department has not utilized all the powers that it has at the present moment. The Minister knows that the Government has planned the Hammarsdale area. If ever there was an example of water pollution, it is in that area. The Minister knows the Hammarsdale industrial township is on the banks of the Sterkspruit River. The Sterkspruit River flows into the Umlaas River and on the Umlaas River is the Shongweni Dam. Some years ago I made representations to the Minister’s predecessor in connection with the pollution of the river by the industrialists in that area. As a result attempts were made to treat some of the industrial effluent. These efforts were unsuccessful or only partially successful. Farmers in the area below have complained on several occasions to the department that their water supply was being contaminated by industrial effluent from that area. What was the department’s reply? Instead of insisting that the factories control the effluent they found an easier way out of the difficulty, namely, to bring a pipeline from Midmar down to the Hammarsdale area and so supply the industrialists and some of the farmers. In the meantime, of course, a dam had been built on the Sterkspruit which proved inadequate for the requirements of the factories in the area and we find a partial scheme as far as the industrial areas are concerned. In addition to that we find that the water was being contaminated. In addition to the contamination we find that a pipeline has been laid from Pietermaritzburg to Hammarsdale and that no consideration has been given to the further use of that water. I submit that the Minister should have considered when laying the pipeline down to Hammarsdale, the possible use of water further down. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks that that water was going to be adequate for future development in that area because already applications have been made by another water corporation lower down and the Minister’s department has indicated that it is prepared to give that water corporation approximately 4 million gallons a day. In addition to the 4 millions gallons a day, it is possible that further water will be required I should like to know from the Minister what the purpose is of laying this Midmar pipeline down to Hammarsdale. Is it only to meet the requirements of Hammarsdale or is it proposed to meet the requirements of the other users in the area? There are other townships springing up in that area. There are other townships between Midmar and Hammarsdale. There are also other townships between Hammarsdale and the coast. If this pipeline is only to supply the townships as far as Hammarsdale, we are going to find the problem later on of the other townships buying their water from Durban, pumping their water from Durban up into the hills and then gravitating it down to the other areas. It seems to me that inadequate foresight has been given to the whole problem of water reticulation from the Midmar Dam. It seems to be quite unsound to take water from the Midmar Dam to allow it to be gravity fed down to Hammarsdale and then for users lower down in the Hillcrest and Bothashill areas to buy their water from Durban, to pump it up into the hills and allow it to gravity feed further down. In my opinion inadequate foresight has been given to the whole planning of this Midmar line. Furthermore, the departments—not necessarily the Minister’s department, but other Government departments— have shown inadequate foresight in planning this industrial area and not taking steps to ensure that industrial effluent does not pollute this river, making it necessary—because the river is allowed to remain polluted—to use water from Midmar. Surely the first requirement should be to ensure that the water from the Sterkspruit should not be polluted, before bringing a pipeline from Midmar. Having brought the pipeline from Midmar, the Minister’s department should still ensure that the industries established there should not continue to pollute the river. It is only a matter of time before the old Shongweni dam will be completely polluted and will become a sewer. I suggest that the whole question of pollution, to which the Minister says he intends to give his attention, should be reconsidered, particularly with regard to the Hammarsdale area. The Sterkspruit is becoming polluted and the Shongweni dam is in danger of becoming polluted. The immediate problem is being met not by controlling the pollution, but by providing a new line from Midmar. I do not want to decry the pipeline from Midmar, but I do say that insufficient attention is being given to long-term planning. Probably a bigger line from Midmar down to the Midlands area would save expense in later years. What has happened now is that a big trench has been dug across the countryside. A pipe of limited capacity is being laid. When it is finished I am quite sure that the Minister will find that that pipeline will not be able to meet the demands made on it by the intermediate areas. There will not be enough water for the local authorities and for industries in the Hammarsdale area, and also for the other local authorities in the Natal Midlands area. I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is in regard to this pipeline from Midmar to the Midlands area and what his future plans are with regard to the reticulation of water from the Midmar area. If his plans are to allow Durban to take all the water and then to sell it to the local authorities, another question arises, namely, the evasion of the terms of the Water Act, which allows a local authority to make a profit before it sells to other local authorities. That is a matter which has already been raised with the Minister and I trust that the Minister will in due course indicate what his policy is in regard to the water supplied from Midmar to the Natal Midlands.

As the previous speaker devoted his speech to local matters, I shall not respond to it. During the recent serious drought it became apparent, as never before, that our developing agriculture, our growing towns and cities and our multiplying industries are all stretching out a hand to the sources of our country’s limited water supply in order to meet their increasing and inevitable needs. It is clear that the State is thoroughly aware of this fundamental fact of growing responsibility in respect of water conservation and provision, and the encouraging progress which has already been made is praiseworthy. We are grateful for that. The (f) completed reservoirs have an aggregate capacity of 2,277,641 morgen feet. In addition, 25 dams are projected, dams with a capacity of 5,189,134 morgen feet. If we take this into consideration it is clear that the aggregate capacity of our dams will be approximately 7,466,775 morgen feet within the next five years. What is important is that as a result we shall be able to conserve about 371 per cent of the flow-off water in South Africa. This is indeed an achievement of which the Minister and his Department and our people can be proud. Consequently it is also clear that from year to year the State will have to make more funds available and will need more funds to stop the flow-off of water to an increasing extent and to conserve it for our national economy. For that reason I want to say this afternoon that I think the time has come that more of the profits on the underground mineral riches of our country and of commerce and industry during this boom in our economy should be re-invested in the cause of water conservation. The water we get in rare years of abundance, such as the period we are now experiencing, water which sometimes flows to the sea in the form of destructive floods, should be conserved with a view to the meagre years of drought which lie ahead. In South Africa rapid flow-off and high evaporation are two of our greatest problems. Thus, for example, the loss in evaporation of our stored water supply was 14.6 per cent in 1964-’65. To combat this great flow-off and evaporation research can also be undertaken, in addition to using chemicals, with regard to the possibilities of conserving superfluous water in dolomitic compartments of our dolomitic complex. There is virtually no evaporation underground. The walls of those cavities are virtually impervious to water. It may sound like an ambitious venture, but water from the Vaal River and from the mines can be pumped into such compartments. People who know something about these matters tell me that in the Blyvooruitsig complex there are underground compartments with a larger capacity than that of our largest dams on the surface. This aspect offers scope for an interesting study—that is, to what extent these natural cavities in our dolomitic complex can be used to store water for use during times of water shortage.

But although I plead for the utilization of more funds and more manpower on the storing and conservation of our water, it is also my duty to point out that there is growing concern, not the least in myself, if regard is had to the ever-increasing demand for water. Growing demands are made, not only of our stored water on the surface but also of our subterranean water. It is necessary that injudicious and large-scale abstraction and use of our subterranean water should be guarded against—whether it is fossil water, which cannot be replaced, or dolomitic water. I want to warn against the abstraction and use of subterranean water for urban and industrial development, particularly in areas which are situated far from the water sources. Once this is allowed it will create a dangerous precedent. I am acquainted with the conditions in our dolomitic areas, and for that reason I want to give that warning. It may have an irreparable effect on our underground water table.

I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the necessity for more dams in our larger rivers in the North-Western Transvaal, where my constituency is situated, rivers which run parallel to each other from the high rainfall interior to the Limpopo. Near their confluences with the Limpopo damming should take place to a larger extent. If that is done, the wonderful potential of that area will offer greater opportunities for development. There is the Eerstepoort Dam in the Great Marico River which has already been brought to the Minister’s attention. Then there is the fine site in the Crocodile River in the gap in the mountain to the north-west of Thabazimbi— a scheme which in my view is most essential. It has already been brought to the attention of the Deputy Minister, at the time of the investigation into the flood damage along the Crocodile River at Makoppa. It is a scheme which should really enjoy the attention of the Department of Water Affairs. Then I also want to plead for a dam in the Selons River, a dam which has been on the waiting list for a long time. In interested quarters it is expected that the Department will shortly take positive action in connection with the construction of this dam. My last plea relates to the Lindleyspoort Dam, which has already been approved and where construction work has begun.

Progress reported.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25: —

Mr. Speaker, we have decided to bring the issue of the recent clashes in Hillbrow before the House, because we believe that this is a matter of public importance. We also believe that it creates an opportunity for the Government, through an appropriate agency, to make an authoritative statement on this matter. I want to say right at the beginning that this is not a party-political issue; it transcends party political lines completely. I want to say too, that it is a delicate matter—it is an issue which we believe should be approached with objectivity and with the greatest possible sense of responsibility. I think that it would be wrong to magnify what has happened in Hillbrow, because that might give it stature that it does not warrant. But I think it would be worse to minimize it.

I had an opportunity over the week-end to go to Johannesburg. I had an opportunity to confer with the responsible leadership of the two communities that are directly concerned. Representations were also made to me by other people, notably organized commerce. They certainly do not underestimate what has happened there, and indeed, it was largely as a result of these consultations, and because they themselves suggested that what was required at this stage was an authoritative statement from the Government, that we saw fit to raise it here.

There is no doubt about it that at the moment there are fears and suspicions that should be allayed. Feathers have been ruffled and these should be smoothed. There are threats and counter-threats being made; there are rumours going around, and if these were to be given effect to, it would not augur well for South Africa. We are concerned here with deep-seated human passions. Everybody I spoke to was in full agreement that this particular development should be contained and it should be contained now. I think that the views of all South Africans, as I see it are very admirably reflected in the sub-leader which appeared in Die Burger yesterday. There was a similar sub-leader in The Star of yesterday. From both these sub-leaders appear to my mind two important concepts. The first is that we must find out precisely what has happened and what has given cause to these incidents; the second thing that emerges is that this development must be stopped because it will not do South Africa any good. We are concerned here with something that can bring with it all sorts of difficulties for South Africa. It can complicate a situation that is already complicated and make it infinitely worse.

Now, it is not clear exactly what transpired there, but, based on my interviews, and in all good faith, I should like to put this position before the House. Some months ago a new beer hall was opened. It was advertised as a German beer cellar. It built up a clientèle quite soon, and it was frequented, not unnaturally, by German-speaking people who included a fair sprinkling of young German immigrants. People went there at night to drink beer and to German folk songs and nobody in his senses can make any objections to that. On the 20th April, a date which coincided with Hitler’s birthday, there are reports that events took a new turn. Now. I want to say quite clearly I do not know what the motives are that were involved, but from all accounts some of the youths produced a portrait of Hitler and began to dance and prance around it, shouting slogans and giving salutes which were reminiscent of the Nazi era. There were reports of this particular gathering and these reports came to the notice of many people and also to groups of Jewish Youths. They saw this as provocative behaviour. To them it signified the introduction in South Africa of a new Nazi cult and they decided to retaliate. And so there were disturbances. At first they were in a small form, but they culminated on the 5th May, in a disturbance of quite some major proportion. From all accounts it involved a police force of some 200 men and the police had to resort to the use of tear-gas, a baton charge and dogs, to disperse not only the trouble-makers but the hundreds of spectators who had gathered. Whilst I say this it would be remiss of me not to mention also that all the reports that I have had were to the effect that the police behaved with commendable restraint and with competence. For this we are all pleased. Fortunately there was no damage to property and there was no loss of life.

That is the position at the moment. Now, I believe that the matter should not be left there. This also is the view of all the responsible groups that I have spoken to in Johannesburg. Probably the first thing that should be done is to determine exactly what gave rise to this particular event. We want to determine whether these antics were just of a mockful nature or whether they were serious. We must decide also whether they arose quite spontaneously or whether they were inspired. I should mention that there are many people, including those who are from the German community, who believe that this particular event was not entirely a spontaneous one. Not unnaturally people relate this event to the activities of certain other groups that have been referred to as the National Democratic Party, DAVA, and other groups who are apparently trying to establish cells in this country. Responsible German leadership, I should indicate, dissociate themselves completely from the establishment of such groups. They will have no truck with them, and they maintain that if they do exist, they should be rooted out at once.

We are concerned here with a situation where we take in many people from many foreign lands. Immigrants come here and we believe that they can make a contribution. At the same time I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of South Africa when I say that we do not want immigrants to import foreign ideologies into South Africa, because this will complicate our task infinitely. It is against this particular background that we feel the Government should make an authoritative statement and this statement should include the following: It should indicate, in the first instance, that these particular incidents are being investigated or will be investigated, and if there are factors that give rise to incidents of this kind, that they will be removed. In the second place the statement should indicate that the Government will not tolerate, indeed, the broad South African society will not tolerate provocation or incitement of one community by another. I think in the third instance the statement should indicate that no group should try and take the law into its own hands. In life any form of action calls forth reaction, and so a thing which might be in embryonic form now will tend to grow, and this is one particular thing that should not grow.

It is in this spirit, and with these objectives in mind, that we have decided to put this matter before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member presented the case calmly and objectively. I first want to deal with the actual facts in connection with this matter. Then I shall take the liberty of making certain comments in connection therewith.

The premises where the incident to which the hon. member referred took place are premises on which a beer hall with the official name of The Crown Beer Hall is situated. It is known as the Deutsche Keller. The building belongs to a Jew and the licence is held by an Afrikaans-speaking person, who bought it from a Greek. I am mentioning this merely by way of giving the background. It is a public bar. It was probably given its German name because of the fact that it is frequented by a considerable number of Germans. I have been informed that it is frequented by all sections of the public, but mainly by German immigrant youths. Let me add at once that so far I have not received any complaint whatever to the effect that they do not behave themselves well or that they behave badly in any way. I am told that it is customary for the German youths, as is their wont, to sing German folk-songs there. All had gone well until the evening of 20th April, the evening of Hitler’s birthday, when, it is alleged, those German youths, who were there as usual, sang folk-songs and a few of them occasionally said “Heil Hitler!”. That was done in circumstances which we read about in last night’s newspapers, and my time will not allow me to go into that. According to my information, it was done in a mocking manner and not because there was any organization behind it, or because they were Nazis or neo-Nazis. In fact, I have been informed that this was an isolated incident that took place among a few youths.

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked that we should, first of all, establish the cause of this incident. It is not necessary to do so: I know it and, therefore, I can tell the House what it is. This incident was caused, and I want to lay it squarely at their door, by certain newspapers, mainly the Sunday Express. Because, arising from the events on the 20th, the following report was published in the Sunday Express—

and this is what I want to refer to—

That is absolutely untrue. The persons who wrote this report did not make the slightest attempt to establish whether what they were saying was correct. They did not care in the least what harm they caused South Africa abroad in that way. They did not care in the least what feelings they aroused between Jewish and German youths by that report. It was simply blatantly stated to the world that “500 celebrated Hitler’s birthday at a boisterous party in a beer cellar”. But they were not yet satisfied with that. No, Sir. A certain Mr. Blow—I have seen his photograph somewhere —wrote a further report in the next issue of the Sunday Express, on Sunday, the 28th. In a blatant and groundless manner that report stated the following—

Without more ado this report refers pointedly to neo-Nazis, and once again the rash statement is made that these people allegedly gathered there to celebrate Hitler’s birthday. No newspaperman—let me make this very clear—no newspaperman who is worth his salt and who has the interests of South Africa at heart, and no newspaperman who is interested in good relations between Jewish citizens and German citizens, or English-and Afrikaans speaking people, writes like this to incite groups against each other, as was done on this occasion.

I want to make this very clear: I am going to have this matter investigated. I am going to have it investigated very thoroughly. I shall require this newspaper and the newspapermen who wrote those reports to make statements under oath about the allegations they made. If they want to hide behind their journalistic privilege, I will simply not accept it. I warn them in advance that they should not try to hide behind it. Many allegations have been made. The police were unable to find evidence in substantiation of most of those allegations. I shall therefore have the matter investigated and obtain the necessary statements from this sort of journalist who calculatedly writes this sort of thing to harm South Africa.

On the strength of this newspaper report 10 or 12 students of the Witwatersrand University, so I am informed, turned up at the cellar on 28th April, with the obvious intention of causing trouble, according to their own statement, “to put Nazi Germans in their place”. That led to a fight between a German youth and a student and gave rise to all sorts of unpleasantness.

What date was that?

This is not the incident to which I am referring, but the previous one. According to my information, it was the 28th. Whether it was precisely the 28th, I cannot tell you. At any rate, it was the previous incident. That gave rise to a crowd of people gathering there. A mobile unit vehicle of the S.A.P. which was driving past, saw the crowd there and restored the necessary order. That led to three youths being arrested, 19, 21 and 19 years of age, respectively. They were arrested and charged with disturbing the peace. They paid admission of guilt and were I released.

Then, on 1st May, 1967, the S.A.P. received information that Jewish youths were planning a bigger march upon the beer hall in question for 5th May, 1967, and to attack the Germans there. As a result of that, a few members of the force, dressed in civilian clothes, were placed in the vicinity of the premises on the evening of 5th May, 1967. A number of policemen were concentrated at Hospital Hill in case of there being any occurrences. At approximately 8 p.m. a crowd of roughly 1,000 had gathered in front of the beer hall and it was estimated that there were between 200 and 300 young Jewish men among them. The beer half was filled with young men and the disturbances about which hon. members read in the newspapers, broke out. Jewish youths danced on tables, sang Jewish songs and provoked the Germans there. That is accepted by everybody. The District Commandant repeatedly warned the youths to leave the premises, and they obeyed him only when it became clear to them that violence would ensue if they did not do so. At 8.15 the warning was repeated outside the hall in the street, and when it had no effect a charge was carried out and that had the desired effect. Five arrests were made: four in respect of disturbing the peace and one in respect of drunkenness. The ages of those who had been arrested were 19, 23, 21, 23 and 24 respectively. All of them paid admissions of guilt.

Now I want to make it clear. Sir, that the police have made intensive enquiries, but that they have no information whatever in regard to the revival, promotion or propagation of neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic movements in South Africa. Reports about such movements have in fact appeared in newspapers from time to time, but so far no confirmation has been obtained. You see. Sir, this is the sort of sensational report that appears in newspapers nowadays. Here I have Die Landstem which says, “Nazis are on the march—inside South Africa.” The wildest allegations are being made in this regard. But if one investigates them, one finds that they have been written by these newspapermen purely for the sake of sensation.

I do not consider it necessary for me on this occasion to say more about this matter than the following, namely that this Government’s attitude to anti-Semitism is widely known, ever since the days of the late Dr. Malan. I do not want to occupy the time of the House by elaborating on that, nor is it necessary to do so. It is also irrelevant to elaborate on that. I want to make it very clear that nobody wants anti-Semitism in South Africa. But the surest way to promote it is to carry on as was done in these newspaper reports to which I referred. That is the surest way of arousing it. I also want to make it very clear that this is South Africa, and that the old quarrels and feuds and vendettas of Europe must not be introduced into South Africa. I also want to make it very clear, in consequence of the conduct of these students, that the public of South Africa is getting tired of unbridled conduct on the part of students-Fun and enjoyment are good things; noise, too, is a good thing sometimes. One does not begrudge young people those things. But I will not tolerate young people—whether they be German, Jewish, Greek, Afrikaans, English, French or whatever —taking the law into their own hands in this way. I will simply not tolerate that. Consequently I have, as far as the future is concerned, instructed the police to put a stop to this sort of disturbance of the peace immediately, right at the very beginning. If any person has a grievance because his group or he himself has been offended or whatever the case may be, he must report it to the authorities. If the authorities do not take action, he has legal grievance against the authorities and he may then air that grievance. But it will simply not be tolerated that people air their grievances or continue their feuds in this way. The police have been very kind in the past. They accepted admissions of guilt and then those people went home. But this will not easily happen again in future. If people want to disturb the peace in this way, they will have to wait until they appear in court on the Monday.

I want to make it very clear that I can understand—because I am human—that Jewish citizens are sensitive about certain matters, and particularly about these. I can understand that. But that is why I want to repeat what I told the Jewish Board: They must use their influence with those people who incite this very sort of thing for their own gain, as I said here in respect of the newspapers. The motive is obvious. The motive is obvious because this type of thing always comes from newspapermen of this sort. Hon. members on the other side are aware of the fact that there are people who always jump at the opportunity of referring to the Government or to individual Government representatives as Nazis. It has happened in this House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us will agree that we are indebted to the hon. member for Hillbrow for having raised this matter here this afternoon in the way he did, and for having afforded us an opportunity of discussing a situation that has caused many of us distress and unhappiness. I do not want to prolong the discussion unnecessarily. I think that it was very important that a statement had to be made. I have two points of criticism left, and I should like to raise them.

In the first place I want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister over-simplifies this matter if he thinks that he can shrug it off by attacking the Press. [Interjections.] I do not want to exculpate the newspaper concerns in question, but I think that this is an oversimplification of this problem. On Friday the hon. member for Hillbrow had a question on the Question Paper whereby he afforded the Government an opportunity to state the facts. He asked for them. But instead of receiving a full reply which could soothe feelings and would reveal the true state of affairs, he received a reply in which the Government lightly shrugged the matter off its shoulders. I think that that was an opportunity that should not have been lost. The hon. the Minister pretended that the whole thing was over. Three youths had been arrested on a previous occasion and they paid admissions of guilt.

You are referring to the first incident.

But that same evening—last Friday night—there was a bigger disturbance. The hon. member for Hillbrow created an opportunity for the Minister to make a statement similar to the one we have had now—in all probability there might not have been a disturbance on Friday evening. [Interjections.] I just want to express the hope that in view of the fact that we are dealing with such deep-seated feelings, feelings about the racial struggle that was coupled with the Second World War, the Government will realize that they are inflammable. It should not dismiss the topic as lightly as was done in the reply to the question asked by the hon. member last Friday. Prompt action should be taken to put a stop to this sort of incident.

My other point of criticism is the following: I want to criticize those people who take the law into their own hands. I want to criticize those people who created incidents in front of the beer hall in question. It is true that we are eager to have immigrants—heaven knows we need them, they are very welcome. But we find it a pity that these people come to South Africa and fail to realize that very deep wounds were inflicted in the racial struggle of the Second World War. Even a joke made in that regard may very easily go wrong. I think that from all sides of this House we can entreat people who come to South Africa to act very cautiously and to bear in mind in all their actions the history of South Africa and the things of the past that we are trying to put out of our minds to-day. These wounds must not be reopened by people who act injudiciously, who act without ill-will but also without a true realization of the feelings of South Africa.

Then I also wonder whether it is not time to consider taking steps to make everybody realize that the incitement of racial feelings, not only between Whites and non-Whites— as is the case at present—but also between Whites and Whites in South Africa, should be an offence. [Interjections.]

I was interested to learn that the Prime Minister intended to take action against students who act in an unruly way. I find it very interesting that such prompt action is to be taken where the University of the Witwatersrand is involved. I hope that the measures the Prime Minister has in mind will be applied as strongly to students breaking up peaceful political meetings. [Interjections.]

Discussion having continued for half an hour,